2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X

[Moonlit_Angel]

Except those complaints have come up frequently ever since he started running. It's less to do with the political bent of the site and more to do with the fact that people find these aspects of Trump legitimately concerning. So we're just curious how Trump supporters would explain or defend (or critique, if need be) those aspects of their candidate, aspects of Trump which an article shouldn't even need to expressly point out, because they've been on clear display from day one.

But your choice not to respond, I suppose.

Originally Posted by deep

I realize we all have bias, but what was your impression of the woman that spoke that runs the Eric Trump Charity Foundation?

I haven't yet watched her speech itself, but from what I've read about it thus far, I'd be curious to see how many people at that convention heard the part where she said LGBTQ lives matter.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

A liberal publication publishes an article critical of Trump citing a disaffected Republican.

Not going to spend time on it, just as I would expect others in the forum to brush off a Breibart article critical of Hillary citing a disaffected Democrat.

this is a fair point.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by deep

Looking more like Hillary is going to pick this guy


https://theintercept.com/2016/07/20/...port-to-banks/

But surely we can trust Hillary to handle Wall Street!

[namkcuR]

These nationwide polls are released fairly often, and recently they've shown more or less a deadheat between the two candidates, but nationwide polls can really only be indicative of the nationwide popular vote, which, as Al Gore can tell you, doesn't determine the winner of a presidential election in our electoral college system. It's the state polls, in a particular handful of states, that matter. You can argue it's a bad system if you want, but right now, it's what matters. And regardless of what the nationwide polls say, Donald Trump has a massive uphill battle ahead of him to make the electoral college math work in his favor, because in the big picture, the state polls haven't looked great for him.

Before even looking at these ten swing states:

Ohio
Pennsylvania
Florida
Virginia
North Carolina
Iowa
Wisconsin
Colorado
Nevada
New Hampshire

If you give every other state to the obvious candidate, Hillary starts with a 216-191 lead in the electoral collage, with 270 needed to win.

Now, let's look at those ten states. I will be using RealClearPolitics polling data.

For starters, let's look at Colorado and Wisconsin.

Colorado used to be pretty red, but Obama carried it twice. Hillary has led in six of the seven polls taken between November 2015 and now - five of those polls taken just this month - by an average margin of +8. It seems likely that she will carry Colorado.

In Wisconsin, Hillary has led ALL fifteen polls taken between August 2015 and now by an average margin of +5.6, which would seem to suggest that despite Governor Walker's conservative union-busting agenda(or maybe because of it), Wisconsin is Hillary's to lose.

Now let's look at Virginia, a state becoming more purple by the year. In twelve polls taken between July 2015 and now - four just in the last month - Hillary has led ten of them, with the other two being ties, by an average margin of +4.8.

In New Hampshire, Hillary has led in seventeen of the eighteen polls taken in the last year, the one she didn't win being a tie, by an average margin of +2.7.

Those four states carry a total of 36 electoral college votes, which would bring Hillary's total up 252 to Trump's 191.

If Hillary can carry those four states, she's 18 electoral college votes away. In addition, there's also Iowa and Nevada, two more states that Obama carried both times. Hillary has led in most of the polls in Iowa, even though Trump won the last two polls by a narrow margin. There doesn't seem to be much polling available yet for Nevada. But those are two states that Hillary should be able to win.

That's six states from which Hillary can get her total up into the 250s at least.

And that's without even talking about the big prizes of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

We're looking at an electoral map where Hillary can conceivably win carrying only one of those three states, while Trump would have to win all three of them and hold onto North Carolina, which we haven't talked about yet, to win.

North Carolina is a state Obama won in 2008 but lost in 2012. The transgender bathroom stuff has hurt Republicans there. There have been twenty polls there in the last year and Clinton and Trump have basically split it down the middle - nine Hillary victories, one tie, and ten Trump victories. But three of those Hillary victories were the three most recent polls, and the average margin for all the polls there is +2.0 for Hillary. It will be difficult, but NC is absolutely in play.

So Hillary is in a position where she doesn't even need the three biggest prizes as much as Trump does. Again, Trump may have to win ALL of those three states while NOT letting NC slip away.

All of this doesn't even take into consideration two wildcards that been talked about - New York and Arizona. Even here, the news is good for Hillary.

Trump people seem to think he can win NY because it's his home state, but that seems like a bit of pipe dream. She's led by double figures in all of the thirteen polls done in the last seven months, with an average margin of 18.0.

Meanwhile, the notion that Hillary could conceivably steal Arizona seems to have more credence. There's not as much polling from there, only five polls since March of this year, but Hillary led two of them and tied another, and the average margin there is currently in her favor, though it's a razor-thin +0.5.

Now, we're still three and a half months out from the election, things can change, there will be post-convention bumps, and polls will go up and down, but I just don't think the general trends are going to change all that much.

The state-polling, and thus the electoral college map, are massively in Hillary's favor, despite the national polls being close. I really think the only way she can lose is if too many of us on the left become so confident that we don't actually bother to vote ourselves. EVERYONE MUST VOTE.

[BigMacPhisto]

I think Clinton will have a fairly easy time picking up a bunch of the states that you just mentioned. For me, a Trump victory would require him to win Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. But I don't think that's really an absurd idea given the fact that the left isn't excited about Clinton and that polls are showing Trump getting fairly close to tipping those states.

All three of those states are brimming with white voters in the suburban and rural areas that are a perfect fit for what's Trump selling...so it's really a question of whether their turnout can counteract what will be going on in cities like Philadelphia, Cincinnati and Miami.

[namkcuR]

Like I said, if the left turns out, Hillary wins. Ohio and Florida will be close, but I'm quietly confident about Pennsylvania. She has the best margins there of the three states, and the state has gone Democrat in six straight presidential elections.

Also, don't forget about North Carolina. If she manages to win there, she can win the election while losing all of the big three. But I think she's almost guaranteed to win at least one of the three.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by deep

I realize we all have bias, but what was your impression of the woman that spoke that runs the Eric Trump Charity Foundation?

Are you talking about the woman in the recorded video?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by deep

The man has principles, one has to admire that.

Misguided principles in this case.

He'd put Trump in the White House if he were successful, which certainly would not make things better for the BLM movement. It would make things a million times worse.

[deep]

.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hITFfr...fIoWeAJkr34OnA

[deep]

Progressives warn Hillary Clinton: Don't pick Tim Kaine for vice president - Washington Times

[deep]

G E Smith Band
best ever for a GOP convention

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Misguided principles in this case.

He'd put Trump in the White House if he were successful, which certainly would not make things better for the BLM movement. It would make things a million times worse.

Why? Is Trump going to successfully pass anti-Civil Rights bills that bring back Jim Crow? Come on, now.

Blacks can't afford another Clinton Presidency after what happened in the nineties.

[deep]

Of course blacks along with all Americns will do better under a Trump Administration vs this status quo is extended

the young man thinks what's the difference, with Hillary he is a prop to be used, next week Hillary will trot out the families of recently shot black men, and if she needs them to be super predators for reelection, fine.

[BigMacPhisto]

Well, the one and only positive to her picking Tim Kaine is that it will basically end the dynasty nonsense. Had she picked anybody young, that person would be almost guaranteed to be President from 2025-2033 and so forth...Kaine would be a boring 66 year old white guy in a leftward moving party by the time the 2024 campaign rolled around. I think the floor would be wide open for challengers.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Why? Is Trump going to successfully pass anti-Civil Rights bills that bring back Jim Crow? Come on, now.



Blacks can't afford another Clinton Presidency after what happened in the nineties.

You really aren't fucking paying attention are you?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

I am paying attention. Clinton spearheaded welfare reform, mass incarceration and sent good working class jobs for the black community overseas via NAFTA. He was terrible for Black America and so was Hillary referring to young black males as "super predators"

Now, if you're talking about Trump's bluster and racist rhetoric...well, who cares? Yeah, it's awful and would screw with the discussion going on in this country, etc. but nobody actually plans to go along with him in building the fucking wall, banning Muslims, etc. It's just talk.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Kaine would be a boring 66 year old white guy

Says the guy that worshiped a 74 year old white guy


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

Didn't worship him. Was a lifelong Progressive before that. And he was obviously anything but boring...so, your point is?

Kaine, like Biden, will have nothing going for him. There will honestly be zero reason to make the guy the nominee unless you care heavily about passing the torch or about "experience"...I just can't imagine him exciting anyone in the party.

My guess is that the liberal heir apparent to Sanders, someone like Tulsi Gabbard will end up taking advantage of a three-way race between her, Kaine and Booker and there will be more than enough young people and liberals to get her over the top.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by BVS

Says the guy that worshiped a 74 year old white guy


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

dammit, you beat me.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

I It's just talk.

That's the thing, we don't know do we? He's a complete unknown, his temperament is that of a toddlers, what will power do to him? And his minions are out for blood, did you see what they did to Cruz? That gives him more reason to act on his rhetoric.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference