2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
The really weird thing is that racists don't like to be called 'racist'. It was the case with the BNP. Then with the EDL. Then with Britain First. And now with UKIP. They always come out with unconvincing reasons for what they say not actually being actually racist.

It's almost like it's okay to be racist but not okay to be called one. Because of that, people have mostly been careful with what they do and say in public, despite being happy to be vehemently racist in private.

The one thing that Trump can be thanked for is bringing racism out into the open. It can now actually be discussed because people are finally out in the open about it.
 
sun_tzu said:
Woman chucked out of a Trump event for being a Muslim...
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/donald-trump-muslim-woman-protesting-ejected/index.html
Crowd obviously bood and heckled saying you have a bomb etc
The trump joke is starting to seem a bit too sinister
Click to expand...

Trump's such an amateur, honestly. Real pros would have foreseen this and put a bunch of guys on preventing such incidents.

Something like these dudes:

de-sturmabteilung-image1.jpg
 
Dante said:
The really weird thing is that racists don't like to be called 'racist'. It was the case with the BNP. Then with the EDL. Then with Britain First. And now with UKIP. They always come out with unconvincing reasons for what they say not actually being actually racist.

It's almost like it's okay to be racist but not okay to be called one. Because of that, people have mostly been careful with what they do and say in public, despite being happy to be vehemently racist in private.

The one thing that Trump can be thanked for is bringing racism out into the open. It can now actually be discussed because people are finally out in the open about it.
Click to expand...
True. BNP, UKIP, EDL and other groups tend to refer to themselves as "realists", whatever that actually means.
 
Dante said:
The really weird thing is that racists don't like to be called 'racist'. It was the case with the BNP. Then with the EDL. Then with Britain First. And now with UKIP. They always come out with unconvincing reasons for what they say not actually being actually racist.

It's almost like it's okay to be racist but not okay to be called one. Because of that, people have mostly been careful with what they do and say in public, despite being happy to be vehemently racist in private.

The one thing that Trump can be thanked for is bringing racism out into the open. It can now actually be discussed because people are finally out in the open about it.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're imaginative you could think of it this way: if they are just anti-immigration, but defend non-discrimination of citizens by race, then that doesn't make them racist (I know what kind of mindset usually exists in such parties though).
 
Kaos said:
Many of which were protest votes.
Click to expand...
Still 3.8 million votes, protest or not those 3.8 million clearly agreed with UKIP more than Labour, the Tories, the Greens and whoever else ran in their hood. They could've plopped for the monster raving loony party if it there was no agreement with their ideas.
 
Silva said:
Still 3.8 million votes, protest or not those 3.8 million clearly agreed with UKIP more than Labour, the Tories, the Greens and whoever else ran in their hood. They could've plopped for the monster raving loony party if it there was agreement with their ideas.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm too much of an optimist but I'd like to think that there weren't 4 million voters who entirely agreed with the bigoted nonsense to come from their camp, but again watching Trump's ascension nothing ever surprises me anymore.
 
Kaos said:
Perhaps I'm too much of an optimist but I'd like to think that there weren't 4 million voters who entirely agreed with the bigoted nonsense to come from their camp, but again watching Trump's ascension nothing ever surprises me anymore.
Click to expand...
It's rare that you find a sycophant who agrees with any political party entirely, we've not had one on here since Al was banned. But those 4 million clearly liked at least something about UKIP, there'll even have been some within that 4 million who see UKIP as a bit soft and might want them to go full Hitler.
 
Silva said:
It's rare that you find a sycophant who agrees with any political party entirely, we've not had one on here since Al was banned. But those 4 million clearly liked at least something about UKIP, there'll even have been some within that 4 million who see UKIP as a bit soft and might want them to go full Hitler.
Click to expand...

UKIP actually had one policy that was definitely worth voting for and that was/is that when couples separate/divorce that each parent is AUTOMATICALLY awarded 50% shared custody of the kids unless there are any reasons not to (social services involvement etc) Then if the parents want anymore or don't agree they have to then go to court. I can definitely see why that one policy alone would appeal to a great deal of people, and possibly enough for them to stick in a protest vote because of it.
 
Mrs Smoker said:
Nothing too bad about it.

And agree with the Trump Organization about the possible ban. It would be silly.
Click to expand...

You don't find it ironic that this group is up in arms because Trump may be banned from an area because of his views but this same group is advocating people be kept out of our country based upon their views (Muslims). It is highly hypocritical and shows a lack of critical thinking within the party.
 
I was referring to the article and its author thou.

And as for the group, they are politicians, huge amount of hypocrisy there. But no matter how stupid and silly Trump's and his group's views are, eventual possible ban of him would still be stupid and silly as well.
 
Bernie Sanders Has Edge in Iowa and Widens New Hampshire Lead, Polls Find

Senator Bernie Sanders is breaking away from Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and is edging ahead of her in Iowa, according to new polls that show him solidifying the support of Democrats ahead the first two 2016 presidential primary election contests.

The polls add to mounting pressure on Mrs. Clinton, who was seen for months as an overwhelming favorite in the race, to avoid another upset from an insurgent Democratic challenger after her 2008 loss to Senator Barack Obama for the party’s nomination.

A survey from Quinnipiac University found that 49 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa are planning to back Mr. Sanders while 44 percent support Mrs. Clinton. The results represent a shift from a month ago, when the former secretary of state was leading Mr. Sanders by 11 percentage points. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

“Iowa may well become Senator Bernie Sanders’s ‘Field of Dreams,’” said Peter A. Brown, director of the Quinnipiac poll. “After three months of Secretary Hillary Clinton holding an average 10-point lead among Iowa Democrats, the playing field has changed.”

The Vermont senator has been gaining ground on Mrs. Clinton in recent polls and capitalizing on a lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy less than three weeks before the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses. The Quinnipiac poll found that Mr. Sanders is seen as more honest and empathetic than Mrs. Clinton, and stronger on climate change and the economy. She is viewed as being more electable in a general election and stronger on foreign policy.

Gender is also turning about to be a significant factor in how the candidates are performing, with men preferring Mr. Sanders by a margin of 61 percent to 30 percent. Women back Mrs. Clinton by a margin of 55 percent to 39 percent.

A separate survey from Monmouth University, released on Tuesday, shows Mr. Sanders leading Mrs. Clinton by a margin of 53 percent to 39 percent. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points.

The results signify a significant shift in the New Hampshire race, as Mrs. Clinton had a narrow advantage over Mr. Sanders there in a November poll from Monmouth. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist poll released this week showed Mr. Sanders with a four-percentage-point lead there.

Perhaps more worrying for Mrs. Clinton is the finding that a majority of New Hampshire voters said that their choice is set, while only 35 percent were completely decided two months ago.

“New Hampshire Democratic preferences are getting baked in, with Sanders gaining the upper hand,” Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a statement. “The final question will be who does a better job at turning out their respective voting blocs.”

Mr. Sanders is now leading Mrs. Clinton among all the major voting blocs in New Hampshire. According to Tuesday’s survey, he has overtaken her with female voters — a core constituency for the former secretary of state who would be the first female president. And he is also leading her among independent voters and with registered Democrats.

With his message of fighting to reduce income inequality and taking on Wall Street, Mr. Sanders continues to be the candidate of choice for younger voters in New Hampshire. But he has also managed to broaden his appeal since November, overtaking Mrs. Clinton with voters who are over age 50.

Lagging the two top candidates is Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor. His support sits at 5 percent in New Hampshire and 4 percent in Iowa, according to the new polls. But with the race tightening, his supporters could become a determining factor if they shift toward Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...-hillary-clinton-in-new-hampshire-poll-finds/
 
Nate Silver hath spoken, and so shall it be. (By the way, good game last night lads! :))

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

These are not poll results, but rather polls-plus - his "secret sauce" or methodology applied.

Iowa (R) - Feb 1
Cruz - 49%
Trump - 28%
Rubio - 18%
Nobody else worth talking about.

Iowa (D) - Feb 1 (note: significant momentum for Sanders since Jan 4-5 and still volatile, approx 90-10 Clinton before that)
Clinton - 73%
Sanders -27%

New Hampshire (R) - Feb 9
Trump - 39%
Rubio - 23%
Cruz - 13%
Kasich - 11%
Christie - 7%
Bush! - 6%

New Hampshire (D) - Feb 9 (same thing - significant momentum for Sanders since Jan 4-5, maybe 65-35 Clinton before that)
Clinton - 53%
Sanders - 47%

The thing 538's been talking about for a long time now is happening - the great undecided mass of people are finally tuning in and listening up, which explains the recent volatility. It looks like Rubio or bust now for R, and Clinton needs to hold the line and see out the predominantly white states of Iowa and NH. She needs to get to the more ethnically-mixed states favourable to her without being too badly buffeted by unexpectedly negative results early on. Hopefully some craziness in the R ranks to take the media's eye off her. Come on Donald, say something feckin' retarded!
 
Last edited:
The Polls-plus gives weights to endorsements. I only look at polls and reliable polls at that. Last cycle the PPP polls were the most reliable. Until proven otherwise I will rely on them.

Iowa Democratic polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html
The PPP poll of Jan 10 has Hillary ahead by 6. The Quinipiac poll has Sander ahead by 5. Iowa is very close.

NH Democratic polls

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

The PPP polls which is Jan 6 has Hillary ahead by 3. But other recent polls has Sanders well ahead. This too is very close.

If Sanders sweeps both states, he will have momentum. And though the general population has not been paying much attention so far, they will after those two primaries.

Though it is generally assumed Hillary has the black vote, Sanders is gaining key endorsements from Black politicians. Notable Nina Turner from Ohio a former Clinton supporter.

There are also others in S Carolina. Some of the grassroots organisations live MoveOn.org have also endorsed him.

Of course Hillary must still be overall favourite. But Sanders is fast catching up. He has a lot of young people very enthused about him.

Trump is ahead Cruz by 2 in Iowa according to PPP, the most recent poll.

Iowa Republican Polls

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html

Trump is crushing Cruz in NH polls.

I will be surprised if Trump is not their nominee.
 
A lot hinges on Iowa - if Trump can be branded a loser when Cruz wins, then the pressure will truly be on. He will win NH, but what happens in SC and thereafter is a crap shoot.
 
naturalized said:
Nate Silver hath spoken, and so shall it be. (By the way, good game last night lads! :))

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

These are not poll results, but rather polls-plus - his "secret sauce" or methodology applied.

Iowa (R) - Feb 1
Cruz - 49%
Trump - 28%
Rubio - 18%
Nobody else worth talking about.

Iowa (D) - Feb 1 (note: significant momentum for Sanders since Jan 4-5 and still volatile, approx 90-10 Clinton before that)
Clinton - 73%
Sanders -27%

New Hampshire (R) - Feb 9
Trump - 39%
Rubio - 23%
Cruz - 13%
Kasich - 11%
Christie - 7%
Bush! - 6%

New Hampshire (D) - Feb 9 (same thing - significant momentum for Sanders since Jan 4-5, maybe 65-35 Clinton before that)
Clinton - 53%
Sanders - 47%

The thing 538's been talking about for a long time now is happening - the great undecided mass of people are finally tuning in and listening up, which explains the recent volatility. It looks like Rubio or bust now for R, and Clinton needs to hold the line and see out the predominantly white states of Iowa and NH. She needs to get to the more ethnically-mixed states favourable to her without being too badly buffeted by unexpectedly negative results early on. Hopefully some craziness in the R ranks to take the media's eye off her. Come on Donald, say something feckin' retarded!
Click to expand...
So they're the % chances of that candidate winning the caucus/primary, right? Rather than a prediction of the result.

'Mon Hillary.
 
Ubik said:
So they're the % chances of that candidate winning the caucus/primary, right? Rather than a prediction of the result.

'Mon Hillary.
Click to expand...

Yup, probability chance of winning the primary. Though, if you follow my link, there's a breakdown of the expected vote share as well for each of the primaries. I'd post the whole pic if I knew how, but the salient figures are:

Cruz 26.6% to Trump 21.1% to Rubio 17.7% (Iowa (R))
Clinton 49.8% to Sanders 42.2% (Iowa (D))
Trump 23% to Rubio 18% to Cruz 13.8% to Christie 12.6% and... a whole clusterfeck right there. Not just is the moderate vote split four ways, the conservative conservative vote is split as well. (NH(R))
Clinton 47.4% to Sanders 46.6% (NH(D))

Interestingly, O'Malley actually has a non-trivial vote share to NH (D) of about 4%, and he could potentially play a key role by dropping out and endorsing Hillary should he choose to do so, given the tight margins.

Red Dreams said:
The Polls-plus gives weights to endorsements. I only look at polls and reliable polls at that. Last cycle the PPP polls were the most reliable. Until proven otherwise I will rely on them.
Click to expand...

Nate Silver says: a poll of past results shows that your poll-only analysis is only more accurate than polls-plus 43% of the time! :) With his polls-plus methodology - which you can see in some detail if you follow that link - being more accurate than poll-only 57% of the time.

I actually agree with you to some extent. I understand and follow that party elites have great influence over the outcome, and endorsements are a strong proxy for that. I have to ask, though, particularly with this Republican demographic, whether that still holds true. I have a lot of difficulty believing a non-trivial number Trump voters care two hoots that boring wimp loser Trey Gowdy has endorsed total failure Rubio, for instance.

Where I think Silver is probably right and quite clever is in the way he uses national poll ratings as a contrarian indicator - meaning the higher your national poll ratings, the lower he predicts your vote share to be in IA and NH. This is a celebrity election. It follows that a lot of the people mindlessly repeating the most recent name they heard in a robopoll will not actually vote. It follows from there that your national polls are a reflection more than anything of your name recognition rather than anything else - hence Clinton's dominant lead shrinking rapidly in recent times as IA and NH tune in. That phenomenon applies less to the Rs since they've been more engaged throughout the whole process than the Ds, and consequentially have less room to move.

We'll see when the polls come out, of course. And Silver has said he's got less confidence in this election than he does normally, so you could well be right on this.

Ed: by the way, the original link is going to be continually updated throughout the primary process, so if tomorrow there's a major scandal or something happens to push the numbers, you can see in more or less real-time what Silver thinks the impact will be.
 
Last edited:
Red Dreams said:
Cruz is better organized especially in Iowa. But both Trump and Cruz are toxic for them. If Trump wins the two early states, he will be their nominee.
Click to expand...

I did read a theory that Trump will do a lot better in ballot type primaries than caucuses as many people dont want to admit to their friends that they support trump which of course in a caucus they have to do but the anonymity of a ballot allows them to vote for trump more freely.

Will be interesting to see if that does play out with him getting a bigger share in the ballots because if it does then it could all be over by "super tuesday"
 
Trumps comments on American Football becoming soft is yet another genius quote to add to the ever growing list, although I can't work out if he means the shit he says, or if he's clever enough to know it would resonate with some of his voters. Surely these comments will catch up with him though? Surely he's going to push it too far and offend too many people, or just be too over the top? I think his feckwittedness really should have its own thread.
 
langster said:
Trumps comments on American Football becoming soft is yet another genius quote to add to the ever growing list, although I can't work out if he means the shit he says, or if he's clever enough to know it would resonate with some of his voters. Surely these comments will catch up with him though? Surely he's going to push it too far and offend too many people, or just be too over the top? I think his feckwittedness really should have its own thread.
Click to expand...
Will get him more votes in the primaries for sure. Likely to hurt afterwards. He can't be that dumb, he knows full well players are bigger/faster etc. than back in the day where they wore leather helmets.
 
Mrs Smoker said:
I was referring to the article and its author thou.

And as for the group, they are politicians, huge amount of hypocrisy there. But no matter how stupid and silly Trump's and his group's views are, eventual possible ban of him would still be stupid and silly as well.
Click to expand...

The author is a hypocrite, he wrote this gem recently http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...mr-obama-just-dont-want-to-get-blown-up.html#

He thinks we should be able to keep Muslims out based upon their religion but Trump should be able to go where he pleases despite his views that often promote biggotry. It is a double standard and complete bullshit.
 
naturalized said:
Nate Silver hath spoken, and so shall it be. (By the way, good game last night lads! :))

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

These are not poll results, but rather polls-plus - his "secret sauce" or methodology applied.

Iowa (R) - Feb 1
Cruz - 49%
Trump - 28%
Rubio - 18%
Nobody else worth talking about.

Iowa (D) - Feb 1 (note: significant momentum for Sanders since Jan 4-5 and still volatile, approx 90-10 Clinton before that)
Clinton - 73%
Sanders -27%

New Hampshire (R) - Feb 9
Trump - 39%
Rubio - 23%
Cruz - 13%
Kasich - 11%
Christie - 7%
Bush! - 6%

New Hampshire (D) - Feb 9 (same thing - significant momentum for Sanders since Jan 4-5, maybe 65-35 Clinton before that)
Clinton - 53%
Sanders - 47%

The thing 538's been talking about for a long time now is happening - the great undecided mass of people are finally tuning in and listening up, which explains the recent volatility. It looks like Rubio or bust now for R, and Clinton needs to hold the line and see out the predominantly white states of Iowa and NH. She needs to get to the more ethnically-mixed states favourable to her without being too badly buffeted by unexpectedly negative results early on. Hopefully some craziness in the R ranks to take the media's eye off her. Come on Donald, say something feckin' retarded!
Click to expand...
Will be funny if Hillary loses against an older man when she lost the last time against a younger one.
 
Raoul said:
He will win NH,
Click to expand...

Which in itself is amazing considering NH usually goes for a centrist on the GOP side.

I guess what's happening is that the vote is being split amongst the establishment guys. If you look at the numbers for Rubio, Bush, Kasich and Christie in NH, one of those would easily win NH if the vote wasnt being split four ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.