Hillary won more votes for President

mrussel1 · July 2016

Go Beavers said:
And as we get closer to the election, and people think about Trump winning, we get more minimizations and rationalizations. All of a sudden, it doesn't matter who the president is, because they're all the same. I don't think that's how it works. Trump would end up no different than Obama? There's nothing that supports this statement. Obama didn't have experience dealing in the international arena, but he obviously has a personality and skill set that worked. You think Trump has the same?

Is there no difference in the judges that will be selected for the SCOTUS? We've seen Trump's list already. The difference is stark on the most basic of presidential functions.

EdsonNascimento · July 2016

polaris_x said:
trump is the epitome of the establishment ... the establishment aka corporate america ... DC is run by corporations and lobbyists - something trump is very familiar and fond of ... he only upsets a tiny portion of the republican caucus because a few of them can't bring themselves to support some of his outrageous ideas ... to say trump has more international experience because he has had international business relations is one of the most absurd rationalizations of his legitimacy I've read recently ...

Then everyone's establishment!

Oh, and I wasn't rationalizing his legitimacy. I was just comparing his known international experience (for what it's worth) vs. what our current President had when he entered office. Perhaps, they're both invalid. That's a fine conclusion to draw. I wasn't telling you what to think. Just stating a fact there. Point being, I don't know why he's any more scary than Obama other than the counter-rhetoric. People running say stupid stuff all the time. Obama also said he'd close Quantanamo. Which was an utterly ridiculous, inexperienced thing to say that would (oopsy! has) lead to International destabilization (not in it's entirety. Don't make this statement bigger than it is - he has released prisoners that have proven to be part of planning attacks in an effort to make that promise come true even after 8 years of knowing it would never happen, but would please his constituents to say).

EdsonNascimento · July 2016

Go Beavers said:
And as we get closer to the election, and people think about Trump winning, we get more minimizations and rationalizations. All of a sudden, it doesn't matter who the president is, because they're all the same. I don't think that's how it works. Trump would end up no different than Obama? There's nothing that supports this statement. Obama didn't have experience dealing in the international arena, but he obviously has a personality and skill set that worked. You think Trump has the same?

It worked? Interesting.

And you give no credit to negotiating multi-billion dollar deals? Interesting.

Jason P · July 2016

Putin - 1

Clinton - 0

mrussel1 · July 2016

Jason P said:
Putin - 1

Clinton - 0

Putin/Trump team - 1

USA - 0

Fixed that for ya!

Dirtie_Frank · July 2016

mrussel1 said:

Jason P said:
Putin - 1

Clinton - 0
Putin/Trump team - 1

USA - 0

Fixed that for ya!

Perhaps if the DNC were not so flagrant with what they put on email they would not have to pass the buck and blame Trump.

brianlux · July 2016

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:
My guess is Bernie is playing it a bit safe because like most of the rest of us, he recognizes that a Trump presidency would be an utter debacle. But besides that, at the same time I'm disappointed that Bernie didn't stand firm on his objectives. Or maybe he still hopes to obtain those objectives through the Senate.

I for one am conflicted about this coming election. Stein is the candidate with whom I feel most aligned. If we get close to election time and it looks like Hillary is going to win by record numbers- something she does not deserve- I will definitely vote for Stein. If it looks like Hillary is likely to win but not hugely, ditto. But if it looks like Trump has a decent (I mean indecent) chance, then I might have to consider doing what basically amounts to heresy toward my beliefs- voting for She Who Shall Not Be Named here. I really really really hope it doesn't come down to that.
I think it's funny that anti establishment voters are so willing to vote the same old same old instead of something different. Shaking up Washington should be what one would want under those circumstances. But get lulled into political as usual bc of....wait for it....Drilling for fear.

The irony in this election is intriguing.
I agree, Edson, and if your basic run of the mill establishment type had won the Republican ticket, I would vote for what you term an "anti-establishment" candidate (I would call people like Stein and Sanders "Reestablishing" candidates) but this is Trump where talking about. No fear here, just frustration.
But isn't he the ultimate anti-establishment? Bernie really isn't. He's just an ultra liberal that already works in Washington who is trying to guide his party to the more extreme side of their policy spectrum. That would certainly be something different. And, he's certainly less establishment than Queen Hillary, but he is ensconced in DC no different than any other Senator.

On the other hand, Trump is (clearly) no politician, he (clearly) upsets pretty much everyone in the (both?) party(ies). Quite honestly, I'm not even sure he's a Republican.

What he is, is a businessman who has used every process to his advantage to gain the ultimate American dream. Again, setting aside whether you agree with what and how he's done it, he's never gone to jail (hopefully you get what I mean and don't define this so narrowly). The most that's been raised on him is numerous lawsuits. Which, even Mark Cuban can attest - when you get to that level - everyone's looking to sue you.

If you are looking for someone to potentially destabilize Washington - Trump is actually your candidate.

Now, truth be told, he would end up no different than Obama or any other elected official that goes to Washington. Obama had zero, count that - zero - international experience when he ran for office. At least Trump has had international business experience. He does business all over the world.

Not platforming for Trump, but the more I see people afraid of what will happen when the boogyman gets elected, the more I think he may be just what we need. A person who doesn't really want it, doesn't really need it, and ultimately will be better off if he's not elected. I'm not sure you can say that about anybody else (including Bernie Sanders) in this cycle.

Some interesting observations here, Edson. The thing is, simply being anti-establishment is not necessarily constructive. That would be like me revolting against the people I work with at the bookstore because I don't like the way they arranged things before I came on board and I decided to rearrange all 300,000 plus books by color or size or something crazy. And that's Trump. Something... someone... CRAZY!! And this election year is making me CRAZY (makes me, makes me, makes me!).

Jose pegged it: "either way this country eats shit come November".

mrussel1 · July 2016

Dirtie_Frank said:

mrussel1 said:

Jason P said:
Putin - 1

Clinton - 0
Putin/Trump team - 1

USA - 0

Fixed that for ya!
Perhaps if the DNC were not so flagrant with what they put on email they would not have to pass the buck and blame Trump.

I didn't blame Trump. But there's no doubt that Putin is trying to divide Europe and he is extending that into our country. The Russians benefit from NATO breaking up and the EU (Ukrainian sanctions will be difficult to enforce and exclude Britain). It allows them to form new alliances and economic deals. Why do you think the Russians spent serious money supporting the National Front in France, or cheerleading Brexit? So anytime they can create fissure in the traditional alliances (which Trump does), it's a win for Putin. And do you really think a hacker from Russia (Guccifer 2) is operating without the consent or support of the government?

Edit for more context: HRC and the Democrats are highly supportive of traditional alliances. Trump, such as he has a policy, has bashed NATO, praised Brexit, threatened to allow Korean Peninsula to become nuclear, etc. So you can see why Putin would prefer a Trump presidency.

jerparker20 · July 2016

mrussel1 said:

Go Beavers said:
And as we get closer to the election, and people think about Trump winning, we get more minimizations and rationalizations. All of a sudden, it doesn't matter who the president is, because they're all the same. I don't think that's how it works. Trump would end up no different than Obama? There's nothing that supports this statement. Obama didn't have experience dealing in the international arena, but he obviously has a personality and skill set that worked. You think Trump has the same?
Is there no difference in the judges that will be selected for the SCOTUS? We've seen Trump's list already. The difference is stark on the most basic of presidential functions.

This is the elephant in the room.

Listen, I find Clinton about as appealing as a pair of shitty underwear, but the thought of having Trump be given the opportunity to place possibly four appointees on the Supreme Court is terrifying. There is already one slot open and RBG, Breyer, and Kennedy are all over, or pushing, 80. Their days are numbered. So couple this with the fact that you have Thomas, Alito, and Roberts all currently sitting, what you could end up with is a super majority of ultra-conservative justices sitting on the court for at least a decade, maybe more. This will be a death nail in any progressive movement. At least with Clinton you know any nominee will be at least a centrist to moderate progressive. And that is why she will get my vote even if I have some reservations about her.

BS44325 · July 2016

We are looking at two candidates with huge name recognition. In a change election if Hillary doesn't come out of the convention with at least a tie it will be hard to come back. The kitchen sink has pretty much been thrown at Trump already and he hasn't even spent a dime yet in the swing states.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html

rssesq · July 2016

Free · July 2016

Does Hillary Clinton Understand the Biggest Divide in American Politics?

Does Hillary Clinton understand that the biggest divide in American politics is no longer between the right and the left, but between the anti-establishment and the establishment?

I worry she doesn’t – at least not yet.

A Democratic operative I’ve known since the Bill Clinton administration told me “now that she’s won the nomination, Hillary is moving to the middle. She’s going after moderate swing voters.”

Presumably that’s why she tapped Tim Kaine to be her vice president. Kaine is as vanilla middle as you can get.

In fairness, Hillary is only doing what she knows best. Moving to the putative center is what Bill Clinton did after the Democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994 – signing legislation on welfare reform, crime, trade, and financial deregulation that enabled him to win reelection in 1996 and declare “the era of big government” over.

In those days a general election was like a competition between two hot-dog vendors on a boardwalk extending from right to left. Each had to move to the middle to maximize sales. (If one strayed too far left or right, the other would move beside him and take all sales on rest of the boardwalk.)

But this view is outdated. Nowadays, it’s the boardwalk versus the private jets on their way to the Hamptons.

The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a system rigged by big corporations, Wall Street, and the super-wealthy.

This is a big reason why Donald Trump won the Republican nomination. It’s also why Bernie Sanders took 22 states in the Democratic primaries, including a majority of Democratic primary voters under age 45.

There are no longer “moderates.” There’s no longer a “center.” There’s authoritarian populism (Trump) or democratic populism (which had been Bernie’s “political revolution,” and is now up for grabs).

And then there’s the Republican establishment (now scattered to the winds), and the Democratic establishment.

If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party don’t recognize this realignment, they’re in for a rude shock – as, I’m afraid, is the nation. Because Donald Trump does recognize it. His authoritarian (“I’ am your voice”) populism is premised on it.

“In five, ten years from now,” Trump says, “you’re going to have a worker’s party. A party of people that haven’t had a real wage increase in 18 years, that are angry.”

Speaking at a factory in Pennsylvania in June, he decried politicians and financiers who had betrayed Americans by “taking away from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families.”

Worries about free trade used to be confined to the political left. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, people who say free-trade deals are bad for America are more likely to lean Republican.

The problem isn’t trade itself. It’s a political-economic system that won’t cushion working people against trade’s downsides or share trade’s upsides. In other words, a system that’s rigged.

Most basically, the anti-establishment wants big money out of politics. This was the premise of Bernie Sanders’s campaign. It’s also been central to Donald (“I’m so rich I can’t be bought off”) Trump’s appeal, although he’s now trolling for big money.

A recent YouGov/Economist poll found that 80 percent of GOP primary voters who preferred Donald Trump as the nominee listed money in politics as an important issue, and a Bloomberg Politics poll shows a similar percentage of Republicans opposed to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision.

Getting big money out of politics is of growing importance to voters in both major parties. A June New York Times/CBS News poll showed that 84 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Republicans want to fundamentally change or completely rebuild our campaign finance system.

Last January, a DeMoines Register poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers found 91 percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats unsatisfied or “mad as hell” about money in politics.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to move toward the “middle.” In fact, such a move could hurt her if it’s perceived to be compromising the stances she took in the primaries in order to be more acceptable to Democratic movers and shakers.

She needs to move instead toward the anti-establishment – forcefully committing herself to getting big money out of politics, and making the system work for the many rather than a privileged few.

She must make clear Donald Trump’s authoritarian populism is a dangerous gambit, and the best way to end crony capitalism and make America work for the many is to strengthen American democracy.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/does_hillary_clinton_understand_biggest_divide_american_politics_20160725

Gern Blansten · July 2016

BS44325 said:
We are looking at two candidates with huge name recognition. In a change election if Hillary doesn't come out of the convention with at least a tie it will be hard to come back. The kitchen sink has pretty much been thrown at Trump already and he hasn't even spent a dime yet in the swing states.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html

I would argue the reverse. Clinton has had the kitchen sink thrown at her and Trump is practically getting away with murder.

hedonist · July 2016

Jason P said:
Putin - 1

Clinton - 0

Has anyone come out with a Rock 'Em Sock 'Em game for this yet?

Free · July 2016

BS44325 said:
We are looking at two candidates with huge name recognition. In a change election if Hillary doesn't come out of the convention with at least a tie it will be hard to come back. The kitchen sink has pretty much been thrown at Trump already and he hasn't even spent a dime yet in the swing states.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html

That article reads like a commentater of a horse race. Oh, the drama!

Dr.Teeth and the Electric Mayh · July 2016

josevolution said:

Dr.Teeth and the Electric Mayh said:
I'm talking about mainstream media on TV where the average person gets their news. Not websites that are mostly for political junkies, who quite frankly already knew this. So the DNC is supposed to be a fair and unbiased committee helping all nominees equally. That clearly didn't happen.

You'll have to explain to me what is democratic about sending people on TV and other news outlets to demonize one of your parties candidates. Because that is exactly what happens. I thought America was about getting a fair shake. Whether it be in politics or your job.

After all this the fact that you think Hillary and the DNC are separate entities is laughable.

It's laughable for you to think that either party's plays by the rules the GOP is no better , either way this country eats shit come November it's just who's shit you like more at least ill come here and say there is no way I'm voting for Trump , I'm an immigrant I'll take her evil ways over his dung eating grin !!

Nah I don't think the RNC were doing what the DNC was doing. Otherwise we never would have gotten Trump. If the RNC adapted the super delegate system like the dems have we'd be talking about a different candidate.

Gern Blansten · July 2016

Dr.Teeth and the Electric Mayh said:

josevolution said:

Dr.Teeth and the Electric Mayh said:
I'm talking about mainstream media on TV where the average person gets their news. Not websites that are mostly for political junkies, who quite frankly already knew this. So the DNC is supposed to be a fair and unbiased committee helping all nominees equally. That clearly didn't happen.

You'll have to explain to me what is democratic about sending people on TV and other news outlets to demonize one of your parties candidates. Because that is exactly what happens. I thought America was about getting a fair shake. Whether it be in politics or your job.

After all this the fact that you think Hillary and the DNC are separate entities is laughable.

It's laughable for you to think that either party's plays by the rules the GOP is no better , either way this country eats shit come November it's just who's shit you like more at least ill come here and say there is no way I'm voting for Trump , I'm an immigrant I'll take her evil ways over his dung eating grin !!
Nah I don't think the RNC were doing what the DNC was doing. Otherwise we never would have gotten Trump. If the RNC adapted the super delegate system like the dems have we'd be talking about a different candidate.

I believe that the RNC is really wishing they would have pushed Trump out at this point. He's going to wreck that party. They were so afraid of him running independent they bowed down to him.

Go Beavers · July 2016

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:
And as we get closer to the election, and people think about Trump winning, we get more minimizations and rationalizations. All of a sudden, it doesn't matter who the president is, because they're all the same. I don't think that's how it works. Trump would end up no different than Obama? There's nothing that supports this statement. Obama didn't have experience dealing in the international arena, but he obviously has a personality and skill set that worked. You think Trump has the same?
It worked? Interesting.

And you give no credit to negotiating multi-billion dollar deals? Interesting.

Saying Trump's business deals will apply to diplomatic relations is one of the rationalizations. What he's done is profit oriented deals with like minded people. The only thing international about it is what different laws might apply to their business deals. His experience in this area doesn't override his ignorance, xenophobia, ego driven arrogance, and authoritarian approach.

A U.S. Senator typically has experience in negotiation that Trump doesn't, and these can be applied internationally as well.

rssesq · July 2016

Her experience(Iraq, Goldman, Emails, Email server)in this area does not override her ignorance, ego driven arrogance and authoritarian approach.
Fixed

Go Beavers · July 2016

BS44325 said:
We are looking at two candidates with huge name recognition. In a change election if Hillary doesn't come out of the convention with at least a tie it will be hard to come back. The kitchen sink has pretty much been thrown at Trump already and he hasn't even spent a dime yet in the swing states.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html

Those poll numbers are surprising. Basically they reflect Trump picking up lower educated undecideds. If Hillary plays it right, she can swing them back her way.

Hillary won more votes for President

Comments

Categories