Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Dude... Clinton is fine against Trump.

The D's don't have anything to worry about.

And this is what I just posted about...

"It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?

I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November."

Was not a fan of Cruz... but damnit, he wasn't Trump.

Well, guess I don't have to bother with updating my voter registration with my new address this year.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Dude... Clinton is fine against Trump.

The D's don't have anything to worry about.

And this is what I just posted about...

"It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?

I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November."

Aye...

We could see record LOW turnouts in the general.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Dude... Clinton is fine against Trump.

The D's don't have anything to worry about.

And this is what I just posted about...

"It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?

I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November."

Aye...

We could see record LOW turnouts in the general.

I did see a headline the other day saying that even though she is currently winning, Clinton has drastically lower numbers then she did 8 years ago in the primaries. Dem's are not at all pumped about getting out there this year.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Dude... Clinton is fine against Trump.

The D's don't have anything to worry about.

And this is what I just posted about...

"It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?

I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November."

Aye...

We could see record LOW turnouts in the general.

Which is a shame, because there's so much more on the ballot than President, and much of that "other stuff" will impact the average person more than who is sitting in the White House.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Dude... Clinton is fine against Trump.

The D's don't have anything to worry about.

And this is what I just posted about...

"It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?

I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November."

Aye...

We could see record LOW turnouts in the general.

Which is a shame, because there's so much more on the ballot than President, and much of that "other stuff" will impact the average person more than who is sitting in the White House.

I don't know about Oklahoma, but there is always a huge difference between presidential and midterm turnout.

I mean just on the November vote. So many people only think of the Presidential voting on the ballot and give no mind to the rest of it, the state and local voting, which they can have a much larger influence in and will affect them to a greater degree in most cases.

 whembly wrote:
Aye...

We could see record LOW turnouts in the general.

Yeah, there's a kind of 2000 element to this. Low turnouts are Trump's big chance. However, the one thing Bush had going for him was that people thought he was an idiot, but they didn't personally dislike the guy. Whereas right now people don't laugh about Trump, they get angry and scared.

But that might change if Trump changes his approach a little, and will be massively helped if Trump is played in the media more as a funny buffoon, than a properly scary idiot.

Still really unlikely of course, but we're in an election that so far has been defined by very unlikely things happening.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Aye...

We could see record LOW turnouts in the general.

Yeah, there's a kind of 2000 element to this. Low turnouts are Trump's big chance. However, the one thing Bush had going for him was that people thought he was an idiot, but they didn't personally dislike the guy. Whereas right now people don't laugh about Trump, they get angry and scared.

But that might change if Trump changes his approach a little, and will be massively helped if Trump is played in the media more as a funny buffoon, than a properly scary idiot.

Still really unlikely of course, but we're in an election that so far has been defined by very unlikely things happening.

That's true...

Both Clinton and Trump are/were VERY pubic figures, so all the "negative stuff" is generally "baked-in".

I don't know what the feth is going to happen, but I'd be betting TOP $$$ for a Clinton-Landslide.

 whembly wrote:
Both Clinton and Trump are/were VERY pubic figures, so all the "negative stuff" is generally "baked-in".

Yeah, that is one pretty unusual element to this campaign - both candidates are well known to everyone, including low information voters. I can't see there being much new negative stuff that will dissuade someone who's already committed to voting for each candidate.

But then, every election I'm amazed at the number of undecided voters in September/October - wondering what information these people are waiting on that hasn't been spelled out, hashed and re-hashed dozens of times already.

I don't know what the feth is going to happen, but I'd be betting TOP $$$ for a Clinton-Landslide.

Yeah, I won't be betting against that But November is still a long time away, and we've all been wrong so many, many times just through the primaries...

I'm depressed about Cruz losing.

Now we'll never truly know if sand glows.

 sebster wrote:

But then, every election I'm amazed at the number of undecided voters in September/October - wondering what information these people are waiting on that hasn't been spelled out, hashed and re-hashed dozens of times already.

I think that in general, especially in the internet age, it isn't so much what piece of information is missing, but rather who is going to make the worst campaign mistake... Ie, Romney's "47%" remark


While I agree with you and whembly that more than likely November is gonna be Clinton by a lot.... I do think this could be a year in which we finally see a third party candidate win. Gut feeling tells me that if he ran as a third party independent, all those kids who don't vote in primaries would come out and give a solid showing to prevent either Trump or HRC getting into office. I could be way wrong on that though.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

But then, every election I'm amazed at the number of undecided voters in September/October - wondering what information these people are waiting on that hasn't been spelled out, hashed and re-hashed dozens of times already.

I think that in general, especially in the internet age, it isn't so much what piece of information is missing, but rather who is going to make the worst campaign mistake... Ie, Romney's "47%" remark


While I agree with you and whembly that more than likely November is gonna be Clinton by a lot.... I do think this could be a year in which we finally see a third party candidate win. Gut feeling tells me that if he ran as a third party independent, all those kids who don't vote in primaries would come out and give a solid showing to prevent either Trump or HRC getting into office. I could be way wrong on that though.

You talking about Sanders going 3rd Party? o.O

 whembly wrote:

You talking about Sanders going 3rd Party? o.O

I think it's not beyond the realm of possibility

 djones520 wrote:
I did see a headline the other day saying that even though she is currently winning, Clinton has drastically lower numbers then she did 8 years ago in the primaries. Dem's are not at all pumped about getting out there this year.

No, I think Sebster nailed it. I'm inclined to vote for Hillary, but I sure don't feel very good about it. I certainly didn't caucus for her. The only person I know, anecdotally, that is excited about it is my wife's cousin, who is a 70 year old white woman.

My stomach kind of feels bad when I think about what her presidency is going to look like. 4, if not 8, years of one crappy scandal after another, with her being just a plausibly deniable distance away from each one.

Impeachment proceedings within the first 2 years.

Government shutdowns, even worse gridlock that before - if the Democrats retake the Senate, I think Sebster was right - I think you're going to see just how bad partisanship can actually get after the shenanigans with Merrick Garland and how hard it was to get Obamacare passed - they're not going to repeat the mistakes of offering any concessions at all because they know "yes" votes are never going to materialize.

Hillary has shown an appetite for foreign adventurism that I felt we were just finally starting to get away from.

I'm not reflexively against gun control, but she has come out in favor of the worst kinds of gun control - "assault weapon bans" that ban items based upon cosmetic aspects like barrel shrouds and pistol grips.

And so on, and so forth. I tend to lean liberal - how excited could I get about a candidate who is essentially a moderate Republican, back when those still existed, even without all the baggage she brings?


And that, in my mind, is the best case! The alternative is President Trump.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You talking about Sanders going 3rd Party? o.O

I think it's not beyond the realm of possibility

It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.

 ProtoClone wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You talking about Sanders going 3rd Party? o.O

I think it's not beyond the realm of possibility

It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.

He won't be able to get to 270 EV.

All he'll do is draw mostly votes from Clinton, possibly preventing her from getting 270 EV.

If no one gets to 270EV... then the GOP House would select the president... who's that going to be? Trump? Gary Johnson? Zoltan?

 ProtoClone wrote:

Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.

Well, he's already my candidate of choice... I would have no problems with writing him in, if that's what it took

I think that if somehow Sanders were to become president, you wouldn't see the insane levels of gridlock we see now, but for completely different reasons

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that in general, especially in the internet age, it isn't so much what piece of information is missing, but rather who is going to make the worst campaign mistake... Ie, Romney's "47%" remark

I think it isn't so much about what information is missing, but how a person comes to be defined. The Bush campaign did an incredible job of nullifying Kerry's war record, and focusing everyone on his inconsistent political positions.

While I agree with you and whembly that more than likely November is gonna be Clinton by a lot.... I do think this could be a year in which we finally see a third party candidate win.

I think the chance of Sanders winning is incredibly small. Sanders couldn't beat Clinton while the contest was even, if he runs as an independent it'll be the same, only he'll have a whole bunch of new infrastructure disadvantages. He outspent Clinton over the primaries, and still got beat. You think he could go again, face a spending ratio of probably more than 5:1, and win?

The only thing Sanders could achieve is to drag enough votes from Clinton to give Trump a chance. Which would go back to my comparison to the 2000 election, when Nader's 3% of the vote might possibly have cost Gore the election. That is possible, I guess, if Sanders chooses ego over reality, and enough voters choose purity over pragmatism.

Gut feeling tells me that if he ran as a third party independent, all those kids who don't vote in primaries would come out and give a solid showing to prevent either Trump or HRC getting into office. I could be way wrong on that though.

There's a really common and almost unchallenged assumption that Sanders has millions of supporters, they just didn't show up on election day. I don't think that assumption holds a lot of water. People assume its true because Sanders has lots of internet popularity, and gets good crowds to his events. But the more likely possibility is that Sanders has a strong core of very enthusiastic voters who are noisy on the internet, and very likely to turn out to see him speak, but not that large of a base of voters beyond that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Government shutdowns, even worse gridlock that before - if the Democrats retake the Senate, I think Sebster was right - I think you're going to see just how bad partisanship can actually get after the shenanigans with Merrick Garland and how hard it was to get Obamacare passed - they're not going to repeat the mistakes of offering any concessions at all because they know "yes" votes are never going to materialize.

The other part of this is that Democrats are slowly but surely starting to play the same game. The votes for Sanders shows that there might a voting base within the Democratic party that is as strident as what we see in the Republican party. Sanders wants to play a role in writing the Democratic 2016 party platform, and given concern over Sanders running a spoiling campaign, I think the party is going to give him what he wants.

It'll be interesting to see from here if that translates in to a more hardline Democratic party.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I did see a headline the other day saying that even though she is currently winning, Clinton has drastically lower numbers then she did 8 years ago in the primaries. Dem's are not at all pumped about getting out there this year.

No, I think Sebster nailed it. I'm inclined to vote for Hillary, but I sure don't feel very good about it. I certainly didn't caucus for her. The only person I know, anecdotally, that is excited about it is my wife's cousin, who is a 70 year old white woman.

My stomach kind of feels bad when I think about what her presidency is going to look like. 4, if not 8, years of one crappy scandal after another, with her being just a plausibly deniable distance away from each one.

Impeachment proceedings within the first 2 years.

Government shutdowns, even worse gridlock that before - if the Democrats retake the Senate, I think Sebster was right - I think you're going to see just how bad partisanship can actually get after the shenanigans with Merrick Garland and how hard it was to get Obamacare passed - they're not going to repeat the mistakes of offering any concessions at all because they know "yes" votes are never going to materialize.

Hillary has shown an appetite for foreign adventurism that I felt we were just finally starting to get away from.

I'm not reflexively against gun control, but she has come out in favor of the worst kinds of gun control - "assault weapon bans" that ban items based upon cosmetic aspects like barrel shrouds and pistol grips.

And so on, and so forth. I tend to lean liberal - how excited could I get about a candidate who is essentially a moderate Republican, back when those still existed, even without all the baggage she brings?


And that, in my mind, is the best case! The alternative is President Trump.

This is how I feel exactly. It's a really fething depressing political landscape for anyone who isn't a warmongering, corporate loving douche.

Frankly though, Bernie wouldn't make a good President either. We just really had a gakky list of candidates this year all around.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You know what this means, right? Kasich only needs one more person to drop out

It means he's now in fourth place in a race that only has two guys in it. The metaphysics of that are impressive.

Seaward wrote:
It means he's now in fourth place in a race that only has two guys in it. The metaphysics of that are impressive.

Nate Silver posted a list of previous candidates who won more states than Kasich.

Howard Dean (two states in 2004)
Ed Muskie (three to five states in 1972, depending on how Maine and Iowa are counted)
Newt Gingrich (two states in 2012)
Pat Buchanan (four states in 1996)
Steve Forbes (two states in 1996)
Pat Robertson (four states in 1988)
Jerry Brown (six states in 1992)

When eternal punchlines like Howard Dean and Pat Buchanan outperform you, it might be time to rethink your presidential ambitions.

How s Bernie doing? Is he still in the race?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How s Bernie doing? Is he still in the race?

No, he threw in the towel 3 weeks ago.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How s Bernie doing? Is he still in the race?

In what sense? He is literally still campaigning and has his name on the ballots for all remaining states, but in terms of having a chance of winning... not so much.

He's kind of like that guy at the NY marathon who still plugs on, getting to the finish line hours after the first person crossed the line, to be cheered on by his family and the people cleaning up all the mess. It's a hell of an achievement to have run the race, but we shouldn't confuse that with having had a chance of winning.

 Ouze wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How s Bernie doing? Is he still in the race?

No, he threw in the towel 3 weeks ago.

Apparently Sanders didn't get the memo.

"I know that the Clinton campaign thinks this campaign is over. They're wrong," Sanders said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from New Albany, Indiana. "Maybe it's over for the insiders and the party establishment but the voters today in Indiana had a different idea."

I guess I just felt like it was a stupid question? Literally typing "Is Bernie still in the race" into Google gives you him a news result that he won Indiana and is still in the running. It's one thing when people ask questions maybe not best asked on a wargaming forum, "like why am I pooping blood" and "I headbutted my computer help me pick a new one" , but it's even worse when it would take literally less effort to just google the damn question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know, in retrospect, that was pretty jerky. I should have just ignored it. That was a bit rude, sorry.

also ;


https://twitter.com/FullFrontalSamB/status/727673061173014528


oh yeah, this happened too :


https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/04/29/wayne-simmons-right-wing-media-s-benghazi-expert-pleads-guilty-fraud/210145

 sebster wrote:
He's kind of like that guy at the NY marathon who still plugs on, getting to the finish line hours after the first person crossed the line, to be cheered on by his family and the people cleaning up all the mess. It's a hell of an achievement to have run the race, but we shouldn't confuse that with having had a chance of winning.

That is the kind of pessimism I expect from someone living under an oppressive, freedom-hating regime that is also under constant threat from drop-bears.

I don't see Trump losing in a single state now that Cruz is out.

If Trump takes the next two handily, I wonder if Kasich will drop out and stop wasting money, or if he will stick it out and hope Trump gets struck down by a micro meteorite, or hit by a car?

At least he'd be able to say that he was willing to stick it out.

So, who do you think Trumps running mate will be? Christie? Cruz to unify the party? His hair?