Could Clinton lose?

[Bronzeage]

When's the last time a presidential candidate has won without the support of women, blacks, AND Latinos, all of whom still overwhelmingly favor Clinton?

That would probably be Abraham Lincoln.

 

[SLD]

Not only can she lose, she's on the cusp of blowing it! Right now Nate Silver has her at only 279 EV's. She's likely to lose Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. If Trump can flip Colorado, it's his. And all polls have him within the margin of error there. Not good.

The dems have let the repubs set the agenda and tone. It's like they've been absent from the fight for the last few weeks. This is not going well at all.

SLD

The media has allowed Trump to walk all over it. It has allowed itself to be bullied by him.

A cowardly media is not helping.

The Matt Lauer interview is an example.

He grilled Clinton as if he was going to discover something many many hours of depositions and testimony did not find. And he never questioned any of Trump's clear lies, like he was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the start, a provable lie.

Yup! The "mainstream media" has been treating Trump with kid gloves. They're either in bed with him or too scared to report on his obvious and blatant hypocrisy and corruption.

SLD

 

[Sea of red]

Sure, Trump could win. As it stands now, he's going to get the turnout. Hillary is not. Donald's handlers finally got a leash on him and he's acting like a socially acceptable human being for once. That will change after the election. President Donald would go back to being himself. The DNC needs to drive this home. As the time draws near, there needs to be a barrage of commercials reminding Americans who this asshole is. It's not like there isn't enough material out there. But they can't bring it out too early. Let the public get used to this new, disciplined Donald for now.

Hillary sucks. She's a pure politician and people hate politicians. Hell, she's probably even got a DNC tramp stamp. But with her as president, I don't worry about the end of humanity and that's more than I can say for Donald.

P.S.: In what world does Trump beat Clinton in a debate?

See, I think this is wrong. People - especially older people - actually LOVE politicians. They can't wait for the next ignorant thing one has to say. Americans are drawn to drama and people with big opinions, even when those opinions are outlandish. I think that many of those on the right just plain love idiots - since they can identify with them.

George W Bush was not the moron liberals made him out to be.He knew what people wanted to hear, and that there was a segment of the population that was so ignorant, they would vote for him if he acted uneducated, mispronounced words, and made goofball mistakes. He wanted his base to see him as a man with passion for his beliefs, that was being unfairly targeted by 'elites' that couldn't understand regular Americans. He also realized that dividing Americans worked. When you create an "us" vs "them" climate people get fearful and make foolish choices. His base didn't care if his ideas were good or bad. What they wanted was to feel like they were voting for a man that had passion, and was going to "save them" from some threat.

I see Donald Trump as having this formula and it looks like he has it about figured out. The Democrats have underestimated him, and they have the most weak excuse for a politician that lets people walk all over her to win the election. This is not good.

 

[SLD]

I agree the debates will be critical.

But there's not as much movement as the media is suggesting.

The tightening at this point isn't significant; Sam Wang, who has no media ax to grind, still has HRC at 90%.

Even Nate Silver has to have traffic. Trump gaining is news.

I don't know what you're smoking, but Trump isn't just gaining, he's winning. Latest poll out of Colorado has him ahead by four. Trump has a clear lead in Ohio by about 5 points and Florida by about 3. The latest polls have him up by 8 in Iowa, and even 2 in Nevada. Clinton's lead in Virginia has shrunk to a mere 3 points.

I'm not saying the race is over, but Clinton is letting this election slip through her fingers. Maybe it will swing back. It has over the past year. Maybe the news media will end its love affair with Trump, and start hammering him. But I am not particularly hopeful. This will be a bad 8 years. Very bad.

SLD

 

[RavenSky]

The one trouble Republicans have is the Electoral College. It is very hard for them to win it. Trump can win Ohio, but losing Virginia or North Carolina really puts the hurt on him. Republicans need to win almost every Battleground state, a Democrat, just a few. I think Colorado and Virginia is all Clinton needs in addition to states Dems haven't lost in a long time (Reagan). So Trump still has a long road to travel.

That he will win ANY state shows how fucked up this country is.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I agree the debates will be critical.

But there's not as much movement as the media is suggesting.

The tightening at this point isn't significant; Sam Wang, who has no media ax to grind, still has HRC at 90%.

Even Nate Silver has to have traffic. Trump gaining is news.

I don't know what you're smoking, but Trump isn't just gaining, he's winning. Latest poll out of Colorado has him ahead by four. Trump has a clear lead in Ohio by about 5 points and Florida by about 3. The latest polls have him up by 8 in Iowa, and even 2 in Nevada. Clinton's lead in Virginia has shrunk to a mere 3 points.

I'm not saying the race is over, but Clinton is letting this election slip through her fingers. Maybe it will swing back. It has over the past year. Maybe the news media will end its love affair with Trump, and start hammering him. But I am not particularly hopeful. This will be a bad 8 years. Very bad.

SLD

According to the sources I follow through my drug induced haze, what's happening is that previously undecided Repubs, of which there were far more than '12, have come home. Yes, it's much closer, PEC updated its site, and if the election were held today, Trump may win.

 

[Sea of red]

My gut feeling is that Trump will win.

Clinton simply has too much dirt to survive the debates - some legitimate, some not. She hasn't handled these scandals well at all, and I see no reason to think that Trump won't use it against her. Sure, he has his own skeletons, but the DNC is too fucking meek to bring them up. The emails WILL be brought up in the debates and the truth is, Clinton simply doesn't have any good answers because she really did fuck-up. The Clinton foundations shady dealing will also be an issue because again, there is some legitimacy to it.

I personally don't think that what Clinton did was all that big of a deal. Shit, Reagan conservatives have committed crimes worthy of a firing squad. But the fact remains the public see's Republicans as being less political than Democrats, and Clinton fits all of the stereotypes people associated with liberals - including negative SJW ideals.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather have her over him but these are facts we have to acknowledge in order to not repeat them in the future.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My gut feeling is that Trump will win.

Clinton simply has too much dirt to survive the debates - some legitimate, some not. She hasn't handled these scandals well at all, and I see no reason to think that Trump won't use it against her. Sure, he has his own skeletons, but the DNC is too fucking meek to bring them up. The emails WILL be brought up in the debates and the truth is, Clinton simply doesn't have any good answers because she really did fuck-up. The Clinton foundations shady dealing will also be an issue because again, there is some legitimacy to it.

I personally don't think that what Clinton did was all that big of a deal. Shit, Reagan conservatives have committed crimes worthy of a firing squad. But the fact remains the public see's Republicans as being less political than Democrats, and Clinton fits all of the stereotypes people associated with liberals - including negative SJW ideals.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather have her over him but these are facts we have to acknowledge in order to not repeat them in the future.

Debates are rarely ever won on points, but moments. Trump has to hold on for over an hour in the debate. Clinton too, but she handled the Congressional firestorm too well to think Trump can best her. I think she'll set bear traps and wait for Trump to walk into them. Like the Benghazi debate moment where Obama dangled something in front of Romney and for a moment Romney forgot what was right-wing bullshit and what was truth... and Romney bit.

Clinton will need to be a little bit technical to throw off Trump, make him blunder about the topic, showing he is clueless.

And we can't forget the Electoral College. Trump is "leading" in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Iowa and Nevada is a dead heat... and Clinton is still winning the EC. But I think the polls aren't correct. There are some Emerson polls out there that just don't feel right. They show Bennett hardly up on a non-competitor, but up by around how much Trump is up on Clinton. So I think the polls are missing the target. Clinton is winning in the polls overall (EC wise) and things should start heading back in Clinton's favor.

 

[maxparrish]

My gut feeling is that Trump will win.

Clinton simply has too much dirt to survive the debates - some legitimate, some not. She hasn't handled these scandals well at all, and I see no reason to think that Trump won't use it against her. Sure, he has his own skeletons, but the DNC is too fucking meek to bring them up. The emails WILL be brought up in the debates and the truth is, Clinton simply doesn't have any good answers because she really did fuck-up. The Clinton foundations shady dealing will also be an issue because again, there is some legitimacy to it.

I personally don't think that what Clinton did was all that big of a deal. Shit, Reagan conservatives have committed crimes worthy of a firing squad. But the fact remains the public see's Republicans as being less political than Democrats, and Clinton fits all of the stereotypes people associated with liberals - including negative SJW ideals.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather have her over him but these are facts we have to acknowledge in order to not repeat them in the future.

Debates are rarely ever won on points, but moments. Trump has to hold on for over an hour in the debate. Clinton too, but she handled the Congressional firestorm too well to think Trump can best her. I think she'll set bear traps and wait for Trump to walk into them. Like the Benghazi debate moment where Obama dangled something in front of Romney and for a moment Romney forgot what was right-wing bullshit and what was truth... and Romney bit.

Clinton will need to be a little bit technical to throw off Trump, make him blunder about the topic, showing he is clueless.

And we can't forget the Electoral College. Trump is "leading" in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Iowa and Nevada is a dead heat... and Clinton is still winning the EC. But I think the polls aren't correct. There are some Emerson polls out there that just don't feel right. They show Bennett hardly up on a non-competitor, but up by around how much Trump is up on Clinton. So I think the polls are missing the target. Clinton is winning in the polls overall (EC wise) and things should start heading back in Clinton's favor.

Everyone has under-estimated Trump (including me) and after polling in the toilet one month ago, he has caught up IN SPITE of his unfavorables (and a clear majority still believe him to be unqualified). So the only reason that Trump has regained his lead is that the Democrats nominated the worst possible candidate to oppose him, and Democratic voters (more than Republicans) are voting 3rd party.

HOW BAD is it? Before this Presidential election the highest percentage of votes any libertarian has received has been 1.07%, in 1980. But Hillary and Donald are hated so much, the unknown nominee (most folk have never heard of Johnson) is now polling upto 10%. In fact, Hillary and Donald are each routinely polling around 42% and occasionally lower.

Also, I've noted that in a poll of voters, 35 percent of the voters said they dislike BOTH of the two major candidates. That is the highest mutual dislikes in polling history. The second highest was in 1992, where only 9 percent disliked both candidates.

This is a race to the bottom. Had either party nominated an ordinary candidate (say Biden or Kasich) that party would have won with a majority (Biden must have been kicking himself).

Sad.

 

[ZiprHead]

Also, I've noted that in a poll of voters, 35 percent of the voters said they dislike BOTH of the two major candidates. That is the highest mutual dislikes in polling history. The second highest was in 1992, where only 9 percent disliked both candidates.

This is a race to the bottom. Had either party nominated an ordinary candidate (say Biden or Kasich) that party would have won with a majority (Biden must have been kicking himself).

Sad.

I absolutely agree with what you say here. I think Biden would have been a shoe-in. I think he's lost the drive for politics after losing so much of his family at such early ages though.

I really can see the Lib candidates appeal in this election. This has got to be one of the strangest elections in American history. Remember this for your grandchildren. "What? your hoverboard needs a recharge? Why I remember living through the election of oh-sixteen and you think you have it bad!"

 

[maxparrish]

Also, I've noted that in a poll of voters, 35 percent of the voters said they dislike BOTH of the two major candidates. That is the highest mutual dislikes in polling history. The second highest was in 1992, where only 9 percent disliked both candidates.

This is a race to the bottom. Had either party nominated an ordinary candidate (say Biden or Kasich) that party would have won with a majority (Biden must have been kicking himself).

Sad.

I absolutely agree with what you say here. I think Biden would have been a shoe-in. I think he's lost the drive for politics after losing so much of his family at such early ages though.

I really can see the Lib candidates appeal in this election. This has got to be one of the strangest elections in American history. Remember this for your grandchildren. "What? your hoverboard needs a recharge? Why I remember living through the election of oh-sixteen and you think you have it bad!"

Yes...Biden is the perfect 'anti-Trump' candidate. He has not gotten rich off politics, is well liked, and showed in his VP debate that he can dominate with relentless righteous condemnation and body language when Trump is speaking.

I can't think of anyone who would be better than needling Trump with his own medicine...and baiting trump into revealing his true nature.

That said, I now believe Trump will win. Hillary looks like a weak and pitiable figure, a voice that scratches and strains. And in order to accommodate Hillary, the debate will be seated...a 'weakness' that Trump may exploit by referring to it as proof of her lack of stamina. Moreover, its going to be difficult for her to hit Trump's flaws without drawing attention to her own.

She can't easily draw attention to Trump's history of dishonesty, dubious sources of earning, foundation misdoings, etc. WITHOUT Trump drawing on her own dubious doings, denials, and scandals (e.g. her miracle commodity trading). And, of course, Trump will lie without blinking.

If she is a clear winner in two of the three debates...she will win. If its a draw...then who knows. But my sense has always been that the public is tired of the Clintons (as they are the Bushes) and wanted a reason to vote for someone else. Trump has avoided "being Trump" for a month and his polls rise.

It looks pretty clear that Trump is now winning in all the tossup states: Florida, NC, Ohio, Iowa, etc. The ONLY remaining tossup state is Nevada, which may not matter. Trump needs to win one more... either Colorado or WI or Penn or NH. If he takes one of those...Hillary is toast.

As of today, using 538 data of those states were his winning probability is now higher than 50 percent, I would say Trump is a hair from victory:

 

[maxparrish]

Here are the electoral maps how Trump wins:

MAP 1 Even if Nevada falls to Hillary (today 50-50), if Colorado flips to Trump, Trump wins:
(It's a tie so the Republican House will break the tie by appointing Trump).

MAP 2 Even if Nevada falls to Hillary (today 50-50), if WI goes for Trump he wins with 270 EV.

MAP 3 Regardless of Nevada, if Penn. falls to Trump he wins easily with 280 EV.

(No map needed)

MAP 4 If Nevada falls to Trump, and NH flips to Trump...Trump wins again with 270 EV.

Can the blue wall hold? I doubt it (although I hope Hillary wins).

 

[barbos]

Does that mean Hillary would have to run again in 4 years?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nice speech by Nigel Farage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxsnOvTV8vA

 

[maxparrish]

Nice speech by Nigel Farage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxsnOvTV8vA

And how does that relate to whether or not Clinton could lose???

 

[maxparrish]

Does that mean Hillary would have to run again in 4 years?

Hillary is toast if she loses again (think Romney). Besides, her age is showing and I doubt she will have the energy to do so. Warren might run, but she would also be nearly too old, at 71.

Nope, the Democrats need to tap into a new generation...Clinton, Warren, Biden, Sanders are (or will be) over the hill.

Who might that be? At this point, the Democratic leadership are all fossils (e.g. Pelosi, Reid) . The loss of so many state elections has denied them major opportunities to develop young talent. Who knows, maybe the Dems will have to run some of its billionaires for President (Mark Cuban?).

 

[barbos]

Does that mean Hillary would have to run again in 4 years?

Hillary is toast if she loses again (think Romney). Besides, her age is showing and I doubt she will have the energy to do so. Warren might run, but she would also be nearly too old, at 71.

Well, that was rhetorical question. Of course I don't believe she will run again. Who besides Raygun was that old to run for POTUS?

Nope, the Democrats need to tap into a new generation...Clinton, Warren, Biden, Sanders are (or will be) over the hill.

Who might that be? At this point, the Democratic leadership are all fossils (e.g. Pelosi, Reid) . The loss of so many state elections has denied them major opportunities to develop young talent. Who knows, maybe the Dems will have to run some of its billionaires for President (Mark Cuban?).

Anthony Weiner?

 

[ZiprHead]

Does that mean Hillary would have to run again in 4 years?

Hillary is toast if she loses again (think Romney). Besides, her age is showing and I doubt she will have the energy to do so. Warren might run, but she would also be nearly too old, at 71.

Nope, the Democrats need to tap into a new generation...Clinton, Warren, Biden, Sanders are (or will be) over the hill.

Who might that be? At this point, the Democratic leadership are all fossils (e.g. Pelosi, Reid) . The loss of so many state elections has denied them major opportunities to develop young talent. Who knows, maybe the Dems will have to run some of its billionaires for President (Mark Cuban?).

Worthy of a new thread in general politics, I think.

You've been gone for a while. Nice to see you back.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The one trouble Republicans have is the Electoral College. It is very hard for them to win it. Trump can win Ohio, but losing Virginia or North Carolina really puts the hurt on him. Republicans need to win almost every Battleground state, a Democrat, just a few. I think Colorado and Virginia is all Clinton needs in addition to states Dems haven't lost in a long time (Reagan). So Trump still has a long road to travel.

That he will win ANY state shows how fucked up this country is.

QFT

 

[maxparrish]

Hillary is toast if she loses again (think Romney). Besides, her age is showing and I doubt she will have the energy to do so. Warren might run, but she would also be nearly too old, at 71.

Well, that was rhetorical question. Of course I don't believe she will run again. Who besides Raygun was that old to run for POTUS?

Nope, the Democrats need to tap into a new generation...Clinton, Warren, Biden, Sanders are (or will be) over the hill.

Who might that be? At this point, the Democratic leadership are all fossils (e.g. Pelosi, Reid) . The loss of so many state elections has denied them major opportunities to develop young talent. Who knows, maybe the Dems will have to run some of its billionaires for President (Mark Cuban?).

Anthony Weiner?

Well ya, other than not having big money...Weiner and Trump have a lot in common.