US Presidential election 2016

Trusting polls can be misleading but there's a couple of polls that may tell the story it really is.

Twitter

Hillary Clinton 6 million + Followers

Donald J Trump 8 million + Followers

Facebook

Hillary Clinton 3 million likes

Donald J Trump 7 million likes

No doubt in my mind come Nov who comes out on top
 
Last edited:
It will take about 45 million votes to win the election. Without knowing how many of those Twiter followers are real people, from the U.S, eligible to vote or likely to vote they're meaningless figures.

There is a train of thought that suggests this election should be pick'em at this stage. Trumo is getting a big bounce by being the presumptive nominee whole Clinton is embroiled in a drawn out Democratic race.
 
Chatter suggests Condaleeza Rice, which frankly would amaze me. I don't believe that. Romney has ruled it out (so he must be thinking about it).

If Romney really believes everything he says, and that Trump is a genuine threat to world peace and civilisation, then I'm afraid he has to run. He said he didn't want to look at his grandchildren and explain he did nothing. Well to be honest, at the moment, that's pretty much what he's done.

"what did you do grandpa Mitt"
"well I made a speech and called him names"
"yes but what did you do?"

There is a scenario actually whereby Romney could win Utah and possibly Idaho, and Trump could eat into Hillary sufficiently to hold her below 270 (very unlikely I know). Under this scenario I think the decision falls to the speaker to make if both candidates fail to secure 270. President Romney, the compromise candidate and unifier!!!
 
SlimChance said:
It will take about 45 million votes to win the election. Without knowing how many of those Twiter followers are real people, from the U.S, eligible to vote or likely to vote they're meaningless figures.

There is a train of thought that suggests this election should be pick'em at this stage. Trumo is getting a big bounce by being the presumptive nominee whole Clinton is embroiled in a drawn out Democratic race.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly say they are meaningless? I would trust Twitter or Facebook before trusting CNN or Fox who have favourites. It's not just facebook and twitter go YouTube. She goes on a one on one CNN for a major interview on the 16th may and gets a lousy 25,000 views for part 1 and you will struggle to find anything favourable anyone had to say in the comments.

On the 19th of May they posted up part 2 and not even 1/2 of those who listened to her crap in part one have bothered to watch part 2...12,000

On the 18th May Trump went on Hannity for a one to one on the 18th and gets 50,000 views and hundreds praising him.

On the 5th of May on CNN he had 350,000 viewers........She couldn't get 350,000 people even if she claimed she was giving away free healthcare, as no one would believe her
 
I wouldn't put too much stock in the social media platforms either. The television networks don't usually conduct their own polls, they normally commission polling companies to do them in line with the National Council for Public Polls. Marist do NBC's for instance, YouGov will normally get CBS's contract, CNN's polls tend to be conducted by the Opinion Research Council (ORC) the most recent Fox poll was conducted by Anderson Robins Research, and Shaw & Company. It's not normally in their interests to produce push polls. You can get a quite detailed breakdown on the 538 website of about 100 pollsters and what their historic house bias has been, and how they're rated for accuracy

So far as I can see now that things are starting to settle a bit is that Trump suffered for the first 10 days after he clinched the nomination with Arizona and Georgia suddenly looking vulnerable. He then enjoyed a national bounce and rebounded to where you'd expect a Republican to be. The national picture is relatively meaningless though. The election is won in about dozen key battleground states. I think the picture that's emerging is that Trump has pretty well got the Romney map at the moment. It's easy to forget just how devisive Romney was given the current field. Basically those who voted for Obama in '12 might be doubling down on Clinton, and those who voted Romney doing likewise with Trump. This seems unusual to me though given how the field has been split apart by different factors. It could also be that things have been thrown up in the air, and people have realigned, but ultimately when the pieces have come back down to earth and landed, they've still generated the same sort of result profile (for now) even if people have been switching

One surprising thing that is emerging is that Trump is winning Independents, but the damage could be being done in Florida where his attacks on Mexican Hispanics is seemingly bringing the Cuban's out in sympathy

Only once the conventions out of the way, and Trump has done his impression of Robespierres festival of the supreme being, will we get a clearer picture. Clinton can expect a bounce in the next few weeks when she wraps up the nomination, but Trump just doesn't seem to be maturing at all. He might be able to insult his way through a GOP primary, he's going to find it much harder work to pull over the 2-3% Democrats he needs

Having said that, you'd be foolish to ignore his track record on one against one match ups, and there is always the spectre of the October surprise. I said months back that if he got the nomination all bets will be off purely because there is a lot of volatility in the electorate and a lot of scope for a game changing event to completely swing this. At the moment Clinton looks to hold the stronger position, but that's not guaranteed to last. In any event, about 45% of American's are no indicating a willingness to vote for Trump which is a worry in itself.

Still, at least we''ve got Turnberry as our secret insurance policy
 
Last edited:
Newt Gingrich certainly didn't do himself any favours re the Judge. He came across as just another yank who is pathological about racism.

The truth is Trump has every right to be concerned and being concerned doesn't make him a racists. He has the right to ask "Am I getting a fair deal"

It turned out Curiel is a member of San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association who appear to be associated with a race-baiting leftist group that strongly condemns Trump’s immigration policy ideas. And there's further links to a mob who already were calling Trump a racist because of the wall.

Then you find out the lawyers prosecuting have donated large sums to Hillary.

Any outsider would be shouting "Fix" but the yanks all terrified of being branded a racist come out against the man.

The Hillary camp and her puppets at CNN won't let this rest but right now she has a huge worry on how she is going to explain how Raj Fernando
had members of the State Department intelligence board asking who let this fooker in?..............truth is he was given the position of importance for money.....

Obama might be wishing he hadn't endorsed her which was ridiculous considering she supposed to be under Criminal Investigation and he is not meant to know what's happening.

If Trump doesn't become President they should nuke themselves for stupidity
 
At least 50 people shot dead in Orlando, FL, by Islamic extremist .
(Worst mass-shooting in U.S. history).

Has Donald Trump just won the Presidency?
 
Last edited:
To early to say

This sort of thing was loosely polled previously, (albeit they had to ask oblique questions). The pollsters told us that the public had more faith in Clinton and her better grasp of the policy issues. I was always of the opinion that, that would change the moment a significant attack occurred. We'll have to wait a few days to see if it does, but Clinton is about 4pts ahead on the national average at the moment after Trump's endured a pretty torrid 10 days
 
Couldn't believe the media. Obama comes on and right away blames guns taking a political swipe at Trump who supports the 2nd amendment. No one says boo!

Trump Tweets acknowledging tweets saying thanks but no thanks and states he want more vigilance better security NOT congrats and some bitch twists his words and the jump on the bandwagon
 
Obama just cannot seem to bring himself to mention those two words -- Islamic Terrorism. Instead he again mumbles on about gun control. Same with Hilary, the pair of them both in denial of reality.

Trump, on the other hand, made a speech just a short while ago that was genuinely stirring and moving. It was nothing short of a declaration of no-holds-barred war against Islamic extremism.
 
Clinton did break with the refusal today for the first time, albeit she tip toed a bit

"I have clearly said we -- whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I'm happy to say either"

Trump seems to be sowing the seeds for a low grade civilian defence movement, which was foreseeable.

"I will be meeting with the NRA, which has given me their earliest endorsement in a Presidential race, to discuss how to ensure Americans have the means to protect themselves in this age of terror."

If we continue on this trajectory it becomes inevitable that once people lose confidence in the forces of law and order to protect them, they'll start forming groups to do so themselves. Might take 2 or 3 generations yet, but its a slide in one direction, and one direction only
 
icebreaker said:
no teleprompter,
Click to expand...

About 90% of it's on a teleprompter. Apart from anything, you can see the stalks to his left and right as they zoom in at the opening, and if watch his eyes switching left and right at 45 degrees you can see him clearly reading. You do however see him go off message a few times and repeat himself with a few Trumpisms, "believe me", "many are saying", and many others where he pitches past the sale. Someone's written that for him. Trump doesn't use words that have more than 3 syllables, so "incompatible" is a real departure
 
Another thing you'll notice about Trump speech patterns is that he frequently fails to finish his sentance, often interjecting with "and by the way" and then goes off on a tangent, or simply doubles down on something he's already said and repeats himself. He'll often tell people what their emotional reaction to something will be too rather than describing or explaning what it is he's trying to communicate. For example, he'll say something akin to this

We're going to build a beautiful big wall, and you'll love it, everyone will love it, and in the middle it'll have great big door that says welcome, and by the way, Mexican people love me, I employ loads of great Mexican people, a Mexican who works for me rang me the other day and said Donald you're right, we really need this wall, its true you know, we do
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
Another thing you'll notice about Trump speech patterns is that he frequently fails to finish his sentance, often interjecting with "and by the way" and then goes off on a tangent, or simply doubles down on something he's already said and repeats himself. He'll often tell people what their emotional reaction to something will be too rather than describing or explaning what it is he's trying to communicate. For example, he'll say something akin to this

We're going to build a beautiful big wall, and you'll love it, everyone will love it, and in the middle it'll have great big door that says welcome, and by the way, Mexican people love me, I employ loads of great Mexican people, a Mexican who works for me rang me the other day and said Donald you're right, we really need this wall, its true you know, we do
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
icebreaker said:
Obama just cannot seem to bring himself to mention those two words -- Islamic Terrorism. Instead he again mumbles on about gun control. Same with Hilary, the pair of them both in denial of reality.

Trump, on the other hand, made a speech just a short while ago that was genuinely stirring and moving. It was nothing short of a declaration of no-holds-barred war against Islamic extremism.
Click to expand...

So what? What will saying the words 'radical Islamic terrorism' actually accomplish?

So far as I can see, it could potentially serve to legitimise the notion that America/'the West' is at war with the Islamic religion. That is exactly the notion that groups like ISIS are trying to make isn't it? Apart from that, it has **** all importance.

As far as Trump more broadly is concerned, if I was on him to win the election I would be very concerned by some of the stuff over the last couple of weeks. On a week when he should have been slamming Hillary for the State IG report that raised some serious questions, he instead (and after he had won the nomination) went on a completely bizarre tour of events where he was more focussed on slamming Jeb Bush and Gonzalo Curiel (why is he even bringing this case up; it is absolutely bizarre). Opportunity missed.

Hillary then tears him to shreds in the San Diego speech and he cannot come up with a coherent speech.

Orlando happens. Awful as it was - viewed through a strictly political lens this should be a positive for Trump. Again, no coherent reaction from the Trump campaign. Instead of re-enforcing the message, the messages that do come out invite further claims around racism etc. I just do not think that he has the campaign infrastructure or message discipline (both campaign and personal) to sustain the next 5 months.
 
trackside528 said:
So what? What will saying the words 'radical Islamic terrorism' actually accomplish?
Click to expand...
Refusing to identify the source of the attacks is delusional. It is a charade of denial; it is head-in-the-sand stuff.
Islamic terrorists are at war with the West; in a war you first identify the enemy who is attacking you and from there you can proceed to defend yourself

It smacks of Political Correctness -- this notion that on the occasion of the murder of 49 of your country's citizens you must not mention the religion of the perpetrator and the religion in whose name he perpetrated it because adherents of that religion would be peeved . According to Obama and Clinton, their "Muslim partners" might be offended by naming the source religion whose ideology is being used as a justification for these terrorist murders. These Muslim partners, I presume, include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, who persecute Gays to execution, marginalize women and are hostile to most Western ideals and ethics. And who may possibly to some extent even endorse the actions of these terrorists and the scourge of ISIS. Maybe instead of angst about upsetting the sensitivities of these "partners" it would be more effective to spell out to them what partnership really entails and means.

Weakness and tolerance of the unacceptable -- and it is the Weakness of Fear to deny the provenance of these islamic terrorists -- only invites further attacks. Strength and courage in identifying it is at least a step in fighting back.
 
The legitimisation of execution of gays by Islamic states (Iran Palestine etc) and the very nature of the rhetoric of the lefts pet religion, is what drives these actions. There is no doubt about that
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
The legitimisation of execution of gays by Islamic states (Iran Palestine etc) and the very nature of the rhetoric of the lefts pet religion, is what drives these actions. There is no doubt about that
Click to expand...

You are dribbling. I would be prepared to wager that not one single member of ISIS or anyone who harbours even the slightest bit of support for ISIS is doing so as a result of the West turning a blind eye to the execution of homosexuals. Not one.

Omar: So what do you make of these western infidel pigs not doing anything about the execution of gays in Islamic countries then Ahmed?
Ahmed: It ******* enrages me. It makes me want to go out and kill gays. Decadent western scum.
Omar: Maybe it means they are weak. We should strike now.
 
Back
Top