11-07-2016, 02:57 PM
11-07-2016, 03:02 PM
As I suggested, LA Times has a lot of contradictory information in one stop shop.
11-07-2016, 03:15 PM
Quote:As I suggested, LA Times has a lot of contradictory information in one stop shop.
Because it's Dornsife actually doing the polling.
11-07-2016, 03:18 PM
Quote:LA Times Electoral Map -- they have HRC at 352. Personally, I think that is too high
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/t...story.html
I don't see her winning Arizona or Ohio.
11-07-2016, 03:55 PM
Quote:I don't see her winning Arizona or Ohio.
I totally agree. Looks like the LA Times are attempting to gain the audience of both sides.
11-07-2016, 03:56 PM
Quote:I don't see her winning Arizona or Ohio.Neither do I, but let's say that map is correct save for Arizona, Ohio and Florida; Trump would still be 26 votes short of a win.
11-07-2016, 04:18 PM
Quote:Neither do I, but let's say that map is correct save for Arizona, Ohio and Florida; Trump would still be 26 votes short of a win.
Definitely. The math is not in his favor.
Which is why he is in longshot states like Michigan and Minnesota.
11-07-2016, 04:46 PM
The math was never in his favor, but it's a lot better than anyone, especially the left, thought it would be.
And, it's better than the last GOP candidate as well.
Not shabby for a guy who we were told was going to drop out and could never see the nomination.
And, it's better than the last GOP candidate as well.
Not shabby for a guy who we were told was going to drop out and could never see the nomination.
11-07-2016, 04:50 PM
Quote:The math was never in his favor, but it's a lot better than anyone, especially the left, thought it would be.
And, it's better than the last GOP candidate as well.
Not shabby for a guy who we were told was going to drop out and could never see the nomination.
The only candidate Hillary could possibly beat! The one single guy that she had a shot against.
11-07-2016, 04:54 PM
Quote:The only candidate Hillary could possibly beat! The one single guy that she had a shot against.
That doesn't add up, given he's doing better than Romney.
11-07-2016, 04:55 PM
Quote:The only candidate Hillary could possibly beat! The one single guy that she had a shot against.
I agree. This election was so geared toward the GOP given us Dems elected a candidate we all pretty much despise.
11-07-2016, 05:16 PM
Quote:That doesn't add up, given he's doing better than Romney.Romney was facing Obama, not Clinton. If it was Romney instead of Trump this election would have over months ago.
11-07-2016, 05:19 PM
Quote:Romney was facing Obama, not Clinton. If it was Romney instead of Trump this election would have over months ago.
Romney would have had my vote.
11-07-2016, 05:20 PM
Lol... "geared toward GOP"
Only if you consider "neverTrump" the fly in the ointment.
Problem is, conservatives are more independent thinking than the D. Fewer "neverTrump" turned on their commitment to not vote for him, than those who felt the Bern. In the end, they came back to their loyalties to the D at a higher rate.
It is possible it could have been called already for Trump if it weren't for "neverTrump."
The difference between the two was, is, and has always been that of two bad candidates, one party stayed loyal and the other didn't have that same unwavering support. Donald did better than anyone who could have run in his place. Conservatives would have simply stayed at home again like they did for Romney.
Again, the D learned this when they were hammered in the mid to late 90s. They were fractured and in-fighting because they were losing on policy and issues. They were able to successfully turn the debate away from policy to us vs. them, so they began the attacking of the GOP - united against one common enemy. It worked, and still does to the low information voter. As the GOP kept thinking they could win on issues and policy, trying to appeal to voters with reason - they got slugged by the D, who were no longer fighting among themselves as the GOP is now, who have successfully "blamed Bush" (ironic because so much of his failures were when he adopted leftist policy himself, adding unnecessary debt and expanding government when it wasn't needed) and have maintained a false narrative that the GOP is the enemy.
Had they adopted the same level of cohesion, sure. But that's not a Trump issue, it's a GOP one. He's the only thing that's given them a breath of life, and hopefully has sparked change (in both parties.)
The institution of the career politician must come to an end. Otherwise, we're going to go right back to a system our founders built to try to ensure we'd never be.
Unfortunately, that's going to quickly come to an end if we maintain this incorrect course.
Only if you consider "neverTrump" the fly in the ointment.
Problem is, conservatives are more independent thinking than the D. Fewer "neverTrump" turned on their commitment to not vote for him, than those who felt the Bern. In the end, they came back to their loyalties to the D at a higher rate.
It is possible it could have been called already for Trump if it weren't for "neverTrump."
The difference between the two was, is, and has always been that of two bad candidates, one party stayed loyal and the other didn't have that same unwavering support. Donald did better than anyone who could have run in his place. Conservatives would have simply stayed at home again like they did for Romney.
Again, the D learned this when they were hammered in the mid to late 90s. They were fractured and in-fighting because they were losing on policy and issues. They were able to successfully turn the debate away from policy to us vs. them, so they began the attacking of the GOP - united against one common enemy. It worked, and still does to the low information voter. As the GOP kept thinking they could win on issues and policy, trying to appeal to voters with reason - they got slugged by the D, who were no longer fighting among themselves as the GOP is now, who have successfully "blamed Bush" (ironic because so much of his failures were when he adopted leftist policy himself, adding unnecessary debt and expanding government when it wasn't needed) and have maintained a false narrative that the GOP is the enemy.
Had they adopted the same level of cohesion, sure. But that's not a Trump issue, it's a GOP one. He's the only thing that's given them a breath of life, and hopefully has sparked change (in both parties.)
The institution of the career politician must come to an end. Otherwise, we're going to go right back to a system our founders built to try to ensure we'd never be.
Unfortunately, that's going to quickly come to an end if we maintain this incorrect course.
11-07-2016, 05:44 PM
Donald fans, just face it.
He's just not that popular.
He has at least a dozen beliefs and character traits that have turned the American public off of him, and even a late attempt to game the system by a FBI splinter cell can't remove "grab them by the _____" from our minds.
Kasich, Jeb, or Rubio would have won it by a 100 electoral votes.
This is a perfect example of decent candidates being "primaried out", in a unique event in our history. A candidate with a strong 10% of the vote beat out 15 other candidates that pretty much ate each other. Stir in a little hatred and weak Democrat, and here we are.
Hillary will get at least 300 tomorrow, and won't need Florida or Ohio. Which is lucky for her, because she's probably not going to carry either one.
That being said, she's wise to call off the fireworks. Win or lose, only the most steadfast feminists and liberals will want to celebrate.
He's just not that popular.
He has at least a dozen beliefs and character traits that have turned the American public off of him, and even a late attempt to game the system by a FBI splinter cell can't remove "grab them by the _____" from our minds.
Kasich, Jeb, or Rubio would have won it by a 100 electoral votes.
This is a perfect example of decent candidates being "primaried out", in a unique event in our history. A candidate with a strong 10% of the vote beat out 15 other candidates that pretty much ate each other. Stir in a little hatred and weak Democrat, and here we are.
Hillary will get at least 300 tomorrow, and won't need Florida or Ohio. Which is lucky for her, because she's probably not going to carry either one.
That being said, she's wise to call off the fireworks. Win or lose, only the most steadfast feminists and liberals will want to celebrate.
11-07-2016, 05:47 PM
Quote:Romney would have had my vote.
Me, too. But not Trump.
11-07-2016, 05:58 PM
Quote:Lol... "geared toward GOP"
My non-rapist wife is from Mexico -- our vote was decided approximately a year ago.
Couple that with the fact that he totally dissed POW's made this vote a little easier for me.
11-07-2016, 06:04 PM
Quote:
Kasich, Jeb, or Rubio would have won it by a 100 electoral votes.
You'd like to believe that, but there's no evidence whatsoever that points to it.
11-07-2016, 06:04 PM
Sorry guys, but Trump is going to lose bigly.
11-07-2016, 06:05 PM
Quote:You'd like to believe that, but there's no evidence whatsoever that points to it.Literally anyone else running against Hillary with the email server problems etc. would win in a landslide.