US Presidential election 2016
- Thread starter Warbler
- Start date
Might find the value now lies in the States
Nevada, Ohio, Colorado and North Carolina have swung out of Trump's column in the last week or so. If you think that he's close to his floor (I don't think he is yet) and will recover (not sure he can), he has time to grab these back. If he continues to bomb though, then places like Georgia, Arizona and even Texas start to become purple, albeit you'd probably expect Iowa to go first.
Trump just abotu had a viable map 2 weeks ago. If you think he can recover that, then the only place that wasn't on it and might throw a surprise is New Hampshire. That's two big 'ifs' though. Even if he were able to recover his position in the next fortnight, he'd still have to go beyond it to take NH, but the state has exhibited latent racism in its voting previously (well its Republican primaries anyway)
Nevada, Ohio, Colorado and North Carolina have swung out of Trump's column in the last week or so. If you think that he's close to his floor (I don't think he is yet) and will recover (not sure he can), he has time to grab these back. If he continues to bomb though, then places like Georgia, Arizona and even Texas start to become purple, albeit you'd probably expect Iowa to go first.
Trump just abotu had a viable map 2 weeks ago. If you think he can recover that, then the only place that wasn't on it and might throw a surprise is New Hampshire. That's two big 'ifs' though. Even if he were able to recover his position in the next fortnight, he'd still have to go beyond it to take NH, but the state has exhibited latent racism in its voting previously (well its Republican primaries anyway)
EC1
On a break
on a scale of 1-10..how much are you missing Clive?..10 = missing him loads
The online posting of addresses was a step to far, and although Clivex wasn't responsible for that, it highlighted that what preceded it was well over the top as well on all sides. Silence is golden sometimes, I'm sure Clivex is just fine.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
was just asking Warb really as they had the two ronnie interplay..i miss him by a score of 10 mesen..board not the same without him
Colin Phillips
At the Start
He posts occasionally on TRF.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Tremendous news.
I said I wouldn't comment on him for such time as he can't respond to anything I say, and intend to keep it that way.
The only opinion I'd offer is that I'd be mildly confident that by now he's probably realised how much time he lost here shouting into cyberspace and won't be banging down the door to be let back in anytime soon
EC1
On a break
fair play
that time spent is pretty valuable really
that time spent is pretty valuable really
Latest SNL skit on the 2nd debate (third and final one on Weds)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...l_debate_clinton_mistresses_trump__women.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...l_debate_clinton_mistresses_trump__women.html
Last debate watching live for fight night , here comes America's first female president . `In an ideal world we have had the first Black president in Obama for 8 yrs , next we get the first female president in Hillary and if we're lucky we will have Michelle Obama in 4yrs time the first female black president . The deplorables will spontaneously combust
Lets try and be fair in terms of objectiveness. I'm attempting to 'tell it how it is' here. 
Women 'coming out' about sex allegations 18 days before an election, in fits of tears, stinks of superficiality, narcissism and lack of taste. The man has been famous for years, decades even, why now??? If you were that upset then you would of made the allegations at the time, instead of looking like a pawn in a political chess game.
Barack Obama as sitting president has overstepped the mark also. Is it really a presidents job to be advising the public who they should be voting for? These press briefings from him are coming thick and fast, and kind of support Trumps assertion, or conspiracy theory, that the election could be rigged. You've got the man running the country telling folks not to elect another man running for president. It's not exactly an ethically 'whiter than white' position from Barack Obama.
I have zero allegiance to either candidate, although politically I'm more aligned to Hillary Clinton, but neither of the campaigns is covering themselves in glory at present.
Women 'coming out' about sex allegations 18 days before an election, in fits of tears, stinks of superficiality, narcissism and lack of taste. The man has been famous for years, decades even, why now??? If you were that upset then you would of made the allegations at the time, instead of looking like a pawn in a political chess game.
Barack Obama as sitting president has overstepped the mark also. Is it really a presidents job to be advising the public who they should be voting for? These press briefings from him are coming thick and fast, and kind of support Trumps assertion, or conspiracy theory, that the election could be rigged. You've got the man running the country telling folks not to elect another man running for president. It's not exactly an ethically 'whiter than white' position from Barack Obama.
I have zero allegiance to either candidate, although politically I'm more aligned to Hillary Clinton, but neither of the campaigns is covering themselves in glory at present.
Last edited:
I'm not so sure, Obama is a Democrat party member, and she's their candidate, he's entitled to pitch for her, and if he genuienly believes that Trump is the threat he claims, then he has a moral obligation
I'm increasingly finding Hillary Clinton equally frightening though, and Trump's comment about her playing an unnecessary game of nuclear chicken isn't that far off the money I reckon. The stupid thing she said (and it hasn't been picked up on by the media) was when Chris Wallace pushed her on this provocative idea of a no fly zone over Syria. She actually justified it by saying it was really about trying to gain some leverage with Russia in future negotiations (it was a very quick reference and missed by everyone). If Trump were capable of thinking on his feet, he should have hauled her back to that confession and asked what the hell she thought she was playing at? If it's only about establishing levearge, then its afaux position and she's pretty well admitted she intends to negotiate it away. What is Putin going to do? He's being invited to ignore it and call her bluff. She's basically shown her hand. The only way she can give this position teeth now is to actually shoot down a Russian plane
The best thing she could do is stop arming the rebels in Aleppo and allow this to come to a speedy conclusion. And Boris Johnson would be best advised to shut up too.
What they don't seem to realise is that rubble and skeletal buildings make for excellent concealed position defensive positions. They're basically a snipers paradise. This isn't new. The Germans discovered the same at Stalingrad and the American's at Monte Cassino. A well prepared enemy who has had time to lay down booby traps, measure out their firing distances, as well as prepare positions from cellars and sewers can become quite formidable. The modern infantrymen doesn't go charging across 50yds of urban wasteland kicking down doors, throwing in stun grenades, and resucing women and children first. If they did, they'd incur heavy losses, and neither the Russians, Syrians, Iraqis or Kurds about to risk the sort of casualties they'd invite if they try and fight their way through Aleppo or Mosul like this. The modern infantryman is much more of a spotter who occupies a position of observation and then calls down artillery or air support
The irony here is that the American's do the same. Their civilian kill ratio in the Pakistani badlands through their drone programme is higher than the Russians in Aleppo. Do you really think that if the Russians were deliberately targetting civilians and children they wouldn't be killing a helluva lot more Boris? Civilians have always been killed in war, it happens, and both the rebels and ISIS are quite capable of developing defensive positions in residential neighbourhoods or from hospitals and schools
The American's have also introduced an accountancy loophole into the way they report their civilian casualties. How often have you heard the phrase "suspected militants"? What is it? In a lot of cases its a codified phrase for civilians who we've recategorised as possible hostiles and therefore count on another ledger. What they do is they drop leaflets into an area (as they did in Fallujah and Ramadi) and tell people of fighting age to leave (regardless of whether they can or not). Those who stay can now be classified as "suspected militants" which allows them to be counted as unconfirmed enemy kills rather than civilian collateral
I thought Trump had a very bad debate last night, and clearly demonstrated that once again he'd done little or no preparation. He relied instead on repeating many of the phrases and lines of attack that he used in the second debate. This was heaven from heaven for Hillary as she'd clearly done some debrief and prepared retorts should he make the mistake relying on the same lines of attack. He played right into her hands.
I actually believe that he could have turned the international hotspots, and the whole Putin thing right round on her, but he made an arse of himself instead. Whereas there are some McCarthyites in America, I don't believe the country really has an appetite for engaging Russia in a shoot out over somewhere like Syria. He ought to really probe at the role of Saudi Arabia and their competing claims for their gas pipeline to supply Europe, and the one that Putin wants to build through Iran and Syria. If he tied American involvement in Syria to the Saudi pipeline and donations made by the KSA to the Clinton Foundation as the pay off, I've got a feeling he might create unease
For me though there were two defining moments, one of which was innocuous, but summed up Trump's limitations
Chris Wallace had bounced a quote on Clinton about open borders referencing a leak from her Wall Street speech. She looked and sounded uncomfortable in the face of the question. Trump interjected with "correct" (which earned him a mild rebuke from the moderator) but it really served to underline for me at least how hopeless he was, and how incapable he was of framing his own pointed questions. It sounded like he was thanking Wallace for making a point that he was incapable of doing so
The other point came at the end. Hillary spend her final minute pitching direct to the people about her America. Trump spent his dissing her. For a man who is supposed to be a great salesman it was terrible. He'd have been much better inviting American's to walk with him to a new horizon and sticking to his 'make America great again' message (something she inadvertantly found herself saying at one point - which he also failed to leap on). Basically Trump has nothing to offer other than temper, and hate. He's unfit for office
I'm increasingly finding Hillary Clinton equally frightening though, and Trump's comment about her playing an unnecessary game of nuclear chicken isn't that far off the money I reckon. The stupid thing she said (and it hasn't been picked up on by the media) was when Chris Wallace pushed her on this provocative idea of a no fly zone over Syria. She actually justified it by saying it was really about trying to gain some leverage with Russia in future negotiations (it was a very quick reference and missed by everyone). If Trump were capable of thinking on his feet, he should have hauled her back to that confession and asked what the hell she thought she was playing at? If it's only about establishing levearge, then its afaux position and she's pretty well admitted she intends to negotiate it away. What is Putin going to do? He's being invited to ignore it and call her bluff. She's basically shown her hand. The only way she can give this position teeth now is to actually shoot down a Russian plane
The best thing she could do is stop arming the rebels in Aleppo and allow this to come to a speedy conclusion. And Boris Johnson would be best advised to shut up too.
What they don't seem to realise is that rubble and skeletal buildings make for excellent concealed position defensive positions. They're basically a snipers paradise. This isn't new. The Germans discovered the same at Stalingrad and the American's at Monte Cassino. A well prepared enemy who has had time to lay down booby traps, measure out their firing distances, as well as prepare positions from cellars and sewers can become quite formidable. The modern infantrymen doesn't go charging across 50yds of urban wasteland kicking down doors, throwing in stun grenades, and resucing women and children first. If they did, they'd incur heavy losses, and neither the Russians, Syrians, Iraqis or Kurds about to risk the sort of casualties they'd invite if they try and fight their way through Aleppo or Mosul like this. The modern infantryman is much more of a spotter who occupies a position of observation and then calls down artillery or air support
The irony here is that the American's do the same. Their civilian kill ratio in the Pakistani badlands through their drone programme is higher than the Russians in Aleppo. Do you really think that if the Russians were deliberately targetting civilians and children they wouldn't be killing a helluva lot more Boris? Civilians have always been killed in war, it happens, and both the rebels and ISIS are quite capable of developing defensive positions in residential neighbourhoods or from hospitals and schools
The American's have also introduced an accountancy loophole into the way they report their civilian casualties. How often have you heard the phrase "suspected militants"? What is it? In a lot of cases its a codified phrase for civilians who we've recategorised as possible hostiles and therefore count on another ledger. What they do is they drop leaflets into an area (as they did in Fallujah and Ramadi) and tell people of fighting age to leave (regardless of whether they can or not). Those who stay can now be classified as "suspected militants" which allows them to be counted as unconfirmed enemy kills rather than civilian collateral
I thought Trump had a very bad debate last night, and clearly demonstrated that once again he'd done little or no preparation. He relied instead on repeating many of the phrases and lines of attack that he used in the second debate. This was heaven from heaven for Hillary as she'd clearly done some debrief and prepared retorts should he make the mistake relying on the same lines of attack. He played right into her hands.
I actually believe that he could have turned the international hotspots, and the whole Putin thing right round on her, but he made an arse of himself instead. Whereas there are some McCarthyites in America, I don't believe the country really has an appetite for engaging Russia in a shoot out over somewhere like Syria. He ought to really probe at the role of Saudi Arabia and their competing claims for their gas pipeline to supply Europe, and the one that Putin wants to build through Iran and Syria. If he tied American involvement in Syria to the Saudi pipeline and donations made by the KSA to the Clinton Foundation as the pay off, I've got a feeling he might create unease
For me though there were two defining moments, one of which was innocuous, but summed up Trump's limitations
Chris Wallace had bounced a quote on Clinton about open borders referencing a leak from her Wall Street speech. She looked and sounded uncomfortable in the face of the question. Trump interjected with "correct" (which earned him a mild rebuke from the moderator) but it really served to underline for me at least how hopeless he was, and how incapable he was of framing his own pointed questions. It sounded like he was thanking Wallace for making a point that he was incapable of doing so
The other point came at the end. Hillary spend her final minute pitching direct to the people about her America. Trump spent his dissing her. For a man who is supposed to be a great salesman it was terrible. He'd have been much better inviting American's to walk with him to a new horizon and sticking to his 'make America great again' message (something she inadvertantly found herself saying at one point - which he also failed to leap on). Basically Trump has nothing to offer other than temper, and hate. He's unfit for office
Last edited:
Nah. generally I like Obama, but he's turned into a friggin presidential-race pundit, Warbler. Its not crime of the century, but there's a difference between endorsing someone, in this case Hillary, and sending out your missus to say how scared she is for her daughters. Its all gone lower than a snakes belly, I guess its personal with Obama and Trump now.
I predicted Hillary Clinton would be president some two years ago now, to my mate working on American politics for ITV, I'll take comfort in that, but I can see what a lot of the Americans see with their overall political leadership, including Clinton, which for the most part, is all talk! (that's one thing Trump is right on).
I wish I could have got a decent price on Clinton all those months and years ago!
Truth is there was never anyone strong enough to out muscle Hillary Clinton.
Last edited:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ner_he_sees_the_statue_of_liberty_as_a_4.html
Her delivery is always stilted, the Obama press correspondents dinner speeches are better delivered, but Trump was pretty brutal on her in his go (worse) he stepped over the line of fair knock about at about 11.30 mins and ended up getting heckled
It's time to start getting the map out soon and seeing how things will fall. The state Trump looks like losing now is North Carolina and that should prove fatal. If he doesn't get a wave going soon (and I mean in the next 10 days) his whole campaign might disintegrate to the point where Arizona, Georgia, Utah and even Texas start to look vulnerable. He's really got to cling to the on line polls that folk like the LA Times have been running which consistently has him ahead of the others. If there is a concealed level of support that interview polling isn't picking up, and which the anonymity of cyberspace is getting, then this thing is close. Otherwise he losing 'bigly'
EC1
On a break
This may not apply to the USA..or with having someone unique like Trump involved.
I heard a few weeks ago that in the last 13 of our 14 elections..the party that won......led the polls in January..the only time that was wrong was when the election was called i think in february.or something..can't remember now..but basically 13/13 times correct under normal circumstances. Worth remembering that one for our next election
doubt it applies here..but was Trump leading in January Warb?
obviously this isn't any ordinary carry on..and with a slightly more popular candidate opposing him Trump would get trousered..he probably still will..or will he?
i'm probably alone in this thinking.....but politics at my age is there for entertainment..i don't care who wins now in any election..i find the whole lot pointless to me personally..so i would love Trump to be president and Corbyn to be Prime Minister..just for the entertainment. This last 2 years has been probably the most entertaining politically in my lifetime..i'd like it to continue...its a cracking soap opera to me.
None of us know what will happen in reality no matter who gets PM or president..what will be will be..are we more likely to nuke the world under the Donald or Clinton?..tough call...Clinton and Putin imo would be down the pub together at some point..so if worrying about nuking is on people's minds..its probably more likely to happen with Clinton..i don't see her and Putin down the pub any time soon.
I heard a few weeks ago that in the last 13 of our 14 elections..the party that won......led the polls in January..the only time that was wrong was when the election was called i think in february.or something..can't remember now..but basically 13/13 times correct under normal circumstances. Worth remembering that one for our next election
doubt it applies here..but was Trump leading in January Warb?
obviously this isn't any ordinary carry on..and with a slightly more popular candidate opposing him Trump would get trousered..he probably still will..or will he?
i'm probably alone in this thinking.....but politics at my age is there for entertainment..i don't care who wins now in any election..i find the whole lot pointless to me personally..so i would love Trump to be president and Corbyn to be Prime Minister..just for the entertainment. This last 2 years has been probably the most entertaining politically in my lifetime..i'd like it to continue...its a cracking soap opera to me.
None of us know what will happen in reality no matter who gets PM or president..what will be will be..are we more likely to nuke the world under the Donald or Clinton?..tough call...Clinton and Putin imo would be down the pub together at some point..so if worrying about nuking is on people's minds..its probably more likely to happen with Clinton..i don't see her and Putin down the pub any time soon.
Last edited:
They would poll hypothetical match ups in January, but its worth remembering that Iowa caucus only takes place in February. Neither candidate was even their nominee back in January.
The nearest election(s) I can dredge up from history was 1980 when Carter led Reagan, but a strong debate performance Reagan turned it in his favour. Trump is through that now, and he hasn't made anything close to the same impact
The only other one is when Truman beat Dewey, when it was felt Dewey had a 5pt lead. Truman actually won quite comfortably in the end, but the whole nature of America changed in the 1960's when the Democrats stopped winning in the south and the Republicans in the north. Also polling is more accurate today than it was in 1948
EC1
On a break
yes..there is not a real comparison..the guy who spewed those stats out said he hadn't researched the USA one
the USA reacts to one offs more than us..ie KennedyvNixon TV debate..that one thing swung it for Kennedy
worth bearing in mind though is that stat for our next election...get on big in January..well it looks like it will be the tories..or
to be honest..the only thing stopping Corbyn getting in..from day one was..if the tories implode..i couldn't really see that before the referendum..but now..that is a big possibility leading up to the next election.
the tories are a bit like a group horse v a selling plater..the only thing stopping the win..is a fall...and in this case..the fall could be a greater chance of happening re them
the USA reacts to one offs more than us..ie KennedyvNixon TV debate..that one thing swung it for Kennedy
worth bearing in mind though is that stat for our next election...get on big in January..well it looks like it will be the tories..or
to be honest..the only thing stopping Corbyn getting in..from day one was..if the tories implode..i couldn't really see that before the referendum..but now..that is a big possibility leading up to the next election.
the tories are a bit like a group horse v a selling plater..the only thing stopping the win..is a fall...and in this case..the fall could be a greater chance of happening re them
Last edited:
Interestingly there's two polls out tonight that shed a slightly different light on things. The RCP headline average is carrying Trump v's Clinton. The problem is that this is technically a four way poll (Jill Stein and Gary Johnson). When polling companies include these two the IBD/ TIPP tracking poll has Trump 1pt ahead, and Rasmussen (tend to poll Reps favourably) has Trump 2pts ahead. The latest LA Times poll also has Trump 1pt ahead this evening, but it needs to be stressed they've been consistently over polling Trump for months. There's a lot of favourable Clinton polls due to fall off the tracking average shortly NBC +8, CBS +11 and Monmouth +12, so unless these are replaced with similar poll leads for her, the race should tighten in the next few days. Having said that, I can't believe Trump is going to get a bounce after that dire debate performance, so it's just possible that she will indeed confirm her supremacy
I think its fair to say however that this is probably clutching at straws though. Hillary has held a commanding lead on the 4-way polls for a longish time now, and even though its slightly narrower than the 2 way polls at the moment, you'd need to see a lot more before you could believe that Trump is rallying
Last edited:
AliGupter
At the Start
What about the key states?
Been meaning to come back to this as the greatest shite show on earth builds to its climax.
So here goes (sort of). I think one of the first distinctions to make is that Trump has barely given the impression of having a strategy at all. He might have tactics, but I think the strategy (so far as one really exists) has been written retrospectively by commentators who are merely colouring in the spaces based on their observations of what's happened. Basically I'm of the opinion that you're more likely to be correct by giving Trump little benefit of any doubt and selecting the easiest explanation. I think he basically stood on the Republican ticket, shot his mouth off, and the results of this were then backfitted as strategic intent and design. Now having said that, there is little doubt that his messaging was going to meet with different levels of reception across the demographics and across the country. That needn't be a grand design though. His failure to adjust in May after he won the nomination cost him momentum. He started picking fights with his own party and doubled down on his messaging. It's as if he didn't understand that he now had to persuade Democrats to support him, and more of the same wouldn't work
What seems to be happening however is that Trump is trying to navigate a narrow flight path where he jeopardises some states by reducing Republican majorities in places like Arizona and Texas, whilst hoping to pick up votes elsewhere. He's hoping that his 'They're taking our jobs' mantra will help him gain the blue collar votes in the upper mid west, even if it means losing support elsewhere. If he over does it, then he risks losing somewhere like Arizona. Even if he picks up Ohio in compensation, it won't be enough. He needs both. This means its very finely balanced, and that the sweet spot where he can achieve both might not exist even
As of tonight with 10 days to go there is some subtle shifting on the 2-way and 4-way polls again. Clinton enjoys a RCP average lead nationally of 4.6% in the two way race, but this drops to 3.8 in the four way race. If you take a closer look, you'll notice that Gary Johnson's support has fallen from 9.2% in mid Sept, to 6.5% ten days ago, and has fallen again since and stands at 5.3% tonight. During the last week Trump has recieved a small bounce from 39.4% to 41.1%. A simple extraction of Johnson down 1.2% and Trump up 1.7% isn't too hard to make. Personally, I've always felt that the Libertarian voter tends to lean GOP before they lean Democrat, and we might be starting to see this happen. The libertarians are ripe for a classic third party squeeze as the race tightens and people abandon their protest posturing. If this happens, and if they return to their usual polling average of about 1-2%, then theere's still about 3-4% fluidity in this mix, of which two thirds will probably gravitate towards Trump
Dealing with the key states then
Florida - put simply Clinton can finish the whole race in the sunshine state. If Trump fails to win Florida the election is lost. He has no viable path left. There's a number of things about FL however that means it behaves differently. FL isn't really a redneck dixie state that you find further west. As has been flogged already, the latino vote is heavily influenced by Republican leaning Cubans, rather than Democrat leaning Mexicans. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that Cubans will vote in sympathy for Mexicans. There's also the issue of retired northerners bringing Democrat influences into the state too.
Now I think it's worth looking at the 4-way race in Florida, and the performance of the Libertarian party in particular. Nationally they stand at 5.3% tonight, but in FL where a vote might actually mean something, and which is probably a more mature market (voting has started) and they're much more keyed into the thing by virute of being the single biggest swing state, the Libertarians stand at 3% and the greens are less than 1% on the most recent poll. Clinton holds an average lead 0.4%, but two of the three most recent polls give Trump the lead. Clinton's RCP average lead really owes everything to two polls conducted 10 days ago that gave her the edge by 4% and 3%. When these drop off the sample, there is a fair prospect that Trump can regain the lead here, and especially as the polls will likely feature the recent FBI decision in them by then
This is really far too close to call though. If Trump stays on MAGA, and can keep his nose clean, I think he could well shade Florida
Nevada
This was a state I initially thought he'd lose, but he's confounded me. Clinton has a 1.7% lead on the four way race tonight, but this owes a lot to one poll that gave her a 7% margin. If you remove this as an outlier, her edge drops to 0.6%. The libertarians are averaging about 5.2%, albeit this also owes alot to an outlier (on the same poll as it happens) that gave them 10%. I expect this to be squeezed as people focus their minds on Nov 8th, and that Gary Johnson will get something like 2% in the end. There's probably about 2% to play with from this source. Again it'll be very close. Logic tells me that Hillary will win, maths tells me that Trump can get this back. I'll give it to orange face for now
Arizona
This should be Trump territory but he's conspired to make a mess of the state, not the least because of his relationship with John McCain. At the moment it's leaning Clinton, but I suspect Trump will ultimately carry it on the current wave. It was polled three times in early October which is when the Clinton lead emerged. Interestingly though, her own figures remained static. Hillary wasn't winning the state. Trump was losing it. Trump supporters were transferring to Gary Johnson. There was one particularly high vote for Jill Stein too who hit 4%, seemingly at the expense of Trump. How plausible is it that Trump protesters are switching to the Greens? Not very I'd suggest. I think it's a rogue poll
Johnson averaged 7% for those three polls. The most recent polls taken however has Johnson's support falling to 4% (down 3) and Stein's has also gone back to a more realistic 1% guess what? Trump's has increased by 4%. Unless Trump gets involved in another fall out with McCain, I suspect he can regain the lead in Arizona
Colorado
This was another state Trump's doing better in than I thought he would. Both Johnson and Stein are polling well here, suggesting that there is indeed plenty of noise in play still. There is clear recent evidence that the Libertarian vote is gravitating to Trump though if forced to decide. Clinton's three biggest leads in the state, all coincided with Johnson recording particularly high scores himself of 12%, 10% and 7%. On the most recent poll this has dropped to 5% as perhaps voters begin to concentrate a bit more, and when this has happened Clinton's lead has also fallen from an average of 7.25% to 2%. Stein's support (where Hillary might expect to pick votes up from in a squeeze) has evaporated to less than 1%, which would make me think any benefit Hillary gets from the greens is already in the most recent poll findings.
I suspect that party organisation on the ground could be the key in Colorado, and she is much better organised than him. Having said that, I also suspect that the most recent Remington poll is more accurate than the RCP average as it seems to be more realistic about the third party support. There's probably about 3% squeeze left to come out of the system, but Clinton's 2pt lead should just about be enough provided she doesn't suffer in the next week from the emails. She's got very little margin for a backlash. If just 1.5% of her supporters decide to sit it out, she could be in trouble, and unless she can take the heat out of the FBI, I think this will happen. This could go either way
North Carolina
This is where Trump has dropped the ball. This is a red state that she's had blue for some time now. Superior organisation and astute strategy has set her up to 'take one against the head'. I get the impression that the voters wanted to vote for Trump, but over the last month in particular they've come to realise they can't do. Clinton has recorded poll leads in 18 of the last 19 samples. The only time she fell behind before this was in the 9/11 pnuemonia scare. Now that was a blip, which might offer Trump some hope, as perhaps it shows that support for her is fluid, and perhaps North Carolinains might react to the email investigation, but I tend to think this will be mired in conjecture and heresay between now and then, and they won't make anything stick. I think she's going to carry NC
Pennsylvania
PA has proven a Republican's fools gold for a few cycles now. If she doesn't win North Carolina and also loses Florida, then Pennsylvania (combined with New Hampshire) can still back stop her. I think strategists under estimate the influence of Philadelphia, and also that some of the traditional blue collar support in places like Pittsburgh, Bethlehem, Allentown etc is still there. It hasn't reached West Virginian abandonment.
Utah
God knows. I wouldn't be shocked to see Hillary's supporters vote tactically here (it won't take that many). I think McMullin could spring a surprise. It will require this to be a spontaneously conscious decision though. If she's seen to encourage a tactical vote for the independent however (what could be painted as a dirty trick) then I think this will spur the natural massive Republican majority to vote for Trump, and Utah will go from toss-up to solid red within 24 hours. I've got a feeling that as Utah comes under the spotlight though, Republicans will probably come home - oh I don't know - it's really tough to work out. In a normal cycle its about the eaiest state in the union to call. Go with history I guess and say Trump will win
As things stand, Hillary Clinton can secure the election in the east with NC, PA and NH. She can lose the other swing states, and I suspect she probably will (I'm struggling with FL and CO admittedly) but have them just about going Trump at this stage. UT is a totally different ball game but doesn't affect the result, just the majority
Clinton 278
Trump 260
gigilo
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 9,796
Wonder how long this latest republican favour had been planned with the email investigation,no doubt all **** and wind just to distract from what was completyely inevitable completely stinks lets face it if it was something that earth shattering all would've been revealed.The keep talking about Clinton being corrupt,this is as bad as it gets 11 days before the vote an absolute joke,prices collapsing with trump as short as 9/4!!!