• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton’s Lead Is Becoming Safer

TheGoverness said:
It seems to be so.

Last time I checked 538's Election Forecast, Trump had a 39% chance of winning. I just checked it a minute ago, and now it's down to 21.3%.
Click to expand...

Which is why the debate this Sunday is really make it or break it for Trump. Another debate like the first for him solidifies opinion against him and its going to be extremely difficult for him to overcome that as the number of undecided voters goes down week by week. And as Clinton inches upwards, it means those people are going to need a really good idea to switch from Clinton to Trump. If these numbers regarding undecided are accurate, Trump needs at least two out of every three current undecided voters to break his way and if they have not gone for Trump yet its hard to see them doing so in those sort of numbers.
 
Chomsky said:
I have a few friendly comments, here.

If you choose to discard the polls, fair enough - it seems to a standard feature of Trump supporters, and the election results will bear-out the wisdom (or not) of disregarding polls. [if it's safe to infer you are indeed a Trump supporter - my apologies if my inference is incorrect]

So crowd size is relatively irrelevant.

I'd submit that Trump is a new & unique phenomenon in politics, whereas HRC has been strutted about for us for 3 decades, and that counts for much of the crowd discrepancy - the same as it did with Bernie.
Click to expand...

It's not so much that I am a Trump supporter, as it is that I am a Hillary opposer.

I make no bones about my belief Trump is not the best choice for the job, I simply see him as a better choice than Hillary. :shrug:

I am honestly concerned about her ability to place Justices on the SCOTUS. Her husband appointed two, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. Both avid opponents to the idea of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

I dread the appointment of two or more Justices with that slant during another Clinton Administration, only Hillary Clinton being advised by Bill this time rather than the other way round.

I honestly think that when push comes to shove more people who vote will have a problem with her than not at election time...current polls notwithstanding.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I used to then I started watching the spread and their articles and how they changed. The odds change every day so they are an indicator but when they polls change one point and the odds change 10 points it makes me dubious as to how they are shifting their odds on the back side. One point is well below the margin of error.

As far as polls go, they are still out of the 30 day window so they don't have to work at being accurate yet. They get graded on how accurate they are close to the election (inside the 30 day window). Some even fudge up until the last week, on both sides.

I like 538, most of the time. I was reading an article on that site about how polls aren't really skewed because pollsters don't skew polls. The article was about Trump's bad numbers, in August I think it was. A couple of weeks ago I was reading their "chat" and they were talking about how come the polls seem "inaccurate" when Trump's numbers were up. I will wait until the last two weeks to start taking polls seriously.
Click to expand...

If we elected presidents by popular vote a point or two change wouldn't be a big deal. But that small change can swing large numbers of electoral votes depending on which states the polls are changing. And the odds of winning chart on 538 bases it off the electoral votes.
 
BrewerBob said:
If we elected presidents by popular vote a point or two change wouldn't be a big deal. But that small change can swing large numbers of electoral votes depending on which states the polls are changing. And the odds of winning chart on 538 bases it off the electoral votes.
Click to expand...

I understand that. Thanks for expressing the obvious.
 
Captain Adverse said:
It's not so much that I am a Trump supporter, as it is that I am a Hillary opposer.

I make no bones about my belief Trump is not the best choice for the job, I simply see him as a better choice than Hillary. :shrug:

I am honestly concerned about her ability to place Justices on the SCOTUS. Her husband appointed two, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. Both avid opponents to the idea of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

I dread the appointment of two or more Justices with that slant during another Clinton Administration, only Hillary Clinton being advised by Bill this time rather than the other way round.

I honestly think that when push comes to shove more people who vote will have a problem with her than not at election time...current polls notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I feel differently about the Court, preferring a liberal court, and consider the Warren Court as the gold standard in personal and Constitutional freedoms.

But that aside, yeah it's clear these are universally disliked candidates. I feel Trump is a lost opportunity. In general terms he had the right message, but as the old cliche' goes - he's the wrong messenger. He a squandered an opportunity to break the establishment hold on this country. Bernie was a missed opportunity too. But Trump started-out with some reasonably good ideas, and took a dark hateful turn with them. That's why I can't vote for him. In a way, I'm glad my vote doesn't count in my state; I don't have to feel stressed about voting the right thing.
 
Yeah Trump has 'said' some rude things about a few women, but I find it hilarious that most media progressives really never had a problem with Bill Clinton the sex offender, who was treating women far worse, in a physical and vocal way. Yet progressives seem to think he's behaved in a perfectly acceptable manner. It proves that these media ideologues don't really care at all about abused women, they care about helping democrats get elected. Otherwise they would hate Bill Clinton for his behavior, and they would despise Hillary for seeking to destroy the credibility of her husband's many female victims.
 
Roadvirus said:
You want to give her the ability to destroy the country?
Click to expand...

Why would she want to do that? "I've got both houses, now I can destroy the country." This is a pretty little Mrs. Clinton that you think of; methinks you saw too many masters of the universe Saturday morning cartoons when you were younger.

In what way do you think she will destroy the country?

Ya, I want to see the first woman President to have Congress.

Then the obstructionists would know they had been dealt a hand for how they treated the first black President.

They treated us to make Obama a failure so, ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom