2016 Republican Thread

[CanOfCorn]

This is exactly my line of thought. She hasn't really had to campaign on her record. Largely she has campaigned on Trumps.

 

While that may be true, you can't say for sure that any candidate would or wouldn't win until they actually go against each other. Polls aren't accurate and no one knows what would happen. I'm also not saying Clinton would win against Kasich, because honestly, I don't and may never know.

 

I'm not a big fan of absolutes in elections.

Edited October 26, 2016 by CanOfCorn

[southsider2k5]

While that may be true, you can't say for sure that any candidate would or wouldn't win until they actually go against each other. Polls aren't accurate and no one knows what would happen. I'm also not saying Clinton would win against Kasich, because honestly, I don't and may never know.

 

I'm not a big fan of absolutes in elections.

 

With seeing how close this election still has been with an absolute loon running against Clinton, I can't see how that wouldn't be the obvious conclusion.

[StrangeSox]

With seeing how close this election still has been with an absolute loon running against Clinton, I can't see how that wouldn't be the obvious conclusion.

Except for a blip for a couple of weeks in September, she's been at or near Obama '08 levels of blowout. Election could be over when the polls close on the eastern seaboard.

 

It would definitely have been much closer, but Democrats still enjoy a structural advantage in the EC and Kasich was the guy who couldn't finish better than 4th in GOP primary. Plus as more recent polling shows, a majority of Clinton voters are voting for Clinton rather than against Trump at this point.

[southsider2k5]

Except for a blip for a couple of weeks in September, she's been at or near Obama '08 levels of blowout. Election could be over when the polls close on the eastern seaboard.

 

It would definitely have been much closer, but Democrats still enjoy a structural advantage in the EC and Kasich was the guy who couldn't finish better than 4th in GOP primary. Plus as more recent polling shows, a majority of Clinton voters are voting for Clinton rather than against Trump at this point.

 

Yeah, I will pass on the serving of propaganda, thank you.

[StrangeSox]

Pointing out months of polling data shows her winning comfortably isn't propaganda though?

 

I'm not saying that she would or wouldn't have won against Rubio or Kasich or Romney or whoever, I'm just saying that assuming it would have been a lock isn't necessarily backed up by solid evidence. Trump's had a solid floor of 38-40% despite pissing off every single voting bloc except non-college white males. Clinton would have a floor at least that strong without alienating everyone. I would probably lean towards the odds being in the GOP's favor, I just don't think it'd be such a clear runaway is all.

Edited October 26, 2016 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

Everyone said similar things about Huntsman in 2012 and Kasich in 2016.

 

Kasich for the first 2/3rds of his political career would have been picked apart by the Democratic oppo research. He would have had to convince everyone he'd genuinely changed to a moderate/centrist (and that his religious views were no longer the defining ones they once were), rather than just posing as one for political positioning purposes in the primaries.

 

Not to mention Kasich was never truly in the same spotlight as Rubio, who wilted under pressure. There's also a few legit reasons he never won anything, besides BARELY holding his own state against Trump.

 

 

If the argument was about the economy and ObamaCare (Romney v. Clinton), that wouldn't give Romney much tailwind in this political climate. He's the very antithesis of most of those Trump supporters, who also don't feel 100% comfortable with his religious background/beliefs.

 

One thing's for sure, Liz Warren would eviscerate him like she's doing with Wells Fargo and Mylan/epipen manufacturer.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Pointing out months of polling data shows her winning comfortably isn't propaganda though?

 

I'm not saying that she would or wouldn't have won against Rubio or Kasich or Romney or whoever, I'm just saying that assuming it would have been a lock isn't necessarily backed up by solid evidence. Trump's had a solid floor of 38-40% despite pissing off every single voting bloc except non-college white males. Clinton would have a floor at least that strong without alienating everyone. I would probably lean towards the odds being in the GOP's favor, I just don't think it'd be such a clear runaway is all.

 

Believe me, I have seen you play this film before. I am not buying the one sided evidence being sold here. Sorry.

[StrangeSox]

Ok? It's a discussion of a counterfactual and not something with a provably right answer. We'll just agree to disagree on what a hypothetical Clinton vs Rubio/Kasich/etc match-up would be.

[southsider2k5]

Ok? It's a discussion of a counterfactual and not something with a provably right answer. We'll just agree to disagree on what a hypothetical Clinton vs Rubio/Kasich/etc match-up would be.

 

I will be honest here. As the posts have trended more and more to the left wing's version of OBAMA WANTS SHARIA LAW, I have really reacted to them with the same sort of feeling. It is an intentional effort to paint a singular narrative based on extremist partisan sources. Despite claims to otherwise, the information being posted and their sources shows otherwise. I feel like I am reading the left's equal of Briebart every time I see a link posted.

[StrangeSox]

That honestly doesn't seem to reflect more recent posting here. The number of links to WaPo, NYT, NPR, 538 etc. compared to say Mother Jones or a random liberal blog (which even then a comparison to a white nationalist site like Breitbart is ridiculous) is pretty heavily in favor of mainstream media outlets. There are fewer non-liberals posting here, sure, but if anything it's seemed to me that supporting links have gone more mainstream than they were a while back.

 

I put forward a few thoughts as to why I think a Clinton vs Kasich race would be close, maybe even tilt in favor of the GOP's chances. I think that, for either party, there's a baked in floor of 35-40% of the vote no matter who the candidates are given how polarized the parties have become. I really don't see how either of those statements is "extremist partisan."

Edited October 26, 2016 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pollster-frank-l...-200157345.html

 

GOP pollster Frank Luntz diagnoses what Trump did so well, and where the went (very) wrong in his campaign, some useful insights although surely some will argue he has an axe to grind (of course, anyone not OVERTLY dumping praise on the The Donald gets put on Twitter blast).

[greg775]

What are the odds of Trump winning? Five percent? I dread a Hillary presidency.

[LittleHurt05]

What are the odds of Trump winning? Five percent? I dread a Hillary presidency.

 

0.00001%. Just write in someone else's name, and say "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for her" for the next 4 years. Problem solved.

[LittleHurt05]

Nothing to see here greg....

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-38...-bid-power.html

[CrimsonWeltall]

Nothing to see here greg....

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-38...-bid-power.html

 

So shady. Lots of questions need to be answered here.

 

Why did Hillary Clinton give a fundraising speech for Virginia Democrats? She doesn't even live there, and she's not a Democrat.

Why did those Virginia Democrats give money to the campaign of a woman running for office as a Democrat in Virginia of all places?

How did Hillary Clinton know that the woman's husband would later get promoted within the FBI and be involved with an investigation about her emails? Did she make the promotion happen?

[greg775]

0.00001%. Just write in someone else's name, and say "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for her" for the next 4 years. Problem solved.

No way I can vote for Hillary or Trump. So that leaves a write in. Case closed.

[greg775]

To those who wonder why I don't like Hillary, please listen to 3 minutes of this clip. Please. Huckabee tells it like it is on crooked Hillary.

 

[LittleHurt05]

So shady. Lots of questions need to be answered here.

 

Why did Hillary Clinton give a fundraising speech for Virginia Democrats? She doesn't even live there, and she's not a Democrat.

Why did those Virginia Democrats give money to the campaign of a woman running for office as a Democrat in Virginia of all places?

How did Hillary Clinton know that the woman's husband would later get promoted within the FBI and be involved with an investigation about her emails? Did she make the promotion happen?

 

I can answer the questions.

 

"At least she's not Trump"

 

Case closed.

[greg775]

This new development begs a lot of questions. ...

-- How will the media handle it? It goes against a lot of the stuff I've been saying on here as far as coverage heading up to the election. At this date it normally would be all POSITIVE coverage for Hillary all the time leading up to the voting. Now ... with a legitimate major story, will they cover the bleep out of it or the media somehow again not care? Hard to imagine all the talk show guests simply muttering, "She did nothing wrong. This is not a story."

 

-- It will be compelling to see how Comey handles this. For this to end quickly with him declaring, "There's nothing there," would be strange. He must know a lot of people are mad at the FBI for letting Hillary off the hook the first time. He's been praised by many, sure but also criticized by many in government. Now does he merely say there's nothing there and pave the way for the voting landslide or ? What will FBI recommend?

Also the timing. Comey could be accused of influencing the election if middle of next week he triumphantly declares, "ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE FOUND NOTHING. Hillary has committed no wrongdoing in our eyes. There was no intent of wrongdoing." Would it not be irresponsible to end the new investigation right before the polls open? In other words timing now is criticial in the FBI's next decision. It could spark Hillary or hurt her a bit depending on how this comes out.

 

-- Will this force the media to step it up trying to get more stuff on Trump? They could use a final resounding story to bury him at the polls, so to speak.

 

-- Does this have an effect on any Hillary voters? WOuld any supporters just throw up their arms and say, "I'm sick of supporting this person through this email bulls***. I'm voting for the independent or a write in."

 

--How does Hillary handle this news publicly? Does she laugh like she has in the past and just say, like Bernie said everybody is tired of talking about my "damn emails." Or does she stay out of the public eye til the election. Or does she say, "We welcome all scrutiny. I have done no wrong. We're glad the FBI is pursuing this." I say she'll just laugh it off as no big deal and step up her attacks on Trump. Remind everybody what a creep he is.

 

Does anybody think we should have an election or do you agree with me it should be delayed? Does any government entity have the right to deem both candidates unfit? What if both were charged with crimes in the next week? Does our law still allow both candidates to square off? on Nov. 11? I mean postpone your partisanship for a second ... lets say Hillary faces charges and Trump is charged with assault of one of the women who have come forth. What would happen?

 

Conclusion: As much as I despise Hillary, let's forget that for a moment. Remember I have no egg in the basket. I'm not voting for either lousy candidate.

What I'm saying is This is interesting stuff. Could you all take a crack at the questions I've asked. I'd be interested in your takes.

Edited October 28, 2016 by greg775

[CrimsonWeltall]

STOP USING SATIRICAL SITES AS YOUR SOURCE FOR NEWS. JESUS.

 

Does that even count as satire? It has no message, and it's not even trying to be funny a la The Onion.

 

It's just....dumb fake news.

[greg775]

Does that even count as satire? It has no message, and it's not even trying to be funny a la The Onion.

 

It's just....dumb fake news.

I didn't know it was fake.

[southsider2k5]

This could be fake, but if it's not ... wow. Hillary once said she likes Trump, just like Trump once said he liked Hillary.

 

http://conservativestate.com/hillary-clint...st-cant-bought/

 

This is why no one takes you seriously. At this point you are one of those funny drawings where the artist intentionally exaggerates certain facial features for comedic effect.

[greg775]

This is why no one takes you seriously. At this point you are one of those funny drawings where the artist intentionally exaggerates certain facial features for comedic effect.

I didn't know it was fake. So shoot me. Please read my long post and comment. It's worth a discussion.

[pettie4sox]

hahhahahahhahahahhahahah greg wow man

[greg775]

So I'll put this in the Republican thread since I got yelled at for ripping Hillary in the Democratic thread. So she wins the election in a landslide but likely will be impeached early in her presidency.

What does that say about our voters? Even Meghan Kelly's show tonight was negative in tone surrounding Hillary. Some judge came on and the former assistant FBI director for gosh sakes and both said it HAD TO BE SERIOUS for the FBI director to say what he did today.

 

Hmmmm ... it's apparent Hillary will be our first woman president, but you guys have to admit, odds look GOOD she will be impeached in her first year. This is so fricking bizarre. We better hope Tim Kaine is a good leader cause he'll be taking over.