Donald Trump

ohnonotgmail

BoatMad wrote: »

if you read mainstream conservative blogs , and also newspapers, you will see that Trump is regarded as a false Republican , as you say these people will vote for Hiliary merely to prevent Trump gaining the White house, that vote will return when the GOP wakes up from the nightmare that is the Tea party and extremism and returns to the notion of " one nation" republicanism , best exemplified by Regan

true enough. i never thought i would be wistful for the days of Ronnie.

KingBrian2

BoatMad wrote: »

if you read mainstream conservative blogs , and also newspapers, you will see that Trump is regarded as a false Republican , as you say these people will vote for Hiliary merely to prevent Trump gaining the White house, that vote will return when the GOP wakes up from the nightmare that is the Tea party and extremism and returns to the notion of " one nation" republicanism , best exemplified by Regan

We hear a lot of contradictions out of America are not the Tea Party Republicans very much fans of Reagan. So calling them extreme is true however the neoliberal views that Reagan had were equally in line with the public. He called the Soviet Union the evil empire. Refused to open relations with Iran and had a tortuous history with world leaders.

ohnonotgmail

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We hear a lot of contradictions out of America are not the Tea Party Republicans very much fans of Reagan. So calling them extreme is true however the neoliberal views that Reagan had were equally in line with the public. He called the Soviet Union the evil empire. Refused to open relations with Iran and had a tortuous history with world leaders.

i have no idea if the Tea Party are fans of Ronnie but i'm sure he wouldn't be a fan of them.

BoatMad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We hear a lot of contradictions out of America are not the Tea Party Republicans very much fans of Reagan. So calling them extreme is true however the neoliberal views that Reagan had were equally in line with the public. He called the Soviet Union the evil empire. Refused to open relations with Iran and had a tortuous history with world leaders.

All Republican leaders ( or potential ones ) have similar general viewpoints that align with the mass republican view, in that Regan and Trump expose certain similarities. The extremis wings of the GOP also expose a subset of those values.

Merely because there is an overlap does not make Trump a centrist republican, There is a widespread belief that amongst the middle ground that in fact Trump is merely " using " the GOP as a vehicle to get elected and when in office may be far more left wing then expected.

on this basis , I think there is a considerable core "moderate" republican vote that will support Hillary merely because Trump is seen as a Trojan Horse

First Up

BoatMad wrote:

in my view Hillary will mop up the middle ground republican vote, that I believe is being mis represented by the polls. IN the sanctity of the polling booth , these republicans would rather chew off their own leg then vote for Trump.

The bigger worry for the GOP is that they will stay home and cost them one or both houses as well.
There is no expectation Trump will win; its Congress they are fighting for.

BoatMad

First Up wrote: »

The bigger worry for the GOP is that they will stay home and cost them one or both houses as well.
There is no expectation Trump will win; its Congress they are fighting for.

well I would disagree, middle ground Republicans , that laughed at the idea that Trump would get serious traction are now increasingly worried, hence the recent endorsement of Hiliary by some mainstream republicans news media ( and many prominent republicans )

Now they are increasingly worried , I suspect voter turnout will be huge comparatively in this election

First Up

BoatMad wrote:

Now they are increasingly worried , I suspect voter turnout will be huge comparatively in this election

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting Republican voters will turn out to support Clinton and then vote for the GOP candidates for the House and Senate?

BoatMad

First Up wrote: »

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting Republican voters will turn out to support Clinton and then vote for the GOP candidates for the House and Senate?

yes, the moderates anyway , remember many of the Trump supporters are not mainstream Republicans anyway

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

How exactly does that make him a hypocrite and misogynist?

Because guilani has cheated on all his spouses.

First Up

BoatMad wrote:

yes, the moderates anyway , remember many of the Trump supporters are not mainstream Republicans anyway

I think moderate Republicans are far more likely to abstain than vote for Clinton.

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Because guilani has cheated on all his spouses.

Your bringing his personal issues back into it and as for the GOP they have a strong core support as Trump has brought more and more people into politics. Those previously apolitical are turning out to back him like with President Obama who was able to invigorate the spirit of the American public.

Trump has to appeal to the right of centre but peoples positions have hardened and been pushed further right because of the present polices. The people of America are made to look fascistic. Both their parties are lite & hard right.

BoatMad

First Up wrote: »

I think moderate Republicans are far more likely to abstain than vote for Clinton.

that will in effect hand the election to Clinton, as Moderate democrats will vote for her.

I would contend that moderate republicans hate Trump and will vote for Clinton


we shall see soon enough

Christy42

BoatMad wrote: »

that will in effect hand the election to Clinton, as Moderate democrats will vote for her.

I would contend that moderate republicans hate Trump and will vote for Clinton


we shall see soon enough

I think at the end of the day the R seems to be enough. I can't explain his polling numbers any other way. Still any significant number of Republicans going against the party line will destroy his chances so hopefully you are right.

KingBrian2

The Republican party has not been this polarized since its inception with Abraham Lincoln. Europe is going through a similar experience with the rise of euroscepticism and this is healthy for a democracy that citizens vent their frustration at the politicians by voting for candidates that best reflect them. While I don't agree with all the views of Trump, Farage, Alexis, Beppe Grille & Orban we are seeing the side effects of bad policies that have been made during the good years.

BoatMad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Republican party has not been this polarized since its inception with Abraham Lincoln. Europe is going through a similar experience with the rise of euroscepticism and this is healthy for a democracy that citizens vent their frustration at the politicians by voting for candidates that best reflect them. While I don't agree with all the views of Trump, Farage, Alexis, Beppe Grille & Orban we are seeing the side effects of bad policies that have made during the good years.

While there is some common ground between the tactics of Farge and Trump et all, I dont believe they represent a groundswell at all. What they more represent is a clever manipulation of modern forms of communication and particularly social media. We live in a " post fact " world, where unverified mis-truths and downright lies are gullibly consumed by people that have access to 24 data communications, which for the most part they use to consume meaningless social drivel.

Into that communications soup, arrive candidates without any moral compasses, that steer debates into soundbites and pontifications, most of which ultimately turn out to be false. The Brexit campaigners was a masterclass in mis0information, and downright lies, consumed by a audience that desperately wants " solutions" however mis guided and accepts them with little inspection

These are not groundswells , these are artificial manipulations of modern communications directed at and consumed by people with little interest or compunction in determining the real facts and truths

We live in dangerous times

briany

Say Trump gets elected and is as bad as his critics feared - who does the public then turn to? They've already tried the traditional politician, and now the protest candidate? Do you go on from there or develop a collective amnesia and go back to normal?

BoatMad

briany wrote: »

Say Trump gets elected and is as bad as his critics feared - who does the public then turn to? They've already tried the traditional politician, and now the protest candidate? Do you go on from there or develop a collective amnesia and go back to normal?

they will merely try to the next outrageous nominee that says what they want to hear. The public have an insatiable appetitive for this consumption, while increasingly decrying all politicians

KingBrian2

BoatMad wrote: »

While there is some common ground between the tactics of Farge and Trump et all, I dont believe they represent a groundswell at all. What they more represent is a clever manipulation of modern forms of communication and particularly social media. We live in a " post fact " world, where unverified mis-truths and downright lies are gullibly consumed by people that have access to 24 data communications, which for the most part they use to consume meaningless social drivel.

Into that communications soup, arrive candidates without any moral compasses, that steer debates into soundbites and pontifications, most of which ultimately turn out to be false. The Brexit campaigners was a masterclass in mis0information, and downright lies, consumed by a audience that desperately wants " solutions" however mis guided and accepts them with little inspection

These are not groundswells , these are artificial manipulations of modern communications directed at and consumed by people with little interest or compunction in determining the real facts and truths

We live in dangerous times

This is the information age and politicians are using the tools available to them to broadcast their message. Alexis and Beppo used blogs while Trump has used news to his brilliance. He is able to communicate to the people in a medium we can all understand and feel safe to use. Clinton has not reached out to the electorate this way and if you look at the Obama presidency he also revolutionized modern technology to get elected. By that same standard the media can be used to defame & destroy a politicians reputation. Merkel is going through a hard time at the moment and David Cameron was unceremonially kicked out of office. Politics has descended into a gladiatorial contest.

BoatMad

This is the information age

yes and like the start of all "ages" we have no learned how to put in place checks and balances. The public consuming these messages are assuming a degree of thruth and morality that isn't actually there and the media delivers these messages in a completely unverified and fact free way.

We need to modify such processes to ensure balance and fact verification , whats called " moderation " , newspapers have had it for years ,m because they use a third party to write the material

PopePalpatine

BoatMad wrote: »

While there is some common ground between the tactics of Farge and Trump et all, I dont believe they represent a groundswell at all. What they more represent is a clever manipulation of modern forms of communication and particularly social media. We live in a " post fact " world, where unverified mis-truths and downright lies are gullibly consumed by people that have access to 24 data communications, which for the most part they use to consume meaningless social drivel.

Into that communications soup, arrive candidates without any moral compasses, that steer debates into soundbites and pontifications, most of which ultimately turn out to be false. The Brexit campaigners was a masterclass in mis0information, and downright lies, consumed by a audience that desperately wants " solutions" however mis guided and accepts them with little inspection

These are not groundswells , these are artificial manipulations of modern communications directed at and consumed by people with little interest or compunction in determining the real facts and truths

We live in dangerous times

Speaking of faked groundswells, guess where the #TrumpWon hashtag after the first debate started?

jooksavage

My wife and I were talking over dinner about all the movies and tv series' we can expect when this election is over. I'm particularly looking forward to the Scorsese-directed Trump  biopic starring Christian Bale putting himself through another punishing body-morph to inhabit the ample carriage of the lead role.

puppieperson1

trumpy will get in but he will be assasinated like Bobby Kennedy and the party will then put in another person and they will have the power
simple as that.

jooksavage

puppieperson1 wrote: »

trumpy will get in but he will be assasinated like Bobby Kennedy and the party will then put in another person and they will have the power
simple as that.

Thans for the info. But now that we know the future haven't you created some kind of paradox?

puppieperson1

what paradox ?

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Didn't we leave the conspiracy phase behind a long time ago?

I am not sure. Are people finished claiming that Hillary has every disease under the sun?


I would also like Trump to admit he was being an idiot with the birthed nonsense to leave the phase behind entirely.

Having said that the Russian's starting Trump won is a complete conspiracy. I see no reason to drop to that level to win here (the Trump campaign did not delete tweets during the debate either, the relevant stupid tweets are in fact still there though that seems to have started with an honest mistake it should be dead by people doing their research by now).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/27/that-viral-image-showing-trumpwon-starting-in-russia-is-probably-fake/

B_Wayne

puppieperson1 wrote: »

what paradox ?

Who will win the world series next year?

Cheerful Spring

The only way Trump can be elected now, if there is something new comes out and destroys her credibility. She won the debate easily and i can't stand her or Trump

Bush Jr i thought was dumb, but looking back now he was a rocket science compared to Trump. How the hell is he a billionaire hes too lazy to even prepare for a debate. The guy can barely talk and repeats himself constantly believe me believe me?

K-9

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

30% is about what 538 give him too. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

There hasn't been a poll out of Ohio (where they have him 2% ahead) since 12th of September, so it will be interesting to see where things stand since Clinton's disastrous weekend and Trump's disastrous debate.

It seems we've gone back to 2 or 3 weeks ago again.

So Trump recovered from his abysmal performance during and after the Democratic convention, Hillary recovered from the pneumonia thing.

I'd say you are looking at a 2-4% Clinton win, unless polls are missing something really obvious. And sites like Nate's do go into demographics etc. in minute detail.

Republicans kept saying the polls got it wrong in 012 but...

K-9

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm not sure that is true. Hilary is having trouble with swing voters (the only voters that are important) but socialist Bernie would fare even worse. he isnt the candidate likely to get moderate republicans to vote for the democrats.

It would have been fascinating.

Sanders has likeability when compared to Trump or Clinton. He also scores extremely high in consistency and honesty, even if you disagree with his politics.

There isn't that much between the Trump and Sanders support base, Sanders is a bit young and naive, Trump's is older but still naive in a different way.

Academic

Let's not forget that the popular vote doesn't matter—it's the Electoral College. Don't forget that Bush II lost the popular vote but won the election.

Focusing on the national popular percentages thus misses the point if the point is predicting the election outcome, and the statistics in that respect are pretty clear: as of this moment (and in all moments up to now) Clinton has (and has had) many more Electoral College paths to the White House than Trump.