Senate The 2016 General Presidential Election

Clinton is banking a significant number of votes right now, and in fact probably has several million locked up by now. We see more coverage of early voting than we used to, but I'm not sure enough attention is being paid to how early voting affects the Senate. To me, early voters are more likely to support Democratic candidates in general.

 

no-one even speaks Latin anymore , ( maybe the Pope ocassionally )

 

That's true in a lot of places, but is it true in every swing state? Clinton's statewide operations are putting a lot of emphasis on early voting, and I'm sure it's paying off for her. I know people traveling to Iowa this weekend to knock on doors for Hillary, and they are going to be reminding people that they can vote early.

 

I think the Clinton team should abandon Ohio and Iowa-- let Trump win them, or not. Portman is almost a sure winner, and Grassley will probably win as well. Get back to Rubio's seat, and other investments more likely to pay off.

 

First of all, you're crazy.

Second of all, especially in this election, GOP downballot candidates != GOP presidential candidate, so her staying in OH and IA (which she can win) despite the downballot issues makes sense.

Lastly, Rylo Ken -- I've seen the generic conventional wisdom being that a good ground game is worth about 1% and a bad ground game is opposite (-1%) -- so if she can pull off a 2% swing everywhere she tries, that's quite a bit.

 

I was bored and took a quiz.

I got 9 Clinton, 3 Johnson (they were joint on Planned Parenthood) and zero Trump!

 

Speaking of Gary Johnson...

 

The late-breaking buyers' remorse collapse of Gary Johnson...may have to concede the 5% thing to dp4m - not ready to go 50% on Hillary though.

 

But you're still ignoring a very important thing if you want to be gender-neutral, which I posted about earlier but everyone ignored...

What adjectives and gendered nouns do you use with Latinx? Because your choices are:

Todas mis amigas son Latinx.
Todos mis amigos son Latinx.
Todx mis amigx son Latinx.

Two of those options require you to choose a gender anyway, undercutting the effort. And one of them sounds insane.

One of the most telling parts of this election is that Republicans, who have for years been very pro free-trade as a cornerstone of their party, have suddenly decided to become incredibly anti free-trade just because Trump tells them to.

If that doesn't demonstrate how blindly partisan many people are, I don't know what does.

Latinos can refer to anyone from Latin America, regardless of their linguistic or ethnic origins. So it can include Brazilians, Belizians (descended from a British rather than Spanish colony), and people mostly descended from native groups like the Mayans.

Hispanic usually refers specifically to people descended from Spanish colonies only.

 

I genuinely can't tell if this is satire or not???

 

It's not.

EDIT: There's even video of it.

 

Okay guys, I know we don't normally do pop culture humor here, but this article may be the one to bring the world together on Trump.

 

I just saw that on Facebook and laughed really hard at the headline.

 

I did too, and I hardly ever laugh out loud when I'm alone. It took me a while to compose myself enough to read the rest of the article.

 

Oh my god. Not only is the tax policy abhorrent, he's just... not equipped. I'm sure he was a fine governor. But President?

 

It's okay. I have a sneaking suspicion he won't win.

 

Dude If you have an insulting beef with me bring it up in a PM I would gladly discus it with you, that was all kinds of rude my friend. But what I wrote was true its just common sense. may be the reason I keep bringing up the polling is because it is a story they talk about every day and night on the news and I was responding to a post about polling.

 

Well, you are making a terrible point.

I mean, they call elections with about 2% of the votes counted, and can do so for a reason.

 

what's sociology, precious?

 

I don't think anyone ignored it. You're just right. It absolutely undercuts the effort, because it's not a complete or organized overhaul. There's just nothing else to say on the issue. I'd argue that trying to introduce a comprehensive reformat of the language is more likely to fail than this tactic. My issue with Ender is distinct, and I'll come to it in a moment.

I want to push back on this as strongly as possible. Gender and the way we think about Latinos in the US are two of the defining issues of this election cycle. You're happy to crow about it when its giving your favorite candidate and advantage in some poll, or you are patting yourself on the back for how enlightened you are. This represents not only a convergence of the two issues, but an instance of people struggling to apply their principles. You should no more reduce an election discussion to a bunch of amateurish speculations about turn-out and polling cross tabs than you should appreciate movies solely in terms of their profit-making potential for their corporate parents.

Content matters. Policy proposals is an element of elections, and policy-making a consequence of them. Supposedly an important one. If you want to have candidates running on or against Obamacare, what we understand to be the flaws of the United States healthcare system matters. If there's an argument that females are structurally disadvantaged, then examining every aspect of our culture to find evidence--or lack thereof--for this disadvantage is fair game. If you want to deal seriously with how we treat non-whites, figuring out our attitude towards them means something. Even if that comes together as an unpronounceable and rarely used word like "Latinx." None of this has any less right to be in this thread than the 15th round of celebration about some clickbait regional news poll.

As I've addressed from the beginning, this is a dumb charge. In the first place, you never really escape the dynamic of being dismissive of native Spanish speakers who have made similar critiques. Beyond this, though, it's kind of a dumb one. These critiques tend to emerge, in both languages, from a very specific part of the ideological spectrum. Has it not occurred to you that a better explanation for the dynamic you are seeing is that people of a common social ideology across several languages happen to agree? Instead of, you know, defaulting to your by now too familiar whining? Further, how is it that you've come to be such a vaunted warrior against cultural imperialism in only such select cases? Has anyone ever heard you speak up against "free market" principles that are relentlessly pushed, even where they conflict violently with more culturally local understandings of the economy? Or do these things only become of concern when it's someone's attempt to redress an already marginalized group?

This is not a term I use myself. It's not one I expect to gain wide social currency. But to dismiss it as somehow illegitimate or unreal is ridiculous when even Mexican Presidents have employed otherwise non-sensical grammatical constructions as a way of getting around these gender issues. Do you realize you are allowed to disagree with something without everyone else being a phony?

 

It would be a historic mistake for the GOP to block any and all Clinton nominees. It would be an even bigger mistake to allow the Court to shrink even further.

Imagine the following scenario: At some point in the future, (say, 2024 for arguments' sake), the Democrats win a national "wave" election and take control of all three branches of government. They begin to enact a liberal agenda, only to see if overturned by a 7-member Supreme Court with a 5-2 conservative split. The solution? Add eight liberal justices, all in their 40s, and make it 15. If the Republicans allow the Court to shrink as a part of a tantrum re: President Hillary Clinton, they'll be setting themselves up for an awful lot of pain when the next Democratic majority decides they no longer want to deal with a right-leaning Court overturning all their bills.

I'm not endorsing this behavior by either side, but it would be justified if the above occurred. Blocking for blocking's sake is bad.

Got it, GOP?

 

You're pushing back strongly, but not well. It has *much* less right to be in this thread than even the 16th round of celebration about some regional news poll. I haven't seen any attempt whatsoever to relate the discussion to any candidate's policy position or to any political topic, including also not in the slightest bit anywhere within the exceedingly lengthy post 53897169 by member 857699.

Princeton Survey Research Associates International has Clinton up nationally by 11 points.

Also, I'm proud to report that I did my very first Wikileaks name search of the Podesta hack database. So much fun. I KNOW PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE EMAIL STREAM!!!! I'm somebody! (who knows somebody who is known!)

 

You didn't include the link, you dope!

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2016/politics/candidates-general-election-matchmaker/

 

Gary Johnson and I found common ground on planned parenthood and pot.

 

Hillary Clinton claims she is aiming to create a more inclusive society. Fighting for "everyone" and all that. Such a claim goes well beyond proposals for new laws that Congress should pass. In that context, debates like the one we're having over "Latinx" are far more relevant than whatever idiocy Donald Trump said yesterday or last week. While I can appreciate that your favorite shtick is cynical detachment, those of us who dare to hope Presidential elections are actually about something would enjoy an opportunity to talk about policy from time to time.

 

you haven't been doing that.