The General Election

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trump-leads-clinton-1-point-poll-enthusiasm-declines-110621705--abc-news-topstories.html

As the video/reporter says in this story, Trump will need to run the table on the 'to close to call' states plus flip a blue state like PA. I don't think it will happen. While the enthusiasm #s are up for him and Hillary's #s are going down, there are far more Dems registered and Trump's shortcomings are too many to lure enough independents to his side to win IMHO. Early voting favored Hillary. She has a stronger get out the vote machine than he does as well.

 
Does anyone else find it stupid that congress decides who wins if it's a tie? Popular vote is the logical tie breaker. (Or rather the logical only determining factor)

 
Moiraine said:
Does anyone else find it stupid that congress decides who wins if it's a tie? Popular vote is the logical tie breaker. (Or rather the logical only determining factor)
Click to expand...
They could elect Paul Ryan if they wanted to. I don't believe there's anything binding Congress electing one of the two major candidates as president.

More likely, they'll just pick the guy who's wearing the jersey for their team because he's an empty suit and he'd sign whatever legislation they sent to his desk.

Yes, it's stupid.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has to be one of the top three electoral vote finishers.

I think the idea is that this is a check against raw populism; i.e, too much democracy, which can be a bad thing. Here, the House is meant to be a body of sane adults that can step in and make an informed choice.

Heh, heh...heh
default_sad.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
Has to be one of the top three electoral vote finishers.

I think the idea is that this is a check against raw populism; e.g, too much democracy, which can be a bad thing. Here, the House is meant to be a body of sane adults that can step in and make an informed choice.

Heh, heh...heh
default_sad.png
Click to expand...
It's funny until you realize how sad it is.

Man, I thought I'd be excited the closer we drew to election day. I was hoping we'd send a strong message that everything that Trump represents did not represent a majority of our country.

I guess we just mostly vote on whether the candidate has an R or D next to their name after all.

Don't get me started on Congress...
default_facepalm.gif


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, yeah. Many of those who did a so-called condemnation after the tapes have gone cartwheeling back.

I respect all of the true #NeverTrump voters out there, the ones who are looking at these politicians and saying they'll never vote for them again. But, and it really, really pains me to say it, as a group you are either not numerous enough or not organized enough to actually effect change.

If you were, they wouldn't have crawled cravenly back to the Trump camp. So, the condemnations, they're heartwarming. But until this political opposition becomes cohesive in some way, we will not only see the re-election of those same "leaders", they will be unresponsive to your political pressure to bend them towards decency.

Surely not /all/ of these Senators and Representatives (and the presidential candidate himself) are so locked into their races that the #NeverTrump votes can't organize make a difference.

 
I know this is going to sound pretty sh**ty, but I am so happy that I get to come here and read all of the comical statements by the very grumpy Democrats (or just general non-Trump supporters). Why? Because, I'm making what I assume to be a safe assumption that you live here in Nebraska. And, because you live here in Nebraska, regardless of how loudly you scream and wring your hands and cry, your opinion won't be reflected in the final result. That would be true, unless you live in Omaha in which case the Democrats might swing the district like 2008, but polling is showing that is quite unlikely to happen this year.

So you can whine and moan, and go on and on about how Trump is a racist, sexist, sexual assault monster and a dictator and a demagogue and whatever other label you want to throw on there. You can deny the Clinton corruption, and defy common knowledge (or attempt to spend 2-3 minutes learning why) that the Wikileaks are genuine and have been verified using tracing technology to be authentic. At the end of the day, I can get my laughs while the state stays true to its Republican roots.

Is that sh**ty of me to say? Probably. But that is our political system. YOLO.

PS - Knapp is wrong in his post from yesterday regarding the FBI not even having access to the emails referenced by Comey. They are located on Weiner's laptop, which has been subpoena'ed and retrieved. This is all quickly found by a Google search (not sure how considering how much money they funnel to the DNC). He had a good, well-thought out argument, but with some errors. Not saying he meant it maliciously, but it is misleading and unfactual to say the least - a popular tactic this election cycle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, really love watching Hillary Clinton tanking this past week according to 538. It's awesome - still leading by a hefty margin, but dropping 3-4% points a day minimum.

 
Your support for Trump is fascinating. What do you see in that guy?

I'm in the reverse situation. Trump supporters, to borrow your parlance, can "whine and moan", defy common knowledge all they want -- it won't make a lick of difference, because we're going blue.

I don't quite get a kick out of that. I'm just hopeful for a sane outcome next week. And shoutout to that Omaha district. You guys can make a difference -- even if it's 1 electoral vote.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I need to find the clip because I just saw the last question of the interview, but I'm pretty sure Weld (of the Johnson/Weld ticket) endorsed Hillary Clinton on the Rachel Maddow Show last night.

Rachel's question was along the lines of, "I know you. You are a thoughtful person. What is more important to you: getting the Libertarians 5% of the vote in North Carolina, or defeating Trump"

Weld: (paraphrasing) "I'm here to vouch for Clinton. People need to hear from more than just Democrats to let them know she is far more qualified."

edit: went in search of a link, a whole host of options. Google "Rachel Maddow Bill Weld interview" and take your pick.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
I need to find the clip because I just saw the last question of the interview, but I'm pretty sure Weld (of the Johnson/Weld ticket) endorsed Hillary Clinton on the Rachel Maddow Show last night.

Rachel's question was along the lines of, "I know you. You are a thoughtful person. What is more important to you: getting the Libertarians 5% of the vote in North Carolina, or defeating Trump"

Weld: (paraphrasing) "I'm here to vouch for Clinton. People need to hear from more than just Democrats to let them know she is far more qualified."

edit: went in search of a link, a whole host of options. Google "Rachel Maddow Bill Weld interview" and take your pick.
Click to expand...
I did see a clip/read a quote of him saying that what the FBI did to Hillary was criminal.

 
^^^It may be a reach to call it an endorsement, I don't know if he's voting for her. But has a 3rd party candidate ever sent the message to swing states that they would be better to vote and ensure victory for one of the major party candidates he/she feels is better for the nation?

This election is nuts!

 
Back
Top