|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12015212)
I sure hope things improve over at 538 ...
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/ currently showing Hilary at 53.3, Trump at 46.7, and with AZ, NV, FL, NC, OH, IA, and NH all going to Trump. We need that post convention bump! |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 12015325)
They have improved. A few days ago Trump had a 56% chance of winning.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 12015333)
I don't take any notice of the numbers...a lot can happen between now and November. Trump could carry on ranting...putting his foot in his mouth. Clinton could get him to bully her during the debates...as did RickLazio. Both of which hands it to her. More hacked emails could be made public...or a large terrorist attack on US soil would hand it to him.
Another thought I had: there was a big appeal to Republicans at the DNC by saying Trump doesn't represent them and they should vote for Hillary instead. Now that has danger of alienating the left, and I thought the balance was about right. But doesn't this also run the risk of losses down ticket? If you tie all the GOP senators and Congressmen to Trump, then people would be less likely to vote for them, maybe stay at home. Now they could leave President black and go red down ticket. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 12015342)
Sure that's all true. Although I wonder about the debates. What if Hillary made Trump look like an idiot who knew nothing about policy in the debates.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Umm no we don't.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 12015395)
That's one of the things that really puts me off her. I line up with her on various social issues, but some of that anti-science BS that she comes off with just loses me. At least she'd be the one candidate that would do something about climate change, but what's the point when the next generation of children all die from measles? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing
(Post 12015397)
I do have a question about vaccines - why the clucking bell don't they make them mandatory already?
That's one of the things that really puts me off her. I line up with her on various social issues, but some of that anti-science BS that she comes off with just loses me. At least she'd be the one candidate that would do something about climate change, but what's the point when the next generation of children all die from measles? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 12015399)
Well yes OK that's one question. Though the majority are free thanks to the aca.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing
(Post 12015397)
I do have a question about vaccines - why the clucking bell don't they make them mandatory already?
That's one of the things that really puts me off her. I line up with her on various social issues, but some of that anti-science BS that she comes off with just loses me. At least she'd be the one candidate that would do something about climate change, but what's the point when the next generation of children all die from measles? I for one would get behind a scientocracy. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 12015409)
Yeah I agree this. What is it about medical doctors in politics questioning vaccines?
I for one would get behind a scientocracy. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 12015450)
I was glad to see Hillary say she believed in science.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 12015454)
But you know she'd flip if it would win votes...
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 12015409)
Yeah I agree this. What is it about medical doctors in politics questioning vaccines?
Any doctor who advocates against vaccinations should be stripped of their right to practice medicine.
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 12015409)
I for one would get behind a scientocracy.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Is this as good as it sounds? I hadn't heard much about it until I read this ...
Courts Crush Voter Suppression Just in Time for Election Day - The Daily Beast Extract: ... after the Supreme Court ruled that part of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, the state “requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans… Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 12015342)
Sure that's all true. Although I wonder about the debates. What if Hillary made Trump look like an idiot who knew nothing about policy in the debates.
Hillary is not a great presenter. She doesn't exhibit charisma and her voice is generally irritating. She has a bad habit of unnecessarily raising her voice (appearing desperate) and rarely exhibits any great sense of conviction. Some people are naturals at these things. She isn't. Trump, on the other hand, is well versed in showmanship, exhibits overwhelming confidence, and can actually appear likeable, despite his ominous character, and his outrageous narratives. So, which one do you think will exhibit the most appeal in debates that will undoubtedly be broadcast to hundreds of millions of gullible voters in the midst of whipped up emotional hysteria? |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:49 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.