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.

Clinton has a problem with motivating voters and her turnout will be less than obama '12.

Everyone says Trump has no ground game; yet virtually every day he has 2 rallies which attract tens of thousands 'boots on the ground'. He does this without any 'celebrities' appearing either (as Clinton has to do to even get a few hundred).

Maybe The Deplorables can overcome the democrat media complex, vote fraud, and a corrupt criminal candidate. Long odds.

like_that;1815642 wrote: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.

An anomaly I think. GOP will probably hold Congress for HRC's first term but I could see her 2nd term being all blue.

Not to mention, the SCOTUS will be heavily blue for the next 40 years but the GOP wanted Trump.

QuakerOats;1815656 wrote:Clinton has a problem with motivating voters and her turnout will be less than obama '12.

Everyone says Trump has no ground game; yet virtually every day he has 2 rallies which attract tens of thousands 'boots on the ground'. He does this without any 'celebrities' appearing either (as Clinton has to do to even get a few hundred).

Maybe The Deplorables can overcome the democrat media complex, vote fraud, and a corrupt criminal candidate. Long odds.

I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that HRC is our next President.

Would you put your money where your mouth is?

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.

We have never escaped the last recession.

sleeper;1815657 wrote:An anomaly I think. GOP will probably hold Congress for HRC's first term but I could see her 2nd term being all blue.

Not to mention, the SCOTUS will be heavily blue for the next 40 years but the GOP wanted Trump.

I don't think it was an anomaly. The democrats have a lot of flaws. They are just overshadowed during presidential elections due to the GOP being inept when it comes to presidential races.

sleeper;1815658 wrote:I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that HRC is our next President.

Would you put your money where your mouth is?

I have absolutely no idea what will happen, even though the electoral map is heavily stacked in favor of dems right out of the gate. If she wins, tens of millions of illegals will get citizenship and no republican will ever win again. We will have a revolution first.

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.

I seriously think you do not understand how stats and polling works. Seriously did you even take a stats class?
That is a small sample size of four polls, plus it was within a few points. That is not a 10 point swing, that is a 5 point swing dude.

Whereas, the polling here in the U.S. has many many more data points, which leads to more confidence in the results. Plus, the numbers are larger than a 53 point. Clinton has an average national lead of 4-6 points. So, you are going to need not a 5 point swing, but really a 7-8 point swing. The data is not showing that.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

I seriously think you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

QuakerOats;1815656 wrote: Everyone says Trump has no ground game; yet virtually every day he has 2 rallies which attract tens of thousands 'boots on the ground'. He does this without any 'celebrities' appearing either (as Clinton has to do to even get a few hundred).

"tens of thousands" is pretty meaningless when he will need at least 60 MILLION votes to win the election.

QuakerOats;1815663 wrote:I have absolutely no idea what will happen, even though the electoral map is heavily stacked in favor of dems right out of the gate. If she wins, tens of millions of illegals will get citizenship and no republican will ever win again. We will have a revolution first.

Yeah, cause of the freaking Electoral College and the population makeup of the U.S.

QuakerOats;1815663 wrote:I have absolutely no idea what will happen, even though the electoral map is heavily stacked in favor of dems right out of the gate. If she wins, tens of millions of illegals will get citizenship and no republican will ever win again. We will have a revolution first.

Gotcha. So you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

ptown_trojans_1;1815664 wrote:I seriously think you do not understand how stats and polling works. Seriously did you even take a stats class?
That is a small sample size of four polls, plus it was within a few points. That is not a 10 point swing, that is a 5 point swing dude.

Whereas, the polling here in the U.S. has many many more data points, which leads to more confidence in the results. Plus, the numbers are larger than a 53 point. Clinton has an average national lead of 4-6 points. So, you are going to need not a 5 point swing, but really a 7-8 point swing. The data is not showing that.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

I seriously think you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

If one candidate gains 5 points and another candidate loses 5 points, it is effectively a 10 point swing.

Did you even take a math class?

Brexit was nothing less than a stunning upset as it turned out. Everyone knows that, except you I guess.

QuakerOats;1815668 wrote:If one candidate gains 5 points and another candidate loses 5 points, it is effectively a 10 point swing.

Did you even take a math class?

Brexit was nothing less than a stunning upset as it turned out. Everyone knows that, except you I guess.

Sigh, way to not address how you cannot really apply the lessons of Brexit to here as the ways of polling are completely different. You have no idea what you are talking about.

gut;1815665 wrote:"tens of thousands" is pretty meaningless when he will need at least 60 MILLION votes to win the election.

Understood.

However only a few states need to flip, and the number of votes in those states that need to flip total approximately 400,000.

ptown_trojans_1;1815669 wrote:Sigh, way to not address how you cannot really apply the lessons of Brexit to here as the ways of polling are completely different. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Are the current polls capturing voters who will vote this election but are not considered 'likely voters'?

sleeper;1815667 wrote:Gotcha. So you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

I have no idea who will win. I think I just said that.

like_that;1815661 wrote:I don't think it was an anomaly. The democrats have a lot of flaws. They are just overshadowed during presidential elections due to the GOP being inept when it comes to presidential races.

That's why I don't think it'll take that long for the Rs to get back in the grand scheme of things. They've become inept as far as the presidency goes, but are much more competent when it comes to the senate, house and state offices. I think a lot of it has to do with how "all over the place" the party is. In a more localized race, they can get a lot of support; but nationally, there's too much disagreement over what the party should stand for, leading to a certain degree of chaos.

If you just take this board in a bubble, as it's very R-leaning:

You have a couple people who seem to legit support Trump.

You have a couple people who might not legit support Trump, but are very partisan, so he's their dude.

You have some people who might not like Trump, but dislike Hillary more, so they're talking about biting the bullet to try to block her.

And you have some people who are talking about not voting R (generally talking third party, with at least one person -- Sleeper -- talking Clinton) due to viewing Trump as unfit for various reasons ("not a real conservative" is one that I've seen here).

The main key is that Trump is a very divisive candidate, which is an end result of a party being all over the place. But in a more local perspective, you can count on people (in general) being on the same page, which helps out a lot more when it comes to elections. And if that happens, it at least provides a good buffer from having a generally unpopular president running roughshod over everything.

ptown_trojans_1;1815666 wrote:Yeah, cause of the freaking Electoral College and the population makeup of the U.S.

People choosing to live where they live is a LIB'RUL BIAS!!!!!!

QuakerOats;1815675 wrote:I have no idea who will win. I think I just said that.

It won't be Trump.

I started a thread about the HRC presidency. When are you going to accept reality?

ptown_trojans_1;1815666 wrote:Yeah, cause of the freaking Electoral College and the population makeup of the U.S.

Nope. Didn't you know George Soro's personally paid to relocate millions of democrats to to high value electoral states so that the map would be stacked in the D's favor?

Seriously though the only way R's win another national election is to start flipping some blue states. That's only done by expanding the tent. A candidate like Trump only shrinks your tent and before it get's mentioned I don't care about 10k plus rally turnout. I will willingly concede that Trump provides a VERY passionate and loyal base but it is a narrow one. You cannot win at the national level by primarily appealing the conservative white straight rural male.

2016 will do, and has done, damage to the GOP brand at the national level (I still see the party doing very well as a regional party at the state and congressional levels) The candidate selection for 2020 will be crucial for the national brand.

sleeper;1815667 wrote:Gotcha. So you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

If I thought Trump might actually win, I'm taking ALL my money out of the markets a few days before the election.

sleeper;1815680 wrote:It won't be Trump.

I started a thread about the HRC presidency. When are you going to accept reality?

I will be happy to join the group over there at the appropriate time, if that occurs.

gut;1815684 wrote:If I thought Trump might actually win, I'm taking ALL my money out of the markets a few days before the election.

I will do the opposite. Rolling back obamaKare, rolling back obama's shackling regulations, and rolling back corporate taxes will bode well for growth. And if he/we can eliminate further threats and assaults from EPA, IRS, DOL, NLRB, OSHA, and MSHA, we will see incentive return for capex.

The differences between the two candidates could not be more stark in terms of economic growth.

QuakerOats;1815689 wrote:I will be happy to join the group over there at the appropriate time, if that occurs.

lol @ 'if'.

Looking forward to your chronic complaining for the next 8 years of an HRC presidency.

Why would I complain; she is the most qualified person ever for the presidency.

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.

Maybe it'll be those damn crossover voters.

like_that;1815649 wrote: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.

To be fair, Obama had two years of this and didn't do nearly what everyone thought he'd do with it.

sleeper;1815651 wrote:Kasich?

Fuck that guy with a pine cone.

QuakerOats;1815656 wrote:Clinton has a problem with motivating voters and her turnout will be less than obama '12.

This is likely more a result of the fact that notable minority groups have come out against her because of some of the ways she's used them.

QuakerOats;1815656 wrote:Everyone says Trump has no ground game; yet virtually every day he has 2 rallies which attract tens of thousands 'boots on the ground'. He does this without any 'celebrities' appearing either (as Clinton has to do to even get a few hundred).

All this really suggests is that he has a small group that is REALLY passionate about him becoming president. Clinton might easily have the wider vote base, but they may be far less passionate. Rallies do little to tell us who all is and is not voting.

QuakerOats;1815656 wrote:Maybe The Deplorables can overcome the democrat media complex, vote fraud, and a corrupt criminal candidate. Long odds.

The "Deplorables" play into it.

sleeper;1815657 wrote:Not to mention, the SCOTUS will be heavily blue for the next 40 years but the GOP wanted Trump.

I actually don't buy this. At least not the "five justices" issue. I know the average age of retirement or death, but given the people living longer than in the past, it wouldn't surprise me if it was just Scalia's spot and probably Ginsberg's. Ginsberg is already a Louie, so it's not like picking a liberal justice is a huge change there.

like_that;1815661 wrote:I don't think it was an anomaly. The democrats have a lot of flaws. They are just overshadowed during presidential elections due to the GOP being inept when it comes to pretty much everything they try to do.

FIFY

QuakerOats;1815663 wrote:If she wins, tens of millions of illegals will get citizenship and no republican will ever win again. We will have a revolution first.

And I thought the "mainstream media" was desperate. "No Republican will ever win again" is a pretty hilarious statement in a system where they only have one competitor each election.



I think this election should have a vBookie topic.