Even if THIS Donald Trump is stopped this time, the real work will be on stopping any future ones through more investment in education, more stringent educational retirements and also developing critical reasoning skills. That will be the harder task.

It's going to be especially difficult if Republicans continue to control Congress and state governments. Where are all the Bernie diehards during mid-terms and off-year elections? You can't complain that the government is too right-wing if you're largely politically apathetic when it comes to doing something as simple as voting.

No 👋🏻 she 👋🏻 does 👋🏻 not.

 

The FBI closed the f***ing case. Why can't you get this into your tiny brain?

Agreed and she has all this email stuff still hanging over her. Could win and be impeached even. Sanders, Warren or Biden would easily have beaten Trump.

That's assuming a lot. Sanders is very left for American standards, and would have had a difficult time in the general election if he didn't become much more centrist. Warren may not have had the broad appeal outside of white progressives, and Biden can be kind of crazy and isn't the best candidate. I think John Kerry or Martin O'Malley would have had the best shot at an easy win.

How ANYONE could chose an inexperience, narcissistic candidate over someone fully experienced and qualified is beyond me. I would put my cat in before a Trump. At least a cat would be assisted by moderate republicans so things would be so-so. Trump doesn't listen to anyone and having him getting access to nuclear weapons is a thought I don't want to entertain. I get voting for an under-dog. But not in this instance...

Anyone who thinks ELIZABETH WARREN is more likely to win than Hillary is CRAZY. You think the sexism HRC has had to deal with in this campaign is bad? Plus she's way too left wing for most American's. Same goes for Bernie. Joe Biden would have struggled too given he can just as easily (maybe more so) be tarred with the Washington insider brush and is even more tied to Obama's legacy having been his Veep for 8 years.

 

If anything this email investigation is going to be GOOD for Democratic turnout. If she went into election day with say, a 7 point lead, complacency would be far more likely than if she goes in with a 3/4 point lead as she is likely to do. Plus people are clearly riled up about the timing of the notification and also the clearly partisan motivations behind it's total lack of transparency.

It's going to be especially difficult if Republicans continue to control Congress and state governments. Where are all the Bernie diehards during mid-terms and off-year elections? You can't complain that the government is too right-wing if you're largely politically apathetic when it comes to doing something as simple as voting.

 

This is the thing, the DNC needs to make a huge effort in 2018. It's one thing having 3 consecutive general wins but it means little to nothing if you have every other aspect of government in Republican hands for most of that time.

How ANYONE could chose an inexperience, narcissistic candidate over someone fully experienced and qualified is beyond me. I would put my cat in before a Trump. At least a cat would be assisted by moderate republicans so things would be so-so. Trump doesn't listen to anyone and having him getting access to nuclear weapons is a thought I don't want to entertain. I get voting for an under-dog. But not in this instance...

If anyone considers the arrogant, corrupt, overly-privileged, racist, sexist, xenophobic, "billionaire" Donald J. Trump an "underdog", then they've lost touch with reality beyond repair.

Edited October 30, 20168 yr by bluesunstorm

If anyone considers the arrogant, corrupt, overly-privileged, racist, sexist, xenophobic, "billionaire" Donald J. Trump an "underdog", then they've lost touch with reality beyond repair.

 

In "political" terms, he is. But I agree with the sentiment. He's bulldozed his way through this campaign but, alas, is very likely to fall at the last crucial hurdle.

The polls were within 1% BEFORE the emails, thanks to people being totally fooking stupid and deciding hmm no it doesn't matter if we vote for someone who's been accused of all these sexual assaults.

 

So now :// AND add to that his Brexit effect AND how pollsters got Michigan wrong before ...

The polls were within 1% BEFORE the emails, thanks to people being totally fooking stupid and deciding hmm no it doesn't matter if we vote for someone who's been accused of all these sexual assaults.

 

So now :// AND add to that his Brexit effect AND how pollsters got Michigan wrong before ...

 

Translation: Clinton appears to have gone from a 7% lead to a 5% lead. She is also at least 1 margin of error clear in Michigan.

Some polling that appeared from Breitbart (I.e. Super heavily pro-trump) has Hilary within the Margin of Error in Alaska.

Translation: Clinton appears to have gone from a 7% lead to a 5% lead. She is also at least 1 margin of error clear in Michigan.

 

CNN has like 5 headlines about the closed gap ://

CNN has like 5 headlines about the closed gap ://

 

News site in wanting to attract readers with baity headline SHOCKER

Honestly, it pays to read thr articles and focus on the actual numbers. Headlines are usually deliberately misleading.

CNN has like 5 headlines about the closed gap ://

If you looked at any polling aggregators, it was nowhere near a 1-point race before the "bombshell". Polling was always expected to tighten a bit due to the current hyper-partisan political climate, but it's not a 1-point race. Cable news outlets love drama and horserace narratives for views and clicks. They'll cherry-pick the worst poll for the frontrunner, and claim the race has dramatically changed without giving their audience the polling average/whole story.

Agreed and she has all this email stuff still hanging over her. Could win and be impeached even. Sanders, Warren or Biden would easily have beaten Trump.

If you'd read a single thing about the justification for the re-emergence of the 'scandal' you'd know the odds of her being impeached successfully (rather than the Republicans being constant have-a-go heroes) are close to zero.

 

The idea that Sanders would have won 'easily' is also for the birds. The man's tax proposals would've seen most Americans have a ten point tax hike. It wouldn't have lasted five minutes.

In "political" terms, he is. But I agree with the sentiment. He's bulldozed his way through this campaign but, alas, is very likely to fall at the last crucial hurdle.

It's not really falling at the 'last hurdle' given he hasn't consistently led in the polls over Hillary at any single point all year. He's never looked like someone who would win the election other than to people trying very hard to be interesting.

 

I get that Michael likes to try and seek attention, but there's not really much point discussing it much more. Hillary has won. She's got a 25 point lead in early voting and is behind by 2 points with voters who haven't voted yet in North Carolina - which works out as a pretty much certain Clinton win. No North Carolina, pretty much no route left for Trump.

It's not really falling at the 'last hurdle' given he hasn't consistently led in the polls over Hillary at any single point all year. He's never looked like someone who would win the election other than to people trying very hard to be interesting.

 

I get that Michael likes to try and seek attention, but there's not really much point discussing it much more. Hillary has won. She's got a 25 point lead in early voting and is behind by 2 points with voters who haven't voted yet in North Carolina - which works out as a pretty much certain Clinton win. No North Carolina, pretty much no route left for Trump.

 

Romney had a similar scenario in 2012 as Obama had a big lead with early voters in North Carolina but once all the votes were counted Obama still failed to win the state by 2% points, Trump is a lot closer with early voters this time around and you KNOW people are going to turn out and vote for Trump, more than they did with Romney.

Romney had a similar scenario in 2012 as Obama had a big lead with early voters in North Carolina but once all the votes were counted Obama still failed to win the state by 2% points, Trump is a lot closer with early voters this time around and you KNOW people are going to turn out and vote for Trump, more than they did with Romney.

Obama did not have a 25 point lead with early voters in North Carolina, and early voting turnout was nowhere near as high as it is this year. Just saying 'big' to compare the two doesn't cover it.

Obama did not have a 25 point lead with early voters in North Carolina, and early voting turnout was nowhere near as high as it is this year. Just saying 'big' to compare the two doesn't cover it.

 

In North Carolina Hillary Clinton is not doing better than Obama did in 2012 with early voters but Trump is doing better than Romney.