India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 15 Sep 2016 11:17

^NRao may have a point there.

However, since we're sitting here in Des, its not as if we can do anything about the US elections anyway. So why worry, have curry.

DT is isolationist, to a large extent. He'll patch up with Russia, maybe even team up with them. PRC will feel the heat on both the trade/econ and the political fronts. Chances are status quo in Asia will change due to DT. Maybe in a good (i.e. pro-India) way, maybe not. But status quo as we have it today will change for sure. With Hillary, we'll get more of the same but with a pro-Pak and pro-cheen bent. IOW, definitely bad for us.

As for service sector jobs, offshoring etc, that will get squeezed regardless of who's in power. The eKhanomy is ill. Middle class is plainly hollowing out. Howls for protectionism are growing daily, forcing e.g. both candidates on the trail to oppose TPP.

DT's anti-muslim stance I expect to temper quite a bit if in power. That said, mainstreaming and legitimizing common-sensical steps like burqa-burkini bans in the interest of national security, slowing down muslim immigration, 'probation-ing' and thereafter withdrawing citizenship of muslim immigrants in terror plots etc is timely. Expect EU to quietly follow suit even if EU elites hold their noses up while doing so.

DT causing the US to focus inward is a good thing, IMHO. Rather than stoke unrest on distant shores.

So yes, regardless of the fact that rooting for DT over HRC paints folks as distinctly uncool, coarse and worse. Only. In any case, not like some of us keyboard warriors on some unknown forum in some obscure corner of the web will matter tot he US polls any. Hah.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 15 Sep 2016 11:19

Please post your expectations of joint presidentship of huma-hillary too !

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Sep 2016 12:06

we are talking os the same Hillary Clinton, right?

The one that candidate Obama called "The Senator from Punjab"? Right?

From her time as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s group of advisers—the likes of her campaign chairman John Podesta, former Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, her closest foreign policy aide Jake Sullivan, and dozens more—are all individuals with a close working familiarity with India.

As far as I know Huma is a gatekeeper, not an advisor. Am I right? And, the last time I checked Huma did not have the authority to be selective about who she allows and does not at the global level - PMs, etc. I would not worry about this women.

The other one is fair game. She is a SD operative and in position to provide advise on policy and thus influence it.

While we are at it, anyone noticed the recent tussle between Kerry and Carter? SD and the Pentagon?

Yes, I understand the concern. It happens. But this is Modi, not some two bit puppeteer who could care less about anything.

I would not worry. Not because Hillary has changed colors, but because India is in far better hands.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Sep 2016 12:26

Oliver Stone: The DNC Hack Wasn’t The Russians — It Was An Inside Job

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/ol...#ixzz4KIy2LOaE

During an interview with CNN’s Christine Amanpour, the Hollywood director was asked if he thought it was feasible that Russians hacked the DNC in order to influence the election.

“I think it’s a great fiction,” Stone — who recently made a movie about Edward Snowden — said. “I think it serves a purpose to disguise what’s really going on. The intelligence experts that I’ve talked to have indicated to me that it was probably an inside job.”

When pressed by Amanpour about what he meant, Stone said he “couldn’t go into all that information.”

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Sep 2016 12:33

CNN's Amanpour suggests Clinton health coverage sexist

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09 ... exist.html

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 15 Sep 2016 13:11

whatever issues you have with Hilary about how she looks at India , why do u think it will be different with trump. Trump has no original info, exp, background knowledge, policy history, etc about India. He's going to rely on advisors and they are all the same when it comes to India.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 15 Sep 2016 13:55

Something we missed till now. In the first trip to US, NM met Bill and Hill together in NY city and had a dinner or something with them. Maybe they are already purchased by Indians? But I agree that HC with her "get Modi" record can not be good for us and DT we do not know what he will do.

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 15 Sep 2016 17:27

Amoghvarsha wrote:
Rahul M wrote:frankly, as an Indian citizen I would certainly prefer drumf over the klingon. the later is a history sheeter as far as we are concerned.
US citizens may have other prerogatives but to imagine a klingon administration as anything less than subversive to Indian interests would be a mistake.
Haan Ji?

I thought Hillary Auntie would follow the democrat initiative of having deeper relations with India.But seems the opinion on BR is that Trump Chacha is better for Indian interests.

I wonder what is the reason?

I am hoping for Johnson/Weld. Both will be non interventionists.

Hillary will be Saudi/Wahabi lady and Trump will be clueless.

Don't you want to see someone who is not totally corrupt and stupid? Corrupt Sonia or Scumbag Kejri?

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 15 Sep 2016 17:30

Austin wrote:Oliver Stone: The DNC Hack Wasn’t The Russians — It Was An Inside Job

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/ol...#ixzz4KIy2LOaE

During an interview with CNN’s Christine Amanpour, the Hollywood director was asked if he thought it was feasible that Russians hacked the DNC in order to influence the election.

“I think it’s a great fiction,” Stone — who recently made a movie about Edward Snowden — said. “I think it serves a purpose to disguise what’s really going on. The intelligence experts that I’ve talked to have indicated to me that it was probably an inside job.”

When pressed by Amanpour about what he meant, Stone said he “couldn’t go into all that information.”

Check out what happened to the guy who was suspected to leak all the emails of DNC? Wikileaks says he leaked it and was shot

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Sep 2016 18:59

He was " mugged" and shot in downtown DC

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Sep 2016 20:33

Just For the Records (JFR):

Ivanka Trump cuts off Cosmo interview after tough questioning

Runs in the family I guess.

But the candidate's daughter bristled when interviewer Prachi Gupta asked, "In 2004, Donald Trump said that pregnancy is an inconvenient thing for a business. It's surprising to see this policy from him today. Can you talk a little about those comments, and perhaps what has changed?"

"So I think that you have a lot of negativity in these questions," Ivanka Trump said, according to Cosmopolitan's transcript. "So I don't know how useful it is to spend too much time with you on this, if you're going to make a comment like that."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Sep 2016 20:36

JFR:

Ford fact checks Trump: We will be here forever

The automaker quickly shot down Donald Trump's latest hyperbolic claim, made on Fox News Thursday, that Ford plans to "fire all its employees in the United States" as part of a plan to build a plant in Mexico.

Ford said there will be zero job losses in the U.S. as a result of the new plant in Mexico. The Wayne, Michigan, plant that now builds the Focus and C-Max that will move to Mexico will instead start building other models -- probably the new Ford Bronco SUV and Ranger small pickup

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 15 Sep 2016 23:08

vijayk wrote: I am hoping for Johnson/Weld. Both will be non interventionists.

True. I doubt Johnson would know where India and China even are.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 15 Sep 2016 23:22

NRao wrote:we are talking os the same Hillary Clinton, right?

The one that candidate Obama called "The Senator from Punjab"? Right?

Obama what obama? Ahhhh the guy who said "...religious intolerance in Bharat would have shocked Gandhi.." and repeatedly.

Right if obama had met a BRFite he'd have been educated enough to say pakjab not Punjab !

bill clinton wrote in his book that on his arrival in Bharatvarsh Hindu terrorists murdered 35 sikhs in Kashmir. Those are the khalistani-pakjabi huma types educating clintons. 'cause Bharat hater clintons allow only such people in their circles, others aren't allowed to enter.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 15 Sep 2016 23:32

Gus wrote:whatever issues you have with Hilary about how she looks at India , why do u think it will be different with trump...

They will both give same support to evangelists etc. But Hillary will be super stealthy f-35 type while trump will be noisy macho cowboyish A-10 type attacker.

There is no Bharat enemy that doesn't have clintons' support be khalistanis, porkis, cheenis, leftist maoists; clintons have made channels and people who are deeply embedded with our enemies.

While Trump is speaking against porkis and cheenis at least. Like every politician after coming to power he won't go after them like some are expecting, but he won't be that much into papp-japhhi etc. with porki - cheeni types.

Not having slimey kerry-klinton types he won't be able to stealthily pressurise govt, but go openly against us, thus awakening Indics in the process. Just like madman ronald reagan went after Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh openly saying the reason "...converting christians to other faith..."

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 15 Sep 2016 23:43

KJo wrote:I kinda hope that Trump wins....
Trump is crazy but is a businessman so will be a straight shooter. .....

Trump businessmen???? REALLY????? If he put all the money he got from his father in, say index-fund, he would be much richer than he is now. His business has *MANY* (at least 4 big ones I know of) bankruptcies, and fraud (like trump universitie) and failures after failures (like Trump shuttle, Trump stakes, Trump Vodka ... list is endless).. As fellow prominent republicans and his own party people have said " When it comes to business, he is NOT very smart.

Donald Trump is many things like - serial liar, racist, misogynist, rampant xenophobe, birther, scam artist, , a total disgrace, one who regularly incites political violence, and pledges to ban all 1.6 billion members of an entire religion,--- but he is NO businessman.

(And BTW all of above is said by his own party people, ex presidents (Republicans), Presidential candidates, and top republican leaders.

Those who get fooled by it, tells more about themselves than DT.

(PS. to give some background about where I am coming from - I have voted in at least last 10 US presidential elections, sometimes for democrats and sometimes for repubs, have friends/families in *all* US political spectrum yet for the first time in my personal life I do not have a *single* person in my circle who even remotely supports DT.. even the people who have voted Republican way in their entire life, and hate HRC, think DT is a total disgrace and are ready to say so -- many have endorsed DT. I am a little disappointed (but not surprised) that brf has some so gullible people who are fooled and conned by DT)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 15 Sep 2016 23:50

Just wondering --

What if HRC appeared on DNC convention floor with 5 children from three different man (some of whom may have posed nude as models and were immigrated from some communist country)?

Think about it...would brf jingos still be talking about huma/hillary? How come DT gets a pass for moral police?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Sep 2016 00:02

not being smart in bijnej is kinda helpful to us.

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 16 Sep 2016 01:23

Amber G. wrote:
KJo wrote:I kinda hope that Trump wins....
Trump is crazy but is a businessman so will be a straight shooter. .....
Trump businessmen???? REALLY????? If he put all the money he got from his father in, say index-fund, he would be much richer than he is now. His business has *MANY* (at least 4 big ones I know of) bankruptcies, and fraud (like trump universitie) and failures after failures (like Trump shuttle, Trump stakes, Trump Vodka ... list is endless).. As fellow prominent republicans and his own party people have said " When it comes to business, he is NOT very smart.

Donald Trump is many things like - serial liar, racist, misogynist, rampant xenophobe, birther, scam artist, , a total disgrace, one who regularly incites political violence, and pledges to ban all 1.6 billion members of an entire religion,--- but he is NO businessman.

(And BTW all of above is said by his own party people, ex presidents (Republicans), Presidential candidates, and top republican leaders.

Those who get fooled by it, tells more about themselves than DT.

(PS. to give some background about where I am coming from - I have voted in at least last 10 US presidential elections, sometimes for democrats and sometimes for repubs, have friends/families in *all* US political spectrum yet for the first time in my personal life I do not have a *single* person in my circle who even remotely supports DT.. even the people who have voted Republican way in their entire life, and hate HRC, think DT is a total disgrace and are ready to say so -- many have endorsed DT. I am a little disappointed (but not surprised) that brf has some so gullible people who are fooled and conned by DT)

I have heard the index fund theory but is there any place where the details are given?

Nothing wrong in failures. He has successes also. No one succeeds in everything.

He did not say "ban all muslims", that is what the Dems claim. He said that we should stop allowing refugees from troubled countries to enter until we know how to properly vet them. And I agree with him. Yes, most of these refugees are Muslims. And I worry about crazy Muslims roaming US cities looking for sheet to blow up.

This is my 6th US Prez election that I will be voting in. For the first time I don't know who to vote as both Trump and Hillary are not slam dunk choices.

So what are you doing this time?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Sep 2016 02:20

People need to read more, do not have to agree.

Nothing wrong in failures. He has successes also. PNo one succeeds in everything.

He did not fail. He declared bankruptcy, pocketed all the proceeds and gave pennies on the dollar to others.

He is perhaps the only guy to fly in own plane after so many bankruptcies. He should actually be a pauper.

Let me put it this way. If Trump were to do to India, or any other nation, what he did to others in his business ventures, India would be in dire economic conditions. Scary part is he will never hesitate and sleep well.

The only thing I think India will benefit from is his stance (to put it mildly) on Islamic terrorism. He could really help India on that point.

Other than that he will screw all nations, including India.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 16 Sep 2016 02:31

Choosing between Trump vs Hillary is worse than choosing between RaGa vs Kejru. As someone once said, Elect Trump destroy America, Elect Hillary destroy the world.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Sep 2016 02:49

If that is the choice, then Hillary it is. No need for trade deals or see the world.

And best part no need for Trump either.

Live happily-ever-after in the US of A.

Easy choice.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 16 Sep 2016 02:57

Another fun thing to consider. Hillary's public collapse on 9/11 has brought the focus back to her health. No one really knows how bad it is, and given the vast patronage networks of cover-up artists who surround her, it is unlikely anyone ever will. But think about this... if she becomes President, and then keels over, her VP Tim Kaine will take over. Tim Kaine is an avowed EJ who has participated enthusiastically in the anti-India, anti-Hindu propaganda campaign spearheaded by the USCIRF.

So for Bharat-Rakshaks, it's not just Clinton's close links to extreme ROP (Huma Abedin and Uzra Zeya) to be concerned about. She has an extreme ROL VP candidate in tow as well.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 16 Sep 2016 02:57

Amber G. wrote:Just wondering --

What if HRC appeared on DNC

convention floor with 5 children from

three different man (some of whom

may have posed nude as models and

were immigrated from some

communist country)?

Think about it...would brf jingos still

be talking about huma/hillary? How

come DT gets a pass for moral police?

BRF jingos aren't making moral judgements upon their character and saying that "we want usa to choose the candidate with higher moral character.... "

It isn't that BRFites are male chauvanists who don't care about whatever trumpet the man does.... but want hillary to be pious virgin mary.

She isn't judged about having a probable lover from same sex. Its not that if she had a close male associate called Ziauddin Bhutto from pakistani father and wahabi mother we wouldn't have suspected her of having a porki
trojan. Nope!

The worry is that huma has physiological and psychological linkages to porki-saudi roots, and watching various acts of clinton family like sending secret delegation to find mass graves in gujarat, clinton writing
that 35 sikhs killed during his Bharat yatra, their helping our enemy china, their receiving funds from saudis.... plus helping the proliferation of evangelist NGOs in Bharat,pressurising NaMo govt. to remove ban from colorado christian "compassion" NGO.

Its not in our Dharmic roots to make judgements like than on people.

When abrahmics came to our country they shamed at non-covering of our womenfolks.

Now through burka dutt, nandita sen types they shame us as Hindu Taliban.

In vicotrian times the morality suppression was so much that people used to cover the leg of chair too. If somebody comes to your house and the leg of chair is exposed, you'd be condemned.

In my childhood for many decades we had a photo cut and framed from calendar, where Sita is sitting wearing very narrow strip of cloth as blouse and small dhoti in forest and pointing at something, small Son Kush is infant
crawling on grass, while elder son Luv is aiming at the target where Sita is pointing.

In govt. accommodation delhi we lived next to a christian family, we were friends with their children and in their house was a small porcelain statue of Mary, even her head was covered, so was whole body.

After few years we grew up and as children do; we fought and hit abuse each other. So he started condemning you are bad people with naked shameless goddess photos in your house.

This is the story of Bharat. First we were shamed at not being sexually repressive enough, shameless naked people, now we are being shamed for being opposite.

Amazing isn't it that Gandhi ji was shamed by christian missionaries so much about Khajuraho Temples that he and Purushottam Das Tandon wanted to cover those temples with a layer of mud to hide those beautiful statues.

Vajpayee was condemned for live in relationship by congress and abrahmic gulam nabi azad.

Gomorrah the city was destroyed by abrahmic god 'cause they practiced orgies and homosexuality.

Strangely our Mahabharat has no such condemnations.

So no, Hillary-Huma are being seen dangerous here as being more pro-Bharat-enemies.

While if Trump comes to power instead of helping ummah-porkistan-cheen starts fighting them, it will divide our enemies energies in fighting with trump america giving us some raahat.

Or

If trump is a liar and doesn't do any such thing after becoming president, even then he won't help our enemies as much as hillary would.

As far as balance of trade with Bharat is concerned, if america stops buying softwares from narayanmurty and son I actually will be happy, people can call me illetrate stupid and I probably am, but I would be happy at narayan murty's loss.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 16 Sep 2016 02:58

Gullible people on brf, talk about yourself saar. I am not privy to how much DT got from his father but he sure multiplied that money many times over. Trump properties all across the world which his father did not have. So what should he do if one of his wives likes a driver more.Nothing wrong with liking pretty women, he does. So do most people, at least he is open about it and not a hypocrate. he may be a loud mouth Newyorker but he most certainly is a very successful businessman and smarter than most US presidents since the second world war. This guy has everthing that any normal person can ask for yet he has put his own life in serious danger for his country. That is saying a lot considering what most US politicians are like. And quoting what bad things other republicans and democrates are saying about him do u realize what is at the core of all this ? The thing that is at the center is that most jews feel that this guy is going to remove the most favored nation status from Israel and make America first in all his dealings with other countries. If u are an American u can not argue with that can u? The media is almost completely dominated by Jews in America and that is why u will not hear a single thing good about DT on MSM.

And why America should be supporting a nation which stole other people,s land and than call them terrorists.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Sep 2016 03:04

Nice write up.

5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 16 Sep 2016 03:06

matrimc wrote: True. I doubt Johnson would know where India and China even are.

Prime Minister Shastri had declared once his intention to visit US and Johnson conveyed that please don't come as I am too busy, but hosted porki ayub khan twice or thrice.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 16 Sep 2016 03:15

If Hillary gets elected, Tulsi Gabbard will be less likely to win in a future presidential election.

She has presidential written all over her.

I'm sitting out this election b/c I'll be on vacation abroad but I urge BRFites to vote for Trump.

We need to start being more strategic about these things.

Both candidates will be the same for India and Hindus.

I like what this guy wrote:

That said, she definitely has the "secret sauce" of a future POTUS:

She has military experience and not just "fluff" but legit military experience. She made the outstanding decision to dedicate herself to her military career while in, instead of straddle two horses (politics and military).
We cannot escape the fact that she looks the part (yes, in the west, we want our leaders to look all "leadery"). And I don't mean "good looks"† (notwithstanding), I mean, "She commands the ****** room when she's in there!" A credit to her officer's training & personality.
Part-&-parcel with that is her pretty snappy wit and intelligence. A lot of leaders look the part and smile and can command a room from a distance (like, Michele Bachman, Rick Perry and our current Veep, Joe Biden), but when they open their mouths you end up face-palming them. They are either so dumb or so sketchy in what they say that you wonder how they got the job. Ms. Gabbard actually is a decent speaker/debater.
Oh, and she's a "she" and Hindu and not-white. That's worth noting as an indicator of the shift in our nation.

†A note on "looks" in politics. Statistically you do stand a much better chance of getting elected in the US if you fit into a rather prejudicial mold of looks. This isn't a "oh, lookit that sexy dude!" type thing, but a, comment on why looks do (though shouldn't) matter in the US and possibly in electoral politics in general. The rule isn't entirely sexist but just generally prejudiced against any person outside of the mold. Body weight, facial symmetry, hair, etc. all play a part in the "eye appeal" of a president.

More important than model-esque good looks (which do help), is the aforementioned "commanding presence". There's a thing about an air of power and leadership. Some of this comes with being svelte or muscular, nimble and athletic. But it also has to do with facial expressions and physical features that people simply want to physically see in a candidate.

https://www.quora.com/Would-Tulsi-Gabba ... the-future

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 16 Sep 2016 03:18

Cross Posting from "Managing Chinese Threat" thread.

Prem wrote:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 325608.cms

How Donald Trump could wipe $420 billion off China's exports
Victory for Donald Trump in the US Presidential election could be a game changer for China's economy. The candidate's promise to slap punitive tariffs on Chinese imports would be highly contractionary, deflationary and wipe hundreds of billions off the value of the world's second-biggest economy, according to new research by Kevin Lai, the Hong Kong-based chief economist for Asia (excluding Japan) at Daiwa Capital Markets. Lai estimates that Trump's suggestion for a 45 per cent tariff on Chinese goods to narrow the trade deficit with America would spark an 87 per cent decline in China's exports to the US -- a decline of $420 billion. That would, over time and factoring in multiplier effects, mean a 4.82 percent blow to China's gross domestic product, or about a half trillion dollars' worth. It doesn't even take into account an estimated $426 billion in foreign direct investment repatriation if companies started to withdraw.A loss of GDP or a slowdown in GDP growth of this scale would be staggering," Lai wrote in a note entitled "What would a Trump presidency mean for China." "Eventually, Trump and his administration may actually compromise with a watered-down version of tariffs." Still, even watered-down tariffs to 15 per cent would result in a loss of GDP for China of 1.8 per cent, again excluding the impact of foreign companies pulling out. The tariff's would likely be placed on a wide range of goods from machinery and tools to toys and home appliances, according to Lai. ai said China's quasi-fixed-exchange-rate regime and regular intervention by the People's Bank of China did help limit the yuan's gains over the past 20 years. At the same time, ultra loose monetary policy in the US supplied China with limitless dollars at a low cost and that China has recycled its surplus savings into funding the US budget. "Hence, it is really a chicken-and-egg question," Lai said. Add it all up and a victory for Trump could add severe pressure on China's economy."Obviously, the stakes are very high," Lai said.

Clearly the Chinese don't want a Trump victory. Not just because Clinton is ideologically pro-China (and secondarily, Pak-pasand). But because the kind of blows Trump's protectionism would deal to the Chinese economy, heavily dependent on exports to the US, could be socially and politically destabilizing within China itself. Imagine the effects of a nearly 5% fall in GDP on a billion-plus population that has become accustomed to sacrificing political freedom for prosperity... they might suddenly start to take notice of the astounding political restrictions that the CCP strangulates them with! From the point of view of Indian interests, I would rather have this astra in play than all the EMALS, P8Is and unarmed predators Ashton Carter has been hinting at putting on the table!

Of course there will be negative repercussions for India's exports to the US as well... but American imports account for a much smaller amount of India's revenue relative to China. Conversely, we would have a lot of cards in hand to negotiate with the Trump government to keep import restrictions on Indian goods and services low. Our vast appetite for nuclear power plants and infrastructure, as well as defense technologies... both of which are not markets for US exports to China... will keep US corporations lobbying Washington hard for lower barriers to India-US trade.

Another side to this equation is that, with diminished US-China trade consequent to Trump's barriers, China will be more reliant on trade with other emerging markets to try and make up the deficit. India will be one of those markets. This gives us more leverage to bargain with Xi over CPEC, border disputes and everything else.

A totally separate angle is that, by pursuing rapprochement with Putin, Trump will drive a wedge between Russia and China. Clinton, even more than Obama, would pursue the Brzezinski-ite foreign policy of containing Russia as enemy #1... pushing Putin towards a closer embrace with the China-Pakistan axis. No question which is better from our perspective.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Sep 2016 04:40

Voters' View of a Donald Trump Presidency: Big Risks and Rewards

Voters’ View of a Donald Trump Presidency: Big Risks and Rewards

By PATRICK HEALY and DALIA SUSSMANSEPT. 15, 2016

Hillary Clinton at a rally in Tampa, Fla., early this month, and Donald J. Trump at a campaign event in Clive, Iowa, on Tuesday. Credit Left, Doug Mills/The New York Times; Damon Winter/ The New York Times

Voters consider Donald J. Trump a riskier but potentially more transformative choice for president than Hillary Clinton, saying he lacks the right temperament and values but would be more effective at handling the economy and bringing real change to Washington, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Mrs. Clinton, despite being as disliked as Mr. Trump, is seen as a safer option. Majorities of voters say she has the temperament for the job and the steadier hand on foreign policy. Only 36 percent of them, however, view her as an agent of change. That perception deeply worries some Clinton campaign advisers, who want the race to hinge on Mr. Trump’s character rather than voters’ desire to upend the status quo.

With less than eight weeks until Election Day, the two candidates are locked in a close contest in which the challenge from third-party candidates may make a difference. Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has the support of 46 percent of likely voters nationwide, compared with 44 percent for Mr. Trump, the Republican; that result includes voters who said they were leaning toward a candidate.

Looking more broadly at all registered voters, Mrs. Clinton holds a wider edge, 46 to 41 percent, driven by her support among women, minorities and college graduates. Getting those registered but unlikely voters to the polls in November is a large challenge for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

Mr. Trump has an advantage among men, whites and less educated voters.

In a four-way race, Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton are tied at 42 percent each. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, has the support of 8 percent of likely voters, and the Green Party nominee, Jill Stein, takes 4 percent. Mr. Johnson is hoping to qualify for the coming presidential debates, but he is short of the requirement of reaching 15 percent support in an average of major polls.

Among voters younger than 30, Mrs. Clinton’s support drops 10 points in a four-way race. Their support for Mr. Trump falls seven points, but he is not relying on young voters as much.

The race has clearly grown tighter in recent weeks. National polling averages show that Mrs. Clinton’s margin over Mr. Trump has narrowed from eight points in early August to two points today.

Polls in a number of key swing states have narrowed in the past week as well. Mr. Trump now leads in polling averages in Ohio and Florida, for example, reversing leads that Mrs. Clinton held for months. Projections of Mrs. Clinton’s Electoral College advantage have also shown a tightening based on recent polls.

Voters expressed discontent with both candidates. Among those who say they intend to vote for Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton, slightly more than half express strong support. The rest say that they harbor reservations about their candidate or that they are voting simply to thwart the other nominee.

Despite the voters’ misgivings, the major-party nominees are consolidating support among their party faithful. Mrs. Clinton commands support of 87 percent of Democrats, while Mr. Trump is supported by 85 percent of Republicans.
Document: A New York Times/CBS News Poll on the Presidential Race

The poll results offer more cause for concern than confidence for Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton as they prepare for their first debate, on Sept. 26, and as early voting begins in some states next weekend. Their favorability ratings remain stubbornly low, with only about one-third of voters seeing each of them positively, despite the candidates’ attempts to use their conventions, commercials and public appearances to persuade voters to see them in a new light.

A majority of voters say Mr. Trump does not care about the needs or problems of Hispanics; most voters see Mrs. Clinton as caring about Hispanics, and a majority of voters agree with her view that most illegal immigrants in the country should be allowed to stay and eventually apply for citizenship.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted with 1,433 registered voters from Sept. 9 to 13 on cellphones and landlines. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all voters.

Mr. Trump’s temperament stands out as potentially his most damaging vulnerability, as his penchant for insults and provocations often undercuts his political message. Trump advisers see the televised debates as Mr. Trump’s greatest opportunity to reassure people about his personality, but he starts off in a weak position, with 64 percent of voters saying he does not have the right temperament to be president.

Sixty-seven percent of voters see Mr. Trump as a risky choice for president, compared with 51 percent who hold that view about Mrs. Clinton — a surprising number in itself given that she has been a president’s spouse, a senator and a secretary of state.

For Trump advisers, the image of Mr. Trump as a gamble comes with an upside. They concede that he is most likely to lose the election if a majority of voters view him as dangerous or reckless. But if he can persuade people to see him simply as unpredictable — even cagey in a strategic sense — as well as committed to disrupting the federal government, voters could regard him as worth taking a chance on for four years while looking to his advisers and Congress as a check on his power.

Several Trump supporters said in follow-up interviews that they believed he was worth the risk, given the economic and security challenges facing the nation. Forty-eight percent of voters think Mr. Trump could bring real change to Washington, a 12-point edge over Mrs. Clinton; another 48 percent think he could not bring change.

“The risky part with Trump is the fact of his rhetoric, how he says things,” said Patrick Kellegher, 52, a political independent and a retired deputy sheriff from Anaconda, Mont. “But I think he is outside the known government circles.” He added, “I think Trump will bring about real change because he’s looking at it through a different scope.”

The candidates also face continued doubts about their honesty. Of the two, Mrs. Clinton has tried more visibly to address misgivings about her trustworthiness, by releasing decades of tax returns and more details about her health than Mr. Trump has. Yet one stain on her reputation is proving indelible: About seven in 10 voters say she did something wrong when she used a private email server as secretary of state, including 45 percent who say she did something illegal.

Concerns about her judgment linger even among some of her supporters, who say she could have been more forthcoming about her email practices before they grew into a political controversy and the focus of a scathing F.B.I. report.

“I don’t think she’s been dishonest or untrustworthy in a way that disqualifies her to be president, but she shouldn’t have worried so much about political ramifications and come clean up front,” said Lindsay Dofelmier, 36, a lawyer in Houston who is supporting Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Trump has yet to release any of his tax returns, a break with political tradition that goes back decades, and has been far less specific than Mrs. Clinton on many personal and political questions, including his policy proposals. Asked if it was necessary for Mr. Trump to release his tax returns, 59 percent of voters said it was. Forty-five percent of voters said they would like the candidates to release more medical records.

Correction: September 15, 2016

An earlier version of this article misstated Donald J. Trump’s support among white voters. He leads Hillary Clinton among white voters by 51 to 40 percent, not by 57 to 33 percent. He leads among white men by a 57 to 33 percent margin.

Trending

Voters’ View of a Donald Trump Presidency: Big Risks and Rewards
The 2016 Race: As Clinton-Trump Race Tightens, Here’s How Forecast Models Differ
Op-Ed Contributor: Jay Z: ‘The War on Drugs Is an Epic Fail’
Op-Ed Columnist: When a Crackpot Runs for President
The National Museum of African American History and Culture
Opinion: What I Learned From Executing Two Men
Jay Z: 'The War on Drugs Is an Epic Fail'
Diabetes and Your Diet: The Low-Carb Debate
Op-Ed Contributor: In Wells Fargo Scandal, the Buck Stopped Well Short
Op-Ed Contributors: Pardon Edward Snowden

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Sep 2016 06:05

On a lighter note .............

Alien wrote: After watching your presidential race, we would rather not be taken to your leader

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Sep 2016 06:11

Which one these two is better to deal for Modi Sarkar?

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 16 Sep 2016 06:44

Rudradev wrote:Cross Posting from "Managing Chinese Threat" thread.

Prem wrote:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 325608.cms

How Donald Trump could wipe $420 billion off China's exports
Clearly the Chinese don't want a Trump victory. Not just because Clinton is ideologically pro-China (and secondarily, Pak-pasand). But because the kind of blows Trump's protectionism would deal to the Chinese economy, heavily dependent on exports to the US, could be socially and politically destabilizing within China itself. Imagine the effects of a nearly 5% fall in GDP on a billion-plus population that has become accustomed to sacrificing political freedom for prosperity... they might suddenly start to take notice of the astounding political restrictions that the CCP strangulates them with! From the point of view of Indian interests, I would rather have this astra in play than all the EMALS, P8Is and unarmed predators Ashton Carter has been hinting at putting on the table!
.....
A totally separate angle is that, by pursuing rapprochement with Putin, Trump will drive a wedge between Russia and China. Clinton, even more than Obama, would pursue the Brzezinski-ite foreign policy of containing Russia as enemy #1... pushing Putin towards a closer embrace with the China-Pakistan axis. No question which is better from our perspective.

RDji, this perceived threat of DT to China is a double edged sword. It is very likely that DT could tactically force some of its manufacturers, for a time period or choosing certain sectors, to move out of China to shore up manufacturing at home. This will definitely push China into economic contraction and massive job/wage losses. If that were to happen, Chinese are not going to consume western products; so moving that manufacturing out of China is of no use. Plus, the world economies will massively contract which the world's central banks, and the world's financiers, are trying to fight tooth and nail even today. China is a much bigger market for US products that India. MNCs will be the biggest losers, which will not be allowed. POTUS is a just a namesake post. It does not make policies. However, DT could move certain sectors out of China and move to India (maybe); and in exchange seek favorable status on multiple front from India. This can be only short term and tactical, to seriously weaken China. The same way oil price is heavily manipulated, to achieve larger geopolitical goals.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 16 Sep 2016 06:49

Hopefully if Trump isn't such a big liar and create trouble with porkis and 1.6 billion peacefuls plus chinese, than that itself will make both these enemies divert their attention and energy towards trump amrika.

On the other hand billary would smoothly take all these enemies with her for 3 pronged attack on NaMo and Bharat.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Sep 2016 08:21

pepe escobar on what india foreign policy is aiming it...

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/359428-brics ... a-escobar/

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 16 Sep 2016 09:02

I doubt if Trump will do nothing about Islamic terrorism. Pakistan will be supported come what may. Obama droned the hell out of Pakistan, and yet they kept supporting it. Be it Dems or Rethugs, they have only so much say - the 'system' runs on auto-mode taking care of country's interests.

Stopping immigration of Muslims is going to be as far fetched as building the Mexican Wall and making Mexico pay for it. Yeah, right I own The Coovum River, anybody want to buy it? I am not greedy will sell it for $100 cash.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Sep 2016 09:46

less money for China mean less Khairat to Paki by them. China will also need big market like India to sustain growth . If Donald bring Daarawa to China and Danda to Paki, we should be able to tolerate the little cost which may occur because of DT Potusgiri. In fact it will provide strategic space for us in long term.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Sep 2016 09:47

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Sep 2016 09:50

Chinese has been a major donor to Clinton Foundation and Clinton has been very restrained in dealing with China also she opposes TTP which should be good for China , All in All Clinton should be good for China beyond the rhetoric that every potus has to put across on china

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Sep 2016 09:51

Wasn't Trump willing to hand over Asia to China sort of like Obama's G2? What would that mean for India?

China has more pressing problems than a Trump tariff barriers. Trump will do a little posturing but I don't think he will get into a trade war with China.