US Presidential Election 2016

[zahidf]

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-12

 

polls from 4 years ago had obama and romney very close as well.

[LJS]

It's OK, Kim Kardashian is voting for Clinton.

http://mashable.com/2016/09/25/kim-kardashian-hilary-clinton/#SagizplDIPqJ

All is well with the world again .

 

[eFestivals]

20 hours ago, zahidf said:

we will see how the debates go, but trump needs to look presidential and not fly off on one. He also has done worse on debates with just 2 people, as he has a lot of time to answer questions, and he doesnt have answers. im hoping the network live fact check him as well

Hmmmm .... haven't you noticed that there's a bit of a trend at the mo for electorates to go off-trend and vote stupid...?

There's much the same going on around Trump as was/is going on with brexit and corbyn. "We don't care how mad and stupid this might seem, we're doing it anyway".

Trump has the potential to blow it in the debates, of course he does ... but so does Clinton. If Trump does the lie after lie after lie thing, Clinton will be spinning just trying to refute them, if she goes the refuting route. That stands a decent chance of making her look bad,. with only criticisms to make of Trump and nothing to say of herself.

I'm hoping Clinton will think of a different strategy, one that will knock Trump back on his heels rather than having Trump do it to her via his lies and her trying to refute and failing because she never gets the chance to finish.

[zahidf]

39 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Hmmmm .... haven't you noticed that there's a bit of a trend at the mo for electorates to go off-trend and vote stupid...?

There's much the same going on around Trump as was/is going on with brexit and corbyn. "We don't care how mad and stupid this might seem, we're doing it anyway".

Trump has the potential to blow it in the debates, of course he does ... but so does Clinton. If Trump does the lie after lie after lie thing, Clinton will be spinning just trying to refute them, if she goes the refuting route. That stands a decent chance of making her look bad,. with only criticisms to make of Trump and nothing to say of herself.

I'm hoping Clinton will think of a different strategy, one that will knock Trump back on his heels rather than having Trump do it to her via his lies and her trying to refute and failing because she never gets the chance to finish.

clinton is smart and ruthless, i have some faith in her to have a good game plan.

 

i think people underestimate the dangers of brexit or corbyn, with some (though not all) knowing but not caring about them. for example, a large percentage of voters dont think that BREXIT will have a massively negative economic effect.

 

in comparision, a large percentage of voters in the USA (65-69% according to polls) are concerned about what trump says about immigrants, use of nukes, and temperment.

there isnt the same level of delusion around trump imo compared to brexit and corbyn. the main reason why he might win is hillary's own issues. his own share of the vote has a high floor but low ceiling. in poll averages he has never led clinton.

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, zahidf said:

clinton is smart and ruthless, i have some faith in her to have a good game plan.

I hope she does, tho it would be easy for her to fall into the refuting thing, which i don't think will do her any favours. She's likely to come across as shrill if she goes that way.

 

26 minutes ago, zahidf said:

i think people underestimate the dangers of brexit or corbyn, with some (though not all) knowing but not caring about them. for example, a large percentage of voters dont think that BREXIT will have a massively negative economic effect.

whether it does or doesn't is ultimately in the control of what deal we get instead.

I find it hard to see how we'll get a deal which isn't detrimental compared to what we have now, tho its not over till its over. Its not the guaranteed thing that you're saying here, particularly not as the 'massive' you say.

And anyway, a better economic outcome doesn't automatically over-rule all other paths or wants. Slavery would be more economically efficient, but no one is suggesting that as a better way.

And while it's not something I'd personally support, I can recognise that plenty of people would accept an economic hit of some level in order to achieve their want of lesser immigration so that their locality isn't hugely changed in a short period of time, and choosing a greater stability of your locality over a small financial gain isn't an unreasonable want. I've recognised for a long long time - since the poll tax, as it happens - that people of all political persuasions aren't particularly comfortable with their society undergoing big change in a short time, and in some areas the impact of immigration has been rapid and big.

 

26 minutes ago, zahidf said:

in comparision, a large percentage of voters in the USA (65-69% according to polls) are concerned about what trump says about immigrants, use of nukes, and temperment.

I think you'll find not unsimilar numbers of people were concerned by some of Farage said - but it didn't stop them voting for his want all the same.

General elections aren't single issue votes, so a single issue such as his racism isn't necessarily going to stop those concerned people voting for him - which is why he's close to Clinton in the polls.

 

26 minutes ago, zahidf said:

there isnt the same level of delusion around trump imo compared to brexit and corbyn. the main reason why he might win is hillary's own issues. his own share of the vote has a high floor but low ceiling. in poll averages he has never led clinton.

You only have to read comments under newspaper articles to see it's all of the same thing going on as happened around brexit and with Corbyn - a rejection of the more-normal narratives of society, and a big buy-in to a crock of shit.

But just as with brexit and Corbyn that's not it for everyone. They want to stick two fingers up at those who've been running things and change the standard narratives tho not necessarily to the extremes which exist around 'their man'.

[zahidf]

i think she should just say 'another lie from donald' and then move onto to her point. make the case for her. definitely bring up bitherism and his misogyny, and his commercial links with russia if she can.

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, zahidf said:

i think she should just say 'another lie from donald' and then move onto to her point. make the case for her. definitely bring up bitherism and his misogyny, and his commercial links with russia if she can.

.she defo needs a plan that won't suck her into his lies game.

But her attempting similar towards him with vagaries about what might be going on is much the same thing, and it's unlikely to win her votes.

Clinton's problem is that there's 20+ years of suggestive 'smears' in her direction, which has turned off plenty of people that might otherwise support her, and who's votes she really needs. There's a whole 'liar' thing round her that's of around the same strength as against Trump.

I'd say that she needs to be giving a reason to vote for her that's more than "I'm not as bad as the other guy", that's what she'll do and what she won't do, while not making the 'won't do' bits about Trump.

[zahidf]

clinton 100% won the first debate. she came across much better than trump and all the press is calling it for her

two more to go!

[mjsell]

That line about preparing for the debate and preparing to be president was gold.

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

am just reading some US comment on last night.

And while the 'sensible' opinion is that Clinton won, the same 'sensible' opinion often goes on to say you'd have to be a moron to vote for either of them.

When 50% more people think Trump more trustworthy than Clinton - and they do - that's a problem.  And it's worth remembering that the same US electorate voted for Dubya not just once but twice.

As I've already pointed out, there's much of the same things going on within the US electorate as has been happening here, with the indyref, with brexit, and with the Corbyn support - people either brushing off the inconvenient, or calling it a lie, or not caring whatever.

It's all about the voters who refuse to see negatives as negatives.

[zahidf]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

am just reading some US comment on last night.

And while the 'sensible' opinion is that Clinton won, the same 'sensible' opinion often goes on to say you'd have to be a moron to vote for either of them.

When 50% more people think Trump more trustworthy than Clinton - and they do - that's a problem.  And it's worth remembering that the same US electorate voted for Dubya not just once but twice.

As I've already pointed out, there's much of the same things going on within the US electorate as has been happening here, with the indyref, with brexit, and with the Corbyn support - people either brushing off the inconvenient, or calling it a lie, or not caring whatever.

It's all about the voters who refuse to see negatives as negatives.

its not that big a gap of 50%! its around 10% more on average for trust,  with clinton having a 9% more favourable rating overall on the polls. significant, but a lot more people think trump is not fit to be on charge of nuclear weopens (51-35) or hasnt the tempermant( 52-31). trust and honesty is an issue for clinton, but no way did last night help trump with his issues.

the post cnn poll had clinton winning by 61-27. whether that translates as votes or poll uptick is another thing!

 

its still too close to call at the moment, but i think clinton will come across better after last night, esp with the undecided and third party voters.

[zahidf]

not exactly the same electorate by the way. white non college degree was 62% of the electorate when bush beat gore, and reduced 4 years ago to 45%. trump is only doing better with that smaller part of the electorate. clinton is polling betternthan him with african americans, hispanics, women and college educated whites.

 

he can still win but he did need to try and get some of the latter groups of people onside. he failed last night imo

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, zahidf said:

its not that big a gap of 50%! its around 10% more on average for trust,

it's about 50% for Trump and about 30% for Clinton on the trust thing - which puts Trump about 50% ahead on that.

 

18 minutes ago, zahidf said:

  with clinton having a 9% more favourable rating overall on the polls. significant, but a lot more people think trump is not fit to be on charge of nuclear weopens (51-35) or hasnt the tempermant( 52-31). trust and honesty is an issue for clinton, but no way did last night help trump with his issues.

As i keep pointing out, while Clinton might rate higher plenty of the people who rate her higher refuse to vote for her.

As things stand, those people feel giving their vote to one of the minor candidates (or not voting at all) is better thing to do than vote for Clinton to stop Trump.

Whether that holds up we'll have to see, but I can't see them changing unless Trump starts to poll evens or better with Clinton. Hating Trump isn't enough for them to get past their Clinton hatred.

The problem with relying on the polls in deciding where you'll vote is that the polls might mis-lead you about your vote - similar to how I think a fair chunk of brexiters wouldn't have voted for brexit if they thought brexit would win. I reckon some wanted to give govt a scare with a close vote, but not for brexit to win.

 

18 minutes ago, zahidf said:

the post cnn poll had clinton winning by 61-27. whether that translates as votes or poll uptick is another thing!

yep, that's the issue I keep raising. Most people thinking Clinton won last night isn't necessarily going to change anyone's vote.

We all know that Clinton is the more-sensible option - even plenty of the Trumpers - but it doesn't mean people will vote for her.

 

18 minutes ago, zahidf said:

its still too close to call at the moment, but i think clinton will come across better after last night, esp with the undecided and third party voters.

Most of the third party voters are unreachable for changing their vote as things stand from what I can see, just as 3rd party voters here aren't particularly inclined to vote for the major parties to get some of what they might want rather than perhaps none at all.

Which leaves the undecided's, but stuff like the trust factor will play a big part with them - which might leave Clinton on the losing side.

Remember, there were plenty of people in the UK who thought the undecided's would vote for remain but it went the other way because they wanted a change of path more than they wanted more of the same no matter how logical and sensible 'the same' might appear.

There's the same 'change of path' thing going on in the US, and while Trump's path might not be the path they want, they do see a victory for him as bringing about a change and they consider a change to be better than Clinton.

A month or two ago i'd have said there was zero chance of Trump winning, but now (before last night, anyway) i'd say it's about 50/50. It'll all about how scared of Trump as president people really are, and i'm not seeing enough of that 'scared' to call it against him.

[zahidf]

the third party vote is traditionally soft, especially after the debates when it becomes a 2 candidate thing. Bit different to the uk, where the other parties get equal say on tv (and they are ignored virtually in the UK)

 

the polls do have it very close at the moment, which should make third party voters who do hate trump jump back to clinton.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

the third party vote is traditionally soft, especially after the debates when it becomes a 2 candidate thing. Bit different to the uk, where the other parties get equal say on tv (and they are ignored virtually in the UK)

the polls do have it very close at the moment, which should make third party voters who do hate trump jump back to clinton.

it might be traditionally soft, but traditionally the candidate they might vote for isn't as hated as Clinton is - it's rare for there to be a candidate with such a long high-profile history.

I think, just as has happened in the UK, many of the normal rules are out of the window.

Edited September 27, 2016 by eFestivals

[philipsteak]

It won't change much, because it is after all, the mainstream media, but one of the most conservative American newspapers in the reddest of red states has come out for Clinton

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/

[zahidf]

7 of the polls post the debate had clinton winning massively, by around 30%+ on average

it was the highest watched tv debate in US history, around 84 million people

new NBC/Survey Monkey poll: 27% of Rs, 72% of independents, 96% of Ds say Trump lacks personality/temperament to serve as president

2 polls after the debate had clinton with a 4% swing in her favour

more polls are needed, but it is looking like the first debate is not good for trump

Edited September 28, 2016 by zahidf

[The Nal]

6 hours ago, zahidf said:

it was the highest watched tv debate in US history, around 84 million people

Which still means 234 million people didnt watch it.

I watched it in a bar in California and 45 of the 50 people in the bar wanted the football on. 

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, zahidf said:

7 of the polls post the debate had clinton winning massively, by around 30%+ on average

it was the highest watched tv debate in US history, around 84 million people

new NBC/Survey Monkey poll: 27% of Rs, 72% of independents, 96% of Ds say Trump lacks personality/temperament to serve as president

2 polls after the debate had clinton with a 4% swing in her favour

more polls are needed, but it is looking like the first debate is not good for trump

and Clinton's lead continues to shrink.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

edit: in fact, Trump is ahead in a number of polls, and while Clinton is ahead in more the fact that Trump lead in some should be scaring the shit out of people - but it's not doing that to the american voters.

It's all very well pronouncing a victory on the debate, but that's not necessarily got much to do with how people will vote.

Edited September 29, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

and Clinton's lead continues to shrink.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

edit: in fact, Trump is ahead in a number of polls, and while Clinton is ahead in more the fact that Trump lead in some should be scaring the shit out of people - but it's not doing that to the american voters.

It's all very well pronouncing a victory on the debate, but that's not necessarily got much to do with how people will vote.

ummmm those polls were worse last week for clinton.

her polling average was 1.6 lead a week ago. today its a 3 point lead. so whilst its still close, saying her lead has shrunk after the debate isnt true. polls reflecting the debate fully should be out by friday

[bunique]

3 hours ago, The Nal said:

Which still means 234 million people didnt watch it.

I watched it in a bar in California and 45 of the 50 people in the bar wanted the football on. 

Do you think it would be much different here? 

[russycarps]

20 minutes ago, bunique said:

Do you think it would be much different here? 

Yes, 49 out of 50 of the people would want the football on.

 

[zahidf]

4 hours ago, The Nal said:

Which still means 234 million people didnt watch it.

I watched it in a bar in California and 45 of the 50 people in the bar wanted the football on. 

thats superbowl numbers. different people, roughly same number☺

[5co77ie]

4 hours ago, The Nal said:

Which still means 234 million people didnt watch it.

I watched it in a bar in California and 45 of the 50 people in the bar wanted the football on. 

what's going on with the homeless people in California? - seems to be an epidemic, my sister in law flew out there - says it's noticeable there's a massive influx of rough sleepers. That's probably 5 people without a TV (or a vote)

[The Nal]

On 9/29/2016 at 1:35 AM, 5co77ie said:

what's going on with the homeless people in California? 

A load in San Francisco. Mainly older vet types who shout at traffic, a shitload in LA and to my surprise the motherload in San Diego. One of the cities defining characteristics. Theyre everywhere. A lot with no belongings passed out face down on the pavement.