In your honest opinion, who do you think has the best chance of becoming POTUS?

[TaintedAndDelish]

Looks like there's some more resignations at the DNC.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/dnc-ceo-resigns-in-wake-of-email-scandal/index.html

[Missy]

I haven't a clue who will win to be honest and to much politics is divisive and counterproductive.

What I know for sure is that anyone is better than Trump. Hard to find is a man more aggressive and undiplomatic than Trump. If you can't resolve your problems by building bridges and seeing the other side of the coin then you just aren't qualified for the job.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I was wondering which voters he is trying to court with his fried chicken display and should we send him some information on falafel carts in NYC?

What makes you think he's trying to court any voters with this picture? If Trump worried about courting voters not already in his camp I think we would have noticed by now. The Donald does as The Donald does and that's just that.

[persephone325]

Some of Trump's ideas make sense (not the whole "build a wall!" thing. He does realize how fucking LONG that would take, right?), but he's just such an unbelievable ass-hat that I just can't respect him. I can't vote for someone I don't respect.

[Mithlomwen]

Is there any way we can disqualify them all and start from scratch? 

*laughs*

Just kidding....mostly...

[Beguile's Mistress]

Is there any way we can disqualify them all and start from scratch? 

*laughs*

Just kidding....mostly...

What you need to do is start tossing out names until you find someone - if that's possible - that no one gossips, flails and complains about.  Though, I don't think we could get a chocolate chip cookie nominated and elected without it being pulled apart and reduced to crumbs. ;D

[Oniya]

This is interesting.  Check out the demographics breakdown on page 20.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/08/01/2016.post-dem.convention.pdf

[CuriousEyes]

Yeah. If those results continue to hold or trend even further away from the Rs...

It could be the political equivalent of a piledriver through a table onto a steel chair.

[Oniya]

Yeah. If those results continue to hold or trend even further away from the Rs...

It could be the political equivalent of a piledriver through a table onto a steel chair.

If they hadn't ignored 27.8% of the people eligible to vote in their polling, you could be right.

[CuriousEyes]

If they hadn't ignored 27.8% of the people eligible to vote in their polling, you could be right.

/headscratch Can you elaborate? I was/am browsing on a phone and am not sure I see what you're referring to.

[Oniya]

Page 20, age demographics, column labelled 18-34.  N/A's straight down the line.  Using the most recently available census data, 75.3% of the total population is over 19 (they divide it by 5-year gaps).  20.1% of the total population falls between 20 and 34.  20.1 is 27.8% of 75.3.

According to my statistics professor, that's poor sampling at best.

[CuriousEyes]

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling
error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce
crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups
with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "NA".

Seems like the survey group they polled didn't have a large enough population of 18 - 34 year olds to fall within the surveys margin of error?

First, and shamefully, that segment of the population votes in woefully small proportion. Absent Bernie Sanders (and lets please not fall back into that...) great swaths of them weren't going to vote anyways.

http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

The ones that are still going to vote are unlikely to support Trump over Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/poll-do-millennials-like-trump-222397

Even if we can bemoan that the survey missed a portion of the population, we can still make educated assumptions to ehat that population will do. And to me that pushes the race more in favor of HRC (for now).

[HannibalBarca]

With leaving the 18-34 year old demographic out, that means you can tack on a few more percentage points for Clinton, knowing how that age group votes.  Barring something really stupid by the Clinton campaign, it looks like Trump will simply shoot himself in the foot and face until election day, then go down to a historic defeat.

What really interests me, however, are the downticket elections.  It looks more likely that the Democrats will be able to retake the Senate.  What's even more amazing is that there is now a chance they might actually retake the House as well, though that still seems a longshot.  With a Democratic Senate, there will be no problem passing either Supreme Court or Federal justices for Clinton, which will let a lot of the business of the nation start moving again.

[ReijiTabibito]

Whoever wins on election day, the victory will be historic.  If for no other reason than that for either of these candidates, achieving victory should not be possible.  The mere fact that we even have a close race - that victory is possible for both sides - speaks volumes to the election process, the American people, both, or more.

The downticket races always concerned me more than the Presidential ones, always.  My IRL friends give me guff for hating the Presidential elections, saying that we're basically picking which one the national elites like more, but the problem for most of this present administration - the problem with our government in general - is Congress.  Congress can get shit done, with or without the President.  That shit has not gotten done is because people assume the President's title of "Most Powerful Man in the World" is true.

[TheGlyphstone]

Well, to be particular, it is true. The President as an individual/office is more powerful than any one Congressperson, it's only the collective power of Congress as a whole (or the collective Supreme Court) that counterbalances or counteracts said executive. That's how the balance of power (supposedly) works.

[Oniya]

There's also the assumption that 'not A' = B.

[ReijiTabibito]

True.  But people don't necessarily tend to understand the particulars of your statement because it can't fit into a five-second sound bite or on a bumper sticker.  And getting Congress un-gridlocked and moving again will serve to address (at least in the lettering of them) some of the problems that have been stated to be the problems with government.

Don't want Presidents issuing a gajillion executive orders?  Or SCOTUS 'legislating morality from the bench'?  Get Congress moving.  Laws - the writing and initial passage thereof - is supposed to be their job.  Of course, today they'd tell you that getting re-elected is their job...

[Cassandra LeMay]

Don't want Presidents issuing a gajillion executive orders?  Or SCOTUS 'legislating morality from the bench'?  Get Congress moving.  Laws - the writing and initial passage thereof - is supposed to be their job.  Of course, today they'd tell you that getting re-elected is their job...

Well, if I were a politician I'd want to get re-elected too, and I guess so would you. But that may not actually be a problem; how they are elected is just as important (or perhaps even more important).

Fivethirtyeight has a very interesting article on the subject right now. Check out their item #3 in particular. The number of safe seats has become so high that party primaries are essentially elections for the House seat, as running on a certain party ticket almosts guarantees a seat in Congress. As voter participation in primaries is usually very low those primaries become vulnerable to special interest groups advancing their agenda through a candidate of their choice. If people cared more about the primaries they could exercise a larger influence on their politicians.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Voter apathy has always been a problem.  Working with a group that deals with voter education and motivation we find that there are too many amateur analysts throwing around opinions and talking points without really understanding the material they are discussing.  This causes confusion and leads people to avoid voting. 

[Missy]

Well I don't know everything, but I have heard before that in general Americans place a great deal of expectation on the President to change things. Even though the presidents ability to do anything is largely dependent on Congress and not the individual themself. I have wondered before if people were more aware of the bureaucracy might actually make a discernible difference.

[gaggedLouise]

Finally there's a third candidate, who is aiming to offer a more honourable republican/conservative alternative to Trump. Evan McMullin, former CIA agent and associated with the House Republican Conference is making a bid. He doesn't have much of a serious chance to win the whole election, of course - he's a bit too late to even be allowed on the ballot in some states - but he seems to be more about trying to save the honour of the GOP.

Mr McMullin, the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, is backed by an anti-Trump group.

He is likely to face challenges in appearing on some state ballots just three months before Election Day. The 40-year-old Mormon has never held elected office.

Mr McMullin is an outspoken critic of Mr Trump on social media, calling the businessman an "authoritarian".

In a Facebook post, Mr McMullin condemned Mr Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric, saying "attacking them as a group makes America weaker, not stronger".

It does sound like he would mostly get votes from people who are feeling dismayed about voting for Trump, and the Donald has lost a lot of momentum over the last week or so.  :-)

[HannibalBarca]

I saw the story about Evan McMullin on The Young Turks just an hour ago.  Interesting, and not entirely unexpected.  It makes sense for many establishment Republicans to do so.

An informed electorate is necessary to the functioning of our government, by being able to separate the bullshit from the truth.  Skepticism isn't exactly looked on in glowing terms by many in the U.S., particularly in the way many religions are conducted and taught here.  After all, what would you expect from a country with so many people who don't accept evolution or the actual age of the Earth?

What is interesting is how many Trump supporters aren't actively religious.  They aren't being gullible due to religion, but...they're gullible nonetheless.  I think that, perhaps, our mass media culture has more to do with it.

[Lustful Bride]

What is interesting is how many Trump supporters aren't actively religious.  They aren't being gullible due to religion, but...they're gullible nonetheless.  I think that, perhaps, our mass media culture has more to do with it.

Its just the trump knows how to tap into the boiling frustration and anger at their government that so many people have, it hits that button that makes people see red and not realize his promises really are just as hollow as the rest of them. Just Buzz words and sound bites.

And not all of the religious are blithering idiots who run in terror at a science book. I was raised on faith being the Why things happen and science being How it happens. :P A happy middle ground.

Still I want to beat some people with a science book until they can accurately understand evolution. And then with the holy book of their choice so they can learn to love thy neighbor. @_@

[HannibalBarca]

I often sound like I'm against religious people, when I'm only really against religions that teach hatred and harm.  Wicca, Jainism...those religions aren't hurtful to anyone.  I worry more about the Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam that have human sacrifice deeply imbedded in them at their core, and how the cult of victimization is emphasized.  Usually, the best people of those religions tend to be the ones who ignore most the core values of their religions, like slavery, misogyny, and genocide.

I was raised Catholic.  My parents and I took opposite paths after leaving the religion; they are evangelical Christians now, I'm an atheist.  In so many ways, they are frightfully ignorant now.  They also don't know I'm an atheist.  They have so said so many hateful and hurtful things about atheists and liberals that I really don't want to go there with them.  And these are two people who, when they were Catholic, were okay with birth control, thought women should be able to be priests, that priests should be able to marry, masturbation was okay, and evolution was acceptable.

They, for their own part, have fears that are played upon by hucksters like Trump and others.  A lot of it is fear of change...change that is inevitable in life, and, to me, seems to be based in an all-too human fear of eventual death, the ultimate change in life.

[Lustful Bride]

I often sound like I'm against religious people, when I'm only really against religions that teach hatred and harm.  Wicca, Jainism...those religions aren't hurtful to anyone. I worry more about the Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam that have human sacrifice deeply imbedded in them at their core, and how the cult of victimization is emphasized.  Usually, the best people of those religions tend to be the ones who ignore most the core values of their religions, like slavery, misogyny, and genocide.

I was raised Catholic.  My parents and I took opposite paths after leaving the religion; they are evangelical Christians now, I'm an atheist. In so many ways, they are frightfully ignorant now. They also don't know I'm an atheist.  They have so said so many hateful and hurtful things about atheists and liberals that I really don't want to go there with them.  And these are two people who, when they were Catholic, were okay with birth control, thought women should be able to be priests, that priests should be able to marry, masturbation was okay, and evolution was acceptable.

They, for their own part, have fears that are played upon by hucksters like Trump and others.  A lot of it is fear of change...change that is inevitable in life, and, to me, seems to be based in an all-too human fear of eventual death, the ultimate change in life.

*Both insulted but understands....ima hug you anyway* *2

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I'm sorry that your parents hurt you. I'm sorry anyone from my faith ever hurt anyone. I wish I could make it so that it never happened again but whenever a thinking creature is involved, it will always be corrupted and lead to pain. Just gotta look on the bright and good side, and hold onto that light and share in its warmth.

But yeah I agree trump is a fear monger, and the new snake oil of today is fear and pointing the finger at 'those people' because 'those people' are always the problem. And no one ever cares about 'those people' until suddenly the finger is at 'You People' and they are now the target.


*2: Don't worry though I have had it put many worse ways and hateful ways over my life so. I understand what you mean and where your coming form. Your not coming from a place of hate or disrespect and that makes all the difference.