Presidential debates: Sept 26, Oct 9, Oct 19

[SR]

Despicable Them?

It's only possible effect will be on the undecided. Are there any left?

The phrasing, though "cute" has a moral component to it. Anyone who stays silent on Dump's essential messages is tacitly approving of them. He and his barbaric acolytes need to be called out for what they are.

[mockbee]

I'd say most of the population is "undecided". Most people really don't like either option and are desperate for an out.

If Clinton really is sick and likely out of commission for several weeks if not more, she needs to drop out now. Sanders or Biden could handily beat Trump if people generally thought they appeared strong and competent.

It's the "basket" that is the problem word. What basket was ever threatening???

Should have been a cage of deplorables.

[SR]

Oh, she wasn't harsh enough.....

And the as the undecided populations are generally high, their impact isn't. I've read it ranges from about 11% to 25% for his cycle'. I don't see them as especially vital to either candidate.

[kv]

I def think most are decided

[SR]

deplor.jpg (37.69 KiB) Viewed 6981 times

[mockbee]

By undecided I mean if Clinton or Trump dropped out and someone decent took their place, there would be a lot of jumping ship.


But as of now, yeah I agree with kv, def 51% decided.

[creep]

i'm too lazy to research it myself but if hilary drops out can she be replaced by someone that will be on the ballot? how does that work? who decides who is the candidate?

[mockbee]

i'm too lazy to research it myself but if hilary drops out can she be replaced by someone that will be on the ballot? how does that work? who decides who is the candidate?

I was wondering this myself. Here is a protracted answer. I know you won't read it, but in essense says if nominee gets incapacitated in Oct/Nov prior to election or after:

"It would be a total clusterfuck and really needs to be fixed.............
Might be better if there was time (like a month +) for DNC to get together and majority electors (previously nominated) chooses new candidate, but each state has rules who can be listed on the ballot."

Imagine, God forbid, that on the eve of the election, a presidential candidate dies or becomes incapacitated. Federal law mandates that all states choose their electors on the first Tuesday after Nov. 1. But if tragedy strikes in late October or early November, there will be insufficient time for the American people to process the tragedy and ponder their remaining electoral options.

National law fixes Election Day, but a patchwork of state laws regulates ballot access and counting. Most states would allow the national parties to designate new candidates; but in some election-eve scenarios, there might not be time for parties to deliberate properly before America votes. New ballots would need to be printed and absentee ballots revised. All this takes time.

Without some postponement, voters might not even be sure who they are voting for or how their votes will be counted by party leaders, state officials, and Congress (which officially counts electoral college votes). Suppose that Smith is running for president with Jones as his vice-presidential running mate. If Smith dies in early November, will a vote for the Smith-Jones ticket be counted as, in effect, a vote for Jones as president? Under current statutes, precedents, and party policies, the issue is far from clear—but voters are entitled to know the answers before they cast their votes. Moreover, under current law in many states, if 46 percent vote for Smith/Jones and 5 percent write in Jones, election officials would not add these votes together. Jones might lose the state even though 51 percent of the voters clearly picked him. This oddity arises because many states count votes by presidential/vice presidential ticket rather than directly by presidential candidate.

The importance of tickets creates further complications. Even if a party quickly converges on a new presidential nominee by elevating its vice-presidential candidate to the top spot, it will then need to fill the bottom spot. This will require vetting possible nominees. It, too, will take time to be done right. Things become even trickier if party leaders decide that the former vice-presidential nominee—perhaps a ticket-balancing sop to the party's losing wing—should not top the new ticket.

Unlike some European regimes, Americans vote for persons, not parties. Our votes for the presidency are among our most personal votes: For this office—unlike, perhaps, all others in our system—voters should never be asked to sign some blank check or endorse some blank slate with the bland promise that after the election, some party committee will sort everything out and tell them who they ended up voting for. We the voters need time to focus on the new presidential candidates—their names, their lives, their personal visions—and gain a comfort level with them before we cast our votes. With so much riding on the presidency domestically and internationally—and with no real chance for the people to correct a mistake until four long years have elapsed—we deserve an electoral endgame that reflects popular deliberation and choice, not grief and confusion.

To avert democratic train wrecks in future elections, we must change current laws. A sensible federal statute should provide that, in the event of autumn death or incapacity of a major presidential or vice-presidential candidate—as certified by the chief justice—the federal election date should be postponed by up to a month, allowing the necessary democratic deliberations to unfold properly. Each state should decide in advance whether it will postpone its statewide elections to coordinate with the delayed federal election or whether it prefers to hold two elections—the first in November for state races and the second a few weeks later for federal officials.

Election-eve deaths are not the only democratic accidents waiting to happen. If a winning candidate dies after the election but before the Electoral College meets, some state laws would apparently require electoral collegians to vote for him (with his running mate presumably taking office in January); but Congress, following a musty precedent, might well refuse to count these votes. After losing to Ulysses Grant in November 1872, presidential candidate Horace Greeley promptly died, but some electors from states that he carried in November nevertheless voted for him; Congress refused to treat these votes as valid. In Greeley's case, little turned on the issue—Grant had won the election—but the matter would be quite different if the Greeley precedent were extended so as to ignore a dead winner's votes and thus snatch the crown from his running mate. Once again, the people's will on Election Day might be thwarted by odd glitches that could easily be cured in advance by a clarifying statute enacted before any actual death occurs.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... elect.html

[SR]

By undecided I mean if Clinton or Trump dropped out and someone decent took their place, there would be a lot of jumping ship.


But as of now, yeah I agree with kv, def 51% decided.

So now, we're all in agreement.

[Hype]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pol ... d-for-now/

For now, Trump has eliminated Clinton’s post-convention bounce. The race stands just about where it was the day before the Republican convention in mid-July.

[SR]

That was to be expected. The debates are the next spectacle that will shift the polls. I remember Romney crushing Obama in one of the debates last cycle. It scared the shit out of me. Then the last leg frenzy.

[mockbee]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pol ... d-for-now/

For now, Trump has eliminated Clinton’s post-convention bounce. The race stands just about where it was the day before the Republican convention in mid-July.

I'd like to know the minute on Sept 11 any of these polls were taken.

Looks like this is pre-medical alert......

[mockbee]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pol ... d-for-now/

For now, Trump has eliminated Clinton’s post-convention bounce. The race stands just about where it was the day before the Republican convention in mid-July.

And remember that these numbers don’t reflect the latest campaign developments — Clinton saying that half of Trump’s supporters fall in a “basket of deplorables” of racists, sexists, homophobes and xenophobes, for instance. Or the announcement that Clinton had previously been diagnosed with pneumonia after she became “overheated” at an event Sunday.

an event....?

I'd say american public will deem 9/11 anniversary memorial at ground zero as more than an event.

[Artemis]

The Trump team's new ad.

[Tyler Durden]

The Trump team's new ad.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or put my foot through my monitor.

Seriously. I love how they edit footage together of the two black people and one Asian person who were at the RNC. And the footage of Pence and Trump helping out during a flood or whatever. GTFO!

Anyone who laps this shit up is fucking cuckoo.

[Tyler Durden]

[SR]

So true.....

But, still I'd like to see.....

[img]

bernie back.jpg (50.6 KiB) Viewed 7271 times

[/img]

[mockbee]

Trump Has 5-Point Lead in Bloomberg Poll of Battleground Ohio

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... /ohio-poll

First real poll back from battleground state, post deplorable pneumonia.

Trump up by 5 points in Ohio. 48-43%

Ohio has chosen the winner in every election since 1964.

Florida and Penn will show the same.


Are Hype (and sort of SR) really the only ones concerned here?

[SR]

well it's not the nba thread, but I have over 30% of the posts in this thread.

[Hype]

I'm not that concerned. I still like Hilary for what she is (a corporatist centrist hawk who also has a good number of straightforwardly lefty views that make her fine enough as a candidate), and obviously deplore Trump (hence, his supporters are "deplorables" by association...), but I think this will be an election for a one-term placeholder.

I imagine we'll get something like Cory Booker v. Paul Ryan next round (I realize whoever is elected will likely run again, so one of these is obviously a darkhorse), and it'll be really interesting.

[creep]

but I think this will be an election for a one-term placeholder.

I imagine we'll get something like Cory Booker v. Paul Ryan next round (I realize whoever is elected will likely run again, so one of these is obviously a darkhorse), and it'll be really interesting.

yup...for sure one term president. i'm not too worried either. a trump presidency will not be the end of the world like many on the left think. not much will change. not much ever changes.

i think if gavin newsom would make a run at this he would do very well.

[mockbee]

Ah, so still only one concerned........ and one...Questioning? SR

Well, let me know when that changes, maybe that will be after election day.



Ah, creep makes more sense than the rest, I think he sees a lot of america. Totally possible for Trump presidency but just as "risky" as the rest.

That makes more sense as an opinion to me than no way he gets elected, even though I don't agree.

I thought Gavin would do good too after his Gov term. He's a well spoken slick pretty boy but he's about to have a scandal regarding that sinking Millenium tower in SF. Probably won't get too snagged though.

[SR]

I think the polls are scary

I think that hill is in a very vulnerable situation at a late stage in the race.

I think an orange morlock presidency would be an unmitigated catastrophe domestically and globally. The fuckwit was and he had the advantage of partisan support, which was reprehensible, but nonetheless stabilizing.

I'm not at all concerned about 2020. 2016 is the priority.

[creep]

I thought Gavin would do good too after his Gov term. He's a well spoken slick pretty boy but he's about to have a scandal regarding that sinking Millenium tower in SF. Probably won't get too snagged though.

i know nothing about that. i will look it up.

i knew he has the cheating thing but that can be overlooked these days.

whoever does win this election it will for sure further divide this country in half.

[SR]

From Robert reich

4 reasons I’m starting to get worried:

1. The polls are narrowing: Five weeks ago, Hillary Clinton was up by 8 points. Now she’s up by 1.8 points, according to the RealClearPolitics average of the national polls. That same average of national polls shows Trump has now pulled ahead in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Arizona—four crucial battleground states.

2. Clinton's campaign spending doesn’t seem to be working: During this period, Clinton has been outspending Trump by a margin of 10-to-1 on TV ads.

3. Trump supporters are more enthusiastic: A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 93% of Trump supporters say they are absolutely certain to vote. But only about 80% of Hillary Clinton's supporters are that committed to turning out.

4. There are lots of them: Trump got the most primary votes of any Republican presidential candidate in history. Meanwhile, despite the engaging and substantive contest between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, turnout for Democrats was down in the primary compared to 2008.

5. Authoritarian populism is breaking out all over the world: Yesterday, polling guru Nate Silver said the race has become “highly competitive,” and noted the race has “echoes of Brexit,” in which a right-wing populist surge forced Britain out of the European Union.

Maybe I'm being unduly alarmist, but, frankly, I don't think the Democratic Party is being alarmist enough. Trump could win.

What do you think?