I actually have a soft spot for a successful but immoral electoral strategy but that picture is a bit too much.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I actually have a soft spot for a successful but immoral electoral strategy but that picture is a bit too much.
Just realised this hasn't been mentioned yet. For those of us who were starting to fear that Trump had forgotten how to put his foot in his mouth, worry no more 
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37394883
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37394883
I'll bet my left nut that won't happen.
Look at the indignities her husband suffered last 8 years. Double that and then triple the result for good measure, that's what await her in politics.
Yeah, I'm being a bit facetious to be honest. That 64% approval rating wouldn't last very long once the racists started taking more notice of her
If Dems nominate a family member again, they deserve to burn and fall. Indian politics is run on dynasties and anyone with half a brain isn't a fan.
Half the US Senate/House of Representative are sons/grandsons/relation of ex-Congressmen/Senators/Presidents.
Wow, didn't know that
I was exaggerating a tad, but it's undeniable that familial connection/influence are much more common in US politics than the chattering class of 'the greatest democracy mankind have ever known' would have us believe.
Third party candidate does an AMA. Goes great: https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/537bag/i_am_ken_cross_third_party_candidate_for/
At least he didn't type "What is Aleppo?"
538 saying the Dems need to get their shit together if they want to win anything.
Third-party candidates Johnson and Stein excluded from debate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37387357
Are there any previous voters of either party in the thread? From what i've read, most abide by the traditional two.
15% is a threshold which pretty much guarantees the exclusion of third parties from the debates.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37387357
Are there any previous voters of either party in the thread? From what i've read, most abide by the traditional two.
15% is a threshold which pretty much guarantees the exclusion of third parties from the debates.
I can't remember any who are ardent supporters but there's probably some disillusioned Sanders fan who may be going for Stein.
15% is too high. I can understand a threshold to ensure we don't end up in a situation where anyone with mild support can get in, but I'd argue that even someone who's getting 5% of the vote (potentially) is someone who's got millions of voters and should surely in any such debate.
I don't know if this has been posted previously in this thread, but I think it's witty...
Dunno... if 95% are not interested should they get 30% of the airtime... an extra concern for commercial broadcasters
You could argue that it's not that 95% aren't interested...more that they will feel the need to have to vote for one of the big two. In fact, I'd say that's almost certainly the case for a lot of Clinton voters who supported Sanders and would've potentially supported Stein. Same could be said for people voting Trump who could perhaps be swayed by a good pitch from Gary Johnson.
Not to mention that the decision should (ideally) be done on what's right, not on what's commercial. That's a pipe dream, granted...but it's a shame to see that a sizable portion of America won't have the person they support in the debates, thus lessening their chance of getting more votes. Anything to move away from dreadful two party systems.
Well the 15% barrier exists to stop any potential competition. It works wonders. That said those TV debates are a joke anyway. All that matters is to avoid some weird (sometimes completely harmless) gaff. You can easily get through them by just repeating empty talking points.
Just 9 days until the debates. That should pretty much consolidate who is going to go into the final stretch with a slight lead.
One of these scenarios should play out imo.
1. Drumpf rolls in with loads of zingers and gets graded by a different standard that she does. He winds up being perceived as more entertaining and thus is viewed as holding his ground or even winning.
2. Hillary absolutely smokes him with endless specifics he can't keep up with, making him look like a complete lightweight.
3. It gets completely ugly where Drumpf and Hillary both pull out their respective nuclear options with talk of Bill Clinton's affairs, rape allegations, Trump U, Pam Bondi bribe, Clinton email scandal, Alt-Right etc.
4. Its a relatively drab, uneventful affair where both are scared to go negative, resulting in an unexpectedly uneventful debate.
5. Drumpf doesn't show up and Hillary either doesn't debate or invites Johnson instead.
One of these scenarios should play out imo.
1. Drumpf rolls in with loads of zingers and gets graded by a different standard that she does. He winds up being perceived as more entertaining and thus is viewed as holding his ground or even winning.
2. Hillary absolutely smokes him with endless specifics he can't keep up with, making him look like a complete lightweight.
3. It gets completely ugly where Drumpf and Hillary both pull out their respective nuclear options with talk of Bill Clinton's affairs, rape allegations, Trump U, Pam Bondi bribe, Clinton email scandal, Alt-Right etc.
4. Its a relatively drab, uneventful affair where both are scared to go negative, resulting in an unexpectedly uneventful debate.
5. Drumpf doesn't show up and Hillary either doesn't debate or invites Johnson instead.
An A rated 538 pollster just released a PA poll conducted entirely after the pneumonia bs. Clinton+9.
The big beautiful blue wall seems to be holding, for now.
The big beautiful blue wall seems to be holding, for now.
which one? I cant it on their website.
Care to share a link ?
I meant the pollster is rated A by them.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-pa-trump-clinton-poll-20160917-story.html
And it's basically a 4-way lead.
Ah ok. She was comfortable ahead in PA anyway... but considering her lead is slipping in a few states, this is good news for Clinton.
Nevada could be going red though..
Momentum in the polls typically takes about 4-5 days to manifest itself after a big event. For example the Deplorables comment and health issue last Fri-Sun didn't really get reflected in the polls until later in the week. I'd imagine Trump's calamitous few days with the Pam Bondi bribe issue Birtherism fiasco, and again insinuating assassination by way of Hillary having her secret service detail removed, should all be reflected in polls that roll in mid week next week. If she chips away 2-3 points in the national polls, it will re-consolidate her leads in PA, CO, VA, WI, MI, and NV and probably one of FL or OH.
On another note, Drumpf made a surprising stop in Texas today which probably means his internal polling suggests Hillary is within striking distance there. Looking forward to the mid week polls to roll in, which should give her a decent bump to at least erode some of his gains last week - especially rolling into the debate on Monday.
On another note, Drumpf made a surprising stop in Texas today which probably means his internal polling suggests Hillary is within striking distance there. Looking forward to the mid week polls to roll in, which should give her a decent bump to at least erode some of his gains last week - especially rolling into the debate on Monday.
Ipsos (the only A graded on the page) survey from sept 9-15 has Trump ahead by 23
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/texas/
To get within striking distance would take quite some doing.. especially a week after those polls where nothing much has happened to sink Trump there.
The Texas Lyceum poll is weighted heavier on that page (despite not having a grade) and has Trump up by 1 among registered voters. Trump would never waste his time going to Texas as he did unless his internal polling showed some weakness.
The only state of Obama 2012 that I can see going red, right at this moment, is Iowa.
Anyway, while the EC is by no means useful if the national number keeps slipping, Clinton needs only 2 swing states to win. Virginia and Colorado. In a super close election, with no margin for error, they would camp Sanders and Warren in NH, have Barry, Michelle, Bill and Kaine rotating between CO/VA and Clinton living full time in PA.
With the opening up of Southern states like VA, NC and Western NV, CO and soon AZ, OH and FL will soon become gravy instead of tipping point states.
Trump's Saturday...
#wowsuchpresidential
#wowsuchpresidential
I'm very conflicted. It's always nice to see him losing it but that's Maureen Dowd he was bashing, so....
So are these terrorist attacks the election game-changer that we all expected them to be? Perfect timing, just before the debates, and perfect location of course. I would guess that if the suspects are US-born she might be able to ride it out, if not he's got a landslide.
I know that...but this must be like a tipping point thing? It really makes no sense if they don't. What is his appeal if Islamic attacks don't boost him?
Incidentally: deja vu, since I think I said the same thing when his numbers stayed steady after Orlando.
We know that in survey after survey Clinton leads him in temperament, C-o-C and better equipped to deal with terrorism, national security etc...
The electorate is baked in. What will change the game for him is a recession, or further drop in Clinton's trustworthy number.
It possibly even has the potential to hurt him, because his reaction of blurting it out, before it had been confirmed by the police etc, could be seen as not very presidential at all. Loose (dumb) lips...
His reaction tweet is quite weird too... warmest regards? Huh?
- Status