Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[russ_watters]

[note: I may owe you a response from a previous post and I'll try to get back to it, but it has been a busy couple of days...]

So after last night's comments by Trump regarding accepting the result of the election. You are seriously not concerned that you have a presidential candidate indicating and entertaining the possibility that the election is being unfair and that he will not accept the outcome? The peaceful transfer of power and acceptance of a democratic vote is a fundamental part of a democracy (as exercised by Cameron after the Brexit vote - he did lots of things wrong regarding it but he got that one right).

Failiure to accept the result (after entertaining any reasonable investigations in the case of a closed race) directly undermines the people's trust in democracy and by extension in democracy itself.

No, as far as I can see, the situation hasn't changed: in order to be fearful of something, there hs to be something for me to fear. Trump hasn't provided any details of what it might mean to not accept the results and my imagination only goes so far as to speculate on the potential legal challenges he could make. CNN has some details:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/polit...ction-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html

And similar to what you are saying, it ends with:

But if he or she means that they might not accept the final results as certified by each of the states, as voted upon by the Electoral College, and as confirmed by Congress, that would be unprecedented in American history.

So, what does that mean? Just being unprecedented is not something to fear. A potato shaped like Jay Leno's chin is unprecedented too, but just being "unprecedented" doesn't give it any value.

So again: what do you think Trump could ACTUALLY DO that could be an ACTUAL PROBLEM?

Here's what I think he could actually do: On election night, there is a real possibility that he'll get up and make a midnight speech saying, "I don't accept the results - it's rigged!" and then follow-that by not calling Hillary to concede.

And then...? [*crickets*] Nothing. Him saying he doesn't accept the results is not going to change them any more than a baseball player saying he doesn't accept he was called out a home plate is going to change that. He can't do anything of substance that could create an *actual problem*. Trump's failure to make a phone call is not going to bring down the US democracy.

Again, if you disagree, please tell me what, specifically you fear he might do.

[edit] My read on the entire election is that Trump is a [particularly unfunny] joke and that's it. Pundits and people who are politically passionate are taking him more seriously than is warranted because that's what such people do, despite the fact that a Presidential candidate has no *actual* power of any kind. With one exception: Trump did win a Presidential nomination, which makes him the de facto leader of the Republican party at least for another three weeks. He has likely done *actual* damage to the Republican party, the fall-out of which remains to be seen.

For all these reasons, I do not find "I will keep you in suspense" an acceptable response to the question "will you accept the results of the election?"

Nor do I, but in a "hey, look at the [pathetic] funny clown" sort of way, not in an "OH MY GOD, DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED!" sort of way.

 

[mheslep]

... then follow-that by not calling Hillary to concede.

US has been there, done that. Gore 2000 went a step further, called refusing to concede, after previously conceding. Insert list of hyperbole here: Crazy. Dangerous. Scary. Unprecedented. History something. Couple d'etat. My personal favorite: you "must" vote for the party I designate as sane.

"What Gore said to Bush"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1015429.stm

 

[russ_watters]

US has been there, done that. Gore 2000 went a step further, called refusing to concede, after previously conceding.

I had forgotten that Gore did that. In that case, the breathless media claims of "unprecedented"[!] aren't even necessarily true without details. And more importantly, Gore's calling to concede, then calling to cancel his concession illustrates just how meaningless the concession or lack thereof actually is. Just like with speculation on Trump, if Gore had stopped after election night and never called Bush to concede (did he ever?), what would have happened? Nothing.

 

[mheslep]

I wonder if he could do as well in other states

Only on the ballot in a ~dozen states, so no. A real independent on 50 state ballots, then I think they have something to say. This guy, still in the race Oct 20, can only push votes away from Trump or Clinton. Ego trip.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

I'm glad you're all having fun arguing over the subtleties of which flawed candidate is worse than the other. The loser in this election is the American people.

 

[Orodruin]

Only on the ballot in a ~dozen states, so no. A real independent on 50 state ballots, then I think they have something to say. This guy, still in the race Oct 20, can only push votes away from Trump or Clinton. Ego trip.

Not necesarily true. If he manages to win Utah and this results in an electoral college deadlock, he technically could become president.

 

[Orodruin]

I had forgotten that Gore did that. In that case, the breathless media claims of "unprecedented"[!] aren't even necessarily true without details

The problem here being that Trump does not want to specify those details. In a close race (such as Bush-Gore), I would fully expect both candidates to examine every possible way to ensure that the election was not stolen. This is something I would expect of both Trump and Clinton.

In the case of Trump, he is being intentionally vague with what he means. I am not worried about what Trump will to do. To a large extent he acts like a 70-year-old spoiled child whi cries foul as soon as he doesn't get what he wants.

What worries me is that he is directly playing at subverting people's belief in the democratic system - and that might be particularly effective among those of his followers that are already doubting. Without faith in the democratic system, democracy dies.

 

[Bystander]

Without faith in the democratic system, democracy dies.

 

[gleem]

had forgotten that Gore did that. In that case, the breathless media claims of "unprecedented"[!] aren't even necessarily true without details. And more importantly, Gore's calling to concede, then calling to cancel his concession illustrates just how meaningless the concession or lack thereof actually is. Just like with speculation on Trump, if Gore had stopped after election night and never called Bush to concede (did he ever?), what would have happened? Nothing.

But Trump's unwillingness to concede is far different than Gore's Remember the vote in Florida started out early to indicate that Bush was winning (So Gore decided to concede - but not publicly at that point) but later became too close to call causing Gore to renege on his concession. He did concede publicly after "chad gate" . and legal sparing with Bush.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-way-trump-is-undermining-the-process-now/

 

[mheslep]

Not necesarily true. If he manages to win Utah and this results in an electoral college deadlock, he technically could become president.

Good point.

...then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose ...

 

[jim hardy]

Al Gore's behavior in 2000 set the standard for 'pathetic' . Supreme court wisely refused to overturn Florida's voting election process.
As a Florida resident then i bore considerable derision from my more liberal West Coast relatives . And Garrison Keillor's hilarious Guy Noir sketches .

Electoral College exists for good reason. "National Popular Vote" movement is a weaselly attempt to nullify it , end-running the Constitution.
It'll be interesting to watch how states with "winner takes all" rules affect electors .

old jim

 

[mheslep]

...Without faith in the democratic system, democracy dies.

Perhaps, though it's hard to take seriously any such concern if Trump's cagey debate remarks are cited as the cause, given what else has been going on that could be cited: US attorney general meeting on the tarmac with ex-president husband of candidate under FBI probe; gross collusion of press-media with DNC-Clinton when the press is given special constitutional role in this democracy; videos of known DNC operatives claiming to run a nation wide campaign to incite violence at political rallies; voter registration rolls with millions of dead people and other inelligible names that the government stubbornly refuses to expunge; President Obama who repeatedly claims that in disagreements with Congressionall action -inaction he can effectively make his own law, despite dozens of unanimous SCOTUS decisions against him.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem here being that Trump does not want to specify those details.

Thus inviting people to use their imaginations to generate details to fear. It is my perception that there are two classes of people here:
1. Those who actually believe Trump is a budding 1940s style fascist dictator.
2. Those who believe the comparison is silly (and, when stoked by the media, extremely irresponsible).

Details are being generated based on those mindsets.

In the case of Trump, he is being intentionally vague with what he means. I am not worried about what Trump will to do.

The more we continue the discussion, the vaguer and vaguer this "fear" gets to me. I originally thought you were referring to something tangable that Trump would do. An event that would actually happen like a lawsuit or an armed takeover of a polling/counting place, done or stoked intentionally by Trump. The lawsuit I still think is plausible, by the way.

What worries me is that he is directly playing at subverting people's belief in the democratic system - and that might be particularly effective among those of his followers that are already doubting. Without faith in the democratic system, democracy dies.

How?

Whatever your answer, here's another angle to consider: when the election is over, Trump doesn't concede - ever - and *nothing* happens, shouldn't that improve peoples' faith in the strength of our system?

 

[russ_watters]

But Trump's unwillingness to concede is far different than Gore's...

How so?
[edit] Though you didn't really say, the article kinda did. There's two main differences cited:
1. Gore's loss was not clear on election night.
2. Gore eventually conceded.

But:
1. It was clear enough for the media to call the election for Bush and for Gore to concede, at least for a while. Then it became unclear enough for both of them to redo. Point being: who gets to decide if the election results are clear? Apparently, Gore thought it was the media's job to award election victories (even though I remember watching that night and I could tell their awarding the election to Bush was nonsense). But as much as the media would like you to believe it, it isn't. What matters in the choice to concede or not is the candidates' belief in whether he won/lost. the media may not agree with Trump (much to their dismay about their own power), but it isn't the media's call, it is Trump's.

2. a> So they are assuming Trump never will. b>So what? If Gore hadn't, what then?

And again, just like the "unprecedented" thing, you can argue as much as you want that red is a lot different from blue, so our different opinions on favorite color are "far different", but it ultimately is not going to matter to the American Democracy which color you or I prefer.

 

[BillTre]

I agree with last posts by Vanadium50 and Bystander. Just like we were surprised by Clinton's defeat in the Michigan primary, we could be in for another surprise on November 8.

Several of the posters here seem to be holding to a poorly based hope that the poles are wrong about Trump losing.
The Romney campaign had similar views before the last election and were (surprisingly) surprised (shocked even if you think of Rove) at the results. They were in an isolated bubble of fact denial which typical of recent Republican operatives. How they think they can run a successful, without decent poling data, in a close election, I don't understand. Sounds incompetent to me.

As a public service to those not up on modern political poling and to decrease their post-election surprise/depression, here is a link to a post on from 538 which discusses yesterday's debate. About 1/2 of the article discusses the issues of poling errors, their possible sources, and how the US election differs from the Brexit vote.
Bottom line: although anything is always possible at some low probability level, there are NO precedents for the size of errors or changes in popularity that would be required for Trump to win. He might win, but he is so far behind, there are no precedents for such large changes/errors.

You might think this (538) is just some left wing group that can't be trusted, but:
1) there are 5 or 6 other groups that do meta analysis on the many polls out there which have come to largely the same conclusion
2) betting markets also are producing very similar results
3) 538 has a great record of accurate predictions. In the last two presidential elections, there state by state predictions of who would win (in order to get at the electoral votes) were correct 99 out of 100 times (50 states x 2 elections).
Better than some gut feeling I would claim.

 

[BillTre]

Whatever your answer, here's another angle to consider: when the election is over, Trump doesn't concede - ever - and *nothing* happens, shouldn't that improve peoples' faith in the strength of our system?

Sure, this could happen, especially if the election is a blow out (which it might be).
However, if it was a close election, it could matter. Remember the Republican organized riot when ballots were being recounted in Florida?
Further more it sets a precedent for the future when times might not be a blow out.

How so?

Gore challenged specific, very close results, through the courts. When the Supreme Court made its totally political decision (which it even claimed should not be used as a precedent in subsequent court decisions, indicative to me that even they thought it was stupid), Gore then conceded in a rather nice way.
Trump just wants to say rigged because his small ego can't tolerate the thought that he might have lost.

 

[OmCheeto]

[resubscribe]

I see that there's a bit of "crazy" talk going on.

Let me add a bit to that.
And hopefully, subtract some:

About 30 minutes after I posted the following:

...
Her response was interesting; "I have been watching the corruption of the Clintons unfold for years. I don't have to dissect every breath they take."
...

an article popped up in my Facebook feed, with the following quote:

“I don’t care what facts I read, Hillary is a crook and nothing will change my mind.”

Now, call me paranoid, but it looked to me like someone was watching what I said here at PF, googled it, and fed it back to Facebook, for me to see.
They are watching us...

But anyways, the article was titled "You Know These Are All Debunked Hillary Conspiracy Theories, Right?", put out by some new website, that I'd never heard about before, which of course made me even more suspicous. So I decided to check their reference:

The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories

We're all conspiracy theorists, some of us just hide it better than others.
Posted Oct 24, 2015
Rob Brotherton Ph.D [University of London]​

...contrary to some tinfoil-based stereotypes, conspiracy theorists aren't just a few kooks with bizarre ideas about shape-shifting reptiles secretly running society. They lurk among us. They are us. We all have innately suspicious minds.
...

Wait? What? My sister, and all the people I disagree with here at PF, aren't crazy?
That's just crazy talk. (And everyone knows, that Ph.ds, are reealy full of themselves, and will try and manipulate our non-Ph.d minds...)

Anyways, I delved further. (At the recommendation of the author, of course):

...In the mean time, take a look at ConspiracyPsychology.com, where you'll find posts by me and my fellow conspiracy-psychologists Mike Wood, Dan Jolley, and Christopher Thresher-Andrews.

Ah, Ha! Rob has a friend who corroborates my beliefs! Yay!

Conspiracy theories and the campaign to Leave the EU
Posted on June 21, 2016 by Daniel Jolley

...conspiracy theories, politically, are generally found in the realm of the right and not the left.
...

Which, of course, as a layman, had my mind jumping all over the place, as Rob had just said that right-wingers were neither stupid, nor crazy.
And I've always considered them as such.
Which kind of developed into a cognitive dissonance.
Which made me, for anyone who has seen Drakkith's signature, come up with simplistic metaphor:

Right wingers, are people who have never liked brussel sprouts, and never will.
Left wingers, are people open minded enough, to try poison.

[/resubscribe]

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, this could happen, especially if the election is a blow out (which it might be).
However, if it was a close election, it could matter. Remember the Republican organized riot when ballots were being recounted in Florida?

No, I don't. And whether your characterization of the event is accurate or not, my failure to even remember it should tell you all you need to know of its imoprtance.

Further more it sets a precedent for the future when times might not be a blow out.

Gore...

Gore also has brown hair and white skin while Trump has yellow hair and orange skin. To the "how so?" question I added "so what?", perhaps while you were replying. My point is that in order for the argument that there are differences between Gore and Trump to be meaningful, the differences themselves have to be meaningful. They have to go somewhere/lead to something.

 

[BillTre]

No, I don't. And whether your characterization of the event is accurate or not, my failure to even remember it should tell you all you need to know of its imoprtance.

This is a very self-centered statement. Nothing matters if you don't remember it?
wikipedia on the riot

 

[russ_watters]

This is a very self-centered statement. Nothing matters if you don't remember it?
wikipedia on the riot

Yes to both, at least in this specific case. I paid a lot of attention to that election and its aftermath. Like a war, a riot's impact can be measured by how many people remember it and this one is a nothingburger (as indicated as well by the lack of current discussion and a short, thin wiki entry).

 

[Kevin McHugh]

"Socialism needs two legs upon which to stand, both a left and a right. While seeming to be in direct opposition to one another, they both march in the same direction."

Proctor

"Left wing, right wing, same evil bird." Source unknown (too lazy to look it up).

I've watched the Republicans and the Democrats run this country into the commode for the last 40 years. They can all kiss my ...

 

[jim hardy]

Remember the Republican organized riot when ballots were being recounted in Florida?

No i don't. I lived in the Miami area then so it must not have amounted to much.
Can you link to some mainstream news coverage ? Surely Evo will allow that transgression of "current-ness" in the spirit of backing claims.
Miami network stations then were WTVJ, WSVN, WPBT, WPLG .

 

[TurtleMeister]

Several of the posters here seem to be holding to a poorly based hope that the poles are wrong about Trump losing.

You are correct. It's just a hope. I'm well aware of the odds. But don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of Trump the man. There's more to consider than the character and personality of the candidates. The way this man has run his campaign is nothing short of a tragedy for the people who had hoped "finally, there is a chance for the kind of change that America needs". But alas, it is probably not to be.

 

[BillTre]

No i don't. I lived in the Miami area then so it must not have amounted to much.
Can you link to some mainstream news coverage ? Surely Evo will allow that transgression of "current-ness" in the spirit of backing claims.
Miami network stations then were WTVJ, WSVN, WPBT, WPLG .

Please see the references in the link.

 

[jim hardy]

Please see the references in the link.

did that before asking.

 

[Vanadium 50]

About 1/2 of the article discusses the issues of poling errors, their possible sources, and how the US election differs from the Brexit vote.

I'm not convinced. The central point seems to be that the Clinton-Trump gap is larger than the Brexit error, so it doesn't matter.

The Brexit polls were outside the stated range of error. I think a reasonable conclusion is that we haven't yet learned how to accurately estimate the range of error in polling under these conditions. If we strip the politics away, suppose somebody were measuring resistances in a resistor, had a history of good luck with the technique, but with a different type of resistor discovered difference between his result and the true result was much larger than the quoted error. If he then measured a second resistor would you believe it if he told you:

1. The difference between the 2nd result and the true result can be no larger than difference between the 1st result and the true result?
2. The difference between the 2nd result and the true result must be in the same direction 1st result and the true result?

Do these statements become more valid if they support a preferred outcome?

 

[jtbell]

But Trump's unwillingness to concede is far different than Gore's Remember the vote in Florida started out early to indicate that Bush was winning (So Gore decided to concede - but not publicly at that point) but later became too close to call causing Gore to renege on his concession. He did concede publicly after "chad gate" . and legal sparing with Bush.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-way-trump-is-undermining-the-process-now/

Also, Gore didn't spend the month before the election whining about how it was sooooo rigged, and urging supporters to volunteer as poll-watchers to help ferret out the "riggers".

Trump's tactics are IMO pure political posturing, for stirring up FUD among his supporters. After the election, he can mount legal challenges at the state level, in states that he loses, but he's going to look silly if the margin isn't like Florida in 2000 and he can't present any evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[mheslep]

Also, Gore didn't spend the month before the election whining about how it was sooooo rigged

Absence of whining would typically lie with the one doing the rigging.

Gore's action threw the outcome of the US Presidential election into chaos for some months. Trump's comments are only that, comments.

 

[gleem]

Absence of whining would typically lay with the one doing the rigging.

Begs the question did Gore expect something.from FL outside a fair vote?

Gore's action threw the outcome of the US Presidential election into chaos for some months. Trump's comments are only that, comments.

Chaos is hardly a word that should be used for the 2000 challenge per se but could be used to describe the differing recounting procedures in Florida counties. .. Clearly a 500 vote margin out of 6 million certainly would have been challenged by any candidate if it would have possibly favored him/her. And 36 days is hardly months. I think Gore was very gracious and eloquently delivered in his concession speech accepting the USSC's decision the next day. Will Trump accept even a clear Clinton victory? The suspense heightens.

 

[mheslep]

I agree with Gingrich that the FBI needs to be investigating this matter.

Unlikely. The lead operative in the video, Robert Creamer, has visited the Whitehouse 337 times, from September 2009 until June 2016.

https://open.whitehouse.gov/dataset/White-House-Visitor-Records-Requests/p86s-ychb

 

[vela]

Absence of whining would typically lay lie with the one doing the rigging.

That's assuming there's some sort of rigging going on.

Gore's action threw the outcome of the US Presidential election into chaos for some months. Trump's comments are only that, comments.

Right now, they're only comments, and one would hope that Trump would have the maturity to not be a sore loser after the election. Alas, based on his track record, I wouldn't be surprised if those hopes were unfounded.

 

[BillTre]

Recounts are a part of the voting counting process. In some states they are triggered automatically if the vote is within certain parameters of closeness. In some cases, candidates can get a recount started if it is outside the range for automatic triggering. In some of those cases those requesting the recount bear the cost of it.
Once the recounts are done and the vote is "certified" (or whatever it might be called), then its normally the time for the concession. This is what Gore did.

I certainly would not have a problem with Trump contesting a close election and wanting a recount, but that's not what he is implying.
He has been claiming that there will be thousands (or maybe millions) of fraudulent ballots cast from the inner cities (code for blacks etc.).
This is just another deception for his easily (mis-)lead followers. A recent study of the number of false ballots cast between 2000 and 2016 found 31 cases of voter fraud out of more than a billion votes cast.
This kind of thing is just another Republican excuse to go ahead with their own more vile and much more widespread form of voter fraud, which working as hard as they can to dis-enfranchise any group of people (blacks, other minorities, etc.) whom they think will vote against them.

 

[BillTre]

No i don't. I lived in the Miami area then so it must not have amounted to much.
Can you link to some mainstream news coverage ? Surely Evo will allow that transgression of "current-ness" in the spirit of backing claims.
Miami network stations then were WTVJ, WSVN, WPBT, WPLG .

did that before asking.

This sure looks like mainstream news coverage to me, lots of top newspapers from both sides of the political spectrum, plus magazines, TV and some on-line sources.
What are your criteria for not calling this mainstream? Not Republican enough?

These are the references you say are not mainstream enough?

1. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,89450,00.html Time Magazine; November 26, 2000
2. Maddow, Rachel (August 4, 2009). "Reviewing the history of fake conservative protests". MSNBC TV.
3. Kamen, Al: Miami 'Riot' Squad: Where Are They Now?, Washington Post, January 24, 2005
4. Gigot, Paul A.[dead link] Miami Heat: A burgher rebellion in Dade County The Wall Street Journal: Opinion, November 24, 2000
5. Pullizi , Henry J: White House Brushes Off Health-Care Protests, The Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2009
6. Filkins, Dexter and Dana Canedy. Protest Influenced Miami-Dade's Decision to Stop RecountThe New York Times, November 24, 2008
7. Right-Wingers Praise Antics of Bush Thugs Joe Conason; The New York Observer; December 3, 2000
8. Parry, Robert, Bush's Conspiracy to Riot, Consortiumnews.com, August 5, 2002
9. Lantigua, John: Miami's rent-a-riot, Salon.com, Politics, November 28, 2000
10. Staba, David Race Profile: The 20th District in New York, The New York Times, August 22, 2006
11. Noah, Timothy. Sweeney and the Siege of Miami Slate. November 28, 2000.
12. CLARY, MIKE (2000-12-02). "Miami Mayor Denies Gore Urged Him to Publicly Support Recount". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2016-03-15.
13. Reinhard, Beth:http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=28, Miami Herald, May 17, 2008
    Sarlin, Benjamin (Nov 20, 2008). "A GOP Dirty Trickster Has Second Thoughts". The Daily Beast.

Seems disingenuous.
If you want to watch some old TV show about it, go find it yourself. Statements based on someone's own unawareness of well documented things happening where they lived, puts the responsibility of further citing more on those deniers than anyone else.

 

[jim hardy]

This sure looks like mainstream news coverage to me, lots of top newspapers from both sides of the political spectrum, plus magazines, TV and some on-line sources.
What are your criteria for not calling this mainstream? Not Republican enough?

based on credible observations preferably first hand.
only one reporter cited was within a thousand miles of Miami.
And he wrote:

It was the Dade vote counters, however, who provoked the Republican machine. Seemingly oblivious to GOP anger over the Florida Supreme Court ruling to allow manual recounts, the canvassing board tried an end run around the court's Sunday deadline by deciding to recount only some 11,000 of Dade's 654,000 ballots. Those disputed ballots, most of which did not register presidential votes in the machines, were thought to favor Gore.
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,89450,00.html

That wikipedia article and most of its sources were written years afterward.

 

[Evo]

Alright we need a time out for a review and for everyone to cool off.