Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[∞∞∞]

You're beginning to have a really odd obsession with me.

Vote for the person and/or party you agree with the most; you certainly won't find me bringing your username up randomly in threads.

Again, you assume that being quiet has anything to do with obsessions or politeness. You're like a female serial killer.

Speaking of obsessions, your low self-esteem obsession with Hilary is noted (similar to a schoolgirl crush on the village bad boy who tosses you the occasional crumb of a compliment). You're too dumb to figure out you're being duped.

Congrats. You just go about your business of being the ignorant tool and the rest of us will continue on with the adult conversation.

How do you know she's not in my best interest? I do live in the suburbs of DC...where the local economy is heavily reliant on the federal government, financial institutions, lobbying firms, and lawyers.

[YoUDeeMan]

Again, you assume that being quiet has anything to do with obsessions or politeness. You're like a female serial killer.

Speaking of obsessions, your low self-esteem obsession with Hilary is noted (similar to a schoolgirl crush on the village bad boy who tosses you the occasional crumb of a compliment). You're too dumb to figure out you're being duped.

Congrats. You just go about your business of being the ignorant tool and the rest of us will continue on with the adult conversation.

How do you know she's not in my best interest? I do live in the suburbs of DC...where the local economy is heavily reliant on the federal government, financial institutions, lobbying firms, and lawyers.

Ahhhhhh, yes. Another fake Liberal that is really a selfish Conservative.

Typical. "Hey, I claim to support minorities...religions...poor people...young people...and a pox on bad people with money!

Oh, by the way, WHERE"S MY SHIT? Gimmee, gimmee, gimmee!"

Trip will trample on his peeps while trumpeting their cause. Yup, Hillary is your candidate.

[GannonFan]

In a new Quinnipiac University poll released today, the Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump are neck and neck in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

In Florida and in Pennsylvania, Clinton is at 43 percent while Trump is 42 percent, according to the poll.

Among Ohio voters, Trump gets 41 percent and Clinton gets 39 percent.

In Pennsylvania, however, in a matchup between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Trump, Sanders beats Trump 47 to 41 percent.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary- ... d=39003045

Saw the same story. Apparently voters in all three of those states think that Trump will do a better job with the economy than Clinton and in two of the states (PA is mixed) voters feel Trump can handle terrorism better than Clinton too. JSO's head must be exploding.

[JohnStOnge]

Saw the same story. Apparently voters in all three of those states think that Trump will do a better job with the economy than Clinton and in two of the states (PA is mixed) voters feel Trump can handle terrorism better than Clinton too. JSO's head must be exploding.

Nah. I'd rather see all polls indicating Trump way behind for various reasons including the fact that I think human behavior is influenced by poll results and I think bad poll results make it more likely that Republicans will jump ship. But one expects to see things like this.

I think we also have some inconsistency between polls. For example: A poll of Florida that was reported on May 2 had Clinton up by 49 to 36 percent (http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/f ... rs-clinton). And that was by a Republican-oriented polling organization. Another poll released May 2 had Clinton up on Trump 45 to 42 percent in Ohio (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... _50216.pdf).

I think the difference in the Ohio polls is within the realm of what could happen from random sampling error. But I think the Florida polls conflict. It's POSSIBLE that things actually changed by that much in about a week's time but I don't think it's likely. I don't think Clinton was clearly up last week then something happened to suddenly change a bunch of people's minds.

We'll see what happens. Those are swing States. We expect them to be close. Meanwhile, though, there are other States that have produced results that are more striking and encouraging to me. Like for instance the most recent Clinton/Trump poll in Utah was Clinton 38, Trump 36. Democrat competitive in Utah. The most recent Clinton/Trump poll in Mississippi was Clinton 43, Trump 46. Within the +/- 4 point margin of error. The Democrat competitive in MISSISSIPPI. The most recent Clinton/Trump poll in North Carolina was Clinton 49, Trump 40.

I have no control over what happens beyond just doing my part in my small corner of the World to make people realize that Trump has no business being President. And I know very well that Clinton is a very weak candidate and that gives Trump a chance. But I still have lots of reason for optimism.

I actually find myself wishing Obama could run for a third term so we could see Trump on the receiving end of a beat down of historic proportions. But that is not to be.

[JohnStOnge]

Saw the same story. Apparently voters in all three of those states think that Trump will do a better job with the economy than Clinton and in two of the states (PA is mixed) voters feel Trump can handle terrorism better than Clinton too. JSO's head must be exploding.

Separate post to say that if my head were to explode it would be over this thing with voters thinking Trump would do a better job with the economy. That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I don't think I even need to remind you guys of some of the things that guy has said at this point.

Beyond that, I have NEVER agreed with the idea that being in private industry provides experience relevant to government "management" of the economy. Nor have I agreed with the idea that creating jobs in private industry is relevant to being in government and setting the tone for "creating" jobs.

Aside from hiring contractors and government workers government does not "create" jobs. It tries to foster an environment in which job creation by others will be maximized.

To me, thinking that someone in private industry is equipped to do that is like thinking you should hire a fish to be the head fisheries biologist.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's a good one for you:

The most recent Clinton/Trump poll in Texas had it Trump 39, Clinton 37. Within the 3 point margin of error.

Now, that was back in September. But consider that Ted Cruz is from Texas, is very popular in Texas, and Trump just finished a campaign largely characterized by repeatedly lying about Cruz. Also consider the fact that Texas has a large Hispanic population.

If I had to bet I'd bet Trump wins Texas in the general election. But I would not be shocked if he lost it. I guarantee you a lot of people in Texas cannot stand Trump right now. And if Trump loses Texas, he has NO shot.

Another reason for optimism.

[JohnStOnge]

What I'd really love if if Cruz recommends that people not vote for Trump. That would pretty much be the death knell for Trump's chances.

Do the right thing, Ted. Come out and clearly say that we can not allow Donald Trump to be President of the United States.

[kalm]

Saw the same story. Apparently voters in all three of those states think that Trump will do a better job with the economy than Clinton and in two of the states (PA is mixed) voters feel Trump can handle terrorism better than Clinton too. JSO's head must be exploding.

Separate post to say that if my head were to explode it would be over this thing with voters thinking Trump would do a better job with the economy. That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I don't think I even need to remind you guys of some of the things that guy has said at this point.

Beyond that, I have NEVER agreed with the idea that being in private industry provides experience relevant to government "management" of the economy. Nor have I agreed with the idea that creating jobs in private industry is relevant to being in government and setting the tone for "creating" jobs.

Aside from hiring contractors and government workers government does not "create" jobs. It tries to foster an environment in which job creation by others will be maximized.

To me, thinking that someone in private industry is equipped to do that is like thinking you should hire a fish to be the head fisheries biologist.

So you're saying that a businessman doesn't know how to "foster an environment in which job creation by others will be maximized"? Yet somehow a politician's experience is better related to fostering that environment even though "government doesn't create jobs"?

[JohnStOnge]

So you're saying that a businessman doesn't know how to "foster an environment in which job creation by others will be maximized"? Yet somehow a politician's experience is better related to fostering that environment even though "government doesn't create jobs"?

A politician's experience doesn't necessarily better prepare him or her. But it's more likely. You're talking about standing back and looking at the macro economy. The Big Picture.

Private business experience does not relate to that.

Look, I've said before that I wish people didn't vote on the basis of who is perceived to be best for "managing" the economy. But if you're going to do that it's absolutely stupid to think that someone is best for doing that because they were a real estate developer. And Trump has now demonstrated the problem with thinking that way a number of times. He's been saying things based on how he did things in his business world and they just don't work for being President of the United States.

[JohnStOnge]

So you're saying that a businessman doesn't know how to "foster an environment in which job creation by others will be maximized"? Yet somehow a politician's experience is better related to fostering that environment even though "government doesn't create jobs"?

Separate post here to use the fisheries scientist analogy. There is a difference between creating and fostering an environment of creating.

A fisheries scientist looks at data and decides upon what will create maximum sustainable yield of a fishery. The fisheries scientist does not create fish. Fish create fish. But fish obviously don't have any clue about looking at the big picture and fostering maximum sustainable yield in a fishery.

This thing of thinking that someone understands the macro economy and how to foster maximum economic overall benefit because they were involved in private business is insane. I've seen it a lot, even among conservatives. But it's nuts. A person is MUCH more likely to have dealt with those concepts if they have been in government.

[kalm]

Perhaps the Democratic Party is unraveling a bit too? Some good points in this article.

With the poll showing Bernie Sanders doing better against Trump than Clinton (and Sanders winning the West Virginia primary on Tuesday), I myself am growing concerned about the “unraveling” of the Democratic Party!

Big Media’s fixation on the defections of Big-Name Republicans is the latest proof that both groups remain stubbornly disconnected from real Americans. If Trump had been dependent on the support of Mitt Romney or Sen. Lindsey Graham or assorted pundits and donors, he never would have gotten 10 million primary votes.

He launched a rocket-fueled revolution, defeated 16 rivals and became the presumptive nominee by running against the entire national establishment, not to mention conventional wisdom and both political parties.

Now he’s doomed if Romney doesn’t back him? Nonsense.

Yet each day, the drum beats louder about a new and greater threat to GOP harmony. The current one is the insistence from everybody on the left, and a few on the right, that Trump is toast if he can’t get House Speaker Paul Ryan to endorse him.

By all means, endorsements are generally a good thing for candidates, and party unity is usually regarded as an essential starting point. But the claim that Trump must finally conform to all the traditional norms repeats the false assumptions that led the media and most Republicans to miss Trump’s astonishing appeal in the first place.

He is a phenomenon, much as Barack Obama was in 2008, and he could do to Clinton what Obama did to her then. Obama was fresh, and she was tired. Now Trump is fresh, and Clinton is even more tired.....

Her big advantage is the Electoral College, and she will try to shut him down by relentlessly playing the women’s and racial cards. And it’s certain Trump will hand her gaffe gifts and display an embarrassing lack of detailed knowledge.

We know all that already, yet still they are tied in the states that matter most. She may win and he may lose, but neither The New York Times nor Mitt Romney will make a whit of difference.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/10/hillary-cl ... g-quickly/

[Ibanez]

What I'd really love if if Cruz recommends that people not vote for Trump. That would pretty much be the death knell for Trump's chances.

Do the right thing, Ted. Come out and clearly say that we can not allow Donald Trump to be President of the United States.

Cruz's problem, other than his persona is that

1) Nobody liked him
2) He won't stop talking about SOCIAL issues. Hell, he was in socially liberal places and wouldn't shut the the hell up.

[kalm]

So you're saying that a businessman doesn't know how to "foster an environment in which job creation by others will be maximized"? Yet somehow a politician's experience is better related to fostering that environment even though "government doesn't create jobs"?

A politician's experience doesn't necessarily better prepare him or her. But it's more likely. You're talking about standing back and looking at the macro economy. The Big Picture.

Private business experience does not relate to that.

Look, I've said before that I wish people didn't vote on the basis of who is perceived to be best for "managing" the economy. But if you're going to do that it's absolutely stupid to think that someone is best for doing that because they were a real estate developer. And Trump has now demonstrated the problem with thinking that way a number of times. He's been saying things based on how he did things in his business world and they just don't work for being President of the United States.

Macro economics plays a significant role in real estate development. Especially on the scale of Trumps enterprises. You're missing badly here.

[DSUrocks07]

What I'd really love if if Cruz recommends that people not vote for Trump. That would pretty much be the death knell for Trump's chances.

Do the right thing, Ted. Come out and clearly say that we can not allow Donald Trump to be President of the United States.

Cruz's problem, other than his persona is that

1) Nobody liked him
2) He won't stop talking about SOCIAL issues. Hell, he was in socially liberal places and wouldn't shut the the hell up.

Social issues will always be a losing battle for the GOP, but they're too headstrong to admit it. Not to mention their attempts at doing so flies right in the face of their "we need to reduce the size of government" mantra.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[DSUrocks07]

What I'd really love if if Cruz recommends that people not vote for Trump. That would pretty much be the death knell for Trump's chances.

Do the right thing, Ted. Come out and clearly say that we can not allow Donald Trump to be President of the United States.

If you really want Trump to lose in November, start by telling all the establishment GOP members to STOP railing against Trump and claiming that they won't support him in the general, THAT WAS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF NOMINATING HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

What I'd really love if if Cruz recommends that people not vote for Trump. That would pretty much be the death knell for Trump's chances.

Do the right thing, Ted. Come out and clearly say that we can not allow Donald Trump to be President of the United States.

If you really want Trump to lose in November, start by telling all the establishment GOP members to STOP railing against Trump and claiming that they won't support him in the general, THAT WAS THE WHOLE **** POINT OF NOMINATING HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Agreed, if Ted came out now and said not to vote for Trump that would give him at least a couple points bump up in the general election. Trump's best feature was that he wasn't Ted Cruz.

[andy7171]

I actually find myself wishing Obama could run for a third term so we could see Trump on the receiving end of a beat down of historic proportions. But that is not to be.

HOL-EY FUCK!

[Ibanez]

I actually find myself wishing Obama could run for a third term so we could see Trump on the receiving end of a beat down of historic proportions. But that is not to be.

HOL-EY FUCK!

JSO:

[andy7171]

JSO:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4Usx-XQqfg[/youtube]

[Ibanez]

[SDHornet]

JSO is a one man full retard trainwreck meltdown right now...and it's absolutely glorious to watch.

[JohnStOnge]

What I'd really love if if Cruz recommends that people not vote for Trump. That would pretty much be the death knell for Trump's chances.

Do the right thing, Ted. Come out and clearly say that we can not allow Donald Trump to be President of the United States.

Cruz's problem, other than his persona is that

1) Nobody liked him
2) He won't stop talking about SOCIAL issues. Hell, he was in socially liberal places and wouldn't shut the the hell up.

That's fine but all I'm talking about is how neat it would be if he would decide to do what he can to deny Trump Texas in the general election.

Otherwise I don't know where you guys get all this social issues stuff with Cruz. To me his big thing is returning to following the original understanding of the Constitution. Of course if you did that it would impact social issues because you wouldn't have stuff like the Federal government saying the Constitution requires that State's have homosexual marriage or that it bans States from having laws prohibiting abortion.

[Ibanez]

Cruz's problem, other than his persona is that

1) Nobody liked him
2) He won't stop talking about SOCIAL issues. Hell, he was in socially liberal places and wouldn't shut the the hell up.

That's fine but all I'm talking about is how neat it would be if he would decide to do what he can to deny Trump Texas in the general election.

Otherwise I don't know where you guys get all this social issues stuff with Cruz. To me his big thing is returning to following the original understanding of the Constitution. Of course if you did that it would impact social issues because you wouldn't have stuff like the Federal government saying the Constitution requires that State's have homosexual marriage or that it bans States from having laws prohibiting abortion.

Oh John. You have to be trolling. Listen to him! Read articles about his speeches. I saw a stat after he quit the race, about 75% of all his speeches concentrated on social issues vice fiscal, security or anything else. Jesus.

[Ibanez]

Cruz's problem, other than his persona is that

1) Nobody liked him
2) He won't stop talking about SOCIAL issues. Hell, he was in socially liberal places and wouldn't shut the the hell up.

That's fine but all I'm talking about is how neat it would be if he would decide to do what he can to deny Trump Texas in the general election.

Otherwise I don't know where you guys get all this social issues stuff with Cruz. To me his big thing is returning to following the original understanding of the Constitution. Of course if you did that it would impact social issues because you wouldn't have stuff like the Federal government saying the Constitution requires that State's have homosexual marriage or that it bans States from having laws prohibiting abortion.

The Govt shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway, homo or Herero.

[JohnStOnge]

Trump cultists will be glad to know that a poll is out today saying that "...Republicans have quickly unified around Donald Trump, making the Presidential race more competitive than it has previously been perceived to be."

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... _51016.pdf

We'll see if that holds up in other polling. What's interesting is that both fell short in this poll. In 2012 92% of Democrats voted for Obama and 93% of Republicans voted for Romney. In this poll 78% of Democrats say they'll vote for HIllary and 78% of Republicans say they'll vote for Trump.

Incredibly, the poll shows that Trump once again benefits from additional candidates as Clinton leads by 6 if it's just her vs. Trump but only 4 if the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are given as options.