Jump to content

2016 US Election.

CRAZY CHRIS
in News and Politics

Featured Replies

But yes, the longer this goes on the more I worry about a Trump V Clinton match up. In every way she would be the obvious, sensible choice but pragmatism and level headedness isn't as cool nor does it excite people in the same way as Trump's particular brand of politics does. If Bernie does drag this out until June then they could also risk dividing the Democratic base too, further weakening her chances. It's definitely interesting to watch unfold, but also the reality of what might be is a fairly sobering thought too.
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Views 88.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

If Clinton does get there her moderate positions will easily beat Trump in a general election!
Bernie Sanders being at 90% in the polls IN HIS OWN STATE. Well, if ever there was proof he's slaying and definitely going to win the nomination......

 

Fact is (and I do mean FACT, not blindly ignoring the actual polling and creating our own dream world statistics) Hilary is ahead in most states according to the polls, and those he is ahead in by and large have a low delegate count so the electoral maths doesn't really add up. 90% in Vermont is pretty miniscule in the grand scheme of things if she is 10% ahead in Texas, for example.

 

But he is catching up in all states + momentum + trends so ...

 

And nope. Kerry had moderate positions but had a TRUST problem like Hillary does but Hillary has the added problem of a divided base.

But yes, the longer this goes on the more I worry about a Trump V Clinton match up. In every way she would be the obvious, sensible choice but pragmatism and level headedness isn't as cool nor does it excite people in the same way as Trump's particular brand of politics does. If Bernie does drag this out until June then they could also risk dividing the Democratic base too, further weakening her chances. It's definitely interesting to watch unfold, but also the reality of what might be is a fairly sobering thought too.

 

It's already divided. He has the youth vote who will stay at home if he doesn't win!

 

Welcome welcome to the 1st of 8 years of President Trump (unless Sanders gets it).

 

You read it here first.

 

PsychicBeaver.

Last night's episode of Back In Time For The Weekend gave some of us a reminder of how scary things got at times in the 1980s with Reagan and Thatcher in charge. It's far more frightening to think that, in a year's time, it could be Trump and Boris "The Narcissist" Johnson.
It's already divided. He has the youth vote who will stay at home if he doesn't win!

 

Welcome welcome to the 1st of 8 years of President Trump (unless Sanders gets it).

 

You read it here first.

 

PsychicBeaver.

LOL. Yeah, because 20 year olds who love Bernie are really going to stay at home when faced with the prospect of an open racist being President.

 

Not that it would be the youth vote staying home that would be the difference in that scenario in any case. Elections don't get decided by one of the least populous age demographic groups and one proportionally least likely to turn out.

It's already divided. He has the youth vote who will stay at home if he doesn't win!

 

Welcome welcome to the 1st of 8 years of President You-Know-Who (unless Sanders gets it).

 

You read it here first.

 

PsychicBeaver.

Sorry, would you be actually pleased by that?

Clinton would definitely have her hands full with Trump.

 

The problem is that, for all the valid talk of the US getting more ethnically diverse, most of the key swing states still have higher-than-average white working-class populations: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

 

The only swing states with major numbers of Trump-allergic groups are Virginia and Florida. [There's Nevada and New Mexico which also have high Latino populations, but they account for sod all votes in the Electoral College between them.]

Clinton would definitely have her hands full with Trump.

 

The problem is that, for all the valid talk of the US getting more ethnically diverse, most of the key swing states still have higher-than-average white working-class populations: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

 

The only swing states with major numbers of Trump-allergic groups are Virginia and Florida. [There's Nevada and New Mexico which also have high Latino populations, but they account for sod all votes in the Electoral College between them.]

They do, but you're only considering one side of the ledger here. On one hand you may have a lot of disillusioned white working class voters who might consider Trump. On the other you'll have plenty of 'independent' voters (the type who backed Romney) who think Trump too gauche, vulgar and unpresidential, without getting onto his sexism and racism. He's got the highest negative ratings of any prospective presidential candidate ever with a majority of Americans disapproving of him *already* - not really the best grounds for going into a two-way race.

 

It's also worth considering that Trump hasn't really had the full weight of attack against him at all - save the odd Ted Cruz advert about eminent domain (!) and people criticising him for not being conservative enough, he's got off remarkably easily so far. The head of Jeb Bush's PAC spent more on his own wages in one year than he did on adverts attacking Trump!

He's got the highest negative ratings of any prospective presidential candidate ever with a majority of Americans disapproving of him *already*

 

His ratings are barely any worse than Clinton's.

 

Already, there's state polls putting Trump ahead of Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Edited by Danny

His ratings are barely any worse than Clinton's.

 

Already, there's state polls putting You-Know-Who ahead of Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

That's worrying, but Clinton's dirty laundry has had a lot more airing than Trump's so far.

And Clinton's favourability ratings tend to be a fair bit higher than Trump's in polling averages, rather than just individual ones. He's typically low to mid 30s versus Hillary who tends to be low to mid 40s.

 

The other side of the coin is that he'd also likely drive Democratic turnout (although granted, Hillary would do the same for Republicans) - he has the worst net ratings amongst identified Democrats of any Republican candidate.

 

(If nothing else, it'd be a hell of a deathmatch.)

Clinton has won South Carolina with an almost 50% margin (73.5 to 26 I believe). More than Obama's margin 8 years ago against Hilary herself.

Edited by Oliver

That Bernie momentum just won't let up! Most of the recent polling had her in around 65% so that'[s an excellent result, especially going forward to Super Tuesday. Not that she would have been struggling there anyway, but if Sanders ends up being badly berned again then that can only be a good thing.
A good thing for Clinton and Social Democrats, maybe a bad thing for people who are struggling in the survival of the fittest capitalist system in the long run.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.