The 2016 US General Election

[Albany Rifles]

Did anyone watch this last night?

He just can't seem to get out of his own way. He had the room in his hand and then appears to go off script and it got ugly.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/21/498804...l-smith-dinner

[ambidex]

Did anyone watch this last night?

He just can't seem to get out of his own way. He had the room in his hand and then appears to go off script and it got ugly.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/21/498804...l-smith-dinner

So you think Clinton was there for fun only ?

[Albany Rifles]

So you think Clinton was there for fun only ?

No, she was not doing as well as he was. The crowd did not turn on her like it turned on him.

[bfng3569]

He did milk it for all it was worth, but that's another story. Being willing in principle to accept the results of an election is different from conceding if you lose. Obviously you cannot concede before the election. In the 2000 election Gore did not concede not because he didn't want to accept the result, but because the result was not immediately known. There was a very close race in one state, Florida, to decide. It held enough electoral votes to determine the outcome of the presidential race, but first it has to conduct a recount because less than 0.05% of the votes cast separated the leader (Bush) from the runner up (Gore) and with a lead that slim, Florida law requires a recount as Antimony pointed out. Naturally, Gore held off conceding until the recount was over. Indeed he and his lawyers prolonged it. Throughout it all he never said or implied that he wouldn't accept the result of the election if it didn't go his way. Ultimately Florida certified Bush as the winner, and Gore accepted the result.

BTW, it appears that Trump changed his tune today. Slightly. The NY Times reports that he will accept the result of the election "if I win".

No, Gore did not accept the results, he did not concede, until he exhausted all possible challenges to the counts.

there is no difference.

[ambidex]

No, she was not doing as well as he was. The crowd did not turn on her like it turned on him.

The election has entered into No holds bar mode.

Symposium there was certainly for different mood and cause. Their reaction was predictable, as Trump started first.

[astralis]

No, Gore did not accept the results, he did not concede, until he exhausted all possible challenges to the counts.

you are wearing some pretty thick partisan blinders if you cannot differentiate between Gore legally challenging a historically close election (and conceding when the system ruled against him) vs Trump continually telling everyone how rigged the entire system is...in the context of what will be a HRC landslide victory.

be serious, does anyone -really- think Trump is talking about not conceding only if there's a narrow scenario of the election coming down to a few hundred votes in a swing state?

[Albany Rifles]

The election has entered into No holds bar mode.

Symposium there was certainly for different mood and cause. Their reaction was predictable, as Trump started first.

How many of these have you seen?

I have watched annually for years on CSPAN. There has NEVER been a reaction to a candidate like Trump got.

[antimony]

So you think Clinton was there for fun only ?

The Al smith dinner is meant as a light hearted charity event where one jokes about oneself and ones opponent. The jokes are supposed to singe but not burn. Clinton stuck to that note, Trump went too far.

Obviously you have not seen these events. Check out 2008 and 2012 for reference

[tbm3fan]

hope and change.

transparency.

inclusive instead of divisive

united as one

work with the opposition.

those are some of the 'promises' I remember the current President running on.

how'd that turn out?

Pretty bad considering that the Republican Senate announced that they would block Obama's agenda 100% before he even took office in 2008. There's the opposition lying down a mark in the sand essentially telling Obama not to bother. I believe the comment was that if he was for it we are against it. Ergo no need to accommodate them.

The second issue that worked against him was that he happened to be black and easily 10-20% of the population was not good with that.

[JRT]

...be serious, does anyone -really- think Trump is talking about not conceding only if there's a narrow scenario of the election coming down to a few hundred votes in a swing state?

Looking at it from Trump's perspective, there is nothing to be gained by conceding, and much to be gained by challenging and criticizing perceived faults and perceived manipulations in the election process. This is not about any possibility of winning an election, rather it provides means of gaining more continued attention for Trump in the media spotlight, while also providing some manure to spread for another crop of conspiracy theory fodder for his flock of extremist sheep-people.

[JAD_333]

JAD, regarding the folks you know who are backing DJT....the major issue with all you say are what are seen as his virtues are actually goin got work against him in order to govern. He has to work with Congress and Federal Bureaucracy in order to govern. That is one thing I give HRC over just about all of the candidates.

I wouldn't call them virtues. It's just striking to me how the people I mentioned block out all the obnoxious stuff about Trump and in the final analysis latch on to his business smarts as a reason to vote for him. They may be well meaning people, but I don't think they appreciate the old political wisdom that business success in itself doesn't translate well into government leadership. You hit it on the nail that he would have to depend on Congress to get the big things done. That's a far cry from being a CEO who is accustomed to see underlings jump when told. But I just mentioned it because I couldn't get anywhere debating these people on the issues and Trump's claims. It always came down to, "well, he's a good negotiator", etc.

With the exception of John Kasich, she probably has the most experience working within that construct which is how are country works. I recognize her warts and blemishes but the one thing she has proven over the years is she rarely will make the same mistake twice. She learns and moves on. I certainly think she is going to be much more centrist than Obama. And I think she will remind those within the party that Sanders was a registered Independent until June 2015 when he decided to run for president. He will be punished for not being a good soldier and as she governs she will be less beholden to the Bernie wing.

Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see where she goes on the Bernie thing. I think she would be wise not to punish him, as much as she would like to. He still has a large, loyal following, which at the end of the day are constituents who can make things uncomfortable for their representatives in Congress. She'll ask for legislation on his free college plan, but I don't expect it will get far given the cost, even as a tax credit.

Agree on Kasich. He was my pick during the primaries. One thing people may not know about HRC is that she has a personal aversion to debt. That doesn't mean she is adverse to the Keynesian concept of its benefit in times of economic distress, but she would dearly love to balance the books when it comes to the deficit, and that may win her some support on the other side of the aisle. All the same I hope the House stays in GOP hands and that it starts passing real appropriation measures and not continuing resolutions, which amounts to surrendering Congressional power to the Executive.

[tbm3fan]

Did anyone watch this last night?

He just can't seem to get out of his own way. He had the room in his hand and then appears to go off script and it got ugly.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/21/498804...l-smith-dinner

This was interesting to say the least. I'm now wondering if Trump is a functioning paranoid or he has taken pages out of P.T. Barnum's book on promotion. It started out like Barnum in the first half and went the other way in the second half. Made me hark back to my behavioral psych classes and the theoretical ones on Jung and Freud where I asked the professor what the hell these guys are talking about. How would this relate to Trump.

Then a voice in my head, maybe the professor or maybe Patton, but I heard L'audace, l'audace, toujoures l'audace.

So now I am thinking it would be nice to get him on a couch. Maybe get him under the microscope. Ah, hell, why not just gown up and get him under the scalpel.

[tbm3fan]

I wouldn't call them virtues. It's just striking to me how the people I mentioned block out all the obnoxious stuff about Trump and in the final analysis latch on to his business smarts as a reason to vote for him. They may be well meaning people, but I don't think they appreciate the old political wisdom that business success in itself doesn't translate well into government leadership. You hit it on the nail that he would have to depend on Congress to get the big things done. That's a far cry from being a CEO who is accustomed to see underlings jump when told. But I just mentioned it because I couldn't get anywhere debating these people on the issues and Trump's claims. It always came down to, "well, he's a good negotiator", etc.

I don't even think I would call him a businessman. I would call him more of a real estate speculator. So two different mindsets.

Interestingly, what you said about businessmen could be said about military men. Ike did well since he was more an administrator who had to get along with many disparate personalities. Then I have a retired Army, West Point, Colonel who works as a CFO for a tech company. We are talking in the exam room and he mentions being on a committee with nine other people all civilians. They have to decide something so I asked how that went. I already knew the answer as he rolled his eyes and says herding cats was easier. Yet, then I have a retired Rear Admiral, who became a lawyer, and then a Federal Judge before finally retiring. Super nice guy, we could talk for hours, and he was very adept at negotiation and finding the middle ground.

[JAD_333]

Looking at it from Trump's perspective, there is nothing to be gained by conceding, and much to be gained by challenging and criticizing perceived faults and perceived manipulations in the election process. This is not about any possibility of winning an election, rather it provides means of gaining more continued attention for Trump in the media spotlight, while also providing some manure to spread for another crop of conspiracy theory fodder for his flock of extremist sheep-people.

Are you serious? No one has asked Trump to concede at this point. He was asked whether he will do so if he loses the election. That's practically a boiler plate question for any candidate and a perfectly safe one for him or her to answer in the affirmative. If, in our wildest dreams, massive voting fraud is later detected--I don't mean the low level stuff that doesn't affect the overall results--then a candidate can decline to cede the election pending a recount or a court determination that there was indeed a fraud or mistakes that affected the outcome. If Trump gets trounced in the electoral vote, is he going to concede defeat or obsess over claims of voter fraud in some obscure voting districts here and there that don't amount to enough votes to change anything except who won the office of local dogcatcher. Now if we get a repeat of the 2000 election where the outcome in Florida mattered because its electoral votes would determine the overall winner of the race but the election was so close there had to be a recount, then Trump would of course not concede until the recount was over and it showed he had lost the state. The question before him now is whether he will accept the result of the election, win or lose. If he hedges, as he has done, or outright says no, he is in effect undermining our election system and encouraging millions of voters to believe it's corrupt. That's a serious matter, because we depend on our voting systems to correctly register who we wish to serve us in government.

[DOR]

hope and change.

transparency.

inclusive instead of divisive

united as one

work with the opposition.

those are some of the 'promises' I remember the current President running on.

how'd that turn out?

Best president of the 21st century?