American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems

[BlackLabel]

Jockman said:

So they've been kneck 'n kneck a few times before.

What then caused Trump to slump and Hilary to soar after each occasion?

I think it's because there were several more in the contest back then - at several points during the election campaign Clinton and Trump may have been level in the polls but then Bush, Rubio etc were also polling at a similar level.

[unrepentant]

scherzkeks said:

You are correct. But a social is needed for some things (that said, I have never needed to show my actual card for anything).

In many states if you buy a car and have not registered a vehicle previously in that state you will be required to provide a copy of your card.

As for the polls, they are all over the place at the moment and will be until Sanders gets out and the conventions are over. At this stage in '88 Dukakis was 17 points ahead of Bush. I don't recall a President Dukakis.....

[Jockman]

unrepentant said:

As for the polls, they are all over the place at the moment and will be until Sanders gets out and the conventions are over. At this stage in '88 Dukakis was 17 points ahead of Bush. I don't recall a President Dukakis.....

So if the Dems couldn't hold on to a 17 point lead in '88 what chance of holding on to zero lead now? Trump is as ugly as they come. George W Snr was credible establishment.

[Vocal Minority]

Jockman said:

So if the Dems couldn't hold on to a 17 point lead in '88 what chance of holding on to zero lead now? Trump is as ugly as they come. George W Snr was credible establishment.

World changes, voters change, priorities change, personalities change - you can't expect history to repeat itself.

[Jockman]

Vocal Minority said:

World changes, voters change, priorities change, personalities change - you can't expect history to repeat itself.

Indeed. I think any lesson should be not to write off anyone.

[Esseesse]

BlackLabel said:

Jockman said:

So they've been kneck 'n kneck a few times before.

What then caused Trump to slump and Hilary to soar after each occasion?

I think it's because there were several more in the contest back then - at several points during the election campaign Clinton and Trump may have been level in the polls but then Bush, Rubio etc were also polling at a similar level.

This, also previously they just happened to be neck and neck by chance. By that I mean there was less focus on each other, more on their respective party primaries.

[Esseesse]

Looking at the Hillary website from a Dilbert perspective, it appears to contain some major fail.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Scroll down and you're met with these words in this order...

Clinton Website said:

Donald Trump could be your next Commander-in-Chief. Here's how he wants to keep America 'safe.'

Time to start imagining President Trump in the Situation Room.

Why are they advertising Trump?

[unrepentant]

Jockman said:

unrepentant said:

As for the polls, they are all over the place at the moment and will be until Sanders gets out and the conventions are over. At this stage in '88 Dukakis was 17 points ahead of Bush. I don't recall a President Dukakis.....

So if the Dems couldn't hold on to a 17 point lead in '88 what chance of holding on to zero lead now? Trump is as ugly as they come. George W Snr was credible establishment.

Eh? It's got nothing to do with party affinity. Bill Clinton was way behind in '92, Romney was ahead of Obama close to polling day in '12 and got slaughtered, McCain led Obama after the convention in '08 and was soundly beaten. Polls fluctuate wildly during election cycles and different polls show different outcomes on the same day! Rasmussen polls republicans and then declares that the republicans are ahead in the polls! The only poll that's worth st is the one on Nov 8th.

This veteran thing looks like it's hotting up. They have some very articulate spokespeople and they are pretty upset with Trump. Looks like he either lied through his teeth about how much he raised for veterans when he skipped the debate or he stole their money. Either or both could be true.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/veterans-hold-trump-tow...

[anonymous-user]

unrepentant said:

The social security card is the main identifier for many of those things. The people we are talking about probably don't use a bank but if they did it wouldn't matter. I didn't show my DL to my bank or to AMEX when I opened accounts, all they wanted was my SS. I haven't been carded in a bar or restaurant in years. Most supermarkets card everyone but you will only get carded in a bar if you look under 30 in most states.

Certainly not my experience living in NY 07-12, I needed photo id for just about everything. I don't know when you opened your bank accounts but I'm almost certain if your initial deposit isn't coming from another bank account in your name you need an original photo id.

unrepentant said:

In some states the card can cost $50. If you're dirt poor $50 is a lot of money.. It's not just the ID issue anyway. The republicans have been doing a lot of shady stuff in many states to frighten people into not voting. When you're talking about the most vulnerable it's pretty easy.

Fair enough it cost something like $5 in NY. I was only talking about not having id I don't know about any other issues.

unrepentant said:

Here's the deal right. Think about it logically. Mr FBLM is registered to vote in one place in the USA. When he turns up they cross him off the list (just like the UK). So for voter ID fraud to happen someone has to go to the polling station where they know Mr FBLM is registered to vote. They also need to know that Mr FBLM hasn't already voted and doesn't plan to. They then have to pretend to be Mr FBLM in order to cast one vote in the knowledge that if they were caught it's a felony with serious repercussions. The juice from that orange simply ain't worth the squeeze and IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluded and hasn't thought it through - or they're a republican politician looking to rig the system.

Huh? I haven't mentioned fraud! My point is simply that irrespective of why one must have id to vote it really can't be that hard. I live in the Caribbean. Poor here is poor. Everyone has id. It's just not that hard.

[Countdown]

fblm said:

Huh? I haven't mentioned fraud! My point is simply that irrespective of why one must have id to vote it really can't be that hard. I live in the Caribbean. Poor here is poor. Everyone has id. It's just not that hard.

There was a video that half posted up earlier where

A member of the GOP explains (by accident I assume )what the intention of voter ID rules was (ie to disenfranchise democratic voters)

There is one example of a black lady trying to get voter ID. Apparently she needed her original birth certificate, her original social security number and her husbands death certificate.

I got the impression that voter ID wasn't as easy to get as we would all assume.

[toohuge]

Countdown said:

I got the impression that voter ID wasn't as easy to get as we would all assume.

ID's in general in the states are pretty difficult to get.

My wife and I had to jump through lots of hoops just to get a drivers license - plus the criteria for due diligence changes depending on what information you submit to the DMV - it's madness. Very little is actually about the ability to drive.

Furthermore, as non-residents we have to go to a special DMV that can handle 'international' applications - it's not fun.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

There is one example of a black lady trying to get voter ID. Apparently she needed her original birth certificate, her original social security number and her husbands death certificate.

I conceed that does sound obnoxiously onerous, yet presumably the same rules apply to everyone else who managed?

[toohuge]

fblm said:

Countdown said:

There is one example of a black lady trying to get voter ID. Apparently she needed her original birth certificate, her original social security number and her husbands death certificate.

I conceed that does sound obnoxiously onerous, yet presumably the same rules apply to everyone else who managed?

'Obnoxiously onerous' - that's a beautiful way to describe many processes in the USA.

[Halb]

And she wasn't even Bin Laden's wife!

[unrepentant]

fblm said:

Countdown said:

There is one example of a black lady trying to get voter ID. Apparently she needed her original birth certificate, her original social security number and her husbands death certificate.

I conceed that does sound obnoxiously onerous, yet presumably the same rules apply to everyone else who managed?

No, generally if you're white and affluent things are pretty straightforward.

I've been stopped (correctly) for speeding 3 times in the past 6 years. I am clearly not American wot wiv me broad London accent and am not a US citizen but on none of those occasions was I asked by the officer to verify my immigration status. Now if I were brown skinned, spoke with a Mexican accent and were called El Impenetente I can guarantee I would have been subject to a bit of a chat, probably outside the car with my legs apart and my hands placed on the hood.

[Talksteer]

fblm said:

Countdown said:

There is one example of a black lady trying to get voter ID. Apparently she needed her original birth certificate, her original social security number and her husbands death certificate.

I conceed that does sound obnoxiously onerous, yet presumably the same rules apply to everyone else who managed?

By that logic all polling stations could require you to climb 100 ice covered steps to get in. This would be perfectly fair as all voters would have to claim the same 100 ice covered steps.

The capability of all groups to surmount a barrier to voting will be different, for this reason as few barriers to voting as possible should exist. Voting is after all a right.

The barrier of having an ID to vote is disproportionate to the the issue it "solves" which is voter impersonation. Voter impersonation essentially doesn't happen because it means you get to add additional votes 1 at a time while being relatively easy to detect and carrying a stiff penalty if caught.

[GavinPearson]

Talksteer said:

By that logic all polling stations could require you to climb 100 ice covered steps to get in. This would be perfectly fair as all voters would have to claim the same 100 ice covered steps.

The capability of all groups to surmount a barrier to voting will be different, for this reason as few barriers to voting as possible should exist. Voting is after all a right.

The barrier of having an ID to vote is disproportionate to the the issue it "solves" which is voter impersonation. Voter impersonation essentially doesn't happen because it means you get to add additional votes 1 at a time while being relatively easy to detect and carrying a stiff penalty if caught.

The polling stations are asking you to present the same identification that you present when you pay in a check, get a prescription or buy cheap tools at Harbor freight with a credit card.
It's not difficult or onerous and whether you are voting for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump this November you need to show identification.

[Countdown]

GavinPearson said:

he polling stations are asking you to present the same identification that you present when you pay in a check, get a prescription or buy cheap tools at Harbor freight with a credit card.
It's not difficult or onerous and whether you are voting for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump this November you need to show identification.

If it's not "difficult and onerous"

why are some people finding it that way?
Why are the GOP using it as a way of restricting people who are likely to vote Dem?
Why even bother to implement it when voter fraud is pretty much non-existent?

[andymadmak]

Countdown said:

If it's not "difficult and onerous"

1. why are some people finding it that way?
2. Why are the GOP using it as a way of restricting people who are likely to vote Dem?
3. Why even bother to implement it when voter fraud is pretty much non-existent?

Good questions. I have taken the liberty of numbering them so that my numbered answers (suggestions, guesses really) apply:

1. For the same reason that lots of people in this country (UK) find simple things difficult. For some it's a lack of understanding, for some it's just a way of expressing their laziness, for some it's an excuse that does not stand up to scrutiny, for some it's a victim card, for some it suits their agenda to complain. I doubt there is a single reason. However it is easy for those with an axe to grind to join all those reasons up and claim something more sinister is happening.

2. Are the GOP doing that? I have watched the "offending videos" and what I see is some people saying that requiring voter ID costs the Democrats votes. But I am not clear from those videos whether the loss of Democratic votes is due to the elimination of fraud or whether it is due to reasons outlined in (1) above.
Either way, the implication is that ONLY Democratic voters are affected by voter ID requirements, which seems a bizarre position to take. Do no poor people vote GOP? Do no blacks or hispanics or women vote GOP? Of course they do. Clearly the GOP draws support from all corners of American society.

3. That is the assertion made. Although I note that even Unrepentant rowed back a little from claiming that there was no voter fraud, to saying that there was no individual voter fraud. I don't believe that to be correct. There are sources that point to significant problems. Yes, the more liberal elements will seek to rubbish those sources, and in some cases they may be correct to do so, but based on what I have seen during my years in the USA I would say the problem is somewhat larger than is being reported and certainly greater than is being admitted to by the Democrats.

In the end it comes down to whether or not you think it is possible to live entirely without ID in the USA, and my experience is that that is not a practical or realistic proposition. ID is required.
Can I also say that it's unhelpful when people start spouting stuff about being stopped in cars and not being patted down simply cos they is white, whereas the expectation is that a Mexican would be. For a start, rightly or wrongly, US law enforcement does not believe it has a major issue to contend with in the form of illegal transatlantic migration by white folk with cockney accents. Whether we like it or not, the USA DOES have a problem with illegal immigration through its southern border with Mexico. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the Police respond differently to different individuals/situations? ( I have no doubt that racism also plays a part with SOME cops)
The debate is really not about race, it's about who the USA will elect as POTUS later this year. If Mrs Clinton is relying on getting her vote out then she has plenty of time between now and then to ensure that they all get suitably registered. - indeed it could be argued that failure to register even after all the ballyhoo surrounding voter fraud and ID probably suggests that those individuals were never going to vote anyway!
The Democratic party could divert some of its campaign funds to organising free / subsidised busses to registration centres. It could provide helpful advice on how to fill in forms and the provision of correct documents. In short, it could do something about the problem (if it really exists) if they really wanted to.

[XM5ER]

Esseesse said:

Why are they advertising Trump?

Because they are arrogant and nothing like as clever as they think they are?