Debate Thread

[Phil Elliott]

The answer is to nominate someone who isn't in "The Club" and isn't Donald Trump.

Not on the table right now. Let me repeat - you go to battle with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.

Going further, just who would that be? You gotta be a larger-than-life, bombastic, completely self-assured individual to stand up to the ****-storm the media is going to throw at you. Who is going to sign up for that who also meets your criteria for being a nice guy? Being "nice" doesn't get you any less of a media-bashing, ask Mitt Romney.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The answer is to nominate someone who isn't in "The Club" and isn't Donald Trump. But you're going to need to wait until 2020.

I'll take someone in "the Club" over Donald Trump.

 

[Horns11]

Mitt Romney could have (maybe should have?) won, and quite possibly would have if the Obama media love-fest wasn't his opponent. If Romney went up against Hillary, I think you see a vastly preferable result in 2016 for the GOP, but I do think he's probably on the "fringes" of The Club.

I think you get someone with professional success (could be business world like Trump but doesn't necessarily have to be) who isn't so far to the Tea Party right that he can't win a national election. That eliminates any Duck Dynasty family members, Ted Nugent, and Kid Rock. I think if someone like Ben Carson (but not Ben Carson) who didn't have damaging remarks about gay people and who could come up with a coherent sentence without looking like he's falling asleep would be best. Maybe a mashup of Carson and Fiorina.

 

[mchammer]

So, knowing that fivethirtyeight got 50/51 correct in 2012, and the Princeton Election Consortium got 51/51 correct in 2012, are you willing to say that the 2016 is so unpredictable that these two popular polling aggregates are going to be "more wrong" than Rasmussen, TIPP, and the LA Times?

Or, are you just cherry picking the ones that don't show HRC up by 7+?

538 is going to be as accurate as the British pollsters on brexit.

 

[mchammer]

So, knowing that fivethirtyeight got 50/51 correct in 2012, and the Princeton Election Consortium got 51/51 correct in 2012, are you willing to say that the 2016 is so unpredictable that these two popular polling aggregates are going to be "more wrong" than Rasmussen, TIPP, and the LA Times?

Or, are you just cherry picking the ones that don't show HRC up by 7+?

TIPP was the most accurate poll in 2012

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'll take someone in "the Club" over Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is that bad of a candidate. Can you imagine Texas fans trying to convince themselves that Jordan Spieth should QB the football team out of frustration with the offense? Does anyone think Spieth would end up improving a bad QB situation?

 

[Mr. Deez]

That eliminates any Duck Dynasty family members, Ted Nugent, and Kid Rock.

Doesn't that say it all? The GOP used to be the party of Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley. Now we're the party of Duck Dynasty, Kid Rock, and Ted Nugent. Who needs to read The Road to Serfdom or the Conscience of a Conservative when you can listen to the enlightening and uplifting lyrics of Wang Dang Sweet Poontang?

 

[Horns11]

TIPP was the most accurate poll in 2012

And Rasmussen was the least accurate. They have the same numbers as TIPP right now. Paradoxical, man.

So, which is it? Will Sam Wang and Nate Silver be closer to the final polling aggregates, or your three cherry picked examples? I'm even willing to wager a sig line or something else you'd like.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Donald Trump is that bad of a candidate. Can you imagine Texas fans trying to convince themselves that Jordan Spieth should QB the football team out of frustration with the offense? Does anyone think Spieth would end up improving a bad QB situation?

It's worse than that. It's more like asking Joey Chestnut to lead the offense.

 

[Musburger1]

It's worse than that. It's more like asking Joey Chestnut to lead the offense.

Conversely, electing Hillary to run the country is like hiring Dillinger to guard the bank vault.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's worse than that. It's more like asking Joey Chestnut to lead the offense.

OK...I had to look up who Joey Chestnut is. That seems like an appropriate analogy. That's what is so perplexing about the Trump supporters. There is a complete lack of acknowledgement of how poor a candidate Trump really is. The myriad of rationalizations encompass media bias, anybody but HRC, the GOP cronyism etc. Ultimately it comes down to Trump is the worst major party candidate in a generation and he may be competing against the 2nd worst.

 

[Musburger1]

If pressed, I could make a case that the government is on the verge of systemic corruption.

If you don't have faith in the institutions of government (DOJ, FBI, IRS, etc) because you think corruption has saturated the highest levels, though not so much the rank and file, how do you think your perceptions of these institutions will change four years hence?

I think it will only worsen under Clinton as she will purge more and more "public servants" that would question or resist wrong doing. Perhaps Trump would like to play God as well, but he would have to first clean house and battle the establishment which currently run government before putting in his own people - people who are now on the outside of power. This is no easy task.

For this reason, I doubt Trump could further systemic corruption more than Hillery, even if he wanted to.

 

[Crockett]

Musburger, I think the civil service and a tradition of honest government (at least compared to most places in the world) will ensure that the United States has a viable government no matter which bad choice we make.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If pressed, I could make a case that the government is on the verge of systemic corruption.

If you don't have faith in the institutions of government (DOJ, FBI, IRS, etc) because you think corruption has saturated the highest levels, though not so much the rank and file, how do you think your perceptions of these institutions will change four years hence?

I think it will only worsen under Clinton as she will purge more and more "public servants" that would question or resist wrong doing. Perhaps Trump would like to play God as well, but he would have to first clean house and battle the establishment which currently run government before putting in his own people - people who are now on the outside of power. This is no easy task.

For this reason, I doubt Trump could further systemic corruption more than Hillery, even if he wanted to.

The case for "systemic corruption" is overstated, IMHO. It's no more or less than previous administrations. People forget incidents like the Gulf of Tonkin or Iran-Contra situations where the government wasn't transparent. What's changed is the exposure of the misdeeds or "stealth" operations. The arming of the predecessors of the Taliban in the 80's wasn't exposed real-time but rather a decade later when we had lost interest or pointed to it as a "win" as it contributed to the downfall of the USSR. Additionally, the conspiracy theorists are stitching together fragments of evidence to create politically driven corruption stories.

 

[Musburger1]

Musburger, I think the civil service and a tradition of honest government (at least compared to most places in the world) will ensure that the United States has a viable government no matter which bad choice we make.

Would like to think you are correct. Tradition can be overturned.

 

[Htown77]

Ultimately it comes down to Trump is the worst major party candidate in a generation and he may be competing against the 2nd worst

I do not know, these two may be the worst ever. I guess it is possible one could argue (ignoring the issues) that Abraham Lincoln was the worst candidate ever since, putting everything else aside for argument's sake, a presidential election resulting in the deadliest war in america history has to be at or near the top of worst outcomes for a presidential election. All I am saying is, as a general proposition, you may not have been the best candidate if half the country leaves over your election.

Anyway, if either Trump or Hillary TRULY cared about America and not just themselves, they both would have resigned and let their vice presidents run. Both are so divisive, I do not see how either can be an effective leader at this point. For the sake of national unity they should both resign.

 

[Musburger1]

The case for "systemic corruption" is overstated, IMHO. It's no more or less than previous administrations. People forget incidents like the Gulf of Tonkin or Iran-Contra situations where the government wasn't transparent. What's changed is the exposure of the misdeeds or "stealth" operations. The arming of the predecessors of the Taliban in the 80's wasn't exposed real-time but rather a decade later when we had lost interest or pointed to it as a "win" as it contributed to the downfall of the USSR. Additionally, the conspiracy theorists are stitching together fragments of evidence to create politically driven corruption stories.

You've got some good points in there. The part about less transparency in the past due to the lack of technology to both discover and disseminate information forces me to play what if regarding most of those scenarios.

In general that's true. However Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon papers and the Ollie North and the Contra-Iran scheme were brought to light, not in real-time but reasonably close and there was at least a semblance of accountability. Watergate was discovered in real time. Much was swept under the rug but there was a little justice meted out. Americans protested the war and eventually Nixon changed course. Nixon resigned after Watergate and several henchmen served jail time. Ollie North was punished.

Flash forward to the present. DOJ refuses to prosecute criminal bankers. Clapper lies to Congress. Bill Clinton meets with the Attorney General prior to Hillary's deposition. The head of the FBI lets Hillary off the hook to the chagrin of the rest of the agency. All of this and no one received punishment. In fact, Hillary wins the nomination amidst organized campaign misconduct against Bernie Sanders.

The desire of the powerful to commit misdeeds has always been present. The difference now is that there is little fear of suffering consequences should they be exposed.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I do not see how either can be an effective leader at this point. For the sake of national unity they should both resign.

That's a key point and I agree. The country is so polarized that neither candidate has any hope for success.

 

[ShAArk92]

That's a key point and I agree. The country is so polarized that neither candidate has any hope for success.

Resign?
Don't you first have to be hired to resign?

I think the proposed leader must simply behave properly and uphold the Constitution, sorta like the oath of office directs. Since we have allowed/rationalized/justified so much departure from that it has become abnormal to expect such adherence ...

... the leader, even if he were "Mr. Clean" would be ineffective ... because the population as a whole has become so undisciplined.

JMO ... YMMV.

 

[mchammer]

And Rasmussen was the least accurate. They have the same numbers as TIPP right now. Paradoxical, man.

So, which is it? Will Sam Wang and Nate Silver be closer to the final polling aggregates, or your three cherry picked examples? I'm even willing to wager a sig line or something else you'd like.

I've posted my thoughts on this multiple times. Of course, I have a right to change my prediction based on new information. Currently, my view is take the RCP average (+6 Clinton) and add 3 pts for Trump. Deezer said in the past to add 1-2 pts. By the way the economist poll has Clinton +4, so I see a much closer race. For the most part, pollsters are having a hard time finding Trump voters since they won't talk with them knowing the media is trying to throw the race to Hillary. They will let the media know on Election Day. This is very much looking like Brexit.

 

[Phil Elliott]

The desire of the powerful to commit misdeeds has always been present. The difference now is that there is little fear of suffering consequences should they be exposed, so long as they are Democrats.

FIFY.

 

[mchammer]

Let me put it this way, if the shift is +3 for Trump in reality, then at today's polling, Trump wins: FL, NC, OH, IA, NV, and an outside shot of NH. Win those and Trump is president. People are putting way too much faith in polls and not thinking independently. In my mind, the question is if Trump can cut Clintons lead from 6 pts down to 3 pts in the next 3 weeks. Wouldn't surprise me for Clinton to win nationally but lose electoral college.

 

[Htown77]

Resign? Don't you first have to be hired to resign?

I believe one can "resign their nomination." I guess I could have said "they should both drop out" but I was going for the more formal phrase. Maybe there is a better phrase I am not thinking of?

Anyway, they have both disqualified themselves 50 times over, should both cease their campaigns and let their VPs run. Both only care about power for themselves and not the good of our nation.

 

[Seattle Husker]

"I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election, if I win."

"Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result," Trump said. "And always, I will follow and abide by all of the rules and traditions of all of the many candidates who have come before me. Always."- Donald J. Trump, 10/20/16 in Delaware, OH.

What a tremendous imbecile. Like his birther arguments, he continually polutes the argument to ensure room for equivocation and keep the conspiracy theory going.

 

[Htown77]

In fairness, i am not very concerned if Trump does not accept them. All that will happen is a pointless lawsuit and a lot of angry tweets. I do not think there is any real concern of violence or anything... at least I hope not.

 

[Horns11]

Let me put it this way, if the shift is +3 for Trump in reality, then at today's polling, Trump wins: FL, NC, OH, IA, NV, and an outside shot of NH.

You're assuming that he's going to get +3 in every swing state and not just on a national level. Maybe it's actually +5 in places like Utah or Kansas when the "GOP-no-matter-what" silent majority comes out of the woodworks. I don't see how about 4 million voters, that no one knew existed and weren't included in ANY data leading up to November 8th, suddenly swing every swing.

Your hope for a Brexit-style victory is a vain one at best. If anything, 2008 and 2012 had a "ghost" swing towards the Blue, not the Red. But I guess we'll see.

 

[mchammer]

You're assuming that he's going to get +3 in every swing state and not just on a national level. Maybe it's actually +5 in places like Utah or Kansas when the "GOP-no-matter-what" silent majority comes out of the woodworks. I don't see how about 4 million voters, that no one knew existed and weren't included in ANY data leading up to November 8th, suddenly swing every swing.

Your hope for a Brexit-style victory is a vain one at best. If anything, 2008 and 2012 had a "ghost" swing towards the Blue, not the Red. But I guess we'll see.

For some polls, the ghost swing towards the blue is baked in. Just assuming the blue ghost swing goes back to normal gets Trump +3 or 4 more points. I think it is vain to think that Clinton is going to get the same enthusiasm as Obama.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In fairness, i am not very concerned if Trump does not accept them. All that will happen is a pointless lawsuit and a lot of angry tweets. I do not think there is any real concern of violence or anything... at least I hope not.

Ditto. First, if it's truly a razor-thin margin in decisive swing-states, I won't blame him for asking for a recount and even bringing suit. Previous candidates have done that and would do that. Hillary Clinton sure as hell would do that. Second, even if he haggles over it in court, it'll be pointless, and few will pay attention to it. What I don't want to see is him losing decisively but then blabbing about it all being rigged, getting his crackpot supporters riled up and engaging in conspiracy theories, rioting, etc.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If anything, 2008 and 2012 had a "ghost" swing towards the Blue, not the Red. But I guess we'll see.

I seriously doubt we'll see Democratic enthusiasm at the same level it was in 2008 or 2012, which is what caused the ghost swing.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm about 35 minutes into the third debate, and appropriately, I'm drinking a beer from a brewery in Bamberg, Germany that's famous for burning down and now uses burned hops. Good stuff - basically makes its beer smelled like a burned-down house. So far, Trump is doing a respectable job at least on his scale. So far, I don't think he has interrupted her a single time. However, he's still sloppy and incoherent on issues, but I'll admit that I was impressed that he was able to explain Roe v. Wade more accurately than I've ever heard any Republican.

Did I just hear Hillary say she won't add a penny to the debt? Is she really going to balance the budget in her first year? That would be impressive, but I'm not optimistic.

Chris Wallace is an outstanding moderator - calling BS on both of them.