General News The probability of a TRUMP presidency

Oh hardly, he practically destroyed her in last night's debate. I also watched with some amusement as both moderators treated him unfairly in an attempt to make up for Hillary's shabby performance and he ended up debating both moderators at some point. Polls have been proven wrong with a 'change' candidate and / or populism and he's even polled above her in blue traditionally blue states whereas the only red state she is competitive in is Alaska, where he is still polling above her. It's especially amusing with aged pundits and experts saying he has no chance when they said the same thing about him as nominee 6 months ago. They're out of touch with reality and with the choices faced by Americans who are fed up with 8 years of the Obama administration and who definitely don't want 4 more years of that by somewhere even worse than President Obama.

Americans in particular love an outsider, and they also love reality TV. Look at Jesse Ventura, he became the Governor of Minnesota, a state which is supposedly filled with more intellectual people. Hillary Clinton was very exposed in that debate and she did terribly in a debate that was rigged in her favour and in a time when Mr. Trump was under media fire.

There is one more debate left and a month to go before the election notwithstanding the fact that some have already been voting early. A lot can happen in that time and anyone who thinks Clinton has the whole thing in the bag is being excessively optimistic or this is a safe space issue of sorts. Never underestimate the populist right, look at Brexit and to a bigger extreme, look at Rodrigo Duterte. Watch out for the re-run of the Austrian presidential election this month with Norbert Hofer almost certainly winning the presidency.

Progressive independents help a candidate win in an election and Hillary Clinton dismissed a good chunk of these voters as 'basement dwellers' or 'deplorables'.

-------

That was a longer than expected post! But there's so much more to say on this topic. I'm really into this presidential election and have already delivered two public speeches on this subject, one of which had an audience composed of several Americans.

 

Your "math" is based on faulty premises. The assumption is that if Nader weren't running in NH or Florida then those Nader votes would have gone to Gore and won the election for him and that is flat-out wrong. I can't believe people are still pushing this kind of disingenuous "math". Hypothetically, some of those Nader votes could have gone to Gore, but some also have gone to Bush or one of the other third party candidates; others might have decided not to vote at all.

Another flaw in your math is that it ignores all of the other factors at play in the 2000 election. It is true that Bush got about 540 more votes in Florida than Gore, which is well below the almost 100k votes Nader received in that state. But did you know that every other third-party candidate received more than 540 votes in Florida? Yet somehow it's all Nader's fault. But that is beside the point because the number of Nader voters in Florida was less than the number of registered Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida. In other words, Gore lost many of his own party's voters to Bush. This was a far more significant factor than Nader, yet this is conveniently left out of your "math".

All of this nonsense about third-party candidates being spoilers is nothing but fear mongering. It is a way to pressure people into voting against their own interests for a candidate that they don't even like. I majored in math, so I know garbage math when I see it. Don't bring up Nader and the 2000 election as if it proves a point. The only thing it shows me is how strongly the 2 major political parties have brainwashed this generation of voters into believing that there are only 2 options.

 

1) This has been worrying me, and that was exacerbated by Trump's success in polls after last night's debate because of insulting the Clintons. I hate supporting a Democrat, but I really don't want to see the Republican Party turn into the Nationalist party and after Johnson's shown how uneducated he is and expressed some really off-policies, I'm not sure I want more Libertarian visibility from this particular candidate. People are being irresponsible by acting like any of Hillary's scandals would make her a worse president than Trump, honestly. Same goes for people who like Trump because he's anti-PC. People who actually agree with his policies, if they're educated, are fine though honestly.

 

Pence! Is that you?? THROW UP THE DANCING BANANA IF YOU NEED US TO SEND HELP.

 

Here we go again with the poll deniers. They all said that the polls were all wrong four years ago and that Mitt Romney was going to win in a landslide. Well the polls were exactly right four years ago and they'll be right again this year.

Donald Trump's debates were abject disasters and the polls show him sinking like a lead balloon. The Republican Party right now is like the Titanic in 1912: a supposedly unsinkable ship that is damaged beyond repair, fast taking on water, and only has enough lifeboats for half the people on board.

 

I really hope you remember the last time a sexist, politically ignorant billionaire took control of your country before you gloat. His governments were hardly successful and his last one was ultimately booted out for its severe economic mismanagement. And he seems like a policy wonk and political moderate compared to Trump.

That is the sort of man Trump is. Not an agent of positive change. Not a political revolutionary. A brute, a bully and whose utter lack of interest in policy doesn't even earn him being called a dilettante.

And there was no moderator bias. You lie more, you get called out more. You interrupt more, you get silenced more. Men who don't know how to play by the rules they've agreed to often find it difficult when women are more talented at navigating the same path.

No, polls are not perfect. But no, that doesn't guarantee Trump victory even if he is leading the opposition party in what is in the US normally a transition period after a two-term president. He is so exceptionally revolting to so many that such considerations become far less relevant.

Rigged or more suited to her skills? Just as every serious format in US politics is.

She sat back and reemphasised her core themes, brushed off Trump's biggest attack and let him draw attention to himself. It was no stunning performance, but it was one in which she risked next to nothing while he dug himself into a deeper hole on taxes, temperament, misogyny and his utter lack of knowledge of substantive policy.

I hope you're lying rather than just ill-informed if you're giving speeches on the US election, because the context of those remarks was her empathising with young voters' disenchantment with a post-recession economy and their reliance on parents' finances, not a mocking dismissal of them. Yes, she believes they are idealistic and ill-informed. But mocking she is not.

 

I'd not dare to bet. I think it's gonna be very close. If Hillary wins, and I hope she does, the Frumps, Trumps and Chumps might want to start a civil war with all those guns.

"You might be a redneck if..." You vote for Trump.

 

Good point.

One factor that had nothing to do with math, but probably had a profound influence was the Democratic Party's choice of Gore. He was qualified, and--in some ways--it's unfortunate he didn't win, since he had environmental concern. But he was not very charismatic. Plus I think a lot of people--including me--were just plain tired of the Clinton White House, and wanted it Done With.

I frankly get a little tired of the 3rd party spoiler argument. Yes, maybe enough of those voters would have voted for Gore if they hadn't "thrown" their votes away. But at the same time, the Democratic Party needs to be held accountable for running crappy candidates that people don't like. A reason why Nader did so well in 2000 was because Gore was so lackluster. We saw a repeat in 2004. It seems like Bush could have been a one term President, except--guess what--once again a Democrat runs whom no one really likes. (There were even bumper stickers saying something like "I don't like Kerry, but I'm voting for him, anyway!") And in 2016, they are--once again--running a candidate who is highly disliked. And if she loses, I am betting there won't any acknowledgement that people don't like her. Instead, it will be the fault of people who vote 3rd party.

 

I'm so glad you used the language of voting in one's interest.

Because that's exactly we're talking about when we ask you not to vote third party if you live in a tight state.

Votes in the US are exhaustible for all but the winner. That is, if your candidate does not win, your vote does not transfer. It has no impact. It dies immediately after any candidate gets more votes than yours. That is the cold, hard reality of US presidential elections.

When in the 2000 election Nader voters in Florida chose not to elect the viable candidate, they voted their conscience against their interest. Their interests were much more closely aligned with Gore's policies than Bush's. Despite this, they chose not to cancel out the Democratic defectors, and in doing so allowed Bush to implement at least four years of disastrous policies that opposed next to everything Nader stood for in 2000.

If ex-Democrats preferred Bush, then that was their prerogative. They were choosing the president they wanted for their country, no matter how strongly I disagree with that. But Nader voters in Florida were not voting for a president - they knew he had no chance of winning. They were making a statement of protest and personal purity. They still decided to open the country up to the risk of a president leaps away to the right rather than someone marginally less acceptable to them than their own candidate.

Any combination of a few hundred voters could have made that difference. It just so happened that Nader voters were a group of people who so manifestly could have changed the course of the election and US history but instead made a symbolic decision.

In the real world, that resulted in Bush's election. Voting third party in a swing state consequentially results in deciding the victor, even though it's indirect. And, of course, the victor will not belong to a third party.

I do not blame voters for not liking the selection before them. But it is not in those voters' political interest to symbolically vote for a third party at the expense of making a real choice about who will be president.

Because when you're voting in your interest, the practical outcome of your vote is absolutely more important than the symbolism of rebellion in changing people's lives for the better.

 

If you actually studied YOUR history books, you'd know how faulty that analogy is. Sorry if I'm being rude, I'm just really sick of that analogy. Yeah, Hitler was a terrible person, but he was also a skilled politician and leader and that's why he was elected, not because he said "I'm going to gas all the Jews."

Germany was in crisis, Hitler and his political party literally pulled Germany from the brink; the reason for his public support is no mystery. Donald Drumpf is an entertainer and that's where pretty much all his public support comes from. Drumpf might not kill millions of Jews if elected the way Hitler did (he's more likely to kill millions of middle-eastern people for no reason.), but it's pretty safe to say that he also won't bring anything good, which Hitler actually did do even if it was overshadowed by a literal attempt at genocide.

 

The issue with Brexit is that they overestimated youth voters being pro-stay.

The polls here a forecasting very low youth turnout. Young people aren't voting for Trump. They're leaning independent, but considering no one is really depending on them as a part of the electorate...it's not a similar dynamic to Brexit. Not in that way.

I think the only Brexit comparison could be with moderate Republicans.

---------- Post added 11th Oct 2016 at 12:48 AM ----------

VERY well said.

 

Valid point. But I think it's worth noting that in this cycle there are different lines of thought I've seen among those unhappy who might be a possible 3rd party voter. Thought #1--the one many here would approve of--is that Hillary Clinton, while less than ideal, is better than Trump, and will perhaps--perhaps--do some good things.

But there is also a second line of opinion that says that Clinton is totally unacceptable. (Yes, these people tend to be Sanders' supporters.) These people often recognize that voting 3rd party may result in the election going to Trump. But their attitude is often that yes, it will mean 4 bad years, but we can survive those years. And maybe in 2020 the Democrats will find someone better to run. (Better being more progressive, although I'm sure it can be argued there might be other issues worth considering.)

I am personally a little uncomfortable with that idea, mainly because Trump could do a lot of harm, even if he has zero support from the Republicans. (And let's be honest: if he wins, it's likely the Republicans would be happy with to work with him on some projects, like killing the ACA.) I also question if the Democrats would find someone worth voting for in 2020. But I can understand the reasoning.

 

I've seen polls that have said Clinton was said to have "won" both debates and was seen as "more presidential" as well. I disagree that he destroyed her in the debate in a good way though. The moderators were not really unfair to him. He kept interrupting her, avoiding questions, and sort of being a terrible person in his answers (locker room talk, restating Islamophobia). He also disagreed with his VP pick. They had to show the contradictions and ask why. They kept asking her about the e-mails. I think the moderators got really frustrated with Trump because he was interrupting, treating the moderators with disrespect, and being rude in general. If he was acting better I think they would've been more open to allowing him to speak longer.

---------- Post added 11th Oct 2016 at 06:09 AM ----------

That's actually a solid point because Hitler was a master in politics and debate. He was able to trick people and turned around their economy which made them love him therefore want him as a leader. Then it was too late. Trump is outwardly racist and does not show much political prowess at all. I do think Trump would be very bad and has some similarities with Hitler like with the racism but he is nowhere near as intelligent as Hitler (which was one of Hitler's scariest qualities).

---------- Post added 11th Oct 2016 at 06:15 AM ----------

Even the Republican Party has admitted they are sinking. Political pundits (Republicans) are saying Trump can only recover if Clinton has a major event that sinks her campaign in the next month. And I mean MAJOR... They are hoping the party will go back to the Republican Party of Rand Paul rather than Donald Trump. Many of them are jumping ship after the comments he made about women and unfortunately for them (although I strongly disagree with their party's viewpoints), their party has self-destructed to the point that they will have a long road before they can recover.

 

Berlusconi is actually quite popular in Italy even to this day, and he's certainly better than the joke we have now. Taxes are up through the roof and everyone here is fed up with the government. If we had someone like Sanders or Trump run here they would automatically win. Having said that, comparing Berlusconi to Trump is like comparing the Asinelli Tower to the Eiffel Tower. He's also a reality TV star and in America, that excites people. It explains, at least to me, why the Kardashian Clan is fawned so much over. Is Clinton in any way exciting and motivating? Her track record definitely disgruntles independents.

Moreover there really should be a label for someone who crops up with the usual mantra of ''sexist, bigot (etc.)'' as candy words in order to intimidate someone from speaking. That attitude has led to the rise of the alt right even outside America.

I'm pretty sure that is one of the factors as to why he will win, especially at this critical time. America has never had anyone like Trump. He is unique and usual patterns do not apply to him.

Would you call extreme media bias ''more suited to her skills''? They practically tried (and failed) to save her. I watched all the recent debates and I can also add that every time that Hillary's supporters cheer they are allowed to do so by moderators but it's not the case when Trump's supporters cheer - in fact Anderson Cooper kept hushing them every so often. The moderators evaded particularly incriminating questions on Hillary, including Bill's past and her implications in suppressing and victimizing his mistresses / victims but spent three entire questions on a bunch of inappropriate comments made by Trump in private around 11 years ago. The near absolute majority of straight men speak like that with their ''buddy'' and Trump even did something that he has never done in his entire campaign: apologized. This was one of the main reasons he was attractive to voters.

Good luck explaining that to them. Because that is exactly how those who were on the fence in relation to voting for her feel. She already rigged her nomination (in the mind of Bernie voters) with the help of DWS who later resigned as chair and was swiftly appointed in her campaign team and the DNC even considered attacking Sanders on his fate, then made an amusing fuss over a 5-pointed star.

 

Talking about Hitler..people voted for him because of the financial crisis. Both the extreme right and extreme left party got a lot more votes than usual. And people knew about his ideals but no one expected him to take over as a dictator.

His solution to the financial problems was breaking contracts (which could have easily led to a war) and preparing for war. The work he gave people was pretty nonsensical...so it's likely that we could have gotten out of the financial crisis with another person or party in power.

What I have to give Hitler though is that he stood behind his ideals. He genuinely thought that killing of Jews was self defense and that him taking over the world would better it. He's better than Trump in that regard because Trump changes opinions when he sees it fitting his goals.

---------- Post added 11th Oct 2016 at 12:24 PM ----------

Sorry but I get a little defensive with Hitler comparisons...no one should be compared to him easily...he was a mass murderer after all. Trump has killed no one so far even if he is an asshole.

 

I don't even vote, and watched the debate on a whim. That said, it definitely came off that the moderators seemed to have at least a little bit of bias against Trump. At different points both candidates veered far from the original questions they were asked, not just one was guilty of that. I personally think Hillary looked weak in the debate.

 

Honestly, nobody educated in the era would fault the German people for electing Hitler. He was extremely good at what he did and while it's true that somebody else could have pulled Germany from the brink too, the fact remains that Hitler DID manage to do it.

A lot of people seem to think that every German in the 30's and 40's was a jew slaughtering Nazi and even though racism towards jews became widespread due to Nazi propaganda, extremely few of the populace would have gotten behind the concentration camps had they known--even most of the Wehrmacht were just soldiers fighting for their country--and that's because Hitler's main selling point to the populace was not that he was going to kill all the jews--it was because he was an extremely skilled politician and leader..... Well, except military leader. He kinda sucked at that.

Drumpf.... Drumpf is just bad. At everything he does. But he believes himself to be so good at everything that his confidence makes people believe him too. I don't think Drumpf is lying about most of the shit he says; I think he genuinely believes everything he says because he's fucking delusional. The entire election is just him stroking his ego and trying to entertain people the only way he knows how--by being a clown. Hitler was bad, but at least he genuinely believed that the things he did was for the good of his nation and the world as a whole, not because he wanted to show the world how awesome he thinks he is.

Talking about this, I can't help but think of what I would do to somehow see Drumpf debate against Hitler.

 

Probably laugh your ass off at their collective mislead fashion sense.

I think the main problem with the thought that all German people at that time were nazis is not the falsehood of the statement itself (because they weren't) but seperating Jews from Germans. The first people that were killed were Germans. Jewish Germans. When stating it differently people make the same mistake Hitler did and see Jews as a separate race. Which they aren't and never were.