62 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The other day someone asked me who I thought was going to win the election. "Donald Trump," I replied. The person was surprised. "But I thought you wanted Clinton?" "I do," I replied. "But you didn't ask me who I wanted to win, you asked me who I thought would win. Those are two different things." The person was genuinely confused, and it took some more explaining before it clicked. To be honest I am not entirely sure it ever did. I kind of got the feeling they just wanted the conversation to be over.

 

Is this an unusual position? Do most people automatically believe that the candidate they want to win will be the one who actually wins? I have never made that assumption. Just because I want something does not make it so. Since I started voting in 1992, I have cast presidential ballots for Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama twice. Only three times (Clinton in '96 and Obama in '08 and '12) have I felt confident that my candidate was going to win.

 

Two other times (Clinton in '92 and Gore in '00) I tentatively believed that my candidate would win. But by election day 2004 I believed that John Kerry was going to lose, although I hoped I was wrong. That is exactly the way I feel about Hillary Clinton.

 

Please do not misunderstand me. As I think I have made clear in my long history of posting about politics on these forums, I am not a huge Hillary Clinton fan. I supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries, and I believe the future of the Democratic party lies with progressives. But I see her as the lesser of two evils. I do not think much would change under a President Hillary Clinton, but neither do I think it would be an unmitigated disaster without historical precedent, as I believe Donald Trump becoming president would be. 

I follow these things pretty closely (CNN is on in my house basically all the time), so I am fully aware that most indicators suggest that Hillary Clinton will win. Nate Silver currently gives her a 64.7% chance of winning. But two weeks ago her chances were 85%. And anyway, predictions are only useful if the polls upon which they are based are accurate. I keep thinking about the much-cited Brexit vote earlier this year, in which all the polls indicated that the measure would fail by a comfortable margin. In the end it passed with 52% support. It turned out there was something out there the polls were missing, a groundswell of anger and resentment among working-class white voters — especially older, especially male — toward a system they viewed as corrupt and not having their best interests at heart. 

I think there is a similar groundswell here in the United States this year. And I do not believe polling adequately reflects it. Despite all the empirical evidence, my gut feeling is that Donald Trump is going to win. I hope I am wrong. I really, really hope I am wrong.

 

(Note: this poll is reality-based. Therefore there is no option to choose anyone but Clinton or Trump for who you believe will win. You can still support whomever you want, of course. But realistically there is no chance that it will be anyone other than one of the two major party nominees. And no, I don't like it either. But it is what it is. For now.)

 

[He who posts]

He who posts doesn't think someone will win, he knows.

[Manoka]

I want Jeb Bush or Bernie Sanders, but I think hillary will win. 

 

Because there's too much hate against Trump. Unless she can turn things around, she'll win. Albeit if she gets indited well, she'll go to prison and basically hand off the presidency to Trump. 

 

Few democrats will go trump and a few republicans will go hillary so, that will tip things in her favor, as well as the election rigging. So, she's more  likely to win. 

 

 

Honestly I prefer her over trump given that all the terrible stuff she wants to do, she probably can't do. Ban guns? Needs congressional support. Invade a country? Congressional support. Eat babies? Congressional support. This is America, the presidency isn't a dictatorship. All the bad shit she wants to do, she likely won't get support for in the house, she'll be more hated than Obama. All the stuff that's meh is fine. Trump might get some stuff passed that is really bad and lots of other countries already hate him so, we're talking strained alliances with our best allies. One wrong word and Russia will be against him and with his mouth, that won't last very long. 

 

She's incompetent, corrupt and stupid but, she cares what people thinks about her so, she's controllable. Trump is too much of a wild card, you don't know what he'll do. 

Edited by Manoka, 05 November 2016 - 05:03 PM.

[*Anastasia]

(Note: this poll is reality-based. Therefore there is no option to choose anyone but Clinton or Trump for who you believe will win. You can still support whomever you want, of course. But realistically there is no chance that it will be anyone other than one of the two major party nominees. And no, I don't like it either. But it is what it is. For now.)

 

I still felt compelled to add two more options. I don't like any of the candidates on any of the ballots. I don't want any of them to win. That's still within the realm of reality.

 

Edit: As a result of the poll edit, one of the votes seems to have been misplaced. Go IPB. It was either Jorost's, Xoin's, or Manoka's. My apologies; please recast your vote if necessary.

Edited by *Anastasia, 05 November 2016 - 06:08 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The statistical chance that anyone other than the five candidates named in the poll (Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, and McMullin) will win the presidency is 0%. In reality it's probably something more like 0.00000083%, but I think we can realistically call that zero. Heh. But I'm fine with the additions.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

He who posts doesn't think someone will win, he knows.

 

Semantics? That's low-hanging fruit. I expect better from a shitposter of your caliber.

[*Anastasia]

The statistical chance that anyone other than the five candidates named in the poll (Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, and McMullin) will win the presidency is 0%. In reality it's probably something more like 0.00000083%, but I think we can realistically call that zero. Heh. But I'm fine with the additions.

 

Oh, absolutely. In fact, considering the whole poll boils down to the expectation of Clinton or Trump (and, you know, common sense), I think we can realistically call the chance of a Johnson, Stein, or McMullin victory zero as well. There's a difference, however, between realistic expectations and realistic desires. Of those five candidates, I'd align most with Stein (and indeed, so said the Vote Compass, though if it were accurately representing the left-right spectrum, I feel it'd more faithfully put Clinton to the right and to the conservative, as the Political Compass does (note the inverted social axis from the Vote Compass); here's where I rank by its measure); of all the candidates appearing on ballots, I'd probably favor Gloria Estela La Riva over any of those five. But that doesn't mean I think either La Riva or Stein would make a good president. Better presidents than any of the others in your list? Sure, but that's a really low bar to clear.

 

I realistically don't want any of them to be president. I realistically think America would be better off with none of them as president. Thus, my addition.

[Redezra]

ALL HAIL CLIN-TON

ALL HAIL CLIN-TON

 

etc.

 

Basically I think she has it. This is totally not hope and has nothing to do with me having to yell "I told you he'd play his trump card" off the roof of the building I live in if Trump wins.

[Thrash]

I've gone back and forth a lot on who I think will win. I'm solidly believing Trump will win now and that's what I want. Many have said it will all come down to Pennsylvania. If trump wins PA, he's got it in the bag. In my area, it's solidly Trump. I'd imagine the same is true of all of rural PA (of which there is A lot). It's obvious he will get 0 votes in Philly, but the enthusiasm for him is strong and that bodes well for him. PA is a big state, Philly is just a slice of it.

[*Anastasia]

I've gone back and forth a lot on who I think will win. I'm solidly believing Trump will win now and that's what I want. Many have said it will all come down to Pennsylvania. If trump wins PA, he's got it in the bag. In my area, it's solidly Trump. I'd imagine the same is true of all of rural PA (of which there is A lot). It's obvious he will get 0 votes in Philly, but the enthusiasm for him is strong and that bodes well for him. PA is a big state, Philly is just a slice of it.

 

I know a few people out your way, mostly in Philly suburbs, and they're all voting for Trump. I think that bodes well for him, as far as PA is concerned, because it indicates to me the polls aren't getting the whole picture. You know me, I roll with a pretty left-leaning crowd; if a whole group of people I know from one state are leaning the other way, it's indicative to me, at least, that there's probably a larger groundswell of support for Trump than is being reported.

 

That said, I'm not so sure it's really going to come down to PA. It's in the swing of things, sure, and worth a lot—but that's a lot that's still dependent on statewide results. There may be more Trump support than's been picked up upon, but I don't really know that it's going to be enough to tip the balance: Clinton's been leading the polls pretty consistently, after all.

 

I'm more interested in how the few really close smaller states turn out. I could see Nevada or even New Hampshire tipping the scales more easily than Pennsylvania. There's also Utah to contend with, because I firmly believe McMullin's polling a lot lower there than he'll see when the ballots are counted, and that could make all the difference for the state, which would be quite a blow to Trump. Again: smaller states add up.

 

I'm still hesitantly leaning towards Clinton winning, but it's going to be close no matter what happens, and there are going to be upsets on both sides that no one really counted on.

 

Then, if there's a God above, the riots start no matter who wins. 

[Justavictim82]

I've gone back and forth a lot on who I think will win. I'm solidly believing Trump will win now and that's what I want. Many have said it will all come down to Pennsylvania. If trump wins PA, he's got it in the bag. In my area, it's solidly Trump. I'd imagine the same is true of all of rural PA (of which there is A lot). It's obvious he will get 0 votes in Philly, but the enthusiasm for him is strong and that bodes well for him. PA is a big state, Philly is just a slice of it.

He needs more than just PA. He needs to sweep PA, OH, FL, and NC. I just don't see that happening.

[Thrash]

He has OH and NC. FL and PA are the outliers. Trust a deplorable, we know.

[Justavictim82]

Polling has OH anywhere from Hilary +1 to Trump +1 as of this morning.. hardly won. PA is leaning Clinton from 0 to 5 in national polls. Florida is a toss and so is NC.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com

Hardly anything definite especially considering most polls have a +/- of around 3%. Again I reiterate... Trump has to run the table here... about 45 states are safe bets for either side and the 4 real tossup states are going to decide this election. Trump needs to win them all to win.

[Thrash]

He has more support then the polls show. Like I've stated in another thread, people won't openly admit they are supporting him because they will get berated or get beaten. Do not trust the polls. The Clinton campaign surely isn't, "why aren't I 50 points ahead" (lol, cuz the commercial just came on, go figure). Clinton camp is shaking in their boots, as they should be. The Dems lost this election when the truth came out about the rigging against Bernie. He really did wanna give the free shit to people. She just wants to promise it. They're mad as hell and won't be turning out to vote. As also stated in another thread, I like honesty in my politicians, so as much as I'm against socialism, I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat before Hillary. She is an outright criminal who makes no attempt to hide it, since it's her "turn".

 

Lock her up/Trump 2016

[King Biscuit]

He has more support then the polls show. Like I've stated in another thread, people won't openly admit they are supporting him because they will get berated or get beaten. Do not trust the polls. The Clinton campaign surely isn't, "why aren't I 50 points ahead" (lol, cuz the commercial just came on, go figure). Clinton camp is shaking in their boots, as they should be. The Dems lost this election when the truth came out about the rigging against Bernie. He really did wanna give the free shit to people. She just wants to promise it. They're mad as hell and won't be turning out to vote.

 

A) True about the DNC leaks. 

B) The shit wasn't free, for the millionth fucking time, Bernie genuinely had a way to pay for it all. Hence, not free.

But that's neither here nor there anymore.

 

As far as it being in the bag for Trump, I'm not so sure.

Where I'm from, at least, people are SUPER open about voting for Trump.

Round these part, you don't tell people you are even considering Hillary as a strategy vote.

You just don't do it.

 

It's gonna be a nail biter.

No matter who wins, my gun is loaded just in case.

(I think Hill still wins tho, bring on the riots!)

[Justavictim82]

He has more support then the polls show. Like I've stated in another thread, people won't openly admit they are supporting him because they will get berated or get beaten. Do not trust the polls. The Clinton campaign surely isn't, "why aren't I 50 points ahead" (lol, cuz the commercial just came on, go figure). Clinton camp is shaking in their boots, as they should be. The Dems lost this election when the truth came out about the rigging against Bernie. He really did wanna give the free shit to people. She just wants to promise it. They're mad as hell and won't be turning out to vote.

And I have seen this consistantly amd asked for those to show proof. The answer I get is media bias. When Trump loses, it will be a rigged election. This makes no sense. The site I linked uses both Conservative and Liberal sites. Again I ask you show your mystical poll numbers. Other than Trump telling you this is the case.

[Thrash]

Show proof of people who fear saying they support Trump? Sorry, but that's not possible. I get at least 25 political calls a day, I do not answer them. You are basing it on people who actually respond. They've already proved that the majority of these polls also oversample Democrats. I don't know what else to tell you. 60 year olds aren't answering their phones for people who calls 10 times a day, neither are 40 year olds, neither are most people who have things to do and don't sit around waiting for political phone calls. Media bias has been proven, poll bias has been proven, open your mind, expand your news gathering beyond CNN/FOX/MSNBC. Why is Clinton campaigning so hard in PA if it's a wrap? They know more then you. They brainwash you, that's how they get you to vote for them. They know the polls aren't telling the true story, but want you to believe they are. Holy fuck the state of this nation and gullible people. Kevorkian, why did you die? I can't take living with fools anymore.

 

I'm gonna vote for Hillary cause Trump said he grabs pussy, but she has people promoting her who talk about fucking bitches and ho's.. man.. I just don't get it. How can people be so stupid?

[King Biscuit]

Personally, and I guess I'll out myself now, I'm voting for Hillary for one reason, and one only.

 

If you have to ask 3 times during a security brief, why we can't use nukes, you shouldn't be allowed access to nukes.

Sorry not sorry.

 

Beyond that, I agree, she sucks, she lies, she's a sociopath.

But at least she's a sociopath that won't bring the whole house down around her.

 

Granted yeah, nothing will get better under her Presidency, but it won't get much worse.

Rome 2.0 is HERE. Slow decline is better than hot fiery decline.

Either way, I'm ready for the Purgers to show up at my door.

#BangBang

[Thrash]

Personally, and I guess I'll out myself now, I'm voting for Hillary for one reason, and one only.

 

If you have to ask 3 times during a security brief, why we can't use nukes, you shouldn't be allowed access to nukes.

Sorry not sorry.

 

Beyond that, I agree, she sucks, she lies, she's a sociopath.

But at least she's a sociopath that won't bring the whole house down around her.

 

Granted yeah, nothing will get better under her Presidency, but it won't get much worse.

Rome 2.0 is HERE. Slow decline is better than hot fiery decline.

Either way, I'm ready for the Purgers to show up at my door.

#BangBang

 

You say this, but there's only one candidate and one party openly threatening Russia. Mexico won't nuke us, Russia will.

[King Biscuit]

Personally, and I guess I'll out myself now, I'm voting for Hillary for one reason, and one only.

 

If you have to ask 3 times during a security brief, why we can't use nukes, you shouldn't be allowed access to nukes.

Sorry not sorry.

 

Beyond that, I agree, she sucks, she lies, she's a sociopath.

But at least she's a sociopath that won't bring the whole house down around her.

 

Granted yeah, nothing will get better under her Presidency, but it won't get much worse.

Rome 2.0 is HERE. Slow decline is better than hot fiery decline.

Either way, I'm ready for the Purgers to show up at my door.

#BangBang

 

You say this, but there's only one candidate and one party openly threatening Russia. Mexico won't nuke us, Russia will.

 

Whilst the other threatens to glass Iran if they look at us funny.

 

I fully understand that when Hill says "No Fly Zone" in Syria, that equates to shooting down Russian jets.

Neither choice is a good one.

At all.

 

To repeat myself, welcome to Rome 2.0.

America is on it's way out and there is no stopping it.

We either go out slow and quiet, or fast n loud.

The great experiment is over.