2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

InTheTrees

Suryavarman wrote: »

GAry Johnson's position as a joke candidate solidifies as he fails to name a foreign leader he admires.

It's baffling isn't it? He doesnt seem to know very much about what's happening in the world does he? The "libertarian" party's nomination process must have been interesting.

InTheTrees

InTheTrees wrote: »

It's baffling isn't it? He doesnt seem to know very much about what's happening in the world does he? The "libertarian" party's nomination process must have been interesting.

Excruciating actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrY3uEElh08

Trent Houseboat

fivethirtyeight had it 51.5-48.5 for Clinton earlier this week. WAs that accurate or are they only biased when they're predicting in opposition to what you'd prefer?

Amerika wrote:

They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.

How often? Like do you have any examples?

Who decides where a site is on that left right spectrum?

YOu posted two links yesterday "proving" that the debate was rigged. Do those site rank squarely in the least biased section?

There's been a fantastic use of graphics in the past couple of pages.

B_Wayne

Given their accuracy with previous elections in contrast to standard polling, seems bizarre to label as left wing bias..

Amerika

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Who decides where a site is on that left right spectrum?

Why, the 'fact checkers,' of course. As long a someone claims to be a fact checker these days, their word is to be taken as gospel, or so I've been told.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

We all love fact checkers these days, right? It’s all the rage I hear.

So, where does FIVETHIRTYEIGHT stand in regards to Media Bias/Fact Check?



LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

SURPRISE!

More proof that statistics and hard fact have a left leaning bias.

(I don't think this poster knows how 538 works)

TheDoctor

Amerika wrote: »

We all love fact checkers these days, right? It’s all the rage I hear.

So, where does FIVETHIRTYEIGHT stand in regards to Media Bias/Fact Check?



LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

SURPRISE!

Considering they got 50/50 states in the last election I'll stick with them.

I believe right wing bias was the issue with the last election.

The meltdown on Fox after Romneys loss (having predicted he would get over 300 electoral college votes) was a sight to behold.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Give me a break. A 'second great depression' was never in the cards. Or is there some magical revelation you’d like to bestow upon us?

The cumulative deficits during Obama's first 4 years in office were $5.27tn. With monetary policy losing its effectiveness, what would have happened had $5.27tn been taken out of the economy while in deep recession or recovering from the recession?

Billy86

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059?rm=eu

Any Trump fans want to comment on this? The guy who cannot stop talking about trade agreements, and showing how little understanding he seems to have of many of them, has been breaking US trade agreements and embargos with Cuba, it turns out.

ebbsy

Somebody should tell Gary Johnson to give it up.

ebbsy

Billy86 wrote: »

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059?rm=eu

Any Trump fans want to comment on this? The guy who cannot stop talking about trade agreements, and showing how little understanding he seems to have of many of them, has been breaking US trade agreements and embargos with Cuba, it turns out.

People over there ain't interested in this bud. They will think about The Apprentice and tick that box in the polling booth.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

The cumulative deficits during Obama's first 4 years in office were $5.27tn. With monetary policy losing its effectiveness, what would have happened had $5.27tn been taken out of the economy while in deep recession or recovering from the recession?

The Great Depression was brought about by misguided policies in response to the financial crisis. Policies are in place so as not to let this happen again. What we most had to fear in 2008 recession was a prolonged period of weak growth and high unemployment. Unfortunately, with Obama’s massive spending that doubled our nations debt, this is exactly what we got, anyway.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

We all love fact checkers these days, right? It’s all the rage I hear.

So, where does FIVETHIRTYEIGHT stand in regards to Media Bias/Fact Check?



LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

SURPRISE!

Nice ad hominem attack on fivethirtyeight. How about you disect their statistical models and tell us why it's wrong?

Remind me how did ignoring Nate Silvers predictions work out in 2012? How's president Romeny doing?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The Great Depression was brought about by misguided policies in response to the financial crisis. Policies are in place so as not to let this happen again. What we most had to fear in 2008 recession was a prolonged period of weak growth and high unemployment. Unfortunately, with Obama’s massive spending that doubled our nations debt, this is exactly what we got, anyway.

So how low would the unemployment rate have been under president Romney? It's pretty low right now.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

So how low would the unemployment rate have been under president Romney? It's pretty low right now.

I'd guess the U-3 rate would be about the same, but the real unemployment rate (U-6) would be much better because Romney would have worked to create real jobs instead of killing them as Obama has done. Except if you're talking about government jobs that must be paid by the taxpayers, that is.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Nice ad hominem attack on fivethirtyeight. How about you disect their statistical models and tell us why it's wrong?

Remind me how did ignoring Nate Silvers predictions work out in 2012? How's president Romeny doing?

Not an ad hominem attack. Just advising people to proceed with caution before taking their 'facts' as gospel.

Billy86

ebbsy wrote: »

People over there ain't interested in this bud. They will think about The Apprentice and tick that box in the polling booth.

Sad truth that you're probably quite right, isn't it?

On a side note, I would love to have that yer man from the X-Men has, to see exactly who is voting Trump and why. Disillusioned rustbelt types vs racists and bigots vs the completely uninformed vs 'celebrityz white house!!' and so on.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Not an ad hominem attack. Just advising people to proceed with caution before taking their 'facts' as gospel.

What facts? They present a statistical liklehood of a candidate winning. If you think they're biased, you must think they are tweaking their statistical model to favour Clinton, correct?

The whole idea is they don't claim certainty. You seem to think they do.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I'd guess the U-3 rate would be about the same, but the real unemployment rate (U-6) would be much better because Romney would have worked to create real jobs instead of killing them as Obama has done. Except if you're talking about government jobs that must be paid by the taxpayers, that is.

So Obama has synchronously created and killed jobs? How many extra people are employed by the federal government versus in 2008?

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

The Great Depression was brought about by misguided policies in response to the financial crisis. Policies are in place so as not to let this happen again. What we most had to fear in 2008 recession was a prolonged period of weak growth and high unemployment. Unfortunately, with Obama’s massive spending that doubled our nations debt, this is exactly what we got, anyway.

You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if you cut $5.27tn out of an economy while it was recovering from a very deep recession?

Amerika wrote: »

I'd guess the U-3 rate would be about the same, but the real unemployment rate (U-6) would be much better because Romney would have worked to create real jobs instead of killing them as Obama has done. Except if you're talking about government jobs that must be paid by the taxpayers, that is.

U-3 is the real unemployment rate. Under Obama the US has enjoyed a record breaking streak of private sector job creation. Do you have any evidence to support your ridiculous claims?

B_Wayne

I'd also suspect the five thirty eight would prefer to get their models right over anything else. Who wins is somewhat second from what I've seen of Silver.

TheDoctor

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'd also suspect the five thirty eight would prefer to get their models right over anything else. Who wins is somewhat second from what I've seen of Silver.

I can only see his 2008 and 2012 models. Not sure he did 2004.

2008 - 49/50 states correct
2012 - 50/50 states correct

99% accurate is pretty decent.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if you cut $5.27tn out of an economy while it was recovering from a very deep recession?

Obama added $6.5 Trillion to the debt. First, please tell me where that money went into the economy.

U-3 is the real unemployment rate. Under Obama the US has enjoyed a record breaking streak of private sector job creation. Do you have any evidence to support your ridiculous claims?

The U-6 rate is defined as all unemployed as well as "persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the labor force." That means the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged.

That sounds like the real unemployment rate to me.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Obama added $6.5 Trillion to the debt. First, please tell me where that money went into the economy.

What do you think happened? Do you think they burned it?

Now stop dodging the question. What would have happened to the economy if that $5.27tn wasn't spent and was just taken out of the economy?

The U-6 rate is defined as all unemployed as well as "persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the labor force." That means the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged.

That sounds like the real unemployment rate to me.

People with jobs and people not looking for work are not unemployed. Unemployed people are people that are out of work and looking for work.

Trent Houseboat

Amerika wrote: »

Why, the 'fact checkers,' of course. As long a someone claims to be a fact checker these days, their word is to be taken as gospel, or so I've been told.

so just completely ignoring my question.

By the standard of the graphic based arguements here you could write the word "President" over a picture of Donald and people would think he'd won.

Amerika

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

so just completely ignoring my question.

By the standard of the graphic based arguements here you could write the word "President" over a picture of Donald and people would think he'd won.

I just provided information on 538. I think their predictions could be suspect, just like I think Rasmussen's are at times because they slants right. Are they right or wrong... only time will tell. People will use each to make their point. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong when someone says they might be a bit biased one way or the other.

And, I don't quite understand your graphic/Donald statement.

Overheal

you're welcome to think 538 is suspect but given the accuracy of their calls the last couple cycles I think I'll stick with them.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

you're welcome to think 538 is suspect but given the accuracy of their calls the last couple cycles I think I'll stick with them.

And you're welcome to think this is a normal election.

Overheal

Thanks, but their math seems pretty valid

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

They use some severe statistics and probability math to come up with these determinations. All very well explained with the scientific details left up to you to google I guess (such as what a t-distribution is) along with accounting for polling and historical uncertainties. Their methodology seems pretty sound.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Thanks, but their math seems pretty valid

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

They use some severe statistics and probability math to come up with these determinations. All very well explained with the scientific details left up to you to google I guess (such as what a t-distribution is) along with accounting for polling and historical uncertainties. Their methodology seems pretty sound.

Seems good on paper, but is it not true that historically the polls they utilize have a strong bias towards Democrats?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Seems good on paper, but is it not true that historically the polls they utilize have a strong bias towards Democrats?

That would be up to you to prove I suppose ? I just know that they've been very accurate models the last couple cycles.

Inquitus

Amerika wrote: »

Seems good on paper, but is it not true that historically the polls they utilize have a strong bias towards Democrats?

There's a good article on the site which details how Trump could mobilise the non voting White Poor / Poorly Educated, and romp home in the election, but voter registration details that exist don't seem to indicate that he has yet been able to do so.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

That would be up to you to prove I suppose ? I just know that they've been very accurate models the last couple cycles.

Next you'll be jumping all over my back for asking and answering my own questions. :rolleyes:

"The Democrats’ complaints may have been more sophisticated-seeming than the ”skewed polls” arguments made by Republicans in 2012. But in the end, they were just as wrong. The polls did have a strong bias this year — but it was toward Democrats and not against them."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/

Billy86

Just to address the latest pile of nonsense re "slanted polls" http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Thanks, but their math seems pretty valid

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

They use some severe statistics and probability math to come up with these determinations. All very well explained with the scientific details left up to you to google I guess (such as what a t-distribution is) along with accounting for polling and historical uncertainties. Their methodology seems pretty sound.

Interestingly, the election during each presidential cycle has been normally called by the media before California has finished voting (time zones, etc.). California has the most EC votes 55/270 = 20.37% of the vote needed to win in just one state. Donald Trump will NOT win California, and I have only seen one recent ad by his campaign a couple days ago, and very few by Clinton, the latter greatly preferred in California state only polling. The most recent RCP listed 17 state polls ALL were in the double-digits favouring Hillary Clinton ranging from 10 to 34 points. FiveThirtyEight shows CA odds of Clinton winning the state at 99.7%.

Of greater interest methinks is the New York state polls, ALL of which have Hillary Clinton double digits ahead of Donald Trump (latest RCP listed 18 state polls taken, ranging from 12 to 30 points) . FiveThirtyEight shows NY odds of Clinton winning the state at 99.0%. You would think that a lifetime New Yorker like Trump would carry his home state where his Trump Tower home resides? What are the New Yorker's telling us about their well known Celebrity Apprentice presidential candidate Trump? Do they know the REAL Trump, and the others across the nation only listen to what comes out of Trump's MOUTH?

Count Dooku

TheDoctor wrote: »

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Trumps disaster of a first debate is beginning to take effect.
Florida has tilted back to Hillary

I see
Clinton campaign in panic mode over Florida black voters

"Hillary Clinton's campaign is in panic mode. Full panic mode," said Leslie Wimes, a South Florida-based president of the Democratic African-American Women Caucus.

Inquitus

Black Swan wrote: »

Of greater interest methinks is the New York state polls, ALL of which have Hillary Clinton double digits ahead of Donald Trump (latest RCP listed 18 state polls taken, ranging from 12 to 30 points) . FiveThirtyEight shows NY odds of Clinton winning the state at 99.0%. You would think that a lifetime New Yorker like Trump would carry his home state where his Trump Tower home resides? What are the New Yorker's telling us about their well known Celebrity Apprentice presidential candidate Trump? Do they know the REAL Trump, and the others across the nation only listen to what comes out of Trump's MOUTH?

No they are just all lifelong democrats who will never vote for the GOP, nothing surprising there imo.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Interestingly, the election during each presidential cycle has been normally called by the media before California has finished voting (time zones, etc.). California has the most EC votes 55/270 = 20.37% of the vote needed to win in just one state. Donald Trump will NOT win California, and I have only seen one recent ad by his campaign a couple days ago, and very few by Clinton, the latter greatly preferred in California state only polling. The most recent RCP listed 17 state polls ALL were in the double-digits favouring Hillary Clinton ranging from 10 to 34 points. FiveThirtyEight shows CA odds of Clinton winning the state at 99.7%.

Of greater interest methinks is the New York state polls, ALL of which have Hillary Clinton double digits ahead of Donald Trump (latest RCP listed 18 state polls taken, ranging from 12 to 30 points) . FiveThirtyEight shows NY odds of Clinton winning the state at 99.0%. You would think that a lifetime New Yorker like Trump would carry his home state where his Trump Tower home resides? What are the New Yorker's telling us about their well known Celebrity Apprentice presidential candidate Trump? Do they know the REAL Trump, and the others across the nation only listen to what comes out of Trump's MOUTH?

I think New York invented carpetbagging. Time-honored tradition, baby. Clinton and Trump’s home state is New York. Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to think that at state with a political representation of 49.4 Democrat to 23.9 Republican would vote for the Democratic candidate? Heck they even went with Michael Dukakis in 1988. One of only eleven states (including DC) to do that, or 32.4% of the total votes Dukakis received. Even highly liberal California went with George Bush.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

I just provided information on 538. I think their predictions could be suspect, just like I think Rasmussen's are at times because they slants right. Are they right or wrong... only time will tell. People will use each to make their point. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong when someone says they might be a bit biased one way or the other.

And, I don't quite understand your graphic/Donald statement.

You really think 538's predictions are as biased as Rasmussen?

Rasmussen has a massive bias towards Republican candidates while 538 generally does well for both sides. If there is a liberal bias it is tiny compared to Rasmussen.'s conservative bias.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I think New York invented carpetbagging.

What bearing does this have on presidential election 2016, and what does it say about New York born, raised, and resident Donald Trump, who has often claimed pride in being a New Yorker? Are you suggesting that Donald Trump was somehow an ancestral carpetbagger? I thought his ancestry came from Scotland, where Donald Trump's honourary doctorate was revoked 9 December 2015 by Robert Gordon University, and also where Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon stripped Donald Trump from his role as a Business Ambassador last December 2015?

Amerika wrote: »

Clinton and Trump’s home state is New York.

They may both claim New York as their current place of residence today, and this certainly speaks for NY born poor little rich kid Donald Trump, but Hillary Clinton was not a NY native, rather she has lived in several states and DC. Born 26 October 1947 Chicago, grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois, worked in Massachusetts for the Children’s Defense Fund, taught at the University of Arkansas School of Law, joined the prominent Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, where she later became a partner before marrying governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton (1979–81, 1983–92), later moving to DC with president Bill, and only became a New York resident after Bill's presidency ended. What you are completely ignoring was the extraordinary bi-partisan Congressional support and successes US Senator Hillary Clinton achieved helping post-9/11 New Yorkers, which made her popular with them, regardless of party.

Amerika wrote: »

Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to think that at state with a political representation of 49.4 Democrat to 23.9 Republican would vote for the Democratic candidate?

You don't find it ironic that there were several former New York mayors including (then) Republican Michael Bloomberg (12 years mayor), Republican Rudy Giuliani (8 years mayor), then Republican John Lindsay (8 years mayor), Republican Fiorello H. La Guardia (12 years mayor), and going back in reverse order probably finding several Republican mayors sprinkled about the other party mayors back to carpetbagger days? Of course the "then" given here shows a bit of party flip-flopping just like former DEMOCRAT Donald Trump.

Trent Houseboat

Amerika wrote: »

I just provided information on 538. I think their predictions could be suspect, just like I think Rasmussen's are at times because they slants right. Are they right or wrong... only time will tell. People will use each to make their point. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong when someone says they might be a bit biased one way or the other.

And, I don't quite understand your graphic/Donald statement.

Your refutation of 538 was an Microsoft Word 98 clip art picture of an arrow.

TheDoctor

Count Dooku wrote: »

I see
Clinton campaign in panic mode over Florida black voters

Not too much of a concern. The model had her losing Florida and still winning up to yesterday.

TheDoctor

Amerika wrote: »

And you're welcome to think this is a normal election.

Fair point. With minorities being a larger % of the electorate this cycle its more Democrat than ever.

Billy86

TheDoctor wrote: »

Fair point. With minorities being a larger % of the electorate this cycle its more Democrat than ever.

It will be interesting to see how much Trump has managed to mobilise black, Latino and Muslim voters in the US -- in the wrong direction.

Christy42

Billy86 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how much Trump has managed to mobilise black, Latino and Muslim voters in the US -- in the wrong direction.

Latino's especially. Black voters have a pretty high turnout anyway (the 538 election tools are fun to play around with).

Akrasia

Billy86 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how much Trump has managed to mobilise black, Latino and Muslim voters in the US -- in the wrong direction.

well, you can be guaranteed that Clinton's 'ground game' will be stronger than Trumps. The GOP usually have a very strong bring out the vote campaign, but they tend to rely on evangelicals, and Trump is no bible thumper, so he isn't exactly inspiring the religious right, many of whom are supporting him by default. Trump has split the party so a lot of the grassroots members are less than enthusiastic about campaigning for him, and this is bound to have an effect on voter turnout.

Trump's campaign of hopelessness and negativity speaks to the voters who are down on their luck and economically disadvantaged, and these people don't have the resources to mobilize an effective ground game in the same way that the establishment democrats can.

Theres a reason the establishment tends to win, and a lot of it is down to being organised

Quin_Dub

Inquitus wrote: »

There's a good article on the site which details how Trump could mobilise the non voting White Poor / Poorly Educated, and romp home in the election, but voter registration details that exist don't seem to indicate that he has yet been able to do so.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

Really interesting read..


Key piece for me is this paragraph..Discussing the possible reasons that Trump is not getting a spike in registrations..In fact , registrations for Non College Educated Whites are either the same or lower as registrations for other categories..

So what’s going on? It could be that Trump is motivating slightly more new voters against him than for him. Or, perhaps more likely, it could be that white working class voters are out there to be activated, but Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee have waited until too late to build the analytics and ground infrastructure necessary to identify and register them. That’s where Clinton and the Democrats have excelled.

So - Trumps lack of physical infrastructure on the ground compared to the Clinton machine looks like it's going to cost him..

Social media and Trump TV appearances aren't going to be enough..

Clearly you need boots on the ground - holding information sessions , knocking on doors etc. etc.

And Trump has virtually none of this..

Billy86

Akrasia wrote: »

well, you can be guaranteed that Clinton's 'ground game' will be stronger than Trumps. The GOP usually have a very strong bring out the vote campaign, but they tend to rely on evangelicals, and Trump is no bible thumper, so he isn't exactly inspiring the religious right, many of whom are supporting him by default. Trump has split the party so a lot of the grassroots members are less than enthusiastic about campaigning for him, and this is bound to have an effect on voter turnout.

Trump's campaign of hopelessness and negativity speaks to the voters who are down on their luck and economically disadvantaged, and these people don't have the resources to mobilize an effective ground game in the same way that the establishment democrats can.

Theres a reason the establishment tends to win, and a lot of it is down to being organised

And that, the 'rust belters', are his one legitimate bloc that I don't question having nefarious reasons for doing so. No coincidence that if you look around at Trump fans giving articulate reasons for voting for him, they almost always make sure to give the mic to these guys rather than what you see on 4chan/reddit for instance.

Thing is, they're being sold snake oil unfortunately in my opinion. If Trump were to win the election I would fully expect to see egregious competitive advantage (take the 'manufacturing in America' stuff for example - I don't for one second think he would apply that to his own companies, and I reckon his older sons would be placed in very prominent and influential positions without justification). This should be clear as day to see on one hand, but on the other they feel they've been lied to repeatedly by establishment Dems and Republicans alike.

But you are also right about them not being in a position to cause large scale mobilisation, hence why we've seen most of that done online with Trump's campaign. The big problem with that is it's harder to pick who you want to 'represent' you online and so the mask keeps slipping over and over and over again with the reddit/4chan type racists, bigots and generally clueless trolls. It is definitely effective to a point, but it is also very much a V-shaped stick that keeps boomeranging on them.

Igotadose

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Really interesting read..





So - Trumps lack of physical infrastructure on the ground compared to the Clinton machine looks like it's going to cost him..

Social media and Trump TV appearances aren't going to be enough..

Clearly you need boots on the ground - holding information sessions , knocking on doors etc. etc.

And Trump has virtually none of this..

Media's covered this for awhile. Mr. super-successful businessman seems to lack basic business organizational skills. Remember the story of the Colorado campaign being run by a 12 year old? That turned out to be him and his mom running it? Now, I expect that's improved, but one of the lessons from how Obama did things the last 2 presidentials was the importance of a strong infrastructure, setting down roots, pounding the pavement as it were.

Trump's team really is unimpressive. The buck stops with him, of course, but the chaos that seems to be daily with him is going to help ensure HRC wins substantially.

PopePalpatine

Akrasia wrote: »

well, you can be guaranteed that Clinton's 'ground game' will be stronger than Trumps. The GOP usually have a very strong bring out the vote campaign, but they tend to rely on evangelicals, and Trump is no bible thumper, so he isn't exactly inspiring the religious right, many of whom are supporting him by default. Trump has split the party so a lot of the grassroots members are less than enthusiastic about campaigning for him, and this is bound to have an effect on voter turnout.

Evangelicals have an excuse to vote for Trump - the Supreme Court. There's one vacancy already, and three of the remaining judges are 78 or older - Ginsburg (appointed by Bill Clinton), Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) and Breyer (another Clinton appointee). IIRC Ginsburg's planning to retire after this election, and if the other two oldest judges follow suit, that leaves the remaining justices 3-2 in the Republicans' favour. A Trump victory could result in a 7-2 majority for the Republicans.