sleeper;1815487 wrote:Trump!

Secret Hillary, or the other one?

sleeper;1815511 wrote:So is the KKK a group you'd like to be associated with given that's how you make choices on who to vote for in the election?

Was that before or after they endorsed Hillary? My point was of course they did, it's as shocking as celebrities and Lebron James backing Hillary.

The more the media ramps up against trump the more you know he is winning.

Lebron couldn't endorse her: he is an uneducated male.

Spock;1815516 wrote:The more the media ramps up against trump the more you know he is winning.

Yeah, something is up; they are in hysterics at historic levels with coordinated precision.


Trump crushed it again today in Florida with massive crowds again; the shredding of the most corrupt person in political history and the media was extra special today.

QuakerOats;1815519 wrote:Yeah, something is up; they are in hysterics at historic levels with coordinated precision.


Trump crushed it again today in Florida with massive crowds again; the shredding of the most corrupt person in political history and the media was extra special today.

I walked in when my wife was watching New Girl. The main character and her friend were going door to door for Hillary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

QuakerOats;1815434 wrote:Maybe you should have ridden Evan McMullin's horse.

You think he could win?

Because people would vote for him?

Because he could win?

Because people would vote for him?

Because he could win?

majorspark;1815436 wrote:Its impossible to say what impact crossovers may have had in these states other than exit polls. Depending on party rules (winner take all and a reasonably close popular vote) I would say the impact was not that great on the overall outcome.

[...]

In the end we have reprobate vs reprobate.

We certainly see eye to eye here. And I appreciate you actually providing reasons for your position on the effect crossover might have had.

majorspark;1815436 wrote:My wife and I were discussing this and whether this particular recorded incidence rose to the level of discussing sexual assault. The p***y grabbing comment was in the context of Trump stating "And when you're a star, they

majorspark;1815436 wrote: let you do it, you can do anything." Bush goads him "Whatever you want" and Trump responds with the now infamous comment for emphasis. Let means allow. So if we take his word in that context it would not be sexual assault at least not in the legal sense. You have your groupies and gold diggers out there.

How does one know what others would let him do? Friend of a friend?

That may or may not hold up in a court of law, but I daresay it seems awfully farfetched to chalk it up to mere objectification, and I don't think the public should find it difficult to condemn him for it, beyond "reasonable" doubt, anyway.

majorspark;1815436 wrote:I would not bet against a man of his track record when it comes to accusations of sexual assault. Accusers are coming out of the woodwork. Its reprehensible behavior and someone who takes advantage of his status in society for his own sexual gratification demonstrates a lack of self control and temperance to lead it. It hasn't seemed to matter with past leaders.

Oh, I'm not sure I'd bet against him either. I sincerely doubt Clinton is the only slippery one in this election who knows how to get away with criminal activity.

QuakerOats;1815449 wrote:Here are a couple of links. Given the closeness of the results in Ohio and PA in '12, the 'crossovers' could have enough of an impact to swing both states this time around. Obviously that would be significant. Whether largely similar numbers exist in just a couple of others states, I have not taken the time to research to know for sure. But it would only take flipping a few to achieve electoral success, however it remains a daunting task given the built-in advantages for dems.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/10/12/nearly-100000-pennsylvania-voters-switch-from-democrat-to-republican/

http://www.vindy.com/news/2016/apr/10/republican-leader-some-trump-voters-will/?mobile

http://www.vindy.com/news/2016/sep/15/requests-to-vote-by-mail-surge-above--le/?mobile

Trump lost Ohio, so it wasn't the crossover voters in Ohio that gave him the edge. And in Pennsylvania, he won by such a huge margin that it doesn't seem likely that it was only the crossover voters that swung it.

There's (rightly) no mention in the Pittsburgh article about the "why" of the switch.

Ultimately, it is impossible to know how many of the crossover voters did so in order to vote for Trump in the primaries. There aren't any ground for blaming his nomination on the crossover voters, at least not any involving evidence.

The GOP voters had the chance to nominate any among the field, and they picked the one guy who doesn't look like a choir boy next to Clinton.

Heretic;1815471 wrote:You need to start giving him credit. The way things are right now, it's taking more and more work to find polls that give Trump any advantage, so he is one diligent mofo!

#belly'd

O-Trap;1815538 wrote: Ultimately, it is impossible to know how many of the crossover voters did so in order to vote for Trump in the primaries. There aren't any ground for blaming his nomination on the crossover voters, at least not any involving evidence.

The GOP voters had the chance to nominate any among the field, and they picked the one guy who doesn't look like a choir boy next to Clinton.

I don't think I can help you any more on this. Well over a million voters crossed over nationally to vote for Trump. He received more primary votes for a Republican than anyone in history, by nearly 2 million votes.

Maybe it was all a setup by democrats, crossover and vote for him to insure he became the nominee, thinking he would be easier to beat in the general. You tell me.

The media is absolutely going off the deep end; if they had the lead they tout they have, I don't think they would be so apoplectic. Maybe we are looking at a Brexit type vote result.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/opinions/trump-appeal-to-white-working-class-opinion-sracic/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432528/donald-trump-michigan-win-shows-general-election-appeal

And maybe we're just looking at the wishful thinking of the clueless.

"Virtually every poll has him falling farther and farther behind except a handful...THAT MEANS HE'S WINNING!!!!!"

Trump logic. LOL.

Who said he is winning?

QuakerOats;1815621 wrote:Who said he is winning?

He's going to get dumpstered on election day.

If the GOP wants a chance at winning the Presidency, it needs to put up a real candidate who isn't a religious nutjob in 2024. 2020 is a pipe dream.

sleeper;1815622 wrote:He's going to get dumpstered on election day.

If the GOP wants a chance at winning the Presidency, it needs to put up a real candidate who isn't a religious nutjob in 2024. 2020 is a pipe dream.

I disagree with this. A lot can change in 4 years, especially with information overload with how our media works. A recession is projected to hit for the next president too.

sleeper;1815622 wrote:He's going to get dumpstered on election day.

And Brexit had a 3% chance of passing .........

QuakerOats;1815630 wrote:And Brexit had a 3% chance of passing .........

Man, the stuff on this thread is just so full of stupid, it has made me laugh a lot recently, so thanks.
I've stayed away, but really this is a fallacy and fantasy to think just because most polls did not see Brexit pass that Trump will win. A few things are wrong with that.
First, any one that has taken a stats class and looks at the Brexit polls can tell you how jacked up they were. The polls were so limited in their polls and methodology that they were deeply flawed. The polls only really concentrated on London and urban areas. The rural areas were not really polled. Even then, the polls showed it would be close, the day before, polls were saying 51-49, so a coin flip.

That is a huge difference on what is going on here. Nearly every single polls has Clinton winning in the battle ground states and the race is widening, not going narrow. Also, unlike Brexit, there is way more aggregate poling data to show that Clinton is more likely to win. More data equals more assurance and more confidence. That is why 538 has the race basically over as Clinton is near a 80% chance to win.
Now, if you want to say, well there is silent majority out there, good luck. That was the wish in 2008 and 2012 and it did not happen.
At this point in the race, if Trump wins, it would be the biggest upset since 1948 and would suggest 95% of the polling data done was wrong. Odds are that will not happen.
These are not feelings or the size of freaking crowds, these are stats and stats always trump the feelz.

Look,s you can bash 538 for their perceived bias, but the data and their rational is sound to anyone that has taken a stats class.
Clinton should win this race because of math. Trump has to sweep FL, OH, PA, and Penn. He is down in 3 of the 4. Even if Trump wins in OH, it won't matter. This is over because of math.

QuakerOats;1815605 wrote:I don't think I can help you any more on this. Well over a million voters crossed over nationally to vote for Trump. He received more primary votes for a Republican than anyone in history, by nearly 2 million votes.

The portion I bolded, indented, and underlined is something you can't prove unless that million voters all said they'd vote for Trump. It's just as likely that they crossed over to stop Trump.

QuakerOats;1815605 wrote:Maybe it was all a setup by democrats, crossover and vote for him to insure he became the nominee, thinking he would be easier to beat in the general. You tell me.

A million people being in on a coverup that never gets leaked ... you tell ME how possible that is.

And people say Libertarians are the tinfoil hat group.

QuakerOats;1815605 wrote:The media is absolutely going off the deep end; if they had the lead they tout they have, I don't think they would be so apoplectic. Maybe we are looking at a Brexit type vote result.

I'm not sure about that. If you take the negative press Romney had, and you add the press that results from the dumb or scandalous things he's said, it seems about right.

Romney was certainly an establishment guy, but he wasn't an asshole, generally speaking. Well-spoken. Well-mannered. Polite. Perhaps that was the reason he, and most of the candidates before him, didn't get this much negative press.

I know I've only been voting since 2000, but I'm under the impression that we've never seen such a self-interested, capricious, malevolent bully in EITHER party. Clinton is better about hiding the capricious part, but given some of what has come out in emails, she certainly doesn't seem to be less so ... at least not by enough to be proud of it.

sleeper;1815622 wrote:If the GOP wants a chance at winning the Presidency, it needs to put up a real candidate who isn't a religious nutjob in 2024. 2020 is a pipe dream.

In fairness, Trump is certainly not a religious nutjob.

Other than the abortion discussion, I don't think Romney fit the definition of a nutjob. It will depend on more than just how overtly religious someone is, I'd wager. So long as they play policy by the rules of the land, and not by the rules of their own lives, I'm cool with someone of any religious background being president.

It's like playing baseball. Is it cool to steal in real life? No. In baseball? It's awesome. Are you a bad Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/FSMist if you steal second? Nah, it's in the rules.

If someone tries to preach about how nobody should steal in baseball because stealing is wrong, they're not getting invited to the next game.

like_that;1815627 wrote:I disagree with this. A lot can change in 4 years, especially with information overload with how our media works. A recession is projected to hit for the next president too.

Generally, I agree with this. If Trump were to somehow win, it's entirely possible that four years of a dumpster fire presidency could be linked to his personality, and people might be willing to vote in a religious president who seems more peaceful and articulate.

Not to mention with the fractured support among Republicans, Trump won't have a very strong 'get out the vote' game like HRC will. Trump is going to absolutely slaughtered on Election day and it won't be because of Election fraud or w/e he will blame it on.

I'm already thinking about 2024 honestly. GOP is in deep shit.

sleeper;1815641 wrote:Not to mention with the fractured support among Republicans, Trump won't have a very strong 'get out the vote' game like HRC will. Trump is going to absolutely slaughtered on Election day and it won't be because of Election fraud or w/e he will blame it on.

I'm already thinking about 2024 honestly. GOP is in deep shit.

Everyone predicted the demise of the GOP after the government shutdown saying they will lose the house and even more seats in the senate. The exact opposite happened 1 year later.

I don't think the GOP will need 8 years to recover. But as always, time will tell.

like_that;1815627 wrote:I disagree with this. A lot can change in 4 years, especially with information overload with how our media works. A recession is projected to hit for the next president too.

Yeah, between an almost inevitable recession and the fact that Hillary is unlikely to be any less disliked than she is today....4 years if the Repubs find someone better than Trump not named Cruz or Bush.

Brexit --- a four poll average had Remain at 53% / Leave at 47%.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-remain-vote-leave-live-latest-who-will-win-results-populus-a7097261.html


The result was Leave 52% / Remain 48%.

That is a 10 point swing.

Of note: the intellectual elites were going off the deep end with their scare tactics about how terrible it will be if they were to exit the EU, yada, yada, yada. My I see a lot similarity to what is occurring here right now.

gut;1815643 wrote:Yeah, between an almost inevitable recession and the fact that Hillary is unlikely to be any less disliked than she is today....4 years if the Repubs find someone better than Trump not named Cruz or Bush.

Also if they have their shit together for primaries. The 16+ candidates and hollywood squares format debates do no favors.

QuakerOats;1815646 wrote:Brexit --- a four poll average had Remain at 53% / Leave at 47%.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-remain-vote-leave-live-latest-who-will-win-results-populus-a7097261.html


The result was Leave 52% / Remain 48%.

That is a 10 point swing.

Of note: the intellectual elites were going off the deep end with their scare tactics about how terrible it will be if they were to exit the EU, yada, yada, yada. My I see a lot similarity to what is occurring here right now.

It's not happening dude. Brace yourself for Hillary and just hope the Dems don't take over the house and give her a blank check.

gut;1815643 wrote:Yeah, between an almost inevitable recession and the fact that Hillary is unlikely to be any less disliked than she is today....4 years if the Repubs find someone better than Trump not named Cruz or Bush.

Kasich?

QuakerOats;1815646 wrote:Brexit --- a four poll average had Remain at 53% / Leave at 47%.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-remain-vote-leave-live-latest-who-will-win-results-populus-a7097261.html


The result was Leave 52% / Remain 48%.

But you're missing a sort of MAJOR point - estimates were many of the "remain" folks (typically younger) didn't vote. That's the opposite situation with Trump where his ground game sucks and he'll get a lower yield on who supports him vs. Hillary.

In this case I would SUBTRACT, rather than add, 5 points from Trump's polling. It's looking entirely possible Trump may only win a handful of states.

gut;1815653 wrote:But you're missing a sort of MAJOR point - estimates were many of the "remain" folks (typically younger) didn't vote. That's the opposite situation with Trump where his ground game sucks and he'll get a lower yield on who supports him vs. Hillary.

In this case I would SUBTRACT, rather than add, 5 points from Trump's polling. It's looking entirely possible Trump may only win a handful of states.

The O/U on when they call the election will be interesting this year. I could see 8:30 being the line and I'm not sure I take the over.