luka

Well-known member
Staff member
Anyway, time will tell and you two can crow all you like once he wins. Till then you're just two crypto fascists with a hunch (albeit my two most favourite crypto fascists)
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
It's interesting how the process appears to move forward without memory. Every couple of weeks we learn a new revelation that will definitely destroy his candidacy, followed by a great deal of triumphalism in the media. It doesn't stick and we go on to the next controversy for another iteration.
Yeah, I was going to say earlier: how many times is it now that Trump has, by popular consensus, "destroyed" or at least "sabotaged" his own campaign? Wasn't this supposed to have happened already after he insulted veterans' families, took the piss out of McCain for "letting himself get captured", and a bunch of other occasions? Maybe he'd be more popular now without having made these gaffes, but they clearly haven't finished him off, either individually or in aggregate.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I agree. The argument during the nomination campaign was, OK, so GOP voters don't care, but see how that plays when he goes to the country. Now we're at a close place, 40/50s, so that comfort has been destroyed. And for the reasons I mentioned above, maybe this shit will actually be less relevant. It's a scary thought, but I think you'd be foolish to discount it.

I was in America during the GOP debates; he was a joke then. He's not now, and maybe he never was.
 

Leo

Well-known member
obviously nothing is for certain, but clinton has a pretty strong ground game with hundreds of offices for a year in key swing states while trump has almost no ground game at all. he equates crowds to popularity. getting a few thousand people at a rally feels good but is meaningless if you don't have a mechanism for getting the vote out. his hardcore base was enough to win a republican primary race split across 16 other candidates, but they aren't enough for a national election against one opponent.

also, for example in key swing state pennsylvania, the rust belt area is sparsely populated while inner city philadelphia is heavily populated by reliable democratic minority voters and trump's "women" problems is losing him the white suburbs. the numbers just don't work for him.

the other thing is the race doesn't start with each candidate at zero. firm red and blue states give democrats a significant advantage in national elections before the first vote is even cast, so he needs to win many more swing states than she does. trump, as a republican, essentially starts in a hole.
 
Last edited:

droid

Beast of Burden
obviously nothing is for certain, but clinton has a pretty strong ground game with hundreds of offices for a year in key swing states while trump has almost no ground game at all. he equates crowds to popularity. getting a few thousand people at a rally feels good but is meaningless if you don't have a mechanism for getting the vote out. his hardcore base was enough to win a republican primary race split across 16 other candidates, but they aren't enough for a national election against one opponent.

also, for example in key swing state pennsylvania, the rust belt area is sparsely populated while inner city philadelphia is heavily populated by reliable democratic minority voters and trump's "women" problems is losing him the white suburbs. the numbers just don't work for him.

the other thing is the race doesn't start with each candidate at zero. firm red and blue states give democrats a significant advantage in national elections before the first vote is even cast, so he needs to win many more swing states than she does. trump, as a republican, essentially starts in a hole.

Yeah, despite what the oracle says, I think if things continue as they are Trump is looking at a defeat, especially as it seems the Republican machine is backing away from him. I just cant see a strong enough swing in the required states, and Silver, for all his faults has an exceptional record in US elections.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
But I cant help but think that Sanders would have ripped him to shreds in the debates and might have gotten in due to the fear of Trump.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
Its really looking bad for Trump, the rumours about an undisclosed NBC 'Nigger' tape may well seal the deal in terms of undecideds and marginals, I think his main achievement may end up being getting people out to vote against him.

So, in balance, despite my appalling record at predicting the results of US elections, Ill take that bet, though it would have to be in euro as the sterling is sinking like a stone and I dont fancy that you'll be able to get a wheelbarrow of cash across the border.
 

Corpsey

call me big papa
Its really looking bad for Trump, the rumours about an undisclosed NBC 'Nigger' tape may well seal the deal in terms of undecideds and marginals, I think his main achievement may end up being getting people out to vote against him.
Can you direct me to these rumours?
 

Leo

Well-known member
bernie sanders is great but i still question whether he'd be accepted by mainstream america, the risk-averse moderate suburban voters who aren't necessarily interested in or comfortable with a movement revolution. like some of the far-right candidates who were popular during the republican primary (cruz, carson), sanders ginned up excitement from a significant portion of the party base, but that's still a low percentage of the national electorate.

my gut says he's still seen as too extreme-left for many americans, can't believe they'd elect an avowed socialist. and, sadly, many would also have a hard time voting for a jewish candidate.
 

Leo

Well-known member
on the plus side, bernie would have far (far) less dirty on him than clinton, so trump would be without a lot of his strongest ammunition.
 
Top