Election Prediction (Without Debates Factored)

[IMPress Polly]

It's worth pointing out immediately that the 2016 election forecast I'm about to offer only applies to the presidential race specifically and is NOT to be considered an official prediction on my part. (I won't make any formal predictions until after the first debate next week.) Rather, it is intended to encapsulate the trajectory of the presidential race without factoring in the significant effect that the upcoming series of debates may have. Now, given that the debates DO exist, of what value is a prediction that doesn't account for them and their unpredictability, you ask? It's valuable because it shows exactly what the task for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump truly will be in these debates; what trajectory they will need to either reinforce or fundamentally alter respectively.

It's worth adding that, in my observation, without major events like the party conventions and these debates, the public's overall opinion of the candidates seems to be shaped by day-to-day news headlines. The studies find that all candidates receive mostly negative coverage (ours is unfortunately a shallow, for-profit ratings system and that's a result), so the real question then simply becomes who is receiving more coverage, as whoever receives more news coverage usually tends to fare worse in the polls as a result. (This rule does not apply to third party candidates, who receive so little coverage that the public is generally unaware of their candidacies. As we saw with the brief poll bounce Gary Johnson received after the press mentioned that he'd failed to understand what Aleppo is, third party candidates stand to benefit from even negative headlines simply because they increase awareness of their candidacies.) For the last month, since Trump got a new campaign manager who has (impressively, I will admit) successfully trained him in the art of supplying the media with more or less only positive headlines, Hillary Clinton has received more press coverage overall than Donald Trump and it seems that, as long Mr. Trump has the opportunity to rely on teleprompters (which he won't in the debates), that won't change. This is the main thing that shapes the projection below.

Without further adieu, I present to you the way I see the 2016 U.S. presidential election going without the potentially significant impact of the debates factored in:

Trump states

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. Colorado
6. Florida
7. Georgia
8. Idaho
9. Indiana
10. Iowa
11. Kansas
12. Kentucky
13. Louisiana
14. Maine
15. Michigan
16. Mississippi
17. Missouri
18. Montana
19. Nebraska
20. Nevada
21. New Hampshire
22. New Jersey
23. North Carolina
24. North Dakota
25. Ohio
26. Oklahoma
27. Pennsylvania
28. Rhode Island
29. South Carolina
30. South Dakota
31. Tennessee
32. Texas
33. Utah
34. Virginia
35. West Virginia
36. Wisconsin
37. Wyoming

Clinton states

1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Hawaii
5. Illinois
6. Maryland
7. Massachusetts
8. New Mexico
9. New York
10. Oregon
11. Vermont
12. Washington

Unpredictable: Minnesota

What I'm saying here is that if current trends are allowed to continue, Trump will win in a landslide, the Republicans will retain the Senate, and the GOP will thus wind up controlling all three branches of the federal government in addition to the vast majority of state and local governments in this country. The Democrats will effectively, at least in the short term, be relegated to an almost politically irrelevant status and the Republicans will be able to set the national agenda in a way we haven't seen in a long time: without any significant checks or balances on what they may opt to do. Given what Trump's agenda is...that likelihood I find really scary and easily the very worst possible outcome of this contest. Well anyway, the bottom line here is that, in order to upset this trajectory, Clinton needs to perform very well in the upcoming debates and specifically force Trump to go "off-script" repeatedly, as they say. Trump's challenge will be to maintain a measure of self-control for an hour and a half straight three times without benefit of a teleprompter.

[FindersKeepers]

That's pretty heavy for the GOP, and while I'm a Republican, I tend to think Clinton will eke out the win. It's getting pretty close, though...

Good job in putting a visual face on your current state breakdown. It add perspective.

I think you're right about the debates being a factor.

I guess we could end up with a Trump presidency, but, either way -- we're going to have a less-than-stellar four years.

I was about to say there are "pros and cons" to each candidate, but it would be more accurate to say there are "cons and cons" to each candidate.

[midcan5]

I bet President Romney agrees.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2012/nov/07/barack-obama-fox-news-election

[Subdermal]

I've said 40 States for over a year. That has always been my prediction. What you've offered here is extremely close to what I've believed for a long time.

[zelmo1234]

One thing that will be Good, is the Democrats will have enough power in the Senate to block major legislation.

The one thing that they will end up regretting is they changed the rules so that only 50% is required for any judge, with the exception of the Supreme Court.

[Peter1469]

It could be a Trumpslide. Hillary is being slowly attrited by her policy failures, her habitual dishonesty, further wikileaks, a distrust for the "media" (who is in the tank for Hillary), the desire to preserve our national identity, and her general horrible personality (public, not private).

Nevertheless, as things stand now my vote will be for Johnson.

[Common Sense]

One thing that will be Good, is the Democrats will have enough power in the Senate to block major legislation.

The one thing that they will end up regretting is they changed the rules so that only 50% is required for any judge, with the exception of the Supreme Court.


That's a likely scenario. If Trump does win, expect Dems to unfortunately do what Republicans have been doing and block or obstruct virtually every piece of legislation and every nominee. And then listen to Republicans cry about it.

It might actually be beneficial for Dems to have a one term Trump presidency. Then people can see the shit show first hand. Unfortunately it wouldn't be good for America or the world.

[Peter1469]

I bet President Romney agrees.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2012/nov/07/barack-obama-fox-news-election

It has been explained several times before what the problem was with those polls. It is too late to fool people with comparisons to today. Good try though.

[Peter1469]

That's a likely scenario. If Trump does win, expect Dems to unfortunately do what Republicans have been doing and block or obstruct virtually every piece of legislation and every nominee. And then listen to Republicans cry about it.

It might actually be beneficial for Dems to have a one term Trump presidency. Then people can see the shit show first hand. Unfortunately it wouldn't be good for America or the world.

Good, in general the best thing for Americans is gridlock. If an issue is important enough to impose a governmental solution we ought to have super-majority agreement.

[Green Arrow]

I think with them being single-digits apart in the polls, it would be very easy for either one to eke out a tenth of a percentage point win in the popular vote but take an electoral landslide that we haven't seen since Reagan only lost one state.

Not really a true "landslide," because the voters BARELY approved you over the opposition, but that's the EC for you.

[zelmo1234]

It could be a Trumpslide. Hillary is being slowly attrited by her policy failures, her habitual dishonesty, further wikileaks, a distrust for the "media" (who is in the tank for Hillary), the desire to preserve our national identity, and her general horrible personality (public, not private).

Nevertheless, as things stand now my vote will be for Johnson.

I wish I could find a third party,

But Johnson is for legalization of Drugs without changing the Welfare and Unemployment laws. I can't support that

And he is open border, amnesty I can't support that

I like some of his physical stuff, but if I have to compromise? I am going t vote for someone that can keep Hillary out of the White House.

And Stein? She is a nut! Nice lady I am sure, but bat shit crazy.

[zelmo1234]

That's a likely scenario. If Trump does win, expect Dems to unfortunately do what Republicans have been doing and block or obstruct virtually every piece of legislation and every nominee. And then listen to Republicans cry about it.

It might actually be beneficial for Dems to have a one term Trump presidency. Then people can see the $#@! show first hand. Unfortunately it wouldn't be good for America or the world.

I like a government that does nothing.

As for Trump, what is the big difference between him and Hillary? Immigration? That is about it.

[Peter1469]

I wish I could find a third party,

But Johnson is for legalization of Drugs without changing the Welfare and Unemployment laws. I can't support that

And he is open border, amnesty I can't support that

I like some of his physical stuff, but if I have to compromise? I am going t vote for someone that can keep Hillary out of the White House.

And Stein? She is a nut! Nice lady I am sure, but bat shit crazy.

Johnson would contribute to gridlock. That is my number one goal.

[Peter1469]

I like a government that does nothing.

As for Trump, what is the big difference between him and Hillary? Immigration? That is about it.

And SCOTUS

[donttread]

It's worth pointing out immediately that the 2016 election forecast I'm about to offer only applies to the presidential race specifically and is NOT to be considered an official prediction on my part. (I won't make any formal predictions until after the first debate next week.) Rather, it is intended to encapsulate the trajectory of the presidential race without factoring in the significant effect that the upcoming series of debates may have. Now, given that the debates DO exist, of what value is a prediction that doesn't account for them and their unpredictability, you ask? It's valuable because it shows exactly what the task for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump truly will be in these debates; what trajectory they will need to either reinforce or fundamentally alter respectively.

It's worth adding that, in my observation, without major events like the party conventions and these debates, the public's overall opinion of the candidates seems to be shaped by day-to-day news headlines. The studies find that all candidates receive mostly negative coverage (ours is unfortunately a shallow, for-profit ratings system and that's a result), so the real question then simply becomes who is receiving more coverage, as whoever receives more news coverage usually tends to fare worse in the polls as a result. (This rule does not apply to third party candidates, who receive so little coverage that the public is generally unaware of their candidacies. As we saw with the brief poll bounce Gary Johnson received after the press mentioned that he'd failed to understand what Aleppo is, third party candidates stand to benefit from even negative headlines simply because they increase awareness of their candidacies.) For the last month, since Trump got a new campaign manager who has (impressively, I will admit) successfully trained him in the art of supplying the media with more or less only positive headlines, Hillary Clinton has received more press coverage overall than Donald Trump and it seems that, as long Mr. Trump has the opportunity to rely on teleprompters (which he won't in the debates), that won't change. This is the main thing that shapes the projection below.

Without further adieu, I present to you the way I see the 2016 U.S. presidential election going without the potentially significant impact of the debates factored in:

Trump states

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. Colorado
6. Florida
7. Georgia
8. Idaho
9. Indiana
10. Iowa
11. Kansas
12. Kentucky
13. Louisiana
14. Maine
15. Michigan
16. Mississippi
17. Missouri
18. Montana
19. Nebraska
20. Nevada
21. New Hampshire
22. New Jersey
23. North Carolina
24. North Dakota
25. Ohio
26. Oklahoma
27. Pennsylvania
28. Rhode Island
29. South Carolina
30. South Dakota
31. Tennessee
32. Texas
33. Utah
34. Virginia
35. West Virginia
36. Wisconsin
37. Wyoming

Clinton states

1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Hawaii
5. Illinois
6. Maryland
7. Massachusetts
8. New Mexico
9. New York
10. Oregon
11. Vermont
12. Washington

Unpredictable: Minnesota

What I'm saying here is that if current trends are allowed to continue, Trump will win in a landslide, the Republicans will retain the Senate, and the GOP will thus wind up controlling all three branches of the federal government in addition to the vast majority of state and local governments in this country. The Democrats will effectively, at least in the short term, be relegated to an almost politically irrelevant status and the Republicans will be able to set the national agenda in a way we haven't seen in a long time: without any significant checks or balances on what they may opt to do. Given what Trump's agenda is...that likelihood I find really scary and easily the very worst possible outcome of this contest. Well anyway, the bottom line here is that, in order to upset this trajectory, Clinton needs to perform very well in the upcoming debates and specifically force Trump to go "off-script" repeatedly, as they say. Trump's challenge will be to maintain a measure of self-control for an hour and a half straight three times without benefit of a teleprompter.

My prediction is BUSHBAMA part three whether Trump or Clinton win. There were real non mainstream candidates like Paul, Stein and Johnson put the sheep wanted "different" but at the same time they wanted that "different" to be shoved down their throats by MSM.
So they lined up behind Trump a faux non-mainstream candidate. He will not build a wall, he certainly won't reign in the megacorps and he cannot cut taxes by 4 trillion dollars, he will not stop feeding the military and prison industrial complexes. In short for all his crazy rhetoric, he's just one of them in disguise and we'll face the same issues in four years that we are now. I correctly predicted the same thing four years ago.

[Peter1469]

My prediction is BUSHBAMA part three whether Trump or Clinton win. There were real non mainstream candidates like Paul, Stein and Johnson put the sheep wanted "different" but at the same time they wanted that "different" to be shoved down their throats by MSM.
So they lined up behind Trump a faux non-mainstream candidate. He will not build a wall, he certainly won't reign in the megacorps and he cannot cut taxes by 4 trillion dollars, he will not stop feeding the military and prison industrial complexes. In short for all his crazy rhetoric, he's just one of them in disguise and we'll face the same issues in four years that we are now. I correctly predicted the same thing four years ago.

Trump is running outside of the Establishment. So your post doesn't fly.

[zelmo1234]

And SCOTUS

I like Trumps SCOTUS picks. So I am OK with him on that. Johnson? I am not so sure what he would send up?

Stein? Hell she might pic someone like Exotix?

[Peter1469]

I like Trumps SCOTUS picks. So I am OK with him on that. Johnson? I am not so sure what he would send up?

Stein? Hell she might pic someone like Exotix?

Johnson can't win. My vote is a protest vote.

[IMPress Polly]

Actually, in view of the new LA Times poll showing Trump pulling out a 7-point lead nationally, I may have to modify my aforementioned tentative prediction (which, again, doesn't factor in the debates!) to go ahead and include Minnesota in his camp as well.

My passport is officially in order and I'm currently in the process of learning some rudimentary Icelandic.

[Peter1469]

Actually, in view of the new LA Times poll showing Trump pulling out a 7-point lead nationally, I may have to modify my aforementioned tentative prediction (which, again, doesn't factor in the debates!) to go ahead and include Minnesota in his camp as well.

My passport is officially in order and I'm currently in the process of learning some rudimentary Icelandic.

Iceland is expensive. They have to import most everything other than energy (they use thermal), fish, lamb, and puffin. :smiley:

But it is raw beauty.

It is more expensive to be a vegan there than a meat eater.

[Peter1469]

Actually, in view of the new LA Times poll showing Trump pulling out a 7-point lead nationally, I may have to modify my aforementioned tentative prediction (which, again, doesn't factor in the debates!) to go ahead and include Minnesota in his camp as well.

My passport is officially in order and I'm currently in the process of learning some rudimentary Icelandic.

Go to the Iceland Air website and sign up for the email alerts. They will have very cheap airfare in the fall. Go for 2 days. See the capital city and the Blue Lagoon. Rent a room. The hotels are too expensive.

[IMPress Polly]

Iceland also has a really good public welfare system, a low rate of poverty, and they respect women there. That in addition to the sheer beauty of the landscape, the climate, and my love of the arctic fox are all motivations for considering Iceland my first option in terms of where to go! :smiley:

[Ethereal]

Actually, in view of the new LA Times poll showing Trump pulling out a 7-point lead nationally, I may have to modify my aforementioned tentative prediction (which, again, doesn't factor in the debates!) to go ahead and include Minnesota in his camp as well.

My passport is officially in order and I'm currently in the process of learning some rudimentary Icelandic.

What changes do you think Vermont will undergo if you predictions pan out? Will the state turn into Saudi Arabia or something?

[MisterVeritis]

My prediction is BUSHBAMA part three whether Trump or Clinton win.
Your prediction is relevant for Crooked Illary, the Washinton Insider.


There were real non mainstream candidates like Paul, Stein and Johnson put the sheep wanted "different" but at the same time they wanted that "different" to be shoved down their throats by MSM.
I want Trump. I actively supported Trump in the Primary. What did you do?


So they lined up behind Trump a faux non-mainstream candidate.
Sour grapes. How did you support the candidate of your choice?


He will not build a wall,
What would prevent him?


he certainly won't reign in the megacorps
I am unfamiliar with this policy. What does this mean? And why do you believe Trump is proposing it?


and he cannot cut taxes by 4 trillion dollars,
Why not? Of course Congress must write the bills. Why do you believe Trump cannot lead the fight to reduce federal plundering?


he will not stop feeding the military
He has promised to rebuild and rejuvenate the military. Sounds terrific to me.


and prison industrial complexes.
When has Trump proposed to do whatever you mean by this?


In short for all his crazy rhetoric, he's just one of them in disguise and we'll face the same issues in four years that we are now. I correctly predicted the same thing four years ago.
So when Obama was re-elected you accurately predicted four more year's of Obama's policies? Genius! Sheer genius!

[AZ Jim]

Polly, I think you are wrong in awarding the following states to Trump. I believe they are all Clintons.

Colorado
Maine
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Jersey
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Minnesota

Possibly:
Florida

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
What changes do you think Vermont will undergo if you predictions pan out? Will the state turn into Saudi Arabia or something?

You're closer than you think! Here's what I'm picturing in terms of nationwide changes that seem likely to me under a Trump Administration:

-Another recession (which will actually be the least of our problems).
-Unprecedented ecological devastation resulting from the already-promised closure of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-Mass deportations (including perhaps political ones).
-Persecution of Muslims.
-Official press censorship (already promised by the candidate).
-Pretty much the end of democracy in general (perhaps in the form of martial law, for example), as the candidate cannot tolerate criticism.
-Legalization of torture.
-An unprecedented build-up of all state institutions: the military, the police, the courts, and the prison system.
-The real possibility of World War 3 and/or nuclear annihilation (being as the candidate has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons).

So, to sum all that up, under a Trump Administration I'm envisioning America becoming a run-down police state at best and Armageddon at worst.


AZ Jim wrote:
Polly, I think you are wrong in awarding the following states to Trump. I believe they are all Clintons.

Colorado
Maine
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Jersey
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Minnesota

Possibly:
Florida

I think that and even more going for Clinton remains a possibility, but it all depends on how the debates go. That's why I'm holding off on making OFFICIAL predictions until after the first one next week.

[Ethereal]

You're closer than you think! Here's what I'm picturing in terms of nationwide changes that seem likely to me under a Trump Administration:

-Another recession (which will actually be the least of our problems).
-Unprecedented ecological devastation resulting from the already-promised closure of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-Mass deportations (including perhaps political ones).
-Persecution of Muslims.
-Official press censorship (already promised by the candidate).
-Pretty much the end of democracy in general (perhaps in the form of martial law, for example), as the candidate cannot tolerate criticism.
-Legalization of torture.
-An unprecedented build-up of all state institutions: the military, the police, the courts, and the prison system.
-The real possibility of World War 3 and/or nuclear annihilation (being as the candidate has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons).

So, to sum all that up, under a Trump Administration I'm envisioning America becoming a run-down police state at best and Armageddon at worst.



I think that and even more going for Clinton remains a possibility, but it all depends on how the debates go. That's why I'm holding off on making OFFICIAL predictions until after the first one next week.

I don't see how that would be much different than what we already have or what we would get under a Clinton Presidency.

Probably a nuclear war is much more likely under Clinton than under Trump given their radically different stances towards Russia.

[Ethereal]

Unprecedented ecological devastation resulting from the already-promised closure of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Just wondering how that will come about.

Are state and local governments just going to stop caring about their environments or something?

Are Americans going to stop valuing nature?

[Common Sense]

Just wondering how that will come about.

Are state and local governments just going to stop caring about their environments or something?

Are Americans going to stop valuing nature?

With that perspective, there should never have been any pollution. Yet somehow there was. Gee, I wonder why?

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
Probably a nuclear war is much more likely under Clinton than under Trump given their radically different stances towards Russia.

Oh PLEASE! As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton and the militaristic foreign policy she's advancing, Trump's is far more dangerous in many senses. More importantly though, Clinton is not an especially volatile person. Trump is. He even plainly tells you that he "hits back ten times as hard" for everything. This volatility has already found expression in his foreign policy rhetoric. For example, he has proposed that we should've already shot down Iranian planes for menacing flying overhead an aircraft carrier of ours or something (which would lead directly to war), proposed to "take the oil" from Iraqi possession and place it into that of American oil companies, and so forth. He's even threatened to assassinate the leader of North Korea...before that leader endorsed his presidential campaign. :rollseyes: He expresses a desire to deliberately target unarmed women and children in combat, to authorize waterboarding and "much worse than waterboarding" and, I might remind one, has more than once proposed to USE nuclear weapons. If you really think Hillary Clinton represents anything that dangerous, you're nuts!


Just wondering how that will come about.

Are state and local governments just going to stop caring about their environments or something?

Are Americans going to stop valuing nature?

Americans don't really "value nature" that much as it is, in aggregate, and the powerful fossil fuel industry values it even less. Without the EPA, Vermont's tougher environmental standards will remain, but the environmental protections in many conservative states will be rolled back dramatically or eliminated altogether. States like oil-rich Texas and the Dakotas and coal mining West Virginia for example, and the heavy industrial centers of the Midwest and so on.

[nathanbforrest45]

Oh PLEASE! As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton and the militaristic foreign policy she's advancing, Trump's is far more dangerous in many senses. More importantly though, Clinton is not an especially volatile person. Trump is. He even plainly tells you that he "hits back ten times as hard" for everything. This volatility has already found expression in his foreign policy rhetoric. For example, he has proposed that we should've already shot down Iranian planes for menacing flying overhead an aircraft carrier of ours or something (which would lead directly to war), proposed to "take the oil" from Iraqi possession and place it into that of American oil companies, and so forth. He's even threatened to assassinate the leader of North Korea...before that leader endorsed his presidential campaign. :rollseyes: He expresses a desire to deliberately target unarmed women and children in combat, to authorize waterboarding and "much worse than waterboarding" and, I might remind one, has more than once proposed to USE nuclear weapons. If you really think Hillary Clinton represents anything that dangerous, you're nuts!



Americans don't really "value nature" that much as it is, in aggregate. Without the EPA, Vermont's tougher environmental standards will remain, but the environmental protections in many conservative states will be rolled back dramatically or eliminated altogether. States like oil-rich Texas and the Dakotas and coal mining West Virginia for example, and the heavy industrial centers of the Midwest and so on.


History repeats itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

[IMPress Polly]

That ad was the truth in 1964 vis-a-vis Barry Goldwater and it is the truth today vis-a-vis Donald Trump.

[nathanbforrest45]

That ad was the truth in 1964 vis-a-vis Barry Goldwater and it is the truth today vis-a-vis Donald Trump.


Oh balderdash on both counts.

Who's suffering from paranoia now??? It certainly isn't me.

[IMPress Polly]

On the contrary, Goldwater proposed to actually nuke North Vietnam for example!

You can call me paranoid, but I'm really just taking people seriously when they say things like that. Why don't you?

[Ethereal]

With that perspective, there should never have been any pollution. Yet somehow there was. Gee, I wonder why?

During the industrial revolution, the common person had little to no understanding of how pollution impacted the environment. They just assumed the earth was a bottomless receptacle that could withstand endless amounts of waste. That is no longer the case. People are much more acutely aware of how pollution degrades the environment and their standard of living. Do you honestly expect factories to start pumping millions of gallons of toxic sludge into local lakes and rivers like they did during the industrial revolution or emitting gigantic clouds of smog into the local air simply because the EPA isn't standing in their way? You think state and local governments would stand by and do nothing?

[Peter1469]

That ad was the truth in 1964 vis-a-vis Barry Goldwater and it is the truth today vis-a-vis Donald Trump.

Hillary is far more likely to cause that than Trump. Trump's foreign policy is a move away from the neocons and the liberal hawks. But if you mean false associations you are correct. Goldwater wasn't going to start a nuclear war. North Vietnam would have to suck it up. They couldn't counter attack with nukes.

[MisterVeritis]

You're closer than you think! Here's what I'm picturing in terms of nationwide changes that seem likely to me under a Trump Administration:

-Another recession (which will actually be the least of our problems).
-Unprecedented ecological devastation resulting from the already-promised closure of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-Mass deportations (including perhaps political ones).
-Persecution of Muslims.
-Official press censorship (already promised by the candidate).
-Pretty much the end of democracy in general (perhaps in the form of martial law, for example), as the candidate cannot tolerate criticism.
-Legalization of torture.
-An unprecedented build-up of all state institutions: the military, the police, the courts, and the prison system.
-The real possibility of World War 3 and/or nuclear annihilation (being as the candidate has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons).

So, to sum all that up, under a Trump Administration I'm envisioning America becoming a run-down police state at best and Armageddon at worst.

I think that and even more going for Clinton remains a possibility, but it all depends on how the debates go. That's why I'm holding off on making OFFICIAL predictions until after the first one next week.
I am enjoying your assessment.

I see mostly positives, like the elimination of the EPA. That would be wholly positive. Deportations are long overdue. I especially look forward to the radical leftist entertainers who promise to leave.

I bet you will remain here. I also bet you will enjoy living in Trump's America. I know I shall.

[Ethereal]

Oh PLEASE! As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton and the militaristic foreign policy she's advancing, Trump's is far more dangerous in many senses. More importantly though, Clinton is not an especially volatile person. Trump is. He even plainly tells you that he "hits back ten times as hard" for everything. This volatility has already found expression in his foreign policy rhetoric. For example, he has proposed that we should've already shot down Iranian planes for menacing flying overhead an aircraft carrier of ours or something (which would lead directly to war), proposed to "take the oil" from Iraqi possession and place it into that of American oil companies, and so forth. He's even threatened to assassinate the leader of North Korea...before that leader endorsed his presidential campaign. :rollseyes: He expresses a desire to deliberately target unarmed women and children in combat, to authorize waterboarding and "much worse than waterboarding" and, I might remind one, has more than once proposed to USE nuclear weapons. If you really think Hillary Clinton represents anything that dangerous, you're nuts!

This idea that Trump's personality is more dangerous the Clinton's actual policies is pretty ridiculous.

Clinton has supported virtually every military action undertaken by the US government in the past fifteen years, and she has stated her desire to escalate US involvement in Syria which is the most reckless and dangerous policy that any candidate for president is currently advocating. She has compared Russia's popular president to Adolf Hitler, for God's sake. Trump, for all his faults, has stated his willingness to work with Russia and calm tensions between our two countries. If nuclear war comes about, the most likely cause will be a further deterioration in US-Russian relations. This fixation on personality over policy is rather infantile if you ask me.


Americans don't really "value nature" that much as it is, in aggregate, and the powerful fossil fuel industry values it even less. Without the EPA, Vermont's tougher environmental standards will remain, but the environmental protections in many conservative states will be rolled back dramatically or eliminated altogether. States like oil-rich Texas and the Dakotas and coal mining West Virginia for example, and the heavy industrial centers of the Midwest and so on.

Of course they do. Or do you think conservatives like having toxic sludge dumped into their drinking water? I live in a relatively conservative area of Illinois in the suburbs of Chicago. We have county level wildlife preserves by our home. The EPA didn't force us to do that. We did it because we value our environment. The assumption on the part of leftists that only they really care about the environment (or the poor, or the sick, or the elderly, etc.) is just a symptom of their ideological arrogance. For some reason, they believe that they and only they value important things and that everyone else is some kind of a benighted idiot who needs the firm hand of government to command and direct them.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
Hillary is far more likely to cause that than Trump. Trump's foreign policy is a move away from the neocons and the liberal hawks. But if you mean false associations you are correct. Goldwater wasn't going to start a nuclear war. North Vietnam would have to suck it up. They couldn't counter attack with nukes.

Wow. That...that represents just an unbelievable insult to my intelligence! Yeah North Vietnam didn't have nukes in 1964...but you might recall that a certain ally of theirs in the Soviet Union sure the hell did, which of course was the whole damn point of the Daisy ad! And that's to say nothing of the amorality of using nukes even when you think YOU won't face any consequences (like we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example) in any event.

[MisterVeritis]

Oh PLEASE! As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton and the militaristic foreign policy she's advancing, Trump's is far more dangerous in many senses. More importantly though, Clinton is not an especially volatile person. Trump is. He even plainly tells you that he "hits back ten times as hard" for everything. This volatility has already found expression in his foreign policy rhetoric. For example, he has proposed that we should've already shot down Iranian planes for menacing flying overhead an aircraft carrier of ours or something (which would lead directly to war), proposed to "take the oil" from Iraqi possession and place it into that of American oil companies, and so forth. He's even threatened to assassinate the leader of North Korea...before that leader endorsed his presidential campaign. :rollseyes: He expresses a desire to deliberately target unarmed women and children in combat, to authorize waterboarding and "much worse than waterboarding" and, I might remind one, has more than once proposed to USE nuclear weapons. If you really think Hillary Clinton represents anything that dangerous, you're nuts!

Americans don't really "value nature" that much as it is, in aggregate, and the powerful fossil fuel industry values it even less. Without the EPA, Vermont's tougher environmental standards will remain, but the environmental protections in many conservative states will be rolled back dramatically or eliminated altogether. States like oil-rich Texas and the Dakotas and coal mining West Virginia for example, and the heavy industrial centers of the Midwest and so on.
I love your sense of fear. Thank you.

[Ethereal]

On the contrary, Goldwater proposed to actually nuke North Vietnam for example!

You can call me paranoid, but I'm really just taking people seriously when they say things like that. Why don't you?

What difference does it make if people are incinerated with conventional bombs versus nuclear bombs?

[Common Sense]

Trump's childish reactionary behaviour is far more dangerous than Clinton. This is a man who would end trade deals over a staircase and start a war over hand gestures.

[MisterVeritis]

Trump's childish reactionary behaviour is far more dangerous than Clinton. This is a man who would end trade deals over a staircase and start a war over hand gestures.
Leftists are very strange beasts.

[Ethereal]

Wow. That...that represents just an unbelievable insult to my intelligence! Yeah North Vietnam didn't have nukes in 1964...but you might recall that a certain ally of theirs in the Soviet Union sure the hell did, which of course was the whole damn point of the Daisy ad! And that's to say nothing of the amorality of using nukes even when you think YOU won't face any consequences (like we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example) in any event.

Was it more moral to destroy Japanese cities with conventional bombs? Or to incinerate countless Vietnamese villages with napalm? Do you think the dead people could tell the difference?

[Ethereal]

Trump's childish reactionary behaviour is far more dangerous than Clinton. This is a man who would end trade deals over a staircase and start a war over hand gestures.

The idea that Trump's personality is somehow more dangerous than Clinton's actual foreign policy record is absurd.

[birddog]

Other than getting people murdered, Hillary has never accomplished anything. Hillary is the most dishonest, corrupt candidate in our history! Trump is a true leader who has enough sense to strengthen our military so we can prevent a big war.

[AZ Jim]

Leftists are very strange beasts.You are the very last person on earth to make that pronouncement.

[Ethereal]

Other than getting people murdered, Hillary has never accomplished anything. Hillary is the most dishonest, corrupt candidate in our history! Trump is a true leader who has enough sense to strengthen our military so we can prevent a big war.

Our military is already the most powerful military in the world by a wide margin. The idea that we need to spend even more money on it is preposterous.

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
What difference does it make if people are incinerated with conventional bombs versus nuclear bombs?

Oh gee, I don't know, maybe the quantity? :rollseyes:

Good LORD the lengths people are willing to go to do dream up false equivalencies between the two major candidates!

[Peter1469]

Wow. That...that represents just an unbelievable insult to my intelligence! Yeah North Vietnam didn't have nukes in 1964...but you might recall that a certain ally of theirs in the Soviet Union sure the hell did, which of course was the whole damn point of the Daisy ad! And that's to say nothing of the amorality of using nukes even when you think YOU won't face any consequences (like we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example) in any event.


The Soviets were not going to destroy the world over North Vietnam. They were enjoying watching the US get bogged down and bled. That was it. Had we gone ape shit on North Vietnam they would not have done more than protest.

[Ethereal]

Oh gee, I don't know, maybe the quantity? :rollseyes:

Good LORD the lengths people are willing to go to do dream up false equivalencies between the two major candidates!

The quantity of what? The allies didn't drop a single nuclear bomb on Germany and somehow they still managed to level the entire country and kill millions of people in the process. Ever heard of the firebombing of Dresden? Does a nuclear explosion make a person more dead than if they died from a conventional explosion?

[MisterVeritis]

Leftists are very strange beasts.

You are the very last person on earth to make that pronouncement.
I bet there will be others. You guys are whackos. :-)

[MisterVeritis]

Our military is already the most powerful military in the world by a wide margin. The idea that we need to spend even more money on it is preposterous.
We can agree to disagree. Equipment, munitions, personnel and training are all expensive. We need to grow, modernize, and rejuvenate the military.

[Peter1469]

We can agree to disagree. Equipment, munitions, personnel and training are all expensive. We need to grow, modernize, and rejuvenate the military.

Costs can be cut by limiting missions. Currently we cover the entire globe.

[Ethereal]

We can agree to disagree. Equipment, munitions, personnel and training are all expensive. We need to grow, modernize, and rejuvenate the military.

Why? What are you worried about? Is increasing military spending by a few percentage points the difference between unquestioned military superiority and the complete destruction of America? What will this accomplish apart from lining the pockets of arms manufactures?

[MisterVeritis]

Costs can be cut by limiting missions. Currently we cover the entire globe.
We can begin by stepping out of Europe.

[MisterVeritis]

Why? What are you worried about? Is increasing military spending by a few percentage points the difference between unquestioned military superiority and the complete destruction of America? What will this accomplish apart from lining the pockets of arms manufactures?
We can agree to disagree.

Equipment, munitions, personnel, and training are all expensive. We need to grow, modernize, and rejuvenate the military.

[Green Arrow]

You're closer than you think! Here's what I'm picturing in terms of nationwide changes that seem likely to me under a Trump Administration:

-Another recession (which will actually be the least of our problems).
-Unprecedented ecological devastation resulting from the already-promised closure of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-Mass deportations (including perhaps political ones).
-Persecution of Muslims.
-Official press censorship (already promised by the candidate).
-Pretty much the end of democracy in general (perhaps in the form of martial law, for example), as the candidate cannot tolerate criticism.
-Legalization of torture.
-An unprecedented build-up of all state institutions: the military, the police, the courts, and the prison system.
-The real possibility of World War 3 and/or nuclear annihilation (being as the candidate has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons).

So, to sum all that up, under a Trump Administration I'm envisioning America becoming a run-down police state at best and Armageddon at worst.

How does he do all of that without Congress?

[zelmo1234]

On the contrary, Goldwater proposed to actually nuke North Vietnam for example!

You can call me paranoid, but I'm really just taking people seriously when they say things like that. Why don't you?

So the person that supported the wars is not a danger and the one that said they were a mistake? is dangerous.

I think that you need some meds! Trump is not going to do anything that is bad for Business.

[FindersKeepers]

Oh gee, I don't know, maybe the quantity? :rollseyes:

Good LORD the lengths people are willing to go to do dream up false equivalencies between the two major candidates!


My biggest reason for opposing Hillary is her warmongering. When she was running against Obama, she claimed that she would take strong action against Iran if they acted against Israel. She used the term, "obliterate."

Obama, at least, admits that running Gaddafi out was a mistake. Not Hillary. Instead, she's making some very scary noises against Russia, and that's a war we do not want.

Anyone who knows her history -- knows we're at a high risk of war if we elect her.


Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton champions wars to effectuate regime change. Their immorality, illegality, and stupidity do not diminish Ms. Clinton’s enthusiasm for treating independent nations as serfs of the United States.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/hillary-clintons-enthusia_b_12072652.html

[AZ Jim]

My biggest reason for opposing Hillary is her warmongering. When she was running against Obama, she claimed that she would take strong action against Iran if they acted against Israel. She used the term, "obliterate."

Obama, at least, admits that running Gaddafi out was a mistake. Not Hillary. Instead, she's making some very scary noises against Russia, and that's a war we do not want.

Anyone who knows her history -- knows we're at a high risk of war if we elect her.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/hillary-clintons-enthusia_b_12072652.htmlALL candidates are going to attack Iran if they should harm Israel. Nothing to see here folks.

[Green Arrow]

ALL candidates are going to attack Iran if they should harm Israel. Nothing to see here folks.

Jill Stein and Gary Johnson will not.

[Captain Obvious]

I predict this country will willingly get fucked in the ass again.

[Peter1469]

I predict this country will willingly get fucked in the ass again.


Two many sheep still believe there are only two choices.

[TrueBlue]

It's great to dream isn't it, Polly? However, the electoral college has it for Hillary Clinton and that determines who wins, fyi. :)

[Mister D]

It's great to dream isn't it, Polly? However, the electoral college has it for Hillary Clinton and that determines who wins, fyi. :)

Yes, Polly is dreaming of a Trump victory.

[MisterVeritis]

It's great to dream isn't it, Polly? However, the electoral college has it for Hillary Clinton and that determines who wins, fyi. :)
Yes. 270 electoral votes to win.

[Green Arrow]

It's great to dream isn't it, Polly? However, the electoral college has it for Hillary Clinton and that determines who wins, fyi. :)

Actually, current polling doesn't really have it for her.

[FindersKeepers]

ALL candidates are going to attack Iran if they should harm Israel. Nothing to see here folks.

She said, "obliterate."

Very few candidates, first ladies, Sec of State or senators rise to that level of jingoism.

Hillary does.

Trump, on the other hand, has expressed a desire not to "build nations" and meddle in the affairs of other countries.

That doesn't make Trump a great person -- just less of a war monger than your evil queen.

[Mac-7]

That's pretty heavy for the GOP, and while I'm a Republican, I tend to think Clinton will eke out the win. It's getting pretty close, though...

Good job in putting a visual face on your current state breakdown. It add perspective.

I think you're right about the debates being a factor.

I guess we could end up with a Trump presidency, but, either way -- we're going to have a less-than-stellar four years.

I was about to say there are "pros and cons" to each candidate, but it would be more accurate to say there are "cons and cons" to each candidate.

The pollsters do not querry dead voters so hillary will get a few extra points that are not reflected in the polls