2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
That Jesse Watters is the biggest cnut for those pieces. He does them on O'Reilly so that old people can feel smug about stupid young un's.
 
Looks like the great reformer has changed slightly:
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...ee-democratic-platform-while-running-big-bank

Ralph Nader with clear support for Bernie:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...alph_nader_sanders_should_stay_in_democratic/

And this is the kind of voter profile I as hoping Bernie would bring back to the Dems:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-carrier-corp-union-indiana-213862

Edit: And I'm not sure this qualifies as news: https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...orning_consult_poll_clinton_44_vs_trump_38_6/
 
Suedesi said:
Click to expand...

Goofy is the lamest one yet.

Go Liz :drool:

berbatrick said:
Worth pointing out: this is an exit poll of all Democrats


HRCTRUMPWV2update.jpg

sandtrumpwvUPDATE.jpg

It obviously cannot be a third, unless a third of Hillary voters would also choose Trump.
Click to expand...

Think the difference is because an abnormally high number of people didn't vote for either Bernie or Hillary, (in some counties, more than 20% was for another candidate).

Straight from the exit poll:

If these were the candidates in November, would you:

Vote for Hillary Clinton (44%) (Clinton 68%, Sanders 31%)

Vote for Donald Trump (36%) (Clinton 10%, Sanders 62%)

Not vote for either candidate (19%) (Clinton 10%, Sanders 77%)

If these were the candidates in November, would you:

Vote for Bernie Sanders (51%) (Clinton 36%, Sanders 63%)

Vote for Donald Trump (33%) (Clinton 17%, Sanders 53%)

Not vote for either candidate (14%) (not enough data)


As you can see, the breakdowns on the ones that vote Trump are at about 70% vs both Hillary and Sanders, so it's the other candidates' voters making up the bulk of the difference.
 
Just to be a bit thick, can you explain to me what this shows please?

Ubik said:
Straight from the exit poll:

If these were the candidates in November, would you:

Vote for Hillary Clinton (44%) (Clinton 68%, Sanders 31%)

Vote for Donald Trump (36%) (Clinton 10%, Sanders 62%)

Not vote for either candidate (19%) (Clinton 10%, Sanders 77%)

If these were the candidates in November, would you:

Vote for Bernie Sanders (51%) (Clinton 36%, Sanders 63%)

Vote for Donald Trump (33%) (Clinton 17%, Sanders 53%)

Not vote for either candidate (14%) (not enough data)


As you can see, the breakdowns on the ones that vote Trump are at about 70% vs both Hillary and Sanders, so it's the other candidates' voters making up the bulk of the difference.
Click to expand...
 
MoBeats said:
Just to be a bit thick, can you explain to me what this shows please?
Click to expand...
Yeah the formatting isn't the best when copy and pasted (tried to make it clearer but obviously failed :lol: )

So the top group is the hypothetical matchup between Clinton and Trump, 44% going for Clinton, 36% for Trump, 19% for neither. Bottom one is for Sanders and Trump. Figures in the brackets refer to who was actually voted for in the primary within that particularly subgroup, so for instance of the 44% that would vote for Hillary over Trump, 68% of that is made up of Hillary voters, 31% is Sanders voters.

The main figure of interest is in the bottom table of Sanders versus Trump, it shows that of the 33% that would vote for Trump over Sanders, 53% is actually made up of people that voted for Sanders in the primary. In other words, a lot of Sanders voters would vote for Trump over Sanders (a little under a third of all the people that voted for him).
 
Will Absolute said:
But why are you so exercised by the plight of the US poor, who, after all, are relatively affluent by world standards? Why don't you show similar concern for the poor in South Africa or Outer Mongolia, whose condition is far more pitiable?

In fairness I think we're interested in America mainly because it's been the cynosure of global culture and politics for more than a century. Humans tend to be interested in what they know.
Click to expand...
The silly words are a joke, right? I'm beginning to wonder if they just come naturally...

I empathise more with poor Americans than the poor in other countries because such is the human condition. It is easier to relate to a poor American, whose life I know a bit about, than a poor South African, whose life I know less about. Which I think is what you were saying but not having been arsed to google your silly word I can't be sure.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
The silly words are a joke, right? I'm beginning to wonder if they just come naturally...

I empathise more with poor Americans than the poor in other countries because such is the human condition. It is easier to relate to a poor American, whose life I know a bit about, than a poor South African, whose life I know less about. Which I think is what you were saying but not having been arsed to google your silly word I can't be sure.
Click to expand...


You're a brit and a disgrace to your queen and her majesty's language!

*I'm not 100% sure of the meaning myself. I've heard it in the context of cynosure of one's eyes. Beloved? Central?
 
berbatrick said:
You're a brit and a disgrace to your queen and her majesty's language!

*I'm not 100% sure of the meaning myself. I've heard it in the context of cynosure of one's eyes. Beloved? Central?
Click to expand...
If he's not doing it for effect, I really would be sad. There is nothing he adds using these words as opposed to ones everyone (which is kind of important on a forum with many non-English first language speakers) knows. It would just be deliberately exclusionary.

90% sure he is just winding us up, mind...
 
Anyone who posts words like that on a footy board is definitely on the wum. Or just showing off and thus a cnut. I'm cynosure about that.
 
So, Jill Stein did an AMA and got grilled on the Green Party's stance towards vaccinations and homeopathic remedies. She disappeared.



Faith in Reddit restored :D
 
Ubik said:
Yeah the formatting isn't the best when copy and pasted (tried to make it clearer but obviously failed :lol: )

So the top group is the hypothetical matchup between Clinton and Trump, 44% going for Clinton, 36% for Trump, 19% for neither. Bottom one is for Sanders and Trump. Figures in the brackets refer to who was actually voted for in the primary within that particularly subgroup, so for instance of the 44% that would vote for Hillary over Trump, 68% of that is made up of Hillary voters, 31% is Sanders voters.

The main figure of interest is in the bottom table of Sanders versus Trump, it shows that of the 33% that would vote for Trump over Sanders, 53% is actually made up of people that voted for Sanders in the primary. In other words, a lot of Sanders voters would vote for Trump over Sanders (a little under a third of all the people that voted for him).
Click to expand...
Do you mean Clinton? Or people that voted for sanders before have changed their minds now and would vote for Trump?
 
MoBeats said:
Do you mean Clinton? Or people that voted for sanders before have changed their minds now and would vote for Trump?
Click to expand...

No, the Sanders voters in West Virginia, a third of them would choose Trump over him in a hypothetical Trump vs Sanders general election match up.

Essentially, what they did in the primary is ratfecking. Not voting for the candidate of their choice, but to defeat Clinton.
 
India Hindu group prays for Donald Trump win
Click to expand...
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has gained some unlikely fans - including a right-wing Hindu group in India.

Members of the Hindu Sena held a prayer in support of Mr Trump winning the US presidential election.

The little-known group said they supported Mr Trump "because he is hope for humanity against Islamic terror".

Mr Trump has proposed a ban on Muslims entering the US - drawing widespread criticism at home and abroad.

He has also advocated killing the families of terrorists and invading Syria to eradicate the so-called Islamic State group and appropriate its oil.

Around a dozen members of Hindu Sena lit a ritual fire and prayers in a park in Delhi on Wednesday, and hung a banner declaring their support for Mr Trump.

Surrounded by statues of Hindu gods, they threw offerings such as seeds, grass and ghee (clarified butter) into a small ritual fire.

"Only Donald Trump can save humanity," Vishnu Gupta, founder of the group, told the Associated Press news agency.

He also told The Indian Express newspaper that the group had planned "several events to express its wholehearted support for Mr Trump".

The nationalist group has previously been known for vandalism and assault, attacking the office of a political party in 2014, and spraying a legislator who protested against a ban on eating beef.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36273568
Click to expand...

America, don't forget to thank Hindu Sena when their prayers help elect Trump, who then goes on to save humanity from bad Muslims.
 
Getting a bit heated on the Democratic side. Bernie and Clinton both upping the rhetoric. He wants as many concessions as he can get, she wants him to feck off so she can focus on Trump (probably also wants Sanders' endorsement to enfranchise his mass grass root support network).
 
As per google, so far: Bernie has 1430 delegates & Clinton has 1716. 9 states are still to vote and there are 830 delegates in play.

Bernie need to win 67.2% of the rest for both of them to tie at 1988. If he wins, say, 60% of the remaining delegates, he goes into the convention with 1928 delegates compared to Clinton's 2048; which isn't that big of a lead.

The magic number is 2383. Is there any chance that he can sway around 60% of the Supers in his favor to win the nomination?
 
Last edited:
InfiniteBoredom said:
Nope.

She'll clean his clock in Puerto Rico, NJ and California. It won't even be close.
Click to expand...

What I was talking about was, if she doesn't. In case he is able to get 60% from here on and be with in 100-120 delegates of her, then does he stand a chance to sway some of the Super's?
 
Insanity said:
What I was talking about was, if she doesn't. In case he is able to get 60% from here on and be with in 100-120 delegates of her, then does he stand a chance to sway some of the Super's?
Click to expand...

I can definitely see some undecided supers break for Sanders in that scenario but there'll be little, if any, defection from Clinton current supers. Sanders needs at least half of them doing that to clinch the nomination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.