|
|
Post by batfink30 on Aug 2, 2016 14:10:21 GMT -5
Trumps losing the plot, attacking war hero's family's,a sure fire way to lose votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by eva Fawkes on Aug 2, 2016 16:45:04 GMT -5
eva's going to make South America great again.... Gracias.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Aug 2, 2016 17:20:11 GMT -5
Trump is just an excuse for some Americans to remain racist as hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by As You Built The Moon on Aug 2, 2016 17:24:10 GMT -5
Trump is just an excuse for some Americans to remain racist as hell. He's nothing they claimed to want for the last 40 years, and everything they actually did. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Aug 2, 2016 22:46:52 GMT -5
Note that I saw just after the convention from Harry Enten. In the modern political Era, only one nominee who led before and after the party conventions has ever lost the general: Thomas Dewey. Clinton led slightly prior to the conventions and is having a very large post convention bump afterwards.
Her bounce will most likely fade somewhat. However, my worry if I were Trump, Clinton had one of the worst months for any presidential candidate in history and Trump had his convention, received a small bounce, yet only slightly edged out Clinton. That's a problem. The convention Hillary is usually the high watee mark of the race for both candidates.
Also, Hillary is unpopular. However, I could see her favorability numbers rebound slightly, maybe 5 points. Trump's are in the toilet and will remain there. In essence, there are very few more opportunities where Trump will have Hillary fall on her face again, there are plenty of opportunities for her to see Trump do so. And without a strong coalition of down ticket support to prop him up, and Hillary's deep roster of respected speakers on her behalf, even in August it is becoming difficult to see how Trump cobbles together anything representing a win in November.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Aug 2, 2016 23:12:07 GMT -5
Note that I saw just after the convention from Harry Enten. In the modern political Era, only one nominee who led before and after the party conventions has ever lost the general: Thomas Dewey. Clinton led slightly prior to the conventions and is having a very large post convention bump afterwards. Her bounce will most likely fade somewhat. However, my worry if I were Trump, Clinton had one of the worst months for any presidential candidate in history and Trump had his convention, received a small bounce, yet only slightly edged out Clinton. That's a problem. The convention Hillary is usually the high watee mark of the race for both candidates. Also, Hillary is unpopular. However, I could see her favorability numbers rebound slightly, maybe 5 points. Trump's are in the toilet and will remain there. In essence, there are very few more opportunities where Trump will have Hillary fall on her face again, there are plenty of opportunities for her to see Trump do so. And without a strong coalition of down ticket support to prop him up, and Hillary's deep roster of respected speakers on her behalf, even in August it is becoming difficult to see how Trump cobbles together anything representing a win in November. Man I hope you are right. I don't want to live in a Donald Trump America. |
|
|
|
Post by Binary Sunset on Aug 3, 2016 0:09:37 GMT -5
Note that I saw just after the convention from Harry Enten. In the modern political Era, only one nominee who led before and after the party conventions has ever lost the general: Thomas Dewey. Clinton led slightly prior to the conventions and is having a very large post convention bump afterwards. Her bounce will most likely fade somewhat. However, my worry if I were Trump, Clinton had one of the worst months for any presidential candidate in history and Trump had his convention, received a small bounce, yet only slightly edged out Clinton. That's a problem. The convention Hillary is usually the high watee mark of the race for both candidates. Also, Hillary is unpopular. However, I could see her favorability numbers rebound slightly, maybe 5 points. Trump's are in the toilet and will remain there. In essence, there are very few more opportunities where Trump will have Hillary fall on her face again, there are plenty of opportunities for her to see Trump do so. And without a strong coalition of down ticket support to prop him up, and Hillary's deep roster of respected speakers on her behalf, even in August it is becoming difficult to see how Trump cobbles together anything representing a win in November. Man I hope you are right. I don't want to live in a Donald Trump America. I may have disagreed with McCain and Romney about policy, but I never doubted they actually believed what they were saying, or that the country would continue to exist if they were elected. Trump doesn't compose himself as a president should, and if any previous candidate said any of the shit he has said over the last few months, their career would have been over. Case in point how a candidate should act. They shouldn't be actually spewing hate and racism. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Aug 3, 2016 19:26:23 GMT -5
And Donald Trump is gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Aug 3, 2016 20:27:10 GMT -5
We should all be celebrating Mitt Romney's re-election. Instead, we've got Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton. Well done, America.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Aug 4, 2016 19:15:52 GMT -5
And Donald Trump is gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. But you're going to vote for him? |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Aug 4, 2016 20:12:17 GMT -5
Just for the record: I am not optimistic about a Trump win at this stage.
But wishful thinking is keeping in mind that:
1. Polling in the last several years, in both the US and UK have been unreliable, due to the fact that it's harder to conduct telephone polls these days, etc.
(Hell, even Gallup's final 2012 poll had Romney winning +1, but Romney ended up losing -4. That's a big difference!)
2. This is an unusual election, what parameters are at play compared to a normal election cycle?
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Aug 4, 2016 21:06:33 GMT -5
Just for the record: I am not optimistic about a Trump win at this stage. But wishful thinking is keeping in mind that: 1. Polling in the last several years, in both the US and UK have been unreliable, due to the fact that it's harder to conduct telephone polls these days, etc. (Hell, even Gallup's final 2012 poll had Romney winning +1, but Romney ended up losing -4. That's a big difference!) 2. This is an unusual election, what parameters are at play compared to a normal election cycle? I think you should research what you mean by polling being unreliable. Most polling places have switched over to a hybrid form of polling which also involves Internet polling or simply increasing sample sizes to make up for the lack of phone polling. 538's methodology is HIGHLY based on polling averages and they were nearly correct in Obama'exact margin of victory. Currently, they have Clinton with 75% chance of winning. Also, during the primary season, polling was mostly accurate. The one exception being Michigan in the Democratic primary and that probably came down to polling ending too quickly. Lastly, though Gallup was clearly off, most of the polling that was off came from the Romney camp and their poor mythology. Obama's camp successfully predicted where they had the best shot at winning through their polling. Romney's analytic team was the horse and buggy while Obama had a supersonic jet. Hillary is using the same Obama team. It was one of the main differences in the election. So don't take solace in the idea that polling has been "off." In the end, the theory doesn't hold weight, especially with US polling. Also, 1968 matches up fairly closely in terms of weirdness. In the end, the "safe" candidate won (Nixon). |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Aug 4, 2016 21:34:18 GMT -5
Just for the record: I am not optimistic about a Trump win at this stage. But wishful thinking is keeping in mind that: 1. Polling in the last several years, in both the US and UK have been unreliable, due to the fact that it's harder to conduct telephone polls these days, etc. (Hell, even Gallup's final 2012 poll had Romney winning +1, but Romney ended up losing -4. That's a big difference!) 2. This is an unusual election, what parameters are at play compared to a normal election cycle? I think you should research what you mean by polling being unreliable. Most polling places have switched over to a hybrid form of polling which also involves Internet polling or simply increasing sample sizes to make up for the lack of phone polling. 538's methodology is HIGHLY based on polling averages and they were nearly correct in Obama'exact margin of victory. Currently, they have Clinton with 75% chance of winning. Also, during the primary season, polling was mostly accurate. The one exception being Michigan in the Democratic primary and that probably came down to polling ending too quickly. Lastly, though Gallup was clearly off, most of the polling that was off came from the Romney camp and their poor mythology. Obama's camp successfully predicted where they had the best shot at winning through their polling. Romney's analytic team was the horse and buggy while Obama had a supersonic jet. Hillary is using the same Obama team. It was one of the main differences in the election. So don't take solace in the idea that polling has been "off." In the end, the theory doesn't hold weight, especially with US polling. Also, 1968 matches up fairly closely in terms of weirdness. In the end, the "safe" candidate won (Nixon). Serious question: Do you think Trump is imploding on purpose? I ask because I believe he entered the GOP Primary Race as a lark - I don't think he actually believed he had any chance of becoming the nominee. If that's the case, one can then question his desire for the Presidency itself. Or perhaps he's just trying to copy the divisive format that got him (somehow) through the primaries. I personally do not believe Trump is a racist, a bigot, or filled with hate. Nor do I think he's stupid - he knows exactly what he's doing. But the question is, what is he doing? - I am questioning his strategy and his ultimate goal. |
|
|
|
Post by batfink30 on Aug 5, 2016 13:29:50 GMT -5
Does crooked Hillary have brain damage?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 15:20:46 GMT -5
If nothing else... Trump is causing a lot of people to seriously consider how we do business with regards to elections. Maybe something good will come out of it all in the end.
Still don't care for either of the major party candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Aug 5, 2016 19:38:16 GMT -5
I think you should research what you mean by polling being unreliable. Most polling places have switched over to a hybrid form of polling which also involves Internet polling or simply increasing sample sizes to make up for the lack of phone polling. 538's methodology is HIGHLY based on polling averages and they were nearly correct in Obama'exact margin of victory. Currently, they have Clinton with 75% chance of winning. Also, during the primary season, polling was mostly accurate. The one exception being Michigan in the Democratic primary and that probably came down to polling ending too quickly. Lastly, though Gallup was clearly off, most of the polling that was off came from the Romney camp and their poor mythology. Obama's camp successfully predicted where they had the best shot at winning through their polling. Romney's analytic team was the horse and buggy while Obama had a supersonic jet. Hillary is using the same Obama team. It was one of the main differences in the election. So don't take solace in the idea that polling has been "off." In the end, the theory doesn't hold weight, especially with US polling. Also, 1968 matches up fairly closely in terms of weirdness. In the end, the "safe" candidate won (Nixon). Serious question: Do you think Trump is imploding on purpose? I ask because I believe he entered the GOP Primary Race as a lark - I don't think he actually believed he had any chance of becoming the nominee. If that's the case, one can then question his desire for the Presidency itself. Or perhaps he's just trying to copy the divisive format that got him (somehow) through the primaries. I personally do not believe Trump is a racist, a bigot, or filled with hate. Nor do I think he's stupid - he knows exactly what he's doing. But the question is, what is he doing? - I am questioning his strategy and his ultimate goal. I don't believe he is tying to throw the election. However, I don't believe he's trying too hard to win it either. Some have pointed to the theory that Trump can't be this much of an idiot. However, when reports are breaking out that he's asking about nukes in private conversations, then it does make you wonder if Trump is that crazy. More so than any political candidate for president in history, it is difficult to know who this candidate exactly is. And even if half of what Trump is saying is bullshit, that still leaves the other half. It doesn't help to say that he's "only' half as racist or half as sexist or half as idiotic as we've been led to believe. In short, Trump has no business being president. If someone actually believes that the presidency is an all-important job within this country, no one would hire Trump (well except for 14 mill. Republicans apparently). He just wouldn't make a good president. Because if the on slot of intelligence briefings, technical aspects of law and the order of the government, and the make-up of the American politician system is too much for Trump to handle as a candidate now, then what would he do as president. Could he be better than some people think, maybe? But better than some people think still doesn't make an average president. It's extremely rare to say this, but he's not qualified in any facet of thought. The last president to have less political experience than Trump was Eisenhower, and at least Eisenhower had been a four star general. The only three presidents with less political experience than Trump are Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, and Herbert Hoover. Arguably all three are in the lower third of presidents in presidential history. |
|
|
|
Post by As You Built The Moon on Aug 6, 2016 13:29:59 GMT -5
I personally do not believe Trump is a racist, a bigot, or filled with hate. What difference does it make? Whether he's actually speaking his mind or exploiting the bigotry of his voters, the effects of his actions remain the same, even if he doesn't get elected. We've now had someone get nominated by a major party in 2016 for the highest office in the country who talks like this after decades of work trying to establish that this isn't acceptable behavior. I could be more understanding of hearing what he says from some old white man who lives dirt poor in the Appalachian Mountains, but from someone who's lived in high society his whole life and has had every chance to educate himself, there's just no excuse. Knowing that what you're saying is wrong and using it for personal gain doesn't make it better, it just makes it more reprehensible. Nor do I think he's stupid - he knows exactly what he's doing. But the question is, what is he doing? - I am questioning his strategy and his ultimate goal.He's doing the only thing he's ever needed to know - tell people exactly what they want to hear and then use doublespeak to evade responsibility when he can't deliver on it. What else does he know? What else has he ever needed to know? Whatever it is, I haven't seen it at any point in this past year. He's almost been making as many general knowledge flubs as George W. Bush. And the "almost" in that most likely comes from skillfully hiding his ignorance instead of sitting there with a stupefied chimp look on his face. Maybe he's been a Clinton plant this whole time. I'm a big proponent of Occam's Razor so I take conspiracy theories with a grain of salt at best but it makes too much sense. Or with a little less work you could say this was a book deal stunt that got way out of hand. |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Aug 6, 2016 17:10:17 GMT -5
I don't even know what I'd do if I was American. Obviously Jill Stein seems the best candidate, but it is more important to stop Trump / The Republicans? I'd probably end up voting for Hillary, which is incredibly depressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by As You Built The Moon on Aug 6, 2016 18:01:22 GMT -5
The best argument for voting for Hillary or Trump even if you hate them but generally fall in either's persuasion is that the next president could nominate as many as four Supreme Court justices. That's fucking huge. A Republican in that position would in all likelihood nominate people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade and turn the US into a Christian theocracy. And while I don't think Mr. Three Wives And Two Corinthians cares about that personally, I can see him doing it to please the evangelical section of his party.
Of course the best argument against it is that rewarding corruption and feeding into the same broken system that got us these terrible candidates in the first place isn't going to change anything in the long run. There will be more Donald Trumps, now that the type of Republican he's apparently bested is on its way out. Hillary will move the Democrats further to the right, and if their only value is saving us from the big bad wolf, you're just living in fear.
I believe in voting third party but only if you're not in a swing state. A Republican hasn't won Michigan since Bush Sr., but we could be a tossup so I'm going to wait and see what the polls say. Not that I don't think some of Jill's policies are a little nuts, but that's kind of the point; it makes sense to vote someone to the left of me to have that as a starting point so whoever wants my vote in the future has to go further in that general direction.
In any case, I won't accept the blame for Hillary losing. She'd better win after all this, and it will be on her own head if she doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Aug 6, 2016 19:45:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Binary Sunset on Aug 6, 2016 20:26:35 GMT -5
That article contradicts itself. In the last line it says that polls say that Hilary's lead has increased overall. One specific poll says that the lead has decreased. Every other one says otherwise... |
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Aug 7, 2016 10:59:04 GMT -5
Added poll. Vote away, even if you've never set foot in the US!
|
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Aug 7, 2016 12:21:27 GMT -5
"Each time you vote you support the process"
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Aug 7, 2016 20:17:11 GMT -5
Added poll. Vote away, even if you've never set foot in the US! "Each time you vote you support the process" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 7:43:24 GMT -5
Added poll. Vote away, even if you've never set foot in the US! "Each time you vote you support the process" You of all people should not be trolling this sentiment, Beady’s Here Now. I will say that while the general presidential election is turning into a dumpster fire... we should all still vote in our local and state elections. These elections actually matter to you directly. Sometimes these elections are won by just a couple votes one way or the other. Let's not start a campaign to abstain, because then nothing will ever get any better. If you want to abstain from the presidential election, then go for it, but make an effort to vote in the local and state ones come November. This video has information on how to vote in every state of the US. Search the description for your state. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5