What happened to convention bounce 4 Dems?

[NoahFence]

If Clinton doesn't wind up winning by 20 or more points at the end I'll be shocked.

 

[Tony Stark]

If Clinton doesn't wind up winning by 20 or more points at the end I'll be shocked.

The electorate is too polarized for that to happen. I think the best that can be hoped for is about 10-12 points.

 

[lionking]

If Clinton doesn't wind up winning by 20 or more points at the end I'll be shocked.

Agreed. It will set HRC up nicely for two terms, and leave Republicans kicking themselves for endorsing an idiot. I don't think the Republicans will recover from this emerging debacle.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Agreed. It will set HRC up nicely for two terms, and leave Republicans kicking themselves for endorsing an idiot. I don't think the Republicans will recover from this emerging debacle.

I hope you are right, we don't need any more conservative hacks in the SCOTUS.

 

[sunmaster14]

It was a personal attack, masked in sophistry. It was minor and ineffective as are so many such attacks, but don't get upset when you get caught playing games. Own up to 'em. Ask yourself, WWRSD - What Would Roger Stone Do.

If that was a personal attack, then I submit that more than 50% of the posts here contain a personal attack, and a far higher percentage of your posts do. I am really kind of shocked by the claim. Dishonesty or delusion? Hard to tell. I'd like to think that I am being trolled actually. It would mean that it is still possible to have reasoned discourse at some later date when tempers cool.

You've managed to derail this sufficiently because of your knee-jerk defense of doom-and-gloom prognosticators. There is a faction, in the press and on these boards, hoping for a September or October Surprise in the form of a large lethal terrorist attack. You didn't prove it wrong, you offered up a Tu Quoque, and a lie at that. "Oh, yeah? I bet you didn't object when Harry Reid was hoping for "the surge" to fail."

Well, did you? I thought what Harry Reid was despicable, but I never heard any Democrat call him out. In fact, Harry Reid's solemn assessment that "This war is lost" was treasonous. That the Senate Majority leader should say something like that, given presumably his stature, his political influence, and his access to classified information, should and probably did hurt the morale of the troops.

Regardless, I will answer your question. Yes, I believe many Trump supporters are rooting for a successful terrorist attack in the US because they think it will help their cause. It's kind of a short-term pain for long-term gain kind of thing. Is it honorable to do so? Of course not. Would many supporters on the other side wish for something equivalently bad if it helped Hillary? Yes. Once again, it's not honorable, but it's understandable.

Think how you feel about Trump's ill-advised response to the Khizr Khan. Do you feel terrible for the Gold Star parents who are being forced to endure disparagement by the Republican nominee, or are you instead giddy about it? It's a smaller scale kind of bad, but the idea is similar.

I stated my opinion, which is held by many, that the surge was a failure anyway and that criticizing the surge is not nearly the same as hoping for a terrorist attack.

I wasn't equating criticizing the surge with hoping for US defeat. But I did claim that many hoped the surge would fail so that their predictions would be fulfilled and their political prospects would look brighter. Regardless, my criticism of Democrats' attitude towards the Iraq War extends well beyond the response to the surge. In 2004, John Edwards made it something of a mantra to list the consecutive months in which US troop deaths had increased to show that things were getting worse in Iraq and not better. You don't think that he and others in the party hoped for a continuation of that trend? I am sure of it.

You put everything in "either for us or against us" terms. Reid criticized the plan for the surge, so he must have been hoping for more dead people. Do you not see the huge gaping fallacy in your Tu Quoque argument?

Reid not only criticized the plan for the surge, he tried to undermine its potential for success by hurting the morale of the troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. What he did was beyond just hoping for defeat. He actually facilitated a defeat. It was, bar none, the most despicable thing I've seen a prominent elected official do that I can remember.

First, there's no actual evidence of him hoping for this, that was your tainted projection. Second, you're diverting attention from the original point.... there are people out there who, by my personalized projections, must be complete sociopaths, rooting for a large terrorist attack or invasion by a peasant army of Mexican illegals, so they can ratchet up the fear and elect the Orange Turd.

You want to address that? Or you want to find something to say about Hanoi Jane to further divert attention from the mass of smarminess you're defending?

Not sure what this refers to, but I have answered your question. You probably think it was a personal attack though.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If that was a personal attack, then I submit that more than 50% of the posts here contain a personal attack, and a far higher percentage of your posts do. I am really kind of shocked by the claim. Dishonesty or delusion? Hard to tell. I'd like to think that I am being trolled actually. It would mean that it is still possible to have reasoned discourse at some later date when tempers cool.

You're not being trolled. You're being corrected. When you offer evidence for any of your claims, I'm here to discuss them with you. "Well, it just seems obvious to me".... whether you're projecting motives on Harry Reid, accusing the FBI of being lackies or claiming unfair treatment at the hands of meanie Libruls, that isn't evidence; it's an opinion.

Well, did you? I thought what Harry Reid was despicable, but I never heard any Democrat call him out. In fact, Harry Reid's solemn assessment that "This war is lost" was treasonous. That the Senate Majority leader should say something like that, given presumably his stature, his political influence, and his access to classified information, should and probably did hurt the morale of the troops.

A great example of the above. This is an assertion. The Senate of the United States is not allowed to discuss execution of a war? In what world? And you calling it treasonous should be beyond the pale for conservatives.... True Conservatives, that is. Had Reid done what you said, I might've condemned him, but let's remember the original discussion:
Conservative/Left doom and gloom prophets who are actually rooting for a "new Pearl Harbor" so that ISIF or AQ deliver a September Surprise and elect their boy to the White House. Reid didn't do anything similar. He criticized the war plans of Bush-Cheney and said he thought it would fail. To you, that's treasonous? Everyone's supposed to get in lock-step behind the CiC? Why don't you promote that same idea when a Democrat is in the White House?

Regardless, I will answer your question. Yes, I believe many Trump supporters are rooting for a successful terrorist attack in the US because they think it will help their cause. It's kind of a short-term pain for long-term gain kind of thing. Is it honorable to do so? Of course not. Would many supporters on the other side wish for something equivalently bad if it helped Hillary? Yes. Once again, it's not honorable, but it's understandable.

Think how you feel about Trump's ill-advised response to the Khizr Khan. Do you feel terrible for the Gold Star parents who are being forced to endure disparagement by the Republican nominee, or are you instead giddy about it? It's a smaller scale kind of bad, but the idea is similar.

I feel bad for anyone who loses someone. I'm delighted that Trump showed more of his true colors, though. But he didn't actually pull out a Luger and shoot them, did he? So while I'm quite content that he dropped his figurative pants, I surely wouldn't have wished him to put any physical harm on the Khans just so I could get some political points. Again, another false equivalence... this is assuredly NOT the same as hoping someone blows up a mall in Dubuque.

I wasn't equating criticizing the surge with hoping for US defeat. But I did claim that many hoped the surge would fail so that their predictions would be fulfilled and their political prospects would look brighter. Regardless, my criticism of Democrats' attitude towards the Iraq War extends well beyond the response to the surge. In 2004, John Edwards made it something of a mantra to list the consecutive months in which US troop deaths had increased to show that things were getting worse in Iraq and not better. You don't think that he and others in the party hoped for a continuation of that trend? I am sure of it.

If you weren't equating one to the other why did you bring it up? That seems patently disingenuous. Besides, what Reid was saying, what Edwards was saying, et al.... This is classic Tu Quoque fallacy. We are discussing what Donald Trump did and said.

Reid not only criticized the plan for the surge, he tried to undermine its potential for success by hurting the morale of the troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. What he did was beyond just hoping for defeat. He actually facilitated a defeat. It was, bar none, the most despicable thing I've seen a prominent elected official do that I can remember.

You're not sure what the below refers to, yet you play the same card above? Accusing people you disagree with of giving aid/succor to the enemy is the old Hanoi Jane trick. Peg a peacenik as a spy or traitor. Works well, but it's scurrilous. And Harry Reid was far from a peacenik. He disagreed with Bush on the path to ending the war. I really don't know what you base your opinions on when you call that delivery, assuming you're talking about his speech on the Senate floor, treasonous. I don't see it that way at all.

Not sure what this refers to, but I have answered your question. You probably think it was a personal attack though.

Nope. You started answering questions. It's a derail, but a derail that finally went somewhere.

 

[The Don]

I hope you are right, we don't need any more conservative hacks in the SCOTUS.

I predict that there won't be a single justice appointed to the Supreme Court while there is a Democratic Party President - even if it means two full terms (in addition to the year without under Obama).

 

[varwoche]

I predict that there won't be a single justice appointed to the Supreme Court while there is a Democratic Party President - even if it means two full terms (in addition to the year without under Obama).

If dems take the senate, no way. A permanent filibuster of SCOTUS nominees would trigger a rules change, which only requires a simple majority.

 

[The Don]

If dems take the senate, no way. A permanent filibuster of SCOTUS nominees would trigger a rules change, which only requires a simple majority.

But would that rules change get through. it could backfire on the Democratic Party in the future. Wouldn't they want to keep the filibuster in case in the future the GOP has a completely repellent nomination ?

 

[varwoche]

But would that rules change get through. it could backfire on the Democratic Party in the future. Wouldn't they want to keep the filibuster in case in the future the GOP has a completely repellent nomination ?

If the GOP were to subvert the system to such an extent, there's no other option.

 

[phiwum]

If Clinton doesn't wind up winning by 20 or more points at the end I'll be shocked.

Reagan only led Carter by 9% in 1980. That was widely considered a landslide.

I think 20 points is wishful thinking.

 

[JoeB]

The electorate is too polarized for that to happen. I think the best that can be hoped for is about 10-12 points.

538 has the chance at a double digit popular vote win as 15.7% for Clinton of a 66% chance she wins.

So Clinton winning is twice as likely as Trump, but her winning by double digits is half as likely as Trump winning.

 

[Denver]

I would guess close to 10% if the election was today, but admit it is too early to really give a good estimate. A lot can happen between now and November, and swing that number either way.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Agreed. It will set HRC up nicely for two terms, and leave Republicans kicking themselves for endorsing an idiot. I don't think the Republicans will recover from this emerging debacle.

A 2nd term (for either of them) will be very dependent on how the economy is doing 4 years from now.

 

[acbytesla]

I predict that there won't be a single justice appointed to the Supreme Court while there is a Democratic Party President - even if it means two full terms (in addition to the year without under Obama).

Want to bet? Obama nominated 3 and 2 were seated. There is an empty vacancy right now. and there is a strong belief that thed GOP will try and rush through Senate approval of Garland if Hillary wins.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

Want to bet? Obama nominated 3 and 2 were seated. There is an empty vacancy right now. and there is a strong belief that thed GOP will try and rush through Senate approval of Garland if Hillary wins.

If Hillary wins, Obama should immediately withdraw Garland's nomination and say he agrees with the Republicans - the people have voted so the next president should appoint someone to fill the vacancy. Garland was nominated as the best option for Republicans and there might've been a chance to get him seated. The republicans balked, preferring to wait for the election. If the republicans want to play that game, then they should have to suffer the consequences if it doesn't go their way.

 

[The Don]

If Clinton doesn't wind up winning by 20 or more points at the end I'll be shocked.

If the margin is wider than 4, I'll be amazed.

Trump 44-47%

Hillary 46-48%

With third party candidates accounting for the remainder.

 

[Foolmewunz]

A 2nd term (for either of them) will be very dependent on how the economy is doing 4 years from now.

Well, "It's about the economy...." generally, but it'd have to tank or some other come-to-jesus moment would have to occur for the GOP to rebound from this debacle. And it is shaping up as a debacle.

What I like is that the DNC aren't resting on their laurels waiting for him to self-destruct. That's just a bonus half-dozen points to the negative. They're solidifying their support in the swing states. When the state polls start coming out, it's going to feel really bad to be in the GOP camp. Right now, RCP is being very generous with their electoral map, holding Hillary at just 202. They could move forty or fifty electoral votes over to the Dem column. I know they're in the business of making it look interesting but MI, WI, PA, VA.... all are going to go blue.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, "It's about the economy...." generally, but it'd have to tank or some other come-to-jesus moment would have to occur for the GOP to rebound from this debacle. And it is shaping up as a debacle.

What I like is that the DNC aren't resting on their laurels waiting for him to self-destruct. That's just a bonus half-dozen points to the negative. They're solidifying their support in the swing states. When the state polls start coming out, it's going to feel really bad to be in the GOP camp. Right now, RCP is being very generous with their electoral map, holding Hillary at just 202. They could move forty or fifty electoral votes over to the Dem column. I know they're in the business of making it look interesting but MI, WI, PA, VA.... all are going to go blue.

They are using Trump against the rest of the Republicans. Putting them in a no win situation. Support Trump and lose the swing votes for putting party over country or if they don't support Trump they get a backlash from Trump supporters.

Lets face it, Trump is the best thing to happen to the GOP since Hoover.

 

[acbytesla]

If the margin is wider than 4, I'll be amazed.

Trump 44-47%

Hillary 46-48%

With third party candidates accounting for the remainder.

I'd be shocked if it was under 4. It won't be 20 thogh. My bet is 6 to 8.