Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump square off for the first presidential election debate this morning our time, so it seems an opportune moment for another run of my national polling tracker. The recent trend is very clear, but Clinton retains a lead of 46.0% to 45.0%. This was done using the polling data aggregated at Huffington Post, by calculating bias adjustments, applying crude weightings to pollsters based on experience and performance, determining an “others” trend from those polls that published results for other candidates, and then determining trends for the major candidates’ shares of the non-others vote.
I’m excited! : )
It looks ugly to be honest. Florida, Ohio and Michigan are nowhere near certain, and if the election were held today it would be excruciatingly close. However, Trump is currently shouting at Clinton (I think they call it a debate), and common sense would suggest that his stocks will plummet when enough people hear him speak.
Sadly, I’ve been stung hard in arse by common sense in the past. I am not at all excited.
It doesn’t matter much who wins this election. “Lesser of two evils” is not good enough when the problems are so dire. Regardless of who wins, the United States is on a terrible trajectory. A Trump victory would at least produce the silver lining of a much stronger Democratic nominee in four years.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/voters-nationally-say-clinton-won-debate-5140.html
September 26, 2016
Voters Nationally Say Clinton Won Debate 51/40
PPP’s post debate survey, sponsored by VoteVets Action Fund, finds that voters nationally think Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in the debate, 51/40.
Perhaps most important for Clinton is that among young voters, who she has under performed with, 63% think she won the debate to only 24% for Trump. 47% of voters in that age group said the debate tonight made them more likely to vote for her, to only 10% who say it made them less likely to vote for her. For Trump with that group on the other hand, only 23% said the debate made them more likely to vote for him to 39% who said it made them less likely to.
Clinton also won the debate by particularly wide margins with women (54/36) and voters who are either African American or Latino (77/13). Among white voters the debate was basically a draw with Trump coming out ahead 47/45.
Clinton emerges from the debate with clear advantages over Trump on temperament, preparedness to be President, and whether she can be trusted with nuclear weapons:
Markets also say Clinton won debate. This led to a rebound in the Mexican Peso.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-27/peso-rebounds-from-record-low-amid-first-presidential-debate
Which tends to beg the question, wtf is wrong with white voters?
Nicolas, this is actually serious shit. In this context the “greater of two evils” is a much, much , much worse outcome and to be genuinely feared.
Tom Switzer’s take is a bit amoral for my tastes, but it accords with my own initial reaction — that Trump started surprisingly well; that he ended disastrously; and that that’s a hell of a lot better for him than the reverse would have been.
Hillary Clinton supports the dreadful Transpacific free lunch for rich people and would sign it after a Republican-controlled Congress passes it in the lame duck session; she would continue a highly militaristic and badly conceived foreign policy of adding to suffering and violence and displacement of peoples around the world; she would preside over deepening inequality of wealth and the many attendant social ills such as health problems, addictions, family breakdown, crime, anti-social behaviour, and loss of social cohesion and trust. She would have the mainstream media and the political establishment overwhelmingly on her side and she would be given a pass for her terrible policy judgement because elites attach great importance to identity politics to the detriment of policy substance.
Donald Trump would crash and burn as president; institutional and cultural checks would constrain the damage he could do, and he would most likely be thrown out in four years to be replaced by a Democrat of decidedly superior policy judgement than Hillary Clinton.
There will be damage to endure either way, but a Clinton presidency would produce longer term damage by preventing the Democratic party from burying trickle-down economics, militaristic foreign policy, and corrupt “pay to play” government. The Democratic party is almost at the point where it dismantles this destructive framework, but Hillary Clinton is holding it back. A Clinton presidency would grant a stay of execution to some truly terrible economic policy, foreign policy, and governance. A Clinton defeat offers the Democrats the opportunity to complete its renewal and transition to a better policy agenda.
But Clinton has maintained she opposes TPP, a position she has been forced to reiterate with greater clarity.
N, who is practically advocating a vote for Trump, is not to be relied on….
“I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages — including the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” she said at a campaign stop in Ohio in August. “I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trade-tpp-20160926-snap-story.html
Agreed. But a lot of people will be crashed and burned with him.
No, they wont. He will have all the powers of a President in relation to Foreign Policy, at a time when others in the world are looking to take advantage of any fwark ups in American Foreign policy. There is no limit to the damage he can do if he goes off the rails and he is a nutbagger who may well go off the rails.
God, Nicholas, you’re really tempting me to break Godwin’s law there. Perhaps you should explain your position to the African Americans, the Latinos, the poor, the disabled, the LGBT community, who would have to live through a Trump presidency while you focus on making sure the Democrats are pure enough to meet with your approval. Good thing you’re not voting, is all I can say.
Clinton is flawed, but she is flawed in a “normal” way, in much the same way most politicians are flawed. Trump is an authoritarian demagogue who has already done incalculable damage to the strength of democracy internationally, and would do vastly more were he to win.
All groups that have suffered because of the neglect, indifference, or outright hostility of the kind of Democrat that Hillary Clinton is.
Super predators, anyone?
Hillary Clinton took such a courageous stand on gay rights, coming down on the pro side once it was politically necessary for a Democrat with presidential aspirations to do so.
She and other Democrats of her mould have weakened workers’ rights, severed the link between productivity growth and real wages, turned the United States into the most prolific incarceration machine in the planet, and reinforced the “pay to play” character of government in America.
This is just a game to you, a mere hobby. For Americans the stakes are real, which is why they are so reluctant to support a candidate as weak and appalling as Hillary Clinton despite the unfitness of her opponent.
‘The enemy of the perfect is…Nicholas.’
Is Nicholas disguising his sexism behind too harsh criticism of Hillary? Or maybe it’s just out in the open, hidden behind a welter of mistruths about Mrs Clinton.
As only someone encouraging the worst in people in America, by using overtones of Domestic Violence against the first Woman candidate for President of the United States, could put it:
‘Donald Trump vows to hit Hillary Clinton harder in next presidential debate’
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/donald-trump-vows-to-hit-hillary-clinton-harder-in-next-presidential-debate-20160927-grpwwp.html
Yes, all of my criticisms of Hillary Clinton’s performance and views on economic policy, foreign policy, and honesty and accountability in government are obviously gender-related because as we all know from the mainstream left, identity politics is more important than policy substance. It must be sexist to criticize Margaret Thatcher’s political philosophy and policy content; there could not possibly be any substantive basis for criticizing what she did in public life. I am sure that the suicides and job losses and sickening inequality brought about by Margaret Thatcher’s decisions were softer and gentler because the victims were able to comfort themselves with the historically interesting fact that it was the first female Prime Minister of the U.K. who did the damage. Similarly, the people who lost their jobs because of NAFTA, who lost their homes and financial security because of the deregulation of the financial sector, and who were incarcerated because of a badly designed and racist criminal justice system should forget about those practical matters and join elite commentators in celebrating the rise to power of a person who supported and helped enact the policy choices that did that damage.
N is a pro-Trump G. Makes sense.
I can understand his position but my issues with Nicolas’ stance on Trump / Clinton are based on the unpleasant way things seem to be coming together geo-politically.
In Asia, i REALLY fear how a Trump presidency would deal with the whole China / Philippines / Japan / South China Sea mess. Australia under the Libs is dealing itself out of being able to contribute to this because of its hypocrisy over its dealings with East Timor.
In Europe, Trumps equivocal statements on NATO are worrying at a time when there seems to be a re-armament push happening among, particularly the smaller more “front line” countries in Europe. AND the Russians seem quite happy to keep up the skeer and hover threateningly. Think Ukraine /Syria.
With exercises going on that start to look a bit like the classic NATO “Reforger” (moving big lots of equipment by sea) movements, there are signals out there that “readiness” is being taken more seriously. Throw an obviously erratic Trump as POTUS into the mix for the next 4 years and put him up against the likes of the Chinese and Russian Presidents who have gotten to the top in MUCH more vicious political systems??
Oh FFS no. The risks are real and obvious.
People who conflate criticism of Hillary Clinton’s policy record and frameworks and priorities with sexism are doing a major disservice to both logic and the cause of gender equality. I also point out that I would strongly support Elizabeth Warren for president because she really could improve the trajectory of America and the world. It really is foolish to dismiss my concerns about Hillary Clinton, which are widely shared by Americans, as a sexist response.
I see like many Trump supporters, Nicholas is desperate to shift the focus to Clinton from Trump. Why? I suppose it doesn’t help to dwell on a candidate whose own words prove him to be lazy, bullying, selfish, sexist and racist. And he is proud of it!! In short, Trump is a narcissist. He is not confident; he is delusional.
Suggesting it doesn’t matter if Trump became president is also absurd. A US president has far more executive power than an Aussie PM. He can launch military action, re-stack the US Supreme court with conservative judges, and repeat Dubbya’s trick of cutting back funding for all those institutional safeguards. The GFC Mk II could be just a Trump away.
I too would prefer Elizabeth Warren to Clinton as president, but that has nothing to do with choosing Trump. He is infinitely worse than Clinton. Trump is backed by the same big money oligarchs (Koch brothers) as the republican ones before. It would be open slather for corporate America under Trump.
It was good to see Trump lose the debate, and even better to see that fact being honestly reported afterwards. His only “impressive” moments where when he went back to form as a bullying interrupter, and the moderator failed to stop him. Plus, in 90 minutes, was there one detailed positive idea suggested by Trump? I could not recall one.
Socrates and briefly, your comprehension skills are severely lacking if you perceive my comments as an endorsement of Donald Trump. Perhaps as baby boomers who benefited immensely from social democracy before certain members of your generation dismantled it you lack perspective on what is at stake in political contests today. You can afford to be complacent because you’ve got yours. People of my generation need to set higher standards and undo the catastrophic mistakes that some of generation have made. I think it would have been great to come of age when housing was cheap relative to median incomes, when jobs abounded and career paths were stable, when tertiary education was free, and when public infrastructure was managed for public benefit. Unfortunately that is not the world I face, and so I choose to think critically and to aim for excellence. Heck, I’d be okay with adequate policy but people like Hillary Clinton fall woefully short of even that low bar.
….I can’t believe that Switzer compared Trump to Reagan. Seriously, Reagan? Sure, Reagan bumbled around a bit on the debate stage & campaign trail, but he always came across as congenial and folksy – Trump’s brand of bumbling is much, much less personable.
Binary solution set Nic. Clinton has faults and baggage yes, but anyone advocating a Trump win is just plain stupid.
Oh dear. Just read the odious Devine’s piece on the Trump / Clinton debate. What is that woman taking?? Interesting that a number of the RW commentators have been playing up the angle that the only thing that matters is for trump to play up the “outsider” theme. Policy, risk, consequences….whatever……nothing else matters than the theater of being the “outsider” who will tear down the system. Very sad.
Nicholas
Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 2:24 pm
You are completely wrong in your estimates of me. Completely wrong. I am landless. I have a very modest income. Not so long ago (and for the second time in my life) I was homeless – essentially, faced with destitution. I know much more about dispossession, deprivation, despair, illness and the fate of the solitary and the aging than I would wish on anyone.
I also know you are a smartarse. If anyone has the luxury of being wrong here, it is you.
First time poster here, but I was wondering if you took into account the discrepancy between polls that have canvassed so called “Likely to votes” and the polls that canvassed registered voters?
From my view, the “likely to votes” are quite a vague term, how does one define if people are likely to vote? Based on what they say in a phone interview? Seems a bit misleading to me.
And I have noticed that LTV polls are much closer than RTV polls are. I was looking back through fivethirtyeight and RTV polls are in Clinton’s favour by about 5-6 points on average, while with LTV polls she’s only ahead by a point or two.
Do you believe this is perhaps the media and pollsters wanting to keep the election interesting when it’s more of a sure thing that would bore the populace?
Thanks!
Nicholas
Apart from your sophistry about Trump vs Clinton, your assumptions about my age, position and attitudes to equality and justice are plain wrong. When I first hit the job market there was a recession on, and finding a job was hard. My family was not wealthy and we did not take life for granted. We own one home and have avoided buying investment properties specifically because I know it disadvantages following generations and I refuse to take part in tax scams I know to be unjust.
Donald Trump is a charlotan. A rich man who pays little or no taxes, he pretends to offer hope to the poor while planning to cut taxes to the rich. He appeals to the disadvantaged, when he plans to make them worse off. He cannot solve the problem of the US being uncompetitive for low skill jobs at a wage that is liveable any more than we can here. He sells the lie that he can. Clinton cannot solve it either, but at least she is not running her campaign on a lie that she can.
Also you criticize Clinton for domestic issues she was never responsible for. In your words
“the people who lost their jobs because of NAFTA, who lost their homes and financial security because of the deregulation of the financial sector, and who were incarcerated because of a badly designed and racist criminal justice system”
These people should blame the technology that caused globalization, Dubbya Bush, Reagan and a conservatively stacked US Supreme Court. It is absurd to link any of that to Hillary Clinton, whose only executive role to date has been in foreign policy. More spin. But you need to try to link it, because your job here is to blacken Cllinton so that nobody notices the alternative is barely sane. Why do you try?
The notion that it really doesn’t matter whether Trump or Clinton wins is sickenly ignorant. Of course Clinton is a significantly flawed candidate but surely any right-minded person can see that those flaws are as nothing compared with the apocalyptic notion of a Trump presidency. I will risk having Godwin’s law invoked by drawing attention to some startling parallels between Trump and Hitler set out in a new book about Hitler. Just some of them, extracted from a New York Times review:
Hitler increasingly presented himself in messianic terms, promising “to lead Germany to a new era of national greatness,” though he was typically vague about his actual plans. He often harked back to a golden age for the country, Mr. Ullrich says, the better “to paint the present day in hues that were all the darker. Everywhere you looked now, there was only decline and decay.”
• Hitler was often described as an egomaniac who “only loved himself” — a narcissist with a taste for self-dramatization and what Mr. Ullrich calls a “characteristic fondness for superlatives.” His manic speeches and penchant for taking all-or-nothing risks raised questions about his capacity for self-control, even his sanity. But Mr. Ullrich underscores Hitler’s shrewdness as a politician — with a “keen eye for the strengths and weaknesses of other people” and an ability to “instantaneously analyze and exploit situations.”
A former finance minister wrote that Hitler “was so thoroughly untruthful that he could no longer recognize the difference between lies and truth” and editors of one edition of “Mein Kampf” described it as a “swamp of lies, distortions, innuendoes, half-truths and real facts.”
“Hitler adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle-class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist and anti-Semitic listeners,” Mr. Ullrich writes. He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. Even as he fomented chaos by playing to crowds’ fears and resentments, he offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order.
The first (somewhat) credible poll to update post-debates shows a significant swing to Clinton:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_9.27_.16__.pdf
Previous poll had her tied with Trump, now she’s +6 among likely voters, and +8 among registered voters. And this from a poll that has historically favored Trump. If the other polls start to follow suit, it’s going to be massive. Just like the tantrum Trump will undoubtedly throw when it happens.
Good analysis of the debate from New Republic:
https://newrepublic.com/article/137283/donald-trump-owning-hillary-clinton-trade
As I noted above, I was really struck by how well Trump was doing for the first 10 to 15 minutes — so much so that he had me wondering if I was right to be as worried about him as I was. However, it all fell apart very quickly when the caravan moved on from trade.
Despite Trump doing well at the most important end of the debate, the Clinton poll bounce that seems to be coming through doesn’t surprise me. There was a lot of talk that Trump had a very low expectations bar to clear, but there was insufficient appreciation that that was scarcely less true of Clinton. A lot of her recent polling downturn was due to the issue of her health, so all she had to do to convey the message that it had been overhyped was to get through her 90 minutes under the national spotlight without fainting or vomiting. Since she passed that test in very fine style, I’m quite sure we’ll now see — and indeed are already seeing — the polling revert to the mean, which is a Clinton lead of about 5%.
FWIW, I’ve never had much doubt that Clinton will win, barring some unforeseen late paradigm shift. The recent poll surge to Trump didn’t impress me much. Polls go up and polls go down, but what stands out over the long term is that Trump’s ceiling is lower than Clinton’s floor.
The cognitive bias of thinking that Donald Trump would be more damaging than Hillary Clinton is the same cognitive bias that leads governments to behave as though terrorism is a much bigger threat than climate change, or hunger, or diarrhoea, or any of the thousands of things that inflict vastly more destruction than terrorism. People often think that a vivid, spectacular form of destruction must necessarily be more severe than a slow-burning, less obvious destruction. For the long-term economic and social trajectory of the United States, a Clinton defeat would offer a reasonable chance of improvement because of the changes that it would bring to the Democratic Party. A Clinton victory would cause a lot of bad policy to be perpetuated. The fact that this destruction would not be as sensational as the crash-and-burn incompetence and ineffectiveness of a President Trump does not make it less severe. In fact, the damage of a Trump presidency could be more readily contained and remedied than the damage of a Clinton presidency. His own incompetence and ineffectiveness would be an important check on what he could do as president; the sophisticated constitutional mechanisms, customary practices, and cultural norms of America’s system of government would constrain him; the refusal of military leaders to go along with his extreme thought bubbles about torture and nuclear weapons would constrain him; and the absence of cooperation of America’s allies would constrain him.
Clinton’s supporters refer constantly to how knowledgable she is. Hillary Clinton is highly knowledgeable about how to implement bad policy. That is her knowledge base. She is highly skilled at advancing her own career. That is her skill set. Hillary Clinton is the Malcolm Turnbull of American politics: all personal ambition, no wisdom, no insight, and no vision. She is only courageous at advancing her ambition, never at advancing a public purpose. She never sticks her head above the parapet on policy; she never takes a calculated risk to her own career in order to promote good policy. For her, policy is always sacrificed to her own desire for prestigious jobs. Just like a former merchant banker and barrister who is currently floundering in Australia.
When you consider that crash-and-burn incompetence and ineffectiveness at the presidential level can easily start a war (especially with the way China and Russia have been acting recently; and North Korea isn’t helping), “less severe” would be an understatement. Bad policies or not (though really? If Clinton’s policies are bad then where does Trump’s free-border-wall policy rate?), at least Clinton understands how politics and diplomacy work.
Incompetent or not, the president is still commander-in-chief of the largest army in the world. You don’t have to be smart to start a war or to lose one (though to win, being smart does usually help), and there are surprisingly few balances against the president’s ability to order the use of nuclear weapons, because the system was designed that way (sophisticated Constitutional mechanisms do not apply, and military leaders are obliged to follow the chain of command).
Take Trump’s thin skin, his short temper, the ease at which he’s manipulated, and his lack of competence, and then place those alongside the idiotic things he’s said about nuclear weapons, and the problem should be obvious. Keep in mind that Trump is the one who said he’d have fired on Iranian boats that were taunting (nonviolently) U.S. ships. And then when Hillary pointed out that doing so would have provoked a war, Trump’s brilliant rebuttal was all of “no it wouldn’t”.
The only cognitive bias here is the one that says Trump and Clinton are even remotely comparable options. Clinton may be Turnbull, but Trump is completely off the Australian scale of incompetent politicians.
When you consider that crash-and-burn incompetence and ineffectiveness at the presidential level can easily start a war (especially with the way China and Russia have been acting recently; and North Korea isn’t helping), “less severe” would be an understatement.
Hillary Clinton is far more likely to start or exacerbate a war than Donald Trump. She was a key convenor of America’s disastrous, wholly misconceived military intervention in Libya. She urged President Obama to use military force to remove the Assad regime in Syria (advice that he wisely overruled). She supported the invasion of Iraq – a completely unnecessary use of force that has destroyed the lives of millions of people. Hillary Clinton is very prone to using military force in circumstances where it can do no good. It’s not as though we don’t have evidence about the failure of this approach. Like lots of high status people who “know how diplomacy works”, she knows how to do things that don’t work and that do massive damage. That’s hardly a credential to be president.
definition: cognitive bias…that’s when someone disagrees with the local smartarse.
If Clinton is Turnbull, then that means Trump must be Hanson. And let me tell you, if my only two options for voting were Malcolm Turnbull and Pauline Hanson, I would be out there campaigning for Turnbull myself.
An alternative view of Trump’s trade policy:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/29/13075538/trump-trade-policy
It’s interesting to see these self-perceived political junkies subscribe to mythical notions of an all-powerful president. The fact is that getting the gig is no guarantee of getting anything done. In the Australian politics threads there is ample acknowledgement of that, yet in this thread all these tribal Labor supporters consider that being elected president automatically translates into being able to do whatever you feel like doing. Political power is a far more complex and demanding thing to exercise than the simplistic concept of presidential power articulated by people like Socrates, Briefly, Immaca, and all those others who are thinking tactically rather than structurally about American politics. The probability of Donald Trump building a wall, for example, is zero because that initiative requires cooperation from a foreign government and from domestic engineering and construction firms that would not be forthcoming to the extent necessary. So Donald Trump promising to build a wall has as much predictive value as Hillary Clinton promising that she no longer supports the TPP handout to the most powerful people on the planet. If Donald Trump became president, his legacy would end up being as deep and lasting as that of Billy McMahon or Tony Abbott. A far more significant factor for America’s future is the struggle over the direction of the Democratic Party. A Clinton presidency would retard the party’s significant recent progress on many fronts. A Clinton defeat would open up opportunities for the Democratic Party to improve its policy development and lead the country in a healthy direction.
Nicholas
Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:45 pm
Political power is a far more complex and demanding thing to exercise….
I nevah woulda thoughta that.
Rhetorical question then; why bother supporting someone who makes promises that you know for a fact they’ll never keep? At least there’s a chance Hillary will keep her word on the TPP (or that Congress will stop her if she tries to push it through anyways; which hopefully they will, if she does).
Or his legacy could just as easily be dragging the GOP further into the far right fringes of xenophobia and racism, because that’s what won an election. And if he suffers a resounding defeat, maybe the GOP will finally get a clue, stop letting the lunatics run the asylum, and get back towards the center.
Not if you mean that as a suggestion that the party would get more behind Sanders and his policies (i.e. by shifting further left). If the Democrats can’t beat a Trump with a Clinton, it’ll be years before they’re willing to listen to anyone as far left as Sanders again. A win for the far right drags everyone else towards the right. And even if it doesn’t…does American politics really need to get even more polarized than it already is? I sure hope not.
Deep breath. I’m not supporting Trump. I am NOT supporting Trump. How can you not get that? Is it really impossible for you to understand that both candidates are horrendous to me in terms of their policy agendas, and that I am commenting on the structural implications of each electoral outcome rather than endorsing either candidate? If I were voting in that election I would support Jill Stein or write in Elizabeth Warren.
I don’t want the wall built or the TPP signed. My point about that is to remind people to consider what is likely to actually happen rather than mindlessly assume that a promise will be implemented. Both candidates are being disingenuous about their agendas. The fact that Hillary Clinton presents her bad agenda in a more socially acceptable manner than Trump presents his bad agenda does not make her worth supporting. Both candidates will definitely reinforce bad economic policy. So the question that people are missing is what will happen to the Democratic Party if Clinton wins versus what will happen if she loses? That will be profoundly important. Trump thought bubbles that will never be implemented, such as his wall nonsense, are far less important than what will happen structurally to the Democratic Party as a result of the election.
Fer N, too much disdain is never enuff:
Clinton is “bad” (never mind that Trump is completely decadent, racist, sexist and dishonest, as well as raving mad)
Clinton= worse than Trump
Fact is, rather than accept that Clinton defeated Sanders, N is still hurting and casting around for reasons why Clinton oughta lose to the staggeringly dreadful Trump. Despite N’s hopes, Clinton will defeat both Sanders and Trump as well as Johnson and Klein. Fer N, any claim will do as long as Clinton loses. In this respect, N has copied from Trump himself. Figures. Left-pop=right-pop.
Nicholas.. In saying the following, you seem to be missing one really simple point, about what a president can do – very easily in fact.
“It’s interesting to see these self-perceived political junkies subscribe to mythical notions of an all-powerful president. The fact is that getting the gig is no guarantee of getting anything done.”
That, of course, is starting a war, nuking whatever part of the planet gets under his skin at the wrong moment. This video sums up the fear:
https://youtu.be/6-FUfMRgbWU
Hillary Clinton is far more likely than Donald Trump to start a war. She is very eager to use military force in circumstances where it can do no good.
N @ 10.48…on this basis, you’d be arguing in favour of Trump. We get it. For you, Clinton is the greater of two evils. You’d likely be in a very small group who’d take that view.
I keep reading that Nicholas believes he isn’t supporting Trump but thinks Clinton is worse than Trump. Sorry, Nicholas but you this presidential you get either Trump or Clinton. There is no fence sitting.
So you honestly believe there is more chance of Clinton starting a war than Trump? I’ll call that absolute garbage.
We and
We in the free world don’t want Trump anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the destabilisation of the world economy would be one of its effects and even worse is we would all be pulled to the right of the political spectrum. Mind you a Trump presidency can’t be ruled out if the equation given the Yanks voted for Dubbya twice, so anything is possible.
Trump doubles down on nasty. He reveals his inner bully once again.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-01/trump-deepens-attacks-on-former-beauty-queen-alicia-machado/7894912
How would he go handling foreign policy with a hostile nation? He has as much brains as Wyatt Roy.
Clinton is one of the most militarily interventionist candidates to be nominated by a major party in the last few decades. Trump’s emphasis is on the folly of that approach. Broken clocks etc. It is grossly naive to consider Clinton to less militarily interventionist of the two candidates. If fear of war is your major concern, wanting Clinton to win is an odd response to that concern.
Nicky still thinks Bernie Sanders will get up.
Trump can’t maintain a consistent position on anything long enough to be said to have “emphasis”.
False equivalence, again. The difference isn’t that one will be less interventionist than the other. The difference is that when Clinton starts a war it will be a deliberate, considered act informed by military advisers, and when Trump starts one it will be because he lost his temper in the face of some diplomatic incident or another and did something stupid, like ordering U.S. warships to blow some Iranian boats out of the water.
Clinton may give us another Iraq or Afghanistan. Which yes, is completely awful. But the war Trump starts is likely to be more like a nuclear WW3. Which is completely off the chart. There’s no pretending that they’re remotely comparable options.