2016 US Presidential Election Thread 2 - Always Darkest before Don

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
Internet War Criminal said:
Closet conservative same with Rob Lowe but CA conservative is like blue dog democrat 90% of the time really
Click to expand...
The politics of it don't matter. I don't even understand why the people who agree with everything the man says and does bother backing him. The fat-faç'd fuck could fuck up a cup of coffee.

Brandobaris said:
Shouldn't people not be losing their shit if Trump is going to be doing so badly in the polls?
Click to expand...
No.

Things will be at least twice as bad as everybody thinks no matter who's elected.
 
TrippinKahlua said:
Oh yipee! I've found it! The clip from Maury Povich (this was just a short time before the show became 100% "You are not the father" bullshit) showing the actual side of Donald Trump.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6bY_QmA9Vu4
I saw this myself back then, I loved the Maury show when it still talked about people with deformities (as I, myself do), and I was pretty surprised Donald Trump would turn out to be this generous.
Click to expand...
A hot mic later captured him saying he would date that girl in 15 years but only if she wasn't disabled anymore.
 
Last edited:
Holdek said:
A hot mic later captured him saying he would date that girl in 15 years but only if she wasn't disabled anymore.
Click to expand...

And then grab her by the pussy

Unless there was blood coming out of her....wherever
 
Holdek said:
Huh? He's angry and embarassed that his party pissed away the presidential election by nominating an lolcow. Expect more of this, especially after election night.
Click to expand...

If Trump ends up winning then what?
 
An Ounce of Vagina said:
:story:I hope they try it, and I hope they resist when told by the cops to leave.
Click to expand...

Interesting how back in 2000 the contesting of the election was considered serious and a real issue when it was a Democrat, and now a Republican running might want to do the same thing, and people seem to be shocked or laughing about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

This whole Red vs Blue football fan stuff is pretty sad.
 
Brandobaris said:
Interesting how back in 2000 the contesting of the election was considered serious and a real issue when it was a Democrat, and now a Republican running might want to do the same thing, and people seem to be shocked or laughing about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

This whole Red vs Blue football fan stuff is pretty sad.
Click to expand...

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually do know the difference between contesting an election and standing outside a polling place while telling people to vote how you want or you'll hurt them.

But in case you don't know I'll tell you. One of those is a federal crime.
 
An Ounce of Vagina said:
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually do know the difference between contesting an election and standing outside a polling place while telling people to vote how you want or you'll hurt them.

But in case you don't know I'll tell you. One of those is a federal crime.
Click to expand...

You do know this isn't some isolated occurance that only happens now Trump is running right? It's happened before, it will happen again.

polls.png


I'm was talking about the general media reaction to the contest of the polls. But I'm sure you knew that.
 
PortsideDave said:
Maybe Clinton will be a one term president? She doesn't have the novelty of the first x president Obama had. Plus people are actually looking at her record. But maybe lizard queen will defy trends?
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt Clinton will make it to the end of her first term. The only thing even keeping her alive now is an unnatural will to be the first women president. There's also always a chance that darn "vast, right-wing conspiracy" will find something to get her impeached over( :optimistic:)

Keep in mind that she'd have to be re-elected, and go through another primary. A gentle-natured socialist jew had the potential to take her out, and there was a chance she'd lose to Trump. While Clinton basically controls the DNC, I'd think(hope) even they would be nervous running her again. If Romney or '08 McCain ran against Hillary, it'd be a Reagan/Mondale Blowout all over.

All this makes me miss Jeb!:heart-empty:
 
Brandobaris said:
Interesting how back in 2000 the contesting of the election was considered serious and a real issue when it was a Democrat, and now a Republican running might want to do the same thing, and people seem to be shocked or laughing about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

This whole Red vs Blue football fan stuff is pretty sad.
Click to expand...

Except Bush vs Gore was extremely close throughout the entire race and the difference in winning Florida was only by about 500 votes.

There aren’t really any direct precedents for a candidate coming back from this far down to win an American presidential election, although you can make a few loose analogies.

Harry Truman’s comeback over Thomas Dewey in 1948 almost works as a comparison, but Truman wasn’t coming from as far behind as Trump is, and there was much less polling in 1948.

Ronald Reagan had a significant late surge against Jimmy Carter in 1980, but he was ahead beforehand — and the surge came in large part because of a debate that occurred just one week before the election, whose impact was too late to be fully reflected in the polls. If Trump was going to have a Reaganesque surge, in other words, it probably would have started with a commanding performance in last night’s debate — and not another loss.

As for Brexit, Even that comparison doesn’t really work. The final polls showed a toss-up between the United Kingdom leaving the European Union or remaining in it, and “leave” eventually won by 4 points. If the polls were biased against Trump by that much in this election, he’d still lose, by a margin approximating the one by which Mitt Romney lost to President Obama four years ago. The primaries? They’re a reminder that one ought to be humble when making predictions. But the polls pegged Trump just fine — in fact, slightly overestimating his performance in many early states such as Iowa.

That being said there was nothing flashy about Clinton’s performance at either the convention or the debates. She was just prepared, steady and tactically smart — such as goading Trump into feuds with the family of Khizr Khan, or Pussygate. Trump might seem like an easy opponent to take down, and he certainly hasn’t helped himself. But as Trump himself would probably point out, 16 Republicans failed to do so. We won’t know for sure for another 19 days, but Clinton may have finished him off last night.
 
Pikimon said:
There aren’t really any direct precedents for a candidate coming back from this far down to win an American presidential election, although you can make a few loose analogies.
Click to expand...

I dunno, if the polls are anything like MSNBC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CBS, NBC, etc etc coverage of Hillary vs Trump I'd sooner trust some random guy from India calling up people in the US one by one to get more accurate polling results. Why would most popular polls posted here say Clinton is at least 7 points ahead, and yet when you go to lesser known polls Trump is leading 2-3 points?

I mean if I read nothing but these 411 polls I see posted here then everyone in America is agreed that Trump will be a terrible President and he should have 3 guys show up to his rallies and thats it.
 
Brandobaris said:
Why would most popular polls posted here say Clinton is at least 7 points ahead, and yet when you go to lesser known polls Trump is leading 2-3 points?
Click to expand...

Because those are individual polls, as in individual data points that are useless by themselves, picking and choosing which polls are unbiased based on which ones paint a more rosy picture of the election for your candidate is not only severely naive but very close to denying reality.

The reason that statistical analyses exist such as fivethirtyeight, Princeton, NYtimes, Sabato, etc. is to calculate the chances that an election will go to a certain candidate by utilizing basic statistical analysis that utilizes all the polls including ones like Rammusen that often show Trump ahead.

Trump has a very low chance of winning the election.

He has no ground game in any of the swing states.
He has little to no volunteer force to help register and garner support.
He tanked all three debates.
He's had non-stop daily scandals for the past three weeks.
Has not widened his support base beyond the rural white non-college educated vote, and pushed away any potential minority or women voters from supporting his cause.
Managed to lose ground and support in formerly solid red states such as Texas, Georgia and Alaska.

And now, ironically because of Trump's insistent claim that the entire election is rigged, his own supporters are losing enthusiasm and becoming despondent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17457289.2016.1223677
 
Brandobaris said:
Wait really? Tanked as in lost?
Click to expand...


yes

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-new...n-final-presidential-debate-clinton-or-trump/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polls-hillary-clinton-won-debates-election-2016-donald-trump/


Trump has proudly brandished unscientific online polls that showed him to be the winner of the debates, but those surveys weren’t methodologically sound (there was no sampling process, for example, and many of the polls allowed respondents to vote as many times as they wished.)

According to polls conducted using traditional statistical techniques, the conclusion that Clinton won is not seriously in dispute.
Click to expand...


After the first debate, a CNN/ORC poll found that 62 percent of those who watched thought Clinton won – only 27 percent awarded the victory to Trump. APolitico/Morning Consult poll after the first debate also gave the win to Clinton, 49 to 26 percent.

The second debate, again, went to Clinton by a 57 to 34 percent margin, according to CNN’s survey. Politico’s poll also showed Clinton beating Trump in the second debate, 42 to 28 percent.

And after the third debate, our CBS News Battleground Tracker number found that 49 percent of voters in 13 states identified as battlegrounds who watched the debate thought Clinton won the final bout. 39 percent said Trump won. A CNN poll reported similar findings.

As the debates progressed, Clinton’s standing in head-to-head polls against Trump steadily improved. On September 26, the day of the first debate, Clinton was 2.3 points ahead of Trump in a two-way race, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. By October 9, the day of the second debate, Clinton was up by an average of 4.6 percent. And by yesterday, on the eve of the final debate, Clinton’s average lead had swelled to 6.5 percent.

So Clinton was judged the winner of the debates, and over the course of the debate season, her standing among voters has improved markedly. But correlation isn’t necessarily causation, and we should be careful not to blame her rising numbers on the debates alone.

There’s no denying Clinton had some strong moments in the debate that may have helped her – her attacks on Trump’s tax returns, his remarks about women, and his temperament targeted Trump on issues that voters have already identified as weaknesses. And Trump likely did himself no favors with his promise to prosecute Clinton, if he’s elected, and his refusal to say he’d accept the election results if he doesn’t win.
Click to expand...


b11.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom