Poll: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election?


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 382 of 382 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Well, can't say I don't hope you guys are right. Trump as POTUS is something that would force the US to rethink a lot of things.


Sissyl wrote:
Well, can't say I don't hope you guys are right. Trump as POTUS is something that would force the US to rethink a lot of things.

Even more so if one of his opponents is right and he's still been a Democrat this entire time. That would make it the most epic case of political trolling in American history.

Considering he's never denied accusations he still holds Democrat policies and how everything he says would be believable satire...

Either way, if he wins, I can see political reform following.


Remember, everyone said Brexit wouldn't happen, either. :P


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Remember, everyone said Brexit wouldn't happen, either. :P

The Bible Code apparently predicts a Clinton victory, and if I remember correctly it's been wrong about every single prediction so far.

And no one believed Truman would win, to the point the papers preprinted Dewey's victory.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, are you telling me Dewey lost? I'm sorry but this pic of a moment from Harry Truman's concession speech indicates otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazuka wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Remember, everyone said Brexit wouldn't happen, either. :P

The Bible Code apparently predicts a Clinton victory, and if I remember correctly it's been wrong about every single prediction so far.

And no one believed Truman would win, to the point the papers preprinted Dewey's victory.

Firstly, the bible code doesn't exist. None of the dozen or so variant claims are anything more than linguistic pareidolia or sledgehammered numerology.

Setting that aside, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


Scythia wrote:
Kazuka wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Remember, everyone said Brexit wouldn't happen, either. :P

The Bible Code apparently predicts a Clinton victory, and if I remember correctly it's been wrong about every single prediction so far.

And no one believed Truman would win, to the point the papers preprinted Dewey's victory.

Firstly, the bible code doesn't exist. None of the dozen or so variant claims are anything more than linguistic pareidolia or sledgehammered numerology.

Setting that aside, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The phrase about stopped clocks doesn't apply when something doesn't have a record of a single prediction coming true. After awhile, you have to accept that their guesswork is based on a methodology that can be relied upon to tell you what's not going to happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Without much of a struggle? That's refreshing. How do you figure? Earlier polls said "Trump is unelectable". From there, it has gone to "a few percent in favour of Clinton".

Sure, I hope Clinton will bag the election easily. But what has changed since?

Trump couldn't muster a majority of Republicans in the primary... and they're only ~23% of the total electorate. His nomination is an accident of history... the result of too many Republican candidates thinking they could be 'the one' and thus splitting the remotely sane vote half a dozen different ways while the b+##@@& crazy wing just kept consolidating around the clear standout for their ideals.

The demographics of the general election are vastly different and stacked against ANY Republican candidate at this point... but Trump is especially screwed because women overall despise him. His only hope is that vast numbers of poorly educated older white males have been hiding out in the boondocks waiting for THIS election to finally go to the polls... while the vast number of eligible minority voters that we know haven't been voting continue to stay away. If that happens then he's got a shot. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen short of an 'October surprise' catastrophe for the Clinton campaign.

Trump also won the Republican primary because the Republican base has been more and more dominated by that b+##@@& crazy wing. Why vote for the candidate dog whistling his support for your crazy when you've got someone willing to come right out and say it? It's not really clear how much things would have changed with less candidates. Trump was still winning primaries when it was down to 3.

Trouble is, that kind of crazy doesn't help in the general. Anything's possible in politics, but the odds are very long. Any Democratic candidate has serious structural advantages. None of it's helped by Trump not being serious about campaigning. He's not fundraising effectively. He's not building a ground campaign. He's not interested in the kind of voter data that's been winning elections. He took off on a foreign trip to plug his Scottish gold course. He's been holding events in states he shouldn't lose and in states he can't win.
It's possible we're in some kind of paradigm shift and twitter and randomly places huge rallies are now the effective way to campaign, but I don't see any evidence for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone knows what I believe in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it democracy?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Oh they will, unfortunately. Bernie, sheepdog that he is, has pledged every step of the way that he would endorse the Democratic Party candidate, and the highest estimation of Bernie or Bust!ers among his supporters that I ever saw was 30%.

Saw a poll one today claimed Clinton only getst 55% of the Bernie supporters, but it was a pretty small sample.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Is it democracy?

Getting warm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll say! 90 degrees today they're saying. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap'n Yesterday's Summer Dreams wrote:
I'll say! 90 degrees today they're saying. :-)

Cold.


We also need to keep an eye out for Peter the Roman. Srsly.


A lot of it will depend on how the media decides to handle this. Do they go for purely what makes them money? Or attempt to retain even a shred of their ethical obligations?

As long as the media cares only about ratings and advertising dollars, Trump will get free media and continue to have a chance. If that ever starts to dry up, he's going to be in a hole so deep, he won't make it out of.

Essentially Trump is quadrupling down on Romney's campaign. He's focusing on white voters and relying on the RNC to run all his state level campaigns. The problem with this is that the RNC is underfunded, even just compared to themselves in 2012. It's also understaffed.

The Trump campaign has one person on staff for the state of Ohio and one person for the state of Colorado. Meanwhile, New York state has 17... plus additional county chairs. He's putting his political money and weight in states he's less likely to win.

Ohio: Clinton +5
Colorado: Trump +11 (this one is really old though, November 2015)
New York: Clinton +10

New York last voted Republican for president in 1984 and Obama won by nearly 20 points in 2012.

All of this is also why the campaign is having an issue attracting big donors: it's not being managed well. Normally the top of the ticket (the presidential campaign) is a big driver for contributions and that money gets rolled downhill to the RNC and even local elections. Trump is supporting the party, which he's going to need to do if he wants the infrastructure for voter registration and get out the vote efforts on election day in areas where he's competitive or can carry.

It's like he assumes that his XX million twitter followers will be enough. The problem is you can't target Ohio with that. He's going to have followers from all over the world. A one-way social media campaign isn't going to be efficient. Yes it's free and he's really good at it, but I don't think it's going to be game changing enough to actually win.

Unless of course CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS continue to give him free airtime to say whatever he wants.


Or if there is a capitol fire, which he could blame on Clinton.


Irontruth wrote:


All of this is also why the campaign is having an issue attracting big donors: it's not being managed well. Normally the top of the ticket (the presidential campaign) is a big driver for contributions and that money gets rolled downhill to the RNC and even local elections. Trump is supporting the party, which he's going to need to do if he wants the infrastructure for voter registration and get out the vote efforts on election day in areas where he's competitive or can carry.

It's like he assumes that his XX million twitter followers will be enough. The problem is you can't target Ohio with that. He's going to have followers from all over the world. A one-way social media campaign isn't going to be efficient. Yes it's free and he's really good at it, but I don't think it's going to be game changing enough to actually win.

Unless of course CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS...

The other reason the campaign isn't attracting the big donors is the suspicions it's mostly an operation to funnel cash to himself. First to pay back the money he loaned the primary campaign and then, like the primary money to rent his facilities and pay himself a salary.

Even with the free media, as much as it helps, you can't target major media stories any more than you can target twitter. Ground game matters. GOTV matters.


All of that too.

Every month there's a new quiet story about how the Trump campaign basically doesn't exist, other than as a support staff to get Trump from one rally to the next.

Interesting talk about how to analyze candidates.

There's an interesting nugget towards the end that talks about how most presidential election cycles, the candidate for president really sets the agenda and tone of the next four years for the party. Right now though, Trump isn't doing that because he's not really participating in the party or doing any of the normal top-down leadership via funding. Instead, the Republican agenda is being set by Paul Ryan. Regardless of who wins, they're going to be going up against Ryan's agenda.

Clinton would be opposed by Republicans no matter what, but she'd have backing of the Democrats to at least apply pressure when needed. Trump will basically be a third party candidate with very little political clout to push his own agenda. Especially if the Republicans retain control, but lose seats, they're going to blame him.

I suspect his presidency will be kind of like Jesse Ventura's governorship of Minnesota, except on a bigger stage. It wasn't pretty, nor beneficial to the state, but the events of it were also quickly forgettable with nothing really being accomplished.


Irontruth wrote:
I suspect his presidency will be kind of like Jesse Ventura's governorship of Minnesota, except on a bigger stage. It wasn't pretty, nor beneficial to the state, but the events of it were also quickly forgettable with nothing really being accomplished.

So, essentially, not that different than most other recent presidencies, regardless of political affiliation.


Donald Trump can't influence the Republican platform because he doesn't have a platform. That's probably for the best.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I suspect his presidency will be kind of like Jesse Ventura's governorship of Minnesota, except on a bigger stage. It wasn't pretty, nor beneficial to the state, but the events of it were also quickly forgettable with nothing really being accomplished.
So, essentially, not that different than most other recent presidencies, regardless of political affiliation.

I wouldn't say that the PATRIOT act, the consolidation of the DHS, contravention of the Geneva convention via "enemy combatant" status, government embrace of torture, or the militarization of police forces in "anti-terrorism" efforts will be quickly forgettable.

Likewise, I don't think that the ACA, or the executive acceptance of extrajudicial killing by way of drone strike, are going to fade quickly.


Especially the part where the president has the power to declare AMERICAN CITIZENS enemy combatants and subject them to extrajudicial killings.


Scythia wrote:
Norman Osborne wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I suspect his presidency will be kind of like Jesse Ventura's governorship of Minnesota, except on a bigger stage. It wasn't pretty, nor beneficial to the state, but the events of it were also quickly forgettable with nothing really being accomplished.
So, essentially, not that different than most other recent presidencies, regardless of political affiliation.

I wouldn't say that the PATRIOT act, the consolidation of the DHS, contravention of the Geneva convention via "enemy combatant" status, government embrace of torture, or the militarization of police forces in "anti-terrorism" efforts will be quickly forgettable.

Likewise, I don't think that the ACA, or the executive acceptance of extrajudicial killing by way of drone strike, are going to fade quickly.

Of course they will be! As this special video you will watch in between waterboarding sessions in Guantanamo Bay will demonstrate!

And after you get out, you'll be perfectly primed to buy this ocean-front property I have for sale in Colorado.


Norman Osborne wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I suspect his presidency will be kind of like Jesse Ventura's governorship of Minnesota, except on a bigger stage. It wasn't pretty, nor beneficial to the state, but the events of it were also quickly forgettable with nothing really being accomplished.
So, essentially, not that different than most other recent presidencies, regardless of political affiliation.

A lot of presidents set the agenda for their party. Reagan, Bush 2, Clinton, Obama all led their party. The last half of the 20th century, presidents almost uniformly wielded large amounts of influence on their half of the aisle, some less, some more.

Now, I'm not saying the presidents controlled the economy or government as a whole, but they were the leaders of their party.

Trump is not the leader of the GOP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
137ben wrote:
The really nonsensical part about the OP's question is that one party doesn't win "the election" in the U.S.: we can (and do) have divided government. It's actually quite likely that this year's election will see democrats regain the senate but republicans keep the house, resulting in both parties winning and losing in different races.
In the OP's defense, the thread specifically asks which party will win the presidential election.

That's what I get for posting past 2 am without having read the OP very carefully:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
137ben wrote:
The really nonsensical part about the OP's question is that one party doesn't win "the election" in the U.S.: we can (and do) have divided government. It's actually quite likely that this year's election will see democrats regain the senate but republicans keep the house, resulting in both parties winning and losing in different races.
In the OP's defense, the thread specifically asks which party will win the presidential election.

That's what I get for posting past 2 am without having read the OP very carefully:)

Or maybe it really DID say "election" and not "presidential election," but the left-wing Mexican socialist media is trying to cover it up! It might not be politically correct to say so, but it totally said "which party will win the next ELECTION, full stop, without any possibility of divided government, since that can't happen in the U.S." I know it said that, because I have the world's greatest memory. The mods must have just edited the OP after I saw it to help Hillary. Don't worry, though, I will build a wall around the OP that is so big that no socialist edits will get through, and I will make Onyx Path Publishing pay for it!

Community Manager

Removed some posts and their responses. I'm not convinced that this thread will lead to anywhere but Grar-Town, so I am locking it.

351 to 382 of 382 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Poll: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions