2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
ravi2 said:
I believe that the black population just doesn't know Bernie that well yet, they are voting for Hillary based on name recognition and Bill's achievements.
Every millennial I know is voting for Sanders.

I really feel that Bernie can win this.
Click to expand...

Agree. It is simply name recognition.

If Bernie wins Iowa, everyone will know who Sanders is. I too feel Sanders can win this. No one is entitled to the nomination.
 
adexkola said:
however the majority of articles there reek of "lies, damned lies and statistics"
Click to expand...

What's wrong with statistics?

The majority of the articles are about looking at the race from an overall perspective rather than the kneejerk reactionary nature that 24 hour news stations look from.

The post you quoted talks about comparing the voting trends of earlier states vs later states. Again, what 'reeks' about that?

I'd say they provide a more balanced and realistic analysis than most pundits out there.
 
barros said:
40 million in 1974, today he has billions can't say his business record is mediocre.
Click to expand...


The argument (I think) is that if he had just put the 40 mil in the S&P 500, sat back, and done nothing, he would have more money than he has now.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
What's wrong with statistics?

The majority of the articles are about looking at the race from an overall perspective rather than the kneejerk reactionary nature that 24 hour news stations look from.

The post you quoted talks about comparing the voting trends of earlier states vs later states. Again, what 'reeks' about that?

I'd say they provide a more balanced and realistic analysis than most pundits out there.
Click to expand...

I love statistics. I hate the way 538 utilizes it. Statistics for them isn't one of several tools in the box, it's THE hammer that solves all problems. Specifically speaking, their modelling process is opaque. I want to know whether they did a basic regression on a dataset, or they fed data through a neural network. What are their assumptions that limit the quality and applicability of their analysis? How about the quality and potential bias on the data used?

Plus, they shift the goalposts when reality starts to diverge from their predictions. I can guarantee you that months ago there were articles on 538 predicting that Trump would have fallen away by now. Now that he is still in the race, they've quietly rearranged their original thesis, instead of admitting their original theory was flawed, and probably the methods used to arrive at that theory were wrong as well. That's if, mind, they aren't using the data to prove a point, instead of letting the data speak independently of formed theories and biases. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
 
Palin blames Obama for the domestic abuse arrest of her criminal son....

Wait, I thought the Republican party was all about personal responsibility?!
 
JustAFan said:
Instead he took some risks?
Click to expand...

It's not about risk-taking, it's about his business acumen. (The argument goes like this, that) someone with genuine business acumen would outperform the no-risk strategy.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
It's not that bad. Certainly doesn't endear her to the general public but if the FBI decides to indict her it'll open a whole can of worms, with the whole of Bush administration using and deleting their private servers.
Click to expand...


I genuinely did not know that! I would have expected the Guardian (definitely Democrat and fairly pro-Hillary) to have provided that little bit of context.
It would still be an easy attacks for Trump (Or Cruz); he hates both Bush and Clinton...
 
Grandpa Munster should be worried about the birther lawsuits coming his way first. I still think sooner or later the GOP establishment will coalesce around one candidate and he will win the 1247 delegates for the nomination. Failing that, a true outsider like the Donald has a surer chance than Cruz whose wife is a Goldman Sachs executive and took in millions in donation from them.
 
Good God...

3267.jpg
 
I. Am. Scared. or something. She has not shown cross-party appeal in any poll (except vs Trump)

Sanders’ improved showing against Clinton in Democratic support comes in part because of his strong support from political independents, and from voters under 30. But it is unclear how many in those groups will turn out for primaries or caucuses. Among Democratic identifiers likely to vote in Democratic primaries, Clinton leads Sanders by 21 points. She is also comfortably ahead with older voters and with African-Americans.

This poll shows a gender gap, too. Clinton barely edges Sanders with men who say they will vote in the Democratic primary, leading him with that group by only three points. But she holds a 15-point lead with women.
Click to expand...

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/01/20/sanders-gains-clinton-nationally/
 
I've been thinking about independents and it hit me that they may not be the "swing voter". Socialists haven't registered as Democrats, or libertarians as Republicans. So his support could just be coming from people who've always been left of the democartic party, and are put in the same "independents" bin as those to the right of Ron Paul.
Conventional wisdom dictates that you need a decent showing with "independent" voters to win, and she isn't getting that.

BUT Obama won 2012 with a purely energise-the-base campaign, and lost among independents in every swing state (bar, ironically, NC).

So, (quick, ill-thought) moral of the story? Democrats have a large enough base to win the election, if they just turn up. Republicans need independents.
The situation seems to be reversed in midterms when the Dem base doesn't bother, the R base does, and they now have more control of state legislatures, governerships, Congress, the Senate, and a pure right-wing agenda, and are implementing it as much as they can, while Obama can't get a single thing passed.
 
Last edited:
Trump won't pick her as his VP though, she lost alongside McCain, which kind of undermine his 'I'm winner, feck losers' rhetorics. Also, she'a toxic with the independents and a big part of the GOP base. That ticket is going down in flames right out of the gate.
 
I don't think Trump will pick Palin as his VP running mate simply because I don't think he is that stupid. I think he's just got her along to help swing the Evangelical votes in Iowa because he is/was behind/just ahead of Cruz in that State (depending on which polls you believe) Palin is still hugely popular with the Tea Party and Evangelical voters in Iowa. I also think he did it just as a massive "feck you" to Ted Cruz knowing how close Cruz and Palin are. It does however beg the question of who he would pick if he gets the nomination or more to the point, who would accept it?

I think the trouble is though is that Trump has let the proverbial bull in to the china shop by giving Palin air time and a stage to spout her nonsense. You can just tell how much she loves the spotlight and how (in her mind at least) that her touring on the Trump campaign trail is the chance for her to grab the VP ticket again. It wouldn't surprise me if she didn't already think she had it nailed on simply because Trump made so much of her endorsing him and gave her the platform to tell the world about it.

As I said, I wouldn't think Trump is that stupid, however I can't really be sure. Surely he can't think the positives outweigh the negatives when it comes to Palin? Surely his advisors can't be as moronic as McCain's were?
 
Last edited:
Isn´t the whole Palin stuff just about boosting his chances in Alaska (1.3)? He´ll never pick her as running mate or assosicate himself to closely to her. She is toxic as hell.
 
If Trump got the nomination he'd drop Palin faster as fast as he could. His lurch to the center will be rapid and amusing.
 
Grinner said:
If Trump got the nomination he'd drop Palin faster as fast as he could. His lurch to the center will be rapid and amusing.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what is happening, he is using her then as soon as he's done her calls to the Trump campaign will stop getting answered.
 
ravi2 said:
That is exactly what is happening, he is using her then as soon as he's done her calls to the Trump campaign will stop getting answered.
Click to expand...

The base are thick enough to fall for it. Trump must laugh his ass off at how easy it is to get them fired up. He'll go to the center and the red meaters will have no choice but to vote for him.

BTW has anybody heard anything from Jeb!
 
It's gonna have to be a brave, brave man to disregard what Silver says about anything he knows well, like US elections or sports. Lotta people have ended up with egg on their faces in the past betting against him. Romney'12 being the most obvious (that fool sincerely thought he was going to win it on the basis of his own shitty polls and analysis, to the point where he hadn't even prepared a concession speech, and ended up freestyling one.)

FWIW, the 538 crew just put Sanders at 1 in 20 to win the Democratic nomination (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-bernie-sanders-surge-real/#ss-1). Their reasoning makes sense to me. There simply hasn't been a game change in the race.
 
Grinner said:
The base are thick enough to fall for it. Trump must laugh his ass off at how easy it is to get them fired up. He'll go to the center and the red meaters will have no choice but to vote for him.

BTW has anybody heard anything from Jeb!
Click to expand...


Tump is playing the right like a harp, at this point he must really feel everyone is stupid except for him.
When I lived in FL, Jeb! was the governor there and was disliked by pretty much everyone I knew, he just isn't suited to national politics in this day and age IMO.

The question is where will his Super-PAC (aka Koch and co) money go when they finally realize he isn't a viable candidate, the party pretty much all hate Cruz and Carson is over so my guess is Rubio will be their man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.