Planet Rugby Forum

zt1903 wrote:

Saint wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Saint wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:First salvos being fired by Clinton...

https://amp.twimg.com/v/85d61190-d754-4 ... b58ec11532

And those were the nice things they said about Donald

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1438986153 ... ampaign-ad

It's a viewpoint. Personally I think the ad is at least mildly amusing, and does what it was intended to do - remind the anti Trump brigade exactly why they were anti Trump.

At the end of the day, nothing really starts till after the conventions

Indeed. It is an amusing ad, but Adams point about its impact makes sense.

Scott Adams has been one of the most accurate people in explaining/getting Trump. He predicted him winning back in August. His blogs on the subject are worth a read and are genuinely more insightful than the regular diet of tripe we're getting c&p'd by political hacks from the mainstream media and Salon, the Atlantic, etc.

Though he makes some very valid points, Adams is being disingenuous when he claims to have no skin in the game. The man is a red-blooded Republican and, at the very least, is sporting an impressive semi-erection for the Don.

towny wrote:I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.

I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

The republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

The Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.

Ewinkum wrote:

towny wrote:I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.

I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

The republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

The Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.

All well and good but Trump ain't winning squat unless he can win the demographics that matter in presidential elections - Hispanics; Women; and Blacks. In short, the Obama Coalition. The republicans have won the white male vote hands down in the past 2 failed presidential elections.

Ewinkum wrote:

towny wrote:I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.

I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

The republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

The Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.

Fuck that is rich. Trump is as toxic as it gets.

Kiwias wrote:

towny wrote:I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.

I watched the clip of her, when asked about the likelihood of strong attacks from Trump, basically saying "Bring it on. I've been the target of attacks for 25 years now"

The problem is that Trump does not operate the same way as all the politicians to have attacked her over that time. She has never had to deal with anything like him.

It will be very nasty and incredibly entertaining

Auckman wrote:

Ewinkum wrote:

towny wrote:I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.

I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

The republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

The Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.

All well and good but Trump ain't winning squat unless he can win the demographics that matter in presidential elections - Hispanics; Women; and Blacks. In short, the Obama Coalition. The republicans have won the white male vote hands down in the past 2 failed presidential elections.

Especially since the number of eligible voters in those groups has shot up since the last election.

Ewinkum wrote:

towny wrote:I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.

I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

The republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

The Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.

Yeah, reckon your fantasy is more to do with wishful thinking than anything else. I don't mean to be rude, but I enjoy discussing politics with people who aren't lunatics and/or ideological stooges.

jdogscoop wrote:

Ewinkum wrote:

towny wrote:I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.

I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

The republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

The Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.

Fuck that is rich. Trump is as toxic as it gets.

Cruz >> Rubio >>> Trump when it comes to bottom feeders.

Other than perhaps Kasich, Trump was the most sane, reasonable selection of the GOP field.

towny wrote:Yeah, reckon your fantasy is more to do with wishful thinking than anything else. I don't mean to be rude, but I enjoy discussing politics with people who aren't lunatics and/or ideological stooges.

towny wrote:

jdogscoop wrote:

Ewinkum wrote:

towny wrote:I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.

I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

The republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

The Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.

Fuck that is rich. Trump is as toxic as it gets.

Cruz >> Rubio >>> Trump when it comes to bottom feeders.

Other than perhaps Kasich, Trump was the most sane, reasonable selection of the GOP field.

How do you figure that? I thought Cruz appeared the more moderate of the two in recent weeks.

I judge Cruz on his record of being a nutjob, obstructionist piece of shit. He, more than most, is responsible for the goat-fudge that is the US Congress. He's the worst of the worst.

Some quotes:
- "Obama just a “social worker” who wants to put ISIS “on expanded Medicaid”.
- “It is the job of a chaplain to be insensitive to atheists”
- “I expect them to start quartering soldiers in people’s homes soon”
- “Gay marriage” leads to Christianity becoming “hate speech”
- “No man who doesn’t begin every day on his knees is fit to stand in the Oval Office.”
- “I want to tell everyone to get ready, strap on the full armor of God, get ready for the attacks that are coming.”
- “I like Donald Trump. I think he’s terrific, I think he’s brash, I think he speaks the truth…He has a way of speaking that gets attention. And I credit him for focusing on an issue that needs to be focused on.”


Add to that his religious zealotry and you've got someone who'd be more dangerous than Hulk Hogan on ice as President.

Of course, he did appear reasonable in the past 2 weeks though....

Silver wrote:

Saint wrote:
or Silver for that matter.

I get why Trump won the GOP primaries. I don't like it, I'm very disturbed by the implications, but I get it. I don't get how that translates into winning the main competition, even against Clinton, without the rest of the USA undergoing a bout of mass amnesia.

But surely you can see why Hillary is scarier? So Trump might (he might not) stand up for the 99%. He will be watched closely which is no bad thing and will have nothing to hide behind (he's white and male). Hillary will only represent the 1%. And she seems to love killing and war. She is controlled and dangerous. Obama was controlled and a fake but wasn't too mad / bad. Hillary is mad.

I am surprised you actually manage to get out of bed every morning.........or do you ?

The Sun God wrote:

Silver wrote:

Saint wrote:
or Silver for that matter.

I get why Trump won the GOP primaries. I don't like it, I'm very disturbed by the implications, but I get it. I don't get how that translates into winning the main competition, even against Clinton, without the rest of the USA undergoing a bout of mass amnesia.

But surely you can see why Hillary is scarier? So Trump might (he might not) stand up for the 99%. He will be watched closely which is no bad thing and will have nothing to hide behind (he's white and male). Hillary will only represent the 1%. And she seems to love killing and war. She is controlled and dangerous. Obama was controlled and a fake but wasn't too mad / bad. Hillary is mad.

I am surprised you actually manage to get out of bed every morning.........or do you ?

I think the people in the US and UK have a last chance to stop a total takeover by the elite. To implement their ruthless, heartless rule. That it to vote leave. And not vote for Hillary. If stay win and Hillary wins its too late and all over. The West need the wise and courageous to save them. Because if the UK and US fall the rest will too.

towny wrote:

Ewinkum wrote:

towny wrote:I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.

I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

The republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

The Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.

Yeah, reckon your fantasy is more to do with wishful thinking than anything else. I don't mean to be rude, but I enjoy discussing politics with people who aren't lunatics and/or ideological stooges.

You're lots of bluster, no substance Towny.
The Trump of PR.

It might have been a stretch for the Don if the Dems put up a candidate who had an ounce of likeability, but they went for Clinton instead so I reckon it'll be the Don without breaking a sweat.

I just don't get why so many people defend Shillary. You guys really love her don't you? You also seem to love the ruling 1% and anyone who doesn't is a "crackpot" or "loon"

DragonKhan wrote:I just don't get why so many people defend Shillary. You guys really love her don't you? You also seem to love the ruling 1% and anyone who doesn't is a "crackpot" or "loon"

What makes you think Trump is not the 1%. Inherited wealth and who bases a lot of his credentials on still being incredibly wealthy (although that is up for debate).

There's nothing genuine about Trump.

Choosing between him and Shillary is a horrid choice.

Xin wrote:

DragonKhan wrote:I just don't get why so many people defend Shillary. You guys really love her don't you? You also seem to love the ruling 1% and anyone who doesn't is a "crackpot" or "loon"

What makes you think Trump is not the 1%. Inherited wealth and who bases a lot of his credentials on still being incredibly wealthy (although that is up for debate).

Technically he is the 1%, no arguing there. I just can't see past the literal blood on Hilary's hands. Benghazi

towny wrote:I judge Cruz on his record of being a nutjob, obstructionist piece of shit. He, more than most, is responsible for the goat-fudge that is the US Congress. He's the worst of the worst.

Some quotes:
- "Obama just a “social worker” who wants to put ISIS “on expanded Medicaid”.
- “It is the job of a chaplain to be insensitive to atheists”
- “I expect them to start quartering soldiers in people’s homes soon”
- “Gay marriage” leads to Christianity becoming “hate speech”
- “No man who doesn’t begin every day on his knees is fit to stand in the Oval Office.”
- “I want to tell everyone to get ready, strap on the full armor of God, get ready for the attacks that are coming.”
- “I like Donald Trump. I think he’s terrific, I think he’s brash, I think he speaks the truth…He has a way of speaking that gets attention. And I credit him for focusing on an issue that needs to be focused on.”


Add to that his religious zealotry and you've got someone who'd be more dangerous than Hulk Hogan on ice as President.

Of course, he did appear reasonable in the past 2 weeks though....

Sounds like we should send him an invite to join Planet Rugby Forum! (is best forum)

Do we have this function and if not should we have this function?

DragonKhan wrote:I just don't get why so many people defend Shillary. You guys really love her don't you? You also seem to love the ruling 1% and anyone who doesn't is a "crackpot" or "loon"

a fan of Shillary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnpnh4tDFkc

DragonKhan wrote:

Xin wrote:

DragonKhan wrote:I just don't get why so many people defend Shillary. You guys really love her don't you? You also seem to love the ruling 1% and anyone who doesn't is a "crackpot" or "loon"

What makes you think Trump is not the 1%. Inherited wealth and who bases a lot of his credentials on still being incredibly wealthy (although that is up for debate).

Technically he is the 1%, no arguing there. I just can't see past the literal blood on Hilary's hands. Benghazi

"literal"

Auckman wrote:

Ewinkum wrote:

towny wrote:I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.

I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

The republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

The Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.

All well and good but Trump ain't winning squat unless he can win the demographics that matter in presidential elections - Hispanics; Women; and Blacks. In short, the Obama Coalition. The republicans have won the white male vote hands down in the past 2 failed presidential elections.

Lots of blue collar workers stayed home rather than vote for Obama or Romney. I've never seen apathy so high as in 2012. For all the talk of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives looking for other options this year, they're very small in number, probably single digits of the electorate.

Republicans do pitifully with blacks anyway, I think 93% of black voters went for Obama last time. As counterintuitive as it seems, Trump may actually improve that number. But it's fair to say he has lots of work to do with women and has mobilized Latinos against him.

Setting opinions and preferences aside for the moment, it's interesting to look at the numbers and the challenges that Trump must overcome. Since the day Trump entered the race last summer, he was on top of the GOP polls. Most opinions felt he could not remain there but Trump advanced to win just under half the GOP popular vote (let's be generous and say 45%). But the GOP is typically about 40% of the electorate, which gives Trump approximately a core 18% firmly in his camp. They'll vote for Trump irrespective of what he says/does or what the Clinton campaign hurls his way.

Most recent surveys have Clinton at a minus-15 net favourability, with 38% reporting a “very unfavourable” view. They seem pretty lousy numbers for sure, but they are actually gold next to Trump’s minus-43, with a very large 56% of all eligible voters viewing him "very unfavourably". When more than half the country loathes you, you’re going to have a tough time making it up in volume. Most importantly, it’s not that the rest of the country has yet to be introduced to Trump the candidate either; he has pretty much 100% name recognition with the electorate and strong opinions have already been formed. So these surveys and polls carry greater weight than they otherwise might at this point in time.

Typically, women lean 7 to 8pts more Democratic than men and women cast 53% of all ballots. In the latest CNN nationwide poll, Clinton has 13-pt lead, Trump loses every geographic region, education level, and income level. Married women makeup almost 1/3 of all voters, and according to a recent Purple Strategies poll, Trump has a 70% unfavourable rating with these married women, who strongly prefer Hillary by a 13-pt margin. Trump saying “Women love me. I’ll do very well for women” is unlikely to change those numbers. Moreover, Hillary is nearly just as well known as Trump, so it's difficult to see what Trump can throw at her campaign to significantly shift those opinion.

So, Trump will need to test the limits of a strategy that the GOP has heavily relied heavily upon, namely win white male voters in order to overcome a strong disadvantage among minorities and most subsets of women. I've read some republican pollsters who have argued that Trump will need to win an unprecedented 70% of white male voters. Given that he polls poorly among college educated, (74% have a negative view of Trump), this may simply be too big an ask. For example, in Florida, where Obama’s slim margin of re-election makes it almost a must-win for Trump, white men made up just 30% of the 2012 vote.

Brian9848 wrote:Setting opinions and preferences aside for the moment, it's interesting to look at the numbers and the challenges that Trump must overcome. Since the day Trump entered the race last summer, he was on top of the GOP polls. Most opinions felt he could not remain there but Trump advanced to win just under half the GOP popular vote (let's be generous and say 45%). But the GOP is typically about 40% of the electorate, which gives Trump approximately a core 18% firmly in his camp. They'll vote for Trump irrespective of what he says/does or what the Clinton campaign hurls his way.

Most recent surveys have Clinton at a minus-15 net favourability, with 38% reporting a “very unfavourable” view. They seem pretty lousy numbers for sure, but they are actually gold next to Trump’s minus-43, with a very large 56% of all eligible voters viewing him "very unfavourably". When more than half the country loathes you, you’re going to have a tough time making it up in volume. Most importantly, it’s not that the rest of the country has yet to be introduced to Trump the candidate either; he has pretty much 100% name recognition with the electorate and strong opinions have already been formed. So these surveys and polls carry greater weight than they otherwise might at this point in time.

Typically, women lean 7 to 8pts more Democratic than men and women cast 53% of all ballots. In the latest CNN nationwide poll, Clinton has 13-pt lead, Trump loses every geographic region, education level, and income level. Married women makeup almost 1/3 of all voters, and according to a recent Purple Strategies poll, Trump has a 70% unfavourable rating with these married women, who strongly prefer Hillary by a 13-pt margin. Trump saying “Women love me. I’ll do very well for women” is unlikely to change those numbers. Moreover, Hillary is nearly just as well known as Trump, so it's difficult to see what Trump can throw at her campaign to significantly shift those opinion.

So, Trump will need to test the limits of a strategy that the GOP has heavily relied heavily upon, namely win white male voters in order to overcome a strong disadvantage among minorities and most subsets of women. I've read some republican pollsters who have argued that Trump will need to win an unprecedented 70% of white male voters. Given that he polls poorly among college educated, (74% have a negative view of Trump), this may simply be too big an ask. For example, in Florida, where Obama’s slim margin of re-election makes it almost a must-win for Trump, white men made up just 30% of the 2012 vote.

Have you considered the possibility that he can drag Hillary's numbers down? When he attacked the other GOP candidates, their numbers disintegrated. Granted, it's a different sort of race, but one after the other, he knocked them out. He appears to run the best smear campaigns going, and there's a lot of ammo where Hillary is concerned. He just needs to get a consistent (and damaging message) across to the people about her.

Brian9848 wrote: Most recent surveys have Clinton at a minus-15 net favourability, with 38% reporting a “very unfavourable” view. They seem pretty lousy numbers for sure, but they are actually gold next to Trump’s minus-43, with a very large 56% of all eligible voters viewing him "very unfavourably". When more than half the country loathes you, you’re going to have a tough time making it up in volume.

Just surmising here, but would that necessarily rule people out of voting for either candidate? Wouldn't a lot of those respondents have an unfavourable view of both Clinton and Trump? I can imagine there's a lot of voters who dislike Trump but dislike Clinton more, and vice versa. If they vote, they've gotta vote for one of them.

My point being, a high unfavourability rating isn't necessarily a big minus for either candidate when they're both widely disliked.

Brian9848 wrote:So, Trump will need to test the limits of a strategy that the GOP has heavily relied heavily upon, namely win white male voters in order to overcome a strong disadvantage among minorities and most subsets of women. I've read some republican pollsters who have argued that Trump will need to win an unprecedented 70% of white male voters. Given that he polls poorly among college educated, (74% have a negative view of Trump), this may simply be too big an ask. For example, in Florida, where Obama’s slim margin of re-election makes it almost a must-win for Trump, white men made up just 30% of the 2012 vote.

This is the crux. Trump has to win Florida to have any hope, and that is a long shot even with getting whatshisface as VP.

Besides the demographics you've mentioned plenty of retirees there who have forgotten Monica and prefer to remember the good old days when once upon a time the US government offered a balanced budget.

For all the crap that has been spouted about Hillary Bill still looms large having now been pretty much universally recognized as one of the best presidents in modern times, history has been kind to him.

Hillary will maintain her promise that half her cabinet will be women, which will help get a few more female voters that otherwise dislike her, and then simply say who do you trust has the attributes to govern as the camera pans over to Bill in the background.

The Trump trumpeteers can blow their horns as loudly as they like, but they ain't got anything yet in their bag of tricks to counter that.

towny wrote:I judge Cruz on his record of being a nutjob, obstructionist piece of shit. He, more than most, is responsible for the goat-fudge that is the US Congress. He's the worst of the worst.

Some quotes:
- "Obama just a “social worker” who wants to put ISIS “on expanded Medicaid”.
- “It is the job of a chaplain to be insensitive to atheists”
- “I expect them to start quartering soldiers in people’s homes soon”
- “Gay marriage” leads to Christianity becoming “hate speech”
- “No man who doesn’t begin every day on his knees is fit to stand in the Oval Office.”
- “I want to tell everyone to get ready, strap on the full armor of God, get ready for the attacks that are coming.”
- “I like Donald Trump. I think he’s terrific, I think he’s brash, I think he speaks the truth…He has a way of speaking that gets attention. And I credit him for focusing on an issue that needs to be focused on.”


Add to that his religious zealotry and you've got someone who'd be more dangerous than Hulk Hogan on ice as President.

Of course, he did appear reasonable in the past 2 weeks though....

So he's religious. None of that comes close to some of the putrid shit Drumpf has been spouting over the last few months.

Killary Klinton

https://twitter.com/killarykklinton

or

Shillary Clinton
https://twitter.com/shillaryclinton

Rugby2023 wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:Setting opinions and preferences aside for the moment, it's interesting to look at the numbers and the challenges that Trump must overcome. Since the day Trump entered the race last summer, he was on top of the GOP polls. Most opinions felt he could not remain there but Trump advanced to win just under half the GOP popular vote (let's be generous and say 45%). But the GOP is typically about 40% of the electorate, which gives Trump approximately a core 18% firmly in his camp. They'll vote for Trump irrespective of what he says/does or what the Clinton campaign hurls his way.

Most recent surveys have Clinton at a minus-15 net favourability, with 38% reporting a “very unfavourable” view. They seem pretty lousy numbers for sure, but they are actually gold next to Trump’s minus-43, with a very large 56% of all eligible voters viewing him "very unfavourably". When more than half the country loathes you, you’re going to have a tough time making it up in volume. Most importantly, it’s not that the rest of the country has yet to be introduced to Trump the candidate either; he has pretty much 100% name recognition with the electorate and strong opinions have already been formed. So these surveys and polls carry greater weight than they otherwise might at this point in time.

Typically, women lean 7 to 8pts more Democratic than men and women cast 53% of all ballots. In the latest CNN nationwide poll, Clinton has 13-pt lead, Trump loses every geographic region, education level, and income level. Married women makeup almost 1/3 of all voters, and according to a recent Purple Strategies poll, Trump has a 70% unfavourable rating with these married women, who strongly prefer Hillary by a 13-pt margin. Trump saying “Women love me. I’ll do very well for women” is unlikely to change those numbers. Moreover, Hillary is nearly just as well known as Trump, so it's difficult to see what Trump can throw at her campaign to significantly shift those opinion.

So, Trump will need to test the limits of a strategy that the GOP has heavily relied heavily upon, namely win white male voters in order to overcome a strong disadvantage among minorities and most subsets of women. I've read some republican pollsters who have argued that Trump will need to win an unprecedented 70% of white male voters. Given that he polls poorly among college educated, (74% have a negative view of Trump), this may simply be too big an ask. For example, in Florida, where Obama’s slim margin of re-election makes it almost a must-win for Trump, white men made up just 30% of the 2012 vote.

Have you considered the possibility that he can drag Hillary's numbers down? When he attacked the other GOP candidates, their numbers disintegrated. Granted, it's a different sort of race, but one after the other, he knocked them out. He appears to run the best smear campaigns going, and there's a lot of ammo where Hillary is concerned. He just needs to get a consistent (and damaging message) across to the people about her.

If anything, it seems that Trump's nomination has animated the Democratic base and that his nomination has actually helped address a weakness in Hillary's campaign, namely the enthusiasm gap. With strong rumours that Gingrich is a front runner to be selected as Trump's running mate, I don't see Democratic turnout being depressed. Hillary is not an unknown.

Frankly, it may be more likely that Trump's nomination depresses traditional GOP turnout eg. "The NeverTrump." Go to any board over here (read the comments on articles on NationalReview.com for example) and you'll see that Trump people are threatening to withhold support for candidates that are anti-Trump (i.e. Ryan), while "The NeverTrump" may simply not turn up or are unlikely to support candidates that are pro-Trump. It's a problem that could significantly weaken the Republican Party as a force in Congressional races.

Brian9848 wrote:Setting opinions and preferences aside for the moment, it's interesting to look at the numbers and the challenges that Trump must overcome. Since the day Trump entered the race last summer, he was on top of the GOP polls. Most opinions felt he could not remain there but Trump advanced to win just under half the GOP popular vote (let's be generous and say 45%). But the GOP is typically about 40% of the electorate, which gives Trump approximately a core 18% firmly in his camp. They'll vote for Trump irrespective of what he says/does or what the Clinton campaign hurls his way.

Most recent surveys have Clinton at a minus-15 net favourability, with 38% reporting a “very unfavourable” view. They seem pretty lousy numbers for sure, but they are actually gold next to Trump’s minus-43, with a very large 56% of all eligible voters viewing him "very unfavourably". When more than half the country loathes you, you’re going to have a tough time making it up in volume. Most importantly, it’s not that the rest of the country has yet to be introduced to Trump the candidate either; he has pretty much 100% name recognition with the electorate and strong opinions have already been formed. So these surveys and polls carry greater weight than they otherwise might at this point in time.

Typically, women lean 7 to 8pts more Democratic than men and women cast 53% of all ballots. In the latest CNN nationwide poll, Clinton has 13-pt lead, Trump loses every geographic region, education level, and income level. Married women makeup almost 1/3 of all voters, and according to a recent Purple Strategies poll, Trump has a 70% unfavourable rating with these married women, who strongly prefer Hillary by a 13-pt margin. Trump saying “Women love me. I’ll do very well for women” is unlikely to change those numbers. Moreover, Hillary is nearly just as well known as Trump, so it's difficult to see what Trump can throw at her campaign to significantly shift those opinion.

So, Trump will need to test the limits of a strategy that the GOP has heavily relied heavily upon, namely win white male voters in order to overcome a strong disadvantage among minorities and most subsets of women. I've read some republican pollsters who have argued that Trump will need to win an unprecedented 70% of white male voters. Given that he polls poorly among college educated, (74% have a negative view of Trump), this may simply be too big an ask. For example, in Florida, where Obama’s slim margin of re-election makes it almost a must-win for Trump, white men made up just 30% of the 2012 vote.

Interesting numbers, but how many of the people who would not normally vote Trump are also part of the 'Anyone but Hillary' camp?
The serious negative image of the both of them is going to seriously screw with any numbers.


How many voters out there are going to be so disillusioned by these two that they decide nither of them are worth voting for?

If a vote of no confidence was the third option, it'd probably win.

I'd have thought that Hillary is a 'known known', and that so much shit has been shovelled her way over the years that there's not room for any more to stick. There is also the Barry and Bill road show that will ensure all the key Democratic demographics are enthused like hell to vote.

So Donald seems to be taking the "coal-miners" vote away from Hillary that her husband was able to secure for the dems a few years back. Obama and now Hillary have managed to push them away again...

Brian9848 wrote:If anything, it seems that Trump's nomination has animated the Democratic base and that his nomination has actually helped address a weakness in Hillary's campaign, namely the enthusiasm gap. With strong rumours that Gingrich is a front runner to be selected as Trump's running mate, I don't see Democratic turnout being depressed. Hillary is not an unknown.

Frankly, it may be more likely that Trump's nomination depresses traditional GOP turnout eg. "The NeverTrump." Go to any board over here (read the comments on articles on NationalReview.com for example) and you'll see that Trump people are threatening to withhold support for candidates that are anti-Trump (i.e. Ryan), while "The NeverTrump" may simply not turn up or are unlikely to support candidates that are pro-Trump. It's a problem that could significantly weaken the Republican Party as a force in Congressional races.

This is all very wishful thinking.

Mr Fedora wrote:

Brian9848 wrote: Most recent surveys have Clinton at a minus-15 net favourability, with 38% reporting a “very unfavourable” view. They seem pretty lousy numbers for sure, but they are actually gold next to Trump’s minus-43, with a very large 56% of all eligible voters viewing him "very unfavourably". When more than half the country loathes you, you’re going to have a tough time making it up in volume.

Just surmising here, but would that necessarily rule people out of voting for either candidate? Wouldn't a lot of those respondents have an unfavourable view of both Clinton and Trump? I can imagine there's a lot of voters who dislike Trump but dislike Clinton more, and vice versa. If they vote, they've gotta vote for one of them.

My point being, a high unfavourability rating isn't necessarily a big minus for either candidate when they're both widely disliked.

Possibly. Recent polling/numbers suggest that it's a bigger problem for Republicans than Democrats.

Right now, a quarter of Republican insiders/activists polled by Politico say they will NOT vote for Trump, with an additional 35% saying they are unsure (see below). These are massive numbers. So, right now, Trump will not have the support of 25% of the GOP base come election time.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/m ... ump-222866

Bowens wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:If anything, it seems that Trump's nomination has animated the Democratic base and that his nomination has actually helped address a weakness in Hillary's campaign, namely the enthusiasm gap. With strong rumours that Gingrich is a front runner to be selected as Trump's running mate, I don't see Democratic turnout being depressed. Hillary is not an unknown.

Frankly, it may be more likely that Trump's nomination depresses traditional GOP turnout eg. "The NeverTrump." Go to any board over here (read the comments on articles on NationalReview.com for example) and you'll see that Trump people are threatening to withhold support for candidates that are anti-Trump (i.e. Ryan), while "The NeverTrump" may simply not turn up or are unlikely to support candidates that are pro-Trump. It's a problem that could significantly weaken the Republican Party as a force in Congressional races.

This is all very wishful thinking.

It's not wishful at all. It's opinion rooted in data. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/m ... ump-222866

Again, as I mentioned, Trump has serious numbers he needs to overcome.

double post

Brian9848 wrote:

Bowens wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:If anything, it seems that Trump's nomination has animated the Democratic base and that his nomination has actually helped address a weakness in Hillary's campaign, namely the enthusiasm gap. With strong rumours that Gingrich is a front runner to be selected as Trump's running mate, I don't see Democratic turnout being depressed. Hillary is not an unknown.

Frankly, it may be more likely that Trump's nomination depresses traditional GOP turnout eg. "The NeverTrump." Go to any board over here (read the comments on articles on NationalReview.com for example) and you'll see that Trump people are threatening to withhold support for candidates that are anti-Trump (i.e. Ryan), while "The NeverTrump" may simply not turn up or are unlikely to support candidates that are pro-Trump. It's a problem that could significantly weaken the Republican Party as a force in Congressional races.

This is all very wishful thinking.

It's not wishful at all. It's opinion rooted in data. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/m ... ump-222866

Again, as I mentioned, Trump has serious numbers he needs to overcome.

No. They're selective numbers that you've probably wasted lots of time pulling in order to prove a point that will be moot in a few weeks. #NeverTrump is as cohesive and well organized as the US-trained Syrian rebel movement.

Ewinkum wrote:I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

"It's a vast right-wing conspiracy."

In all honesty, her and her husband have been covered in corrupt things since Bill was involved in Arkansas politics. She'll shrug this off or at least try to because that's what the Clintons do. She's not going to withdraw pre-convention. Her personal ambition for power is too high for her to do so.

the republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

Personally, I hate the bitch and won't vote for her but she'd damage the country less than Sanders would. Trump was underestimated by everyone in the Republican Party and the Democrats could as well, but seriously, although Hillary has been unable to put away an old white socialist guy from Vermont, if she is anything as a candidate, she should defeat Trump.

e Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.

She scared everyone credible in the Democratic Party from running (Sanders is not a Democrat) with the exception of former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley, and he received zero support. A good amount of Sanders support can be put on Democrats that knows Hillary will be the nominee but want to bloody her nose because they don't like the Clntons.

Bowens wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:

Bowens wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:If anything, it seems that Trump's nomination has animated the Democratic base and that his nomination has actually helped address a weakness in Hillary's campaign, namely the enthusiasm gap. With strong rumours that Gingrich is a front runner to be selected as Trump's running mate, I don't see Democratic turnout being depressed. Hillary is not an unknown.

Frankly, it may be more likely that Trump's nomination depresses traditional GOP turnout eg. "The NeverTrump." Go to any board over here (read the comments on articles on NationalReview.com for example) and you'll see that Trump people are threatening to withhold support for candidates that are anti-Trump (i.e. Ryan), while "The NeverTrump" may simply not turn up or are unlikely to support candidates that are pro-Trump. It's a problem that could significantly weaken the Republican Party as a force in Congressional races.

This is all very wishful thinking.

It's not wishful at all. It's opinion rooted in data. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/m ... ump-222866

Again, as I mentioned, Trump has serious numbers he needs to overcome.

No. They're selective numbers that you've probably wasted lots of time pulling in order to prove a point that will be moot in a few weeks. #NeverTrump is as cohesive and well organized as the US-trained Syrian rebel movement.

So, to be clear, you apparently you think Trump does not have serious challenges to overcome i.e. damaging polling, demographic and unfavourable data? I think I've fully supported the point I was trying to make, namely that Trump has such challenges, and that he is up against it. The attached Politico story with polling data suggests that he's struggle to even secure the GOP base.