Hillary or the Donald

I realize there are some who refuse to vote for Trump, fine, its a vote for Hillary.

But I also look at the VP choices, Kaine is a goodball and hypocrite who just goes along with the party line, period. I really like Pence, he votes his conciense, and does not stray from it as far as I can tell just to win votes. He appeared to be genuinely bothered by some of Trumps former comments where Kaine isn't bothered by anything Hillary has done or approves.

IF, and big IF, Trump were to win, I have a gut feeling after 3 years he steps down and turns it over to Pence, basically because it cuts into his style.

So who would I want if Hillary gets impeached or Trump steps down, easy for me Pence.

I think Trump is going to win, could be a Reagan '80 type win.

There are several things about Pence I don't like but at least he is clear about his convictions and you know what you are getting.

There are many thing I don't like about Trump too.

There are countless things about Clinton that I despise and hence would never vote for her.

Kaine is somebody I know little about but the fact Hillary picked him makes me highly suspeçious

I think the Dems need to focus down ballot now. I'm not sure this is survivable, and even if she is elected she will likely be impeached if ANY of the emails on this laptop contradict her statements to the FBI or congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

I think Trump is going to win, could be a Reagan '80 type win.

---

There aren't enough uneducated white men out there to make that happen.

Trump needs to at least start polling consistently WITHIN the MofE in any of the states for which Clinton safely has 272 electoral votes before it even looks like he has a good enough chance to win.

After that, he has to win ALL of:

Ohio
Florida
North Carolina
Arizona
Utah
Iowa


Currently, Clinton is within the MofE or leading in all(well, except Utah, where the 3rd party has a chance to steal it).

Not an impossible task, but difficult. The demographics aren't favoring Trump. Basically, what he's doing now is bringing the Republicans back home and trying to suppress Democrats, trying to get them to stay at home. It could work, but no landslides are going to be happening.

Hillary's got a good enough lead in North Carolina. Win that, it's over. She doesn't even need Florida or Ohio, and I still think she wins Florida by 2-3 points, just because of the ground game, early voting efforts, which Trump really just lacks.

Look at the 2012 electoral map:

http://www.270towin.com/

Trump holds Romney's states* and flips
Ohio (up 2 in the RCP avg)
Florida (up 1 in the RCP avg)
Iowa (up 1 in the RCP avg)
Colorado (down 4 in the RCP avg but closing)
1 Maine Congressional District (CD 2 has Clinton up 2 in the RCP avg)

=269-269.

Just sayin'.




*--Big "if" with states like Arizona and maybe even Texas and Alaska in play. This is 1 weird election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

There aren't enough uneducated white men out there to make that happen.

---

So only uneducated white men would vote for Trump. Typical liberal statement. I'd bet my level of education is a hell of a lot higher than yours, and i already voted for him.

But then if Hillary wins its only because there are enough people who don't mind voting for a lying deceitful hypocrite who is willing to sell Americans status to line her filthy pockets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

So only uneducated white men would vote for Trump. Typical liberal statement. I'd bet my level of education is a hell of a lot higher than yours, and i already voted for him.

But then if Hillary wins its only because there are enough people who don't mind voting for a lying deceitful hypocrite who is willing to sell Americans status to line her filthy pockets

---

Well, there you go again.

Typical of a right winger, to hear only what you want to hear.

Did I say that the only people that vote for Trump are uneducated white people? NO.

My point was that Trump only has a wide gap from uneducated white people, and there's not enough of them(thankfully... I prefer an educated voting class, regardless of who you're voting for) to create a Reagan-like landslide. To create that, you need to have an advantage across many more demographics.

Pretty easy math.

I'm not here to play childish games, like I bet mine is better than yours, although that does explain your preference for Trump. He's got the childish temperament locked down.

I clearly understand that there are those in EVERY demographic that supports BOTH candidates, you can't create a landslide situation when you're consistently polling down in virtually every one.

Here's more easy math. Without owning advantages in demographics, the other way to win is to depress the demographic that you're opponent owns. For HRC, it's women(who she is crushing Trump moreso than Obama did vs Romney), African-Americans, Latinos and LGBT. Probably of those 4, the most energized are women and Latinos, the 2 biggest growing demographics since the last election. African-Americans, they won't turn out like Obama, but will it matter if Trump only gets 3-5% of the total vote, especially in swing states? Early voting has already shown very high Latino turnouts in states Trump MUST win. Again, the math doesn't add up.

The last category are independents/undecided, which are no doubt breaking for Trump. That's really about 5-7% of the electorate. I'm not even sure that swing makes up for the never Trump Republicans supporting HRC.

Trump landslide? Don't think so. Again, not enough uneducated white people.

Don't be so sensitive, and no need to act like a child.

I dispute the entire notion that "uneducated" applies to those without a college degree, whereas having one means you are "educated". Clearly by the textbook definition of formal education that may be the case, but the implication is that "educated" people are in some way smarter, more aware of the world, have done more homework on issues and have more understanding of them, etc.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. American colleges are turning out an entire class of people who are dumber than a box of rocks, have no common sense nor any ability to understand incentive based economics. That's contrasted with a lot of hard working folks who didn't get to go to college on mommy and daddy's dime who know a whole lot more about what is hurting the nation and compromising our future.

By and large the people voting for Trump are the people who are pulling the damned wagon, while those riding along on it are voting for the free ride to continue.

He won't win for 3 reasons:

1) He's horribly unlikable, though not any more so than Hillary,
2) This nation now has a critical mass of people who want handouts and free lunches and don't want the government gravy train to stop, and
3) The Left now completely controls the message from education to the media, insuring that people are actually growing up thinking that "safe spaces" and "microaggressions" are more than just self-absorbed psycho-babble the equivalent of a 2 year old justifying having cake before supper.

In short, we're dumber, less aware and more dependent on government than ever before. Any candidate selling free markets and individualism is going to have tough sell, much less one that is an asshole more concerned with insults than issues.

Stu's polling numbers are only valid if the turnout mirrors 2012. I doubt that Hillary gets the turnout that Obama did, no charisma.

One week prior to the '80 election Carter was up about 8 points. Lost in a landslide a week later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

So only uneducated white men would vote for Trump. Typical liberal statement. I'd bet my level of education is a hell of a lot higher than yours, and i already voted for him.

But then if Hillary wins its only because there are enough people who don't mind voting for a lying deceitful hypocrite who is willing to sell Americans status to line her filthy pockets

---

I knew Doc would take care of this one, Amen, Amen, Amen

And yet you started with the white uneducated (codeword for racist) CRAP. And it's me with the childish game. Typical liberal hypocrisy.

But I'm sure there are enough lazy unemployed black folks who are willing to be driven to the polls and vote for Hillary. They are just too stupid to want an honest president or to greedy to know any better. See it works both ways

Education doesn't buy common sense in politics. That explains most liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Stu's polling numbers are only valid if the turnout mirrors 2012. I doubt that Hillary gets the turnout that Obama did, no charisma.

One week prior to the '80 election Carter was up about 8 points. Lost in a landslide a week later.

---

That's not true at all. First of all, this isn't 2012. It's a different electorate, demographically speaking. Clinton doesn't need the Obama coalition to win 270. She's been building her own coalition. If she was able to completely turn out the Obama coalition, she's end up with 350+ electoral votes.

Hillary might not get the turnout in certain demos that Obama got, but she has several things working in her favor to offset that. First, Latino population has increased, and that's a sector where she's crushing Trump. That's a demo that Romney did reasonably well, but Bush did very well in 2004. 2nd, women. Republicans usually win the college educated women vote, or the suburb/soccer Mom vote. Hillary is dominating in that too. So, with Black turnout definitely diminished, that's going to be offset by Trump only getting half(at best) the support that Republicans typically get in an election. Why that is important is because you look at the states where the turnout will be strong and it's in the 272 electoral firewall states of Hillary's

The two biggest growing demographics in this election are Latinos and Women and HRC is winning both. There may be an overall lack of enthusiasm for HRC relative to Trump, but not in those demos. On the other had, Trump strongest demo, uneducated white males, is the largest declining demo. Trump could win the election, although it's a very narrow path, but there's no Reagan-esque landslide in order.

You forget one key attribute to needing a landslide, you have to be liked, like Reagan is. Neither candidate is. While there certainly may be a lack enthusiasm for support for Hillary, there is great enthusiasm to vote to keep Trump out of office. I should know, I'm one of them.

I'm an analytical, fact based person. I let numbers do the talking. If you think it's going to be a landslide, show me the data. Where are these new numbers, new voters coming from Trump? Who's switching sides? Where's your proof of low voter turnout. Hope is not empirical evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

And yet you started with the white uneducated (codeword for racist) CRAP. And it's me with the childish game. Typical liberal hypocrisy.

But I'm sure there are enough lazy unemployed black folks who are willing to be driven to the polls and vote for Hillary. They are just too stupid to want an honest president or to greedy to know any better. See it works both ways

---

Is it not a fact that Trump's key demographic is uneducated white males?

Is it not a fact that I did NOT say all Trump voters are uneducated?

Is it not a fact that I NEVER mentioned the word racist in my conversation?

These are all childish assumptions that YOU made, not me. I think I've expressed my side for how it's impossible for Trump to win in a Reagan-esque landslide, never mentioning any of this that you have immaturely accused me of saying.

I'll say one more thing, there isn't a candidate in this race that can be described as honest, so if you're implying that Donald Trump is that man, then you're WAY off. Virtually every word that comes out of that guy's mouth is a distortion of facts at best, but mostly outright lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

Is it not a fact that Trump's key demographic is uneducated white males?

Is it not a fact that I did NOT say all Trump voters are uneducated?

Is it not a fact that I NEVER mentioned the word racist in my conversation?

These are all childish assumptions that YOU made, not me. I think I've expressed my side for how it's impossible for Trump to win in a Reagan-esque landslide, never mentioning any of this that you have immaturely accused me of saying.

I'll say one more thing, there isn't a candidate in this race that can be described as honest, so if you're implying that Donald Trump is that man, then you're WAY off. Virtually every word that comes out of that guy's mouth is a distortion of facts at best, but mostly outright lies.

---

No, its not A FACT that Trumps key demographic is UNEDUCATED whites. Look, liberals get their panties all in a wad over stereotyping...except when it comes to Caucasians. They won't classify an individual Muslim who shoots and kills people as a Muslim terrorist because they don't want to offend Muslim, or stereotype them. Referring to Latin Americans who violate American laws by sneaking across the border as ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS is something they wont do (as a generalization) because it might offend them. Refer to the criminal element who immigrate here illegally from Mexico as criminal and liberals complain because somehow it defines ALL them. We are suppose to refer to "transgenders" as Zi because calling them he or she is offensive. Call out African Americans lazy or loafers who bilk the government and you are a racist. Yet whites, using "uneducated" is fine. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Liberals want one standard for them and another for everybody else.

That fact you called them out as a segment is OFFENSIVE at face value. I'd not be upset were it not for that liberal lead the charge on Political Correctness. But to the left PC is like the laws of the country in that they apply to everybody but them.

And I never said Trump was honest. I don't think he is the most honest person out there. However he can't hold a candle to Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

No, its not A FACT that Trumps key demographic is UNEDUCATED whites. Look, liberals get their panties all in a wad over stereotyping...except when it comes to Caucasians. They won't classify an individual Muslim who shoots and kills people as a Muslim terrorist because they don't want to offend Muslim, or stereotype them. Referring to Latin Americans who violate American laws by sneaking across the border as ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS is something they wont do (as a generalization) because it might offend them. Refer to the criminal element who immigrate here illegally from Mexico as criminal and liberals complain because somehow it defines ALL them. We are suppose to refer to "transgenders" as Zi because calling them he or she is offensive. Call out African Americans lazy or loafers who bilk the government and you are a racist. Yet whites, using "uneducated" is fine. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Liberals want one standard for them and another for everybody else.

That fact you called them out as a segment is OFFENSIVE at face value. I'd not be upset were it not for that liberal lead the charge on Political Correctness. But to the left PC is like the laws of the country in that they apply to everybody but them.

And I never said Trump was honest. I don't think he is the most honest person out there. However he can't hold a candle to Hillary.

---

2 Absolutely false statements. There are actual facts out there to prove so. The 2nd is so outrageous, I'm just going to leave it where it is. The 1st, I'll challenge you to support that. If you choose not to, then I'll follow up with facts that prove so.

I'm going to say it again, there is no bigger key demographic that Donald Trump holds such an advantage that uneducated white males, well maybe I'll adjust that. He does hold a very large advantage in Evangelicals too, but it's a smaller demographic(and SOME overlap). The ONLY other demo that Trump does well is the 65+, but that's not as large a gap or demographic either.

I'm sorry that you get offended at the segmentation of white, uneducated voters. I didn't make the segment. EVERY pollster makes that segment. I just state the facts.

I'm not sure as to why you're going off on a rant in my direction, I'm simply trying to have a conversation around the outcome of an election and use factual polling information to support my argument. If you disagree, please feel free to counter with facts. I'm more than happy to engage. The rants are childish.

I think it’s interesting to look at the daily tracking polls since Saturday (the day after the Comey statement):

IBD/TIPP tracking (2 way):
Saturday Clinton +5
Sunday Clinton +4
Monday Clinton +2
Tuesday Clinton +1
Wednesday Tie

ABC/WaPo (2 way):
Saturday Clinton +3
Sunday Clinton +3
Monday Clinton +2
Tuesday Clinton +1
Wednesday Clinton +1

LA Times/USC (2 way):
Saturday Trump +2
Sunday Trump +2
Monday Trump +4
Tuesday Trump +4
Wednesday Trump +6

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/elections/

The Times/USC poll has been more Trump-friendly over the cycle, but looking at all 3 you see a 2-5 point movement to Trump in the last 5 days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSRBEvans

I think it’s interesting to look at the daily tracking polls since Saturday (the day after the Comey statement):

IBD/TIPP tracking (2 way):
Saturday Clinton +5
Sunday Clinton +4
Monday Clinton +2
Tuesday Clinton +1
Wednesday Tie

ABC/WaPo (2 way):
Saturday Clinton +3
Sunday Clinton +3
Monday Clinton +2
Tuesday Clinton +1
Wednesday Clinton +1

LA Times/USC (2 way):
Saturday Trump +2
Sunday Trump +2
Monday Trump +4
Tuesday Trump +4
Wednesday Trump +6

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/elections/

The Times/USC poll has been more Trump-friendly over the cycle, but looking at all 3 you see a 2-5 point movement to Trump in the last 5 days.

---

Sure, the race is tightening. Shouldn't be too much of a surprise. I think most data supports there was a 6-7 point lead for Clinton is now a 2-3 point lead. That's exactly what I figured would happen.

I still don't see much evidence out there that suggests the 272-Clinton firewall is at risk. Not to mention that of ALL the battlegrounds, HRC is running neck and neck. It takes a perfect sweep of those and stealing one of the Clinton firewall for Trump to win.

Doable? Absolutely.

Probable? Not likely.

I think you need to have Trump up by 2-3 points nationally to flip ONE of those states.

^I agree for the most part. Trump had to get some momentum if he was going to avoid a landslide loss. I think he'll now avoid that fate.

IMHO the $64 question is whether this movement will continue over the next 6 days, and if so (a) how much and (b) where. I thought this chart by Nate Silver was an interesting take on what individual states start looking like in terms of win probability if Trump gets within 2 nationally:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwN0mVkWcAI0ChN.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...06520940425216

By that, you could see the election decided by 0.3% of the voters in New Hampshire, or based on the # of 2012 NH voters, about 2,100 votes.

(And keep in mind I'm trying to look at this objectively as a guy who was a Government major in college and has always been interested in the mechanics of elections. I find both HRC and Trump repulsive and unfit to hold the office. This is the weirdest election in my lifetime and I'm fascinated by all the twists and turns and how the electorate will choose among these 2 deeply unlikeable candidates.)

I saw that chart yesterday, and feel like it's pretty accurate.

Basically what that's saying is that anything within 2 points is essentially a tie. Currently, he has a 3.3% lead for Hillary in his polls-plus model, which basically means that HRC's firewall is strong.

Even at Hillary's peak, his model had a 5.7% lead, so going from 3.3% to 2% and then none of those states within the firewall leaning Trump shows how much of an uphill climb that he still has to do.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...an_do_now.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I dispute the entire notion that "uneducated" applies to those without a college degree, whereas having one means you are "educated". Clearly by the textbook definition of formal education that may be the case, but the implication is that "educated" people are in some way smarter, more aware of the world, have done more homework on issues and have more understanding of them, etc.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. American colleges are turning out an entire class of people who are dumber than a box of rocks, have no common sense nor any ability to understand incentive based economics. That's contrasted with a lot of hard working folks who didn't get to go to college on mommy and daddy's dime who know a whole lot more about what is hurting the nation and compromising our future.

By and large the people voting for Trump are the people who are pulling the damned wagon, while those riding along on it are voting for the free ride to continue.

He won't win for 3 reasons:

1) He's horribly unlikable, though not any more so than Hillary,
2) This nation now has a critical mass of people who want handouts and free lunches and don't want the government gravy train to stop, and
3) The Left now completely controls the message from education to the media, insuring that people are actually growing up thinking that "safe spaces" and "microaggressions" are more than just self-absorbed psycho-babble the equivalent of a 2 year old justifying having cake before supper.

In short, we're dumber, less aware and more dependent on government than ever before. Any candidate selling free markets and individualism is going to have tough sell, much less one that is an asshole more concerned with insults than issues.

---

Which is why I object to the "uneducated" classification. IMO the "dumbest" group of voters, by and large, are those in college who somehow believe that the lefts idea of free college somehow benefits them, when it fact it hurts them the most. You take a person in college TODAY, there is no way that anything will be done to cover their college cost before they graduate. However if by some manner, government paid tuition were to come to pass, its THEY that would be paying for it in the future thru increased taxes. And lets say that is 5%. 5% over their working lifetime is a heck of a lot more than their 4, 5 or 6 year tuition bill. One goes to college in hopes of being able to make a considerable higher wages than non-college graduate. In other words they aspire to become "the rich" who will be fitting the bill. Yet they fall for the "free college" time and time again because they believe it will come out of somebody elses pocket.

As for the bottom half, I totally agree. I'm hoping for a November Miracle where Hillary voters stay home out of protest of her lack of any ethical bone. Trump supporters know he is a douchebag yet have elected to support him in an effort to bring change. That's why damages to him are short term and don't erode his base of people who are looking for large scale changes in how our government works, or doesn't work. I'd vote for Bin Laden if I felt he could get rid of "the establishment" in Washington. Many have falsely promised to do so but always fall back in line. I don't believe Trump will. So for all his warts, and he has many, I think many and hopefully most, are just sick and tired of ineffective government. THAT is Trumps base. Level of education has nothing to do with it. Hopefully that segment out votes the "critical mass" of people who want handouts.

Another breakdown of a tracking poll

http://www.investors.com/politics/ib...election-poll/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badrose

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...an_do_now.html

---

The lack of enthusiasm is why I think polls are off. Using the 2012 election model turnout to predict this election will lead to overpredicting Hillary's numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

The lack of enthusiasm is why I think polls are off. Using the 2012 election model turnout to predict this election will lead to overpredicting Hillary's numbers.

---

Actually, 2012 was a result of Obama's data and analytics team understanding what was really going on. It was an impressive machine. From all indications, confirmed by those that worked on his campaign and has access to the workings of the D&A team for Hillary are very firm that her team is even more powerful than Obama's.

From all indications, and confirmed by Trump(but he lies so much that I don't expect that to be true) is that Trump has very little type of operation like Obama or Clinton had. He does have pollsters leading his campaign, so it will be interesting to see which methodologies are correct.

It's my job to have a full understanding of how Obama's and Clinton's D&A team operates, as I staff my business with very similar people with similar competencies, so I have a very good sense in how it operates and how the polls can completely miss these people.

We'll just have to wait and see on Tuesday.

I do agree that most polls are outdated, which is why I still only really trust what Nate Silver does, but even he doesn't have the infrastructure that HRC's campaign does, and really the same goes for Trump. He can really only model around polls that we all have access, although he does a really great job, best in the business.

FWIW, the ABC/WaPo tracking poll shows movement away from Trump and back to Hillary in the last few days:

Tuesday: Clinton +1
Wednesday: Clinton +1
Thursday: Clinton +2
Friday: Clinton +3

OTOH, NH polls show it tied or Trump leading, which is consistent with what Nate Silver said would happen if it was a 2-point race or closer. And HRC is focusing on NH late (Obama will be there for her Election Eve), so there must some "there" there.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/elections/

Trump's definitely cracked the firewall in New Hampshire, but early indicators shows HRC's doing well in Florida, with women and Latino voting spiking. I saw some poll that said in early voting in Florida that 28% of registered Republicans have voted for Hillary. I'm so skeptical of that poll, but if it's half that much, it's very difficult for Trump to win Florida. Also seems like N Carolina has stablized a bit too, with Hillary hanging on to the slimmest of leads.

There are too many dead people for Trump to win. The Dems are the most corrupt system in the world. #uneducatedpeopleunite

Polls remain predicated on the 2012 turnout model. The Clinton camp is in an all out panic over her failure to draw the numbers of African-American voters that Obama drew in 2012. Beyoncé, JayZ, Pharrell, and Obama are all campaigning for her trying to lure those voters to the polls.

Looks like HRC has rebuilt her 270 firewall, after seeing the results from early voting in Nevada. CNN confirming the results too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

Looks like HRC has rebuilt her 270 firewall, after seeing the results from early voting in Nevada. CNN confirming the results too.

---

Early vote data is based on party registration. There's no way to know yet whether Democrats necessarily voted for Clinton or Republicans necessarily voted for Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Early vote data is based on party registration. There's no way to know yet whether Democrats necessarily voted for Clinton or Republicans necessarily voted for Trump.

---

You are correct, but there's zero evidence out there that there's any net gain on either candidate converting a greater share of registered opposition. If anything, most polling shows that Hillary is a beneficiary of Republicans supporting her vs Dems supporting Trump.

As I pointed out earlier, there's some exit polling in Florida that says that >20% of registered Republicans are voting for HRC in Florida. I don't believe in single data points, but at least 1 data point is better than none. If Nevada Republicans are +1 for HRC, then that state is over for Trump.

Polls are pretty clearly trending toward HRC. As of today IBD 4-way and the LA Times poll are the only ones favoring Trump. Trump supporters have to hope virtually all are wrong or that Trump can somehow lose the popular vote and thread the Electoral College needle.

Hillary by electoral landslide called by ten Eastern.

That may be, but Nate Silver indicates they are now well within the margin of error.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0d9ce6fbc6f7f

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Hillary by electoral landslide called by ten Eastern.

---

Some good analysis on early voting...

Assuming recent history holds, somewhere between 120 million and 130 million people will vote in this election. And roughly one-third of them—39,697,817, to be exact—have already cast their ballots. The analysts at TargetSmart have analyzed the available data (including interviews with those who have already voted), and they have some happy news for Hillary Clinton. Quite a bit of it in fact. Specifically:

Clinton appears to be leading Donald Trump among early voters by about 9 points, or roughly 4 million votes. For Trump to make up that difference, he would need 55% of the remaining votes.

55.9% of the voters so far are women. If women voters outnumber men by 10 points, that is ghastly news for Trump, and would make the "55% to catch up" all but impossible.

Trump has been counting on "low propensity" voters—those who don't turn out very often—to carry him to victory. While the number of low propensity voters is up this year, they are breaking for Clinton and not Trump, by about 7 points

The early voters are 80% white; the general population is about 63% white. If 30 million white voters have already cast their ballots (along with 10 million non-whites), that leaves about 50 million white voters to go, along with 35 million non-white voters. Supposing Hillary Clinton took 40% of the remaining white vote and 80% of the remaining non-white vote on Election Day (both very reasonable estimates), she would collect approximately 48 million of the remaining 85 million votes to Trump's 37 million. To even things out, and to possibly make up the existing 4 million gap, Trump would have to perform far, far better than expected among minority voters, or would have to take something like 85% of the remaining white votes. Either of those is a tall order.

I remain confident Hillary will win, but it's the most severe indictment of what has happened to this nation that I can imagine.

Electing a person who has been grossly negligent with America's secrets and is clearly as corrupt as anyone in US history from Tammany Hall to Al Capone's Chicago is IMO the ultimate indictment of the failure of both the system and our morality.

Trump is a stooge, a misogynistic jerk, but the Left, if unable to vote for him, should be outside DNC headquarters with torches and pitchforks demanding they remove her and put up someone who isn't a career criminal.

Susan Sarandon at least has some sense. She's voting for the Green party candidate and is calling out the DNC as being too corrupt to support.

Now I have no doubts the GOP has their corruptions as well, this isn't party versus party but entrenched elites versus the People of America. Any of them we find we need to throw in jail too, but since we just uncovered a massive nest of them with Team Clinton let's start there.

She'll win, but I pray to God we haven't been abandoned by Providence and the FBI or some other entity does enough to bring down this entity that clearly is nothing more than political racketeering and gross negligence regarding US security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I remain confident Hillary will win, but it's the most severe indictment of what has happened to this nation that I can imagine.

Electing a person who has been grossly negligent with America's secrets and is clearly as corrupt as anyone in US history from Tammany Hall to Al Capone's Chicago is IMO the ultimate indictment of the failure of both the system and our morality.

Trump is a stooge, a misogynistic jerk, but the Left, if unable to vote for him, should be outside DNC headquarters with torches and pitchforks demanding they remove her and put up someone who isn't a career criminal.

Susan Sarandon at least has some sense. She's voting for the Green party candidate and is calling out the DNC as being too corrupt to support.

Now I have no doubts the GOP has their corruptions as well, this isn't party versus party but entrenched elites versus the People of America. Any of them we find we need to throw in jail too, but since we just uncovered a massive nest of them with Team Clinton let's start there.

She'll win, but I pray to God we haven't been abandoned by Providence and the FBI or some other entity does enough to bring down this entity that clearly is nothing more than political racketeering and gross negligence regarding US security.

---

It's funny, but I was going to compliment Sarandon myself and decided I wouldn't mention it, because I still don't get why Hollywood actors should sway us at all. As you know, though, I probably agree with her position more than not here.

We're in dire straits.

Stu, she'll win, but being happy about that is just sad. That people are so entrenched with their "team" like it was some meaningless football game, willing to overlook any excess no matter how egregious in order to "win", is pretty much the end of the road.

When Nixon faced similar problems, and in fact the charges against him were far less severe, the GOP leadership went to him and told him to step down and not fight in some pathetic display of twisting facts and undermining the ethical integrity of the nation just to retain power.

Now, just a few decades later, we are apparently willing to tolerate that sort of behavior in order to advance an agenda at all costs, even though there is also a mountain of evidence that the supposed leader of this agenda doesn't give a damn about it (see her deep financial ties to the very institutions she claims to be fighting against among others).

She'll win. It's just pathetic that she will and pathetic that anyone would vote for her. It's nearly as pathetic that Trump is a candidate and that he will get votes, but in the end it's less pathetic to elect an asshole than a criminal.