Presidential Candidates Debate

[Chilli Dipper]

5 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Congressional Republicans could do a lot to avert that risk by simply moving forward with hearings for Merrick Garland.  He is widely regarded as a centrist and there are many Republicans who thought he would make a great SCOTUS pick before Obama nominated him. I would bet, if Clinton wins, Republicans will move forward with the nominating process during the lame duck session to try to prevent a more liberal pick from Clinton.

The President just vetoed that 9/11 bill with strong reservations; the Senate overrode the veto, then immediately chastised the president for not telling them how bad the bill they just passed was.

Garland's not getting a vote. The dysfunction in Congress runs too strong.

[drmevo]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Accepting Garland is like eating something you don't like because you fear the next course could be even worse.  

Garland is still left of center and not the person we want to see sitting on the court for many years to come.  

Perhaps, but the chances of Donald Trump winning are not great. If he loses, they're going to get what they get, and there's a good chance the Senate will be turned over to the Democrats.

2 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

The President just vetoed that 9/11 bill with strong reservations; the Senate overrode the veto, then immediately chastised the president for not telling them how bad the bill they just passed was.

Garland's not getting a vote. The dysfunction in Congress runs too strong.

Truer words have never been spoken. They're pretty much a joke at this point.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, David in FL said:

The fact of the matter remains.  In the general election, a vote for anyone other than either of the 2 main candidates has the same impact as not voting at all.  

Not true.

A record-setting vote for a third-party candidate would not have the same effect as low voter turnout.

Plus, at an even more basic level than "sending a message," voters choosing a third-party candidate are still voters who might have, without a third-party candidate they supported at all, might have voted for one of the first two. The math doesn't work. I'm sure you can Google it, too, but… here's one example: http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/03/16/vote-third-party-candidate-vote-hillary/ .

You're wrong, and acting superior about it.

2 hours ago, drmevo said:

Perhaps, but the chances of Donald Trump winning are not great.

He's a few percentage points behind Hillary right now, I thought I saw.

[saevel25]

I think it's Hillary at +3-4. 

Her odds are increasing again. She definitely got a post debate bump. 

[imsys0042]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Not true.

A record-setting vote for a third-party candidate would not have the same effect as low voter turnout.

Plus, at an even more basic level than "sending a message," voters choosing a third-party candidate are still voters who might have, without a third-party candidate they supported at all, might have voted for one of the first two. The math doesn't work. I'm sure you can Google it, too, but… here's one example: http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/03/16/vote-third-party-candidate-vote-hillary/ .

I was mulling this over since this morning and here's what I think.  David is correct that the primary has the most impact because veering towards one candidate as an alternative vs. another is the most effective way to get a better candidate.  Or at least the one you want.

However for effective third parties to rise, you need to have them outside the political parties that exist.  They either need to get on the ballot as a member of one of the two parties or run a primary of their own and be on the ballet next to the existing 2.

What third parties have tried to do is get 5% of the popular vote in the general to get access to a lot of matching federal funds.  So their impact is best achieved at the general election level.

Since Perot I don't think we've seen anyone get near 5%.  Nader was under 3%.   Nader probably swung Florida to Bush, so that's a direct impact.   Perot got 19% and potentially knocked Bush out.  So there is a measurable impact in a tighter election (I consider Perot an outlier).   Voting for a third-party candidate is probably a net "the same as not voting" in this election because I suspect it's such a wonky year that third parties will drain from both.

2000 is an example where there was a direct impact.   Over 2000 people voted for Nader and Gore lost by 537 (officially).   Those 2000 people were motivated enough to vote for someone who wasn't going to win.  If a majority of them go and pull the lever for Gore, the election goes the other way (demographics strongly supported Nader voters leaning to Gore).  However what we don't know (and makes this speculation) is how many of them would have been motivated to show up for Gore and would that been enough?

David's statement only holds true if those voters would have not pulled the lever for someone else.   Or in other words they only thing that motivated them was voting for the third party.  It doesn't take into account a voter who is going to vote no matter what, and if the two main parties are on the ballot then that is who they have to choose from.   Where David is correct (IMO) is that it's not a vote for one of the people who have a shot at winning.

 

[Kalnoky]

Guys, Donald Trump is going to lose in the biggest landslide since Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale. I don't believe the polls at all.

I watched the first debate but I will not be watching the others. I'm going to play twilight instead.

It's Washington. Always expect more of the same. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

Where David is correct (IMO) is that it's not a vote for one of the people who have a shot at winning.

That's implicit.

[imsys0042]

3 minutes ago, Kalnoky said:

Guys, Donald Trump is going to lose in the biggest landslide since Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale. I don't believe the polls at all.

I watched the first debate but I will not be watching the others. I'm going to play twilight instead.

It's Washington. Always expect more of the same. 

I think what has changed since then is that barring a candidate shooting someone on live TV, certain states have enough inbuilt support for one party that at least 15 states will go for one side.

I think Hilary has a chance to get states that otherwise would not go blue into her column this election, but Trump as bad of a candidate as he is*** will get double digit states.

*** Not talking about issues, policies or anything other than he is unpredictable, unconventional and has issues that historically would not win him anything in a "normal" year.   His unfavorables are extremely high but not high enough to still poll well in areas of the country.

[baller7345]

I saw mention of this, but I don't think it was ever actually posted here.

4Chan and Reddit Manipulated Online Polls to Declare Trump the Winner - The Daily Dot

You may be getting trolled right now without even knowing it.

Donald Trump supporters artificially manipulated the results of online polls to create a false narrative that the Republican nominee won the first presidential debate on Monday night.

The efforts originated from users of the pro-Trump Reddit community r/The_Donald and 4chan messaged boards, which bombarded around 70 polls, including those launched by Time, Fortune, and CNBC.

Edited September 30, 2016 by baller7345

[Chilli Dipper]

6 minutes ago, baller7345 said:

I saw mention of this, but I don't think it was ever actually posted here.

4Chan and Reddit Manipulated Online Polls to Declare Trump the Winner - The Daily Dot

 

 

@Gunther was parroting those "polls" a while back.

On 9/27/2016 at 1:51 PM, Gunther said:

The pundits perhaps but most snap polling gave Trump the W.  

 

On 9/27/2016 at 2:05 PM, Chilli Dipper said:

I'll take a wild guess: those were open online polls that were invaded by trolls.

 

[Ernest Jones]

Lol. Regardless of party or candidate affiliation, anyone who is serious about giving Trump the win in that debate is not to be taken seriously. I mean c'mon, even if he's your guy, you gotta be lamenting that piss poor performance. 

[rkim291968]

1 hour ago, Ernest Jones said:

Lol. Regardless of party or candidate affiliation, anyone who is serious about giving Trump the win in that debate is not to be taken seriously. I mean c'mon, even if he's your guy, you gotta be lamenting that piss poor performance. 

All the "legit" polls say that Clinton beat Trump by a huge margin.  On average, about 20% poll responders thought Trump won.  I bet those 20% are the die hard Trump supporters.   In their eyes, Trump can't do no wrong.

The aftermath of the debate isn't looking good for Trump.   All the post debate polls suggest that Clinton picked up about 5 point.   Trump's latest tweet at 3:00 am today has made things even worse for Trump.   Clinton will pick up even more points in the next week's poll results.

What happened since Monday will sway enough independents and people on the fence to vote for Clinton or for a 3rd party candidate.

 

[drmevo]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

He's a few percentage points behind Hillary right now, I thought I saw.

Right, it's about 4, as @saevel25 pointed out.  That's actually kind of a lot at this stage in the game, especially with the trend expected to continue.  Gary Johnson's latest stumbles can only help as well.

[rkim291968]

44 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Right, it's about 4, as @saevel25 pointed out.  That's actually kind of a lot at this stage in the game, especially with the trend expected to continue.  Gary Johnson's latest stumbles can only help as well.

Clinton's lead is going to widen next week.   I wonder if Trump is up for another debate given how disastrous the 1st one was.  

[newtogolf]

10 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

Clinton's lead is going to widen next week.   I wonder if Trump is up for another debate given how disastrous the 1st one was.  

You're forgetting how poorly Obama did in his first debate.  Trump will prepare better and not try to be nice in future debates.  Hillary drew first blood now it's all fair game.  

[Ernest Jones]

17 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

You're forgetting how poorly Obama did in his first debate.  Trump will prepare better and not try to be nice in future debates.  Hillary drew first blood now it's all fair game.  

I think you're vastly over estimating Trump's ability to act like an adult. 

[newtogolf]

26 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

I think you're vastly over estimating Trump's ability to act like an adult. 

Let's be honest EJ, Trump didn't win the Primary acting like an adult and for him to have a chance to beat Hillary he needs to pull out all the stops including a few cigar jokes.  

[Hardspoon]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Let's be honest EJ, Trump didn't win the Primary acting like an adult and for him to have a chance to beat Hillary he needs to pull out all the stops including a few cigar jokes.  

Those are very different target audiences, though.

I want so badly to believe that cigar jokes or references to Bill's infidelity would only hurt Trump, but sadly I'm not sure it would.