Prediction: November Electoral Vote - Clinton 429 - Trump 109

[Toro]

I'm a Republican who has NEVER voted for a Democrat before! Food for thought! mmmmmm!

OK, then why the hysterical prediction? Sure, Trump sucks. And Hillary is dishonest, corrupt and a liar and has almost as high a disapproval rating as Trump. And the current polls are while Republicans who supported other candidates are still licking their wounds. That Hillary is the opponent is going to help Trump a lot. I'm not saying that Trump will win, but I see no reason for the gloomy prediction against freaking Hillary

My prediction is something that should be celebrated in that Trump will be stopped and America will be saved.

The prediction is not hysterical. Its based on the facts of the last election and the changing demography of the United States. Romney got 59% of the White non-hispanic vote back in 2012 and he still lost. The lesson was that the next Republican candidate would have to do better with hispanics, other minorities, and women in order to have a chance of winning. Trump will pick up less hispanics, minorities and women than Romney did. Trump would have to probably get 65% of the white non-hispanic vote to do just as well as Romney did which was still a LOSS. Trump would probably have to get 70% of the white vote in order to win the election and that is not going to happen.

Trump changes the dynamic of everything. You are assuming that everyone votes with him like they do for other Republican candidates, then add his negatives only. And you're ignoring that he has politically an opponent who is corrupt and almost as disliked as he is yet assuming she'll do as well with Democrats as the past. You took the pure worst case of everything

Trump is not some magic guru. There are certain realities about the electoral college and peoples political views that will not change regardless of who the candidates are based on past history. Swing states can change, but states that have voted for one party or the other for a solid 3 decades are highly unlikely to change.

Since Reagan left office in January 1989, the Democrats have won the following States in every Presidential election:

Hawaii
California
Oregon
Washington
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Michigan
Maryland
Delaware
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
New York
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Vermont
Maine

This is the Democrats "BLUE WALL". These states have a combined 242 electoral votes and the Democrats have consistently won these states in every election now for nearly 3 decades. This is not a worse case scenario but a simple political reality. None of these 18 states are swing states. They are all solid blue. Hillary then only needs to pick up 28 more electoral votes and the election is over. She could do this buy winning Florida with its 29 electoral votes. Or she could do it instead by winning Virginia and North Carolina that combine for 28 electoral votes. The population has been polarized into these Blue and Red states for several decades now.

And in this election you have a non-traditional Republican against a historically corrupt Democrat. I'm not predicting Trump will exactly sweep those States, but to assume they are all out of play is way too extreme. The Northeast particularly is an area Trump showed a lot of strength and could put several of those States in play.

And even if he's a threat, the Democrats have to use their resources to defend States they usually don't have to put much into.

I'm just saying you're painting every scenario as breaking for the Democrats and completely ignoring Hillary's historically high negative approval ratings taking the position the impact of that will be zero. It's hard to believe

Latest poll has Trump losing NY by 25 points to Hillary.

So he has a long way to go.

 

[kaz]

I predict Hillary Clinton will come away with a landslide victory in the November 8th election against Trump. Hillary Clinton will win 429 Electoral Votes to Trumps 109.

These are the only states Trump will win on November 8:

Idaho
Wyoming
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Mississippi
Alabama
South Carolina
Indiana
West Virginia

Trumps largest margin of Victory will be in West Virginia.

The Mormans of Utah will not support Trump.

Wow, a leftist predicting a massive victory for your candidate, stop the presses ...

I'm a Republican who has NEVER voted for a Democrat before! Food for thought! mmmmmm!

OK, then why the hysterical prediction? Sure, Trump sucks. And Hillary is dishonest, corrupt and a liar and has almost as high a disapproval rating as Trump. And the current polls are while Republicans who supported other candidates are still licking their wounds. That Hillary is the opponent is going to help Trump a lot. I'm not saying that Trump will win, but I see no reason for the gloomy prediction against freaking Hillary

My prediction is something that should be celebrated in that Trump will be stopped and America will be saved.

The prediction is not hysterical. Its based on the facts of the last election and the changing demography of the United States. Romney got 59% of the White non-hispanic vote back in 2012 and he still lost. The lesson was that the next Republican candidate would have to do better with hispanics, other minorities, and women in order to have a chance of winning. Trump will pick up less hispanics, minorities and women than Romney did. Trump would have to probably get 65% of the white non-hispanic vote to do just as well as Romney did which was still a LOSS. Trump would probably have to get 70% of the white vote in order to win the election and that is not going to happen.

And then when you consider that Romney won 44% of the female vote, and Trump is 20+ points behind Hillary amongst women, Trump probably needs north of 75% of white males. Good luck with that.

So the votes of women are fixed and the votes of men are floating? How do you figure that?

BTW, there is a third option, people saying home. They affect the vote dramatically as well, who stays home. The only ones who can get it up for Hillary are the hard core Democrats who are voting blue no matter what

 

[kaz]

OK, then why the hysterical prediction? Sure, Trump sucks. And Hillary is dishonest, corrupt and a liar and has almost as high a disapproval rating as Trump. And the current polls are while Republicans who supported other candidates are still licking their wounds. That Hillary is the opponent is going to help Trump a lot. I'm not saying that Trump will win, but I see no reason for the gloomy prediction against freaking Hillary

My prediction is something that should be celebrated in that Trump will be stopped and America will be saved.

The prediction is not hysterical. Its based on the facts of the last election and the changing demography of the United States. Romney got 59% of the White non-hispanic vote back in 2012 and he still lost. The lesson was that the next Republican candidate would have to do better with hispanics, other minorities, and women in order to have a chance of winning. Trump will pick up less hispanics, minorities and women than Romney did. Trump would have to probably get 65% of the white non-hispanic vote to do just as well as Romney did which was still a LOSS. Trump would probably have to get 70% of the white vote in order to win the election and that is not going to happen.

Trump changes the dynamic of everything. You are assuming that everyone votes with him like they do for other Republican candidates, then add his negatives only. And you're ignoring that he has politically an opponent who is corrupt and almost as disliked as he is yet assuming she'll do as well with Democrats as the past. You took the pure worst case of everything

Trump is not some magic guru. There are certain realities about the electoral college and peoples political views that will not change regardless of who the candidates are based on past history. Swing states can change, but states that have voted for one party or the other for a solid 3 decades are highly unlikely to change.

Since Reagan left office in January 1989, the Democrats have won the following States in every Presidential election:

Hawaii
California
Oregon
Washington
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Michigan
Maryland
Delaware
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
New York
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Vermont
Maine

This is the Democrats "BLUE WALL". These states have a combined 242 electoral votes and the Democrats have consistently won these states in every election now for nearly 3 decades. This is not a worse case scenario but a simple political reality. None of these 18 states are swing states. They are all solid blue. Hillary then only needs to pick up 28 more electoral votes and the election is over. She could do this buy winning Florida with its 29 electoral votes. Or she could do it instead by winning Virginia and North Carolina that combine for 28 electoral votes. The population has been polarized into these Blue and Red states for several decades now.

And in this election you have a non-traditional Republican against a historically corrupt Democrat. I'm not predicting Trump will exactly sweep those States, but to assume they are all out of play is way too extreme. The Northeast particularly is an area Trump showed a lot of strength and could put several of those States in play.

And even if he's a threat, the Democrats have to use their resources to defend States they usually don't have to put much into.

I'm just saying you're painting every scenario as breaking for the Democrats and completely ignoring Hillary's historically high negative approval ratings taking the position the impact of that will be zero. It's hard to believe

Latest poll has Trump losing NY by 25 points to Hillary.

So he has a long way to go.

It's going to be a crazy election for sure. Two candidates who both have historically high disapproval ratings. Primary voters are morons. Apparently they are the ones who should be not voting to pick the candidates, not the ones who should

 

[Toro]

Wow, a leftist predicting a massive victory for your candidate, stop the presses ...

I'm a Republican who has NEVER voted for a Democrat before! Food for thought! mmmmmm!

OK, then why the hysterical prediction? Sure, Trump sucks. And Hillary is dishonest, corrupt and a liar and has almost as high a disapproval rating as Trump. And the current polls are while Republicans who supported other candidates are still licking their wounds. That Hillary is the opponent is going to help Trump a lot. I'm not saying that Trump will win, but I see no reason for the gloomy prediction against freaking Hillary

My prediction is something that should be celebrated in that Trump will be stopped and America will be saved.

The prediction is not hysterical. Its based on the facts of the last election and the changing demography of the United States. Romney got 59% of the White non-hispanic vote back in 2012 and he still lost. The lesson was that the next Republican candidate would have to do better with hispanics, other minorities, and women in order to have a chance of winning. Trump will pick up less hispanics, minorities and women than Romney did. Trump would have to probably get 65% of the white non-hispanic vote to do just as well as Romney did which was still a LOSS. Trump would probably have to get 70% of the white vote in order to win the election and that is not going to happen.

And then when you consider that Romney won 44% of the female vote, and Trump is 20+ points behind Hillary amongst women, Trump probably needs north of 75% of white males. Good luck with that.

So the votes of women are fixed and the votes of men are floating? How do you figure that?

BTW, there is a third option, people saying home. They affect the vote dramatically as well, who stays home. The only ones who can get it up for Hillary are the hard core Democrats who are voting blue no matter what

I think the Libertarian Party could get 5% of the vote as Republicans switch rather than vote for Trump.

 

[kaz]

I love the overconfidence. Good luck!

First of all, overconfidence as a term makes no sense since I'm not a Trump supporter and won't vote for him

Second, even if I were, to call that I don't agree everything will break against Trump and that Hillary will pay zero price for her own historically high negatives "overconfidence" is silly

 

[kaz]

I'm a Republican who has NEVER voted for a Democrat before! Food for thought! mmmmmm!

OK, then why the hysterical prediction? Sure, Trump sucks. And Hillary is dishonest, corrupt and a liar and has almost as high a disapproval rating as Trump. And the current polls are while Republicans who supported other candidates are still licking their wounds. That Hillary is the opponent is going to help Trump a lot. I'm not saying that Trump will win, but I see no reason for the gloomy prediction against freaking Hillary

My prediction is something that should be celebrated in that Trump will be stopped and America will be saved.

The prediction is not hysterical. Its based on the facts of the last election and the changing demography of the United States. Romney got 59% of the White non-hispanic vote back in 2012 and he still lost. The lesson was that the next Republican candidate would have to do better with hispanics, other minorities, and women in order to have a chance of winning. Trump will pick up less hispanics, minorities and women than Romney did. Trump would have to probably get 65% of the white non-hispanic vote to do just as well as Romney did which was still a LOSS. Trump would probably have to get 70% of the white vote in order to win the election and that is not going to happen.

And then when you consider that Romney won 44% of the female vote, and Trump is 20+ points behind Hillary amongst women, Trump probably needs north of 75% of white males. Good luck with that.

So the votes of women are fixed and the votes of men are floating? How do you figure that?

BTW, there is a third option, people saying home. They affect the vote dramatically as well, who stays home. The only ones who can get it up for Hillary are the hard core Democrats who are voting blue no matter what

I think the Libertarian Party could get 5% of the vote as Republicans switch rather than vote for Trump.

Interesting prediction, could happen

 

[Juicin]

Because Trump is from NY for one, he's going to put that state in play guaranteed. Probably win it, not to mention almost all good polling data is on likely voters not just anyone. So if some one draws in new or occasional voters it's not going to show up.

If you haven't noticed black men are sort of aware Mexican men are employed at a 95% rate while they are not. He could easily take NY with an anti immigration platform. And the anti globalist platform is obscenely easily to sell in Pennsylvania.

He has bucked political convention by being a known quantity but increasing his numbers vastly and steadily over time. 100% name recognition. While at the same time throwing his parties platform out the window.

If you think Hillary is the person to beat him I think it's at best a 50 50 for you. You're going to hear a lot less about pigs blood and a lot more about libya and blow jobs soon

The Democrats could put up anyone, Bernie Sanders or even Barack Obama and they would crush Trump in November.

You have it backward. Hillary is not going to beat Trump, rather Trump is going to help Hillary win in a landslide when she shouldn't.

Pennsylvania has been solid BLUE since Bill Clinton got NAFTA passed back in the 1990s. There is currently no polling that shows that Trump will win in Pennsylvania or New York. None at all. No Republican has won in those states since the 1980s and Trumps negatives are worse than any Republican candidate since the 1980s.
You can't win an election when 75% of women will not vote for you. Its just that simple.

The GENERAL ELECTION is a totally different ball game from the party primary. The Republicans needed a candidate in 2016 that could appeal to minorities and women since every election cycle they form a larger block of who is actually voting. Trump hurts the Republican position with minorities and women, and thus makes him unelectable in the general election.

Bernie Sanders is not the candidate running, and Barack Obama sure as shit isn't

We've got the openly globalist, centrist, wooden, and warmongering hillary clinton

Bernie has much better numbers than Hillary, his negatives aren't second only to Trump and people think he's sincere.

He's got vast swathes of voters of all colors to bring in. He doesn't need Latinos if he compensates with black, asian, and new white men

There are millions of Republicans that prefer a globalist, centrist, and someone that is a HAWK when it comes to military, defense, and foreign policy. Your forgetting that Trump is driving millions of Republicans to vote for the Democrat this year. Hillary is far closer to Reagan and Bush than Trump is.

Trump completely lost it when he suggested the United States abandon NATO. Thats the opposite of Reagan and will not sit well with many long time Republicans.

Again, I've never voted for a Democrat before. I've voted Republican since the 1980s. But this year, for the first time, I will vote for the Democratic nominee to PREVENT Trump from getting anywhere near the White House.

The majority of the American public wants an end to illegal immigration (although not a wall or mass deportation schemes but amnesty doesn't poll well and open borders sure as shit don't)

The majority of the American public is against free trade, especially when the people we have trade deals with practice protectionism

The majority of the American public doesn't want more foreign intervention. You can ask them about ISIS and they'll say something vague about defeating them. But you can't get them to accept any blood price

His political platform is more in line with the American public of all colors...Whether or not he will govern that way who knows. But beyond "law and order" he's on the right side of all these issues. And I suspect as soon as he's nominated his first move will be to court black voters by suggesting we need less non violent prisoners, save room for the rapists

Most Americans recognize the value of immigration to the United States and know that it is a source of strength for a growing economy and demographically helps the United States as its population ages. There are certain sectors of the country that are against immigration, but its really more just racism and blaming others for changes in society.

Americans love Free Trade because it makes the goods Americans buy everyday cheaper. It also expands business opportunities with increasing exports. Protectionism has a poor record and is outdated in the 21st century.

The majority of the American public wants to continue to protect areas of the world that are vital to United States security and are critical to the United States economy. The Persian Gulf, Japan, South Korea, and Europe remain vital interest of the United States just as they have been for the past 70 years. Abandoning U.S. security commitments abroad will create a world where third World War would be possible. It was U.S. isolationism prior to the first World War and 2nd World War that helped create the conditions that led to those wars.

This will become perfectly clear to everyone when Trump is slaughtered in November.

Unless you're taking advantage of cheap labor in the west most people do not see low skill immigration as a boon

Yes having bodies gives us a slight geopolitical advantage. But the children of Honduran and Mexican illegals who's fathers are educated as well as our middle schoolers are not a boon

Guest workers are only a boon in Saudi Arabia because they treat them like an underclass.

Our guest workers get to go to school with our children and suck up funds for medical care

Almost no one in this country is for limited immigration. The dumbest immigrants should be last in line. That includes the poor mexicans who poor across our borders and drive the wages of poor Americans down.

You're just wrong

Being pro immigrant is a pro capital position, (being pro low skill labor immigration means you really hate poor people and don't understand the implications of having a massive brown underclass)

We want a nation of equals. Not a nation of equals plus hispanics who's majority of descendants won't be assimilated in our lifetime.

If you consider yourself a progressive you should be against low skill immigration. It's terrible for our poor.

Trading an insignificant increase in GDP for a massive loss in GDP per capita and a bigger strain on social services especially in urban areas.

 

[Toro]

OK, then why the hysterical prediction? Sure, Trump sucks. And Hillary is dishonest, corrupt and a liar and has almost as high a disapproval rating as Trump. And the current polls are while Republicans who supported other candidates are still licking their wounds. That Hillary is the opponent is going to help Trump a lot. I'm not saying that Trump will win, but I see no reason for the gloomy prediction against freaking Hillary

My prediction is something that should be celebrated in that Trump will be stopped and America will be saved.

The prediction is not hysterical. Its based on the facts of the last election and the changing demography of the United States. Romney got 59% of the White non-hispanic vote back in 2012 and he still lost. The lesson was that the next Republican candidate would have to do better with hispanics, other minorities, and women in order to have a chance of winning. Trump will pick up less hispanics, minorities and women than Romney did. Trump would have to probably get 65% of the white non-hispanic vote to do just as well as Romney did which was still a LOSS. Trump would probably have to get 70% of the white vote in order to win the election and that is not going to happen.

And then when you consider that Romney won 44% of the female vote, and Trump is 20+ points behind Hillary amongst women, Trump probably needs north of 75% of white males. Good luck with that.

So the votes of women are fixed and the votes of men are floating? How do you figure that?

BTW, there is a third option, people saying home. They affect the vote dramatically as well, who stays home. The only ones who can get it up for Hillary are the hard core Democrats who are voting blue no matter what

I think the Libertarian Party could get 5% of the vote as Republicans switch rather than vote for Trump.

Interesting prediction, could happen

But probably won't tbh. 2-3% seems more likely

 

[Zander]

I agree with Libertarian philosophy. Maximum personal freedom, personal autonomy, freedom of association, freedom of choice, political freedom, property rights, etc... But the "Libertarian Party" is a horrid political party.

Since the party inception in 1972- they have won a grand total of 1 electoral college vote. ONE!! And that was in 1972! Since then they have gone 0-538 in every single election. They've only broken 1% one time in over 40 years!!

Even Gary Johnson the great "Libertarian Party" candidate, who did win elective office as Governor of New Mexico, ran as a REPUBLICAN to win that race! He knew he had no chance as a "Libertarian".

 

[kaz]

I agree with Libertarian philosophy. Maximum personal freedom, personal autonomy, freedom of association, freedom of choice, political freedom, property rights, etc... But the "Libertarian Party" is a horrid political party.

Since the party inception in 1972- they have won a grand total of 1 electoral college vote. ONE!! And that was in 1972! Since then they have gone 0-538 in every single election. They've only broken 1% one time in over 40 years!!

Even Gary Johnson the great "Libertarian Party" candidate, who did win elective office as Governor of New Mexico, ran as a REPUBLICAN to win that race! He knew he had no chance as a "Libertarian".

I'm not a big fan of the party either, which is why I'm a libertarian, not a Libertarian. Though I voted for Browne twice and Badarnak once and I'd vote for either of them again. Since then I've not been big on the candidates. The Libertarians are attention whoring and nominating the splash candidates instead of the best ones.

BTW, most libertarians are not Libertarians, which is why I draw that clear distinctions. There are far more libertarians in both the Republican party and independents than in the Libertarian Party. The problem for me with the Libertarian Party is they are more focused on the Party than the Libertarian. And the party is like leftists in that they have endless purity tests. Neal Boortz has done more for the party than anyone in America and they go after him

 

[imawhosure]

The Democrats could put up anyone, Bernie Sanders or even Barack Obama and they would crush Trump in November.

You have it backward. Hillary is not going to beat Trump, rather Trump is going to help Hillary win in a landslide when she shouldn't.

Pennsylvania has been solid BLUE since Bill Clinton got NAFTA passed back in the 1990s. There is currently no polling that shows that Trump will win in Pennsylvania or New York. None at all. No Republican has won in those states since the 1980s and Trumps negatives are worse than any Republican candidate since the 1980s.
You can't win an election when 75% of women will not vote for you. Its just that simple.

The GENERAL ELECTION is a totally different ball game from the party primary. The Republicans needed a candidate in 2016 that could appeal to minorities and women since every election cycle they form a larger block of who is actually voting. Trump hurts the Republican position with minorities and women, and thus makes him unelectable in the general election.

Bernie Sanders is not the candidate running, and Barack Obama sure as shit isn't

We've got the openly globalist, centrist, wooden, and warmongering hillary clinton

Bernie has much better numbers than Hillary, his negatives aren't second only to Trump and people think he's sincere.

He's got vast swathes of voters of all colors to bring in. He doesn't need Latinos if he compensates with black, asian, and new white men

There are millions of Republicans that prefer a globalist, centrist, and someone that is a HAWK when it comes to military, defense, and foreign policy. Your forgetting that Trump is driving millions of Republicans to vote for the Democrat this year. Hillary is far closer to Reagan and Bush than Trump is.

Trump completely lost it when he suggested the United States abandon NATO. Thats the opposite of Reagan and will not sit well with many long time Republicans.

Again, I've never voted for a Democrat before. I've voted Republican since the 1980s. But this year, for the first time, I will vote for the Democratic nominee to PREVENT Trump from getting anywhere near the White House.

The majority of the American public wants an end to illegal immigration (although not a wall or mass deportation schemes but amnesty doesn't poll well and open borders sure as shit don't)

The majority of the American public is against free trade, especially when the people we have trade deals with practice protectionism

The majority of the American public doesn't want more foreign intervention. You can ask them about ISIS and they'll say something vague about defeating them. But you can't get them to accept any blood price

His political platform is more in line with the American public of all colors...Whether or not he will govern that way who knows. But beyond "law and order" he's on the right side of all these issues. And I suspect as soon as he's nominated his first move will be to court black voters by suggesting we need less non violent prisoners, save room for the rapists

Most Americans recognize the value of immigration to the United States and know that it is a source of strength for a growing economy and demographically helps the United States as its population ages. There are certain sectors of the country that are against immigration, but its really more just racism and blaming others for changes in society.

Americans love Free Trade because it makes the goods Americans buy everyday cheaper. It also expands business opportunities with increasing exports. Protectionism has a poor record and is outdated in the 21st century.

The majority of the American public wants to continue to protect areas of the world that are vital to United States security and are critical to the United States economy. The Persian Gulf, Japan, South Korea, and Europe remain vital interest of the United States just as they have been for the past 70 years. Abandoning U.S. security commitments abroad will create a world where third World War would be possible. It was U.S. isolationism prior to the first World War and 2nd World War that helped create the conditions that led to those wars.

This will become perfectly clear to everyone when Trump is slaughtered in November.

Unless you're taking advantage of cheap labor in the west most people do not see low skill immigration as a boon

Yes having bodies gives us a slight geopolitical advantage. But the children of Honduran and Mexican illegals who's fathers are educated as well as our middle schoolers are not a boon

Guest workers are only a boon in Saudi Arabia because they treat them like an underclass.

Our guest workers get to go to school with our children and suck up funds for medical care

Almost no one in this country is for limited immigration. The dumbest immigrants should be last in line. That includes the poor mexicans who poor across our borders and drive the wages of poor Americans down.

You're just wrong

Being pro immigrant is a pro capital position, (being pro low skill labor immigration means you really hate poor people and don't understand the implications of having a massive brown underclass)

We want a nation of equals. Not a nation of equals plus hispanics who's majority of descendants won't be assimilated in our lifetime.

If you consider yourself a progressive you should be against low skill immigration. It's terrible for our poor.

Trading an insignificant increase in GDP for a massive loss in GDP per capita and a bigger strain on social services especially in urban areas.

Remember when everyone thought there was no way Trump was going to win states? When Trump supporters consistently made their case, what did they use as evidence? That is correct, polls! Nobody believed the polls, even as Trump supporters pointed at them, and jumped up and down. When the returns came back from the states, Trump supporters smugly told all of us, "see, we told you so!" Score one for the Trumpster and his supporters now known as the 42%-) We were wrong, we were in shock the polls were correct, just as we were in shock over the polls being correct in 2012 when Obama got re-elected!

Pesky things those polls you know. We as humans don't want to believe them when they tell us something we don't want to hear, and trumpet them like a symphony when they agree with our position. The polls don't care how we feel about them though, they just usually give us a rather accurate picture of where things are at; especially if most of the polls are saying the same thing, even as they poll totally different people to draw the same conclusion.

And so I ask the 42% ers---------> the very polls YOU used as evidence for the power of Trump in the primary, what story are they telling you now about the general? And why is it they were soooooooooo accurate in your eyes back then, but now are all full of poo-poo! And notice that even as Trump flip-flops faster than a grounded fish on many of his policies, you have taken EXACTLY the same stance that Obamaphiles took proclaiming the man can do no wrong and is a genius, lol.

Now then, I agree that Trump COULD actually win the election. How? If as many Democrats stay at home in disgust with Hillary, as Republicans stay at home in disgust with Trump, that is how! It could happen. Because Trump IS drawing more Democratic voters than Hillary is drawing Republicans, a very-very low Presidential turnout could put Trump in. Now if that is where you 42%ers are putting all your eggs, good luck with that-)

 

[Zander]

Trump was at 1% in the polls 6 months from the first primary. General Election match up polls have very little predictive value this far from the election.

After the conventions they'll matter......

 

[Toro]

Trump was at 1% in the polls 6 months from the first primary. General Election match up polls have very little predictive value this far from the election.

After the conventions they'll matter......

He was leading the field 4 months before the first primary too, and never relinquished it.

 

[mak5]

I agree with Libertarian philosophy. Maximum personal freedom, personal autonomy, freedom of association, freedom of choice, political freedom, property rights, etc... But the "Libertarian Party" is a horrid political party.

Since the party inception in 1972- they have won a grand total of 1 electoral college vote. ONE!! And that was in 1972! Since then they have gone 0-538 in every single election. They've only broken 1% one time in over 40 years!!

Even Gary Johnson the great "Libertarian Party" candidate, who did win elective office as Governor of New Mexico, ran as a REPUBLICAN to win that race! He knew he had no chance as a "Libertarian".

There's always a start. The Libertarians are polling at 11% right now. At 15%, they get to share the stage with the Dem and Rep nominees at the debates.

 

[Zander]

Trump was at 1% in the polls 6 months from the first primary. General Election match up polls have very little predictive value this far from the election.

After the conventions they'll matter......

He was leading the field 4 months before the first primary too, and never relinquished it.

Good to know.

Right now the election is 182 days away (that's 6 months for the mathematically challenged), rendering your point moot.

 

[Zander]

I agree with Libertarian philosophy. Maximum personal freedom, personal autonomy, freedom of association, freedom of choice, political freedom, property rights, etc... But the "Libertarian Party" is a horrid political party.

Since the party inception in 1972- they have won a grand total of 1 electoral college vote. ONE!! And that was in 1972! Since then they have gone 0-538 in every single election. They've only broken 1% one time in over 40 years!!

Even Gary Johnson the great "Libertarian Party" candidate, who did win elective office as Governor of New Mexico, ran as a REPUBLICAN to win that race! He knew he had no chance as a "Libertarian".

There's always a start. The Libertarians are polling at 11% right now. At 15%, they get to share the stage with the Dem and Rep nominees at the debates.

Maybe. We'll see what happens. I don't have any issue with it. I fully support and live by libertarian principles.

 

[U2Edge]

I'm a Republican who has NEVER voted for a Democrat before! Food for thought! mmmmmm!

OK, then why the hysterical prediction? Sure, Trump sucks. And Hillary is dishonest, corrupt and a liar and has almost as high a disapproval rating as Trump. And the current polls are while Republicans who supported other candidates are still licking their wounds. That Hillary is the opponent is going to help Trump a lot. I'm not saying that Trump will win, but I see no reason for the gloomy prediction against freaking Hillary

My prediction is something that should be celebrated in that Trump will be stopped and America will be saved.

The prediction is not hysterical. Its based on the facts of the last election and the changing demography of the United States. Romney got 59% of the White non-hispanic vote back in 2012 and he still lost. The lesson was that the next Republican candidate would have to do better with hispanics, other minorities, and women in order to have a chance of winning. Trump will pick up less hispanics, minorities and women than Romney did. Trump would have to probably get 65% of the white non-hispanic vote to do just as well as Romney did which was still a LOSS. Trump would probably have to get 70% of the white vote in order to win the election and that is not going to happen.

Trump changes the dynamic of everything. You are assuming that everyone votes with him like they do for other Republican candidates, then add his negatives only. And you're ignoring that he has politically an opponent who is corrupt and almost as disliked as he is yet assuming she'll do as well with Democrats as the past. You took the pure worst case of everything

Trump is not some magic guru. There are certain realities about the electoral college and peoples political views that will not change regardless of who the candidates are based on past history. Swing states can change, but states that have voted for one party or the other for a solid 3 decades are highly unlikely to change.

Since Reagan left office in January 1989, the Democrats have won the following States in every Presidential election:

Hawaii
California
Oregon
Washington
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Michigan
Maryland
Delaware
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
New York
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Vermont
Maine

This is the Democrats "BLUE WALL". These states have a combined 242 electoral votes and the Democrats have consistently won these states in every election now for nearly 3 decades. This is not a worse case scenario but a simple political reality. None of these 18 states are swing states. They are all solid blue. Hillary then only needs to pick up 28 more electoral votes and the election is over. She could do this buy winning Florida with its 29 electoral votes. Or she could do it instead by winning Virginia and North Carolina that combine for 28 electoral votes. The population has been polarized into these Blue and Red states for several decades now.

And in this election you have a non-traditional Republican against a historically corrupt Democrat. I'm not predicting Trump will exactly sweep those States, but to assume they are all out of play is way too extreme. The Northeast particularly is an area Trump showed a lot of strength and could put several of those States in play.

And even if he's a threat, the Democrats have to use their resources to defend States they usually don't have to put much into.

I'm just saying you're painting every scenario as breaking for the Democrats and completely ignoring Hillary's historically high negative approval ratings taking the position the impact of that will be zero. It's hard to believe

The Democrats "BLUE WALL" has stood for nearly 3 decades regardless of the strength or the weakness of any of the Candidates, Republican or Democrat or major third party runs.
That alone there is the challenge ANY Republican candidate faces whether their traditional or a radical change.

Trump may gain among blue collar white voters, but he loses the following groups.

Women
African Americans
Hispanics of any race.

Remember that only 62% of people in the United States are White and Trump is unlikely to win more than 60% of them.

 

[U2Edge]

Wow, a leftist predicting a massive victory for your candidate, stop the presses ...

I'm a Republican who has NEVER voted for a Democrat before! Food for thought! mmmmmm!

OK, then why the hysterical prediction? Sure, Trump sucks. And Hillary is dishonest, corrupt and a liar and has almost as high a disapproval rating as Trump. And the current polls are while Republicans who supported other candidates are still licking their wounds. That Hillary is the opponent is going to help Trump a lot. I'm not saying that Trump will win, but I see no reason for the gloomy prediction against freaking Hillary

My prediction is something that should be celebrated in that Trump will be stopped and America will be saved.

The prediction is not hysterical. Its based on the facts of the last election and the changing demography of the United States. Romney got 59% of the White non-hispanic vote back in 2012 and he still lost. The lesson was that the next Republican candidate would have to do better with hispanics, other minorities, and women in order to have a chance of winning. Trump will pick up less hispanics, minorities and women than Romney did. Trump would have to probably get 65% of the white non-hispanic vote to do just as well as Romney did which was still a LOSS. Trump would probably have to get 70% of the white vote in order to win the election and that is not going to happen.

And then when you consider that Romney won 44% of the female vote, and Trump is 20+ points behind Hillary amongst women, Trump probably needs north of 75% of white males. Good luck with that.

So the votes of women are fixed and the votes of men are floating? How do you figure that?

BTW, there is a third option, people saying home. They affect the vote dramatically as well, who stays home. The only ones who can get it up for Hillary are the hard core Democrats who are voting blue no matter what

I'm a Republican who has NEVER voted for a Democrat in my life and I'll be voting for Hillary in November. I'm far from being alone in that regard.

 

[SwimExpert]

The only thing that will be more fun and creative than the "Trump wil win" posts are the "reasons why Trump lost" posts.

Pick your poison.

The media.
Voter fraud.
The illuminati.
The IRS.
Benghaaaaaaaazzzzzziiiiiii!

One thing we can count on. It won't be because the nation is center left and rejects bigoted immigration policies. No way.

It's actually going to be voter intimidation, mixed with Trump being too busy to campaign properly due to the Trump University lawsuit. The lawsuit will, allegedly, scare people into voting for Clinton, because they'll be scared that if they don't, they'll get sued too.

 

[U2Edge]

The Democrats could put up anyone, Bernie Sanders or even Barack Obama and they would crush Trump in November.

You have it backward. Hillary is not going to beat Trump, rather Trump is going to help Hillary win in a landslide when she shouldn't.

Pennsylvania has been solid BLUE since Bill Clinton got NAFTA passed back in the 1990s. There is currently no polling that shows that Trump will win in Pennsylvania or New York. None at all. No Republican has won in those states since the 1980s and Trumps negatives are worse than any Republican candidate since the 1980s.
You can't win an election when 75% of women will not vote for you. Its just that simple.

The GENERAL ELECTION is a totally different ball game from the party primary. The Republicans needed a candidate in 2016 that could appeal to minorities and women since every election cycle they form a larger block of who is actually voting. Trump hurts the Republican position with minorities and women, and thus makes him unelectable in the general election.

Bernie Sanders is not the candidate running, and Barack Obama sure as shit isn't

We've got the openly globalist, centrist, wooden, and warmongering hillary clinton

Bernie has much better numbers than Hillary, his negatives aren't second only to Trump and people think he's sincere.

He's got vast swathes of voters of all colors to bring in. He doesn't need Latinos if he compensates with black, asian, and new white men

There are millions of Republicans that prefer a globalist, centrist, and someone that is a HAWK when it comes to military, defense, and foreign policy. Your forgetting that Trump is driving millions of Republicans to vote for the Democrat this year. Hillary is far closer to Reagan and Bush than Trump is.

Trump completely lost it when he suggested the United States abandon NATO. Thats the opposite of Reagan and will not sit well with many long time Republicans.

Again, I've never voted for a Democrat before. I've voted Republican since the 1980s. But this year, for the first time, I will vote for the Democratic nominee to PREVENT Trump from getting anywhere near the White House.

The majority of the American public wants an end to illegal immigration (although not a wall or mass deportation schemes but amnesty doesn't poll well and open borders sure as shit don't)

The majority of the American public is against free trade, especially when the people we have trade deals with practice protectionism

The majority of the American public doesn't want more foreign intervention. You can ask them about ISIS and they'll say something vague about defeating them. But you can't get them to accept any blood price

His political platform is more in line with the American public of all colors...Whether or not he will govern that way who knows. But beyond "law and order" he's on the right side of all these issues. And I suspect as soon as he's nominated his first move will be to court black voters by suggesting we need less non violent prisoners, save room for the rapists

Most Americans recognize the value of immigration to the United States and know that it is a source of strength for a growing economy and demographically helps the United States as its population ages. There are certain sectors of the country that are against immigration, but its really more just racism and blaming others for changes in society.

Americans love Free Trade because it makes the goods Americans buy everyday cheaper. It also expands business opportunities with increasing exports. Protectionism has a poor record and is outdated in the 21st century.

The majority of the American public wants to continue to protect areas of the world that are vital to United States security and are critical to the United States economy. The Persian Gulf, Japan, South Korea, and Europe remain vital interest of the United States just as they have been for the past 70 years. Abandoning U.S. security commitments abroad will create a world where third World War would be possible. It was U.S. isolationism prior to the first World War and 2nd World War that helped create the conditions that led to those wars.

This will become perfectly clear to everyone when Trump is slaughtered in November.

Unless you're taking advantage of cheap labor in the west most people do not see low skill immigration as a boon

Yes having bodies gives us a slight geopolitical advantage. But the children of Honduran and Mexican illegals who's fathers are educated as well as our middle schoolers are not a boon

Guest workers are only a boon in Saudi Arabia because they treat them like an underclass.

Our guest workers get to go to school with our children and suck up funds for medical care

Almost no one in this country is for limited immigration. The dumbest immigrants should be last in line. That includes the poor mexicans who poor across our borders and drive the wages of poor Americans down.

You're just wrong

Being pro immigrant is a pro capital position, (being pro low skill labor immigration means you really hate poor people and don't understand the implications of having a massive brown underclass)

We want a nation of equals. Not a nation of equals plus hispanics who's majority of descendants won't be assimilated in our lifetime.

If you consider yourself a progressive you should be against low skill immigration. It's terrible for our poor.

Trading an insignificant increase in GDP for a massive loss in GDP per capita and a bigger strain on social services especially in urban areas.

Your failing to see that many wealthy educated whites are not having children. Without immigration the United States would be having a declining population which would result in all kinds of problems. We do not want to suffer the economic and demographic problems that Japan, European countries and even China will be suffering in the coming decades. U.S. immigration is the way it is today largely because that is what society has demanded. People from Latin America come to work in the United States because there are opportunities waiting for them. We need the workers and they desire the work. That is how it has worked since the United States became a country in 1776. Many o f the people who came to the United States in the 19th century would also be defined as "ILLEGAL" based on existing laws. Built up government regulation on immigration has also been a factor in making what was once legal, illegal. A good example of where government interfere's with the business interest of individuals in the United States.

Any Human Being, regardless of age, can get a better education and learn new skills. So just because someone comes to the United States under-educated or under-skilled does not mean they will stay that way.