POLL: Who Are You Voting For In The 2016 Presidential Election?

[luke gadget]

Think of Clinton wanting to impose a no fly zone in Syria. The Russians have said they will shoot our aircraft down if the US decides to attack Syrian or Russian ground forces. The Russians have missiles in Syria that can shoot down any of our aircraft, or sink our carriers. Once the shooting starts, it will quickly go nuclear. If we push Russia into a corner, they will fight. Just as if Russia pushed the US into a corner, the US would fight. This is the single most important issue in the campaign. Jill Stein has stated Hillary is the danger here, not Trump. Liberals and progressives, please wake up to what is going on here.
I would also add, Hillary's desire for later term abortion, seems widely out of place for most pro-life or pro-choice people. All doctors I know, including my son, are strongly opposed to late term abortion.

You are not going to formulate effective international policy on a dietary website. So, yes, it's a tough situation. And Clinton is the best candidate to deal with it effectively.

And she does not "want" late-term abortion - NOBODY wants abortion. That's a right-wing fake argument. She wants the mother to be the one to make the difficult CHOICE.

It's kind of ironic how being "independent" and avoiding "government intrusion" are supposed pillars of libertarian and conservative thought. But when it's a woman involved, we MUST HAVE THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENE.

It's also a fake issue. The Right thinks it can can weaken Roe v Wade via government intrusion, picking a particularly awful but very rare example. But Hillary is right - the ONLY person who can truly decide in that horrible situation is the mother, and that's the right she's defending. I applaud her for this.

 

[tankasnowgod]

If you want to know what's really going on follow the money, and virtually nothing is being spent fighting Trump, he's kaput, done, dead on the water.

Ah, follow the money. It's true, the candidate that has the most money usually wins the election. Usually. Malcom Gladwell wrote an article about this. Basically, most politicians have to raise money, and that fund raising is usually a surrogate for their popularity. At the end of the day, every election is basically a huge popularity contest, or a dysfunctional beauty pageant. However, in the case of Steve Forbes, this didn't hold true, as he made most of his money in business, and didn't need to raise any money. So for him, money wasn't a marker of his popularity. And he just wasn't that popular.

Trump, however, is certainly a different beast. Yeah, he didn't really fund raise too much, but he is POPULAR. He's had some degree of fame since the early 80's. He's an author. A Casino Magnate. A business man. A reality TV star. A WWE Hall of Famer. He CAN'T be ignored. Is he polarizing? Sure. But he absolutely crushed his opponents in the Republican primary, getting the most votes for a candidate ever in the history of the party.

And how has he made himself popular in this campaign? With personal appearances, rallies, and talking about issues that politicians, republican or democrat, haven't even dared to discuss in the past 20 years or so.

I don't just think that Trump is going to win, I think its going to massive and decisive, both in the popular and electoral vote. I think he might even take California.

And before you respond with "Why don't you bet on it if you're so sure, there's great odds!" I actually am looking into it. However, I'm still wary of these online, overseas casinos, I'm not gonna get to Vegas before the election, and I have no interest in seeking out a bookie. But am I ever soaking up info on Bitcoin!

 

[SarahBeara]

Ah, follow the money. It's true, the candidate that has the most money usually wins the election. Usually. Malcom Gladwell wrote an article about this. Basically, most politicians have to raise money, and that fund raising is usually a surrogate for their popularity. At the end of the day, every election is basically a huge popularity contest, or a dysfunctional beauty pageant. However, in the case of Steve Forbes, this didn't hold true, as he made most of his money in business, and didn't need to raise any money. So for him, money wasn't a marker of his popularity. And he just wasn't that popular.

Trump, however, is certainly a different beast. Yeah, he didn't really fund raise too much, but he is POPULAR. He's had some degree of fame since the early 80's. He's an author. A Casino Magnate. A business man. A reality TV star. A WWE Hall of Famer. He CAN'T be ignored. Is he polarizing? Sure. But he absolutely crushed his opponents in the Republican primary, getting the most votes for a candidate ever in the history of the party.

And how has he made himself popular in this campaign? With personal appearances, rallies, and talking about issues that politicians, republican or democrat, haven't even dared to discuss in the past 20 years or so.

I don't just think that Trump is going to win, I think its going to massive and decisive, both in the popular and electoral vote. I think he might even take California.

And before you respond with "Why don't you bet on it if you're so sure, there's great odds!" I actually am looking into it. However, I'm still wary of these online, overseas casinos, I'm not gonna get to Vegas before the election, and I have no interest in seeking out a bookie. But am I ever soaking up info on Bitcoin!

Trump was an utter genius when it came to getting free air time. I mean here were his opponents spending millions on ads that most people skip on their tivo's and Trump was getting ACRES of free prime time headline news. Every. Single.Day. For months!! I mean that is a truly brilliant strategy.

If he could have ONLY held it together and pivoted to be more presidential after the primaries, took nice, easy to digest stances for the moderates, he'd be home-free. I mean he's against Hillary, possibly the least charismatic candidate since Dole. But he let his big fat ego get in the way and basically threw the election away. Though don't know if anyone could have survived the grab-them-by-the-youknowwhat debacle.

The Dems were rooting for Trump to win the primary, they had that tape in their back pockets since at least Feb this year. Trump was a big fat gift to them. I think they would have had a MUCH tougher fight on their hands if Rubio or Cruz won the nom. But Trump turned out to be easier to play than a fiddle.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Trump was an utter genius when it came to getting free air time. I mean here were his opponents spending millions on ads that most people skip on their tivo's and Trump was getting ACRES of free prime time headline news. Every. Single.Day. For months!! I mean that is a truly brilliant strategy.

If he could have ONLY held it together and pivoted to be more presidential after the primaries, took nice, easy to digest stances for the moderates, he'd be home-free. I mean he's against Hillary, possibly the least charismatic candidate since Dole. But he let his big fat ego get in the way and basically threw the election away. Though don't know if anyone could have survived the grab-them-by-the-youknowwhat debacle.

The Dems were rooting for Trump to win the primary, they had that tape in their back pockets since at least Feb this year. Trump was a big fat gift to them. I think they would have had a MUCH tougher fight on their hands if Rubio or Cruz won the nom. But Trump turned out to be easier to play than a fiddle.

I'd say we fully agree on your first point, but clearly disagree from there. I think the strategy is going to work in the general election too, you clearly think it will backfire. No real point in arguing, we'll both find out if it worked in a few weeks.

As for "The Tape," yeah, I don't think it looked great for Trump, but I don't think people really see it as a big deal. Everyone knows that guys talk like that around other guys, and women talk like that too. In a time where you have shows like The Americans, Girls, Masters of Sex, American Horror Story, The Eric Andre Show, The Howard Stern Show, and Broad City, is anyone truly offended by nasty language? (By the way, I mentioned the last two as Trump has appeared a few times on the Stern Show, and Clinton made a cameo on Broad City.)

 

[SarahBeara]

I'd say we fully agree on your first point, but clearly disagree from there. I think the strategy is going to work in the general election too, you clearly think it will backfire. No real point in arguing, we'll both find out if it worked in a few weeks.

As for "The Tape," yeah, I don't think it looked great for Trump, but I don't think people really see it as a big deal. Everyone knows that guys talk like that around other guys, and women talk like that too. In a time where you have shows like The Americans, Girls, Masters of Sex, American Horror Story, The Eric Andre Show, The Howard Stern Show, and Broad City, is anyone truly offended by nasty language? (By the way, I mentioned the last two as Trump has appeared a few times on the Stern Show, and Clinton made a cameo on Broad City.)

See you're coming at it from the perspective of his base, for whom as he said himself could watch him shoot someone in time square and they would still vote for him.

But that's a small proportion of the population and is not and has never been enough to get him elected.

He really really needed a strong moderate turnout to win. And moderates hate volitility, their lives aren't bad enough to risk upsetting the applecart and taking a risk with the economy.

As of now Hillary's policies look pretty much like Obama 2.1. And despite what you may personally feel, Obama's approval ratings are positive.

You need to understand how most people are loss averse, and most will go for a candidate that delivers an ok-ish status quo, than one who could do better but also could do worse.

Most people won't want to risk it.

 

[dbh25]

Quote from your original post- "is straight out of the Brown Shirt playbook"

I've seen those charges quite often. They are bullcrap. They are a pathetic attempt to twist certain comments - not actions - into a full-blown conspiracy, and it only - barely - "works" if you have already decided it has to be true.
My reference was relevant and accurate, not hyperbole. And I wasn't the one who said "Nazi".

Sturmabteilung - Wikipedia
"It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. The SA have been known in contemporary times as "Brownshirts"

Brown Shirts did operate for the Nazis. Your words. Your mentioned that you live in Europe, can you at least get facts about European history/politics correct?
Did you actually watch the video?

 

[luke gadget]

Ah, follow the money. It's true, the candidate that has the most money usually wins the election. Usually. Malcom Gladwell wrote an article about this. Basically, most politicians have to raise money, and that fund raising is usually a surrogate for their popularity. At the end of the day, every election is basically a huge popularity contest, or a dysfunctional beauty pageant. However, in the case of Steve Forbes, this didn't hold true, as he made most of his money in business, and didn't need to raise any money. So for him, money wasn't a marker of his popularity. And he just wasn't that popular.

Trump, however, is certainly a different beast. Yeah, he didn't really fund raise too much, but he is POPULAR. He's had some degree of fame since the early 80's. He's an author. A Casino Magnate. A business man. A reality TV star. A WWE Hall of Famer. He CAN'T be ignored. Is he polarizing? Sure. But he absolutely crushed his opponents in the Republican primary, getting the most votes for a candidate ever in the history of the party.

And how has he made himself popular in this campaign? With personal appearances, rallies, and talking about issues that politicians, republican or democrat, haven't even dared to discuss in the past 20 years or so.

I don't just think that Trump is going to win, I think its going to massive and decisive, both in the popular and electoral vote. I think he might even take California.

And before you respond with "Why don't you bet on it if you're so sure, there's great odds!" I actually am looking into it. However, I'm still wary of these online, overseas casinos, I'm not gonna get to Vegas before the election, and I have no interest in seeking out a bookie. But am I ever soaking up info on Bitcoin!

I'm sincerely curious, since you strongly make your case - what happens if Trump loses, and by a landslide? Will you rethink the assumptions you've made, and your own decision process, or rethink where you get your information?

It's an honest question, that seems to not be asked. Like all those Bernie supporters who said ONLY Bernie can beat Trump - how will they resolve that with Hillary winning?

I think most people whitewash it away. This is not a dis or accusation - I did it myself after I was sure Kerry would beat Bush. What I did was go 'oops' and basically sweep it under the carpet.

Lately I've gotten a lot more brutally honest with myself, and try to challenge my assumptions and biases as I can discover them. Data actually matters, but it takes a leap of faith to fully trust it.

I think a lot of the Right had a great opportunity to reevaluate after Obama beat Romney - their plan to beat math by 'unskewing' failed miserably - yet Trump's people are doing the same thing with uncontrolled online polls.

NOT saying Hillary over Trump in this comment, but I'm curious how a Trump loss will change how you think.

I'm in the same boat. I trust the 'good' pollsters out there like FiveThirtyEight, and use data to challenge my emotional preferences. But if Hillary loses? I'll need to do some serious rethinking on all of that.

 

[DaveFoster]

Just wondering what's wrong with busing people who need a ride to vote.

Each person who votes is responsible for their vote...Vote fraud could be proved and is a felony. The vote fraud proved by Greg Palast shows how the "provisional vote status" is more plausible. The video seems to be theoretical not actual.

Greg Palast on MSNBC with Joy Reid GOP Effort to purge millions from voter rolls - Greg Palast

How Bernie Won California: The official un-count - Greg Palast

Rolling Stone exposé: The GOP’s secret scheme begins purge of a million minority voters from voter rolls - Greg Palast

http://www.gregpalast.com/greg-pala...eaters-starting-sept-23-in-nyc-sept-30-in-la/

I agree; I don't see a problem bussing people. People in need of a bus will largely vote for one particular side, but I don't find the need to mention which.

 

[luke gadget]

I agree; I don't see a problem bussing people. People in need of a bus will largely vote for one particular side, but I don't find the need to mention which.

Systemic voter fraud does not exist for especially national elections. Maybe for city council say, but that's not here.

Of course a bunch of honest voters needing a lift might get intimidated by a Trump "poll watcher" - so yes I can see what side is engaging in fraud, very clearly.

But the idea that immigrants and dead people are voting by the tens of thousands? It's ridiculous and absurd. First, the scale required would take massive organisation and money, and have to be deployed in the right precincts to make the key difference. SO much easier and cheaper just to run a better campaign.

Then, once all those imaginary people get to the polls, they can only vote IF they are registered and their name is on a list. And if they DO somehow manage to match a registered name who isn't going to be voting, that would require extensive collision with election officials.

In states that are vewy, vewy concerned that the 'wrong people' (aka black) will vote, extensive research has found so few actual cases that the chance of swaying the outcome in just one county is nonexistent. Extrapolate to the state and it just isn't a concern.

 

[DaveFoster]

Systemic voter fraud does not exist for especially national elections. Maybe for city council say, but that's not here.

Of course a bunch of honest voters needing a lift might get intimidated by a Trump "poll watcher" - so yes I can see what side is engaging in fraud, very clearly.

But the idea that immigrants and dead people are voting by the tens of thousands? It's ridiculous and absurd. First, the scale required would take massive organisation and money, and have to be deployed in the right precincts to make the key difference. SO much easier and cheaper just to run a better campaign.

Then, once all those imaginary people get to the polls, they can only vote IF they are registered and their name is on a list. And if they DO somehow manage to match a registered name who isn't going to be voting, that would require extensive collision with election officials.

In states that are vewy, vewy concerned that the 'wrong people' (aka black) will vote, extensive research has found so few actual cases that the chance of swaying the outcome in just one county is nonexistent. Extrapolate to the state and it just isn't a concern.

I understand your perspective; here's my rebuttal.

Trump will win this election, statistically speaking. The difference between Trump's election, which will result in eight (or four) years of gradual dismantling of the bureaucratic state, must be a greater potential loss to the elites in American society than the cost of a two-month voter fraud campaign. If it is not, then the voter fraud will not occur.

If the potential loss for voter fraud pales in comparison to the potential gain through political privilege granted through Hilary's election to the owner's of these subsidized, large corporations, then voter fraud will occur.

There's no morality here; it's all logistics. If the benefit of Hilary outweighs the cost of persuasion, then voter fraud will occur, regardless of the cost, including legal ramifications. Corporations are separate legal entities, mind. Owners don't go to jail.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I'm sincerely curious, since you strongly make your case - what happens if Trump loses, and by a landslide? Will you rethink the assumptions you've made, and your own decision process, or rethink where you get your information?

It's an honest question, that seems to not be asked. Like all those Bernie supporters who said ONLY Bernie can beat Trump - how will they resolve that with Hillary winning?

Well, I don't think there would be any decision process to be rethought, as this isn't something that is under my control. It's my prediction, and if it turns out to be wrong, I'll admit it. If I bet anything on the outcome, I'll be out that hundred dollars or bitcoin or whatever.

Beyond that, I really can't say how a possible future scenario would change my thinking when it may or may not come to pass.

 

[yerrag]

From lifezette.com :

WikiLeaks: The Six Most Damaging Clinton Revelations So Far
lifezette.com » by Brendan Kirby
Since WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange began publishing emails hacked from Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account, Americans have been deluged with damaging and embarrassing revelations about the former secretary of state.

Even if the broadcast networks have barely noticed.

“Need you to flag when people are friends of WJC. Most I can probably ID but not all.”

Some of the emails confirm what Clinton’s critics suspected all along. Others depict a campaign staff driven to search for the political angle at every conceivable turn. And still others reveal just how negatively the Clintonistas describe various groups of Americans when they think the rest of the world is not listening.

So quickly have the revelations come — WikiLeaks have been releasing thousands of emails almost daily — that it can be difficult to keep up. So here is a (by no means exhaustive) list of the most important things we’ve learned since the first Podesta email drop on Oct. 7...
WikiLeaks: The Six Most Damaging Clinton Revelations So Far

 

[yerrag]

Clinton is definitely not honest- by a huge margin. In the cloak and dagger way. In the most vile way. No rules, no hangups. Will do anything as long as they get away with it- and win. They may not be for guns on the surface, but they foment violence, and have proxies (more like mercenaries) to do it for them. Lives matter very little to them as long as they can have their celebratory champagne. They will never seek out the moral high ground, but they will use it to craft their narrative of moral superiority on a trusting public being put out for slaughter.

The same media used to exposed Nixon has morphed into a mouthpiece for the highest bidder, principles be damned.

Hillary brings out the worst of people. There is no trust in the system already. Her election reinforces that belief. Trump's election is a repudiation of the current system.

While Trump is no saint, he brings a certain purity in this election. The attraction is that he isn't scripted. He is seen as saying what he means. And meaning what he says. That is a refreshing change in the cynicism and disdain that permeates the voters' thoughts. There is hope that he will do what he says. Perhaps, a president will sprout a spine after all!

It is all broken. We are all just muddling through, seeking the best way to survive, skirting through potholes and avoiding the minefields. We need to think about living and enjoying, not surviving. Enjoying our journey, and not focusing on minimizing risks, but maximizing our life.

 

[belcanto]

I understand your perspective; here's my rebuttal.

Trump will win this election, statistically speaking. The difference between Trump's election, which will result in eight (or four) years of gradual dismantling of the bureaucratic state, must be a greater potential loss to the elites in American society than the cost of a two-month voter fraud campaign. If it is not, then the voter fraud will not occur.

If the potential loss for voter fraud pales in comparison to the potential gain through political privilege granted through Hilary's election to the owner's of these subsidized, large corporations, then voter fraud will occur.

There's no morality here; it's all logistics. If the benefit of Hilary outweighs the cost of persuasion, then voter fraud will occur, regardless of the cost, including legal ramifications. Corporations are separate legal entities, mind. Owners don't go to jail.

Oh my, you don't believe in voter fraud? My mother-in-law recently got a call from a cousin's daughter asking for photos of her family member for CBS news. It seems Cousin Marguerite voted in the last two elections and is about to vote in this upcoming election. However, Marguerite's been dead for 15 years! They're going to run this feature locally here in Cali next week. And these aren't just "local elections," Luke, this is a national election. There are myriad stories of voter fraud if you just bother to type "voter fraud" into any search engine, but I guess you just don't want to believe it.

 

[belcanto]

Systemic voter fraud does not exist for especially national elections. Maybe for city council say, but that's not here.

Of course a bunch of honest voters needing a lift might get intimidated by a Trump "poll watcher" - so yes I can see what side is engaging in fraud, very clearly.

But the idea that immigrants and dead people are voting by the tens of thousands? It's ridiculous and absurd. First, the scale required would take massive organisation and money, and have to be deployed in the right precincts to make the key difference. SO much easier and cheaper just to run a better campaign.

Then, once all those imaginary people get to the polls, they can only vote IF they are registered and their name is on a list. And if they DO somehow manage to match a registered name who isn't going to be voting, that would require extensive collision with election officials.

In states that are vewy, vewy concerned that the 'wrong people' (aka black) will vote, extensive research has found so few actual cases that the chance of swaying the outcome in just one county is nonexistent. Extrapolate to the state and it just isn't a concern.

Sorry Dave Foster - I meant to reply to Luke Gadget here!

 

[DaveFoster]

Sorry Dave Foster - I meant to reply to Luke Gadget here!

I was wondering. No problem.

 

[luke gadget]

Well, I don't think there would be any decision process to be rethought, as this isn't something that is under my control. It's my prediction, and if it turns out to be wrong, I'll admit it. If I bet anything on the outcome, I'll be out that hundred dollars or bitcoin or whatever.

Beyond that, I really can't say how a possible future scenario would change my thinking when it may or may not come to pass.

I understand your perspective; here's my rebuttal.

Trump will win this election, statistically speaking. The difference between Trump's election, which will result in eight (or four) years of gradual dismantling of the bureaucratic state, must be a greater potential loss to the elites in American society than the cost of a two-month voter fraud campaign. If it is not, then the voter fraud will not occur.

If the potential loss for voter fraud pales in comparison to the potential gain through political privilege granted through Hilary's election to the owner's of these subsidized, large corporations, then voter fraud will occur.

There's no morality here; it's all logistics. If the benefit of Hilary outweighs the cost of persuasion, then voter fraud will occur, regardless of the cost, including legal ramifications. Corporations are separate legal entities, mind. Owners don't go to jail.

Meh - paranoid ramblings. Voter fraud at that level is nonexistent, and whatever magical powers you are assigning to Clinton, she simply doesn't have that kind of influence. Nor is there any evidence at all she's inclined that

From lifezette.com :

WikiLeaks: The Six Most Damaging Clinton Revelations So Far
lifezette.com » by Brendan Kirby
Since WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange began publishing emails hacked from Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account, Americans have been deluged with damaging and embarrassing revelations about the former secretary of state.

Even if the broadcast networks have barely noticed.

“Need you to flag when people are friends of WJC. Most I can probably ID but not all.”

Some of the emails confirm what Clinton’s critics suspected all along. Others depict a campaign staff driven to search for the political angle at every conceivable turn. And still others reveal just how negatively the Clintonistas describe various groups of Americans when they think the rest of the world is not listening.

So quickly have the revelations come — WikiLeaks have been releasing thousands of emails almost daily — that it can be difficult to keep up. So here is a (by no means exhaustive) list of the most important things we’ve learned since the first Podesta email drop on Oct. 7...
WikiLeaks: The Six Most Damaging Clinton Revelations So Far

More BS. The Wikileaks are basically a giant nothingburger, with a few tea leaves the more paranoid can manufacture a conspiracy with.

That's not even getting into the fact that several were proven to be manipulated (and the manipulations quoted by Trump before the media had it - how was it POSSIBLE that Trump received advance heads up on a Russian hack??? Speaking of fraud...), which renders the whole batch suspect.

 

[DaveFoster]

Meh - paranoid ramblings. Voter fraud at that level is nonexistent, and whatever magical powers you are assigning to Clinton, she simply doesn't have that kind of influence. Nor is there any evidence at all she's inclined that.

How very sportsman of you to say. I guess pardons from government bureaus upon certain corporate entities, and the creation of large economic subsidies may be dismissed as "mere coincidence" with a hint "conspiracy and paranoia" in your view.

 

[luke gadget]

Oh my, you don't believe in voter fraud? My mother-in-law recently got a call from a cousin's daughter asking for photos of her family member for CBS news. It seems Cousin Marguerite voted in the last two elections and is about to vote in this upcoming election. However, Marguerite's been dead for 15 years! They're going to run this feature locally here in Cali next week. And these aren't just "local elections," Luke, this is a national election. There are myriad stories of voter fraud if you just bother to type "voter fraud" into any search engine, but I guess you just don't want to believe it.

Right. You know one person who knows someone who might maybe be related, so it MUST be true!! Conspiracy!!

You are of course assuming she's not only voting, but is voting Democrat and for Hillary? Or do you know it for a fact?

Say it's exactly as you think. Consider the amount of hard work it would take to get just that ONE vote (seeing as CBS is interested, it's not an everyday occurrence). Now amplify that labor (and cost and traceable felony and people who have to show up to commit the fraud) times the MILLIONS required so have any impact at all.

In California, neither candidate even runs much if any ads (I can tell you I appreciate this very much); they already know it's solid Blue and a waste to commit resources. The ONLY national candidate to gain from voter fraud here, would be Trump.

I'm not saying it never happens, but it's very rare and only impacts local elections not national.

As I keep saying, it's just not credible, no matter how eager you are to explain away your candidate's massive failure.

Btw it IS possible there's some local election being gamed. Or - as it usually turns out - someone with a similar name shows up and the poll worker has them sign the wrong box.

 

[yerrag]

Double standards are not exclusive to politicians. Followers, even on Peatarian lifestyles, are not immune. Four years of going cold turkey won't be enough.