Mittens was up against a pretty unique adversary in history though. Not that he's not a bland character, but another year and he might've been President.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
Mittens was up against a pretty unique adversary in history though. Not that he's not a bland character, but another year and he might've been President.
Oh yeah, I agree that was obviously going to happen, he would have to move to the centre to grab more voters to stand a chance in the General election, but this is a bit different, he's obviously been pulled to the side and told to calm the rhetoric down on certain issues because they were not only extremely dangerous but highly illegal as well. You can imagine leaders in other countries sat watching and wondering what the hell was going on.
Strange really though how America only has 2 main parties. I mean the Republicans are like the equivalent of The Conservatives mixed with UKIP AND the BNP and the Democrats are a clear mix of The Liberal Democrats and Labour, sometimes with a little bit of the Green Party thrown in as well.Nate has spoken. 
Well done Bernie.
Well done Bernie.
Mittens was a different candidate altogether. He was also up against a mostly popular incumbent. Drumpf has the blessing of Hillary likely being his adversary who independents and even some dems despise. Him moving to the center isn't going to hurt his chances IMO, if anything he'll sabotage himself if he continues with the crazy rhetoric well into November.
He is already beginning to unite the party. After he secures the nomination , he will go straight to the middle.
He has said a couple of time already. "the new Republican party". It will be moderate. He will beat Hillary in the Rust belt states. Jobs. Bernie will have a much better shot. Very interesting all this.
Marcobot is seriously damaging his political future by staying in at this point. A distant 2nd v Trump in his home state on the 15th will cement Trump's narrative that Little Marco is a choke artist who can't get elected dog catcher in his own state.
Rubio's ego will not let him pull out of Florida. He will not get reelected there. The end of the robot.
the balancing act will be keeping enough crazy (the wall for example) with moderating some positions (eg stricter pre flight vetting of muslim visitors rather than an outright ban)
It will be a difficult balancing act but he has proved himself good at largely controlling the news agenda and attracting tha anti establishment vote so anything is possible
In last night's Presser, I liked how he handled reporter's questions. He was tolerant of those who were not asking him 'got ya' questions. The rest he just told them either look at his web site or just sit down. He is not going to take BS.
Bi-weekly reminder of how detested the Trumpster is
Bernie is 210 delegates behind Hillary.
Hillary - 762
Bernie - 552
Hillary - 762
Bernie - 552
Trump might surprise a few people. I think he is a lot better at changing his message compared to other candidates who had to go down that road (e.g. Mittens). His message has hardly any content anyway and he wasn´t a politician, so he doesn´t have a voting record. Big part of his message is, that he can translate his business “success” into successful politics; he rarely says what that actually means. People like Rubio and especially Cruz have to stick to the right-wing ideology or they look like opportunistic flip/flopper. Trump will stick to nationalism, but that doesn´t go hand in hand with right-wing policies and is fairly popular in the American mainstream.
A mix of economic populism, “I am not funded by big business”, toned-down xenophobia, states-rights and strong nationalism could actually be fairly successful. Obviously he also could also be losing by a big margin, but if he really wins the nomination and runs against HC, I actually wouldn´t bet against him.
2 problems with prediction recently:
1. Incomplete data biased towards the older
2. Overly complicated models with too much bias/variance, or correct models being applied incorrectly
Curious as to what Hillary's trustworthiness is. She hasn't been hammered on the emails/Benghazi too much... yet
1. Incomplete data biased towards the older
2. Overly complicated models with too much bias/variance, or correct models being applied incorrectly
Curious as to what Hillary's trustworthiness is. She hasn't been hammered on the emails/Benghazi too much... yet
Just how onerous is the entrenched party machinery that a new group would need to create in order to be viable? Is it just too monolithic (and expensive) at this point? That's kinda how it would appear from the outside. Way too much tied in to the two-party system for anyone to ever break through.
Bernie has run a great campaign.
However, Democratic rules makes it very difficult to surmount this sort of lead as Hillary herself found out against Obama in 08. Proportional delegates throughout mean that Bernie needs to really run up the score in states to catch her.
Once you are ahead it's all about being steady and racking up the delegates and not getting too bogged down by defeats as long as you pick up delegates.
I just love how his repulsive brain goes through three blatant, clunky gears in this gif.
1. "What? You idiot."
2. "Uh wait a minute.. might be something there."
3. "Uh oh. Do that reaction again, only bigger, to show I'm smart and I spotted something in it."
I think so too. And because its winner takes all for the Presidency it would have to start as an effort for the House/Senate. But its probably just way too expensive and unlikely to succeed to even try. Only if the political structure (how the President is elected) would it make sense at a national level.
He needs to win 28/35 states remaining, most of them comfortably. I'm not ruling anything out after those Michigan polls but... yeah, United can still mathematically win the league too (and Michigan was like the 3-2 vs Arsenal).
We learned nothing new last night but I'm still shocked that the American people might elect Trump as president. In the end Hillary will beat him, whether by a slim or yuuge margin, but the fact that he's gotten this far speaks very poorly of the American people.
And not just Republicans.
And not just Republicans.
That's when I thought 10 points in 10 games wasn't the most impossible thing ever...
Don't fall for it Bernie supporters! But it has been a great campaign by him so far, like Leicester if they don't win the PLDOTA pushing odds on y'all again.
To be president...
Hilary - 1 - 2
Trump - 3
Sanders - 14
Cruz - 15
Rubio - 40
Odds shortened considerably on Hillary, is the main thing I notice.
To be president...
Hilary - 1 - 2
Trump - 3
Sanders - 14
Cruz - 15
Rubio - 40
Odds shortened considerably on Hillary, is the main thing I notice.
The other shoe has not dropped yet.
40/1 are horrific odds for Rubio, I wouldn't even put that on him to be the nominee.
I'd say he is the gust of wind that spreads the embers of hatred of others that have been there for a while.
I've seen a lot of people mention the Independent option for Trump if he is screwed over by the establishment...and I've gone along with this too...but,
Trump won't run as an Independent.
The Republican Convention is from 18-21 July.
The last date for Independent candidates to file in a critically important state for Republicans, Texas, is as early as the 9th of May. He has to collect 80,000 signatures (that won't be a problem), but filing in May? Not going to happen.
Texas for a Republican is like NY or Cali for a Democrat, a gimme. No point in going down the write in option either. Not to mention, I can't imagine Trump spending the $$$$ to fund a Independent run.
Trump won't run as an Independent.
The Republican Convention is from 18-21 July.
The last date for Independent candidates to file in a critically important state for Republicans, Texas, is as early as the 9th of May. He has to collect 80,000 signatures (that won't be a problem), but filing in May? Not going to happen.
Texas for a Republican is like NY or Cali for a Democrat, a gimme. No point in going down the write in option either. Not to mention, I can't imagine Trump spending the $$$$ to fund a Independent run.
You mean the poison you need to actually go to the hospital?
I've thought about this more than anything else. How did it go from this to what we see today (and beyond immigration talk, at least Reagan and Bush actually spoke in actual policy terms, respecfully and intelligently):
You are right. he will not run as an independent. He has a reasonable chance to beat Hillary. The RNC will not commit suicide to push him aside.
I do think there is some truth to this. Reagan and Bush Sr both represented a populist, social right view of the Republicans, that proved very popular with the base. This has continued.
It should be pretty clear by that point if he's going to have a majority (or at least a clear plurality) of delegates. If not, and it's increasingly certain that a fairly vicious convention is coming, then you never know. But as it is I think he'll be clear by then.
As an outsider looking in I still dont really understand what it is about Clinton that evokes such strong feelings of hatred in so many people, including Democrats.
I read somewhere it is basically because she is a liar and insincere, and because she's in the pockets of the banks. But isnt that true of every politician? Or most, anyway? Is it just a sign of the times, that we are seeing a post-crisis, anti bank backlash, and so what was acceptable (or not even notable) in previous cycles is now of crucial importance? Or is she MORE in the pockets of the banks than candidates usually are?
And on the lying thing, is it principally about this private email server? Or has she been caught out in a larger number of whoppers than even your average politician?
I was talking to a friend who lives in the US and seems to be of the opinion that if its Clinton vs Trump the Repubs have a good chance because Democrats wont bother to vote for someone they dont like, whereas Trump will at least get his own fanbase out, even if many Republicans hate him as well. But it seems perverse to me that people could hate Clinton so much they wouldnt vote for her, even to block such an awful candidate as Trump. Surely Clinton, while not maybe representing the kind of positive change a lot of people hope for, is at least a "continuity" or "safe pair of hands" candidate? Whereas Trump is the "oh shit things are going to hell" candidate - from the liberal perspective at least.
Are there any good articles explaining what is so bad about Clinton?
I read somewhere it is basically because she is a liar and insincere, and because she's in the pockets of the banks. But isnt that true of every politician? Or most, anyway? Is it just a sign of the times, that we are seeing a post-crisis, anti bank backlash, and so what was acceptable (or not even notable) in previous cycles is now of crucial importance? Or is she MORE in the pockets of the banks than candidates usually are?
And on the lying thing, is it principally about this private email server? Or has she been caught out in a larger number of whoppers than even your average politician?
I was talking to a friend who lives in the US and seems to be of the opinion that if its Clinton vs Trump the Repubs have a good chance because Democrats wont bother to vote for someone they dont like, whereas Trump will at least get his own fanbase out, even if many Republicans hate him as well. But it seems perverse to me that people could hate Clinton so much they wouldnt vote for her, even to block such an awful candidate as Trump. Surely Clinton, while not maybe representing the kind of positive change a lot of people hope for, is at least a "continuity" or "safe pair of hands" candidate? Whereas Trump is the "oh shit things are going to hell" candidate - from the liberal perspective at least.
Are there any good articles explaining what is so bad about Clinton?
That's some powerful governing right there, having the whole effect on events 24 years after you're in office.
I was referring to Reagen and Dubya's economic policies.
yes... the fact that there has been very little (if any) actual detail behind any policy (infact its more broad statements like build a wall and make america great than even actual policy ideas) that he has plenty of "wiggle room" to craft a more centrist yet still populist message in a general election
The Dems continued the policies. I'm not excusing them.Clinton undid his taxing of the rich with NFTA and repeal of Glass-Stegal. Welfare reform did more harm then good.
Last edited:
More like a big greasy kebab with chili sauce that rips through your guts, cleaning you out but destroying the toilet and leaving you exhausted and just fancying a nice salad as you recover.
Last edited:
Good one GrinIt's not hate, I think. It's more apathy. All I know of her platform is that she's the continuation of Obama, or better than Trump/Cruz, which is...
If she makes it to the general election I'll vote for her. But there is the possibility that some voters just won't be arsed to get out and vote. And if that happens, they shouldn't be blamed for not feeling strong about a candidate to vote.
- Status