Support NeoGAF

[TAJ]

We get to see how good those check and balances work if he wins.

When he has the legislative and stacks the courts with Heritage Foundation picks? Good luck with that.

 

[ElFly]

If you discount the narrative that was created about Sanders' campaign not to mention how the democrats threw all of their superdelegates at Clinton before any of the public got to vote, we truly have no idea how much better Sanders would have done if things weren't stacked against him from the beginning.

But that's a different matter, you're trying to compare how he would do against Trump to how he did in the primaries. He may have lost to Clinton but more people could have preferred him/voted for him in a Sanders vs Trump election than will vote for Hillary. I think there would be a lot more party unity and even more demographics leaning democrat if Sanders were the nominee.

This is all extreme fantasy speculation.

Fact remains, he could not even win over the people closer to him in ideology, but you somehow expected him to win over the crazyos voting Trump. His defeat to Hillary wasn't even close.

 

[Kusagari]

We get to see how good those check and balances work if he wins.

The checks and balances have already eroded beyond what was intended for the mere fact he has a chance.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Mostly because Dubya made the decisions with Cheney deciding for him. Cheney, who stood to make a lot of money if Haliburton made a lot of money.

I can imagine that being the son of a president (especially one as disgraced as Bush Sr. was, to the point of pushing people to vote for Clinton instead) gives you a lot to work for...and I'm willing to bet that Cheney latched onto him for that reason.

Who doesn't want to be more like a relatively successful father/figure?

So with wrong information and, at the behest of Cheney, the US went above and beyond what we should've done and, in the process, pretty much created ISIS. Those deaths are on the hands of the commander in chief at the time, but Cheney was pulling his strings.

That, and, well...he's a better person that many give him credit for, just not very bright.

His brother on the other hand is worse -- drive Florida into the ground, push No Child Left Behind and ruin education for another couple decades(why not?) -- remove felons(read: Anyone who has the same name as a felon...or same middle name. Or same birthday...) from the voter rolls, 90% of whom just happened to be otherwise registered democrats, pushing Florida red that time...

Now he's going to paint, he's going to try to be like Carter, and he's going to keep his mouth shut for as much as he can about everything else.

This whole idea that Cheney 'ran' George W. Bush is almost as much nonsense as some massive anti-Sanders conspiracy.

 

[Cocaloch]

And people here were mad at Hil for not "shaking it up" with a more radical VP pick. Sheesh.

I've been a Hilary supporter from the beginning of the race even when Bernie was hot, but the smug arrogance people display non-stop on here, and the lack of awareness of how much of a bubble we are in and how different so much of the country feels, is the very reason that cooler heads may not prevail in November. Start realizing the situation we're in here, and stop shitting on all opposing points of view, and stop trying to tell people their opinions are not valid, because that is exactly why we're in the situation we're in, and if you keep doing it the amount of people turned off by the left will outnumber the amount of people who would've otherwise been common sense, dispassionate voters that could've easily been shown why they should vote for what you think is the right choice.

Convince people, don't shut them down, or you will be in for a rude awakening.

You're right on the money with this, and it's a large part of the reason I don't go into political threads.

The left of this country is partially to blame for Trump.

 

[Mifune]

This assumes that Trump has 100% of the white vote. He does not.

He just needs a larger share of a larger pie. That adds up quickly. He doesn't need 100%.

 

[The Albatross]

Yes. It's terrifying. There are always more white people.

A plurality of white people will likely be supporting Clinton over Trump, or it will be a few percentage points either way

Please don't make this into a White (Trump) vs. Non-White (Clinton) race, because that's very insulting, narrow-minded, caustic, ignorant, and dangerous.

 

[Napalm_Frank]

I'd feel sorry for Americans if Trump gets elected.

But it sure would tickle my morbid curiosity as an outside viewer. How much real power would he even have as a president outside of making some extremes more vocal?

 

[kamspy]

This assumes that Trump has 100% of the white vote. He does not.

The majority of people who would want Clinton elected already vote and are already accounted for. Any increase in the white turnout will be mostly for Trump. Considering how low that turnout has been for the past couple decades, the results could be staggering.

Everything about this cycle has completely defied political gravity in every sense. I don't know why people expect it to stop now. It's a whole different world. The vast majority of people didn't even consider owning a smartphone when Obama got elected. It's a bold new frontier. At least more so than the current pundits are giving credit for. Trump is doing more with free Instagram and Facebook posts than Hillary is doing with her war chest as far as marketing penetration. The guy really knows how to work the media.

This whole idea that Cheney 'ran' George W. Bush is almost as much nonsense as some massive anti-Sanders conspiracy.

Pretty sure most of that isn't a conspiracy anymore.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Will they go out and vote?

Because in the end that's what will make a difference. Just look to the British who tought that the remain camp would win and woke up to the mess that Farage and company created.

I imagine they would if they could, but America loves to make it hard as possible to vote if you're a minority and poor. but then again that's by design.

 

[Mifune]

A plurality of white people will likely be supporting Clinton over Trump.

Please don't make this into a White (Trump) vs. Non-White (Clinton) race, because that's very insulting, narrow-minded, caustic, ignorant, and dangerous.

Were you saying the same thing in 2004? Karl Rove certainly found a way to draw out more white voters than anyone outside that campaign thought possible.

 

[hoos30]

Why?

There has been this weird softening (or maybe even nostalgia?) of the Dubya years lately. Him and Cheney were extremely destructive, probably in ways we haven't fully felt yet. And Pence is cut from the same cloth

Trump makes even Cheney look good by comparison. Cheney was wrong in his worldview, but at least he knew the mechanics of the gov't.

 

[Lord Frieza]

The majority of people who would want Clinton elected already vote and are already accounted for. Any increase in the white turnout will be mostly for Trump. Considering how low that turnout has been for the past couple decades, the results could be staggering.

Based on what? How do you know all the people for Trump aren't out and accounted for, but Hilary's are?

Everything about this cycle has completely defied political gravity in every sense. I don't know why people expect it to stop now. It's a whole different world. The vast majority of people didn't even consider owning a smartphone when Obama got elected. It's a bold new frontier. At least more so than the current pundits are giving credit for. Trump is doing more with free Instagram and Facebook posts than Hillary is doing with her war chest as far as marketing penetration. The guy really knows how to work the media.

What has he done that's "defied gravity in every sense."

Pretty sure most of that isn't a conspiracy anymore.

It's confirmed bullshit. Whatever you want to call that.

 

[kamspy]

Trump makes even Cheney look good by comparison. Cheney was wrong in his worldview, but at least he knew the mechanics of the gov't.

Sure in the sense that he manipulated those views to enrich himself with the blood of Iraqis. Real stand up guy.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Seems like the earlier polls that everyone assured us were not accurate because the real campaign hadn't started were pretty accurate!

 

[Angelus Errare]

Please don't make this into a White (Trump) vs. Non-White (Clinton) race, because that's very insulting, narrow-minded, caustic, ignorant, and dangerous.

It's been seen as that the moment Trump shit on every minority in America.

Hell it's been seen as that before Trump and Clinton even entered the race.

 

[Splendor]

Yes. It's terrifying. There are always more white people.

Historically the closest situation that I found to this is the 1991 Govenor's race in Louisiana, where David Duke, former grand wizard and current Trump Supporter, was running as a republican. Many people in the lead up to the election fretted that he would win because of a shockingly high white turnout for Duke.

What actually happened is that there was a record high african american turnout, and Duke lost in a runoff election with 40% of the vote.

This was in Georgia, a red state in 1991. In modern times in addition to record numbers of AA voters going to democrats, the number of Latino voters is set to be the highest yet.

Be afraid of trump winning, but dont think that white people are the sole deciders in an election anymore.

 

[HalfBakedProphet]

Trust me. It's a gut feeling that I have.

I assume this line is parody.

My comment wasn't in defense of Trump in anyway. My point is that Bush was already a step too far and should serve as a warning against putting rich, entitled, myopic dipshits in the White House. Especially when they're easily manipulated. It makes me angry that such an ignorant fuckup like Dubya is seen as not that bad now that we look back with rose-colored glasses.

It is like people still fall for his "Ahh, shucks" personality

Trump makes even Cheney look good by comparison. Cheney was wrong in his worldview, but at least he knew the mechanics of the gov't.

Again, we're discounting how fucking evil Cheney was.

And Cheney knowing the how the government worked wasn't a good thing when that knowledge is used to manipulate with undeniably selfish goals in mind.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Were you saying the same thing in 2004? Karl Rove certainly found a way to draw out more white voters than anyone outside that campaign thought possible.

2004's election was won by Kerry's complete inability to stay with any platform, and even then it was just barely won.

 

[Xe4]

Over the weekend come several polls that measure a post-convention bounce for Presidential candidate Donald Trump (R). Battleground states surveyed by YouGov show a 2-percentage-point increase for him from 40% to 42%, against an unchanging 41% for Hillary Clinton (D). CBS shows an increase from Clinton-Trump 40%-40% (July 8-12) to 43%-44% (July 22-24), a 1-point swing from a tie to Trump +1%. CNN shows a shift from Clinton-Trump 49%-42% (July 13-16) to 45%-48% (July 22-24), a 10-point swing from Clinton +7% to Trump +3%. And Morning Consult shows a 6-point swing. I imagine there will be more polls coming out today to give a more accurate measure of the post-RNC bounce. So far, the median swing is 4 percentage points.

Four points is not that impressive a change. Recall that in states won by Mitt Romney (R) in 2012, Trump has been lagging by about 9 percentage points. A CBS crosstab (can’t find at the moment – perhaps a reader can help) reports that Trump’s progress was made entirely with Republicans – whose support went up by 2 points. This suggests that with many reluctant Republican voters, Trump did not close the sale. And, of course, it remains to be seen whether his increase in support is lasting. As of today, the election could possibly go to Trump. However, the election is not today.

In the coming week you may be surprised to see relatively little change in the Princeton Election Consortium electoral-vote tracker and November win probability. There are two reasons: (1) We use state polls, which take time to reflect national shifts. (2) The Bayesian-win probability listed in the banner uses polls over the entire 2016 campaign to set a prior expectation for where things are likely to head. The second assumption also has the more traditional name of “regression to the mean.” Effectively, these two mechanisms prevent the calculations from spinning out of countrol whenever there is a momentary bump in polling. Therefore, today’s November win probability is 80%.

Of course, if the race shifts in a lasting manner, it will show up eventually. Just to state the obvious, now is not the optimal time to gauge where the race is headed in steady state. Recall that in 2008, the Republican convention and the addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket led the race to briefly appear tied.

If you want to see the prediction without the Bayesian prior, the assumption that polls can drift equally in either direction, toward Clinton or toward Trump, is the random drift probability. Today, that probability is 65%.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/...cing-to-the-left-and-to-the-right/#more-16477

More at the link. Now can ya'll calm the fuck down? Freaking out does nobody good. Do you think the Republicans panic when every little thing doesn't go their way? No, and they have better turn out from their base than anybody.

So stay calm, and do what you can. Panicking like this makes it seem like the democrats think they are going to loose, which is not a good look.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Historically the closest situation that I found to this is the 1991 Govenor's race in Louisiana, where David Duke, former grand wizard and current Trump Supporter, was running as a republican. Many people in the lead up to the election fretted that he would win because of a shockingly high white turnout for Duke.

What actually happened is that there was a record high african american turnout, and Duke lost in a runoff election with 40% of the vote.

This was in Georgia, a red state in 1991. In modern times in addition to record numbers of AA voters going to democrats, the number of Latino voters is set to be the highest yet.

Be afraid of trump winning, but dont think that white people are the sole deciders in an election anymore.

Good post. While whites are still a clear majority in the country, you can't discount the power of minority voters, either.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/...cing-to-the-left-and-to-the-right/#more-16477

More at the link. Now can ya'll calm the fuck down? Freaking out does nobody good? Do you think the Republicans panic when every little thing doesn't go their way? No, and they have better turn out from their base than everybody.

So stay calm, and do what you can. Panicking like this makes it seem like the democrats think they are going to loose, which is not a good look.

Poetry. Thanks for this, Xe4. Not that I think it'll change the reaction around here. Some posters here are just exhausting, mang.

 

[Blader]

Seems like the earlier polls that everyone assured us were not accurate because the real campaign hadn't started were pretty accurate!

But it still hasn't started.

Polling around conventions is historically chaotic and not very predictive of the elections (see: all the similarly timed polls from 2008 and 2012 that show McCain and Romney way out ahead). This has been said repeatedly over the last few weeks and months.

If Trump is still leading a month from now, then you can say I told you so.

 

[John Dunbar]

trump will win because he has the massive "for the lulz" demographic on lockdown.

 

[Lord Frieza]

But it still hasn't started.

Polling around conventions is historically chaotic and not very predictive of the elections (see: all the similarly timed polls from 2008 and 2012 that show McCain and Romney way out ahead). This has been said repeatedly over the last few weeks and months.

If Trump is still leading a month from now, then you can say I told you so.

But Trump has rewritten the rules, didn't you know? Whatever the fuck that means.

 

[The Albatross]

Were you saying the same thing in 2004? Karl Rove certainly found a way to draw out more white voters than anyone outside that campaign thought possible.

Uhh... I don't remember what you or I were saying 12 or 13 years ago. I'm no fan of George Bush, but Donald Trump is not George Bush, and whoever Trumps idiotic campaign manager is, he's not Karl Rove.

It's been seen as that the moment Trump shit on every minority in America.

Hell it's been seen as that before Trump and Clinton even entered the race.

I don't care if you see this election as White People (Trump) vs. Non-White people (Clinton) or "It's seen that way," you're not right, and that's not right. I am white. I am not voting for Donald Trump. Most of the people I know who are voting are white. Almost none of them are voting for Donald Trump. Donald Trump does not represent the perspectives of white people, he represents the perspectives of a small, racist minority of some white people.

 

[kamspy]

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/...cing-to-the-left-and-to-the-right/#more-16477

More at the link. Now can ya'll calm the fuck down? Freaking out does nobody good? Do you think the Republicans panic when every little thing doesn't go their way? No, and they have better turn out from their base than everybody.

So stay calm, and do what you can. Panicking like this makes it seem like the democrats think they are going to loose, which is not a good look.

I think it would serve the Democrats well to have an underdog mentality right now. I'm shocked by the complacency.

 

[Killer Queen]

Sorry to derail but can someone explain to me what "Diablos"Ing means? Google search returned nothing and there's an increase of gaffers using the term lately.

 

[maquiladora]

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/...cing-to-the-left-and-to-the-right/#more-16477

More at the link. Now can ya'll calm the fuck down? Freaking out does nobody good? Do you think the Republicans panic when every little thing doesn't go their way? No, and they have better turn out from their base than everybody.

So stay calm, and do what you can. Panicking like this makes it seem like the democrats think they are going to loose, which is not a good look.

I'm not panicking, but a post-convention bounce doesn't always happen. Case in point :

Considering this poll was carried out during the time when the DNC email story was getting media attention, I think that may have been partially responsible for Trump getting a lead.

 

[MrKaepora]

I assume this line is parody.

My comment wasn't in defense of Trump in anyway. My point is that Bush was already a step too far and should serve as a warning against putting rich, entitled, myopic dipshits in the White House. Especially when they're easily manipulated. It makes me angry that such an ignorant fuckup like Dubya is seen as not that bad now that we look back with rose-colored glasses.

It is like people still fall for his "Ahh, shucks" personality

Look, I don't like Bush but if you put me in a situation that I would have to choose between Bush and Trump - no other option - I would choose Bush.

 

[BSsBrolly]

I'm thankful that it's not Cruz, that is all.

 

[Mifune]

Historically the closest situation that I found to this is the 1991 Govenor's race in Louisiana, where David Duke, former grand wizard and current Trump Supporter, was running as a republican. Many people in the lead up to the election fretted that he would win because of a shockingly high white turnout for Duke.

What actually happened is that there was a record high african american turnout, and Duke lost in a runoff election with 40% of the vote.

This was in Georgia, a red state in 1991. In modern times in addition to record numbers of AA voters going to democrats, the number of Latino voters is set to be the highest yet.

Be afraid of trump winning, but dont think that white people are the sole deciders in an election anymore.

If Trump wins then white people were the sole deciders. How can we be afraid of Trump winning without acknowledging what would cause that to happen? Do not forget that white people make up 77 percent of the electorate. If he gets a big majority of that pie then he only needs to siphon from Hillary's voters - and there are so many ways to do that, as the 2000 election can attest.

I suggest people read Michael Moore's take on this election. The Electoral scenario he posits is very scary and plausible.

 

[yanipheonu]

Sooo I'm just going to leave this chart here, implore people to learn what a convention bump is, and tell some people to calm down.

Trump actually had a small-to-medium Bump. Nothing to get bent out of shape about.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Johnson is taking away votes from GOP while Stein takes from Dems? Dems winning that battle by 6%

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Sanders supporter just said this on TV.

The protester said four years of Donald Trump getting nothing done is better than a Hillary Clinton presidency. She said she preferred Trump to Clinton because "Trump is less dangerous." Also after four years of Trump they will have a better chance to nominate a progressive candidate whereas a Clinton presidency will guarantee at least 8 years of a non-progressive Democratic party candidate.

"Personally, I feel that her platform has every opportunity to pass because she's really a Republican," the protester said. "Whereas Trump is hated by his own base and I think four years of Trump getting nothing done is better."

 

[Splendor]

Sorry to derail but can someone explain to me what "Diablos"Ing means? Google search returned nothing and there's an increase of gaffers using the term lately.

Diablos is a well know gaf user who was known to panic at the drop of a pin during the 2008 and 2012 elections. It became well known enough that the word diablos became synonymous with panic on gaf.

To Diablos is to panic, more specifically during an election year.

 

[Lord Frieza]

I think it would serve the Democrats well to have an underdog mentality right now. I'm shocked by the complacency.

Complacency by who?

 

[Trokil]

She said she preferred Trump to Clinton because "Trump is less dangerous." Also after four years of Trump they will have a better chance to nominate a progressive candidate whereas a Clinton presidency will guarantee at least 8 years of a non-progressive Democratic party candidate.

Well, Trump would probably start less wars than Clinton.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Sooo I'm just going to leave this chart here, implore people to learn what a convention bump is, and tell some people to calm down.

Trump actually had a small-to-medium Bump. Nothing to get bent out of shape about.

I think, at this point, it just doesn't do any good. It's like no one will listen at all

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Guys Trump is going to win because I can feel it and also because he's on tv all the time and because people on my Facebook feed. If that isn't enough to disprove all statistical evidence I don't know what is.

 

[Eidan]

Sorry to derail but can someone explain to me what "Diablos"Ing means? Google search returned nothing and there's an increase of gaffers using the term lately.

Diablos is a regular PoliGAF poster, notorious for becoming Chicken Little the moment anything but favorable polling or events happen to his preferred candidates.

 

[Mifune]

2004's election was won by Kerry's complete inability to stay with any platform, and even then it was just barely won.

It was the white evangelical vote that put Bush over the top. White evangelical voters who had been disillusioned about the whole process before Rove introduced the same-sex-marriage wedge issue to the pot.

Point is it's an overwhelmingly white country, and so new white voters can be found if you look for them.

 

[jaekeem]

Sanders supporter just said this on TV.

well at least even in the scenario of a trump victory all these people will eat crow when the effects of a conservative SCOTUS majority for the next few decades sink in

lol

 

[kamspy]

Complacency by who?

The people who told Bernie supporters byebitch.gif we don't need your votes?

 

[HalfBakedProphet]

Look, I don't like Bush but if you put me in a situation that I would have to choose between Bush and Trump - no other option - I would choose Bush.

On a strictly "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know", I suppose I would agree

 

[High Fry Frow]

Guys Drumpf is going to win because I can feel it and also because he's on tv all the time and because people on my Facebook feed. If that isn't enough to disprove all statistical evidence I don't know what is.

I'm bookmarking this post.

 

[EatinOlives]

Guys Trump is going to win because I can feel it and also because he's on tv all the time and because people on my Facebook feed. If that isn't enough to disprove all statistical evidence I don't know what is.

Funny how the people Diablosing don't bother to read the OP or quote any of the giant amount of posts explaining why this isn't a reason to panic.

Some people actively WANT to panic.

Spoiler

Yes I got the sarcasm in your post

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Well, Trump would probably start less wars than Clinton.

No Democrat will be able to start a war unless there's an army about to invade the US or a NATO ally because the party would not allow it. This is what I don't get it, Clinton panders all the time but then she will do the opposite of everything people who voted for her want?

 

[hawk2025]

Well, Trump would probably start less wars than Clinton.

Out of all the ridiculous myths, this is probably the worst one.

 

[Paskil]

Sanders supporter just said this on TV.

So basically, the supporter could have saved everyone time and said "I'm an idiot."

 

[GiantEnemyGoomba]

Sanders supporter just said this on TV.

Four years of Trump getting nothing done. You know, except appointing 2-3 justices, who would take an axe to the knees of any policies this super progressive candidate - that's gonna pop up in less than four years - wants to enact. Great.

And that's the bare minimum considering he'd probably have a Congress very interested in keeping their jobs by passing his laws.