2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinner said:
Nobody, not even the Fox Nazis could stomach an hour of looking at and listening to Ted Cruz.
Click to expand...
So true...

x1RMG6s.gif
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I wouldn't trust anyone who is friend with Ted Cruz.

That aside, Garland is trustworthy when it comes to guns, Obama's top priority. If they can push it through somehow, that's a far more favorable outcome.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but he's going to lose regardless. Srinivasan would lose too, but him getting voted before 97-0 and being a goid friend of lying Ted would have been a good attack on GOP, saying that they are obstructionists.
 
langster said:
Hence my use of "interesting" didn't think it would be taken seriously with the headline.
Click to expand...
I've now given it a proper reading, and the biggest mistake it makes is basically homogenising all remaining states into 1 block, seemingly not realising that the states still to vote that are favourable to Clinton possess a huge number of the remaining delegates - California has 475, New York 247, Pennsylvania 189, New Jersey 126, Maryland 95 (these alone make up 1,132 of the 2,033 remaining delegates that the article cites). Sanders isn't winning any of those by 20 points, he'd be doing well to tie them, so his wins in the states that are favourable to him need to increase accordingly by hugely unrealistic amounts.

So basically, whoever wrote that either doesn't understand what he's writing about, or is intentionally misleading readers for clicks. Which is how I'd sum up that site in general to be honest, it's worse than Fox News.
 
Revan said:
Indeed, but he's going to lose regardless. Srinivasan would lose too, but him getting voted before 97-0 and being a goid friend of lying Ted would have been a good attack on GOP, saying that they are obstructionists.
Click to expand...

Well on the off chance they caved, it can be problematic in the future, so that's why Obama played it defensively.

This appointment will swing the ideological balance of the court for years, if not decades, to come. A misstep can be very costly. No one expected the Warren court.
 
Red Dreams said:
A President is elected for 4 years if I am right. the Republicans are the only one politisizing this obviously.
Click to expand...

Well this time, but history is full of whoever doesn't have the Presidency complaining about how the President should hold off a nomination because of reason X. Politicians playing politics with the Supreme Court is nothing new, can remember it happening as far back as the 80's and from things I have read occurred well before that also.
 
JustAFan said:
Well this time, but history is full of whoever doesn't have the Presidency complaining about how the President should hold off a nomination because of reason X. Politicians playing politics with the Supreme Court is nothing new, can remember it happening as far back as the 80's and from things I have read occurred well before that also.
Click to expand...
There's some rather unhelpful comments from a certain Senator Biden as well when he was on the committee :lol:

Still, Dems will get some benefit out of it.
 
Ubik said:
There's some rather unhelpful comments from a certain Senator Biden as well when he was on the committee :lol:

Still, Dems will get some benefit out of it.
Click to expand...

Chairman of the committee, no less.

And a certain next Senate Minority/Majority Leader from NY.
 
Ubik said:
I've now given it a proper reading, and the biggest mistake it makes is basically homogenising all remaining states into 1 block, seemingly not realising that the states still to vote that are favourable to Clinton possess a huge number of the remaining delegates - California has 475, New York 247, Pennsylvania 189, New Jersey 126, Maryland 95 (these alone make up 1,132 of the 2,033 remaining delegates that the article cites). Sanders isn't winning any of those by 20 points, he'd be doing well to tie them, so his wins in the states that are favourable to him need to increase accordingly by hugely unrealistic amounts.

So basically, whoever wrote that either doesn't understand what he's writing about, or is intentionally misleading readers for clicks. Which is how I'd sum up that site in general to be honest, it's worse than Fox News.
Click to expand...
Exactly, anyone who think Sanders can win those 2 by more than 20ppt is just deluded.
 
What's Kasich' game?

Why did he back out of the debate when Trump did ? He said he wanted more exposure now but backs out, but is spending a fair bit in Utah on ads apparently.
 
JustAFan said:
Well this time, but history is full of whoever doesn't have the Presidency complaining about how the President should hold off a nomination because of reason X. Politicians playing politics with the Supreme Court is nothing new, can remember it happening as far back as the 80's and from things I have read occurred well before that also.
Click to expand...

refusing to even hear a President's nominee?
 
Raoul said:
Interesting.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/15/paul-ryan-wont-categorically-rule-out-accepting-gop-nom.html

Ryan-Kasich would be a pretty good ticket for the GOP if they wind up at a brokered convention. I'd be for it just to watch the Trump meltdown.
Click to expand...

I would love to see him literally lose it, go off on a strop, slamming his fast down, stomping his feet, dropping f-bombs, blaming the media and shaming the GOP. It would be spectacular. In 10,000,000 years when an alien civilization visits/receives data, they'll be in abject horror at this species.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Ubik said:
Is there any evidence at all that extrapolating primary turnout gives an accurate prediction of general election support?
Click to expand...

its not a given. the observations are valid though. message, enthusiasm are big factors.

characterising the election should also be a factor. In 2008, Hope, Change and unity brought new voters and crossover voters to Obama, thus the landslide.

This time I would classify as 'the Angry anti establishment' cycle. Both sides people find no hope with politics as usual. Granted people are more angry in the Republican side.

Should a terrorist attack (God forbid) happen, Trump will win in a landslide. Should the economy dramatically improve, Hillary will be helped by being Obama's heir.

imo it will be close with Hillary having the edge. Hopefully this is what happens, because of Supreme Court appointments.

Trump if he controls his crowd and admonishes any attack of hecklers, will look very good. For him to look 'normal' as compared to his current antics, will make him look 'Presidential'.

EDIT:

Note, the more angry the voter is, the more likely he/she will turn up to vote.
 
Last edited:
Ubik said:
Is there any evidence at all that extrapolating primary turnout gives an accurate prediction of general election support?
Click to expand...

I haven't found anything about it but most outlets are reporting it as alarming for the Dems. It also goes in line with the favourability (which has a known correlation).
I agree with Red Dreams. She should have the election but a slide in the economy could damage her, and a terrorist attack will definitely finish her off. The FBI remains a wildcard, as do Trump's tax returns...
 
Red Dreams said:
its not a given. the observations are valid though. message, enthusiasm are big factors.

characterising the election should also be a factor. In 2008, Hope, Change and unity brought new voters and crossover voters to Obama, thus the landslide.

This time I would classify as 'the Angry anti establishment' cycle. Both sides people find no hope with politics as usual. Granted people are more angry in the Republican side.

Should a terrorist attack (God forbid) happen, Trump will win in a landslide. Should the economy dramatically improve, Hillary will be helped by being Obama's heir.

imo it will be close with Hillary having the edge. Hopefully this is what happens, because of Supreme Court appointments.

Trump if he controls his crowd and admonishes any attack of hecklers, will look very good. For him to look 'normal' as compared to his current antics, will make him look 'Presidential'.
Click to expand...
From looking at all the exit polls on both sides, the high GOP turnout to me is actually best explained by hostility to Trump. There's a definite anti-establishment strain with the Republicans, with about 50% of voters describing it as an important factor in making their choice (compared to fewer than 20% on the Dem side, Michigan for example = 13%), with the vast majority of these going to Trump and making up the bulk of his vote. The remaining half strongly dislikes him. He gets far lower scores on stuff like trust and honesty than Hillary does, and that's her weak spot. You get 40-50% of GOP voters saying they'd be dissatisfied if he was the nominee, and a quarter or more say they'd seriously consider voting for a third party in that scenario. Hillary's got the highest rating on being satisfied with her as nominee of any candidate from either party. Even in states where Sanders wins, she gets more favourable scores than Trump in his best states. In Michigan, which Trump won and with his supposed ability in the Rust Belt you'd think he'd be more popular than usual there, it was at 48% dissatisfied (+2 overall).

Way I see it, the default position for this election is a huge Clinton win. There's nothing Trump can do to pivot back to the centre, his image is fixed thanks to all that free media he's been getting, and the innumerable awful things he's said on camera are being cut into attack ads by the Democrats as we speak. If something exceptionally bad happens, it'll go back to being a close race (rather than the certain victory that would give to a well chosen candidate from a challenger party). And this is all assuming that the GOP give Trump their full support, something I'm not at all convinced will occur. People keep saying "he's not the usual kind of candidate, we shouldn't be looking at it like a normal election" - well, I agree, a party looking to win a third term in the Presidency with a candidate at -10 favourability shouldn't be odds on to win, but here we are.

berbatrick said:
I haven't found anything about it but most outlets are reporting it as alarming for the Dems. It also goes in line with the favourability (which has a known correlation).
I agree with Red Dreams. She should have the election but a slide in the economy could damage her, and a terrorist attack will definitely finish her off. The FBI remains a wildcard, as do Trump's tax returns...
Click to expand...
Favourability would also support my above argument as Trump's is awful even among Republicans, let alone the electorate at large. Rubio was the only one that was scary to face, and he's gone.
 
Ubik said:
Favourability would also support my above argument as Trump's is awful even among Republicans, let alone the electorate at large. Rubio was the only one that was scary to face, and he's gone.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said: "She should have the election"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.