Support NeoGAF

[Poodlestrike]

Honestly, I'd love to be able to point to economic anxiety as a big reason behind the Trump rise. It means that it's fixable, that large portions of the country aren't irredeemably racist, xenophobic, and otherwise bigoted. Sadly, I don't think it's supported by evidence. Trump supporters aren't any more likely to be economically disenfranchised than Hillary voters, but are significantly more likely to express racist and xenophobic views. They're more likely to vote against their own interests (expanded social safety nets, lower taxes on the middle class paid for by higher taxes on the upper class, infrastructure spending) if those benefits also apply to minorities. I just don't think you can justify the portrait of Trump voters as the downtrodden manufacturing worker striking out for better conditions.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

So then why is Hillary in Pennsylvania on monday?

https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/795007305079255045

Kerry lost to Bush in 2004. And he was far more popular than Hillary.

1. No early voting
2. Important Senate race
3. No early voting
4.No early voting

 

[zelas]

This is a very effective ad that I think showcases why so many are supporting Trump. It isn't so much the racism and xenophobia, it's getting America back on top with manufacturing despite how impossible and unrealistic that actually is.

They're willing to support racism and xenophobia because of their "fuck you got mine" mentality.

Unless white people are on the other side, there is no line that can be crossed.

 

[giga]

Final national polls starting to trickle out and show a somewhat consistent result.

NBC/WSJ: HRC 44, DJT 40
WaPo/ABC: HRC 48, DJT 43
Politico/Morning Consult: HRC 45, DJT 42

Barring some big polling miss, things are looking good.

 

[dramatis]

New ad with Katy Perry's roar: https://youtu.be/cKDHioNLb4I

This is a pretty good closing ad, it'll be airing nationwide tomorrow night.

I do like that her campaign decided to close with a positive ad, and they managed to fit it into one minute.

Agreed. I don't care what anybody says, this is a great ad.

The production values are good, but two downsides I see are that it starts off with all the negatives, so it isn't making a fully positive argument for Trump—it's basically another anti-Hillary ad. The other downside is that it's two minutes.

In comparison to the Roar ad by Hillary's campaign, it's just not as good.

 

[phatmike128]

I will never understand American's apathy to voting. If you don't have your say, you have no right to complain about the government and you are wasting rights that people have fought and died for. Young people in Australia complain about politics and having to vote (it's compulsory here), but I think as you become older you appreciate it more. This isn't aimed at anyone in this thread as the majority of the GAF community seems level headed, I'm just surprised that in general there has to be such a big push to get people to vote when there is so much at stake in any election. Fingers crossed for Tuesday, will be watching...

 

[Plinko]

Final national polls starting to trickle out and show a somewhat consistent result.

NBC/WSJ: HRC 44, DJT 40
WaPo/ABC: HRC 48, DJT 43
Politico/Morning Consult: HRC 45, DJT 42

Barring some big polling miss, things are looking good.

To be fair, national polls are kind of meaningless at this point.

CBS has Trump up 1 in Ohio and tied in FL.

 

[Socivol]

I will never understand American's apathy to voting. If you don't have your say, you have no right to complain about the government and you are wasting rights that people have fought and died for. Young people in Australia complain about politics and having to vote (it's compulsory here), but I think as you become older you appreciate it more. This isn't aimed at anyone in this thread as the majority of the GAF community seems level headed, I'm just surprised that in general there has to be such a big push to get people to vote when there is so much at stake in any election. Fingers crossed for Tuesday, will be watching...

Personally I am going to vote but the two major presidential candidates in this cycle both leave much to be desired. Neither are exceptional and both have a lot of baggage. At this point I honestly don't care who wins. I will be writing in a candidate because voting for the lessor of the two evils still means you're voting for someone evil. I think for this specific cycle that is why there has been so much apathy, they are both dirty candidates that the majority of people don't like.

 

[sflufan]

To be fair, national polls are kind of meaningless at this point.

CBS has Trump up 1 in Ohio and tied in FL.

The Clinton camp should be pleasantly surprised if things are truly that close in Ohio.

 

[sflufan]

Personally I am going to vote but the two major presidential candidates in this cycle both leave much to be desired. Neither are exceptional and both have a lot of baggage. At this point I honestly don't care who wins. I will be writing in a candidate because voting for the lessor of the two evils still means you're voting for someone evil. I think for this specific cycle that is why there has been so much apathy, they are both dirty candidates that the majority of people don't like.

This is the sort of nauseating moralizing nonsense that makes me roll my eyes.

 

[0ptimusPayne]

This is the sort of nauseating moralizing nonsense that makes me roll my eyes.

.

 

[Socivol]

This is the sort of nauseating moralizing nonsense that makes me roll my eyes.

They both have extremely high unfavorable ratings. Whether you agree with that or not is your opinion but the polls show they are both extremely polarizing candidates.

 

[thebloo]

I honestly don't care who wins

Shortened it a bit.

 

[Speevy]

Guys, I'm terrified that Donald Trump is going to win. Please hold me.

 

[sflufan]

They both have extremely high unfavorable ratings. Whether you agree with that or not is your opinion but the polls show they are both extremely polarizing candidates.

Yes, that is very much the case, but there are vastly more important things to consider than mere "likability" or silly "moral considerations".

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

They both have extremely high unfavorable ratings. Whether you agree with that or not is your opinion but the polls show they are both extremely polarizing candidates.

That doesn't make it any less of a stupid ass opinion.

 

[toadsworth]

I'm so sick of people calling Hillary 'the most corrupt candidate in history'. Get that hyperbole out of here. Would love to see what would happen if previous candidates entire email chain got dumped.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Guys, I'm terrified that Donald Trump is going to win. Please hold me.

he is.

 

[JP_]

They both have extremely high unfavorable ratings. Whether you agree with that or not is your opinion but the polls show they are both extremely polarizing candidates.

Well like it or not, one of them will be president, so you might as well help pick the better one. Who you vote for isn't public record, nobody will know who you voted for, so it doesn't make any sense to treat it like some form of self expression that you use to define your personal beliefs -- voting is just the system we use to pick the next president.

 

[Speevy]

he is.

 

[Socivol]

That doesn't make it any less of a stupid ass opinion.

What is stupid exactly? Not voting for candidates that don't represent your interests or that you don't trust to do what they say because they have both proven time and time again they are both liars?

 

[greendomo's ghost]

Guys, remember when "binder full of women" was the most offensive thing a candidate would say? I miss those days...

 

[dramatis]

They both have extremely high unfavorable ratings. Whether you agree with that or not is your opinion but the polls show they are both extremely polarizing candidates.

They aren't so much 'polarizing candidates' as it is that the electorate itself is polarized.

It is also a bit shortsighted to say that a female candidate making it this far is unexceptional.

 

[Setsuna]

he is.

Not helping, not helping at all.

This election is messing up my Sleeping Schedule, and giving me Anxiety Attacks. Ive been getting up at 2AM for weeks, now im getting up at 1AM

 

[Dunkelgrau]

Greetings from Germany!

To be honest: It's extremely unrealistic, that Trump will win, right?

 

[Socivol]

Well like it or not, one of them will be president, so you might as well help pick the better one. Who you vote for isn't public record, nobody will know who you voted for, so it doesn't make any sense to treat it like some form of self expression that you use to define your personal beliefs -- voting is just the system we use to pick the next president.

Neither of them have done anything to deserve my vote. As I stated, I am going to vote for president and I am going to vote for someone that I believe would do a good job as president. Neither of my major political candidates have done anything to deserve my vote and thus will not be receiving it. This logic that you HAVE to vote for a Democrat or Republican is how we end up in situations where the vast majority of Americans dislike both major party candidates but one will still win.

 

[matrixman92]

CA ballot measure for death penalty ban is still failing according to polls. The ironic thing is the opposing ballot to SPEED UP death penalty cases is also failing.

So we as a state are OK with just wasting money cause we haven't actually executed anyone in like 10 years. Just throw money at nothing I guess.

but the more important issue in CA is the requirement of condoms in porn, how did you vote on that

 

[Kai Dracon]

What is stupid exactly? Not voting for candidates that don't represent your interests or that you don't trust to do what they say because they have both proven time and time again they are both liars?

Everything you are saying is a textbook example of projecting false equivalency onto two choices and pretending each one is exactly the same, in order to appear morally above everything.

The US doesn't have preferential voting. Until it does, splitting the vote is a useless practice. Does it suck? Maybe, but that's the harsh reality we have to deal with.

Plus, it stinks of privilege. "I can indulge in voting for random write-in that pleases me while everyone else burns, because the horrible things that happen as a result of an election won't actually affect my life."

 

[Speevy]

What is stupid exactly? Not voting for candidates that don't represent your interests or that you don't trust to do what they say because they have both proven time and time again they are both liars?

To quote Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln, "Trust? I was under the misapprehension that your chosen profession was politics."

When given the choice between someone who may have lied and someone who has lied and would treat many of its citizens like lesser beings, I'll choose the first one every time.

 

[Socivol]

They aren't so much 'polarizing candidates' as it is that the electorate itself is polarized.

It is also a bit shortsighted to say that a female candidate making it this far is unexceptional.

Who said anything about it not being exceptional? It was history making...I never made the argument that Hillary Clinton's victory wasn't groundbreaking in American history.

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

So as an international viewerwhat is the best way to watch stuff on Tues and Wed morning?

 

[Shalashaska]

Greetings from Germany!

To be honest: It's extremely unrealistic, that Trump will win, right?

Unlikely is a better term to use

 

[sflufan]

Greetings from Germany!

To be honest: It's extremely unrealistic, that Trump will win, right?

The probability of Trump winning is significantly less than Clinton.

But it is NOT "extremely unrealistic" at all.

 

[docbon]

This seems like a good thread to remind FL GAF that the solar amendment on the ballot this year is actually a scam, don't vote yes on it.

https://www.thenation.com/article/will-florida-voters-be-duped-into-killing-solar-power/

I knew something was fishy the moment I saw this. Voted no and told my family to do the same.

 

[Socivol]

Everything you are saying is a textbook example of projecting false equivalency onto two choices and pretending each one is exactly the same, in order to appear morally above everything.

So you're saying that a) one candidate represents my interests of which you know nothing about and b) one candidate hasn't lied constantly about things (something we know both have done)

I'm not acting morally above anything. I just don't appreciate being attacked because my opinion differs from yours. You can vote for whomever you would like that's your right, just as mine to to vote (or not) for whomever I like.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

What is stupid exactly? Not voting for candidates that don't represent your interests or that you don't trust to do what they say because they have both proven time and time again they are both liars?

You have decades of defrauding, racism, bigotry, sexual assault, no actual policy, surrounded by hate groups, and cannot make a coherent paragraph. Versus decades of someone who fought against segregation, fought for women's, minorities, and gay rights, has the experience of the White House, Senate, and Cabinet.

Yet "they both are equally dangerous" is a valid, non stupid opinion? Tell me how it makes sense?

 

[Dandy Crocodile]

Neither of them have done anything to deserve my vote. As I stated, I am going to vote for president and I am going to vote for someone that I believe would do a good job as president. Neither of my major political candidates have done anything to deserve my vote and thus will not be receiving it. This logic that you HAVE to vote for a Democrat or Republican is how we end up in situations where the vast majority of Americans dislike both major party candidates but one will still win.

So you're going to throw away your vote.
This is not the election to do that.
While you try to maintain some sort of moral high ground you're putting it on everybody else's shoulders to do your perceived dirty work for you. One candidate is obviously worse and would have a decidedly negative effect on the country.
This election isn't just about president. There are potentially two Supreme Court seats to fill.

 

[BigWeather]

What is stupid exactly? Not voting for candidates that don't represent your interests or that you don't trust to do what they say because they have both proven time and time again they are both liars?

Then vote for the platform of the party behind the candidate. We aren't voting just for the next four years but rather the next forty. Looking at the platforms I know which one I want for me, my children, and (hopefully some day) my grandchildren.

 

[Socivol]

Everything you are saying is a textbook example of projecting false equivalency onto two choices and pretending each one is exactly the same, in order to appear morally above everything.

The US doesn't have preferential voting. Until it does, splitting the vote is a useless practice. Does it suck? Maybe, but that's the harsh reality we have to deal with.

Plus, it stinks of privilege. "I can indulge in voting for random write-in that pleases me while everyone else burns, because the horrible things that happen as a result of an election won't actually affect my life."

You added after I responded. Whomever winds the presidency will have an effect on everyone's life so to act as if It won't is illogical. It is my privilege as an American to vote for the person that I deem most fit for the position and that is what I will be doing.

 

[RDreamer]

You added after I responded. Whomever winds the presidency will have an effect on everyone's life so to act as if It won't is illogical. It is my privilege as an American to vote for the person that I deem most fit for the position and that is what I will be doing.

Forget the fact that you clearly don't understand the reality of first past the post voting and that "the vast majority of Americans dislike both major party candidates" isn't even remotely a true statement, I really want to hear how anyone else on the ballot is "more fit for the position" than Hillary.

 

[fester]

Neither of my major political candidates have done anything to deserve my vote and thus will not be receiving it.

Then I'm forced to conclude you simply haven't been paying attention, either by choice or by ignorance.

 

[Socivol]

So you're going to throw away your vote.
This is not the election to do that.
While you try to maintain some sort of moral high ground you're putting it on everybody else's shoulders to do your perceived dirty work for you. One candidate is obviously worse and would have a decidedly negative effect on the country.
This election isn't just about president. There are potentially two Supreme Court seats to fill.

Neither campaign has done anything to deserve my vote. Neither campaign will get it. If Donald Trump wins, which it seems people in this topic are against, then he deserves to win because he got the votes to do so. Democracy isn't just a thing when it works in your favor.

 

[Socivol]

Then I'm forced to conclude you simply haven't been paying attention, either by choice or by ignorance.

That is well within your right.

 

[sflufan]

I'm not acting morally above anything.

Once you stated that you would not vote for the lesser of two evils because you should still be voting for evil, you framed your decision in a moral context rather than a pragmatic one.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

You added after I responded. Whomever winds the presidency will have an effect on everyone's life so to act as if It won't is illogical. It is my privilege as an American to vote for the person that I deem most fit for the position and that is what I will be doing.

Even ignoring their pasts, considering everything their campaigns have done since announcing their candidacy...Again how is it not a stupid ass opinion to arrive at the "both sides" argument.

 

[Socivol]

Forget the fact that you clearly don't understand the reality of first past the post voting and that "the vast majority of Americans dislike both major party candidates" isn't even remotely a true statement, I really want to hear how anyone else on the ballot is "more fit for the position" than Hillary.

I'm writing someone in. To that point I think the 3rd party candidates are even worse than the major party candidates.

 

[JP_]

Neither of them have done anything to deserve my vote. As I stated, I am going to vote for president and I am going to vote for someone that I believe would do a good job as president. Neither of my major political candidates have done anything to deserve my vote and thus will not be receiving it. This logic that you HAVE to vote for a Democrat or Republican is how we end up in situations where the vast majority of Americans dislike both major party candidates but one will still win.

No, that's just the game theory of our first pass the post voting system. Our system is designed for two parties, which is why a third party has never won.

One of them will be president anyway -- you don't have to like it, but you should probably accept that reality unless you want to set yourself up for disappointment. With that in mind, whether they "deserve" your vote is probably not the best way to think about it. Voting third party or not voting is not going to prevent one of them from being your president (and affecting the lives of millions of people across the world in real ways), so the only way your vote matters is when you help nudge it in one direction or the other -- otherwise, you're just letting other people decide for you.

 

[Socivol]

Once you stated that you would not vote for the lesser of two evils because you should still be voting for evil, you framed your decision in a moral context rather than a pragmatic one.

No it's not moral to me. I said that because people continue to tell me that I should vote for the lessor of two evils and to me that logic is dumb because it implies you're still voting for evil.

 

[RDreamer]

I'm writing someone in. To that point I think the 3rd party candidates are even worse than the major party candidates.

Well, I guess at least you have some logic. I still think you completely missed the reality of what a vote is and what it stands for, though.

No it's not moral to me. I said that because people continue to tell me that I should vote for the lessor of two evils and to me that logic is dumb because it implies you're still voting for evil.

It mostly implies you understand how reality works. One of those two are getting the job. Full stop. You have a choice between them. This is like almost any other adult choice. You're almost never going to be presented with perfect options all around. You need to choose the lesser of the two evils about 99% of the time as an adult. Deal with it, I guess.

 

[Miletius]

CA ballot measure for death penalty ban is still failing according to polls. The ironic thing is the opposing ballot to SPEED UP death penalty cases is also failing.

So we as a state are OK with just wasting money cause we haven't actually executed anyone in like 10 years. Just throw money at nothing I guess.

To be honest, I blame the ballot initiative system for this to a degree. Like how in the hell do we need 2 plastic bag initiatives? There are too many ballot measures for the average voter to research. Better to vote no for both than to make an uninformed yes choice for some voters.

I supported 62, but I'd rather see both fail than 66 pass. So, in a way, this is the second best result for anti-death penalty opponents.