Qassändra

God forbid people can remember in their own way outside of 90 minutes of football.

Much as I would love to see that complete scumbag shot in front of cameras and dragged through the streets, I can't see anything beyond sanctions happening there given how close they are to China.

I don't think there is a mainstream major party in a self-respecting democracy more immoral than the Republicans.

Of course, because there's a wonderful long track record of populists taking advantage of racial resentment not doing what they say they will once entering office.

Why? He didn't go down too great last time with proposals on cutting Medicare to the bone almost solely to fund tax cuts for the top 5%. By and large people seem to realise she's not that bad once she's doing the job, so it's no guarantee that it'll be four years of eyeing the door.

Racism doesn't go away if you don't elect a racist, but racists certainly feel far more emboldened if you elect a racist. There's hardly a guarantee that a racist will be elected in 2020 if Clinton gets elected this year.

As if the other half he would be able to do wouldn't be totally horrific? To say nothing of the huge outpouring of attacks that would inevitably follow from something as legitimising as a white supremacist being elected president. And also, why can't you stand Clinton? Because she's in favour of foreign intervention? Because she talks to Wall Street? Cos it's not like Obama isn't just as guilty of those either. At that point, what are the other things that seem to make Clinton so unappealing compared with Obama?

Yes, because it's definitely worse that someone's a member of *thunderclap; woman screaming* THE ESTABLISHMENT rather than, y'know, an open racist who boasts about sexually assaulting women.

Yes, because the Republicans are definitely going to pull themselves together quickly from a position where Ted Cruz was their sensible option.

One poll. Most of the rest still have Hillary solidly ahead, so it's nothing to get too scared about. Romney had polls where he was ahead the week before in 2012.

How is it loaded? Putting aside the idea that many people at all would see their income slashed by a quarter because of immigration being cut, the findings show just how significant things are: 62% of the population say they wouldn't give up a penny of their income to cut immigration at all. That's a huge finding, and shows up the justification behind Brexit hugely: people didn't think they'd lose out economically.

Someone 'having sexism and made-up Republican scandals' against them doesn't make them a weak candidate, unless you literally think women who are lied about are weak candidates by definition.

She's the only candidate who came close to stopping Obama, the most talented politician in a generation - god knows the Republicans never came close. The only reason she didn't immediately dispatch Bernie was because he had a legion of people willing to fund him to go all the way through - any other candidate with Bernie's delegate count would have dropped out after Super Tuesday (which is normally where the dreamers make it to before they get suffocated) in the clear knowledge they didn't have a realistic route to victory. She has consistently led over Trump all year, and would have consistently led over the only other viable candidate for the Republicans this year in Ted Cruz. I think she's tremendously underrated as a candidate for someone who's literally only lost to Obama.

SNATCHEDT (as i believe the children say these days)

Sorry, correction - that was a 25 point lead among respondents who said they weren't very likely to vote but since voted early. Her lead among all early voters responding is 53-38 according to the New York Times, and 44-42 among those who say they'll vote on the day. The key thing there is that even if Obama did have a bigger lead (which I'm pretty sure isn't true), it was on a smaller turnout (a 55-35 lead on 100,000 turning out gives you less than a 53-38 lead on 200,000 turning out, to pluck an example out of thin air). On what basis do you think the likes of the New York Times are projecting a likely North Carolina win for Hillary using early voting projections when the state was written off as a Republican gain in 2012 on the same figures?

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.

I don't quite get the concept here? (this isn't me slamming down it happening, more not really understanding what the structure for this is, I may just be being very simple)

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.

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.

I can't tell you all just how much it fills my heart with SONG AND LIGHT to see that I can go away for a couple of days and the forum is autonomously debunking Michael and PeaceMob *.*

YAY *.*

He's the UKIP-endorsed candidate, so for all intents and purposes...

I don't think Cameron's resignation timing was based at all on a fear of how the Lib Dems would do. For a start, he said he would stay on as MP when he announced he would step down as Prime Minister - to then resign as MP just two weeks later would've been a little transparent. I think it's more likely he did it for a few weeks and it felt a bit too much like low level drudgery for his liking.

Obama appointed a Republican as his Defense Secretary just three years ago! Not that Trump is getting appointed under Hillary in any universe.

I don't really see how the 30% of active Trump fans can be mollified by any symbolic gesture from Hillary, short of the downright contemptible. If they're angry, chances are it's not because of a lack of mouthed platitudes about governing for all America. If they're passionate Trump fans, chances are they're just racist. Simple as. Help them out economically by all means, but let's not be surprised when it doesn't change a great deal.