  |
 2016 US Election. |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 16th November 2016, 07:23 PM
Post
#2261
|
|
 new hair, new tee, new Levii’s Jeans
Joined: 24 October 2014
Posts: 39,307 User: 21,308 
      |
QUOTE(Common Sense @ Nov 16 2016, 08:37 AM)  Some interesting and some wacky US betting odds. 1/16: All life on Earth will cease to exist soon
Trump to complete full first term 1/3 Trump to be impeached before 2020 is 2/1 Odds of Trump being re-elected in 2020 2/1. Him NOT being re-elected 4/6. You can get 16/1 for Hillary to face Trump again in 2020. Can't see many takers for that. She won't stand again. Oh 50/1 that Trump and Farage will have a No.1 UK hit single before 2020. Pence to be elected President in 2024 is 3/1 Apparently bookies refusing to take any bets on when/if Trump may be assassinated despite having many enquiries. |
 |
 
|
|
16th November 2016, 07:29 PM
Post
#2262
|
|
|
Howdy, disco citizens
Joined: 16 January 2010
Posts: 12,775 User: 10,455
    |
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Nov 16 2016, 04:18 PM) After time to reflect, here are some thoughts. There are still a lot of people (including some women) who simply do not like (or trust) smart women. Hillary Clinton is clearly very intelligent, and some people hold that against her. Michelle Obama could face the same problem. For a male candidate, personal warmth (as demonstrated by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) is considered something of a bonus. For a woman, it is almost expected. Therefore, a female candidate who fails to demonstrate that warmth is at a disadvantage. But there are female leaders that one would not consider to be "warm", yet have enjoyed enormous electoral success. Margaret Thatcher & Angela Merkel would be two names that immediately spring to mind, and in a few months you could add Marine Le Pen to that list (although hopefully not). The common thread those women seem to have is that they are to the right-of centre (or in Le Pen's case, very, very right of centre). Given that we are somewhat predispositioned to seeing those of a conservative bent as more "cold" (although some more harsh words are surely available), it doesn't seem to disadvantage women on the right as much as it does to women on the left. |
|
|
|
|
17th November 2016, 02:45 AM
Post
#2263
|
|
 DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
             |
QUOTE(Common Sense @ Nov 16 2016, 04:37 PM) Some interesting and some wacky US betting odds. Trump to complete full first term 1/3 Trump to be impeached before 2020 is 2/1 Odds of Trump being re-elected in 2020 2/1. Him NOT being re-elected 4/6. You can get 16/1 for Hillary to face Trump again in 2020. Can't see many takers for that. She won't stand again. Oh 50/1 that Trump and Farage will have a No.1 UK hit single before 2020. Pence to be elected President in 2024 is 3/1 Apparently bookies refusing to take any bets on when/if Trump may be assassinated despite having many enquiries. I'm tempted to get a quote on international election observers declaring the 2020 election to not reach internationally accepted democratic norms. Chillingly likely, I think. |
|
|
|
|
17th November 2016, 02:48 AM
Post
#2264
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Nov 16 2016, 07:29 PM) But there are female leaders that one would not consider to be "warm", yet have enjoyed enormous electoral success. Margaret Thatcher & Angela Merkel would be two names that immediately spring to mind, and in a few months you could add Marine Le Pen to that list (although hopefully not). The common thread those women seem to have is that they are to the right-of centre (or in Le Pen's case, very, very right of centre). Given that we are somewhat predispositioned to seeing those of a conservative bent as more "cold" (although some more harsh words are surely available), it doesn't seem to disadvantage women on the right as much as it does to women on the left. Of course, Thatcher and Merkel did benefit from not having an opposition party and media dedicated to trying to allege criminality at every opportunity for 20 years, to the extent where a baseless rumour could be reported with the caveat "there is as yet no solid evidence that x claim is true, but such stories will only add to the sense of untrustworthiness around Hillary Clinton". After all, you only have to look at how the FBI thing hit her lead and probably cost her the election despite being totally baseless. As with almost every single accusation levelled at her. |
|
|
|
|
17th November 2016, 06:52 PM
Post
#2265
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
 |
Again, Clinton did not get as harsh treatment as Obama got, with the various taunts that he was a terrorist, a secret Muslim, a Nazi, not born in America, etc. Where Clinton had the e-mail scandal blown out of proportion by the Republicans, Obama had the Republicans constantly prattling on about his pastor and how he once had coffee with Bill Ayers. Where Clinton had her "basket of deplorables" comment taken out of context, Obama was clobbered over the head with "bitter whites clinging to guns" comments and over the lie about Michelle Obama going on a rant about "whities". Where Clinton had "lock her up" shouted at her, Obama had "kill him!" shouted at Republican rallies and mainstream news commentators joking about his assassination (after "accidentally" referring to him as "Osama").
The point being that there's nothing new about vitrolic opposition being thrown, and it's going to continue no matter what. But a good politician like Obama, with a good inspiring message, can get people to ignore the diatribes, including many of the "racist" white voters who switched from Obama in 2008/12 to Trump last week. Like it or not, Clinton just wasn't in his league, not to mention the dire "centrist" message and policies which were never going to be strong enough to even get people to pay attention to her. QUOTE(Qassändra @ Nov 12 2016, 06:42 PM) Anyone who thinks Bernie would've done better needs to have a really good answer for how he'd have sold across the board tax rises of 10 cents in the dollar to an America where two thirds of the population already thinks it is taxed too much. Did Bernie ever actually say he would raise taxes by 10% for low-income people? (Serious question.) |
|
|
|
|
18th November 2016, 12:16 PM
Post
#2266
|
|
|
I'm so lonely, I paid a hobo to spoon with me
Joined: 6 February 2010
Posts: 12,908 User: 10,596
 |
QUOTE(Danny @ Nov 17 2016, 06:52 PM) Again, Clinton did not get as harsh treatment as Obama got, with the various taunts that he was a terrorist, a secret Muslim, a Nazi, not born in America, etc. Where Clinton had the e-mail scandal blown out of proportion by the Republicans, Obama had the Republicans constantly prattling on about his pastor and how he once had coffee with Bill Ayers. Where Clinton had her "basket of deplorables" comment taken out of context, Obama was clobbered over the head with "bitter whites clinging to guns" comments and over the lie about Michelle Obama going on a rant about "whities". Where Clinton had "lock her up" shouted at her, Obama had "kill him!" shouted at Republican rallies and mainstream news commentators joking about his assassination (after "accidentally" referring to him as "Osama"). The point being that there's nothing new about vitrolic opposition being thrown, and it's going to continue no matter what. But a good politician like Obama, with a good inspiring message, can get people to ignore the diatribes, including many of the "racist" white voters who switched from Obama in 2008/12 to Drumpf last week. Like it or not, Clinton just wasn't in his league, not to mention the dire "centrist" message and policies which were never going to be strong enough to even get people to pay attention to her. Did Bernie ever actually say he would raise taxes by 10% for low-income people? (Serious question.) This is good on the wider picture: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11...-iowa-race.html I would never argue that Clinton as a candidate is in the same league as Obama (as a politician it's certainly debatable) but there's a reason that a party winning three presidential elections in a row is rare. If you're going as the continuity candidate, which Clinton clearly had to do, you're hamstrung by what people have thought of the last eight years. Obama may be going out with higher approval ratings that most, but not on Reagan's level (who's the only post-war POTUS to effectively pick their successor). You need the right timing and the right candidate to manage it, and the Dems probably didn't have either. |
|
|
|
|
18th November 2016, 01:38 PM
Post
#2267
|
|
|
Say that hiss with your chest, and...
Joined: 24 May 2016
Posts: 18,460 User: 23,308
   |
Donald Trump names Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.
|
|
|
|
|
18th November 2016, 08:29 PM
Post
#2268
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,821 User: 17,376
  |
have a glimpse into the Trump future courtesy of George Takei...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverythi...m=.ae8a82cb804b |
|
|
|
|
18th November 2016, 08:33 PM
Post
#2269
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
QUOTE(Soy Adrián @ Nov 18 2016, 12:16 PM) This is good on the wider picture: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11...-iowa-race.html I would never argue that Clinton as a candidate is in the same league as Obama (as a politician it's certainly debatable) but there's a reason that a party winning three presidential elections in a row is rare. If you're going as the continuity candidate, which Clinton clearly had to do, you're hamstrung by what people have thought of the last eight years. Obama may be going out with higher approval ratings that most, but not on Reagan's level (who's the only post-war POTUS to effectively pick their successor). You need the right timing and the right candidate to manage it, and the Dems probably didn't have either. It is rare for a party to win 3 presidential elections in a row, but it's not as rare as getting an opponent who runs such a dire campaign in the final weeks as Trump did, yet Hillary still flunked the dream opportunity. You're right that it's hard to win as a continuity candidate when people are so pissed off with the status quo, but that's precisely why it was obvious ages ago that Hillary was a terrible choice of candidate - yet people like Qassandra were still insisting throughout the primaries that she was a better choice than anyone else the Democrats had, rather than a candidate who actually promised a change (Sanders/Warren), or, at the very least, a continuity candidate with some basic political skills who could win votes on personality alone (Biden, Obama himself if he'd been allowed -- remember that around 10% of Trump voters told exit pollsters that they still liked Obama). Basically everything from this article back in February came to pass: http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/u...rump-presidency This post has been edited by Danny: 18th November 2016, 08:35 PM |
|
|
|
|
19th November 2016, 10:26 PM
Post
#2270
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,821 User: 17,376
|
Michael Moore also predicted Trump back in 2015, and explained in July why he would win. No-one listened but he was right (with a bit of help from the US electoral college and the right-wing head of the secretive government organisation supposed to keep America safe and democratic - so much for that one as Trump pays off fraud charges that weren't even mentioned by them. Saying "I don't have time to fight them" doesn't bode well for the future, as he's too busy to deal with corruption charges before he's even started)
I digress. Moore also has a plan of action to save democracy from right-wing fascists: http://boingboing.net/2016/11/14/michael-m...-do-list-f.html If I were a Young American I would be paying serious attention to it.... |
|
|
|
|
20th November 2016, 05:01 PM
Post
#2271
|
|
|
Howdy, disco citizens
Joined: 16 January 2010
Posts: 12,775 User: 10,455
|
Thanks for the discussion around the election everyone, and for the past 114 pages, but now is the time to close this topic. Any further discussion on Trump, the US presidency etc shall take part in separate threads on this board.
I note that this thread started the day after the 2012 election, so expect to see the 2020 US Election thread up fairly promptly, one imagines. |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 24th April 2024, 06:03 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
