I have a feeling that when the accusations start to fly, Trump will deflect them with his charisma and Hillary won't fare as well. If she's not prepared for a particular line of attack she tends to come off like a deer in headlights.
His charisma will not be enough to win any minority or women voters. He's screwed and has said too much shit already. Not to mention the man is thin skinned and will almost certainly lose it once Hillary tries to get under it. We've already seen how petty and childish he can get whenever the other GOP candidates tried to attack him. That will not fly in a very diverse electorate.
If Trump wins the election, he almost certainly has a Republican Congress to work with. They may not see eye-to-eye with him on everything, but they agree on enough to be frightening. Then there's that pesky little matter of lifetime judicial appointments. Or the power the president has over foreign relations. Or...
Also, I'm astounded at the ability of people to convince themselves that when Trump says (or kinda sorta implies) that he agrees with their position then he's telling the truth, but when he says something they disagree with then that's just pandering and he won't follow through.
Trump is actually unique within the GOP, a lot of his views are more moderate. It's anecdotal, but he is appealing to wide base of highly educated people (of all races) that I interact with everyday.
A lot of people thought Trump had a good chance of winning based on the mood of the GOP base. The people discounting his chances subscribed to "the party decides" mentality that was true in the past.
Fortunately, the GE electorate is completely different than the GOP base. Just because Trump exceeded expectations by appealing to a tiny portion of the electorate doesn't mean he'll rise the same way once you take into account everyone else. He would need to make some serious inroads with demographics that absolutely despise him.
The very concept of a Super Delegate is anti-democratic. Super Delegates are not elected representatives of the people and yet your vote must be filtered through them. Super Delegates ensure that we never hear or see candidates that they don't want us to see. This is why the US has struggled with radical political change in the last 30-40 years. I'm curious as to why you (or anyone) would be in favor of more barriers between your will (vote) and the candidate you want.
I have a feeling that when the accusations start to fly, Trump will deflect them with his charisma and Hillary won't fare as well. If she's not prepared for a particular line of attack she tends to come off like a deer in headlights.
all hillary has to do is keep her cool and point out when trump has either blatantly lied or said something hypocritical. I feel like that could be her whole strategy and she'd be fine.
the keeping her cool part is paramount though. she can't give off the perception that trump's bullshit is getting under her skin.
The very concept of a Super Delegate is anti-democratic. Super Delegates are not elected representatives of the people and yet your vote must be filtered through them. Super Delegates ensure that we never hear or see candidates that they don't want us to see. This is why the US has struggled with radical political change in the last 30-40 years. I'm curious as to why you (or anyone) would be in favor of more barriers between your will (vote) and the candidate you want.
If super delegates voted exactly like pledged delegates. Bernie would be losing even worse the he is currently.
Hiding behind that argument doesn't help Bernie.
The US struggles with radical change by design of its government since the beginning of the country. Every major change has been hard fought over Many years.
Put me in the camp that thinks Bernie would've stood a chance. But Hillary? Doubtful.
There's been a lot of crow eaten during this election cycle. The people calling Trump unelectable (Primary or GE) or thinking that a contested convention would happen are at the buffet right now.
It has to be one of the most underestimated candidacies of all time, right?
From the outset, it seemed like everyone thought his days were numbered. But, he's proven everyone wrong again and again. I think the trend will continue.
...and people will regret not voting for Bernie when they had the chance.
A primary and a general election are two entirely different animals. Sam Wang (Princeton Election Consortium) gave Trump a 60% chance at the nomination before Iowa and he's saying, based on current polling, that Trump has roughly a 9% chance of winning the presidency now.
That's not to say that Wang's numbers should be taken as gospel or anything. There are legitimate criticisms of his methodology (and Silver's, and Cohn's, etc.) But mainly what I want to illustrate is that the people saying Trump is likely to lose in November are not just the people who wrote off his chances at the nomination.
I think Bernie would have had a chance against Trump just because Trump is such an awful general election candidate, but people seriously overestimate Bernie's strength as a general election candidate. His numbers in hypothetical matchups are largely a function of not having been attacked much by the GOP.
You think there's something wrong with a person completely outside the government being able to run for the highest office? If so, you're absolutely crazy.
I mean, I'm no Trump supporter, but the fact that someone like him can go as far as he has is what makes this country great.
I keep reading "he wont become president, dont worry"
Yet, hes still here... and getting a shit ton of popularity votes among the insane people of the world. And trust me, there are a lot of insane people.
Ive never been so scared for a presidential election in my life. Trump in power legitimately frightens me.
Which still amounts to over 2 million less than what Hillary has received.
Treating a Trump presidency as an inevitability is also extremely dismissive of women and minorities as voting blocs, but sure, let's pretend that he can win the general election without them.
"Trump will never seriously run, here are some charts that prove it."
"Trump will never win [insert state], here are some charts that prove it."
"Trump will never win enough delegates to get the nomination, here are some charts that prove it."
"Trump will never go to the convention uncontested, here are some charts that prove it."
"Trump will never win the general election, here are some charts that prove it."
"Trump will never seriously run, here are some charts that prove it."
"Trump will never win [insert state], here are some charts that prove it."
"Trump will never win enough delegates to get the nomination, here are some charts that prove it."
"Trump will never go to the convention uncontested, here are some charts that prove it."
"Trump will never win the general election, here are some charts that prove it."
actually if you look back, the polling was with Trump the entire time for the primary, it was the pundits who dismissed him because of how racist, xenophobic and insane he was.
You think there's something wrong with a person completely outside the government being able to run for the highest office? If so, you're absolutely crazy.
I mean, I'm no Trump supporter, but the fact that someone like him can go as far as he has is what makes this country great.
The very concept of a Super Delegate is anti-democratic. Super Delegates are not elected representatives of the people and yet your vote must be filtered through them. Super Delegates ensure that we never hear or see candidates that they don't want us to see. This is why the US has struggled with radical political change in the last 30-40 years. I'm curious as to why you (or anyone) would be in favor of more barriers between your will (vote) and the candidate you want.
Superdelegates were created in advance of the 1984 election. In their history, they have literally never, as a group, voted against the winner of the most pledged delegates. Their votes have changed the outcome of literally zero nominations.
I'm also curious how they prevent people from hearing or seeing candidates they don't want us to see. By what mechanism? Endorsements? That hasn't prevented Bernie from getting his message out.
actually if you look back, the polling was with Trump the entire time for the primary, it was the pundits who dismissed him because of how racist, xenophobic and insane he was.
actually if you look back, the polling was with Trump the entire time for the primary, it was the pundits who dismissed him because of how racist, xenophobic and insane he was.
Their argument early on was that the establishment candidate, historically, always comes back from behind to win. And that trump leading in the polls early on was due to the fact there were 10+ people in the race, and he was polling well on name recognition alone.
You think there's something wrong with a person completely outside the government being able to run for the highest office? If so, you're absolutely crazy.
I mean, I'm no Trump supporter, but the fact that someone like him can go as far as he has is what makes this country great.
Mrs. Clinton’s strength among young, nonwhite and well-educated voters would be enough to make her a favorite. The G.O.P. path to victory without adding some of these voters is narrow. The Republicans would need to do nearly as well among white voters as Ronald Reagan did in his 18-point re-election landslide in 1984 merely to fight to a draw in today’s far more diverse country. Nonwhite voters could make up nearly 30 percent of the electorate in 2016, up from 14 percent in 1984.
But what raises the possibility of a more decisive defeat for Mr. Trump is that he is struggling to reunite the voters who supported Mr. Romney — especially white women and white college-educated voters.
A recent ABC/Washington Post poll showed Mr. Trump with just a 29 percent favorability rating among white women and 23 percent among white college graduates, while 68 percent and 74 percent had an unfavorable opinion.
Mr. Trump is faring worse than Mr. Romney among white voters in all of the presidential battleground states. Polls even show Mr. Trump losing white voters in states where Mr. Romney won them, like Colorado, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s enough to put him at a big disadvantage in early surveys of diverse battleground states like Florida and Virginia — as well as North Carolina and Arizona, two states Mr. Romney won in 2012.
Mr. Trump has even trailed in a poll in strongly Republican Utah, which is one of the best-educated states in the country. It’s unlikely that Mrs. Clinton could win Utah in the end, but it’s nonetheless telling that Mr. Trump trails in a survey of a state where Democrats have not reached 35 percent of the vote in the last 11 presidential elections.
The Trump campaign’s aim to compete in industrial Democratic-leaning states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio has not looked promising either. That’s in part because of his broader challenge with well-educated whites (a recent NBC/Marist survey showed Mr. Trump trailing by 29 points in the Philadelphia suburbs), but it’s also because he isn’t connecting among white working-class Democrats the way the campaign had hoped.
The very concept of a Super Delegate is anti-democratic. Super Delegates are not elected representatives of the people and yet your vote must be filtered through them. Super Delegates ensure that we never hear or see candidates that they don't want us to see. This is why the US has struggled with radical political change in the last 30-40 years. I'm curious as to why you (or anyone) would be in favor of more barriers between your will (vote) and the candidate you want.
It creates a stop gap between a true brokered convention and allows the winning candidate with the most pledged delegates to go over the needed number to be the nominee.
It's a primary, it doesn't need to be democratic. Shit back in the day we didn't even have primaries where people voted, the party would put forth their best candidate for the GE.
Do you think it's wrong that other democratic countries don't have primaries for their own political party, and simply have internal decisions on who the Prime Minister nominee will be as people vote for the party in what ever election they have?
Their argument early on was that the establishment candidate, historically, always comes back from behind to win. And that trump leading in the polls early on was due to the fact there were 10+ people in the race, and he was polling well on name recognition alone.
People are obsessed with the idea of white working class men deciding the election. They just aren't a big enough voting bloc any more for that to be the case. Trump's only hope is to somehow improve his numbers among women and minorities. I don't see him successfully pulling off that pivot, but he's going to have to try if he wants to win.
actually if you look back, the polling was with Trump the entire time for the primary, it was the pundits who dismissed him because of how racist, xenophobic and insane he was.
Those pundits came wielding charts, precedent, facts and historical evidence that showed that Trump had no shot to do X. The point here is the folks who say so assuredly that he has no chance are either delusional or are hoping repetition of a thing will make it come to pass. Trump very clearly has a path to the presidency.
I have a feeling that when the accusations start to fly, Trump will deflect them with his charisma and Hillary won't fare as well. If she's not prepared for a particular line of attack she tends to come off like a deer in headlights.
The woman who has been subjected to twenty years of non-stop Republican attacks, and who sat through an 11 hour parade of bullshit can't deflect attacks?
I don't understand where any of this is coming from. It's not based in reality.
Those pundits came wielding charts, precedent, facts and historical evidence that showed that Trump had no shot to do X. The point here is the folks who say so assuredly that he has no chance are either delusional or are hoping repetition of a thing will make it come to pass. Trump very clearly has a path to the presidency.
Those pundits came wielding charts, precedent, facts and historical evidence that showed that Trump had no shot to do X. The point here is the folks who say so assuredly that he has no chance are either delusional or are hoping repetition of a thing will make it come to pass. Trump very clearly has a path to the presidency.
The very concept of a Super Delegate is anti-democratic. Super Delegates are not elected representatives of the people and yet your vote must be filtered through them. Super Delegates ensure that we never hear or see candidates that they don't want us to see. This is why the US has struggled with radical political change in the last 30-40 years. I'm curious as to why you (or anyone) would be in favor of more barriers between your will (vote) and the candidate you want.
Just to be clear, the vast majority of superdelegates are former Democratic officeholders. So saying they're "not elected representatives" is pretty much false. They have actually been elected to office as a Democrat. One of the benefits of that election is becoming a superdelegate. If you want to choose some superdelegates of your own, all you have to do is run some downticket candidates for Democratic nominations and win those elections.
Those pundits came wielding charts, precedent, facts and historical evidence that showed that Trump had no shot to do X. The point here is the folks who say so assuredly that he has no chance are either delusional or are hoping repetition of a thing will make it come to pass. Trump very clearly has a path to the presidency.
The "evidence" was laughably bad. Nate Silver's infamous 2% figure wasn't based on any model, it was literally just him saying that he thought Trump faced six major obstacles to the nomination and that if you assumed his chances of clearly a given obstacle were 50% and those chances were independent, you'd get 2%. Even he would have cautioned you not to take that figure very seriously.
I'm not saying that Trump can't win, but right now the arguments that he's likely to win remind me a lot more of the arguments that he wasn't going to get the nomination than the arguments that he would.
The problem is Hillary is so heavily favored right now she doesn't really have any demographics to strengthen. Conversely, Trump is so negatively viewed he can really only go up.
all hillary has to do is keep her cool and point out when trump has either blatantly lied or said something hypocritical. I feel like that could be her whole strategy and she'd be fine.
the keeping her cool part is paramount though. she can't give off the perception that trump's bullshit is getting under her skin.
Watching Hillary face-off against what were essentially bloodthirsty Republicans during the Benghazi hearings like she was bored has me confident she can handle Trump.
keep downplaying it folks, but the dude has a heavy chance. I've know certain (awful) fellow Canadians who love Trump and repeat the now common catchphrase "he just tells it like it is", "he's a business man"
The problem is Hillary is so heavily favored right now she doesn't really have any demographics to strengthen. Conversely, Trump is so negatively viewed he can really only go up.