US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Out of curiosity, what sort of model are you using, if you're willing to disclose it of course.

Weighted least squares regressions using the square roots of the sample sizes as weights. The dataset is all general election polls at HuffPost Pollster from January 1st with some massaging. The dependent variable is the Clinton lead over Trump, and the predictors are a time trend (days until the election), and "dummy" (zero/one) variables for interviewing methods, likely vs registered voters, and pollster partisanship if any. Including the size of the vote for "other" candidates produces the interesting result that Clinton's lead grows by about one point for every ten points others get. Apparently Gary Johnson is hurting Trump more than Clinton. Jill Stein's vote probably has the opposite effect, but Johnson is generally polling in the 10-15% range while Stein is getting more like 3-5%.

I'm planning on writing up these findings soon. Preliminary results are here. Meanwhile, if you're curious, here is a similar model I ran for the 2012 election.

[frivolity]

Interesting. Have you considered a probit or logit model as alternative formulations? Binary for Hillary and Trump head-to-head, multinomial for multiple candidates.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Interesting. Have you considered a probit or logit model as alternative formulations? Binary for Hillary and Trump head-to-head, multinomial for multiple candidates.

I'm looking at polling aggregates so the dependent variable, percent Clinton minus percent Trump, is continuous. I've used logits when dealing with a single survey or when analyzing Congressional voting. I routinely apply logistic transformations to most proportions if they go outside the 0.4-0.6 range where the logit function is essentially linear, for instance here and here. I use gretl for most of this work.

[Reckoner]

I can understand hating Hilary if you're a conservative, but supporting Trump is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. He's not a conservative and pretty much the only reason people would support him is in the hopes that he picks from his list of conservative SC justices. You know, something that can take decades to really shift momentum in this country compared to the immediate need for a person who can deal with a national crisis. Something that Trump is obviously not temperamentally suited for on any level, nor does he have the experience and knowledge necessary to deal with the world stage. Voting for him is dangerous and foolish on so many levels regardless of political affiliation.

The republican party at this point has a decision to make. Are they more loyal to their party or their country? Sadly based on what people like John McCain have been showing this election as they sit relatively silent behind their candidate, it seems to be the former.

[yulinard]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I can understand hating Hilary if you're a conservative, but supporting Trump is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. He's not a conservative and pretty much the only reason people would support him is in the hopes that he picks from his list of conservative SC justices. You know, something that can take decades to really shift momentum in this country compared to the immediate need for a person who can deal with a national crisis. Something that Trump is obviously not temperamentally suited for on any level, nor does he have the experience and knowledge necessary to deal with the world stage. Voting for him is dangerous and foolish on so many levels regardless of political affiliation.

The republican party at this point has a decision to make. Are they more loyal to their party or their country? Sadly based on what people like John McCain have been showing this election as they sit relatively silent behind their candidate, it seems to be the former.

Maybe you are not conservative enough to understand their point of view? i dont consider my self conservative but I can see the reason they support Trump over Hillary. And don't bring that loyality to country/party when one side support demographic change via immigration.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I can understand hating Hilary if you're a conservative, but supporting Trump is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. He's not a conservative and pretty much the only reason people would support him is in the hopes that he picks from his list of conservative SC justices. You know, something that can take decades to really shift momentum in this country compared to the immediate need for a person who can deal with a national crisis. Something that Trump is obviously not temperamentally suited for on any level, nor does he have the experience and knowledge necessary to deal with the world stage. Voting for him is dangerous and foolish on so many levels regardless of political affiliation.

The republican party at this point has a decision to make. Are they more loyal to their party or their country? Sadly based on what people like John McCain have been showing this election as they sit relatively silent behind their candidate, it seems to be the former.

The funny thing is, you can say the same thing about Hillary.

Like yeah many will vote for her just because they don't want Trump in office or want SC judges. But she is far from progressive , FDR Democrats. In fact, her most loyal supporters even called those to the left of her to be 'radical progressive', comparable to fascism .

Radical progressive? What the heck is radical progressive? And how the heck does anyone even believe there could be such a thing

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I can understand hating Hilary if you're a conservative, but supporting Trump is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. He's not a conservative and pretty much the only reason people would support him is in the hopes that he picks from his list of conservative SC justices. You know, something that can take decades to really shift momentum in this country compared to the immediate need for a person who can deal with a national crisis. Something that Trump is obviously not temperamentally suited for on any level, nor does he have the experience and knowledge necessary to deal with the world stage. Voting for him is dangerous and foolish on so many levels regardless of political affiliation.

The republican party at this point has a decision to make. Are they more loyal to their party or their country? Sadly based on what people like John McCain have been showing this election as they sit relatively silent behind their candidate, it seems to be the former.

As a conservative (not a US citizen though), I think you have it backwards. Supporting Trump is more beneficial for the immediate need of the US because of how bad Hillary is, and not supporting him is more beneficial for the conservative cause in the long run because even though Hillary is worse, Trump isn't much better and any problems associated with his administration will be pinned on conservatism.

I genuinely believe that a Hillary presidency will be worse than a Trump presidency in the short run. The kind of stuff that Hillary has been involved in through the Clinton Foundation in her time as secretary of state is completely unprecedented in terms of corruption and cronyism, while her record on international relations has been nothing short of disastrous. She is the kind of candidate who will do whatever it takes to fulfill her own agenda, and is not above circumventing the law in order to do that. Imagine what kind of damage she can inflict as president!

For a conservative, a Hillary presidency would be a nightmare synonymous with another 8 years of Obama. We can expect to see:

• The national debt to be doubled or more than doubled;
• More excessive government intervention into the private market (e.g: telecommunications, energy, health, etc);
• Further weakening of ties with US allies; and
• Who knows what else, since we can all agree that Hillary will be worse than Obama.

Let's face it, Trump is not going to turn into Reagan overnight. Any conservative who believes he will become Reagan is living a pipe dream. Trump is a terrible, terrible candidate. He is an asshole who speaks without thinking and will make the US an international laughingstock. He does not care about the United States and probably only wants to be president just so he can scratch it off the bucket list. He is, however, not corrupt and cannot be bought over by special interest groups. There is some hope that he will accept a role as a figurehead and allow Pence and the rest of the GOP in the House and Senate to do the thinking for him, though I don't know how likely that is.

Even though I would argue that a Hillary presidency is worse than a Trump presidency in the short run, the main issue is that among these two candidates, whoever becomes the next president will essentially kill off their parties' growth in the long run. W Bush's legacy is still haunting the GOP after 8 years, with people still blaming the national debt on him instead of pointing fingers at Obama's indisciplined spending.

Hillary and Trump will do even more damage to their respective parties because the fustercluck that will mar their presidential term(s) will stick for years and years to come.

If Trump becomes POTUS, the mess he leaves behind will be blamed on the GOP and on conservatives as a whole, while the fact that Hillary would probably have been even worse would not even be on the radar. By that time, there's a good chance that both the Senate and the House will be lost and never regained by conservatives for a long time. Meanwhile, if that happens, Trump won't even bother to push for conservative nominations to the USSC during his term.

Overall, conservatives in the US face a very tough choice. Voting for Trump would be better than voting for Hillary in the short run, but letting Hillary make a mess of things would set the stage for a conservative resurgence in the future.

[yulinard]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Radical progressive? What the heck is radical progressive? And how the heck does anyone even believe there could be such a thing

Just google SJW and then you can learn about radical progressive or "regressive". Most of them are 3rd wave feminist, antifa and BLM. They are mostly opposing Trump and have no problem using violence.

[monir]

Originally Posted by frivolity

He is, however, not corrupt and cannot be bought over by special interest groups.

I snorted so hard that I had orange juice come out of my nose. Do you know how much that burns? How can you be so sure?

Originally Posted by frivolity

Overall, conservatives in the US face a very tough choice. Voting for Trump would be better than voting for Hillary in the short run, but letting Hillary make a mess of things would set the stage for a conservative resurgence in the future.

Conservative ideas in the US will continue to face increasing headwind as our population increase in diversity regardless who gets into office. Right now the message of the conservative idea in my country is about isolationism and military posturing. Exclusion is also plaguing the conservative movement which seems to speak to a certain group of population. Right now the whites are keeping the GOP relevant and by next election that group of population will be in the minority. So if the party of conservative (GOP) wants to stay relevant in the coming years they will need to change their messaging drastically. Frothing in the mouth by keep screaming about Mexican rapist, building walls, muslim banning and etc won't garner any movement toward conservatism. If Trump represents the brand of conservatism you speak of then Democrats won't need to do anything for the liberal ideas and agendas to catch on like bon fire in the coming years.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Semblance_of_Power

You could have a political party whose entire platform was: "Puppies are cute" and you can still bet someone would find a way to radicalize that position.

In my view, one becomes politically radicalized when your particular views start to permeate every single aspect of life and reality and you start to see everyone and everything that happens in the context of that ideological struggle, to the point of irrationality and a loss of pragmatism and critical thinking.

There are certainly people that take traditionally progressive issues to such extremes so that their positions end up becoming counterproductive, the infamous "SJW".

Albeit my impression as an outsider is that besides certain places on the Internet and perhaps certain college institutions, these people are relatively small in number and influence and the whole "SJW" term has become more of a boogieman to try and discredit anyone to the left of whoever is using that word. But that is just my personal assessment.

That's funny, because I've never really met an SJW. Not even on the internet. What I have seen plenty of, though, is radical anti-SJW. You can't post a cute puppy pic without them saying "SJW are going to ruin puppies" (which does bring us back to your definition of radicalization.) I don't doubt that radical SJW exist, but my impression is that you really have to go looking for them.

[DerGilga]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

That's funny, because I've never really met an SJW. Not even on the internet. What I have seen plenty of, though, is radical anti-SJW.

Yup, like these two hack frauds. Calling poor Joss Whedon a SJW :,(

YouTube

https://youtu.be/J_6r27ThMXQ

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

/s

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by frivolity

As a conservative (not a US citizen though), I think you have it backwards. Supporting Trump is more beneficial for the immediate need of the US because of how bad Hillary is, and not supporting him is more beneficial for the conservative cause in the long run because even though Hillary is worse, Trump isn't much better and any problems associated with his administration will be pinned on conservatism.

I genuinely believe that a Hillary presidency will be worse than a Trump presidency in the short run. The kind of stuff that Hillary has been involved in through the Clinton Foundation in her time as secretary of state is completely unprecedented in terms of corruption and cronyism, while her record on international relations has been nothing short of disastrous. She is the kind of candidate who will do whatever it takes to fulfill her own agenda, and is not above circumventing the law in order to do that. Imagine what kind of damage she can inflict as president!

For a conservative, a Hillary presidency would be a nightmare synonymous with another 8 years of Obama. We can expect to see:

• The national debt to be doubled or more than doubled;
• More excessive government intervention into the private market (e.g: telecommunications, energy, health, etc);
• Further weakening of ties with US allies; and
• Who knows what else, since we can all agree that Hillary will be worse than Obama.

Let's face it, Trump is not going to turn into Reagan overnight. Any conservative who believes he will become Reagan is living a pipe dream. Trump is a terrible, terrible candidate. He is an asshole who speaks without thinking and will make the US an international laughingstock. He does not care about the United States and probably only wants to be president just so he can scratch it off the bucket list. He is, however, not corrupt and cannot be bought over by special interest groups. There is some hope that he will accept a role as a figurehead and allow Pence and the rest of the GOP in the House and Senate to do the thinking for him, though I don't know how likely that is.

Even though I would argue that a Hillary presidency is worse than a Trump presidency in the short run, the main issue is that among these two candidates, whoever becomes the next president will essentially kill off their parties' growth in the long run. W Bush's legacy is still haunting the GOP after 8 years, with people still blaming the national debt on him instead of pointing fingers at Obama's indisciplined spending.

Hillary and Trump will do even more damage to their respective parties because the fustercluck that will mar their presidential term(s) will stick for years and years to come.

If Trump becomes POTUS, the mess he leaves behind will be blamed on the GOP and on conservatives as a whole, while the fact that Hillary would probably have been even worse would not even be on the radar. By that time, there's a good chance that both the Senate and the House will be lost and never regained by conservatives for a long time. Meanwhile, if that happens, Trump won't even bother to push for conservative nominations to the USSC during his term.

Overall, conservatives in the US face a very tough choice. Voting for Trump would be better than voting for Hillary in the short run, but letting Hillary make a mess of things would set the stage for a conservative resurgence in the future.

Hillary voted for the Iraq War, supported the Patriot Act which shredded the 4th Amendment, is in favor of TPP, and his held hostage by her donors. Trump has retaliated against journalists, sued the ONION and Bill Maher over jokes, endorsed violence in his name, wants to punish women for abortion, wants to lower the minimum wage, is also in favor of TPP, wants to mass deport 10 million people, wants to issue a temporary travel ban on all Muslims entering the country, has no regard for the dangers of using nuclear weapons, wants to build an impractical border wall, and has praised the likes of Vladimir Putin

Hillary is non-negotiable the lesser of two evils

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

The funny thing is, you can say the same thing about Hillary.

Like yeah many will vote for her just because they don't want Trump in office or want SC judges. But she is far from progressive , FDR Democrats. In fact, her most loyal supporters even called those to the left of her to be 'radical progressive', comparable to fascism .

Radical progressive? What the heck is radical progressive? And how the heck does anyone even believe there could be such a thing

I'm sick of Bernie supporters purporting such an asinine false equivalency here. I liked how Bill Maher put it. We're on a train to San Francisco, it's just going slower than some of us would like it. If you listened to Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC, or actually read up on her history, you would know she has fought hard for progressive causes since the beginning. Has she made mistakes like voting for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act? Sure. There are things I don't like about her record. She does seem to have too many ties to Wall Street as well... But my god, she is still a progressive who is pretty much in line with the Democratic platform on a vast majority of issues. Trump? Not so much,

Hilary Clinton has been in politics under the biggest microscope for a hell of a long time. She's dealt with a consistent and sustained effort by the right, and some on the left, to destroy her. I'm tired of people thinking that we need some "outsider" who somehow is going to solve the gridlock is Washington and then we're ultimately disappointed when the outsider just becomes another insider. No, what we need is someone who actually understands and can work with the system. Change doesn't happen all at once, it's incremental. It's not sexy, but she is better equipped to deal with current problems in Washington than pretty much anyone else running for political office at the moment.

Originally Posted by frivolity

As a conservative (not a US citizen though), I think you have it backwards. Supporting Trump is more beneficial for the immediate need of the US because of how bad Hillary is, and not supporting him is more beneficial for the conservative cause in the long run because even though Hillary is worse, Trump isn't much better and any problems associated with his administration will be pinned on conservatism.

I genuinely believe that a Hillary presidency will be worse than a Trump presidency in the short run. The kind of stuff that Hillary has been involved in through the Clinton Foundation in her time as secretary of state is completely unprecedented in terms of corruption and cronyism, while her record on international relations has been nothing short of disastrous. She is the kind of candidate who will do whatever it takes to fulfill her own agenda, and is not above circumventing the law in order to do that. Imagine what kind of damage she can inflict as president!

I'm not really willing to engage with you on Breibart and conservative talk show radio host conspiracy theories regarding Hilary Clinton, but I will say I think it's seriously delusional to assert that Trump would somehow be better for our foreign relations than a Clinton presidency. I hate to break it to you, but most of the world respects us more under Obama than they did President Bush. The same would be true under a Clinton presidency. A Trump presidency is a serious danger to our national security and threatens to erode many of our political relations.

Originally Posted by frivolity

For a conservative, a Hillary presidency would be a nightmare synonymous with another 8 years of Obama. We can expect to see:

• The national debt to be doubled or more than doubled;
• More excessive government intervention into the private market (e.g: telecommunications, energy, health, etc);
• Further weakening of ties with US allies; and
• Who knows what else, since we can all agree that Hillary will be worse than Obama.

You're missing my point. I never argued that conservatives should like Clinton, but Trump threatens to be worse on virtually every aspect of what you just said. Let's not forget that "Obamacare" is actually a health care plan penned by the Heritage foundation, a conservative think tank. It's not a Democrat's first choice for universal health care. A Trump presidency will balloon the debt and threatens to erode our personal liberties.

Originally Posted by frivolity

Let's face it, Trump is not going to turn into Reagan overnight. Any conservative who believes he will become Reagan is living a pipe dream. Trump is a terrible, terrible candidate. He is an asshole who speaks without thinking and will make the US an international laughingstock. He does not care about the United States and probably only wants to be president just so he can scratch it off the bucket list. He is, however, not corrupt and cannot be bought over by special interest groups. There is some hope that he will accept a role as a figurehead and allow Pence and the rest of the GOP in the House and Senate to do the thinking for him, though I don't know how likely that is.

Even though I would argue that a Hillary presidency is worse than a Trump presidency in the short run, the main issue is that among these two candidates, whoever becomes the next president will essentially kill off their parties' growth in the long run. W Bush's legacy is still haunting the GOP after 8 years, with people still blaming the national debt on him instead of pointing fingers at Obama's indisciplined spending.

Overall, conservatives in the US face a very tough choice. Voting for Trump would be better than voting for Hillary in the short run, but letting Hillary make a mess of things would set the stage for a conservative resurgence in the future.

The deficit under Obama has decreased you know... Obama put entitlements on the table when trying to negotiate a deal with John Boehner, only for the Freedom Caucus to stab Boehner in the back because they would never allow themselves to actually govern.

In any case, you seem to admit it yourself. We'd be the laughing stock of the world under President Trump. The first duty of President is to be commander and chief... It's not even a close decision unless you're a partisan hack.

Additionally, a Trump presidency would basically destroy the Republican party's entire conservative agenda in favor of more regressive, nationalistic passions that are nothing more than a distraction to our politics. Like I said, the main reason to vote for him seems to be Supreme court for republicans, but some of your party elites are now even saying that is not worth the trouble.

[Ithekro]

I find Trump supporters are more likely nationalists than strictly conservatives.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I find Trump supporters are more likely nationalists than strictly conservatives.

isolationist not nationalist.

they are the new Know Nothing Party.

[CyborgZeta]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

mass deport 10 million people

Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants. You have to deport them and enforce border and immigration laws, or the problem will continue.

Here's something I bet you haven't thought of: illegal immigrants are used as cheap labor. Now, if you legalize those illegal immigrants, they're no longer cheap labor; they now have to compete with everybody else.

In addition, those former illegal immigrants will lose their jobs to new illegal immigrants, who will be used as cheap labor. Illegal immigration will never stop as long as business continue to use cheap labor, and legitimizing illegals already here will show future illegals that they can get away with coming here illegally.

In addition to failing to solve the problem of illegal immigration, Hillary is also even more to the right of Obama on foreign policy. Just take a look at what she has planned for Syria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...rderous-assad/

With Hillary, I fully expect more nation building, regime changes, and funding/supplying of more future terrorists and extremists.

That all just confirms what I've already begun to suspect about Democrats; that foreign policy, what the US government does abroad, doesn't matter in the slightest.

Social issues are literally all that matters to them. The US government has carte blanche to do whatever they want abroad...as long as trangenders can use whatever bathroom they want, and politicians don't say mean things about minorities.

Then Americans get surprised later when they find out people don't like them. Gee, is it any wonder a nation like Iran hates America, when their democratically elected leader was disposed by a US (and UK)-led coup and replaced with a Western puppet government?

How about nations in South America and around the world that had to put up with dictators that were supported by the US, just because they were against communism? Do any of the average Americans actually think about what happens beyond their borders?

What about that big, old boogeyman Russia? Regardless of what happened in Ukraine, do Americans honestly believe that Russia is capable of invading and occupying, say, the Baltic states? They don't have the money, nor the equipment for that.

You can say whatever you want about Trump, but I very firmly disagree with Hillary on issues such as immigration and foreign policy. And in case you bring up nukes, that was a deliberate misrepresentation (Joe Scarborough obviously does not like Trump).

http://imgur.com/XqYXqdG

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I'm not really willing to engage with you on Breibart and conservative talk show radio host conspiracy theories regarding Hilary Clinton, but I will say I think it's seriously delusional to assert that Trump would somehow be better for our foreign relations than a Clinton presidency. I hate to break it to you, but most of the world respects us more under Obama than they did President Bush. The same would be true under a Clinton presidency. A Trump presidency is a serious danger to our national security and threatens to erode many of our political relations.

In your previous post, you wondered why conservatives would vote for Trump over Hillary, and asserted that doing so would be putting the party before the country.

My point is that your assertion is not an established fact, so the reason why many conservatives would vote for Trump over Hillary is because (surprise, suprise!) conservatives have a different view from liberals - particularly about the Trump-Hillary trade-off. As such, this is not cutting your nose to spite your face, and it is not putting the party before the country once your assertion is set aside.

CNN itself has reported on the issues with the Clinton Foundation, including corruption and cronyism. If you don't want to engage these issues then so be it, but again, my point is that the reason why many conservatives would support Trump is because many disagree with your assertion that Hillary is better than Trump.

Bush's decision to go to war was a terrible decision, and all but the most hardcore right wingers will agree with that. Regardless, Obama's foreign policy has been just as bad. He has destabilised the Middle East and undermined relationships with key US allies. If Hillary intends to do more of the same, then her presidency is similarly "a serious danger to our national security and threatens to erode many of our political relations." That's not even counting the national security risk that her private email server has already caused even before her potential presidency!

Notwithstanding that argument, regardless of whether or not you agree with my assessment, the point I'm once again making is that many conservatives disagree with your views, which is why many support Trump over Hillary.

You're missing my point. I never argued that conservatives should like Clinton, but Trump threatens to be worse on virtually every aspect of what you just said. Let's not forget that "Obamacare" is actually a health care plan penned by the Heritage foundation, a conservative think tank. It's not a Democrat's first choice for universal health care. A Trump presidency will balloon the debt and threatens to erode our personal liberties.

No, I didn't miss your point. I knew you were not arguing that conservatives should like Clinton.

I brought up the list of Hillary's shortcomings not as a standalone argument as to why conservatives don't like her, but as a lead-in to the next part of my post comparing Trump and Hillary. Put in this context, I was once again highlighting the fact that many conservatives disagree with your entire premise that Trump will be worse than Clinton.

Obamacare did have some similarities to the original Heritage Foundation proposal, particularly in terms of requiring health insurance coverage, but the final policy is considerably different. The Heritage Foundation itself also disagrees with Obamacare as it currently stands.

The deficit under Obama has decreased you know... Obama put entitlements on the table when trying to negotiate a deal with John Boehner, only for the Freedom Caucus to stab Boehner in the back because they would never allow themselves to actually govern.

In any case, you seem to admit it yourself. We'd be the laughing stock of the world under President Trump. The first duty of President is to be commander and chief... It's not even a close decision unless you're a partisan hack.

The decrease in deficit under Obama is very misleading. The main reason why the deficit decreased is because Obama spent so much in his first few years (including Bush's decision to enter Iraq, which I acknowledge was the wrong decision) that the deficit had nowhere to go but down. The deficit at the end of 2016 is still higher than before his two terms.

The US would indeed be the laughingstock of the world under Trump. However, Hillary's presidency would have the same degree of negative impact in that we can expect other global powers to be making inroads in widening their own influence while narrowing USA's. The only difference is that: under Trump, they will be laughing while they go about it; and under Hillary, they won't be laughing while they do it.

In the meantime, Hillary will go even further by accepting "foreign donations" to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favours, which is not in issue with Trump. So no, conservatives don't agree with your claim that it's "not even close" in terms of supporting Hillary over Trump.

Additionally, a Trump presidency would basically destroy the Republican party's entire conservative agenda in favor of more regressive, nationalistic passions that are nothing more than a distraction to our politics. Like I said, the main reason to vote for him seems to be Supreme court for republicans, but some of your party elites are now even saying that is not worth the trouble.

I agree that a Trump presidency would be disastrous for conservatism in the long term, but I disagree with your assertion that the main reason for conservatives to vote for him is the USSC. As explained in the rest of my post, the main reason for doing so is the belief that Hillary would be worse than Trump.

To summarise, the point of my previous post was to respond to your question as to why conservatives would support Trump over Hillary, given your premise that Hillary would be better than Trump. As I've repeatedly pointed out here, your premise is not an established fact, and the reason why many conservatives would support Trump over Hillary is because of disagreement with your premise in the first place.

It's not because of "cutting off your nose to spite your face" or being "more loyal to their party or their country" as you so elegantly put it. It's actual disagreement with your underlying views.

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

Hillary voted for the Iraq War, supported the Patriot Act which shredded the 4th Amendment, is in favor of TPP, and his held hostage by her donors. Trump has retaliated against journalists, sued the ONION and Bill Maher over jokes, endorsed violence in his name, wants to punish women for abortion, wants to lower the minimum wage, is also in favor of TPP, wants to mass deport 10 million people, wants to issue a temporary travel ban on all Muslims entering the country, has no regard for the dangers of using nuclear weapons, wants to build an impractical border wall, and has praised the likes of Vladimir Putin

Hillary is non-negotiable the lesser of two evils

Liberals view Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Conservatives who support Trump generally agree that both of them are evils, but don't necessarily agree that Hillary is the lesser one.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Liberals view Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Conservatives who support Trump generally agree that both of them are evils, but don't necessarily agree that Hillary is the lesser one

The negative substance from Trump v Hillary is non-negotiable against the former

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

The negative substance from Trump v Hillary is non-negotiable against the former

Again, that's the liberal viewpoint but not necessarily the conservative viewpoint. My post that you responded to was talking about the conservative viewpoint, and was itself in response to another post that questioned why conservatives would support Trump. So liberals and conservatives disagree, surprise surprise!

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Again, that's the liberal viewpoint but not necessarily the conservative viewpoint. My post that you responded to was talking about the conservative viewpoint, and was itself in response to another post that questioned why conservatives would support Trump. So liberals and conservatives disagree, surprise surprise!

The negative substance with both candidates is not a partisan dissection, and Trump wants a debate moderator who won't fact check him