US Presidential election 2016

Nah ... Trump "says it how it is" remember, and when he says something particularly stupid "he doesn't mean it". Quite what qualifies 40% of American's to think they somehow possess the unique insight into what Trump really thinks heaven only knows?

The idea that he's trying to sabotage his own campaign, although crazy at face value, isn't without some validity. How else do you explain it? How else do you explain that his most outlandish claims always seem to come on the back of his polls ratings rising? The best counter explanation I've got is that he's actually been behaving with restraint to date, but every now then he gets over confident when his campaign is back on track and thinks the people are coming with him. When this happens he's more inclined to say and do things that reveal the real person behind the act, and its even worse than the act!

There are a few things we ought to be worried about though.

It isn't the substance of Trump's platform that's being rejected. It's the minituaie. Basically he's ripping himself apart off the back of silly non-issues that any half decent politician would avoid. The question it rather begs is how would America vote if they were presented with the same substance, but from a politician who didn't show the temperamental flaws and wasn't so interested in thrusting subjects like the Khan family, Heidi Cruz not being a model, the size of his own dick, Megyn Kelly's PMT or what ever else to the front of the stage

I also wonder if we're seeing a correction in the electoral map. In the 1950's the N/E states were Republican, and the southern states Democrat. For reasons of scoio/ economics the south should have been Democrat. Basically, these dixie states began voting against their own economic interests.

As things stand tonight, Hillary has retaken the lead in Georgia (the most purple of the Republican southern fortress) Arizona is also looking vulnerable again too. There has been talk of Texas going Democrat of course within a generation

At the same time, Trump is also making progress in the rust belt (not as much) but he is (or was) closing the gap in places like Michigan, Pennyslvania and Iowa (the latter probably doesn't count rust belt in truth). Other states like New Hampshire were giving him a fighting chance. The Trump Republican is increasingly appealing to the patriotic working class (the one time Reagan Democrats). Perhaps those whom the message of globalisation has resonnated with and whom the Democrats are struggling to look in the eye any longer are starting to come over to the republican message of protectionism, isolationism, and patriotism. It might have been interesting to see what would have happened to Ohio had Kasich decided to endorse and campaign for Trump. Trump thinks he's got traction in Maine too (I doubt he has personally). Wisconsin might be vulnerable to a Trump lite candidate who hasn't got the republican state machinary and talk radio hosts lined up against him

It's as if the Republicans are starting to garner the abandoned working class which is a traditional Democrat demographic, and they're therefore picking up voters from the extremes of rich and poor.

The area that Trump is losing though, (and this is down to his craziness) is the white, college educated voter. These used to be the bedrock of the Republican vote, but they're increasingly being spooked by Trump. I don't know if its true whether or not he was asking about why he couldn't use nuclear weapons as a first strike option, when he received his first security last week, but these people are the ones who are much prepared to say "yes he does" to those who say "he doesn't really mean it"
 
Last edited:
I have this idea in my head that Reince Priebus has a chalkboard on his wall. Before yesterday it had the number 3 on it, the number of days lapsed since Trump last said something bat **** crazy. Today its been wiped off and reset at 0

What is truly remarkable is that 40% of American's are still seemingly prepared to vote for him!

Although he seems to be doing his level best to lose this election, it's worth bearing in mind that on four occasions now he's closed the gap or even overtaken Hillary. Everytime he does he seems to throw his positiona way within about 48 hours. It seems to take him about 8 weeks to recover the ground he loses each time. On that sort of trajectory he should be peaking again in mid October if the cycle is replicated a fifth time. There is of course the less then subtle hint from Wikileaks via the Kremlin that they have been holding back some serious disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton. Despite Trump's best attempts to sabotage his campaign, (and none better than his latest) I still think there's legs in this campaign yet, as its abundently obvious that there's a sizeable chunk of American society that really don't want Clinton. Trump's come back from the abyss a few times, and it would perhaps be a mistake to say that this time he really has turned a point of no return. He does seem to be getting ever more outlandish though

We've got the debates to come soon though, they could be hysterical
 
Last edited:
I reckon 40% of people are prepared to vote for anyone but Hillary......even if it means voting for a racist, narcissist, who can barely complete a sentence, has no political experience, and whose hair resembles a fascinating, Dadaist blancmange.

Thankfully the rest of the country appears to have woken-up to the fact that Trump is a cartoon character, who is unfit for the job.
 
There is of course the less then subtle hint from Wikileaks via the Kremlin that they have been holding back some serious disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton.

Is Snowden still in Moscow?

I can see how the Kremlin would want Trump given Putin's previous endorsements, but I'm struggling to see how an organisation like WikiLeaks would want to do something to support him.
 
Snowden's still in Moscow, and been tweeting some very cryptic stuff recently that some people are suggesting is tantamount to a deadman's handle (a conspiracy too far for me) but it seems to be some sort of coded messaging to people outside of Russia

Wikileaks has become much more partisan since Assange took up residency in the Ecudorian embassy. It's hardly surprising really given that its an Obama/ Clinton axis trying to put him away, on what doesn't look like a particularly strong case (the Swedish girls withdrew the allegation originally until pressure was applied on them to pursue it again). I'm given to understand that the relationship between Moscow and Wikileaks has strengthend as a result. Moscow can perform the technical hacks, and then present the information to Wikileaks

It needn't be a pro-Trump position that Wikileaks are necessarily adopting, its probably more of an anti Clinton stance
 
Last edited:
This is quite funny

To give you some background, until very recently Joe Scarborough could have been described as a Trump supporter (he was even touted as a potential running mate once upon time). Mika is supposidly a Democrat albeit there's been a few occasions where you might forgiven for thinking otherwise (Trump still follows the pair on Twitter - though I don't know for how much longer at this rate). Watching Mika in particular experience what I can only describe as a nervous breakdown over the last few weeks has been mildly compelling viewing as it finally sinks in.

This now passes as serious political news coverage on MSNBC, as the panel debate just what type of a lunatic Trump is

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...al_should_diagnose_trump_im_very_serious.html
 
Last edited:
I'm like an American voter at the moment, getting more and more turned off by Hillary.
Not because she's told lies. That's part and parcel of being president, but she just bores the tits off me.
I'm increasingly thinking I may have got this all wrong for the past two years, (I thought Hillary was a stone cold certainty).

Whatever happens and whoever wins, Donald Trump would surely be a lot more entertaining.
 
Last edited:
OK, this isn't a trick question, it's just a little gauge of knowledge

"What is Aleppo?"

Anyone wish to tell me? (and try not to look at the news to find out why I'm asking)
 
Gary Johnson is the American equivalent of the Liberal Democrats (in terms of popularity) - about 8%

A couple of hours ago he was asked about Aleppo on 'Morning Joe', this is who millions of American's think is the best qualified candidate to be their next commander in chief

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKb2oiJluLk

(I love Mika's body language as she sits there with her arms crossed staring him out in disgust)
 
Georgia might start going Democrat in the future, but its probably not ready yet. I'd expect him to face his biggest hurdle in North Carolina which Hillary might be looking to flip and this should prove his toughest 'hold'

New Hampshire is a state that Trump might harbour legitimate claims for. Pat Buchannan polled well there, and Trump stormed the primary. There's clearly a little of a latent issue working there which we might normally associate with the Dixiecrats.

So basically its this I reckon

hold the Romney map, then
win - Florida, Ohio and Iowa
then win one from - Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. I don't see him getting Virginia or Minnesota, but either of them with the three above would be enough too if he holds the Romney map

Time to revisit this then from May, when I tried to map out the Trump path to the White House

Georgia is solidly Trump albeit not convincingly so. There's no reason to think the Democrats are going to win it this time round unless its part of a landslide

North Carolina is indeed proving to be the most difficult of the Trump holds. Hillary is throwing the kitchen sink at it, and at the moment it's within less than one percent (Hillary is shading it) but the consensus seems to be Trump will sneak it.

New Hampshire is becoming a must win state for Hillary now. I described it earlier as offering Trump a chance and alluded to the idea that it harboured race issues that we tend to associate with the south. Trump isn't really doing enough yet, but he's in striking range and certainly not without hope (aspiration that is, not her)

Now for the three states I identified as Trumps best bets, he's doing well in them

Florida = +0.7 Trump, best results on most recent polling
Ohio = +1.7 Trump, good results on most recent polling
Iowa = +4.3 Trump, surprisingly comfortable

This result gives Clinton the White House 279 to 259, albeit I think we have to consider putting Maine's second district in the Trump column now as things get tight, and call it 278 to 260

On my original projection I said that I didn't see him winning Virginia or Minnesota (still don't and if anything that looks harder now) but that one from either Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin will be enough. That's still the case, but in truth he's not really looking good in any of them

Wisconsin = +4.4 Clinton
Michigan = +5.2 Clinton
Pennsylvania = +5.8 Clinton

Pennsylvania has proven a Republican fools gold for years now. People forget how big Philly is and the way it's altered the states demographic. I can't see Trump winning there. I wouldn't give up Wisconsin yet, it'll be tough, but it's his best bet of the three and has a favourable demographic, albeit they aren't really Trump types of people

The one I didn't see coming back in May though was Nevada, but with such a high proportion of non college educated whites perhaps it always had the capacity to vote unilaterally. Nevada opens up a different path, and possibly removes Wisconsin from the 'must win' column

At the moment Clinton is shading it by +0.2 but the most recent polls have Trump winning by +2 and +1 respectively. It doesn't seem unrealistic to think he's probably ahead in NV right now, and with that comes another 6 votes and a new college of

Clinton 272 Trump 266

It's coming down to this

If she loses Pennsylvania she'll lose. If he loses North Carolina he probably loses as well, albeit he can win if they swap each other

To win the white house now, Clinton needs to hold Pennsylvania and one of either New Hampshire or Nevada as the absolute minimum. If she just holds Pennsylvania, but loses the other two, Trump wins

I'd say that overturning +0.2 in NV and +6.0 in NH is probably easier than PA. The most recent poll for NH is just +2.0 in favour of Clinton
 
Last edited:
I've just jumped into this discussion but this US election really has the look of our very own Brexit vote. Clinton represents the establishment, the politicians that have lied to the average American, have made the average American poorer and made them feel that their freedoms have been eroded. People are looking for a voice in which to say that you're not doing a good enough job and we don't believe what you're promising. I've just seen her campaign motto 'stronger together'. What does that remind you of?

For us the protest vote was to leave Europe but for them it's Trump. I think you could have Mickey Mouse stood up there asking you to vote red, it really wouldn't matter as long as that person was not intertwined in the Capitol Hill club. Most Americans haven't given too much thought to what happens after November 8th as long as they got their point across. It may be America wakes up that Wednesday morning and thinks 'oh ****, what have we done?' but the reality probably won't be as scary as what people were predicting.
 
Trumps having a bad week and on the latest state polling Nevada, Colorado, and North Carolina have swung back to Hillary. I hadn't appreciated how close Colorado was getting in truth. I figured that so long as she holds New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, he couldn't win. But if he takes Colorado a route opens up to him that allows him to win without either of NH and PA (assuming that he wins Florida which he simply has to on any calculation) - he's still behind in Florida, and she can finish it in the sunshine state alone and render everything else pretty well redundant

Anyway, here's the SNL take on the first debate

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...debate_with_alec_baldwin_as_donald_trump.html
 
Last edited:
Trump wiped the floor with Clinton last night. When Clinton won the first debate, everyone was happy to call it in her favour. When Trump won last night you get cringe worthy statements from pro-Clinton analysts saying "80 percent of what he said didn't make sense."

80 percent of what he said you didn't agree with more like, as opposed to 80 percent not making sense!

I've got no vested interests either way, (if I was an America citizen I'd probably vote for Hillary in truth), but Trump was a clear cut winner last night.
 
Last edited:
No way, his responses on healthcare reform, Syria and Supreme Court appointments were all over the place. Clinton was disconcerted by the wilkileaks question and to a lesser extent by the question on e-mails but over all she looked Presidential and sounded Presidential while Trump didn't.

The positive for Trump was that he didn't implode, which for the first twenty minutes seemed the likely outcome.
 
No way, his responses on healthcare reform, Syria and Supreme Court appointments were all over the place. Clinton was disconcerted by the wilkileaks question and to a lesser extent by the question on e-mails but over all she looked Presidential and sounded Presidential while Trump didn't.

The positive for Trump was that he didn't implode, which for the first twenty minutes seemed the likely outcome.

I can't have this. Anyone who thinks he didn't have Hillary on the ropes from the off is in serious denial. I'd guess the polls might be skewed due to the run-up with the tape revelations.

The problem with your Syria, supreme court and healthcare points, is that Hillary herself didn't have anything revolutionary to propose policy wise either.

Finally, He controlled whatever aggression was there, perfectly legally and fairly given the circumstances.

Painting him as a white old stupid delusional mad man is itself very stupid and delusional. He's not where he is today because of that.
 
Last edited:
I thought her answer on Syria was dreadful. Call me old fashioned, but I don't want to risk a war with Russia just because she wants to build a pipeline so that her Saudi friends can supply Europe with gas. Hillary Clinton actually has some very dangerous ideas and has always been too quick to reach for the military. If we have to fight to Russia in the future, then for God's sake at least let it be over some existential crisis, not because of flamin' Syria. Honestly, how reckless is this woman?

I think the big problem Hillary has is that she's just too bloody unreasonable and wants everything on her terms (95/5). I think this is a big part of why she failed so badly as Secretary of State to achieve anything. All of Obama's major diplomatic breakthroughs have come under John Kerry, and if it weren't for American bombers suddenly targetting the Syrian army a joint working arrangement to fight ISIS would now be in place as it was due to be activated within 24 hrs. It does rather lend fuel to the suggestion that America doesn't want an accommodation with Russia.

Trump was perfectly correct to point out that she doesn't know who the rebels are that she's arming. America has tried supplying three different groups now and they've variously changed sides or sold their weapons to ISIS. Aleppo would probably be over were it not for America fanning the flames by supplying the rebels (who's ever side they're on). The last ceasefire largely broke down because the American identified rebel groups refused to disassociate themselves from the Islamists

Trump was the voice of reason, and was pretty well saying that anyone who fights ISIS is good by him, and if that means a coalition of Assad, Hezbollah, and Russia then let them get on with it. Hillary is pushing us close to another cold war at the very least, and for no good reason. Her whole position is riddled with hypocrisy and contradictions

Last week Saudi Arabia killed 80 civilians in Yemen. America barely makes a squeak (OK they've said they might review their supply of weapons to the KSA - having just agreed a $1.15Bn contract - I wonder if we can guess what they'll end up doing?)

Russia bomed an aid convoy and its war crime, America bombs a MSF hospital in Afghanistan and its accident

America says that 100 children have died Aleppo in the last week and that this is a war crime, yet when they're killing more with drone strikes in Pakistan its collateral damage (civilians are the biggest casualty by sub group on the drone programme). In any event, if Russia's airforce was genuinely targeting children and civilians, I somehow think they'd be capable of killing more than 100

War is horrible, people get killed. There is a reason why some American's dub her Killary

FWIW - I thought Trump won it as well. The only questions I gave to her were the ones on healthcare and environmental technologies (I missed the Supreme Court) but caught all the others. I thought TRump even won the exchange on his non payment of tax when he basically said he exploited a loophole, and noted that Hillary had done nothing to close that loophole in her reform proposals because all her rich donors also use it to avoid paying Federal tax

The MSNBC take, I love Mika going into meltdown at about 13.01

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._on_clintons_weve_been_waiting_for_years.html
 
Last edited:
Spot on Warbler, very informative and agree that whatever happens in Syria is not worth World War Three.
I think America and the West should just back off and leave the whole area alone now.
This is one place in the Middle East that America should just write off.
Nothing can be done on Americas timetable in Syria, end of.
 
Last edited:
I note with a smile that the French have seemingly replaced the British now as chief cheerleader arse licker, and are calling on the Russians to face an investigation into war crimes now (a benefit of Brexit perhaps)

Just remember that having been criticised before for their own activities, the American's withdrew from the ICC and won't subject themselves to the scrutiny of the ICJ either, yet are happy to call for Russia to be held to account by them - total hypocrisy

The issue in Syria, and I've said it before, is that ISIS were always someone else's second priority

The American's prioritised the removal of Assad (and still do). That his forces have largely been instrumental in checking the advance of ISIS is neither here nor there to them

The Turks prioritised the Kurds (and still do)

The Iraqi's prioritised their own opposition groups

Assad prioritised the FSA and various rebel factions

The Russians prioritised maintaining Assad and made the destruction of ISIS a competing first priority (of the major powers engaged, they were the most on mission focus in terms of threat identification)

The only people who were really concentrating exclusively on ISIS were Donald Trump, Putin to a lesser extent, and Hezbollah.

The American claim that they've been targeting ISIS was laid bare when the first Russian cockpit videos appeared showing ISIS oil tankers (and loads of them at that) all neatly lined up and going about their business as usual. They clearly didn't expect to be attacked

America has been pursuing this policy of playing the rebels and ISIS against Assad. They hope to weaken each to the point where some mythical, big happy clappy middle class liberal democracy will march out of the ashes and install itself as the new government of Syria, and grant a permission to Saudi Arabia to run a gas pipeline through Syria into Europe to weaken Putin. It's madness, its reckless, and its cynical

The best thing to do (right at the start) was to reset to the devil we knew and not play these high risk games of poker.

I'm also growing increasingly concerned by what I detect to be a sense of American invincibility. I've got news for them. If they do miscalculate, and Putin does go off at the deep end (Putin has more control than an ex Soviet cold war era leader) then their cities and country will be a wasteland. Radiation observes the laws of physics. It doesn't make exceptions for abstract concepts like 'freedom' or 'democracy'. Their food chain will collapse, and their water supply will be undrinkable (assuming some survive). Why does Hillary Clinton think that shooting down Russian jets over Syria is worth this risk? Come to think of it, whose authority are America operating under anyway? The Russians were invited into Syria by the UN recognisied government there. The American's weren't
 
Last edited:
Might sound pathetic but the best I'm seriously hoping for now is that Donald wins, is indeed mates with Putin, somehow they gradually make things better through Donald admitting America's foreign policy in the Middle East is fucked.

John Kerry has tried hard for years now for a resolution. It makes John Major's and Tony Blair's peace talks in Northern Ireland look like a summer holiday.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top