United States Politics

[voidcritter]

I'm not sure where you're from, but I seriously doubt that Donald Trump was a plant.

Donald Trump has always been a screaming narcissist who stamps his name on EVERYTHING, including steaks and golden towers that are eyesores straight out of the 1980s. He also has a tendency to act out whenever the media is focusing on anyone that isn't him, probably under the assumption that bad publicity is still publicity. Honestly, I'm surprised he hadn't run for president sooner (although I'd prefer he never run for president at all.)

 

[Dorothy]

Trust me, I live in Texas, where you can't walk for five minutes without bumping into a Trump supporter.

Not in Austin

 

[zoroarctic]

We might have problems...

FBI says foreign hackers penetrated state election systems

This is terrifying.

 

[zoroarctic]

Spoiler

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I am not nervous. I am not nervous. I am not...Oh, who am I kidding? I'm freaking TF out right now.

 

[Scarlet Sky]

I wouldn't be too quick to trust online polls. Not everyone who votes in them is liable to actually go out on election day to vote and not everyone voting on election day votes in online polls. That said, remember to go out and vote on election day anyway.

 

[Olive]

If you want a more accurate look at polls I'd recommend checking Real Clear Politics. They take averages, use more respected polling sources, and are fairly non-partisan. That said, as it was just noted, polls aren't always representative of actual outcomes; they do at least provide a general picture as to what the current trends are.

Anywho, I'm keeping an open mind until the first debate on the 26th. Seeing the two of them debating policy and personality in a head to head discourse on live, national television will be a pretty big decider for me, not to say I don't already have a lean given their stated platforms.

 

[zoroarctic]

That said, as it was just noted, polls aren't always representative of actual outcomes; they do at least provide a general picture as to what the current trends are.

True, the polls tend to overestimate third party candidates' performance on election day (Gary Johnson was polling at 5% in 2012, but got less than 1 percent of the vote). It's probable at least some of the Johnson and Stein supporters will come back to Hillary on November 8. Even so, I still remember 2000 and I don't want to get Naderized again.

 

[Dorothy]

Important to recall that the debates still haven't started. Clinton's recent health scare is likely to blame for Trump's bump, but I expect that'll be a flash in the pan, especially once the debates get started.

 

[voidcritter]

Is it even guaranteed that he'll show up to the debates at all? Trump's approval goes up whenever he relies on other people to tell him what to say, and during the debates he'll be forced off that crutch.

 

[Scarlet Sky]

Is it even guaranteed that he'll show up to the debates at all? Trump's approval goes up whenever he relies on other people to tell him what to say, and during the debates he'll be forced off that crutch.

Skipping a debate would be a bad PR move for him, since it'd give Hillary something else to attack him for. That said, I wouldn't rule out him skipping at some point or another because "media bias" or something.

 

[voidcritter]

His biggest weakness is, well, his own narcissism and hot-headedness. He's all style and little, if any, substance. A good tactic would be to repeatedly push his buttons at the debates to make him either lose his cool or go off on a tangent where he says yet something else horribly offensive. Probably both.

Hillary, for better or worse, is a lot more calculating, so I highly doubt she'd lose her cool in the same way.

 

[Dorothy]

Is it even guaranteed that he'll show up to the debates at all? Trump's approval goes up whenever he relies on other people to tell him what to say, and during the debates he'll be forced off that crutch.

As Scarlet Sky said, skipping the debates would turn out very badly for him. When he threatened boycotts in the primaries, it was usually alongside several other GOP candidates, so it had the illusion of being a genuine principled stand against bias and unfairness. If he tries doing it alone, he'll just look petulant. He'll debate, and sign his own electoral death warrant in doing so.

 

[Scarlet Sky]

The VP debate is worth watching as well, since that could also impact the polls. If your pick turns out to be a poor debater and have more than their share of skeletons in the closet, it can drag down the actual candidates numbers too.

 

[zoroarctic]

What scares me the most is that the Democrats bet everything on Hillary. If she loses, there's no one to pick up the torch for 2020. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would be too old and Tim Kaine would be damaged goods. That leaves...Cory Booker? Maybe?

 

[Scarlet Sky]

I think by then we'll have some new blood on the scene. Just when Hillary's in the race, it's not exactly an invitation for other Democrats to run. She's pretty stiff competition. That said, I'm still waiting till the debates actually start to get worried. (If I do.)

 

[Dorothy]

What scares me the most is that the Democrats bet everything on Hillary. If she loses, there's no one to pick up the torch for 2020. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would be too old and Tim Kaine would be damaged goods. That leaves...Cory Booker? Maybe?

Joe Kennedy III (the Kennedy name still has a lot of juice left in it, even for a Representative), Julian Castro, Wendy Davis (two well-liked Texas Democracts would help the effort to turn Texas blue, Castro more so than Davis), Sherrod Brown (from a key swing state that no Republican has lost and still won the election), Martin O'Malley (one more shot wouldn't hurt), David Ige (an Asian-American would help shore up minority votes, and a governor of an island state would mean good personal experience with dealing with the problems climate change presents), and Earl Ray Tomblin (a reasonably popular moderate Governor from a conservative state) would all be decent choices.

 

[zoroarctic]

Joe Kennedy III (the Kennedy name still has a lot of juice left in it, even for a Representative), Julian Castro, Wendy Davis (two well-liked Texas Democracts would help the effort to turn Texas blue, Castro more so than Davis), Sherrod Brown (from a key swing state that no Republican has lost and still won the election), Martin O'Malley (one more shot wouldn't hurt), David Ige (an Asian-American would help shore up minority votes, and a governor of an island state would mean good personal experience with dealing with the problems climate change presents), and Earl Ray Tomblin (a reasonably popular moderate Governor from a conservative state) would all be decent choices.

Not a bad list. Makes me feel a little better.

@Scarlet Sky, I was thinking, since we're both La. residents, what about our governor (assuming he has a successful term)? Or has the party moved too far left to nominate someone like him?

 

[Dorothy]

@Scarlet Sky, I was thinking, since we're both La. residents, what about our governor (assuming he has a successful term)? Or has the party moved too far left to nominate someone like him?

Edwards would be a sensible choice in the event of a Trump presidency, since he has conservative enough positions to attract Republican dissidents. He'd probably have a hard time in the primaries, though. Would make an excellent Vice-Presidential pick for someone like Kennedy or Brown, assuming he doesn't do anything in his term to turn himself into political poison.

 

[ocelotlrama jaguar]

I'm not going to get ahead of myself on who would be the Democratic nominee in 2020 or 2024. Clinton still has a path to 270, though the race has disgustingly narrowed these past few weeks.

What really has been irking me these past few weeks is I noticed people want a personality-driven president, which is why Obama did well in 2008, especially with millennials. I love Obama. I think he's great, but people are putting way too much stock in personality and that's a problem. It shouldn't be about personality who wins, it should be about competence. I want someone who is competent at what they do. Clinton gets shit for not being "likable," but she's competent. I personally like her and think she's fine, but I put more stock into what she can do. That's what people should be voting for. Not a friend, not a person who makes promises they cannot keep, but a leader who can only move forward. The fact that there are quite a few people who are putting party before country or not voting because they do not like either candidate is horrifying. I say this as a person who has an immigrant parent.

Like it or not, there is only going to be one winner that is a nominee of the two major parties: Clinton or Trump. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein didn't even get the votes needed to make it to the first debate and I can say with confidence they will not be making it to the other two. You vote for who you want. Again, I'm it's not my place to tell you who to vote for, but just know that. Remember, there is a vacant SCOTUS seat and House and Senate seats up for grabs. I cannot stress this enough because a Trump presidency will guarantee another Antonin Scalia for another 20 years, at minimum. Unlike Obama, he has the House majority to make it happen.

 

[Netto Azure]

My Expectations today:

Spoiler