The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[FireNexus]

@shootist2015 with 12k followers is on board the #burntheGOP4Trump bandwagon. Must have been after I told /r/the_Donald honestly what I think.

This is happening!

[The Romulan Republic]

I just hope the violence-inclined Trumpers don't take "burn the GOP" literally.

[FireNexus]

I just hope the violence-inclined Trumpers don't take "burn the GOP" literally.

Yeah, one guy thought when I said "If the GOP kills Trump" I meant literally kill him. Then explained why that would never happen. I was a little worried after that.

[maraxus2]

I just hope the violence-inclined Trumpers don't take "burn the GOP" literally.

I'd be more worried if most Trump supporters weren't incel reddit dickheads or old people with gout.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It does bring up a serious question as to what part he's going to play in Hillary's administration, if any. This is one of the problematic things about electing Hillary-- she brings some baggage to the position, including Slick Willy.

It would almost be easier if she quietly divorced him shortly before taking office, but *that* would create quite a flap in and of itself. I don't think there have been any single Presidents apart from Buchanan.

That's dumb as hell. "Quietly divorce" Bill Clinton? How would that work?

I suspect that their's a measure of denialism going. That its easier to rationalize away what Trump said than to admit that they may have just spent the last year and a half, in some cases, supporting a rapist for President.

Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit, and they just that think rape is okay.

Bet you a dollar there are Democrats who on some level believe that they know the rape accusations against Bill Clinton are true... and aren't utterly crushed with remorse for having supported him. It's not that they think rape is cool, it's that the human brain is good at cognitive dissonance.

Bill's personal life, and political for that matter, is becoming much darker for me as the years go by. The Juanita Broaderick stuff is real tough for me to grapple with, and Clinton could certainly be called a predator. At the same time, I think he's a good example of just how gross the sexual culture of the 1970's-90's could get. Look at the people who went after Clinton for Lewinsky - practically every one of the top Republicans in the House was guilty/accused of some sort of sexual misconduct or had an affair. Gingrich was having an affair at the time he was going after Clinton. Tom DeLay was such an inveterate pussyhound that people called him "Hot Tub Tom." Denny Hastert turned out to be a child molester. So I don't know what to do with this.

I know it is tough. But there is no evidence, no cavalcade of other rape accusations which we would expect if it were real (because most rapists are repeat offenders well before they get caught), she swore an affidavit that no rape occurred, and her husband at the time cannot corroborate the injuries she said she sustained. After 21 and then 38 years post alleged incident, it is possible to literally claim anything. She could make the claim that Bill Clinton liked to torture dogs on the rack and the strength of her case would be the same. She went whole hog into the VRWC in the 1990s and a political agenda is pretty obvious.

It is just not credible, and until that changes there is little to grapple with.

Him sexually harassing white house staff on the other hand, you can at least buy on its face because Bill is a skeeze.

As for a divorce... that would be hilarious.

"And on this day of my inauguration, I have filed Divorce papers against Bill"
*camera pans to Bill, who looks completely crestfallen*

[Borgholio]

Question - what will you call Bill if Hillary is elected? For a male president, his wife is called First Lady. I think the most similar masculine counterpart for a female president would be First Gentleman. First Man sounds a bit too...informal?

[The Romulan Republic]

First Gentleman, most likely, although for reasons that have been thoroughly discussed in this thread, many will find it hard to apply the title of "Gentleman" to Bill.

Edit: Although I have seen "First Dude" joking suggested as an alternative, I believe.

[Borgholio]

Yeah I agree that the title is highly ironic given his history, but for a matter of protocol, I feel that First Gentleman sounds better than First Husband. Although First Dude would sound pretty cool.

[White Haven]

Bill Clinton, First Lord of the Executive.

[Alyrium Denryle]

First Gentleman, most likely, although for reasons that have been thoroughly discussed in this thread, many will find it hard to apply the title of "Gentleman" to Bill.

Edit: Although I have seen "First Dude" joking suggested as an alternative, I believe.

Unofficial title of First Philanderer has a certain ring to it.

[bilateralrope]

Question - what will you call Bill if Hillary is elected? For a male president, his wife is called First Lady. I think the most similar masculine counterpart for a female president would be First Gentleman. First Man sounds a bit too...informal?

How long before someone calls him the First Lady because they can't come up with a better insult ?

[Iroscato]

Question - what will you call Bill if Hillary is elected? For a male president, his wife is called First Lady. I think the most similar masculine counterpart for a female president would be First Gentleman. First Man sounds a bit too...informal?

How long before someone calls him the First Lady because they can't come up with a better insult ?

I've run the numbers, and I'm getting .8 femtoseconds after Hillary is sworn in, not counting the several billion times it's probably already been used on right-wing forums and such.

First Gentleman makes the most sense, since it's the equal and opposite term to Lady in society.

[Lord Revan]

First Gentleman seems to fit the best, First Lord seems too formal, while First Man/Dude is too informal.

[maraxus2]

I know it is tough. But there is no evidence, no cavalcade of other rape accusations which we would expect if it were real (because most rapists are repeat offenders well before they get caught), she swore an affidavit that no rape occurred, and her husband at the time cannot corroborate the injuries she said she sustained. After 21 and then 38 years post alleged incident, it is possible to literally claim anything. She could make the claim that Bill Clinton liked to torture dogs on the rack and the strength of her case would be the same. She went whole hog into the VRWC in the 1990s and a political agenda is pretty obvious.

It is just not credible, and until that changes there is little to grapple with.

I disagree. Broaddrick apparently told five people about the alleged rape immediately after it happened. She recanted the sworn affidavit in an interview with the Feds a year after it was signed. And she says that she didn't want to go public, but apparently didn't feel like she could lie to the Feds. Rumors had been circulating around Arkansas for a long time before that, like these things usually do.

Ken Starr didn't go forward with these allegations because there was little to substantiate them, but that doesn't mean they're not credible. Starr had a thousand irons in the fire at the time, and he had every reason to not press on a rape allegation that didn't have ironclad evidence against Clinton.

I agree that she has a very obvious political agenda, but I think there's another factor in play as well. The right-wing fever swamps were the only places she could find anyone who believed her. Certainly the mainstream press didn't, for all the reasons you listed.

But here's what makes it difficult to grapple with. There's no evidence that Clinton raped Broaddrick apart from Broaddrick's own allegations. Full stop. However, hers are by no means the only allegations of sexual misconduct against Clinton. We know that he engaged in relationships that were, at best, extremely inappropriate and cloaked in his political power. None of the behavior he's rumored to have engaged in (e.g. aggressive propositioning, exposing himself, etc) would pass legal muster today, and it certainly wouldn't be kosher in the court of public opinion. Plus, we know that Clinton came of political age in an era that was practically medieval as far as sexual ethics go. The 80's and 90's were filled with powerful men behaving badly around their subordinates. That's what gives me pause.

One thing that seems pretty indisputable though is that Hillary had much of anything to do with any of this. Broaddrick's claims that Clinton threatened her actually do lack credibility. I also think it's kinda weird that we place the onus of "enabling" a politically powerful rapist on the wives, rather than on the system that, y'know, enabled them to rape in the first place.

[The Romulan Republic]

Finally some real movement on fivethirtyeight.

Arizona is now blue in Polls-only as well as the Now-cast. So it does look like we will probably flip Arizona this year after all.

Now-cast is finally up over 90% chance for a Clinton win.

The Senate outlook is still disturbingly close in all projections except the Now-cast. Although the Democrats are in the lead in all of them.

[Napoleon the Clown]

On Facebook, I saw an unsourced claim that current polling in Utah stands at:
Clinton 26%
Trump 26%
McMullin 22%
Johnson 14%

I can't say I'm inclined to look for where these numbers originated (so take their accuracy with a grain or two of salt), be it the poster's ass or an actual poll. Either way, it'd be hilarious if Johnson and McMullin managed to siphon enough Republican voters to send Utah blue in the presidential vote.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll believe it when I see it, but damn, that would be funny.

Still, going off fivethirtyeight, my best case realistic projection is that Clinton takes ever state of Obama's in 2012, plus NC, Arizona, and Alaska and Georgia. Popular vote margin will be between 5 and 10 percent, maybe around 8 (Polls-only has it at a 6.3% lead for Clinton currently).

Edit: I guess we'll see in four weeks how close my guess was.

[ndryden]

On Facebook, I saw an unsourced claim that current polling in Utah stands at:
Clinton 26%
Trump 26%
McMullin 22%
Johnson 14%

I can't say I'm inclined to look for where these numbers originated (so take their accuracy with a grain or two of salt), be it the poster's ass or an actual poll. Either way, it'd be hilarious if Johnson and McMullin managed to siphon enough Republican voters to send Utah blue in the presidential vote.

Here is an article on the poll. It was conducted by Y2 Analytics, which FiveThirtyEight gives a "C+" ranking.

[maraxus2]

On Facebook, I saw an unsourced claim that current polling in Utah stands at:
Clinton 26%
Trump 26%
McMullin 22%
Johnson 14%

I can't say I'm inclined to look for where these numbers originated (so take their accuracy with a grain or two of salt), be it the poster's ass or an actual poll. Either way, it'd be hilarious if Johnson and McMullin managed to siphon enough Republican voters to send Utah blue in the presidential vote.

Here is an article on the poll. It was conducted by Y2 Analytics, which FiveThirtyEight gives a "C+" ranking.

Also the trendlines for Utah don't exactly look favorable for this poll. Not exactly strongly in favor of a Clinton victory.

[Flagg]

So some rich Donnie Douchebag donors want their money back. Which is truly funny since he hasn't changed one bit since the primary. Anyway, like his shit-wig he came as is.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I have seen a number of rather sensationalistic headlines talking about deep red states like Utah 'going blue"
What people seem to forget, is even with Trump's numbers tanking in certain states, NOEONE is switching their vote to Hillary.

States like Utah, Nebraska, Wyoming and Idaho have seen sharp drop offs in support for Trump.
But all of it is essentially going to either a third party vote or a no vote.
So, really certain states will NOT go for Hillary come what may.
They won't even go for a 3rd party.
They just simply won't go for Trump AS MUCH AS they have for other GOP candidates in the paste.

Oh, on states that MAY flip.
Arizona (my home state) is now at a 51% blue on 538 today.

[FireNexus]

snip knowledgable guy post

Maraxus, I've been meaning to ask. Do you work in politics? Your posts seem to imply that you have a professional knowledge of the field.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

It's funny how a looming election brings out the crazies on Facebook. Even among my friends, I've found that the only thing worse than a Trump supporter, is a Trump apologist. If this is typical of Republican voters, it speaks volumes.

[Q99]

Frankly, Texas has a better chance of flipping than Utah etc..


Or Georgia. Georgia's got a shot.

[SolarpunkFan]

Frankly, Texas has a better chance of flipping than Utah etc..


Or Georgia. Georgia's got a shot.

Really? I heard that the redness/blueness of a state more often than not boils down to the ratio of the rural population to the urban population. If rural < urban you tend to get blue states, if rural > urban you tend to get red states.

So considering that Texas is the second largest state in the Union by land area, there would be a larger rural population compared to Utah's. Though I guess the more fundamentalist Mormons in Utah might be a factor as well.

Edit: if I got my greater-than less-than signs wrong then please tell me, if only to make sure I won't make the same mistake next time.