2016 Presidential Election Map

[barn32]

2016 Presidential Election Map

At the following website (http://www.270towin.com/) you can make your own electoral college map. (I'm assuming it will be Trump vs Clinton.) I've posted one of mine below. Feel free to point out any errors or disagreements.

Note that I have given Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan to the democrats. I gave Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico to the republicans. Switching Ohio with Virginia and West Virginia gets the same results.

Doing things this way makes the race is a virtual toss-up. Change a few states here and there and you have your winner.

Remember, the presidential election is nothing more than fifty individual state elections that add up to 270 electoral votes.

Go ahead and make your own map.

http://i63.tinypic.com/1zwynb4.jpg

[barahona44]

Did Iowa and Wyoming secede from the Union? :)

[barn32]

Did Iowa and Wyoming secede from the Union? :)A toss-up, in my opinion.

[Rookies]

Today, being very conservative, :lol: , I have Hillary up:

260-249.

The usual suspects are where they should be.
Also, giving Virginia to the Dems, Michigan clearly to the Dems post poisoned H2O, Nevada & N.M. based on pop.
Iowa, Wiconsin, N.C. to Trump & Ohio same- but only, if he selects Kasich V.P.

Florida is the chad toss up.

I will revamp down the road, two weeks out.

Had a perfect call in 2008 & one State off in 2012.

[barn32]

Also, giving Virginia to the Dems, Michigan clearly to the Dems post poisoned H2O, Nevada & N.M. based on pop.
I live in Nevada. I think Trump will win here.

Also, the republicans pretty much have to win Florida. They can win without it, but they'll have to win two or three of the Northern states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana) to overcome it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

A toss-up, in my opinion.

Wyoming is pretty conservative, and a mining state where anyone who thinks climate change is a critical issue to address is toast. Wyoming is dead red. Colorado, Nevada and Virginia are much more likely as swing states and I'd lean them blue.

[classhandicapper]

Did Iowa and Wyoming secede from the Union? :)

If someone secedes please let me know. I want to move there.

[ReplayRandall]

The map sits at Dem- 217 GOP- 191

For Dem's to win, all that's needed is FLA, PA and NH, total comes exactly 270 to win.

GOP must win either FLA or PA to block, or it's over.....

[barahona44]

The map sits at Dem- 217 GOP- 191

For Dem's to win, all that's needed is FLA, PA and NH, total comes exactly 270 to win.

GOP must win either FLA or PA to block, or it's over.....

Jeez,not another "eight toss up states" election.Can't states take turns being toss up states? :)

[barn32]

Wyoming is pretty conservative, and a mining state where anyone who thinks climate change is a critical issue to address is toast. Wyoming is dead red. Colorado, Nevada and Virginia are much more likely as swing states and I'd lean them blue.Actually, I think I had Wyoming and Colorado backwards. Good point. I also turned Virginia blue and left Nevada red. But to make it even I had give Ohio to the republicans, which it looks like they are going to have to win anyway.

Now notice that one lone state such as Iowa can swing the entire election.

http://i68.tinypic.com/6ycf40.jpg

[classhandicapper]

After I looked at that map and started playing around, I threw up in my mouth. IMO, it's going to be tough for the republicans to win.

[rastajenk]

It's too bad they don't allocate electoral votes based on square mileage.

[barn32]

After I looked at that map and started playing around, I threw up in my mouth. IMO, it's going to be tough for the republicans to win.Why? What does your map look like?

[classhandicapper]

Why? What does your map look like?

It's not that much different than yours, but I think Florida and especially Ohio and PA are going to be tough to pull off. Maybe if Kasich is VP they can get Ohio, but that's a big if.

[classhandicapper]

It's too bad they don't allocate electoral votes based on square mileage.

Too bad we can't break it up into 3 countries so everyone could be happy except those that like to ram their values down everyone's else's throat.

[Actor]

It's too bad they don't allocate electoral votes based on square mileage.You want Alaska and Texas to run the country?

If so then the logical nominees for the G.O.P. would be Palin for Prez and Cruz for Veep.

When there were only thirteen states New York and Virginia would have run things.

[Actor]

Too bad we can't break it up into 3 countries so everyone could be happy except those that like to ram their values down everyone's else's throat.Why 3?

[barahona44]

It's too bad they don't allocate electoral votes based on square mileage.
Wyoming has .0013 % of the population but.0056% of the electoral votes, thus it electoral vote value is 4.3 per person.
California has 12.1% of the nation's population but only 10.2% of the electoral college ,so it's electoral vote value is .84 per person.
Granted these are the two extremes of the population but it proves that populous states are getting screwed in the Electoral College system.To me, the electoral college does provide balance as against a popular vote which would mean only the 10-12 largest states would get all the attention.
Those small states may be Trump's best path to victory in November.I wouldn't be surprised if we had a rerun of 2000 with one candidate winning the popular vote and the other the Electoral College.

[reckless]

Wyoming has .0013 % of the population but.0056% of the electoral votes, thus it electoral vote value is 4.3 per person.
California has 12.1% of the nation's population but only 10.2% of the electoral college ,so it's electoral vote value is .84 per person.
Granted these are the two extremes of the population but it proves that populous states are getting screwed in the Electoral College system.To me, the electoral college does provide balance as against a popular vote which would mean only the 10-12 largest states would get all the attention.
Those small states may be Trump's best path to victory in November.I wouldn't be surprised if we had a rerun of 2000 with one candidate winning the popular vote and the other the Electoral College.

This is silly statistical-based illogic.

Trump will win those states that their voters feel that illegal immigration is the important issue of the campaign -- Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and many others.

Trump will win those states where their voters feel globalization, unfair trade deals, serious drug problems of their children, and the current run-away liberal agenda which has negatively affected their way of life. Trump puts into play or wins outright states such as New Hampshire, Illinois, Massachusetts, Indiana and a few others.

Trump will win those states where their voters believe the main issues are good paying union jobs, defense and national security, gun rights, and state and individual sovereignty, such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

Trump will also win those states where the voters feel it is important to have accomplished something, such as the things Trump has accomplished, as opposed to a serial failure and corrupted Hillary Clinton. New York comes to mind.

[barn32]

There is a statistical analyst on CNN (John King) who is pretty sharp, and he went over the electoral map Trump vs Clinton tonight with an interesting take.

He gives New Mexico and Nevada to Clinton because of the Hispanic vote, but conceded that Pennsylvania and Michigan could possibly be in play. So with a Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania win that would put Trump over the top.

As far as New York is concerned I think there is an outside chance Trump could win New York, while Cruz would have no chance whatsoever.

http://i63.tinypic.com/30rxlwm.jpg

[barahona44]

This is silly statistical-based illogic.

Trump will win those states that their voters feel that illegal immigration is the important issue of the campaign -- Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and many others.

Trump will win those states where their voters feel globalization, unfair trade deals, serious drug problems of their children, and the current run-away liberal agenda which has negatively affected their way of life. Trump puts into play or wins outright states such as New Hampshire, Illinois, Massachusetts, Indiana and a few others.

Trump will win those states where their voters believe the main issues are good paying union jobs, defense and national security, gun rights, and state and individual sovereignty, such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

Trump will also win those states where the voters feel it is important to have accomplished something, such as the things Trump has accomplished, as opposed to a serial failure and corrupted Hillary Clinton. New York comes to mind.
The only place where Hillary Clinton will get a higher % of the vote than Massachusetts is Washington D.C.I've lived here all my life and people are not buying what Trump is selling.

[barahona44]

One thing that's being overlooked is that Trump is a major party candidate who is runnng a third party campaign.In that sense,he is more like Ross Perot, George Wallace or Ralph Nader than George Bush (both of them),Bob Dole or John McCain. It's his strength and his weakness,so I think trying to apply historical precedents to his candidacy isn't always going to yield predictable results.Right now, the demographics favor Clinton but there are a few things that are going to occur if he wants to win .First the convention in Cleveland.If there's problems outside the convention hall, a la 1968 Chicago,it will hurt Trump badly especially since he was idiotic enough (sorry, I don't have time to be politically correct :) ) to predict rioting at the convention.Second, will be his choice of vice president.Believe it or not faithful PA readers, there are a few people who think that Trump is out to lunch.If he could get Kasich on board, that would reassure some people that there will be a grownup supervising the playground.Third the debates.If Trump again does the insults and the gestures and emptying the water bottle on the stage, he loses.He will have to answer legitimate questions in a legitimate way, criticizing the question/questioner only goes so far..This is a battle for the independents in the swing states.He can't let his ego get the better of him

[zico20]

No republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio. Trump must win Ohio AND Florida or he has no shot at all. If you take all the states Romney won and add Ohio and Florida that brings Trump up to 253 electoral votes. Trump will have to pull in 16 more votes to win the presidency. Virginia is close to a must, bringing him to 266. Trump then will have to win ONE more swing state. Those are Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, or possibly Wisconsin or New Hampshire.

If Trump wins any other blue state that Obama won then it will be a land slide for him. Trump has no shot in New Mexico. Bush won it once, but it is not a swing state. It is solidly blue. No Republican will ever win Pennsylvania and lose Ohio, just won't happen. Pretty much the same with Michigan. If Michigan votes Republican then it is a route.

[zico20]

There is a statistical analyst on CNN (John King) who is pretty sharp, and he went over the electoral map Trump vs Clinton tonight with an interesting take.

He gives New Mexico and Nevada to Clinton because of the Hispanic vote, but conceded that Pennsylvania and Michigan could possibly be in play. So with a Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania win that would put Trump over the top.

As far as New York is concerned I think there is an outside chance Trump could win New York, while Cruz would have no chance whatsoever.

http://i63.tinypic.com/30rxlwm.jpg

You cannot put Pennsylvania in red. Please change that. New York is not going to vote Republican even if Hillary is in jail at the time.

[zico20]

This is silly statistical-based illogic.

Trump will win those states that their voters feel that illegal immigration is the important issue of the campaign -- Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and many others.

Trump will win those states where their voters feel globalization, unfair trade deals, serious drug problems of their children, and the current run-away liberal agenda which has negatively affected their way of life. Trump puts into play or wins outright states such as New Hampshire, Illinois, Massachusetts, Indiana and a few others.

Trump will win those states where their voters believe the main issues are good paying union jobs, defense and national security, gun rights, and state and individual sovereignty, such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

Trump will also win those states where the voters feel it is important to have accomplished something, such as the things Trump has accomplished, as opposed to a serial failure and corrupted Hillary Clinton. New York comes to mind.

Massachusetts. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: New York gets four :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Illinois gets two :lol: :lol: Michigan gets one :lol:

Reckless, you are looking at some of these states through rose colored glasses. It would be like Mostpost saying Hillary could win Kansas, Idaho, Tennessee, or Alaska. Just won't happen.

All trump has to do is win one of those states above and he would win 350-400 electoral votes.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There is a statistical analyst on CNN (John King) who is pretty sharp, and he went over the electoral map Trump vs Clinton tonight with an interesting take.

He gives New Mexico and Nevada to Clinton because of the Hispanic vote, but conceded that Pennsylvania and Michigan could possibly be in play. So with a Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania win that would put Trump over the top.

As far as New York is concerned I think there is an outside chance Trump could win New York, while Cruz would have no chance whatsoever.

http://i63.tinypic.com/30rxlwm.jpg
Hillary was New York's Senator. Trump really has no advantage in NY. Plus, he's not that popular in the City. He might do better upstate.

[ReplayRandall]

Hillary was New York's Senator. Trump really has no advantage in NY. Plus, he's not that popular in the City. He might do better upstate.

On the map, they have Colorado as a toss-up, what say you?

[reckless]

Massachusetts. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: New York gets four :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Illinois gets two :lol: :lol: Michigan gets one :lol:

Reckless, you are looking at some of these states through rose colored glasses. It would be like Mostpost saying Hillary could win Kansas, Idaho, Tennessee, or Alaska. Just won't happen.

All trump has to do is win one of those states above and he would win 350-400 electoral votes.

About Illinois and New York, I really said that Trump has a shot there. He'd put it in play where no other GOP candidate could, especially Ted Cruz.

When it comes to Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, those states could easily go to Trump because of his positions on fixing the trade inbalance which will return good manufacturing union jobs to the USA and gun rights.

Most importantly, Trump will be a major factor in many historically blue states that Romney and McCain lost and that Ted Cruz simply cannot win. Trump will also bring back many of the 5 million Republican voters that supposedly stayed home and didn't vote for Romney in 2012.

[rastajenk]

It's too bad they don't allocate electoral votes based on square mileage.
I wasn't really proposing a change or crunching numbers. I was just looking at the map. So big an area, so many people, having to suffer the dictates of the coastal elites that seemingly hate their very being. I would never support a change to the electoral college system we have; but the way we have evolved, it's just sad.

[lamboguy]

all over television i am hearing from the analyst's how mean and hateful Trump is.

these are part of the same media that take the polls. if you can't trust the poll takers how can you trust the polls?

same thing goes for the oddsmaker's. they have Hillary Clinton as 5/2 favorite over Trump, yet go to bet with them and they will all tell you they are only taking very limited wager's, like $100 or $200 per number. again if you can't trust the oddsmaker, how can you trust the odds?

for those interested, the only oddsmaker i have any use for is THEGREEK.COM, and they have this election off the board right now.

[classhandicapper]

The one point I will make (that I've made before) is that Trump is not running a standard conservative campaign.

He has been anti trade deals, has been making the case that illegal immigration is impacting American jobs and incomes, does not want to touch social security, has been very pro vet, does not want to spend heavily or get involved much in militarily action overseas, and seems very willing to cover everyone with health insurance (though no real details about how to do that other than imaginary savings).

If you go to the public with that agenda, plus pro life, pro 2nd amendment, and don't act like a lunatic, you are going to keep most republicans and bring in a BOATLOAD of independents and democrats. In fact, if he wasn't so over the top in his rhetoric about Mexicans and Muslims etc..., he'd probably be crushing in a total landslide now and have the democrats shaking their boots. That agenda opens up a BUNCH of marginal states that normally go blue. It's that he behaves like an idiot that is causing him problems.

[barahona44]

all over television i am hearing from the analyst's how mean and hateful Trump is.

these are part of the same media that take the polls. if you can't trust the poll takers how can you trust the polls?

same thing goes for the oddsmaker's. they have Hillary Clinton as 5/2 favorite over Trump, yet go to bet with them and they will all tell you they are only taking very limited wager's, like $100 or $200 per number. again if you can't trust the oddsmaker, how can you trust the odds?

for those interested, the only oddsmaker i have any use for is THEGREEK.COM, and they have this election off the board right now.
So there's a media conspiracy against Donald Trump?

Gee, where have I heard that line before?

Could someone refresh my memory? :D

[PaceAdvantage]

So there's a media conspiracy against Donald Trump?

Gee, where have I heard that line before?

Could someone refresh my memory? :DIt's a weird kind of conspiracy though. Some say the media wants Trump to win the nomination for ratings and to help Hillary win since they think she will crush him, others say the media is going after Trump because they don't want him to have the nomination...'cause he's Hitler and all that jazz.

The dance continues, as it always does.

[lamboguy]

So there's a media conspiracy against Donald Trump?

Gee, where have I heard that line before?

Could someone refresh my memory? :Dthis is the same as if you go to a race track and start listening to tout's. any tout that knows anything ain't telling you, that i know. my example is when i used to go to Saratoga race course every single day. i went every single morning to Woody Stevens,
Scotty Schulhofer or Tommy Bohannan's barn to watch their 2 year olds train and watch them work.

when i got to the track in the afternoon, people used to tout me on different horses. i used to write them all down because i wanted to make sure that the horse that i was betting on was not the same as the touts. sometimes in the race that i was betting on i had 5 different horses touted to me and none were the one that i was going to make my wager on. when that happened i doubled my bet on the horse that i was betting.

i did very well for the years that i followed this system and only bet on 1 or 2 races a day. but the same misinformation happens in the media. i don't know if its intentional or they just don't know. my guess is that they just don't know.

for this election we have Trump that is a borderline genius, and the guy in the back room feeding him his moves is a genius. they are playing the media like a fiddle so far and looks like they are going to eat them up for lunch when this is all over.

[zico20]

this is the same as if you go to a race track and start listening to tout's. any tout that knows anything ain't telling you, that i know. my example is when i used to go to Saratoga race course every single day. i went every single morning to Woody Stevens,
Scotty Schulhofer or Tommy Bohannan's barn to watch their 2 year olds train and watch them work.

when i got to the track in the afternoon, people used to tout me on different horses. i used to write them all down because i wanted to make sure that the horse that i was betting on was not the same as the touts. sometimes in the race that i was betting on i had 5 different horses touted to me and none were the one that i was going to make my wager on. when that happened i doubled my bet on the horse that i was betting.

i did very well for the years that i followed this system and only bet on 1 or 2 races a day. but the same misinformation happens in the media. i don't know if its intentional or they just don't know. my guess is that they just don't know.

for this election we have Trump that is a borderline genius, and the guy in the back room feeding him his moves is a genius. they are playing the media like a fiddle so far and looks like they are going to eat them up for lunch when this is all over.

Kind of like Jay Trotter in "Let it ride" when he went out and took a survey on who everyone liked. Nobody liked the three so that is who he bet.

[barn32]

Hillary was New York's Senator. Trump really has no advantage in NY. Plus, he's not that popular in the City. He might do better upstate.Hillary Clinton is a carpetbagger.

I've been talking to some New Yorkers and the consensus I get is that New York is a toss-up. This is by no means any kind of conclusive analysis, and even though, at this point in time New York is a longshot, I'm not counting Trump out with seven months to go. I think he has some support there.

Trump is at 64% in the polls for the New York primary.

Kasich has to bow out soon, probably after some of the Eastern primaries, but I don't necessarily see him throwing his support to Cruz. He's much more likely to just wait in the wings and see what happens.

But wouldn't it be a shocker for him to throw his support to Trump.

[zico20]

Hillary Clinton is a carpetbagger.

I've been talking to some New Yorkers and the consensus I get is that New York is a toss-up. This is by no means any kind of conclusive analysis, and even though, at this point in time New York is a longshot, I'm not counting Trump out with seven months to go. I think he has some support there.

Trump is at 64% in the polls for the New York primary.

Kasich has to bow out soon, probably after some of the Eastern primaries, but I don't necessarily see him throwing his support to Cruz. He's much more likely to just wait in the wings and see what happens.

But wouldn't it be a shocker for him to throw his support to Trump.

If New York is a toss up Trump will win 43-45 states overall. Hillary will win New York by 20 points. It would be the same as saying Texas is a toss up. If that would be the case, Hillary would win over 40 states. People need to get New York out of their heads and focus on the swing states that will determine the election.

[barahona44]

Hillary Clinton is a carpetbagger.

I've been talking to some New Yorkers and the consensus I get is that New York is a toss-up. This is by no means any kind of conclusive analysis, and even though, at this point in time New York is a longshot, I'm not counting Trump out with seven months to go. I think he has some support there.

Trump is at 64% in the polls for the New York primary.

Kasich has to bow out soon, probably after some of the Eastern primaries, but I don't necessarily see him throwing his support to Cruz. He's much more likely to just wait in the wings and see what happens.

But wouldn't it be a shocker for him to throw his support to Trump.
Trump should try and get Kasich as his vice president.Most elections, the VP choice isn't that big a deal, but given Trump's negatives, his vice president selection is important;Kasich counters a lot of those issues.He's serious, to the point of almost seeming sour, has an impressive resume, would just about guarantee Ohio and Trump didn't get on him during the debates, so bad blood isn't an issue . What may hold Kasich from accepting is his future plans.If Trump loses in November, that would probably wreck any hopes Kasich have of making a future presidential run.

[barahona44]

The one point I will make (that I've made before) is that Trump is not running a standard conservative campaign.

He has been anti trade deals, has been making the case that illegal immigration is impacting American jobs and incomes, does not want to touch social security, has been very pro vet, does not want to spend heavily or get involved much in militarily action overseas, and seems very willing to cover everyone with health insurance (though no real details about how to do that other than imaginary savings).

If you go to the public with that agenda, plus pro life, pro 2nd amendment, and don't act like a lunatic, you are going to keep most republicans and bring in a BOATLOAD of independents and democrats. In fact, if he wasn't so over the top in his rhetoric about Mexicans and Muslims etc..., he'd probably be crushing in a total landslide now and have the democrats shaking their boots. That agenda opens up a BUNCH of marginal states that normally go blue. It's that he behaves like an idiot that is causing him problems.
The problem is that you can't separate the two. Trump came to prominience BECAUSE of the Mexican/Muslim comments.That separated him from the rest of the field and set the tone for his campaign.Without those comments, he's getting Christie/Kasich numbers. Maybe.

[MutuelClerk]

Trump can win Michigan. Especially if he plays the fire Snyder card. People here are still pissed over NAFTA and all the manufacturing jobs that left this region. He will create jobs. That goes a long way here.

[barn32]

I'm changing my map and putting Michigan and New Hampshire in play.

http://i67.tinypic.com/331qaab.jpg

[ReplayRandall]

I'm changing my map and putting Michigan and New Hampshire in play.

http://i67.tinypic.com/331qaab.jpg

According to your map, the GOP only needs Michigan to win, the DEMS need Michigan and either NH or Iowa for victory.....if GOP wins NH and Iowa, it's a tie at 269 all.

[rastajenk]

That would be cool.

[barn32]

I have a question for anyone here, but especially the democrats. Other than the states I have greyed out does anyone disagree with the states I have marked in red?

http://i68.tinypic.com/2vxptuo.jpg

[barahona44]

I have a question for anyone here, but especially the democrats. Other than the states I have greyed out does anyone disagree with the states I have marked in red?

http://i68.tinypic.com/2vxptuo.jpg
Looks accurate to me.

[Dahoss2002]

If Trump is the republican candidate, I think there will be some surprise "Red" states

[lamboguy]

Trump should try and get Kasich as his vice president.Most elections, the VP choice isn't that big a deal, but given Trump's negatives, his vice president selection is important;Kasich counters a lot of those issues.He's serious, to the point of almost seeming sour, has an impressive resume, would just about guarantee Ohio and Trump didn't get on him during the debates, so bad blood isn't an issue . What may hold Kasich from accepting is his future plans.If Trump loses in November, that would probably wreck any hopes Kasich have of making a future presidential run.my guess for a Trump VP would be Condoleezza Rice. she seems to be the brightest light from the prior republican administration. no idea if she would want it or not.

[barn32]

my guess for a Trump VP would be Condoleezza Rice. she seems to be the brightest light from the prior republican administration. no idea if she would want it or not.No way. She falls too heavily into that Cheney, Rumsfeld" weapons of mass destruction" crowd and would be too much of a drag on the ticket.

Trump needs someone who is "Trumpesque" and possibly not even a politician.

[PaceAdvantage]

Looks accurate to me.I don't know...if Trump is the nominee, Idaho may be off the board given last night's results.

[reckless]

No way. She falls too heavily into that Cheney, Rumsfeld" weapons of mass destruction" crowd and would be too much of a drag on the ticket.

Trump needs someone who is "Trumpesque" and possibly not even a politician.

I am with you there Barn32. My original VP pick that would have fit the bill is the great Rick Perry but he's a toss now because of the temerity of being considered a 3rd Party candidate to run against The Donald, Trump.

So, what better candidate than the great John Bolton? Smart, tough, expert on foreign affairs -- a perfect fit for Trump and the dangerous times we are in.

[mostpost]

Massachusetts. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: New York gets four :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Illinois gets two :lol: :lol: Michigan gets one :lol:
That's fairly accurate but I would say Illinois gets three maybe four :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:. Our idiot governor is doing nothing if not solidifying the Democratic base.
Reckless, you are looking at some of these states through rose colored glasses. It would be like Mostpost saying Hillary could win Kansas, Idaho, Tennessee, or Alaska. Just won't happen.
Even I do not think she can win those states.
All trump has to do is win one of those states above and he would win 350-400 electoral votes.
Trump won't get 350-400 electoral votes if he wins all of those states.

[barahona44]

I don't know...if Trump is the nominee, Idaho may be off the board given last night's results.It's hard to get much more Republican than Idaho, some may stay home but most will come out and vote for Trump even if it's the old "hold my nose while I pull the lever" voter.

[Tor Ekman]

Below is how Trump wins a squeaker, and if he flips a PA and/or Michigan he wins comfortably


http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/5BDYE.png (http://www.270towin.com/maps/5BDYE)
http://www.270towin.com/uploads/3rd_party_270_30px.png Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com (http://www.270towin.com/maps/5BDYE)[/HTML]

[reckless]

Below is how Trump wins a squeaker, and if he flips a PA and/or Michigan he wins comfortably


http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/5BDYE.png (http://www.270towin.com/maps/5BDYE)
http://www.270towin.com/uploads/3rd_party_270_30px.png Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com (http://www.270towin.com/maps/5BDYE)[/HTML]

I am convinced Donald J. Trump wins both Pennsylvania and Michigan and also puts traditionally blue states in play that G.W. Bush, Romney, McCain, and especially Ted Cruz could not do.

Because Hillary! is on record for Gun Control, that alone will make it difficult for her to win MI and PA. Now, add to that her open borders policy, her piss sorry record as Sec'y of State, her war on women, and her history of selling out union workers and manufacturing jobs, and Trump wins these two states easily, and the presidency.

[barahona44]

I am convinced Donald J. Trump wins both Pennsylvania and Michigan and also puts traditionally blue states in play that G.W. Bush, Romney, McCain, and especially Ted Cruz could not do.

Because Hillary! is on record for Gun Control, that alone will make it difficult for her to win MI and PA. Now, add to that her open borders policy, her piss sorry record as Sec'y of State, her war on women, and her history of selling out union workers and manufacturing jobs, and Trump wins these two states easily, and the presidency.
Trump could win those two states but it is not going to be easy.Her "open borders" policy gets her the Hispanic vote and she has the black vote wrapped up.This Clinton "war on women" sounds like a Fox News fantasy.If she was opposing Rubio or Kasich,it might have limited creedence but going up against Trump with his collection of trophy wives, his comments about Megan Kelly, Carly Fiona and others ,it's not even close.

[_______]

By nominating Trump, the GOP has managed to put nominal battleground states Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Nevada into solidly Democratic territory while putting Georgia and Arizona in danger of flipping blue.

They may have picked up some rust state votes they wouldn't have gotten otherwise but it's already game over for anyone counting electoral votes.

Crazy stuff.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah, it's game over alright...this far out...like you and everyone else has been so accurate thus far in predicting stuff related to Trump.

Pardon me if I don't embrace your thoughts here wholeheartedly.

[Tom]

At this point in time, the polls are meaningless.

[Tom]

At this point in time, the polls are meaningless.

TRUMP! Not the best choice, the ONLY choice.

If not the "rag," the "hag!"

[_______]

I asked before and I'll ask again. Does he get more or less of the Republican vote than Romney? Women? Hispanics?

He can win if he manages 65% of the white vote or 30% of the non-white. Neither looks to be in the realm of possibility.

I didn't think any party could nominate someone who failed both tests of electability and adherence to party principals. In my defense, it had never happened before. I'll credit you as one of many here that saw it coming.

But it hasn't changed the makeup of those who will vote in the general election. The electoral map might change at the competitive edges but Trump's rust belt strategy doesn't add up to 270. Particularly when it has put solid red states in play.

[_______]

At this point in time, the polls are meaningless.

They certainly have less meaning than they will later but once the November matchup is known, head to head polling has significance.

[Rookies]

I asked before and I'll ask again. Does he get more or less of the Republican vote than Romney? Women? Hispanics?

He can win if he manages 65% of the white vote or 30% of the non-white. Neither looks to be in the realm of possibility.

I didn't think any party could nominate someone who failed both tests of electability and adherence to party principals. In my defense, it had never happened before. I'll credit you as one of many here that saw it coming.

But it hasn't changed the makeup of those who will vote in the general election. The electoral map might change at the competitive edges but Trump's rust belt strategy doesn't add up to 270. Particularly when it has put solid red states in play.

It's a bit far from the Goal Line, at this point. But, those polls didn't move much in 2008 & 2012, once established. Unless there is a major surprise, to nose out Hillary, Trump has to win almost all of Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia & absolutely Florida!

With 2016 demographics, I don't see it- at all.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The best part about it from the spectator sport side of things is that for all his faults as a candidate, I'm sure that he recognizes all of these things (demos, polls, dis/approvals, history, etc). Even if you think that his ego is so enormous (it is) as to be too much of a factor in his decisions, you can't really believe that it clouds, distorts, or obstructs his understanding of winning. Maybe he doesn't quite understand foreign, domestic, economic, or even really political policy. But, he does understand this part of the process. The part where you look at the entire picture and likely outcomes. Strategy in pursuit of a goal.

The guy is interviewed 299 times a day and the lede in his answer to whatever the opening question asks is to cite his popularity in one or more polls. Whatever everyone or anyone here grasps as just cut and dried evidence that it just cannot be done - which I fully understand and my default is to agree completely - I get the impression that this is where his giant ego meets his motivated, strategic prowess as he attempts Act II in defying polls, convention, and logic. I don't think that he can do it and I'm not even sure if I'd want him to or not, but I do think that it is going to be entertaining as all hell watching the guy go hard against the grain to figure out how he can show that a losing formula for an election is strictly for loser politicians and not for great winners.

[Clocker]

T Even if you think that his ego is so enormous (it is) as to be too much of a factor in his decisions, you can't really believe that it clouds, distorts, or obstructs his understanding of winning. Maybe he doesn't quite understand foreign, domestic, economic, or even really political policy. But, he does understand this part of the process. The part where you look at the entire picture and likely outcomes. Strategy in pursuit of a goal.



He understands what has gotten him this far, and he is banking on it getting him the rest of the way. His campaign, like his business career, is based on personality and celebrity, not on content. He says that he has a "mandate" from the people to be "his authentic self", and that he is not going to change to trying to be presidential. But his "mandate" is based on a plurality of primary voters in a minority party. The general election is a whole different ball game. But it will be entertaining.

Donald J. Trump’s behavior in recent days — the political threats to the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan; the name-calling on Twitter; the attacks on Hillary Clinton’s marriage — has deeply puzzled Republicans who expected him to move to unite the party, start acting presidential and begin courting the female voters he will need in the general election.

But Mr. Trump’s choices reflect an unusual conviction: He said he had a “mandate” from his supporters to run as a fiery populist outsider and to rely on his raucous rallies to build support through “word of mouth,” rather than to embrace a traditional, mellower and more inclusive approach that congressional Republicans will advocate in meetings with him on Thursday.

...

“His rally rants and Twitter brawls are meant to dominate the media coverage and public conversation so that Democratic challenges have less space to break through all of the noise,” said Guy Cecil, the chief strategist and co-chairman of Priorities USA, the “super PAC” supporting Mrs. Clinton. “He doesn’t want people talking about his record or positions.”

...

David Winston, a Republican pollster who worked on Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign in 2012, said Mr. Trump was putting himself at a severe disadvantage in the general election.

“At this point, at a minimum, he’s at least 50 million voters short of what he’s going to need,” Mr. Winston said. “He has created an interesting dynamic in that, during the course of the campaign, he was basically calling those individuals names, which didn’t endear him to their supporters.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?_r=1

[Rookies]

The best part about it from the spectator sport side of things is that for all his faults as a candidate, I'm sure that he recognizes all of these things (demos, polls, dis/approvals, history, etc). Even if you think that his ego is so enormous (it is) as to be too much of a factor in his decisions, you can't really believe that it clouds, distorts, or obstructs his understanding of winning. Maybe he doesn't quite understand foreign, domestic, economic, or even really political policy. But, he does understand this part of the process. The part where you look at the entire picture and likely outcomes. Strategy in pursuit of a goal.

The guy is interviewed 299 times a day and the lede in his answer to whatever the opening question asks is to cite his popularity in one or more polls. Whatever everyone or anyone here grasps as just cut and dried evidence that it just cannot be done - which I fully understand and my default is to agree completely - I get the impression that this is where his giant ego meets his motivated,
strategic prowess as he attempts Act II in defying polls, convention, and logic. I don't think that he can do it and I'm not even sure if I'd want him to or not, but I do think that it is going to be entertaining as all hell watching the guy go hard against the grain to figure out how he can show that a losing formula for an election is strictly for loser politicians and not for great winners.

He is certainly using his Biz honed playbook, which you can grasp from many of his previous comments on his life and the lessons learned. E.g. One from a Vince Lombardi take, was that success, leadership, etc. are defined by "in your face" tactics- the louder, the faster, the more forceful, the more repetitive, the better and he believes, the better the result.

It is also the 'bigger lie' theory of the Goebbels (which he has also studied) types and the self promotion of success, any success (especially the polls) in order to attempt to prove that millions are already on side, so that you should be, too. And people, especially Americans, apparently love this Reality TV shtick. The fact that it is a different brand, being tried out for the first time, lends it possibilities.

Until it is crushed and deposited into the failed dustbin of history, of course. If Hillary didn't have albatross negatives weighing her down, she would be crushing him, rather than being an actual contest, albeit with she on the favourite side of the equation.

All people normally love 'firsts' too, which gives Clinton a big up check mark.

[Tom]

First, as in first serial killer/felon?

[reckless]

Whenever someone looks at the electoral map what do they really see ... ?

Well, in places like New York, California, Michigan, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Maryland -- they see states that have been run by Democrats for decades.

In places like Michigan, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, they see states where Democrats want to take away a person's Second Amendment right to bear arms. Voters in these same places also see a need for well-paying manufacturing and union jobs, lost primarily to onerous EPA, anti-energy and federal regulations, plus horrible anti-America trade deals, such as NAFTA, GATT, TPP.

In places like New York, California, Massachusetts and Maryland, they see places where the high cost of living, and even higher tax burden, doesn't make for a happy and safe life.

So, in a nut-shell, when someone looks at the electoral map, they only see once great states, mostly run by Democrats, that are now in a shit hole, both economically and culturally.

[barn32]

In a recent poll Clinton is ahead 4 or 5 points in Virginia.
So, if we give Clinton Virginia, all she has to do is win
one of the three states, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida
to wrap things up. Trump can win all of the rest of the
greyed out states but still lose.

State by state polling is still sporadic, and there won't
be too many realistic state polls until after the
respective conventions.

http://i67.tinypic.com/1z2p1j9.jpg

[barn32]

Politico makes an initial Electoral-College Map

"Politico has examined the early state polls and
made an initial projection of which way the swing
states are leaning in the general election.
They note—and we emphasize—that this is
extremely preliminary because there simply
hasn't been enough general election state polling.
Some of the polls Politico is using are from last year.
The sparsity of polls is why we have not yet begun
with the daily map update. Nevertheless, for what
it is worth (not much), here is the initial state of
the states.

There are 18 states plus D.C. that the Democrats
have won in the past six presidential elections and
are likely to win again in 2016. Wisconsin, Michigan,
and Pennsylvania are part of this "blue wall" so it is
not surprising they are blue now. These states add
up to 242 electoral votes. If Ohio, New Hampshire,
Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida are added to the
Democrats' total, they have 321, more than the 270
need to win. And this is without counting Nevada, for
which no polls exist. Politico didn't even mention
New Mexico, which is has become blue enough that
it is only marginally a swing state now."

Notice that early polling shows Clinton ahead in
North Carolina, but has Trump ahead in Colorado.

Link (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)


http://i67.tinypic.com/2ish442.jpg

[barahona44]

He understands what has gotten him this far, and he is banking on it getting him the rest of the way. His campaign, like his business career, is based on personality and celebrity, not on content. He says that he has a "mandate" from the people to be "his authentic self", and that he is not going to change to trying to be presidential. But his "mandate" is based on a plurality of primary voters in a minority party. The general election is a whole different ball game. But it will be entertaining.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?_r=1
Every day Donald Trump is the lead story, Hillary Clinton isn't.And that's just fine by her.

[hcap]

Every day Donald Trump is the lead story, Hillary Clinton isn't.And that's just fine by her.Recently the "lead story is self destructing.

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/16/the_republicans_november_fantasy_a_glance_at_the_g ops_swing_state_strategy_ought_to_delight_democrat s_everywhere/

......A new Politico report confirms the GOP is way behind in all the states that matter. Because their nominee has no interest in data or analytics or infrastructure, the RNC is forced to shoulder the entire burden. By contrast, Clinton already has a political machine up and running in each of the swing states, and the DNC is coordinating with the campaign as it prepares to do the heavy lifting. Republicans, meanwhile, are hostage to the whims of their nominee. Trump doesn’t do retail politics, so the party has no choice but to rely on his personality and media presence. While Democrats are focused on organization and digital operations, Republicans are hoping Trump’s demagoguery will carry enough angry white men to the polls. “His job is to be Mr. Trump”


The general is quite a different contest then the one held by the losers of the repug primaries

[classhandicapper]

There's a saying, "Be careful what you wish for".

The next president is going to inherit a global ticking time bomb. Over 10 trillion dollars of government debt has negative nominal rates (and that number is growing), Japan. the EU. and China are still printing boatloads of money, the US is barely growing despite doubling it's federal debt, printing 4 trillion dollars, and keeping real interest rates negative. Yet the global economy is still very weak.

The Keynesians are more or less out of bullets for trying to keep the balloon/bubble afloat. I will grant that crazy people with high IQs like the Keynsians seem to be more creative than I've given them credit for in trying to keep a dying patient alive in the ICU, but math is math. The Grim Reaper is getting ready.

[barn32]

Here is a revised map giving Trump Ohio,
Florida, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.

But he still loses to Clinton if she can win
Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina and Kentucky.

http://i64.tinypic.com/dg5vkm.jpg

[Parkview_Pirate]

The Keynesians are more or less out of bullets for trying to keep the balloon/bubble afloat. I will grant that crazy people with high IQs like the Keynsians seem to be more creative than I've given them credit for in trying to keep a dying patient alive in the ICU, but math is math. The Grim Reaper is getting ready.

Absolutely true. The only thing that those of us who believe in arithmetic have been wrong about is timing. Some day, and it's looking sooner rather than later, the wheels come off and the bus goes over the cliff.

Polls at this point are still rather meaningless. Those rooting for The Hag still have the numbers on their side, but are relying on a more static outlook on the global and US economies, as well as avoiding a shooting war with the Ruskies that Barry seems intent on starting.

It's an interesting election, for sure. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised that one or both of the "presumptive" nominees doesn't have to bail or is ejected off the ticket.

[zico20]

Here is a revised map giving Trump Ohio,
Florida, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.

But he still loses to Clinton if she can win
Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina and Kentucky.

http://i64.tinypic.com/dg5vkm.jpg

There is no way Kentucky goes blue. If it does, then Hillary will win in a land slide. Kentucky blue, Pennsylvania red, not a chance.

[hcap]

There's a saying, "Be careful what you wish for".

....The Keynesians are more or less out of bullets for trying to keep the balloon/bubble afloat. I will grant that crazy people with high IQs like the Keynsians seem to be more creative than I've given them credit for in trying to keep a dying patient alive in the ICU, but math is math. The Grim Reaper is getting ready.You continue with your absurd falsely drawn assumptions--always confusing them for proven conclusions, that the conservative theory for the world's economy and politicos are somehow God given absolutes.

Whenever the discussion turns to the nuts and bolts of this election season and particularly how bad conservatives are doing and the inevitable demise of tea party republican philosophies, the right here squirms out of taking responsibility for Trumps' "dawn of the dead."

There are countless threads here on PA Ot on "why I am not a Dem or liberal or socialist or Obama supporter, it just goes on Ad Infinitum 24/7/365. Over and over and over again.

Sharia law is the latest bullshit that PA is pushing besides your old standby of the so-called failure of the Keynesians. Of course since righties outnumber the Left five to one or more your voices drown out whatever opposition there is that does not buy into the usual nonsense.

[barn32]

There is no way Kentucky goes blue.
If it does, then Hillary will win in a land slide. Kentucky
blue, Pennsylvania red, not a chance.
You are more than likely right, but stranger things
have happened. Switch Kentucky with Pennsylvania
and give Trump Nevada and you still get the same
result--Clinton winning. 288-250

[classhandicapper]

You continue with your absurd falsely drawn assumptions--always confusing them for proven conclusions, that the conservative theory for the world's economy and politicos are somehow God given absolutes.

Whenever the discussion turns to the nuts and bolts of this election season and particularly how bad conservatives are doing and the inevitable demise of tea party republican philosophies, the right here squirms out of taking responsibility for Trumps' "dawn of the dead."



You invest and live your life as you see fit and I'll do the same.

You don't even know enough to know that most of the republicans advocate another form of same Keynesianism disease that democrats do. They both believe the way to fight recessions is with easy money and deficits. The only difference is their approach in how to create deficits (lower taxes or higher spending). So good luck with that.

My feeling is that if you are running for president right now that automatically disqualifies you from being president. If you understood what was going on did, you'd be too busy altering your portfolio and making escape plans to have time for such nonsense as getting blamed for a mess you'd have almost zero chance of actually fixing even if you understood it.

[Rookies]

As of today, it's an ass kicking OF Trump! RCP Average +6 for Clinton.

I'd give Georgia to him, PA, FL, NH & Virginia to Clinton.

Leaving Ohio (only because of Kasich) and NC still up in the air.

Of course, with the previous sentence, doesn't matter. She's already won.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sure why anybody would celebrate a Clinton victory...

[classhandicapper]

I'm not sure why anybody would celebrate a Clinton victory...


When the current bubble economy finally collapses it will be after 12 years of democrat rule in the Whitehouse. Even a economically brain dead media in the tank for the liberals is going to have a tough time spinning their way out of that one.

[_______]

I'm not sure why anybody would celebrate a Clinton victory...

I'm not sure everyone is celebrating. But after months of being told that Trump was so special that it didn't matter that he wasn't raising money, building a campaign organization, or working to patch up relations with his party after getting the nomination it's fair to point out that, in fact, the sun does rise in the east.

He is committing political malpractice on a daily basis and the chickens are going to come home to roost. He is the worst possible general election candidate Republican's could have chosen which is why many of us didn't think it was possible he could be the nominee.

That's over. We were wrong about that but being proven right on a daily basis now about the general election.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't see how you can crow about being right about anything Trump after being so wrong about everything Trump.

Maybe you're right...but I doubt it.

[_______]

I don't see how you can crow about being right about anything Trump after being so wrong about everything Trump.

Maybe you're right...but I doubt it.

I think the point is that I have never been wrong about EVERYTHING Trump.

What I was wrong about was a major party nominating someone who fails both tests of adherence to party orthodoxy and electability. In all prior cases, the party was willing to sacrifice a little of one for a little more of the other. The idea that a party could nominate someone who failed badly at both seemed impossible but it wasn't.

The part of that equation about electability was, is, and will remain true. So, yes. I plan on being on here reminding everyone about it until the November wipeout.

[JustRalph]

It's not about Trump.

It could have been anybody. If you were already a politician, you were persona non grata.

Let's see who Trump picks or cajoles into being his running mate. Should be interesting.

I choose Jim Webb.......

[Rookies]

I think the point is that I have never been wrong about EVERYTHING Trump.

What I was wrong about was a major party nominating someone who fails both tests of adherence to party orthodoxy and electability. In all prior cases, the party was willing to sacrifice a little of one for a little more of the other. The idea that a party could nominate someone who failed badly at both seemed impossible but it wasn't.

The part of that equation about electability was, is, and will remain true. So, yes. I plan on being on here reminding everyone about it until the November wipeout.

Yeah, PA made the same point about my comments, suggesting I was completely wrong about Trump.

About what, exactly?

* Being a Reality TV buffoon, who believes a Prezzy Electoral campaign is composed entirely of bellowing simpleton insults at rallies?
* A clown who made one inappropriate, stream of conciousness, strange, insulting, demeaning remark after another about Women, Latinos, Immigrants- thereby completely alienating them?
* A relentless, megalomaniac braggart, whose principles are as hard and fast as wetting ones finger and sticking it up in the wind?

We can't help it if the Trumpette base selected him.

But, there he is, with his "historic" 14 Mill voters, going forward.
What's the very bad news? Sources have mentioned that 135 Million will be voting in November.

Too bad, so sad.

[PaceAdvantage]

The funny thing is you think I'll be heartbroken if Hillary wins.

I expect nothing better from this country going forward.

A country that accepts the redacting of a killer's pledge to ISIS as one of the reasons for his killing gets exactly what they deserve. Hillary Clinton as President.

Too bad. So sad.

[Clocker]

A country that accepts the redacting of a killer's pledge to ISIS as one of the reasons for his killing gets exactly what they deserve. Hillary Clinton as President.



Would that be the same Hillary Clinton that played a significant role in formulating the failed foreign policy that the Dems now try to deny by referring to ISIS as ISIL and referring to Islamic terrorism as domestic gun violence?

[Rookies]

The funny thing is you think I'll be heartbroken if Hillary wins.

I expect nothing better from this country going forward.

A country that accepts the redacting of a killer's pledge to ISIS as one of the reasons for his killing gets exactly what they deserve. Hillary Clinton as President.

Too bad. So sad.

As you know, if I were there- I'd be supporting the other guy- closest to anyone I vote for here. I won't be overjoyed with President Hillary. I have every confidence, she will disappoint- meaning that you guys will be more than happy, that things won't take a Left turn.

Except for the SC. She'll select 3 Liberals after the guy who Obama recommended.

[barn32]

My go to guy put out his first state by state map of the polls today.
It's still early of course, but their are about 10 battleground states
at this point in time.

http://i66.tinypic.com/67i4wo.jpg

Link (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)

[ReplayRandall]

My go to guy put out his first state by state map of the polls today.
It's still early of course, but their are about 10 battleground states
at this point in time.

http://i66.tinypic.com/67i4wo.jpg

Link (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)

Bottom-line, the GOP must win FLA and PA, or it's over.....

[barn32]

Currently:

Clinton 284
Tied 47
Trump 207

Trump better get busy in Pennsylvania,
because winning Ohio, Florida and Michigan
just won't cut it. It leaves him three votes
short. This is assuming he carries Iowa,
Arizona, New Hampshire, Mississippi,
Nevada and Utah.

If he should somehow win Michigan (unlikely),
Ohio and Florida and not Pennsylvania, then
he would need one more state, any state, to
carry him over 270.

Which state could that be?


http://i65.tinypic.com/23rn33a.png


Link (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)

[_______]

The most recent state polls have Clinton up by 9 in Pennsylvannia and 1 in Missouri.

The RCP average still has Trump up by 4% in Missouri including the last poll so I wouldn't put too much faith in her carrying the state unless you see other polls confirming a trend.

Both of these polls may be reflective of her convention bounce which, like Trumps, are usually transitory. Polls in about 2 weeks are going to be better indicators.

[zico20]

The most recent state polls have Clinton up by 9 in Pennsylvannia and 1 in Missouri.

The RCP average still has Trump up by 4% in Missouri including the last poll so I wouldn't put too much faith in her carrying the state unless you see other polls confirming a trend.

Both of these polls may be reflective of her convention bounce which, like Trumps, are usually transitory. Polls in about 2 weeks are going to be better indicators.

If Trump loses Missouri he is finished, period.

[hcap]

Clinton leads Trump by 6 points after Democratic convention: Reuters/Ipsos poll

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1092M5

So much for the Trump bounce.

...................................

Also the schedule for presidential debates...

* The first debate will be on Monday, Sept. 26 at Hofstra University on Long Island.

* Clinton and Trump square off for their second debate on Sunday Oct. 9 at Washington University in St. Louis.

* The final presidential debate will be held Wednesday Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.

Poor buffoon. Bedimming to wonder if this will be repeat of how badly Romney lost?

[garyscpa]

Clinton leads Trump by 6 points after Democratic convention: Reuters/Ipsos poll

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1092M5

So much for the Trump bounce.

...................................

Also the schedule for presidential debates...

* The first debate will be on Monday, Sept. 26 at Hofstra University on Long Island.

* Clinton and Trump square off for their second debate on Sunday Oct. 9 at Washington University in St. Louis.

* The final presidential debate will be held Wednesday Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.

Poor buffoon. Bedimming to wonder if this will be repeat of how badly Romney lost?

Did you read the whole article?

[_______]

Did you read the whole article?

I have been following the 4 way polling for a while now. I have never seen one of the candidates support go UP when respondents are offered the additional choices. I'd love to hear a theory about what could be going on because I got nothin'. That's a head scratcher.

Ipsos had Clinton up by 10 prior to the Republican convention at a time when the RCP average was 3.5. RCP average is still Trump +1.2 on the 4 way.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

I can't believe people still take polls seriously.

[barahona44]

Clinton leads Trump by 6 points after Democratic convention: Reuters/Ipsos poll

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1092M5

So much for the Trump bounce.

...................................

Also the schedule for presidential debates...

* The first debate will be on Monday, Sept. 26 at Hofstra University on Long Island.

* Clinton and Trump square off for their second debate on Sunday Oct. 9 at Washington University in St. Louis.

* The final presidential debate will be held Wednesday Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.

Poor buffoon. Bedimming to wonder if this will be repeat of how badly Romney lost?
There's also a vice presedential debate on October 4 at Longwood University in Virginia.Normally, the VP debate is of limited consequence but in a race this tight, everything will matter. Pence and Kaine aren't well known nationally so this is their chance to get known and to deflect some of the issues that surround Clinton and Trump.

[hcap]

Did you read the whole article?The LA times poll which gave Trump a 7 point lead after the RNC is suspect but this one not so much. Point being it is not one poll that indicates accurately the current mood of voters. .We need another few weeks to see each "bounce", but the blip Trump got was erased by the Reuters/Ipsos poll. And the merry band of Trumpeters heretook it as gospel. In addition to the relclearpolitics compilation which has Clinton now slightly ahead 43.7 to...43.3 or Clinton +0.4, there is anolther poll compilation The HuffPollster........
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

which has Clinton up by 2.5

[_______]

If you live in Ohio, Pennslvannia, Florida, or North Carolina get used to Trump.

He will essentially run a 4 state campaign. The road has narrowed to the point that sweeping those are the only path he has.

That doesn't put Iowa or New Hampshire out of reach. But given the electoral map, he won't devote significant time to either given only 9 votes between them.

Sorry Lambo. Other than fundraising, no visits to Boston.

Massachusetts in play. That was a classic.

[reckless]

I can't believe people still take polls seriously.

People do, sad to say. And those that quote polls often do not fully understand the issues that are driving the electorate nor the mood of the citizenry.

Polls are little more than a snapshot in time; polls are often wildly skewered to produce a biased result. Polls should be totally ignored, as any serious person knows.

[reckless]

If you live in Ohio, Pennslvannia, Florida, or North Carolina get used to Trump.

He will essentially run a 4 state campaign. The road has narrowed to the point that sweeping those are the only path he has.

That doesn't put Iowa or New Hampshire out of reach. But given the electoral map, he won't devote significant time to either given only 9 votes between them.

Sorry Lambo. Other than fundraising, no visits to Boston.

Massachusetts in play. That was a classic.

Don, find me a state where Mitt Romney won that you think Trump will lose, please? Thanks, I can't wait.

[_______]

Don, find me a state where Mitt Romney won that you think Trump will lose, please? Thanks, I can't wait.

North Carolina is the obvious one. Arizona is possible. We'll have a better idea about Missouri in a couple of weeks.

I think Trump will underperform Romney by a significant margin.

[barahona44]

North Carolina is the obvious one. Arizona is possible. We'll have a better idea about Missouri in a couple of weeks.

I think Trump will underperform Romney by a significant margin.
I'm finding it strange that Clinton actually has Arizona in play.It's always been a reliable Republican state and AZ is one of the states that is at the forefront of Trump's defining issue, illegal immigration.It's also home to a significant retiree population that is trending Trump.A real head scratcher

[reckless]

North Carolina is the obvious one. Arizona is possible. We'll have a better idea about Missouri in a couple of weeks.

I think Trump will underperform Romney by a significant margin.

Not so sure about Arizona. Trump won't lose there. Illegal immigration and unlawful federal government are two issues Clinton cannot overcome.

Missouri is always possible due to the corrupt Democrat machine.

North Carolina is a toss-up with its large college population, but I can't see that place as an outlier surrounded by South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee. Trump takes North Carolina too on his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Sorry Don. Trump's still a winner.

[classhandicapper]

If the Supreme Court wasn't on the line I would be actively campaigning for Hillary because whoever gets elected is going to get blamed for whatever happens next. IMO, it's not going to be pretty.

I still think the chances of getting through the next 4 1/2 years without a major global financial crisis are close to 0%. What central bankers are doing now is unprecedented in human history. Globally we have large deficits, negative nominal interest rates, and are printing 180 billion a month. Yet we are still getting very weak growth. That's like giving a person massive quantities cocaine and the patient taking a nap. It's screaming what's going to be required to keep the system alive once we get a recession. It going to take mainlining crack directly into the heart and brain. They are going to have to try helicopter money next. Governments will ramp up deficits a lot further and print all the money to fund it to get inflation. This monetary system is toast. It's in its final years, but who knows what's going to replace it how we get there.

[JustRalph]

If the Supreme Court wasn't on the line I would be actively campaigning for Hillary because whoever gets elected is going to get blamed for whatever happens next. IMO, it's not going to be pretty.

I still think the chances of getting through the next 4 1/2 years without a major global financial crisis are close to 0%. What central bankers are doing now is unprecedented in human history. Globally we have large deficits, negative nominal interest rates, and are printing 180 billion a month. Yet we are still getting very weak growth. That's like giving a person massive quantities cocaine and the patient taking a nap. It's screaming what's going to be required to keep the system alive once we get a recession. It going to take mainlining crack directly into the heart and brain. They are going to have to try helicopter money next. Governments will ramp up deficits a lot further and print all the money to fund it to get inflation. This monetary system is toast. It's in its final years, but who knows what's going to replace it how we get there.

Good post. It's amazing we've made it this far

[fast4522]

If the Supreme Court wasn't on the line I would be actively campaigning for Hillary because whoever gets elected is going to get blamed for whatever happens next. IMO, it's not going to be pretty.

I still think the chances of getting through the next 4 1/2 years without a major global financial crisis are close to 0%. What central bankers are doing now is unprecedented in human history. Globally we have large deficits, negative nominal interest rates, and are printing 180 billion a month. Yet we are still getting very weak growth. That's like giving a person massive quantities cocaine and the patient taking a nap. It's screaming what's going to be required to keep the system alive once we get a recession. It going to take mainlining crack directly into the heart and brain. They are going to have to try helicopter money next. Governments will ramp up deficits a lot further and print all the money to fund it to get inflation. This monetary system is toast. It's in its final years, but who knows what's going to replace it how we get there.

Great post but one has to also vision the global debt, maybe you were going there. WAR is what this kind of debt will produce. I think no matter who wins a push for bringing back the draft will surface again, I prefer all globalist eat shit and die without the aid of our national treasure our kids and their kids.

[hcap]

If you live in Ohio, Pennslvannia, Florida, or North Carolina get used to Trump.

He will essentially run a 4 state campaign. The road has narrowed to the point that sweeping those are the only path he has.

That doesn't put Iowa or New Hampshire out of reach. But given the electoral map, he won't devote significant time to either given only 9 votes between them.

Sorry Lambo. Other than fundraising, no visits to Boston.

Massachusetts in play. That was a classic.The NY Timers covers this

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-presidential-race.html

I thought this was interesting....

Even as Mr. Trump has ticked up in national polls in recent weeks, senior Republicans say his path to the 270 Electoral College votes needed for election has remained narrow — and may have grown even more precarious. It now looks exceedingly difficult for him to assemble even the barest Electoral College majority without beating Hillary Clinton in a trifecta of the biggest swing states: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

President Obama won all three states in 2008 and 2012, and no Republican has won Pennsylvania in nearly three decades.

[hcap]

If the Supreme Court wasn't on the line I would be actively campaigning for Hillary because whoever gets elected is going to get blamed for whatever happens next. IMO, it's not going to be pretty.
You should be campaigning for Hilary bases upon the dismal reviews--- of the buffoons' fiscal policies.

Be that as it may your opinion is just that and it will not affect who wins in november, just another of your apriori assumptions you tend to confuse as verifiable conclusions

[Clocker]

You should be campaigning for Hilary bases upon the dismal reviews--- of the buffoons' fiscal policies.



Hillary is just as ignorant. And both of them have their heads where the sun don't shine in their ideas about trade policy. Our only hope is a continued divisive Congress that won't pass the program of either of them.

[hcap]

Hillary is just as ignorant. And both of them have their heads where the sun don't shine in their ideas about trade policy. Our only hope is a continued divisive Congress that won't pass the program of either of them.Conservatives love to draw FALSE equivalencies particularly when their idiot candidates are questioned on the specifics. As I said Trump's dismal economic plan reviews

Compare the candidates: Clinton vs. Trump on the economy

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22/comparing-economic-agendas-hillary-clinton-and-don/

...On taxes, "the Clinton plan is pretty much Obama extended," Williams said. "On the whole, she proposes a fairly small increase in taxes that would be borne almost entirely by the wealthy." Her plan would increase revenues collected by $1.1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center’s modeling.

By contrast, Trump’s across-the-board tax cuts would represent a far bigger change than Clinton’s proposal. It would lower revenues over 10 years by a whopping $9.6 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis.

.... Moody’s Analytics, an economic research and data-services firm that examined Trump’s policies on taxes, government spending, immigration and international trade. Moody’s concluded that Trump’s proposals would make the U.S. economy less global and would substantially increase the federal debt, benefit the wealthy disproportionately, and push unemployment up. (Moody’s has said it will release a similar analysis of Clinton’s plan but has yet to do so.)

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf

[Clocker]

Conservatives love to draw FALSE equivalencies particularly when their idiot candidates are questioned on the specifics.

If that sweeping generalization is pointed at me, it's a big miss. Trump is not my candidate. And you can't compare the two tax plans because Trump's is a moving target, it is just a 'suggestion', and it is negotiable. :p

Trade and tariffs are economic plans, and both are opposed to free trade. Opposition to free trade would greatly harm our economy.

she proposes a fairly small increase in taxes that would be borne almost entirely by the wealthy." Her plan would increase revenues collected by $1.1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center’s modeling.

If that's 'small', I hate to see her idea of yuuge!

And 'borne almost entirely by the wealthy'?

Hillary has endorsed several tax increases on middle income Americans, despite her pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. She has said she would be fine with a payroll tax hike on all Americans, she has endorsed a steep soda tax, endorsed a 25% national gun tax, and most recently, her campaign manager John Podesta said she would be open to a carbon tax. It’s no wonder that when asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if her pledge was a "rock-solid" promise, she slipped and said the pledge was merely a “goal.” In other words, she's going to raise taxes on middle income Americans.
Read more: http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes#ixzz4G0SEBoiC (http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes#ixzz4G0SEBoiC)

[barahona44]

So Trump has "suggestions" and Clinton has 'goals".

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[zico20]

Conservatives love to draw FALSE equivalencies particularly when their idiot candidates are questioned on the specifics. As I said Trump's dismal economic plan reviews

Compare the candidates: Clinton vs. Trump on the economy

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22/comparing-economic-agendas-hillary-clinton-and-don/

...On taxes, "the Clinton plan is pretty much Obama extended," Williams said. "On the whole, she proposes a fairly small increase in taxes that would be borne almost entirely by the wealthy." Her plan would increase revenues collected by $1.1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center’s modeling.

By contrast, Trump’s across-the-board tax cuts would represent a far bigger change than Clinton’s proposal. It would lower revenues over 10 years by a whopping $9.6 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis.

.... Moody’s Analytics, an economic research and data-services firm that examined Trump’s policies on taxes, government spending, immigration and international trade. Moody’s concluded that Trump’s proposals would make the U.S. economy less global and would substantially increase the federal debt, benefit the wealthy disproportionately, and push unemployment up. (Moody’s has said it will release a similar analysis of Clinton’s plan but has yet to do so.)

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf

What difference does it make if she brings in 1.1 trillion if she is going to spend trillions more in new spending. I would prefer tax cuts for everyone over new government programs that balloons the debt instead of new spending that I won't see a dime of.

[Clocker]

So Trump has "suggestions" and Clinton has 'goals".

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Correct. And they are both political hype and promises with no relation to reality.

[hcap]

As we thought all along the orange buffoon is shooting blanks. From FiveThirtyEight

Who will win the presidency?

Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton

64.8%

Donald Trump

35.1%
FiveThirtyEight
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

It is apparent that the RNC only got a blip.

Americans More Positive About Democratic Than GOP Convention

From Gallup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/194084/americans-positive-democratic-gop-convention.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles


Story Highlights

44% view Democratic Party more favorably after convention
35% were more positive about GOP after its convention
Clinton's acceptance speech rated better than Trump's

I predict this is the beginning of the end for the buffoon. His F.U. policy has turned and is biting him in the ass, and even he he is beginning to realize it.

Now he is trying to duck the presidential debates----knowing damn well he will be obliterated.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-general-election-rigged-potential-challenge

Trump: 'I'm Afraid' The General Election's 'Gonna Be Rigged'

At a Monday campaign event in Columbus, Ohio, Donald Trump teed up for a potential challenge to the integrity of the fall general election, an escalation of his rhetoric about the "rigged" primary system.

"I'm afraid the election's gonna be rigged, I have to be honest," Trump told the crowd.

Trump is pathetic and will lose big time..

[zico20]

As we thought all along the orange buffoon is shooting blanks. From FiveThirtyEight

Who will win the presidency?

Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton

64.8%

Donald Trump

35.1%
FiveThirtyEight
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

It is apparent that the RNC only got a blip.

Americans More Positive About Democratic Than GOP Convention

From Gallup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/194084/americans-positive-democratic-gop-convention.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles


Story Highlights

44% view Democratic Party more favorably after convention
35% were more positive about GOP after its convention
Clinton's acceptance speech rated better than Trump's

I predict this is the beginning of the end for the buffoon. His F.U. policy has turned and is biting him in the ass, and even he he is beginning to realize it.

Now he is trying to duck the presidential debates----knowing damn well he will be obliterated.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-general-election-rigged-potential-challenge

Trump: 'I'm Afraid' The General Election's 'Gonna Be Rigged'

At a Monday campaign event in Columbus, Ohio, Donald Trump teed up for a potential challenge to the integrity of the fall general election, an escalation of his rhetoric about the "rigged" primary system.

"I'm afraid the election's gonna be rigged, I have to be honest," Trump told the crowd.

Trump is pathetic and will lose big time..

Of course her acceptance speech was better. She was giving away the farm to anyone who would listen. Free goodies if I am elected was her message.

[barn32]

OMG! Virginia just went slightly red, and Nevada just went slightly blue.

Currently

Clinton: 277

Tied: 47

Trump: 214

http://i67.tinypic.com/2itsy8i.png


Link (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)

[_______]

I'm not sure what to make of the poll out of New Hampshire. Until now, I thought the state set up well for Trump despite the sustained but small Clinton lead.

Trump's campaign has been a dumpster fire since the convention but unless someone else shows something similar, I'm sticking with "outlier".

The Clinton lead in Pennsylvannia is beginning to look unassailable though.

[barn32]

North Carolina just turned slightly red.

[classhandicapper]

Be that as it may your opinion is just that and it will not affect who wins in november, just another of your apriori assumptions you tend to confuse as verifiable conclusions

When the sh$t hits the fan I'm going to remind you of what I am saying now- just as I'll remind you that not long ago I posted that I was buying gold and gold miners when gold was in the $1200 range. You can check where they've gone since.

The only debate among knowledgeable investors is exactly how it's going to play out and when. That's not knowable because actions from central bankers in the future will determine the path the crisis takes and when. What's almost not debatable is whether or not it will occur. On that, pretty much everyone whose opinion I respect (because the intellectual model they use has been right in the past) agrees. They are all positioning themselves with some variation of high cash levels, gold/silver, bearish bets on stocks, off shore homes etc... The idea is to survive the crisis financially and then buy again. But that's the investor perspective. The political prediction is that whoever is in power will get blamed even if it's not their fault.

[Parkview_Pirate]

...The only debate among knowledgeable investors is exactly how it's going to play out and when. That's not knowable because actions from central bankers in the future will determine the path the crisis takes and when. What's almost not debatable is whether or not it will occur.

Many bears have been bitten by the Central Banks, as in the past it seemed market forces were greater than the risks they were willing to take. 10 years ago, who would have thought that 7 years of zero interest rates would result in such little growth, and would held in place for so long? It's a Mexican standoff, and it won't end pretty.

How and when it plays out is anyone's guess, but I've got to believe that negative interest rates, helicopter money or the war on cash will not have a positive effect. A reset, and the corresponding pain, is badly needed.

I think you're spot on with the "political prediction" angle. The Dems and The Hag may eventually figure out this election is one that even if you win (perhaps especially if you win), you're still going to lose.

[zico20]

I'm not sure what to make of the poll out of New Hampshire. Until now, I thought the state set up well for Trump despite the sustained but small Clinton lead.

Trump's campaign has been a dumpster fire since the convention but unless someone else shows something similar, I'm sticking with "outlier".

The Clinton lead in Pennsylvannia is beginning to look unassailable though.

Fox news just put up a new poll in New Hampshire that has Hillary up 17 points. Trump should write off that state and focus on winning Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and Iowa. That would give him 272 and the presidency, provided he wins all the other red states from earlier elections.

[horses4courses]

Fox news just put up a new poll in New Hampshire that has Hillary up 17 points. Trump should write off that state and focus on winning Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and Iowa. That would give him 272 and the presidency, provided he wins all the other red states from earlier elections.

Fa la la la lahh la la la lahhhhh........... :lol:

[_______]

People do, sad to say. And those that quote polls often do not fully understand the issues that are driving the electorate nor the mood of the citizenry.

Polls are little more than a snapshot in time; polls are often wildly skewered to produce a biased result. Polls should be totally ignored, as any serious person knows.

On the subject of polling bias:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/

You should also be skeptical of other attempts to reweight pollsters’ data. One website, LongRoom, claims to “unbias” the polls using “actual state voter registration data from the Secretary of State or Election Division of each state.” The website contends that almost every public poll is biased in favor of Clinton. Think about what that means: The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it. Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible.

The "skewed" polls in 2012 underestimated Obama's margin of victory. What has changed in the last 4 years to make you think those raising questions about methodology are right this time?

[chadk66]

Polls aren't skewed :lol:

[_______]

Polls aren't skewed :lol:

Care to provide some evidence? Or would that disturb the warm cocoon of denial you have wrapped yourself up in?

[hcap]

Polls aren't skewed :lol:There were a few members of this forum who believed up until well into election night Romney was a "sure thing" regardless of reality. One guy left in disgrace.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/unskewed-polls-founder-i-was-only-wrong-because-i-didn-t-consider-voter-fraud

'Unskewed Polls' Founder: 'I Was Only Wrong' Because I Didn't Consider Voter Fraud

The conservative activist who gained a following during last year's campaign for his efforts to "unskew" polls has a theory on why his predictions for the election were so wildly off the mark, writing late last month that his analysis was incomplete because he did not consider the purported voter fraud and voter suppression efforts that he claimed were integral to President Barack Obama's victory.

[chadk66]

just look at the polls that provide the data on what percentage of democrats they poll verses republicans. I've seen polls numerous times that have a liberal candidate up 12% in a poll and they polled 12% more dems than rep's. But they bury that so very few see it. It happens all the time with polls. Polls are only as good as the the demographic they are polling. And what questions they are and how they are worded or asked.

[hcap]

Prove that.

[_______]

just look at the polls that provide the data on what percentage of democrats they poll verses republicans. I've seen polls numerous times that have a liberal candidate up 12% in a poll and they polled 12% more dems than rep's. But they bury that so very few see it. It happens all the time with polls. Polls are only as good as the the demographic they are polling. And what questions they are and how they are worded or asked.

You didn't click the link posted above, did you? You offered the very argument they dismantled.

I'll ask you what I asked reckless earlier. If the polls are skewed against Republican's, why doesn't it ever show up in election results? The final RCP average of polls showed Obama up by 0.7% in 2012. He won by more than 3%.

There is zero evidence to support the idea that pollsters who have provided accurate data in election after election are biased against Republican's. There is ample evidence that those insisting otherwise in the face of a vacuum supporting them are biased against reality.

[chadk66]

You didn't click the link posted above, did you? You offered the very argument they dismantled.

I'll ask you what I asked reckless earlier. If the polls are skewed against Republican's, why doesn't it ever show up in election results? The final RCP average of polls showed Obama up by 0.7% in 2012. He won by more than 3%.

There is zero evidence to support the idea that pollsters who have provided accurate data in election after election are biased against Republican's. There is ample evidence that those insisting otherwise in the face of a vacuum supporting them are biased against reality.If you want to rely on polls here's one. Trump is beating her with independents. And they decide the election. what about those polls that said the dem's were going to maintain or increase their senate/house seats and they got their asses handed to them. Polls are a joke.

[_______]

If you want to rely on polls here's one. Trump is beating her with independents. And they decide the election. what about those polls that said the dem's were going to maintain or increase their senate/house seats and they got their asses handed to them. Polls are a joke.

This idea that polls significantly undercount Republican's actually NEVER shows up in elections. Farcical allegations notwithstanding. As I noted earlier, in 2012 the polls underestimated the size of Obama's victory over Romney.

But I understand that this belief existed in a fact free zone in 2012 and will apparently continue this year despite falling in it's face last time.

Enjoy your cocoon.

[classhandicapper]

I doubt all polls either intentionally or unintentionally under count republicans, but I don't think that's the relevant question.

IMO, the relevant question is whether some people are embarrassed to admit to pollsters that they will vote for a candidate with politically incorrect positions on immigration, trade, religious values etc.... and then do it.

I'm not even sure the republican primaries are a good way to judge that.

At a certain point, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio had sort of converged on some of the controversial stuff. So any hesitancy to admit "Trump" because of his anti immigration rhetoric or "Cruz" because of his religious rhetoric would get mitigated by the fact that they were all republicans with similar enough views and you had to pick one of them.

When you get to the general election and the media is calling Trump supporters racists, bigots, uneducated idiots etc... how many people hold back until the voting booth?

[_______]

I doubt all polls either intentionally or unintentionally under count republicans, but I don't think that's the relevant question.

IMO, the relevant question is whether some people are embarrassed to admit to pollsters that they will vote for a candidate with politically incorrect positions on immigration, trade, religious values etc.... and then do it.

I'm not even sure the republican primaries are a good way to judge that.

At a certain point, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio had sort of converged on some of the controversial stuff. So any hesitancy to admit "Trump" because of his anti immigration rhetoric or "Cruz" because of his religious rhetoric would get mitigated by the fact that they were all republicans with similar enough views and you had to pick one of them.

When you get to the general election and the media is calling Trump supporters racists, bigots, uneducated idiots etc... how many people hold back until the voting booth?

There is no way to dismiss this possibility until after the election. As I've noted earlier there was no evidence of it during the Republican primaries and I'm pretty sure his rhetoric and the coverage of it isn't any different now than it was earlier.

He led with walls and rapists. There isn't something new here other than the audience being measured. It's still possible but I seriously doubt it will make up a significant portion of a 7.5 point deficit.

I think the problem is that for every new Trump voter minted, his rhetoric creates a greater number of motivated opponents. And when he stays on script, he's boring. No one wants to go to a WWE event and watch tea served.

If he were capable of the discipline a major candidate needs, he would have demonstrated it for more than two weeks at a time by now. He's a mild insult away from a gaffe every day he's on the trail. And the Democrats will be sure there are plenty of inconsequential squirrels like the Khan's for him to chase between now and November.

In the meantime, Clinton's gap keeps growing. Which is unusual if it were only a convention bounce. It'll top out and I'm sure all the trumpettes will get all tingly when he's only 6.5 points behind. But I think my prediction that he was never on a path that led to the White House will prove right.

[barn32]

Polls are polls. When you combine the polls with the betting markets you have a deadly combination.

Trump is down to .257% in the Iowa Betting Markets (https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres16_quotes.html), (from a post convention high of around 31%) and he is down to 20.2% (from 32%) in the John Stossel Election Betting Odds (https://electionbettingodds.com/) website.

Do the betting markets always get it right. No. Brexit is a recent example. The Polls got it wrong there too. But the Presidential election betting markets, especially close to election time, have gotten it right as far back as I can remember.

Reason being is that you are looking at 50 different state by state polls, and multiple polls at that. At ElectoralVote.Com (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) he uses many different polls for a cross-section analysis, which in the past has proven to be very accurate.

Bottom line. Trump is in big trouble. It's not over yet. He still probably has one or possibly two more bullets left to fire, but it's not looking good.

Every day another Republican politician says he (or she) won't vote for Trump.

[Let's say Hillary had a stroke and couldn't run, I seriously doubt if Trump could beat Bernie Sanders at this point in time. My opinion only.]

The country is turning more and more liberal and more and more socialist. Plain and simple. The offer of "free stuff" is just too appealing. Homosexuality has been normalized. Which bathroom to use is more important than a balanced budget amendment. Minorities think the Republican party is the party of racists. Drugs have been legalized and more will be legalized. We are leaning to, if we have not already landed in, Sodom and Gomorrah.

Given his opponent, Trump could have won this thing easy, and in my opinion he should be up around 15 points right now, but he just couldn't figure that out.

Oh well, it just looks like I'll be turning off the TV news, newspapers and news sites for another four years.

In the last eight years I haven't read or listened to one thing Obama has said.

Being a political wonk is a discourse in futilism. It only gains you enemies. If you don't pay any attention to politics, it doesn't exist. This in turn frees up all of your time to do things like...say...play the horses.


~~"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it" Mark Twain~~

[_______]

This has been a center-right country for my entire life. As hard as it is for me to admit, the abandonment of the center by the Republican Party will probably eventually lead to it being a center-left country like most of Europe.

I don't understand why this happened. We ceded the field to birther's and now nativists. None of it was necessary.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Being a political wonk is a discourse in futilism. It only gains you enemies. If you don't pay any attention to politics, it doesn't exist. This in turn frees up all of your time to do things like...say...play the horses.


~~"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it" Mark Twain~~

How true, so true!
And I'll be playing the horses right there with you,
and just allow politics,
to just swirl on down the memory hole in my mind,
creating a giant vortex,
and sweet sucking sound,
whooosh!

Until, until of course,
the socialist goons decide
for all of us
that betting on horses
is not part of the "best practices" package...
not in our collective interest...and ban it.

[chadk66]

This has been a center-right country for my entire life. As hard as it is for me to admit, the abandonment of the center by the Republican Party will probably eventually lead to it being a center-left country like most of Europe.

I don't understand why this happened. We ceded the field to birther's and now nativists. None of it was necessary.this country has gone center left for the past dozen years or so. It's about to fall off the cliff

[MONEY]

this country has gone center left for the past dozen years or so. It's about to fall off the cliff

I agree with you.

The press, social media, learning institutions, billionaires & both major parties all lean left.
I hope that I am wrong but, it looks Hillary Clinton will win the Presidential election even if she gets caught walking on puppies.

[chadk66]

I agree with you.

The press, social media, learning institutions, billionaires & both major parties all lean left.
I hope that I am wrong but, it looks Hillary Clinton will win the Presidential election even if she gets caught walking on puppies.It might look like that today but I can promise you the road for her till the end is going to get extremely bumpy. She has aged 20 years in the last year. She looks like hell. Well she has always looked like hell but she looks like Hell plus 2 now. Things can come at her from every direction. And probably will. Wiki Leaks, Foundation, Voter fraud, strange deaths, etc. etc.

[barn32]

Things can come at her from every direction. And probably will. Wiki Leaks, Foundation, Voter fraud, strange deaths, etc. etc.All the more reason why Trump should be 15 points ahead by now.

The fact that he isn't is very telling.

[chadk66]

All the more reason why Trump should be 15 points ahead by now.

The fact that he isn't is very telling.he spent next to nothing in the primaries. has spent very little since. had more votes in the primary than any republican candidate ever. And has yet to debate Clinton. I'd say he is right where he should be considering the fawning from the leftist media for Clinton. Did you happen to listen to her little pep rally she held with a select few members of the media the other day. They actually applauded her when she stated her poll numbers:D They don't even hide their bias anymore. Wear it all like a badge of honor. Yet call themselves journalists. :lol:

[barahona44]

How true, so true!
And I'll be playing the horses right there with you,
and just allow politics,
to just swirl on down the memory hole in my mind,
creating a giant vortex,
and sweet sucking sound,
whooosh!

Until, until of course,
the socialist goons decide
for all of us
that betting on horses
is not part of the "best practices" package...
not in our collective interest...and ban it.
Was this a poem because it sure looks like one, the way it's laid out on the page. :)

[barn32]

It's beginning to look like Trump might only carry Idaho, Alaska and Nebraska.

Clinton-353

Tied-6

Trump-179


http://i67.tinypic.com/2qve9uq.png

[zico20]

It's beginning to look like Trump might only carry Idaho, Alaska and Nebraska.

Clinton-353

Tied-6

Trump-179


http://i67.tinypic.com/2qve9uq.png

You are being sarcastic, aren't you? I will take Trump for Wyoming and give you a 20 point spread, how about that. ;) Name the amount.

[chadk66]

they wrote Reagan off too.

[classhandicapper]

This has been a center-right country for my entire life. As hard as it is for me to admit, the abandonment of the center by the Republican Party will probably eventually lead to it being a center-left country like most of Europe.

I don't understand why this happened. We ceded the field to birther's and now nativists. None of it was necessary.

The centrist republicans were getting nickle and dimed to the left on all sorts of issues. Eventually the conservatives had enough and started throwing them out of office. Personally, I'm with them on that.

Here's an example of leftward creep.

Let's say taxes are 30% and democrats want 40%. A compromise is not 35%. A compromise is somewhere between what I want and what you want. Republicans should be fighting to shrink government, not expand it slower. 30% was already a compromise made by some previous centrist republicans. What you are supposed to say is you want 20% and hold the line at 30% as the compromise. If you give them 35%, the next compromise will be between 45% and 35% and so on.

The centrists would get called names for not "compromising" to 35% and cower like children even though that was not a compromise.

It's the same crap on spending.

That's why we are in such a mess financially.

I'll take a dozen Ted Cruz's over what we have now. We are long past the point of trying to work it out with civility and compromise. You stand tough and go down in flames now if you can't make the case to the public. Maybe you'll even win. The other choice is a certain slow death.

[barn32]

The first map shows the current state of affairs.

Clinton: 343
Trump: 195

The second map shows Trump winning ALL of the battleground states and
it still leaves him behind.

Clinton 273
Trump: 265

This means that not only does Trump have to win all of the battleground states but he also must convert at least one state from the democratic "blue wall."

What state could that possibly be?

http://i63.tinypic.com/2qsqm3m.png


http://i67.tinypic.com/28grogi.png

[lamboguy]

i bet on the republicans and wound up with a very upside down price. i can only hope for Trump to hit a knockout punch. so far it hasn't happened. there got to be something wrong with the democrat because she doesn't want to show to much of her face these days.

if i had anything to do with the Trump campaign i would be studying how Truman pulled it out and hope they found something that would help their candidate.

[barahona44]

It also has to be a state with 4 electoral votes, the 3 vote states means Clinton still wins, 270-268.
I think we have to wait for the debates before anything is nailed down.If Trump does well in those, he could steal Maine, New Hampshire or Michigan.

A 4 vote state means a tie, and THEN the fun begins.

[_______]

One of the two Maine congressional districts leans less blue and is a potential Republican pick up. The congressional district around Omaha is somewhat less red and is a potential pick up for Democrats in Nebraska. Clinton has, in fact, begun advertising in the Omaha market along with buys in Arizona and Georgia.

[barn32]

One of the two Maine congressional districts leans less blue and is a potential Republican pick up. The congressional district around Omaha is somewhat less red and is a potential pick up for Democrats in Nebraska. Clinton has, in fact, begun advertising in the Omaha market along with buys in Arizona and Georgia.Nebraska is currently 61% Trump, 38% Clinton.

I don't see it happening.

Maine is currently Clinton 43%, Trump 33%, so, possible, but who knows.

[johnhannibalsmith]

99-1 longshot play for me is Colorado suddenly veering even farther into 3rd party territory. Johnson polls at about 12.5% with Stein at 5.5% and Hillary loses a little ground in the process from nearly 11% to about 10.5%. If Hillary's messes keep getting worse, Johnson gets a little more attention and makes inroads with the pot loving crowd, maybe Stein pulls a few more from disaffected Hillary would-bes, and Trump manages to NOT lose any more ground - it might tighten up anyway. Probably not, almost certainly not, but it one that I can almost case for if everything went wrong Hillary.

[_______]

Nebraska is currently 61% Trump, 38% Clinton.

I don't see it happening.

Maine is currently Clinton 43%, Trump 33%, so, possible, but who knows.

Those are statewide totals. Both Nebraska and Maine assign electors by congressional district. Winning the state gets you two electors. Two others in Maine and three in Nebraska are assigned by the vote total in each congressional district.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Probably not, almost certainly not, but it one that I can almost case for if everything went wrong Hillary.

Wow, what an unintentional tribute to Goren. Three missing words in one sentence at least.

[_______]

99-1 longshot play for me is Colorado suddenly veering even farther into 3rd party territory. Johnson polls at about 12.5% with Stein at 5.5% and Hillary loses a little ground in the process from nearly 11% to about 10.5%. If Hillary's messes keep getting worse, Johnson gets a little more attention and makes inroads with the pot loving crowd, maybe Stein pulls a few more from disaffected Hillary would-bes, and Trump manages to NOT lose any more ground - it might tighten up anyway. Probably not, almost certainly not, but it one that I can almost case for if everything went wrong Hillary.

The highest third party vote percentage will be in Utah.

[reckless]

The first map shows the current state of affairs.

Clinton: 343
Trump: 195

The second map shows Trump winning ALL of the battleground states and
it still leaves him behind.

Clinton 273
Trump: 265

This means that not only does Trump have to win all of the battleground states but he also must convert at least one state from the democratic "blue wall."

What state could that possibly be?

http://i63.tinypic.com/2qsqm3m.png


http://i67.tinypic.com/28grogi.png

Barn... Trump wins Pennsylvania big... he's a cinch here. Trust me on this. New registration totals are up huge for the GOP, and equally down for the Democrats.

He also wins Michigan. The gun issue, jobs and the economy and the people's simple hatred of Hillary makes this a Trump lock too. Christ, Clinton lost to Bernie in the primary so what does that tell you? There aren't many socialists in Michigan, it was a strictly anti-Hillary vote.

In Maine, he might even win that too; people there are weird -- electorally speaking of course. :)

Trump is a mortal lock to win in November.

(Please God, do not have Hillary arrested.)

[_______]

So an interesting divergence has developed over the last few weeks.

While Trump has again closed the gap in national polling from around 7.5 to around 4.5 (RCP 4 way average. My favorite), there has NOT been a similar change in battleground states. Clinton has maintained her leads in many or, if the race has tightened, it hasn't to the degree that national polling has.

I'm going to suggest this is an artifact of the months of unopposed paid advertising Clinton has had in those states. Some here have trumpeted all the money spent by the Clinton campaign for a small lead in polling. But it hasn't been wasted if the polling is correct. It has set up a firewall in the states she has to win. Her leads are "stickier" in states where the election is likely to be decided.

The storyline of 2016 being different than any other election year seemed like a reasonable proposition up to the point Trump locked up the Republican nomination. After that, it has played out by the book.

That isn't good news for the candidate who ignored fundraising, advertising, and organization until just recently.

[barn32]

So an interesting divergence has developed over the last few weeks.

While Trump has again closed the gap in national polling from around 7.5 to around 4.5 (RCP 4 way average. My favorite), there has NOT been a similar change in battleground states. Clinton has maintained her leads in many or, if the race has tightened, it hasn't to the degree that national polling has.

I'm going to suggest this is an artifact of the months of unopposed paid advertising Clinton has had in those states. Some here have trumpeted all the money spent by the Clinton campaign for a small lead in polling. But it hasn't been wasted if the polling is correct. It has set up a firewall in the states she has to win. Her leads are "stickier" in states where the election is likely to be decided.

The storyline of 2016 being different than any other election year seemed like a reasonable proposition up to the point Trump locked up the Republican nomination. After that, it has played out by the book.

That isn't good news for the candidate who ignored fundraising, advertising, and organization until just recently.He's also made little or no progress in the betting markets. Hovering recently, around 20-23%.

It's not like the Republicans never have won the key states. In 1972 and 1980 they practically scooped the entire nation. But things change.

http://i66.tinypic.com/2hckevk.png

[reckless]

He's also made little or no progress in the betting markets. Hovering recently, around 20-23%.

It's not like the Republicans never have won the key states. In 1972 and 1980 they practically scooped the entire nation. But things change.

http://i66.tinypic.com/2hckevk.png

Yes things do change.

GOP, losers in Pennsylvania since 1988, wins for Trump.

GOP, losers in Ohio in 4 of last 6 elections, including last two, wins Ohio with Trump.

Michigan hasn't been lost by the Dems since 1992, loses.

It will be a very hard time for all the Trump haters and data base geniuses to swallow this election -- especially when you guys ignore common sense people on this board.

[_______]

Yes things do change.

GOP, losers in Pennsylvania since 1988, wins for Trump.

GOP, losers in Ohio in 4 of last 6 elections, including last two, wins Ohio with Trump.

Michigan hasn't been lost by the Dems since 1992, loses.

It will be a very hard time for all the Trump haters and data base geniuses to swallow this election -- especially when you guys ignore common sense people on this board.

I admire your passion. I really do.

But common sense is looking at the numbers. It's not trusting people making assurances and guarentees that fly in their face.

I'm surprised you didn't include Florida. It's far closer than any of those you did mention.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I admire your passion. I really do.

But common sense is looking at the numbers. It's not trusting people making assurances and guarentees that fly in their face.

I'm surprised you didn't include Florida. It's far closer than any of those you did mention.

Trump will win Florida by such a large margin that there was no need to include it. Everyone knows this.

[_______]

Trump will win Florida by such a large margin that there was no need to include it. Everyone knows this.

I'm sad to report that the humor of this post will be missed by some. I'd post a guess at a percentage but it probably wouldn't be YUUUUGE!! enough.

[ReplayRandall]

I'm sad to report that the humor of this post will be missed by some. I'd post a guess at a percentage but it probably wouldn't be YUUUUGE!! enough.

Your post is the humorous one, Don......:lol:

[elysiantraveller]

He also wins Michigan. The gun issue, jobs and the economy and the people's simple hatred of Hillary makes this a Trump lock too. Christ, Clinton lost to Bernie in the primary so what does that tell you? There aren't many socialists in Michigan, it was a strictly anti-Hillary vote.

This analysis is dead wrong.

He is going to get pounded here. His campaign has already essentially pulled out.

[hcap]

While Trump has again closed the gap in national polling from around 7.5 to around 4.5 (RCP 4 way average. My favorite), there has NOT been a similar change in battleground states. Clinton has maintained her leads in many or, if the race has tightened, it hasn't to the degree that national polling has.There was a minor Trump bounce after the latest Breitbart changing of the guards (how many times? :lol: :lol: ) The latest RCP 2 way is back at around +6 Clinton. The Huffpollster is showing over +7 Clinton. And 538 popular is also + 7 Clinton.

Considering the massive lead of Clinton in the battleground states and the above numbers, looks like Trump is back at square one and neither the Breitbart/Kellyanne Conway upgrade or the latest AP Clinton Foundation revelations has significantly changed things. Trump is now floating face up until the debates---- where he will be skinned and fried.

[biggestal99]

Trump is now floating face up until the debates---- where he will be skinned and fried.

or to put it another way. The following states and district are all BLUE and past the MOE for Clinton.

which one will flip and make it President Trump.

California
DC
Maryland
Vermont
Massachusetts
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Jersey
Washington
Delaware
Illinois
New York
Virginia
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Colorado
Minnesota
Oregon
New Mexico
Maine
Connecticut

Allan

[biggestal99]

Barn... Trump wins Pennsylvania big... he's a cinch here. Trust me on this. New registration totals are up huge for the GOP, and equally down for the Democrats.

He also wins Michigan.


You are not serious.

Those are both Blue states, bigtime.

Allan

[_______]

On Pennsylvania, party registration HAS moved in Republican's direction since 2012 and this is often cited as the reason it will be more competitive than in the past.

The problem with that analysis is that it treats party registration as a leading indicator and ignores evidence that, in this case, it may be following long established voting patterns.

If you look at where voters have switched parties, it's in area's that have long shown more registered Democrats but that still voted Republican in recent elections. In other words, it's reliable Republican voters that retained their traditional Democratic registration until recently.

If you look at new voters only (those who had never registered before) Democrats have registered more since 2012 than Republican's.

Pennsylvania is about as close to being over as any supposed battleground state. Clinton maintains a near double digit lead in the RCP average. On top of that, you have a professional Democratic ground game going up against whatever the RNC decides to commit to a losing campaign disinterested in doing it's own work.

In Minnesota that arrangement nearly led to Trump being left off the ballot.

[MutuelClerk]

I'm from Michigan. I thought Trump had a chance in Michigan. Bernie beat Hillary here in the primary. Trump hasn't campaigned much here. He could really pound Hillary on NAFTA. On jobs, maybe even take a few shots at Snyder and the Flint water crisis. However he seems to busy re-creating a new Trump. This guy has been his own worst enemy. Sad. More and more I think he wants Hillary to win. His only chance is just to CRUSH her in the debates. She'll play not to lose he has to really go after her and be smart again. The smart Trump seems to be MIA.

[barn32]

Something is seriously wrong with presidential election politics when you can be left off the ballot, in one or more states, as the Republican nominee due to some clerical error.

It should be automatic and go without saying.

[_______]

Something is seriously wrong with presidential election politics when you can be left off the ballot, in one or more states, as the Republican nominee due to some clerical error.

It should be automatic and go without saying.

He won't be left off the ballot in Minnesota. I'm sure his listing will be challenged and I'm equally sure no court will block the will of a large portion of the Minnesota electorate.

But this is what happens when you take your eye off the ball and outsource your ground game. He doesn't want to pay for the kind organization that wins elections so he gets the kind that misses details of election law.

[johnhannibalsmith]

If every hopeful candidate under the sun is going to have to go through the motions to get on the ballot in a given state, then they all should have to. If we truly aren't going to be outwardly and clearly promoting political parties as a component of elections then if the Rent Is Too Damn High guy or Grandpa Munster have to play by the rules to get on the ballot, then so should the big guns with big money and big clout.

[Clocker]

Something is seriously wrong with presidential election politics when you can be left off the ballot, in one or more states, as the Republican nominee due to some clerical error.

It should be automatic and go without saying.

The key word there is 'politics'.

It is the responsibility of the party to get its shite together and comply with the law. It is not a clerical error, the GOP in MN had until Monday to complete the process that should have been done weeks ago.

And in a lot of states, including MN, you have to file a list of electors pledged to the candidate in addition to the candidate's name. The state can't and won't do the job for you.

Donald Trump will appear on the ballot in Minnesota, after a last-minute scramble by state Republicans who discovered Wednesday that their nominee was not yet on the ballot.

The party had until Monday to submit the names of 10 electors and 10 alternate electors -- the people who will officially cast Minnesota's votes for president -- to the Secretary of State.

"We just received the last item. We were waiting for a pledge from one of the alternate electors. The filing is complete and the Republican ticket should be listed on our site shortly," Secretary of State spokesman Ryan Furlong said in an email Thursday afternoon.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/politics/donald-trump-minnesota-ballot/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/politics/donald-trump-minnesota-ballot/)

[elysiantraveller]

I'm from Michigan. I thought Trump had a chance in Michigan. Bernie beat Hillary here in the primary. Trump hasn't campaigned much here. He could really pound Hillary on NAFTA. On jobs, maybe even take a few shots at Snyder and the Flint water crisis. However he seems to busy re-creating a new Trump. This guy has been his own worst enemy. Sad. More and more I think he wants Hillary to win. His only chance is just to CRUSH her in the debates. She'll play not to lose he has to really go after her and be smart again. The smart Trump seems to be MIA.

No way.

The east side turned out to vote for Hillary and she carried it well. Those are union ranks. They aren't switching sides. She lost due to a massive millenial turnout in Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo and other cities on the west side.

Hate to break it to you but those folks are adamantly going to pull the HRC lever. Add them to the list of demographics Trump is absolutely awful with...

She'll cruise the state with 6-8% no problem.

[_______]

Polling in July showed that Clinton received support from about 85% of Sanders supporters and Trump about 9%. Those were national numbers.

The idea that significant numbers of Sanders supporters were going to move over to Trump was always ridiculous. His racially tinged rhetoric throughout the primaries could be forgiven by his many supporters here but was never going to fly with the socially liberal cohort supporting Sanders.

[delayjf]

Hate to break it to you but those folks are adamantly going to pull the HRC lever.

I think you are correct - but given what the Obama administration and the liberals state Governments have done for Michigan I have no sympathy for Michigan voters who vote for her. On the bright side maybe the Clinton Foundation will buy them all a new phone.

[elysiantraveller]

I think you are correct - but given what the Obama administration and the liberals state Governments have done for Michigan I have no sympathy for Michigan voters who vote for her. On the bright side maybe the Clinton Foundation will buy them all a new phone.

What are you talking about?

We have a Republican house, senate, and governor?

Economically we've outpaced all of our neighbors.

[reckless]

What are you talking about?

We have a Republican house, senate, and governor?

Economically we've outpaced all of our neighbors.

So Republicans just might be the reason for all the good news in Michigan, I gather.

Then why should Michigonians (?) now vote for Hillary, who promises to raise taxes, take their guns away and export or kill off manufacturing jobs thanks to her energy and trade policies?

[elysiantraveller]

So Republicans just might be the reason for all the good news in Michigan, I gather.

Then why should Michigonians (?) now vote for Hillary, who promises to raise taxes, take their guns away and export or kill off manufacturing jobs thanks to her energy and trade policies?

Because the majority of our manufacturing jobs are parts for items assembled in foreign countries. That's how global trade works. The guy at the Denso plant understands that. Trump doesn't.

[Tom]

So Republicans just might be the reason for all the good news in Michigan, I gather.

Then why should Michigonians (?) now vote for Hillary, who promises to raise taxes, take their guns away and export or kill off manufacturing jobs thanks to her energy and trade policies?

uh, because hey are mostly idiots?

[PaceAdvantage]

Because the majority of our manufacturing jobs are parts for items assembled in foreign countries. That's how global trade works. The guy at the Denso plant understands that. Trump doesn't.It's amazing how the anti-Trump contingent continuously tries to convince us day in and day out just how terrible a candidate Trump is...all the while conveniently glossing over Clinton's many failures, many controversies, and many corruptions, like a well greased and ready to roast fat hog.

How do you guys do it?

Chutzpah I tells ya....chutzpah...

[TJDave]

It's amazing how the anti-Trump contingent continuously tries to convince us day in and day out just how terrible a candidate Trump is...all the while conveniently glossing over Clinton's many failures, many controversies, and many corruptions, like a well greased fat and ready to roast fat hog.


It's not that Clinton isn't a terrible candidate...
It's that Trump is worse. Exponentially worse.
In a race to zero Trump starts in negative figures.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's not that Clinton isn't a terrible candidate...
It's that Trump is worse. Exponentially worse.
In a race to zero Trump starts in negative figures.How can this be said with a straight face?

Deeds are far more substantive than words. Yet it's his words that are crucified, while her deeds are continuously forgiven, glossed over or outright ignored.

Whatever man...have fun voting for Hillary. She'll make a great President.

[TJDave]

I would never vote for Hillary.

[lamboguy]

she can easily blow this election, she don't want to show her face and is just trying to run out the clock. i really think that she has no business running this country because of her physical and mental being.
i rather have the person without the qualifications just like Harry Truman whom many will argue was the best president ever.

[elysiantraveller]

It's amazing how the anti-Trump contingent continuously tries to convince us day in and day out just how terrible a candidate Trump is...all the while conveniently glossing over Clinton's many failures, many controversies, and many corruptions, like a well greased and ready to roast fat hog.

How do you guys do it?

Chutzpah I tells ya....chutzpah...

You post has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. My family owns a company in Michigan that staffs about 5000 people now in primarily light industrial and manufacturing. They build stuff here that is then shipped to assembly whether that be Ohio, Mexico, or the Orient.

Now to your post:

Clinton is terrible but at least I can peg with some level of certainty what her policy actually is.

Trump is a ****ING idiot. What is his stance on anything. For the past 60 weeks hardline immigration policy has been his key policy objective. Now 10 weeks out he has totally reversed course. Never mind that in terms of the debt and economy even half of what he says (because he routinely flips on these) would be disastrous for the country.

[_______]

I don't think Clinton actually can blow the election at this point. She may be the one that could shoot someone in Times Square and not see any drop in support.

The problem is that the 14 months of bomb throwing that endeared him so much to a large group on this board simeltaneously cemented his reputation with the general electorate as someone temperamentally unqualified to lead the country. It didn't help that his post convention behavior only reinforced that perception.

This will be the least dramatic election since 1984. I don't think even the most ardent Trump supporter can seriously believe he has run a competent campaign. KellyAnne Conway was a good hire but it came at a point where people have largely already made up their mind. She isn't going to repair the damage he already did in less than 2 1/2 months.

Clinton is preparing for the debates with thick briefing books, daily coaching, and mock debates followed by reviews of the tape. She will know every subject matter. Trump is preparing for the debates by meeting with Roger Ailes once a week over cheeseburgers to discuss possible zingers. He will know a few of those.

The only thing Trump will have going for him in the debates is low expectations. If he manages not to soil himself, it'll be viewed by most as a big win for him.

[MONEY]

Clinton is preparing for the debates with thick briefing books, daily coaching, and mock debates followed by reviews of the tape. She will know every subject matter. Trump is preparing for the debates by meeting with Roger Ailes once a week over cheeseburgers to discuss possible zingers. He will know a few of those.

The only thing Trump will have going for him in the debates is low expectations. If he manages not to soil himself, it'll be viewed by most as a big win for him.

I'll be surprised if Hillary shows up to more than one debate.

[_______]

I'll be surprised if Hillary shows up to more than one debate.

And if the first one goes badly, I won't be surprised to see Trump beg off the last due to "unfairness".

[Clocker]

And if the first one goes badly, I won't be surprised to see Trump beg off the last due to "unfairness".

Nothing so blatant. He would claim the process is rigged and want to change the rules.

[reckless]

And if the first one goes badly, I won't be surprised to see Trump beg off the last due to "unfairness".

Sounds to me that you nailed this one squarely on its head too -- wrongly, that is, as all your other comments have been since this began last year. :lol: :lol:

If anyone -- which, I doubt will happen BTW -- begs off on any debates scheduled after the first one, it will be Hillary, who has proven for 35+ years in the public arena how inherently stupid and inarticulate she is. I'll put my money on Trump, who's spent a lifetime of success and achievement in winning these debates.

Let's see here... a career winner such as Trump versus a corrupt serial failure as Hillary (and her trailer trash husband, the impeached child deviant and rapist, Bill Clinton), who is nothing more than a con artist specializing in the political shake-down.

You guys are funnier than Seinfeld reruns.

[barahona44]

And if the first one goes badly, I won't be surprised to see Trump beg off the last due to "unfairness".
There are three debates.Your statement implies there's only two.

It would be political suicide to skip a debate by either candidate.These are nationally televised events that attract 50-80 million viewers.And people who watch these debates are a lot more likely to vote than those who don't.

[_______]

There are three debates.Your statement implies there's only two.

It would be political suicide to skip a debate by either candidate.These are nationally televised events that attract 50-80 million viewers.And people who watch these debates are a lot more likely to vote than those who don't.

There are three debates. I'm not sure where I got the idea there would only be two.

And I don't expect either candidate will miss any of them. But (imagine my voice is much deeper here) "in a world where a major party candidate has lost all hope of being elected..."

Which one do you see as being willing to throw all the down ballot candidates under a bus?

I'll narrow your choices to the careerist who was the mainstream choice or the insurgent who kicked in the rotted door of the establishment.

[ReplayRandall]

The insurgent who kicked in the rotted door of the establishment.

Nice turn of phrase...:ThmbUp:

[horses4courses]

the insurgent who kicked in the rotted door of the establishment.

Nicely put, alright.

Having kicked it in, though, everyone is likely to freeze their ass off.
May as well have taken down the entire structure, and go down with a bang.
That does seem to be the intention.

[chadk66]

And that door smells like the shit house door on a tuna boat

[barn32]

Well, well, well, lookee here!

Trump has been edging up ever so slightly in the betting markets, only around 4 points. He needs to jump above 30 from 23% for it to start being significant, but at least he's not dropping.

But there have been some changes in the electoral vote map. Florida and North Carolina are now a tie, and Ohio and Pennsylvania are only slightly blue.

Could it be?!

http://i66.tinypic.com/2qi3f5x.png

[chadk66]

Just wait a week. Hillary's implosion is well underway.

[_______]

She could already have been indicted by the FBI and still lead Trump.

At this point I assume the light is never going to go on for the Trump crowd about how unpopular he is. And it is him. Not the Republucan brand.

Americans don't like bigots or those that play footsie with them. They don't like people who divide the nation into insiders and outsiders. It isn't how most of us see ourselves.

Combine that unpopular stance with an incompetent campaign and you get the whoopin' you are enduring now.

[chadk66]

She could already have been indicted by the FBI and still lead Trump.

At this point I assume the light is never going to go on for the Trump crowd about how unpopular he is. And it is him. Not the Republucan brand.

Americans don't like bigots or those that play footsie with them. They don't like people who divide the nation into insiders and outsiders. It isn't how most of us see ourselves.

Combine that unpopular stance with an incompetent campaign and you get the whoopin' you are enduring now.I don't think half the country gives a crap about all that. They just don't want Hillary. And it appears she is well on her way to destroying herself. It'll be a great show to watch.

[elysiantraveller]

I don't think half the country gives a crap about all that. They just don't want Hillary. And it appears she is well on her way to destroying herself. It'll be a great show to watch.

Trump's popularity has never really risen above the amount that got him the nomination. He won the Convention with approximately 30-40% of GOP support. He has ran a horrible campaign and done next to nothing to grow his base beyond that.

You guys are hoping to win an election with a candidate maybe half in his party even support...

To think this isn't a forgone conclusion is a level of delusion I can't even fathom.

[_______]

Hillary's imminent self destruction reminds me a bit of nuclear fusion. It's always touted as being just around the corner. It was just around the corner 50 years ago. It was just around the corner 40 years ago. 30 years ago, to no ones surprise, it was just around the corner.

There was a lot of excitement 20 years when it was just around the corner. But nothing to match the excitement 10 years later when there was absolutely no doubt it would be here any day.

Today, like Hillary's final destruction to Trump supporters, we sit on the cusp of a new age in energy. Nuclear fusion is just around the corner.

[chadk66]

Trump's popularity has never really risen above the amount that got him the nomination. He won the Convention with approximately 30-40% of GOP support. He has ran a horrible campaign and done next to nothing to grow his base beyond that.

You guys are hoping to win an election with a candidate maybe half in his party even support...

To think this isn't a forgone conclusion is a level of delusion I can't even fathom.yet he received a record number of votes in the Primary. that tells me conventional wisdom is out the window. But what the hell do I know

[chadk66]

Hillary's imminent self destruction reminds me a bit of nuclear fusion. It's always touted as being just around the corner. It was just around the corner 50 years ago. It was just around the corner 40 years ago. 30 years ago, to no ones surprise, it was just around the corner.

There was a lot of excitement 20 years when it was just around the corner. But nothing to match the excitement 10 years later when there was absolutely no doubt it would be here any day.

Today, like Hillary's final destruction to Trump supporters, we sit on the cusp of a new age in energy. Nuclear fusion is just around the corner.I think you mean global warming is just around the corner.

[PaceAdvantage]

To think this isn't a forgone conclusion is a level of delusion I can't even fathom.I'm actually going to hold you to this quote.

[PaceAdvantage]

Trump's popularity has never really risen above the amount that got him the nomination. He won the Convention with approximately 30-40% of GOP support. Let me ask you a question.

Clinton shuns big rallies.
Obama loved big rallies when he was campaigning.
Sanders loved big rallies when he was campaigning.
Trump loves big rallies as he is campaigning.

If Trump is so unpopular, how does he get all these people to show up, ala Sanders, ala Obama...

And why doesn't Clinton hold any big rallies (ok, you could say she is coasting home at the moment), but even during her primary battle, I dare say she didn't hold one big rally (except for the convention itself, and many in attendance were Bernie fans).

Am I to presume Hillary is ever so more popular than Trump, yet can't fill a decent sized auditorium with 15,000+ people on a semi-regular basis?

[elysiantraveller]

yet he received a record number of votes in the Primary. that tells me conventional wisdom is out the window. But what the hell do I know

In a record primary season...

Where he barely mustered 35-40% of the party...

These aren't indicative of a winner.

[elysiantraveller]

Let me ask you a question.

Clinton shuns big rallies.
Obama loved big rallies when he was campaigning.
Sanders loved big rallies when he was campaigning.
Trump loves big rallies as he is campaigning.

If Trump is so unpopular, how does he get all these people to show up, ala Sanders, ala Obama...

And why doesn't Clinton hold any big rallies (ok, you could say she is coasting home at the moment), but even during her primary battle, I dare say she didn't hold one big rally (except for the convention itself, and many in attendance were Bernie fans).

Am I to presume Hillary is ever so more popular than Trump, yet can't fill a decent sized auditorium with 15,000+ people on a semi-regular basis?

We're now judging the electorate by rallies?

Trump rallies, at times, have had equal if not greater numbers of protesters.

20% of the Republican voting block wishes he would withdraw.

He polls worse with women and hispanics than Romney did.

These are facts not optics.

[PaceAdvantage]

We're now judging the electorate by rallies?

Trump rallies, at times, have had equal if not greater numbers of protesters.

20% of the Republican voting block wishes he would withdraw.

He polls worse with women and hispanics than Romney did.

These are facts not optics.Yeah, I'm sure 20% is an exact fact measured with aircraft-weld-precision.

I wasn't trying to judge anything. I was pointing out an observation and asking a question from someone who seems to have all the answers, finally.

You could have saved yourself some typing and simply written "I don't know."

[elysiantraveller]

Yeah, I'm sure 20% is an exact fact measured with aircraft-weld-precision.

I wasn't trying to judge anything. I was pointing out an observation and asking a question from someone who seems to have all the answers, finally.

You could have saved yourself some typing and simply written "I don't know."

I embellished... it was 19%... here (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN10L0YS)

[TJDave]

Yeah, I'm sure 20% is an exact fact measured with aircraft-weld-precision.
The question is whether disillusioned republicans will show up and vote. They typically do.

[chadk66]

In a record primary season...

Where he barely mustered 35-40% of the party...

These aren't indicative of a winner.with 17 candidates?:bang: You never fail to impress:lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I know that hcap loves this site and most everyone that loves predicting a wild season like this thinks Nate Silver is the mack daddy. So:



Election Update: As The Race Tightens, Don’t Assume The Electoral College Will Save Clinton
By Nate Silver

...But what if the race continues to tighten? I’ve often heard Democrats express a belief that Clinton’s position in the swing states will protect her in the Electoral College even if the race draws to a dead heat overall. But this is potentially mistaken. Although it’s plausible that Clinton’s superior field operation will eventually pay dividends, so far her swing state results have ebbed and flowed with her national numbers...

Some interesting numbers within. Including my 99-1 longshot Colorado going from +10.5 to +6.1 Clinton in the last couple of weeks.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-as-the-race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton/

[chadk66]

I know that hcap loves this site and most everyone that loves predicting a wild season like this thinks Nate Silver is the mack daddy. So:



Election Update: As The Race Tightens, Don’t Assume The Electoral College Will Save Clinton
By Nate Silver

...But what if the race continues to tighten? I’ve often heard Democrats express a belief that Clinton’s position in the swing states will protect her in the Electoral College even if the race draws to a dead heat overall. But this is potentially mistaken. Although it’s plausible that Clinton’s superior field operation will eventually pay dividends, so far her swing state results have ebbed and flowed with her national numbers...
Some interesting numbers within. Including my 99-1 longshot Colorado going from +10.5 to +6.1 Clinton in the last couple of weeks.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-as-the-race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton/and the heat is still only on simmer. she has been in complete hideaway mode lately while Donald has been the talk of the country. And recently it's mostly been good. Where I think your going to see a huge swing in the polls is the day after the first debate.

[barahona44]

and the heat is still only on simmer. she has been in complete hideaway mode lately while Donald has been the talk of the country. And recently it's mostly been good. Where I think your going to see a huge swing in the polls is the day after the first debate.
I think she's preparing for the debate, and if Trump has any brains, so would he .Media types are predicting at least 100 million will watch the first debate.Better to look good in front of 100 million, then 13,000 in Grand Rapids or Providence.

[chadk66]

I think she's preparing for the debate, and if Trump has any brains, so would he .Media types are predicting at least 100 million will watch the first debate.Better to look good in front of 100 million, then 13,000 in Grand Rapids or Providence.you better hope that's what she's doing. But I'm guessing she is spending a vast amount of time answering the questions Judicial Watch has posed which she is required to produce by months end. Also trying to do an end run on all the email leaks that are destroying her. Fund raising because she is going to have to buy about double the amount of advertising she anticipated doing. Trying to come up with lies to cover the lies. Trying to figure out a way to hide all the foundation records/emails/correspondence, etc. And while she is doing all that Trump is out campaigning, meeting with Mexico's president, showing up in LA for the floods, fund raising, doing media interviews, holding rally's, etc. And on top of all that practicing for the debating. The guy is tireless.

[barn32]

Trump is gaining on all fronts, but he just can't seem to kick it over the top in the state by state polling. (He's at 29% in the betting markets up from 20%)

There are a lot of slightly blue states, but they never seem to go slightly red.

If it wasn't for all of Trumps ****ups all of these slightly blue states would be slightly red and gaining to solid red.

So, he has no one to blame but himself.

He has three ways to gain more ground.

1. Clinton keeps self-destructing
2. He keeps his mouth shut about nonsense
3. He kills in the debates


Clinton: 323
Tie: 18
Trump: 197
http://i64.tinypic.com/nqeey9.png

[_______]

The abandonment of ground to Clinton in paid advertising for months and months contributes to the stickiness of her lead in battleground states.

The race has unquestionably narrowed in national polling. But not as much in battlegrounds. That's the price of dismissing paid media.

There's likely to be a further payment due on Election Day for dismissing any serious data operation for GOTV.

[classhandicapper]

I'm still not 100% sure he's committed to winning. He's willing to put in the time and energy to fly anywhere, make speeches anywhere, do TV appearances and interviews non stop etc... but he's not willing to spend a lot of his own money. That says something. Part of it may be that he's asset rich and cash flow poor relative to his net worth (whatever his net worth is). But part of it may be that he doesn't want to win badly enough to risk serious personal losses.

[barn32]

I'm still not 100% sure he's committed to winning. He's willing to put in the time and energy to fly anywhere, make speeches anywhere, do TV appearances and interviews non stop etc... but he's not willing to spend a lot of his own money. That says something. Part of it may be that he's asset rich and cash flow poor relative to his net worth (whatever his net worth is). But part of it may be that he doesn't want to win badly enough to risk serious personal losses.I don't know whether any of the above is true or not, but the fact that he is as close as he is while being outspent a gazillion to one says something.

[JustRalph]

He raised 90 million last month. I think he's keeping his powder dry until the last few weeks.

Waiting until he can see the whites of her eyes.......

[_______]

JR-

It doesn't work that way in national politics. If you allow an opponent to define you, they will.

One of Romney's problems in 2012 was that he came out of the primaries with no money and faced a barrage of ad's right after the conventions defining him as the job destroying plutocrat from Bain capital. He couldn't respond right away and by the time he did, it was too late. He didn't help himself with the 47% comment which played into that narrative.

If you live in a battleground state, you've seen nothing but pro-Clinton ads for months now. Her PAC's have been defining Trump with other ads during the same period. Again, there has been no response to any of these until very recently.

At this point, you are also paying more for the same ad reservations that could have been had at a discount in June and July.

[chadk66]

Nobody will define Donald Trump but Donald Trump. That you can take to the bank. And Trump doesn't have to define Hillary, she has done a hell of a job of that all by herself. Well with the help of all her associates, AG and FBI I guess too. What we all are witnessing is the biggest implosion in political history. I'm enjoying every minute of it.

[ReplayRandall]

At this point, you are also paying more for the same ad reservations that could have been had at a discount in June and July.

June and July?? Nobody gives a rat's ass about discount ads in mid-summer. We still have 19 days until the FIRST debate. Clinton's lead is down to nothing, and if she continues her coughing/hacking fits, she'll use it as a scapegoat to bow out, before the really damaging e-mails hit the airwaves.....Bottom-line, the sooner the Dems switch to a Biden/Bernie ticket, the sooner the election is over for Trump......Poor Kaine, what a loser, but that's what you get, when you make a deal with the Witch-Hag.

[_______]

June and July?? Nobody gives a rat's ass about discount ads in mid-summer. We still have 19 days until the FIRST debate. Clinton's lead is down to nothing, and if she continues her coughing/hacking fits, she'll use it as a scapegoat to bow out, before the really damaging e-mails hit the airwaves.....Bottom-line, the sooner the Dems switch to a Biden/Bernie ticket, the sooner the election is over for Trump......Poor Kaine, what a loser, but that's what you get, when you make a deal with the Witch-Hag.

The ad reservations purchased in June and July are for time slots in September and October if that wasn't clear. The same time periods Trump's campaign will pay full price for, if they choose.

[ReplayRandall]

The ad reservations purchased in June and July are for time slots in September and October if that wasn't clear. The same time periods Trump's campaign will pay full price for, if they choose.

They have been running Trump ads, full-time, for over a month here in Charlotte. I think Trump is on a roll right now, only a huge misstep by his campaign or himself, stops his momentum. The debates will be quite entertaining, to say the least, barring some kind of health crisis by Hillary.

[reckless]

JR-

It doesn't work that way in national politics. If you allow an opponent to define you, they will.

One of Romney's problems in 2012 was that he came out of the primaries with no money and faced a barrage of ad's right after the conventions defining him as the job destroying plutocrat from Bain capital. He couldn't respond right away and by the time he did, it was too late. He didn't help himself with the 47% comment which played into that narrative.

If you live in a battleground state, you've seen nothing but pro-Clinton ads for months now. Her PAC's have been defining Trump with other ads during the same period. Again, there has been no response to any of these until very recently.

At this point, you are also paying more for the same ad reservations that could have been had at a discount in June and July.

Don.... there is a candidate being defined and her name is Hillary! and not Trump.

Admit it or not, but people do see her as being corrupt, being a liar, entitled, and worse, a failure. People aren't buying into any of her silliness like blaming Congress for her woes. And people do believe that those like her do get preferential treatment that regular people can't get -- such as not getting indicted for her criminal activities when Secretary of State.

You simply cannot use a loser such as Mitt Romney as the barometer for anything in this election. Mittens also thought he was entitled to be the nominee and later, that he didn't have to campaign to get elected. Also, how many times did he say: 'I know how to create jobs.' Yet he never told us how he would do it (and, of which he never really did). He did say he had a jobs creation plan....an 89 page -- or was it 89 points-- plan. :lol: :lol:

When Trump says he knows how to create jobs people believe him because he did it -- look at the golf courses, hotels and office buildings he built. These projects just didn't get there, he did it. Any jobs Romney created were jobs for bankers and lawyers in all those Bain Capital Wall Street deals. Trump has a record of creating high-paying union, blue collar manufacturing jobs. You may like to or want to, but you truly cannot deny this.

Back to Hillary, ugh...

All the pooh-bahs, experts, media smarty-pants and angry PA-OT posters have repeatedly talked up the point that Hillary! is really way ahead of Trump in these battleground states. Really? Since I live in Pennsylvania, I have been told that it is delusional to even think Trump could win Pennsylvania.

So, according to the know-it-alls, Hillary! won't lose Pennsylvania. That said: why is Hillary! spending tons of money here if she's a lock? Why did she make 5-6 visits here already? Why did Joe Biden make 2-3 visits and Barry Obama is scheduled to make a visit here next week? Why? Why? Why? If Hillary is a cinch in Pennsylvania, as you and the others have been telling me for many months, could you explain the reasoning behind all the visits by her and for her?

The answer is: she is losing in this state, and in the alleged shoo-in 'collar' counties surrounding Philadelphia, it is getting so tight, it has been making Hillary cough!

And, I haven't yet mentioned Hillary's anti-America policies on gun control, her anti-energy and anti-coal positions and her ignoring the blue-collar working class in Pennsylvania. Nor did I mention the corrupt 4-5 Democrats such as Rep. Shaka Fattah and just removed state Atty General Kathleen Kane that were indicted recently for corruption. Does this ring a bell? And there is Clinton bag man Ed Rendell, the slimy ex-governor and ex-Philadelphia mayor, who is now in a very public, very messy, very nasty divorce from his wife Midge. Trust me, boys and girls, that one will make great reading!

Now, all of her commercials that I have seen shows Trump at a rally saying: 'I am going close the border and make Mexico pay for it.' ... and, 'I am going to rip up all these trade deals'... to a Clinton supporter/heckler: 'Get him out of here. You can f--- yourself.' stuff like that. Hillary is so dumb she doesn't realize that these ads highlight the very issues that makes Trump the next president of the USA! She thinks her ads are hurting Trump, when they are really helping him.

[_______]

Don.... there is a candidate being defined and her name is Hillary! and not Trump.

Admit it or not, but people do see her as being corrupt, being a liar, entitled, and worse, a failure. People aren't buying into any of her silliness like blaming Congress for her woes. And people do believe that those like her do get preferential treatment that regular people can't get -- such as not getting indicted for her criminal activities when Secretary of State.

You simply cannot use a loser such as Mitt Romney as the barometer for anything in this election. Mittens also thought he was entitled to be the nominee and later, that he didn't have to campaign to get elected. Also, how many times did he say: 'I know how to create jobs.' Yet he never told us how he would do it (and, of which he never really did). He did say he had a jobs creation plan....an 89 page -- or was it 89 points-- plan. :lol: :lol:

When Trump says he knows how to create jobs people believe him because he did it -- look at the golf courses, hotels and office buildings he built. These projects just didn't get there, he did it. Any jobs Romney created were jobs for bankers and lawyers in all those Bain Capital Wall Street deals. Trump has a record of creating high-paying union, blue collar manufacturing jobs. You may like to or want to, but you truly cannot deny this.

Back to Hillary, ugh...

All the pooh-bahs, experts, media smarty-pants and angry PA-OT posters have repeatedly talked up the point that Hillary! is really way ahead of Trump in these battleground states. Really? Since I live in Pennsylvania, I have been told that it is delusional to even think Trump could win Pennsylvania.

So, according to the know-it-alls, Hillary! won't lose Pennsylvania. That said: why is Hillary! spending tons of money here if she's a lock? Why did she make 5-6 visits here already? Why did Joe Biden make 2-3 visits and Barry Obama is scheduled to make a visit here next week? Why? Why? Why? If Hillary is a cinch in Pennsylvania, as you and the others have been telling me for many months, could you explain the reasoning behind all the visits by her and for her?

The answer is: she is losing in this state, and in the alleged shoo-in 'collar' counties surrounding Philadelphia, it is getting so tight, it has been making Hillary cough!

And, I haven't yet mentioned Hillary's anti-America policies on gun control, her anti-energy and anti-coal positions and her ignoring the blue-collar working class in Pennsylvania. Nor did I mention the corrupt 4-5 Democrats such as Rep. Shaka Fattah and just removed state Atty General Kathleen Kane that were indicted recently for corruption. Does this ring a bell? And there is Clinton bag man Ed Rendell, the slimy ex-governor and ex-Philadelphia mayor, who is now in a very public, very messy, very nasty divorce from his wife Midge. Trust me, boys and girls, that one will make great reading!

Now, all of her commercials that I have seen shows Trump at a rally saying: 'I am going close the border and make Mexico pay for it.' ... and, 'I am going to rip up all these trade deals'... to a Clinton supporter/heckler: 'Get him out of here. You can f--- yourself.' stuff like that. Hillary is so dumb she doesn't realize that these ads highlight the very issues that makes Trump the next president of the USA! She thinks her ads are hurting Trump, when they are really helping him.

reckless-

She is campaigning and spending money in Pennsylvannia because it's a battleground state. I don't think you've seen me say anything more than she has been leading in the polls there (currently 6.5 points in the RCP 4 way). You are the one who has been offering guarentees and assurances. And the idea that a candidate must be behind if they campaign in a state doesn't really need to be refuted. I know you have the common sense to understand how ridiculous that proposition is.

Her campaign has cut way back in Colorado where she has been holding a consistent double digit lead. That's a nominal battleground state that I would say is in the bag. I have never said that about Pennsylvania.

[fast4522]

Don.... there is a candidate being defined and her name is Hillary! and not Trump.

Admit it or not, but people do see her as being corrupt, being a liar, entitled, and worse, a failure. People aren't buying into any of her silliness like blaming Congress for her woes. And people do believe that those like her do get preferential treatment that regular people can't get -- such as not getting indicted for her criminal activities when Secretary of State.

You simply cannot use a loser such as Mitt Romney as the barometer for anything in this election. Mittens also thought he was entitled to be the nominee and later, that he didn't have to campaign to get elected. Also, how many times did he say: 'I know how to create jobs.' Yet he never told us how he would do it (and, of which he never really did). He did say he had a jobs creation plan....an 89 page -- or was it 89 points-- plan. :lol: :lol:

When Trump says he knows how to create jobs people believe him because he did it -- look at the golf courses, hotels and office buildings he built. These projects just didn't get there, he did it. Any jobs Romney created were jobs for bankers and lawyers in all those Bain Capital Wall Street deals. Trump has a record of creating high-paying union, blue collar manufacturing jobs. You may like to or want to, but you truly cannot deny this.

Back to Hillary, ugh...

All the pooh-bahs, experts, media smarty-pants and angry PA-OT posters have repeatedly talked up the point that Hillary! is really way ahead of Trump in these battleground states. Really? Since I live in Pennsylvania, I have been told that it is delusional to even think Trump could win Pennsylvania.

So, according to the know-it-alls, Hillary! won't lose Pennsylvania. That said: why is Hillary! spending tons of money here if she's a lock? Why did she make 5-6 visits here already? Why did Joe Biden make 2-3 visits and Barry Obama is scheduled to make a visit here next week? Why? Why? Why? If Hillary is a cinch in Pennsylvania, as you and the others have been telling me for many months, could you explain the reasoning behind all the visits by her and for her?

The answer is: she is losing in this state, and in the alleged shoo-in 'collar' counties surrounding Philadelphia, it is getting so tight, it has been making Hillary cough!

And, I haven't yet mentioned Hillary's anti-America policies on gun control, her anti-energy and anti-coal positions and her ignoring the blue-collar working class in Pennsylvania. Nor did I mention the corrupt 4-5 Democrats such as Rep. Shaka Fattah and just removed state Atty General Kathleen Kane that were indicted recently for corruption. Does this ring a bell? And there is Clinton bag man Ed Rendell, the slimy ex-governor and ex-Philadelphia mayor, who is now in a very public, very messy, very nasty divorce from his wife Midge. Trust me, boys and girls, that one will make great reading!

Now, all of her commercials that I have seen shows Trump at a rally saying: 'I am going close the border and make Mexico pay for it.' ... and, 'I am going to rip up all these trade deals'... to a Clinton supporter/heckler: 'Get him out of here. You can f--- yourself.' stuff like that. Hillary is so dumb she doesn't realize that these ads highlight the very issues that makes Trump the next president of the USA! She thinks her ads are hurting Trump, when they are really helping him.

I do not see Pennsylvanian's being that stupid to think that foreign policy has worked during her tenure at the State Department. Four more years of failure will result in a world wide war. This alone should have not only Pennsylvanian's scared of Hillary, but all battleground states.

[chadk66]

The ad reservations purchased in June and July are for time slots in September and October if that wasn't clear. The same time periods Trump's campaign will pay full price for, if they choose.here's how smart of a business man Trump is. Why buy all those adds when he knows he isn't going to need them. He knows she is going to beat herself.

[mostpost]

Don.... there is a candidate being defined and her name is Hillary! and not Trump.

Admit it or not, but people do see her as being corrupt, being a liar, entitled, and worse, a failure. People aren't buying into any of her silliness like blaming Congress for her woes. And people do believe that those like her do get preferential treatment that regular people can't get -- such as not getting indicted for her criminal activities when Secretary of State.
Here's a thought. She didn't get indicted because she committed no crime. That's what the FBI said and I will take the word of the experts over yours any time.

You simply cannot use a loser such as Mitt Romney as the barometer for anything in this election. Mittens also thought he was entitled to be the nominee and later, that he didn't have to campaign to get elected. Also, how many times did he say: 'I know how to create jobs.' Yet he never told us how he would do it (and, of which he never really did). He did say he had a jobs creation plan....an 89 page -- or was it 89 points-- plan. :lol: :lol:

When Trump says he knows how to create jobs people believe him because he did it -- look at the golf courses, hotels and office buildings he built. These projects just didn't get there, he did it. Any jobs Romney created were jobs for bankers and lawyers in all those Bain Capital Wall Street deals. Trump has a record of creating high-paying union, blue collar manufacturing jobs. You may like to or want to, but you truly cannot deny this.
Let me get this straight. When Trump becomes President, he will build a hotel across from the White House; thereby solving the unemployment problem? You guys keep confusing providing jobs with creating them.

Back to Hillary, ugh...

All the pooh-bahs, experts, media smarty-pants and angry PA-OT posters have repeatedly talked up the point that Hillary! is really way ahead of Trump in these battleground states. Really? Since I live in Pennsylvania, I have been told that it is delusional to even think Trump could win Pennsylvania.

So, according to the know-it-alls, Hillary! won't lose Pennsylvania. That said: why is Hillary! spending tons of money here if she's a lock? Why did she make 5-6 visits here already? Why did Joe Biden make 2-3 visits and Barry Obama is scheduled to make a visit here next week? Why? Why? Why? If Hillary is a cinch in Pennsylvania, as you and the others have been telling me for many months, could you explain the reasoning behind all the visits by her and for her?
Hillary Clinton is not losing in Pennsylvania. Saying that is just foolish. But she does not have a large lead. She needs to visit the state to be sure she keeps that lead.

The answer is: she is losing in this state, and in the alleged shoo-in 'collar' counties surrounding Philadelphia, it is getting so tight, it has been making Hillary cough!

And, I haven't yet mentioned Hillary's anti-America policies on gun control, her anti-energy and anti-coal positions and her ignoring the blue-collar working class in Pennsylvania. Nor did I mention the corrupt 4-5 Democrats such as Rep. Shaka Fattah and just removed state Atty General Kathleen Kane that were indicted recently for corruption. Does this ring a bell? And there is Clinton bag man Ed Rendell, the slimy ex-governor and ex-Philadelphia mayor, who is now in a very public, very messy, very nasty divorce from his wife Midge. Trust me, boys and girls, that one will make great reading!
ED Rendell is getting a divorce. What does that have to do with who is most qualified to be President? Did Rendell tell his wife he was divorcing her when she was in a hospital bed recovering from surgery like Newt Gingrich?

Now, all of her commercials that I have seen shows Trump at a rally saying: 'I am going close the border and make Mexico pay for it.'
Ask the President of Mexico about that one.


... and, 'I am going to rip up all these trade deals'... to a Clinton supporter/heckler: 'Get him out of here. You can f--- yourself.'
What a great way for a presidential candidate to talk in public. I don't care if he uses those words in private, but doing so in a public forum shows a shocking lack of control.


stuff like that. Hillary is so dumb she doesn't realize that these ads highlight the very issues that makes Trump the next president of the USA! She thinks her ads are hurting Trump, when they are really helping him.
I hope you have the number to the National Suicide Prevention Hotline close at hand on November 8. You are going to need it.

[fast4522]

I hope you have the number to the National Suicide Prevention Hotline close at hand on November 8. You are going to need it.

He never said that he was going to kill himself if Trump lost. Such words are always from the left, your trap spews more garbage than the whole BBS combined.

[chadk66]

He never said that he was going to kill himself if Trump lost. Such words are always from the left, your trap spews more garbage than the whole BBS combined.You mean the BBS that resides in Britain that now is going to build a wall?:lol:

[fast4522]

You mean the BBS that resides in Britain that now is going to build a wall?:lol:

What I am saying is the retired postal carrier that suggested National Suicide Prevention Hotline liked way too many stamps during his career.

[barahona44]

What I am saying is the retired postal carrier that suggested National Suicide Prevention Hotline liked way too many stamps during his career.
What's wrong with liking stamps?Many people find it a fun and educational hobby. :)

[elysiantraveller]

They have been running Trump ads, full-time, for over a month here in Charlotte. I think Trump is on a roll right now, only a huge misstep by his campaign or himself, stops his momentum. The debates will be quite entertaining, to say the least, barring some kind of health crisis by Hillary.

The fact that Trump ads are running at all in Charlotte should be sign of problems not good things...

[fast4522]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCabT_O0YSM

Enjoy

[barn32]

4.3 point swing in the betting markets yesterday and this morning. Clinton up 2.3, and Trump down 2.

I didn't watch the "commander and chief thing" or whatever it was. I felt that Trump could only embarrass himself. Besides who cares? This close to the debates why even have it, let alone attend? Did Trump actually think he would come across as a better commander in chief? Looks like others might have felt the same way. Had he killed, I'm sure the betting markets would have reflected that.

Did Clinton do any better? Probably not. General perception is that they both lost, and perhaps she did slightly better, but since I didn't watch I'm only going by post show input. But I just read that the moderating was horrible.

I think that Trump had better prep a little bit better for the debates than rumors have him doing. He has got to come off looking great. Relaxed, poised, knowledgeable and presidential.

State polls have shifted though, Florida is now slightly red and Ohio is a tie.

[As a side note, after the show, I did go back and forth between the three cable networks listening to their commentary. As usual MSNBC found all of the faux pas, head scratchers and embarrassing remarks. CNN found some and tried to be middle of the road. And FOX of course kissed his hind end. These shows are so predictable. Amazing. Oh, and did you hear about Gringich's coughing fit as he tried to excoriate Clinton for her coughing fits? Too funny.]

Last weeks state by state spending in swing states:

http://i68.tinypic.com/2chb3x4.png


Clinton: 294
Tie: 18
Trump 226


http://i67.tinypic.com/34xg96d.png

[betovernetcapper]

Tuesday I looked at the map & with Texas solidly Red, it looked as though if Trump could take Florida the race would be a toss up. Florida was within a few points & if Rubio wins strong, Trump could take it. Yesterday Texas came into play

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160907-we-recommend-hillary-clinton-for-president.ece

My guess is the paper consulted with the Bush camp before making the endorsement. If my guess is right, then Texas is in play. Without Texas, I don't see any real path to a Trump victory.

[ReplayRandall]

My guess is the paper consulted with the Bush camp before making the endorsement. If my guess is right, then Texas is in play. Without Texas, I don't see any real path to a Trump victory.

If Texas, miraculously went blue in the election for POTUS, the state would immediately secede from the Union, illegally of course.

[betovernetcapper]

Texas has been Red since 1980,but in three of the last five races the Democrats were withing hailing distance. Since 1948, the Democrats have won the majority of the time.
In 2016 there will probably be more Hispanic voters than ever & most of them (in Texas) will be of Mexican descent. A large percentage of them might be anti Trump.
With the Dallas News endorsement of Clinton,I just don't see it as solidly Red as I did a week ago.

[Boris]

Dallas is the home of Mark Cuban. I'd guess the Dallas News cares more about staying on his good side than they do about playing nice with Trump.

[chadk66]

Texas is about as in play as Oklahoma:lol: I work with a pile of people from Texas. They're still Texas residents but work here and go back and forth. Never gonna happen.

[ReplayRandall]

Latest National Polls via Realclearpolitics.com:

Wednesday, September 7 PollResultsSpreadGeneral Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html)GWU/Battleground (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/BGGWTarranceGroupLakeResearch.pdf) Clinton 42, Trump 40, Johnson 11, Stein 3 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html) Clinton +2

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html)Economist/YouGov (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t17b77oz5n/weekly_presidential_election_tracking_report.pdf)C linton 40, Trump 38, Johnson 7, Stein 5 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html) Clinton +2

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html)Reuters/Ipsos (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_9.07_.16_.pdf)Clinton 40, Trump 38, Johnson 8, Stein 3 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html)Clinton +2

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)Economist/YouGov (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t17b77oz5n/weekly_presidential_election_tracking_report.pdf)C linton 44, Trump 42 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)Clinton +2

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)Reuters/Ipsos (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_9.07_.16_.pdf) Clinton 40, Trump 38 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)Clinton +2

[barahona44]

Texas has been Red since 1980,but in three of the last five races the Democrats were withing hailing distance. Since 1948, the Democrats have won the majority of the time.
In 2016 there will probably be more Hispanic voters than ever & most of them (in Texas) will be of Mexican descent. A large percentage of them might be anti Trump.
With the Dallas News endorsement of Clinton,I just don't see it as solidly Red as I did a week ago.
Texas is solid for Trump his victory margin should be comfortable, although not in W's 20 + point territory.

[_______]

in North Carolina where absentee ballots are being mailed out today. It's the first but it's estimated that in battleground states as many as 75% of the votes will be cast before Election Day.

tick tock.