Cable Forum - U.S Election 2016

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - U.S Election 2016 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33702280)

Re: US Election 2016

I, more like when, she wins. The GOP need to get their act together. Because she is a single term President at best.

I would bet the farm on a Republican president in 2020.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35864975)

I, more like when, she wins. The GOP need to get their act together. Because she is a single term President at best.

I would bet the farm on a Republican president in 2020.

Assuming she does win then only if they do get they act together. Trump's support base isn't going away and the Republicans need to figure out a way to address it without alienating women and minorities. How do they plan to handle the next set of primaries? There is a risk that what happens to them is the same as what has happened to Labour. A base completely at odds with the wider public and so a weaker candidate.

I agree that a Paul Ryan or Bloomberg would be odds-on favourite in 2020 but I can also see a situation where a Trump-like figure emerges again. Especially if the man himself does start an alt-right media network that speaks to them.

I guess anyone would still win if they ran a more careful campaign and didn't resort to the bizarre antics of Trump but only if the economy is underperforming. If the economy is doing well in 2020 and she avoids real scandal then the Republicans will need someone good. To reiterate though they really can't afford not to be picking up higher proportions of women and minority voters. Even if Trump wins they need to address that, America is only becoming more diverse.

Re: US Election 2016

I personally would like to punch him on the nose

Re: US Election 2016

As for the nuclear response times thing 'the information was already widely known and often cited': http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35864974)

I have been reading nearly all the American News papers. The reading is clear, the amount of organisation's, and major stars are saying that they will be voting for Clinton.

This reminds me pre-Brexit referendum, where there was a number of celebrity endorsements for remain/leave, what annoys me the most is that if you need to rely on a celebrity endorsement, for anything, it is a sad day for democracy.

Tom Cruise was in London tonight for the new Premiere on his latest Jack Reacher movie. Sky News attempted to press him for opinion on the drama of US Politics and DJT, he refused to be drawn on an opinion, saying he was here to discuss the movie only. Wise move.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35864979)

I personally would like to punch him on the nose

I seem to remember the donald saying the same thing

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/23/po...a-rally-punch/

Re: US Election 2016

Election has entered a dull patch tbh. Everyone seems content to just keep going though the motions at the moment. The post-debate polls don't show much movement. A couple of points up for Clinton in some, the same or a point or two less in others. All within the margin of error.

Re: US Election 2016

Polls moving away from Trump again: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...lina-poll.html

No reasonable way for him to win without North Carolina. Unless he flipped Pennsylvania.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35865599)

Polls moving away from Trump again: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...lina-poll.html

No reasonable way for him to win without North Carolina. Unless he flipped Pennsylvania.

Those polls are invalid for they only really measure between 100-1000 sample sizes and the New York Times is biased in HC favor, so it is obvious they will target known Democratic safe areas.

I read somewhere that an Internal poll, with a sample size of 50,000 US citizens, 1000 citizens from each of the 50 states, the results were, Trump 67%, Clinton on just 19%. This is fitting in with the trends at Trump rallies, they are full to bursting with people still queuing outside, Hillary struggles to fill venues at her rallies. Trump also has millions of more supporters and followers on social media than Hillary does, my American friends tell me they see a LOT more Trump / Pence signs than they do Hillary signs, around their towns and cities and neighbourhoods. All these things cannot be ignored that it is a strong indication and that it is highly likely that Donald J Trump, will become the 45th President of the United States.

And the last week alone of Wikileak revelations, of the DNC paying folk to cause trouble at Trump rallies, which is a serious breach of Electorial Election Laws:

Quote:

Project Veritas founder journalist James O'Keefe has officially filed a complaint against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign for violating federal election laws.

The 17-page complaint, in part, states:

This criminal conspiracy involves the knowing and willful creation of coordinated expenditures from prohibited corporate sources. As is detailed numerous times in the Veritas transcript, attached as EXHIBIT A, the supposedly independent speech and actions of third-party groups were directed, controlled or puppeteered by [Hillary For America—the official title of Clinton's campaign] or the [Democratic National Committee]. Indeed, the record establishes not just simple violations of the [Federal Election Campaign Act]'s coordination provisions, but ongoing knowing and willful evasion of federal election law requirements through a complicated scheme. Because this conspiracy involves large numbers of employees, heightened travel, production, and distribution costs and because of the nationwide scale of the operation, upon information and belief, this triggers criminal penalties under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1)(A)(i).

http://www.charismanews.com/politics...ry-clinton-dnc

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35865616)

Here are the national polls from the last week:

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2016/10/4.png

Including a +7 from Fox News. These are published polls that report their numbers and their method as opposed to a rumor about an internal poll that suspiciously deviate from all the others. Besides if people are going to make up poll numbers they should make it realistic. 19% is obviously not going to happen. It would mean a big majority of registered democrats switching to Trump, hardly any states being Democratic, and
would be almost twice as big as the biggest landslide victory in American history.

Yard signs are not indicative of national success. How do we know your American friends don't live in a deep red state? I could say I know loads of people with Clinton signs in California. It doesn't mean anything.

Re: US Election 2016

Our own experience in the UK show polls to be unreliable. Paddy Pantsdown still has a hat to eat.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35865622)

Our own experience in the UK show polls to be unreliable. Paddy Pantsdown still has a hat to eat.

Problems with that logic is the USA polls have two different methods. National polling and State polling. In both cases here they back each other up. The state polling makes sense relative to the national polls. They also don't have the complication of the parliamentary system for the Presidential race.

Even so if they've got this wrong then it's a far bigger miss than Brexit (where the polls actually weren't that wrong - it's just no one believed them) or the General Election.

Of course they might still be wrong. We also have two weeks to go and something might change.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35865617)

Here are the national polls from the last week:

Yard signs are not indicative of national success. How do we know your American friends don't live in a deep red state? I could say I know loads of people with Clinton signs in California. It doesn't mean anything.

Do you know loads of people with Clinton signs in CA? If not then no you cannot say it. There is a difference to just saying something to actually having real life friends over there who talk to me all the time so let this be said, I am not just saying stuff!

Also, I don't see you explaining the reasons for poor turn out at Crooked Hillary rally venues ? Compared the massive turnout at Trump rallies. The massive difference in social media following between them both. You cannot ignore these as indicators. You know what, the only poll that matters is on the official one on the day. Trump should have this Election bagged.

Re: US Election 2016

Mick, in 2014 so much of the chat around the referendum here in Scotland was around Yessers insisting the polls were wrong based on the number of Yes placards they counted along the A82, or the number of people picketing the BBC or showing up for a rally in Glasgow.

None of this gives you a reliable indication of how people will actually vote. All it does is tell you whose activist base is more ... well ... active. The polls in Scotland were reasonably accurate in the end; if anything they over-estimated the insurgency slightly.

The polls in the USA will carry a margin of error, as ours do, but that margin is comfortably less than the distance between Trump and Clinton. There is no doubt, on any objective data, that Trump has a mountain to climb.