Oh, I hope that works. The more establishment republicans who get killed by the out of control monster they created, the better.
-
Features
US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race
- Thread starter lpetrich
- Start date
Oh, I hope that works. The more establishment republicans who get killed by the out of control monster they created, the better.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,990
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Meanwhile in You Thought '08 was a relative landslide?!
Georgia poll puts the state at full on purple status, Trump leading 42 to 41. There is an old Native American saying "If Republican can't win Georgia, he's fucked." A full 40 percent of I's are undecided. Interestingly enough, Clinton only holds a 5 pt margin on Trump with women.
Georgia poll puts the state at full on purple status, Trump leading 42 to 41. There is an old Native American saying "If Republican can't win Georgia, he's fucked." A full 40 percent of I's are undecided. Interestingly enough, Clinton only holds a 5 pt margin on Trump with women.
If you look at the Libertarian front-runner, he appears to disagree with you.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
For one thing he ***LOVES** him some corporate subsidies in the form of complete tax relief. If you earn money for your home lifestyle by cleaning toilets, pay taxes! But if you earn money for your corporate lifestyle, Freeeeee! Give government mandated demand to private corporations - freeee customers! (prison, school)
For religious moral laws, he's all for saying religionists can decline birth control coverage to their employees. Woot!
It looks an awful lot like the republicans. Not exactly like, but many of the bad parts.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,990
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Shadowy Man
Contributor
But that's exactly what qualifies her to be Trump's running mate.
Tristan Scott
Senior Member
Dream ticket?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,990
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Actually she was an attack dog (not meant negatively). She was the abbrasive voice McCain couldn't be. Trump doesn't need that as he already is that.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,990
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Latest polls are odd.
Massachusetts (Boston Globe) - Clinton 55 v Trump 31. That isn't odd.
New Hampshire (Dartmouth) - Clinton 34 v Trump 29. WTF?!?! Nearly 40% undecided?!
Pennsylvania (Quinnipiac) - Clinton 43 v Trump 42. Okay, is PA actually in play? Certainly PA has more deep red sections than Massachusetts, but New York is a gimme for Clinton. Hard to see PA being that far off. Granted, 15% undecided. Even if PA is in play, Trump actually has trouble. Elections are expensive and PA isn't a cheap state. He already has to make plays for Battleground states. While eating into Democrat territory is nice, he can't afford to spend too much and still lose.
Ohio (Quinnipiac) - Clinton 39 v Trump 43. Ohio will likely be close. A good deal of red areas, disgruntled union people who like Trump's message of racism and misogyny. However, Ohio is rare in that some rural areas actually are more liberal than other places in the US.
Florida (Quinnipiac) - Clinton 43 v Trump 42. Typical battleground state. These numbers aren't good as Hispanics have a tendency to be underrepresented in polling.
So the early poll numbers are showing a couple things. Trump isn't doing well in the Northeast, which means the electoral college isn't likely shifting into his favor. Battleground states are tight, but mainly leaning in Clinton's favor. Trump, like any Republican, has to win all or almost all of the Battleground states. A decent amount of uncertain voters. I really don't recall previous elections, so I can't ascertain whether 15+% is unusual at this point. In Utah (outlying poll?), Georgia, and New Hampshire have enormous percentages of undecided voters, approaching 40%. This is bad for Trump, though not necessarily detrimental... yet, as long as the Republicans relax and settle for Trump over the anti-Christ.
Oh... and Sanders is kicking Trump's ass in the polls. But Sanders has not been targeted by ads. Come a General Election, I would expect those polling numbers to fall with the onslaught of anti-communist propaganda.
Massachusetts (Boston Globe) - Clinton 55 v Trump 31. That isn't odd.
New Hampshire (Dartmouth) - Clinton 34 v Trump 29. WTF?!?! Nearly 40% undecided?!
Pennsylvania (Quinnipiac) - Clinton 43 v Trump 42. Okay, is PA actually in play? Certainly PA has more deep red sections than Massachusetts, but New York is a gimme for Clinton. Hard to see PA being that far off. Granted, 15% undecided. Even if PA is in play, Trump actually has trouble. Elections are expensive and PA isn't a cheap state. He already has to make plays for Battleground states. While eating into Democrat territory is nice, he can't afford to spend too much and still lose.
Ohio (Quinnipiac) - Clinton 39 v Trump 43. Ohio will likely be close. A good deal of red areas, disgruntled union people who like Trump's message of racism and misogyny. However, Ohio is rare in that some rural areas actually are more liberal than other places in the US.
Florida (Quinnipiac) - Clinton 43 v Trump 42. Typical battleground state. These numbers aren't good as Hispanics have a tendency to be underrepresented in polling.
So the early poll numbers are showing a couple things. Trump isn't doing well in the Northeast, which means the electoral college isn't likely shifting into his favor. Battleground states are tight, but mainly leaning in Clinton's favor. Trump, like any Republican, has to win all or almost all of the Battleground states. A decent amount of uncertain voters. I really don't recall previous elections, so I can't ascertain whether 15+% is unusual at this point. In Utah (outlying poll?), Georgia, and New Hampshire have enormous percentages of undecided voters, approaching 40%. This is bad for Trump, though not necessarily detrimental... yet, as long as the Republicans relax and settle for Trump over the anti-Christ.
Oh... and Sanders is kicking Trump's ass in the polls. But Sanders has not been targeted by ads. Come a General Election, I would expect those polling numbers to fall with the onslaught of anti-communist propaganda.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
What I meant was her appeal to the "most feebleminded voters in the U.S." as Colonel Sanders put it in his post.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,990
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Well, Trum p is that too. He really is a well rounded bad candidate. He will need a female VP. That is the only feasible way to deal with the woman vote deficit he is likely facing. Susana Martinez or Nikki Haley are probably two of the better bets. But do they want to commit electoral suicide?
JIndal said, ".I think electing Donald Trump would be the second-worst thing we could do this November, better only than electing Hillary Clinton to serve as the third term for the Obama administration's radical policies."
This is a theme that has been going around with the GOP that what's bad about Hillary is that she represents Obama.
And yet - Obama's ratings are rising.
So I wonder if this will turn out to be a benefit to her.
The conspiricist in me wonders if that is its passive-aggressive intent.
This is a theme that has been going around with the GOP that what's bad about Hillary is that she represents Obama.
And yet - Obama's ratings are rising.
So I wonder if this will turn out to be a benefit to her.
The conspiricist in me wonders if that is its passive-aggressive intent.
faded_Glory
Member
Maybe Trump should invite Hilary Clinton to become his running mate, it probably would give him the win. It would also give the Democratic nomination to Sanders and the vote would be really interesting. Clinton would then become prez when Trump chokes on a chunk of actual government politics.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,990
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Naw. They aren't smart enough for that. Hilary Clinton is the anti-Christ. They've invested nearly 25 years into that narrative. The right-wing is saying, sure, Trump is unpredictable or a liberal or entirely unfit for office, however, Hilary Clinton will open up the gates to hell and let the Earth be swallowed into them.
What I find hilarious is that they are pinning Hilary Clinton to Obama. It'll be a third term of Obama's policies. As if he is now the Kingpin of the Democrat Party. That Hilary Clinton will be beholden to the will of President Obama and his policies.
Medved and Prager say the Supreme Court is the reason to vote for Trump, because while you have no idea what he'll do, maybe it'll be better than Hillary Clinton. Sure, maybe he'll turn the world into a flaming ball of fire, but that Supreme Court, who knows, could be a positive pick over Clinton.
angelo
Deleted
No matter who gets the nomination and goes on to win the White House, it will be a politician. The equivalent to a used car or life insurance salesperson!
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Damn, there goes my rep as a political strategist.
So that is another reason that we haven't had a Libertarian president, that is other than the fact that they only poll about 2% of the popular vote.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
You guys are no fun at all.
I have to agree with you that Libertarian positions are much more unrealistic than the Republican ones.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,990
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
You should write greeting cards.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
I have to concede that Libertarian positions are much more pie in the sky and unrealistic than my simplistic Republicans who do drugs conveyed. Much more unrealistic than the Republicans' positions.
You don't have to make illegal drugs legal in order to end the drug wars. There are very good reasons why these drugs are illegal. Addiction is a disease. We shouldn't be encouraging a disease, we should be treating it. And not by sending the sick to prison either.
Their economic policies depend entirely on the very unlikely existence of the self-regulating, self-organizing free market. We have more than six thousand years of evidence that this free market can't exist. We have zero evidence that it can. *
They are proposing to institute a foreign policy based on isolationism and presumably a much weakened military. They will rely on the mutual benefits of free trade to guarantee peace through the world. This is so delusional it is hard to know where to start listing the reasons that it won't work.
They don't want to legislate morality. But which of our criminal laws aren't based on morals? Thou shall not kill. Or steal. Etc.
They want to replace before the fact, nationwide regulations with after the fact civil lawsuits that will result in different requirements in different jurisdictions. ***
They want to rely on individuals more when all of the acceleration of innovation has been the result of collective actions, including government actions. *
It is largely meaningless to support social matters on a non-financial basis. What does it mean, that Libertarians will be very distressed watching children starve or to die from inadequate health care but will do nothing because it costs something? ***
They support the economic suicide of re-instituting the gold standard. A monetary system that has always required a considerable amount of national government regulation to be put into place and to keep in place. They want to accomplish this by relying on the goodwill of all involved to put in in place and to prevent bad behavior, instead of government regulation. ***
They may or may not support the idea of transcendental property. The current 5 to 6 trillion dollars of such property that currently exist, ideas represented in patents, trademarks and copyrights. Their ideology doesn't point the way to decide if these things have to disappear or not.
They want to eliminate Social Security and to leave its functions to private enterprise but it is inconceivable that any private insurance company would be able to write policies to replace Social Security. Its risks are too high for any private company to take on. For example, what would happen to a private company if a cure for cancer or heart disease extends the lifetime of seniors by five years? ***
and many, many more....
* - partially supported by Republicans.
*** - largely supported by Republicans.
Sarpedon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,976
- Location
- MN, US
- Basic Beliefs
- the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
Oh, I read about the Quinnipac poll that showed Trump ahead: It unreasonably assumed a lower turnout among minorities, thus skewing the results towards Trump.
They assumed, contrary to evidence, that the electorate would be 5% whiter than it was last time around, thus giving a net +3% to Trump. This basically assumes blacks will sit out because there's no black person on the ballot (In reality, black voter turnout has been steadily increasing since hitting a low in 1996, in other words, this trend started long before Obama came to the scene, and thus it is silly to think his leaving will cause it to suddenly reverse) and that Hispanics won't turn out in droves to vote against Trump (which contradicts every bit of evidence available; around the country the numbers hispanics becoming citizens and registering to vote have vastly increased). It also flies in the face of the fact that populations are slowly but surely shifting away from whiteness. So this can be regarded as a republican junk poll, just like so many that convinced Romney he was going to win.
They assumed, contrary to evidence, that the electorate would be 5% whiter than it was last time around, thus giving a net +3% to Trump. This basically assumes blacks will sit out because there's no black person on the ballot (In reality, black voter turnout has been steadily increasing since hitting a low in 1996, in other words, this trend started long before Obama came to the scene, and thus it is silly to think his leaving will cause it to suddenly reverse) and that Hispanics won't turn out in droves to vote against Trump (which contradicts every bit of evidence available; around the country the numbers hispanics becoming citizens and registering to vote have vastly increased). It also flies in the face of the fact that populations are slowly but surely shifting away from whiteness. So this can be regarded as a republican junk poll, just like so many that convinced Romney he was going to win.