tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,669
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 1, 2016 10:43:05 GMT -5
Not an outlier. It is measuring something else. They are predicting the chance of victory, not measuring support. |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,775
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 1, 2016 10:46:49 GMT -5
Not an outlier. It is measuring something else. They are predicting the chance of victory, not measuring support. ok gotcha. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2016 11:13:12 GMT -5
i think the two polls posted above are on the upper end of where Clinton probably is. the NYT odds are a bit long on Clinton as well. 538 has her at 5:3, and i think that is reasonably accurate. DT got a 4% bounce from the convention. i think that HC will get about the same, and end up 3%. she is already up 3%, however, so she might end up getting 5%. the fact that DT is keeping the Democratic convention in the news is good for HC. |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,343
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 1, 2016 11:16:32 GMT -5
Hillary is better than Trump in just about every area that matters. The good news for Trump is that he's not the absolute worst. There is always that vile, disgusting POS Ted Cruz to look down on.  As much as I don't like Cruz, I'd be surprised if he wanted to buddy up with Russia just to win. |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,343
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 1, 2016 11:22:33 GMT -5
The Hillary Campaign can be boiled down to a single phrase: "He's worse than me". The problem for Hillary is that literally no one is worse than her. Not even Trump. Trump is worse than Hillary. But if you've been swallowing all the crap about Hillary for the past 20 years, yeah you might think that.
I think Trump is worse than every living US politician including Cruz. Now he may pale compared to his idols - Putin, Kim Jong II, etc. Not much of a comfort.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 1, 2016 11:30:19 GMT -5
Brilliant observation from a friend of mine: Donald Trump just succeeded in making a thick-accented muslim couple, complete with a woman in a hijab, the face of his opponent's campaign. Crazy like a fox, he is.  |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 1, 2016 11:31:41 GMT -5
Hillary is better than Trump in just about every area that matters. The good news for Trump is that he's not the absolute worst. There is always that vile, disgusting POS Ted Cruz to look down on. As much as I don't like Cruz, I'd be surprised if he wanted to buddy up with Russia just to win. FDR thought it good strategy. Oh, and it worked, btw. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 1, 2016 11:35:07 GMT -5
I use it because it's a good aggregator of relevant information with the added benefit that it is synthesized well-- and they have been 100% correct in everything they've said and predicted with one exception which we will find out in November: The Monster Vote. They've been right about everything so far. There's one final test... 
Look - I read the New Yorker for it's well written articles full of relevant information - but I fully admit it's a liberal publication and the articles are slanted to the left.
Being willfully blind to the bias in the media you consume makes you begin to think the whole world adheres to your particular world view, and this makes you intolerant to people who don't share that view, IMHO.
You are completely missing the point if you think that what I said amounts to "I just like it because they agree with me politically". The #MonsterVote theory is well-supported. To argue against it, once again I have to remind people: your argument must explain why the data from 8 prior elections will suddenly change? You have to explain, using data evidence, that it's not true "this time". |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2016 11:43:41 GMT -5
Look - I read the New Yorker for it's well written articles full of relevant information - but I fully admit it's a liberal publication and the articles are slanted to the left.
Being willfully blind to the bias in the media you consume makes you begin to think the whole world adheres to your particular world view, and this makes you intolerant to people who don't share that view, IMHO.
You are completely missing the point if you think that what I said amounts to "I just like it because they agree with me politically". The #MonsterVote theory is well-supported. To argue against it, once again I have to remind people: your argument must explain why the data from 8 prior elections will suddenly change? You have to explain, using data evidence, that it's not true "this time". well supported by what? |
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 1, 2016 11:53:39 GMT -5
Delusions.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,669
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 1, 2016 11:56:47 GMT -5
Look - I read the New Yorker for it's well written articles full of relevant information - but I fully admit it's a liberal publication and the articles are slanted to the left.
Being willfully blind to the bias in the media you consume makes you begin to think the whole world adheres to your particular world view, and this makes you intolerant to people who don't share that view, IMHO.
You are completely missing the point if you think that what I said amounts to "I just like it because they agree with me politically". The #MonsterVote theory is well-supported. To argue against it, once again I have to remind people: your argument must explain why the data from 8 prior elections will suddenly change? You have to explain, using data evidence, that it's not true "this time". You have put forth the "Monster Vote" theory many times. You have more than once made the claim that Trump will win in a landslide with more than 75 million votes. I have twice offered you a "loser-leaves-the-board" bet on that outcome. Come on, dude, put your mouth where your mouth is. Or are you still just all talk with nothing behind it? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2016 11:59:16 GMT -5
You are completely missing the point if you think that what I said amounts to "I just like it because they agree with me politically". The #MonsterVote theory is well-supported. To argue against it, once again I have to remind people: your argument must explain why the data from 8 prior elections will suddenly change? You have to explain, using data evidence, that it's not true "this time". You have put forth the "Monster Vote" theory many times. You have more than once made the claim that Trump will win in a landslide with more than 75 million votes. I have twice offered you a "loser-leaves-the-board" bet on that outcome. Come on, dude, put your mouth where your mouth is. Or are you still just all talk with nothing behind it? it won't surprise you to learn that i analyzed this theory. it has a few holes in it. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,669
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 1, 2016 12:00:48 GMT -5
You have put forth the "Monster Vote" theory many times. You have more than once made the claim that Trump will win in a landslide with more than 75 million votes. I have twice offered you a "loser-leaves-the-board" bet on that outcome. Come on, dude, put your mouth where your mouth is. Or are you still just all talk with nothing behind it? it won't surprise you to learn that i analyzed this theory. it has a few holes in it. Really? Huh. Shocking! |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,343
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 1, 2016 12:39:01 GMT -5
You have put forth the "Monster Vote" theory many times. You have more than once made the claim that Trump will win in a landslide with more than 75 million votes. I have twice offered you a "loser-leaves-the-board" bet on that outcome. Come on, dude, put your mouth where your mouth is. Or are you still just all talk with nothing behind it? it won't surprise you to learn that i analyzed this theory. it has a few holes in it. Its a very odd theory. They are using percent increase from primary participation to ge participation to guess at this "monster vote"? Odd. Primaries always have fewer voters than general elections. Turnout is often dependent who is running and how much impact a voter thinks they will have. Any look at multiple years of past primaries, which I did earlier this year, shows voter totals vary considerably. Same with the GE.
I liked how they ignored the primaries in 2008 and 2012 were within 2.7 million votes of each other and the GE votes were within 1.2 million. Using percentages is the wrong way to go if you actually want to be right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2016 13:59:06 GMT -5
it won't surprise you to learn that i analyzed this theory. it has a few holes in it. Its a very odd theory. They are using percent increase from primary participation to ge participation to guess at this "monster vote"? Odd. Primaries always have fewer voters than general elections. Turnout is often dependent who is running and how much impact a voter thinks they will have. Any look at multiple years of past primaries, which I did earlier this year, shows voter totals vary considerably. Same with the GE.
I liked how they ignored the primaries in 2008 and 2012 were within 2.7 million votes of each other and the GE votes were within 1.2 million. Using percentages is the wrong way to go if you actually want to be right.
the trick is finding a relevant comparison, and then testing the theory. 2000 is a reasonably good test. the GOP got 50% more primary votes, but LOST the popular vote in the GE. in 2008, Democrats got 2x the voter turnout in primaries, but only won by 7%. in 2016, the GOP barely got 10% more primary votes than Democrats. based on 2000 and 2008, they could either win OR lose. in other words, the primaries don't really indicate how the GE is likely to go. there is another half to this argument- and that is "voter turnout". high voter turnout is pretty much ALWAYS a loser for the GOP. if it were me, i would be praying for LOW VOTER TURNOUT, were i a Trump supporter. if turnout is high, as it was in 2008, he is very likely going to lose. (i now breathlessly await the lecture about how conservatives are going to turn out in record numbers this year to vote for a guy that most of them don't even like) |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 20, 2024 8:20:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 14:20:56 GMT -5
Hillary's Swing State Collapse:Florida: Quinnipiac University shows Clinton's lead over Trump in Florida has evaporated. Trump now leads 42% - 39% in Florida. I realize that ordinarily a 3 point lead isn't much- margin of error, and it would not be inaccurate to say that the race is a dead heat- ordinarily. However, this is an 11 point swing. Things are not moving in the right direction for Team HRC. There are two things that ought to be near-panic inducing if you're working for Hillary: 1. Trump will announce his VP pick soon, and this will give him a boost. It's hard to think of a VP candidate that would alarm voters when compared to Trump. Virtually ANY pick he makes is likely to quell concerns. 2. We're not to the convention yet. There'll be a bounce for Trump from the convention.3. That swing- 11 points. They'd better figure out which way the current is running- if it's still moving, a month from now Trump will be up 15 points. 4. The internals should strike terror into any Democrat: Ohio: 41 - 41 static
Pennsylvania: 43 - 41 - Trump moved up 2 points, Hillary stalled at 41. Iowa: 44 -42 the stunner here is that Hillary had a 14 point lead in June. Not sure there will be.
Trump has a famously small campaign staff that has proven itself not capable of managing the campaign very well. If the convention falls on it's face from sheer incompetence and unscripted foot-in-the-mouth moments, it will prove, to some voters, that Trump is not capable of running the country.
Additionally, there has been big talk from certain groups (like the KKK) that they will show up, armed and ready, in support of Trump, and big talk from opposition groups that they will also show up, armed and ready to defend themselves from the Trump supporters. I know guns won't be allowed inside the convention hall, but if things go south outside the convention hall, especially if the police or bystanders get injured as a result, some voters may decide Trump is too polarizing and will only tip the country into more civil unrest should he get elected.
I know he presents himself as the law and order candidate, but if lawlessness and injuries swirl in his wake, that title won't stick for any but his most hard core fans (who will see Trump as the poor victim of hostile attacks).
Now that the RNC is over, how many extra-ordinary gun problems were in evidence during the convention in the surrounding area ? Or was your post just more gun control hyperbole ? |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,775
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 1, 2016 15:28:50 GMT -5
Not sure there will be.
Trump has a famously small campaign staff that has proven itself not capable of managing the campaign very well. If the convention falls on it's face from sheer incompetence and unscripted foot-in-the-mouth moments, it will prove, to some voters, that Trump is not capable of running the country.
Additionally, there has been big talk from certain groups (like the KKK) that they will show up, armed and ready, in support of Trump, and big talk from opposition groups that they will also show up, armed and ready to defend themselves from the Trump supporters. I know guns won't be allowed inside the convention hall, but if things go south outside the convention hall, especially if the police or bystanders get injured as a result, some voters may decide Trump is too polarizing and will only tip the country into more civil unrest should he get elected.
I know he presents himself as the law and order candidate, but if lawlessness and injuries swirl in his wake, that title won't stick for any but his most hard core fans (who will see Trump as the poor victim of hostile attacks).
Now that the RNC is over, how many extra-ordinary gun problems were in evidence during the convention in the surrounding area ? Or was your post just more gun control hyperbole ? I believe I already replied to a similar comment of yours on a different thread, but in case that didn't 'stick' in your mind the first time, I put the lack of riots and blood shed at the RNC right at the feet of the CPD, who did a great job of keeping the different groups apart and who practiced a kinder, gentler form of crowd control that tamped down, rather than inflamed, the crowds.
Maybe you want to print this out and keep a copy in case you want to ask me the same thing a third time.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 1, 2016 16:26:12 GMT -5
You have put forth the "Monster Vote" theory many times. You have more than once made the claim that Trump will win in a landslide with more than 75 million votes. I have twice offered you a "loser-leaves-the-board" bet on that outcome. Come on, dude, put your mouth where your mouth is. Or are you still just all talk with nothing behind it? it won't surprise you to learn that i analyzed this theory. it has a few holes in it. What are the holes? I want to learn. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 1, 2016 16:28:13 GMT -5
Its a very odd theory. They are using percent increase from primary participation to ge participation to guess at this "monster vote"? Odd. Primaries always have fewer voters than general elections. Turnout is often dependent who is running and how much impact a voter thinks they will have. Any look at multiple years of past primaries, which I did earlier this year, shows voter totals vary considerably. Same with the GE.
I liked how they ignored the primaries in 2008 and 2012 were within 2.7 million votes of each other and the GE votes were within 1.2 million. Using percentages is the wrong way to go if you actually want to be right.
the trick is finding a relevant comparison, and then testing the theory. 2000 is a reasonably good test. the GOP got 50% more primary votes, but LOST the popular vote in the GE. in 2008, Democrats got 2x the voter turnout in primaries, but only won by 7%. in 2016, the GOP barely got 10% more primary votes than Democrats. based on 2000 and 2008, they could either win OR lose. in other words, the primaries don't really indicate how the GE is likely to go. there is another half to this argument- and that is "voter turnout". high voter turnout is pretty much ALWAYS a loser for the GOP. if it were me, i would be praying for LOW VOTER TURNOUT, were i a Trump supporter. if turnout is high, as it was in 2008, he is very likely going to lose. (i now breathlessly await the lecture about how conservatives are going to turn out in record numbers this year to vote for a guy that most of them don't even like) Are we going to talk about enthusiasm? |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 1, 2016 16:32:23 GMT -5
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,687
|
Post by swamp on Aug 1, 2016 16:35:14 GMT -5
when will he start posting half-naked on horseback shots? does naked wife count? |
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,780
|
Post by steff on Aug 1, 2016 17:23:35 GMT -5
I heard someone talk about the "monster vote" this morning! They called it the "invisible vote" but the premise was the same. Oneeee little issue tho..they said the "invisible/monster" vote would be for Hillary. That many rural voters (such as myself) who aren't Trump fans aren't vocal in their area because of the rabid Trump voters (seen it myself out here in dinky town Ga). That they are silent and will be voting for Hillary, setting her up to have millions more votes than are being estimated. so the "monster vote" might actually be real, but it's not on the side that Republicans want. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2016 17:24:43 GMT -5
nah. i would rather just stick to your theory, which is that turnout in the primary predicts turnout in the GE. you want to change the subject? |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,775
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 1, 2016 17:37:41 GMT -5
I heard someone talk about the "monster vote" this morning! They called it the "invisible vote" but the premise was the same. Oneeee little issue tho..they said the "invisible/monster" vote would be for Hillary. That many rural voters (such as myself) who aren't Trump fans aren't vocal in their area because of the rabid Trump voters (seen it myself out here in dinky town Ga). That they are silent and will be voting for Hillary, setting her up to have millions more votes than are being estimated. so the "monster vote" might actually be real, but it's not on the side that Republicans want. Steff I think we might live in the same dinky GA town.
Last POTUS election we ran about 89% GOP, I'm curious how it will look this year. Last time, there was a lot of letters to the editor of our little newspaper pro-GOP and anti-Dems; So far, haven't seen a single one. Although I haven't seen a single pro Hillary one, either.
Don't know yet if it's because not many can stomach supporting Trump publically or if it's just too early yet for the letters to the editors to start coming in.
We are a dinky, rural, very conservative and very religious town, but also very patriotic and supportive of our vets. The VFW hall is one of our social spots. I'm wondering how many of those patriotic voters have soured on Trump from his recent rampage. I don't know that they would vote for Hillary, but I can see them just not voting at all. Only voting day will show, I guess.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 1, 2016 17:53:27 GMT -5
nah. i would rather just stick to your theory, which is that turnout in the primary predicts turnout in the GE. you want to change the subject? The media seems to like the matchup between Mr. Khan and Mr. Trump better than Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. It seems the Democrats nominated the wrong person at their convention. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 20, 2024 8:20:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 17:58:53 GMT -5
I'll take that as a yes  Trump apparently started rumor ing the general will be fixed... |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 1, 2016 17:58:59 GMT -5
Right now I have a half dozen friends too timid to put a Trump sticker on their car because of the obvious threat of violence from the left which has manifested itself over the last year. The fact of the matter is, however, they will go vote for Trump. I answered the home phone just prior to the RNC-- it was Gravis. It was literally 30 minutes of some of the most tortured wording you've ever heard trying to coerce my approval, however slight, for Hillary. Not to mention- the collapse of the Hillary Clinton campaign is readily observable. In 2008 (in fairness to myself- I was NOT one of them back then) many Republicans were saying that the size of the rallies for Obama didn't matter. That political rallies don't translate into votes in November. They did, and they do. It is not insignificant that Trump draws enormous crowds.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,780
|
Post by steff on Aug 1, 2016 18:02:23 GMT -5
I heard someone talk about the "monster vote" this morning! They called it the "invisible vote" but the premise was the same. Oneeee little issue tho..they said the "invisible/monster" vote would be for Hillary. That many rural voters (such as myself) who aren't Trump fans aren't vocal in their area because of the rabid Trump voters (seen it myself out here in dinky town Ga). That they are silent and will be voting for Hillary, setting her up to have millions more votes than are being estimated. so the "monster vote" might actually be real, but it's not on the side that Republicans want. Steff I think we might live in the same dinky GA town.
Last POTUS election we ran about 89% GOP, I'm curious how it will look this year. Last time, there was a lot of letters to the editor of our little newspaper pro-GOP and anti-Dems; So far, haven't seen a single one. Although I haven't seen a single pro Hillary one, either.
Don't know yet if it's because not many can stomach supporting Trump publically or if it's just too early yet for the letters to the editors to start coming in.
We are a dinky, rural, very conservative and very religious town, but also very patriotic and supportive of our vets. The VFW hall is one of our social spots. I'm wondering how many of those patriotic voters have soured on Trump from his recent rampage. I don't know that they would vote for Hillary, but I can see them just not voting at all. Only voting day will show, I guess.
I'm between Atlanta & Athens (closer to Athens). Just one of many 1 light towns along the way. I remember last election I saw a ton of Romney signs & bumperstickers & 1 lone Obama bumper sticker. This time I have seen 1 Trump sign, but several rabid Trump supporters and not a single bumpersticker. I've seen THREE! Hillary bumperstickers. That gives me some hope. We did have a rabid Trumpster at the neighborhood bbq and he was campaigning HARD. Like he already knew it wasn't gonna work. I just avoided him like the plague that day. His yard is the lone Trump sign. I have heard more than I want to hear at the Farmer's Market, but it is old white guys. And it's more about why Hillary is bad instead of why we should vote for Trump. I just smile and try not to let my head explode. I wouldn't make much money that way. lol
My hubby & I are currently going rounds on me putting a Hillary sign in the yard. I do understand his concerns considering where we live, but damn I want to put one out there so bad I can't see straight. We've been playing window tag with the sign for now. I put it in the garage window facing the street, he moved it to the one facing the woods. I put it on the front balcony, he put it in the basement window facing the backyard. I'm hiding it while I'm gone on vacation. lol He's not against Hillary, in fact he says he knows she'll win, he's just not a politics guy. His party is "pedestrian" He's just passing thru. (his words)
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 1, 2016 18:21:12 GMT -5
I'll take that as a yes Trump apparently started rumor ing the general will be fixed... The fact that the system is rigged is no longer theory. Collusion between the DNC and the media has now been documented. You think that's changed for the general election? Ha! Here's the thing: it's not going to matter. Hillary Rodham Clinton will never, ever be President of the United States. She is a weak candidate in a party devastated by 8 years of the worst President since Jimmy Carter. With the fix in, she barely beat one 74 year old capital "I" Independent, but really socialist, from Vermont. Whereas, Trump just beat 16 well-known, accomplished Republican politicians-- some of the best men and women in politics, and arguably the best qualified field of candidates in modern times- 9 former governors- one the brother of the last Republican President who spent $130 million to get three delegates (and whose campaign most resembles HRC's). Trump faced opposition not merely from the candidates, but from the RNC itself (I'm sure if there were an RNC email -- it would look an awful lot like the DNC's activities), the media, the Democrats, and even some foreign leaders. It truly was (and is) Trump vs. the world. Trump's candidacy has exposed the UniParty fraud, and the people are determined to decide this race. Democrats and Independents are coming to a realization Republicans have had to face: there's no choice other than Trump. The UniParty isn't going to sit idly by after coming this close to losing control-- this close to we the people taking control of our politics for once- and do nothing. There will be teeth bared. There will be punishment meted out. Enough people are coming around to the idea that this isn't about Trump. It's not about Republican. It's not about identity politics. This is about us taking control of our politics and if the establishment wins-- we will never have another shot at taking control of our country again. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2016 18:30:12 GMT -5
nah. i would rather just stick to your theory, which is that turnout in the primary predicts turnout in the GE. you want to change the subject? The media seems to like the matchup between Mr. Khan and Mr. Trump better than Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. It seems the Democrats nominated the wrong person at their convention. sometimes you don't pick the fight. sometimes the fight picks you. |
|
