General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 454

They're both dangerous in very different ways, in my opinion. Hillary, however, has institutional momentum to build consensus on right-wing policy. These are the institutions that hollowed out America and opened up the conditions for a Trump to be possible. Whatever your opinion on the issue, if the right is polarized as it is, then a centrist is not the answer.

I do not think any of this is true. He has built a coalition composed of the small-business class, which is no longer upwardly mobile, along with sections of the white working-class. This is a threat and, while I think he will be hemmed in by institutional influences, he can still get some bad legislation through. How we respond to threat, and how we win or lose, is where we differ. As I said above, if Trump wins, it is precisely because of the hollowness of the candidate on the other side, a candidate that doesn't seem to understand the political moment in which we find ourselves, whose appeals to reason and civil debate are utterly meaningless to groups of people for whom the status quo can no longer be an option. Clinton is not speaking in these terms. She thought that she could have republican establishment figures come out and support her as the only viable candidate who has experience/knows how this world works. If this election was a referendum on anything, it is that the way this world works is something voters reject, so endorsements like those, or by people who helped erect stop and frisk, do not work. That she never understood this underlines how Trump could potentially win. I don't think he will. If he does, then the fault lies with people that crafted the campaign in the very image that lost them the candidacy in 2008. As I said, Hillary is caught up within the institutional logic that cannot register the seismic shifts in the American political landscape. If she wants to stand a chance, she needs to polarize her base and give them a sense of ownership of her campaign. This close to the election day, I don't know whether or not she can pull it off; however, her fate lies in her ability to cultivate a message that creates cohesion among the disparate elements of her base, but also digs deep into the core of the economic logic that has given birth to Trump. I don't think she wants to do that, so the loss, if it occurs, will be her responsibility and those of her handlers alone, not the naivete of Jill Stein or other leftists.

 

Yeah, he panders to people in the stupidest ways possible. Especially, for instance the stuff he's said on immigration - not that it'd be good at any time, but it's mind-boggling that he would go down that route so soon after Brexit and the circumstances around it. It's not even like he's a good politician on his own terms, or good at putting himself across at face value.

 

Wow, that is so gross.

 

Owen Smith jumped on the fact that no one opposing Corbyn had any real plan when they jumped ship.

He probably knew his efforts would be in vein but gambled to further his own career. Now that's failed he's trying to worm his way back into the shadow cabinet.

 

Sometimes I wonder how much better Clinton would be polling if she was a man or was a better public speaker.

 

Without specific policy, this is no different than a Trump victory with a Republican congress. I would argue they're dangerous in similar ways, but Trump is dangerous is more ways. What he can do with executive action, the SCOTUS, and what is backed up in his espoused policies, willful ignorance, and gross neglect for tact and candor in regard to nuclear weapons ... and more, is more dangerous.

But we live in a republic, with a two party system, and that alone will always create a centralist candidate. However, the right is not that much more polarized than usual — relatively speaking Trump is seeing similar numbers to Romney with base Republicans now (the pivot!), but gained quite a few that rarely vote. The biggest change is where most of the voting electorate has moved to: a libertarian candidate. And this is coming mostly from what were Democratic voters in 2008 and 2012 (and less from new voters, but some there as well).

And if legislation was the only havoc he could wreck, I'd be less worried about electing him, but that is not my only fear and that is not the only place that Trump as President creates a danger.

The problem here is that the data doesn't agree with you on a scale that will win an election. You may be right for a large number of people, but that can't win an election with the current map and demographic reality.

But they are working. It's exactly that strategy in VA and PA that will probably win her the election.

Two pretty different groups of people ran these two campaigns.

And, again, this is where we disagree. First, there's not much evidence that actually supports a seismic shift in the political landscape. Second, the left "base" can't win the election. The math does not work. The votes she needs to seal this on election day come from NH, PA, and VA. And those specific independent voters that will win that state — are not the left base.

And here's why I disagree — the battleground states have moved to the right since the last election (quite a bit on this out there, here's one chart after normalizing with the country):



A lot of people on the left think that the country is ready for a progressive take over. I do not see that in the data, specifically in a way that wins a national election. And looking at governor, senate, and house races, we see even more evidence of this.

I agree that she has an enthusiasm gap issue. Where I disagree is where she should try and make that up to win the states she has to win. Winning Oregon by 20pts means nothing if you lose NH and WI. And then, secondly, my point is that there is a callous misunderstanding of why Trump is resonating with a large number of people and instead are treating him like it's amazing he's even close and that it's someone else's fault that millions of people are supporting him. I disagree with that premise. It is not that surprising he is winning and how he's doing it. White identity and hostility toward minority groups are propelling Trump, by a massive margin, and I believe it's a disservice to ignore that reality because it will absolutely lead to more elections being lost and not understanding where the demographic shifts have happened.

 

lol debate topics

 

Based on a lot of the stuff I've looked at, I would estimate three points in certain demos. Her gender is definitely dampening some of the support.

 

Pesky Constitution getting in the way.

 

The view he's put forward on immigration is definitely troubling and if he became Labour leader I feel he would only drag the party backwards in that respect. I also find some of the comments he's made about women to be deeply problematic, as well as the totally unapologetic stance he's taken when he's been called out on them.

I want Corbyn to unite the party but at the same time I don't want Smith in the shadow cabinet. I'll always feel kind of uncomfortable whenever I see Smith speak now, knowing that he's just a careerist snake. However, I feel like Corbyn will have to offer Smith a position if he is to bring the party together again. Whether or not he'll accept the offer remains to be seen. As Owen Jones said in that article I posted above, "Owen Smith  [...], along with his supporters, must be part of Labour’s future ". Anything else will only lead to further division in the party imo.

 

(I don't think it will be.)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/19/upshot/florida-poll-clinton-trump.html?_r=0

Donald J. Trump has almost no plausible path to the White House unless he wins Florida, a rapidly changing state where Hispanic voters could deal a decisive blow to his chances.

But a new poll, by The New York Times Upshot/Siena College, suggests that Mr. Trump is keeping his hopes alive in Florida, the largest and most diverse of the crucial battleground states. The reason: White voters favor him by a large margin.

Mrs. Clinton leads by a single point, 41 to 40 percent, among likely voters in a four-way race that includes Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. The race is tied in the head-to-head race, 43-43.

The poll, the first of its kind by The Upshot, was based on voter records that allow unusually detailed analysis of the electorate.

It indicates that Mr. Trump leads Mrs. Clinton by 51 percent to 30 percent among white voters – and that includes all white voters, not just those without a college education who have been so vital to his campaign. She’s winning white voters registered as Democrats by only 63 percent to 17 percent.

 

Why a President Trump Could Start a Trade War With Surprising Ease

Americans often dismiss populist promises that emerge on the presidential campaign trail because they are unlikely to be passed by Congress. Should Donald J. Trump get elected, Congress most likely would moderate his proposals to cut taxes, increase spending and even to build a border wall.

But international trade policy is one area where a President Trump could unilaterally deliver on the changes that he has promised.

Mr. Trump has said that as president he would “rip up” international trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, withdraw from the World Trade Organization and sharply raise the tariffs charged on goods imported from China and Mexico. As president he could pretty much do it. And there’s very little Congress can do to stop him, even if the result is a costly trade war.

This may seem surprising given that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” But over the years Congress has delegated much of that power to the president. Trade politics reflect an important asymmetry: New trade agreements require congressional approval, but undoing existing commitments does not. And so vast areas of international economic policy can be changed with just a president’s say-so.

The result is that the usual checks and balances don’t apply. (For anyone wondering, yes, the same rules would apply to Hillary Clinton if she were elected.)

Mr. Trump is proposing a reordering of the global economic system that would fundamentally reshape the structure of American industry. He could start a trade war that would threaten not only American exporters who need access to foreign markets, but also any business that relies on commodities or products made overseas.

 

Trump warns of ‘cancer from within’ amid hunt for bomber

Appropriate "cancer" for political purposes? ✔️
Strongly advocate fear and mistrust of immigrants? ✔️
Ignore the fact that most recent terror attacks in the US have been home grown? ✔️

 

New survey, part of most definitive portrait of gun ownership in decades, shows just 3% of American adults own half of guns in the US

 

oh, if only...

 

Deplorable.

 

Trump once again calling for racial profiling.

Donald Trump defends racial profiling in wake of bombs - CNNPolitics.com

 

the classic "compare human beings to skittles" argument

 

what candy should we compare them to?
how about the one Trayvon was holding when he was murdered

 

Surprised this hasn't been posted here yet: Video released in fatal police shooting of unarmed Oklahoma man

 

If I had a bag of skittles and three of them could kill you...

It would be legal to sell it in the USA once Trump gets rid of the FDA