Obama: Trump ‘woefully unfit’ to be President

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, ttthailand said:

Perhaps I should have said 75 percent far left and 25 percent far right. 75 percent of his platform is same as Bernie Sanders, 25 percent is far Right. My main concern with Gary is his support of TPP. This I don't like but it is something that I think will go ahead anyway no matter who is elected. Check out his web site. He is not for everyone but at least he is not a liar or crazy.

First off, when it comes to left-right economics trumps (small t) everything.  You can't be 75% far left and 25% far right if that 25% is economics.  Well, if he's not a liar or crazy, he can be my best friend.  But I don't vote for people on that basis.  

[Jingthing]

Hahaha.... I see it as you wasting your vote. In addition if you voted for a real change you would vote for someone other than the same corrupt system that Hillary belongs to. Free country I guess.
Never trump or Hillary !

If you can't accept the reality that it's going to be either trump or Clinton that will be the next president and that trump is massively much worse well then we may be from different planets. As Sarah Silverman said to Bernie or busters ... stop being ridiculous. This is grown up stuff. There are only two real choices. That reality may indeed be depressing but that is the reality regardless.

[ttthailand]

If you can't accept the reality that it's going to be either trump or Clinton that will be the next president and that trump is massively much worse well then we may be from different planets. As Sarah Silverman said to Bernie or busters ... stop being ridiculous. This is grown up stuff. There are only two real choices. That reality may indeed be depressing but that is the reality regardless.

As the world now knows for sure the DNC was an agent for Hillary from the beginning. Vote fixing, emails showing bias, 400 super delegates casting votes before the thing even started. Bernie had tens of thousands of people at his rallies while Hillary had hundreds at best. So stop being ridiculous, people don't trust Hillary and most want another choice. Trump is too far out in space and even his own party don't want him. Once the debates start Gary's numbers will start to grow. Once people see him at 20 to perhaps 25 percent then even more will jump on the wagon. Remember that Bernie was at less than 10 percent when he started and ended up at about 46 percent, which would have been much higher if the fix was not in against him.
Hillary and Donald are both damaged goods and rotten to the core.

[ttthailand]

If you can't accept the reality that it's going to be either trump or Clinton that will be the next president and that trump is massively much worse well then we may be from different planets. As Sarah Silverman said to Bernie or busters ... stop being ridiculous. This is grown up stuff. There are only two real choices. That reality may indeed be depressing but that is the reality regardless.

As the world now knows for sure the DNC was an agent for Hillary from the beginning. Vote fixing, emails showing bias, 400 super delegates casting votes before the thing even started. Bernie had tens of thousands of people at his rallies while Hillary had hundreds at best. So stop being ridiculous, people don't trust Hillary and most want another choice. Trump is too far out in space and even his own party don't want him. Once the debates start Gary's numbers will start to grow. Once people see him at 20 to perhaps 25 percent then even more will jump on the wagon. Remember that Bernie was at less than 10 percent when he started and ended up at about 46 percent, which would have been much higher if the fix was not in against him.
Hillary and Donald are both damaged goods and rotten to the core.

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, ttthailand said:

As the world now knows for sure the DNC was an agent for Hillary from the beginning. Vote fixing, emails showing bias, 400 super delegates casting votes before the thing even started. Bernie had tens of thousands of people at his rallies while Hillary had hundreds at best. So stop being ridiculous, people don't trust Hillary and most want another choice. Trump is too far out in space and even his own party don't want him. Once the debates start Gary's numbers will start to grow. Once people see him at 20 to perhaps 25 percent then even more will jump on the wagon. Remember that Bernie was at less than 10 percent when he started and ended up at about 46 percent, which would have been much higher if the fix was not in against him.
Hillary and Donald are both damaged goods and rotten to the core.

Vote fixing?  

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-the-primary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, ttthailand said:

A typical response from a hardened Hillary supporter who won't open their eyes to see all the damage Hillary and her husband has done to America.

Let me tell you two ways that Gary Johnson can win.
First: with all the recent attention third parties are receiving the media has now started to grant interviews. With these interviews and the Internet it is now possible for Gary Johnson to receive the required 15% in the polls to get into the national debates (rigged system). Only about 1/3 of voters have even heard of Gary Johnson and even little more really knows about what he stands for. The debates will inform the public and give then a real vote and not a lesser of two evil vote. With a majority of voters not liking Trump or Clinton And the fact that Gary is in the middle and honest he will perhaps pull enough votes to win, yes win !
Second: If not make an out right win he will win enough states to prevent anyone from getting the required 270 EVs. This will put selecting the president in the hands of the House. The House which has a majority of republicans will not vote for Hillary and if having another option will not vote for Trump. The only logical selection will be someone right in the middle... Gary Johnson or perhaps another.
Trump or Clinton will not be president !!! Trust me !

 

Amazing the things that rattle around in the head of certain people.

 

HR Clinton now has 92% support of Democrats in the D party. Which means she's won the election on the numbers, the states, the popular vote, the Electoral College vote.

 

Whether it would be Trump, or Johnson, or Jill Stein, one of 'em or two of 'em or all three of 'em, they've got to reduce that percentage. Can't beat HRC without reducing that percentage and its raw number. It is not possible to win without peeling that down by about 10%, to the low 80s, preferably the mid-70s.

 

Won't happen. Can't happen. The D party is united and it will stay united. The only way to win is to divide the Democratic party from within. The national convention settled the matter. The Independent voters that usually vote Democratic remain solid as D voters and they are the insurance. Then there's the bonus of the almost 20% of Republican Never Trump voters HRC is picking off on a weekly basis and will continue to pick off. She won't get all 20% but she doesn't need all 20%. She doesn't need a one of 'em, but they are more insurance. 

 

Which leaves the slight majority of Independent voters and the rest of the Republican We Are Crackpots voters to divvy up among Trump, the new conservative R guy Evan McMullin, Johnson-Weld, Jill Stein and the dozen other really really "third" parties that appear on the ballot of almost all the states. 

 

The 3+1 debates beginning at the end of September will only strengthen HRC. In 1992 when Ross Perot was included in one debate and got 19% of the national vote (no states, no electoral votes), which helped to kill the presidency of GHW Bush. And neither is there any Ralph Nader in this election nor will there be one.

 

This Johnson can win stuff and the what if no one gets to 270 Electoral College votes speculation etc is good posting stuff but it is zero electoral reality. Eighty percent of Americans have never heard of Gary Johnson and if he might make it into a debate or all three of 'em, nobody votes to elect the guy next door as Potus. The Libertarian Party is known, however, it is known as eccentric and marginal, which is what it continues to be. 

 

Hillary Clinton will be elected 45th Potus so get used to it.

[animatic]

 

Amazing the things that rattle around in the head of certain people.

 

HR Clinton now has 92% support of Democrats in the D party. Which means she's won the election on the numbers, the states, the popular vote, the Electoral College vote.

 

Whether it would be Trump, or Johnson, or Jill Stein, one of 'em or two of 'em or all three of 'em, they've got to reduce that percentage. Can't beat HRC without reducing that percentage and its raw number. It is not possible to win without peeling that down by about 10%, to the low 80s, preferably the mid-70s.

 

Won't happen. Can't happen. The D party is united and it will stay united. The only way to win is to divide the Democratic party from within. The national convention settled the matter. The Independent voters that usually vote Democratic remain solid as D voters and they are the insurance. Then there's the bonus of the almost 20% of Republican Never Trump voters HRC is picking off on a weekly basis and will continue to pick off. She won't get all 20% but she doesn't need all 20%. She doesn't need a one of 'em, but they are more insurance. 

 

Which leaves the slight majority of Independent voters and the rest of the Republican We Are Crackpots voters to divvy up among Trump, the new conservative R guy Evan McMullin, Johnson-Weld, Jill Stein and the dozen other really really "third" parties that appear on the ballot of almost all the states. 

 

The 3+1 debates beginning at the end of September will only strengthen HRC. In 1992 when Ross Perot was included in one debate and got 19% of the national vote (no states, no electoral votes), which helped to kill the presidency of GHW Bush. And neither is there any Ralph Nader in this election nor will there be one.

 

This Johnson can win stuff and the what if no one gets to 270 Electoral College votes speculation etc is good posting stuff but it is zero electoral reality. Eighty percent of Americans have never heard of Gary Johnson and if he might make it into a debate or all three of 'em, nobody votes to elect the guy next door as Potus. The Libertarian Party is known, however, it is known as eccentric and marginal, which is what it continues to be. 

 

Hillary Clinton will be elected 45th Potus so get used to it.

Hey Pub! Long time no see.
As usual you analysis is cogent.

I'll add Johnson may win some, but libertarians mostly will come from the GOP column. Steins votes only from the remaining absolutely lost Eco-anarchist wing of the Dems, so really no bet loses for HRC.

The more T-rump speaks the more " rational republicans " move to Dem column.
Even if T-rump has a coronary on stage next week, the GOP schism will remain as wide as Post Bloody Sunday Ireland's. Trump is turning into the equivalent of ordering a Black and Tan in Gallway.

Pence couldn't win a fraction.
No time to reinstall Kaisich.
Cruz just causes a different schism.
Ryan would do yet a third.
The GOP is toast, and may just have to split permanently.

[ttthailand]

Interesting interview with Gary Johnson On MSNBC three days ago:

[ttthailand]

Let's see what happens after the first debate in September. If Gary gets in its a new ball game. If not then I agree that Hillary will be our next Obama, business as usual.

[Publicus]

17 minutes ago, animatic said:

Hey Pub! Long time no see.
As usual you analysis is cogent.

I'll add Johnson may win some, but libertarians mostly will come from the GOP column. Steins votes only from the remaining absolutely lost Eco-anarchist wing of the Dems, so really no bet loses for HRC.

The more T-rump speaks the more " rational republicans " move to Dem column.
Even if T-rump has a coronary on stage next week, the GOP schism will remain as wide as Post Bloody Sunday Ireland's. Trump is turning into the equivalent of ordering a Black and Tan in Gallway.

Pence couldn't win a fraction.
No time to reinstall Kaisich.
Cruz just causes a different schism.
Ryan would do yet a third.
The GOP is toast, and may just have to split permanently.

 

Like wow very long time no see!  I also miss the green mountains and beautiful beaches down there...

 

As we know, all HRC needs is a united D party. That's it. And she's got it.

 

The majority of Independents vote Republican (except 2008) but they're 30% of voters who show up.

 

D voters are more in number than Independents or Republicans and D voters show up as nearly 40% of all voters.

 

Republicans barely break 30% of voters who show up. I saw just now Trump has only 76% support among Republicans, which is nowhere near enough to win even an election day door prize.

 

In 2012 Romney won Independents over Pres. Obama 55-45 percent and had a united R party behind him yet he still lost by 6 million votes. Presently, based on the expected 130 million voters November 8th, Trump is losing by twice as much as Romney. 

 

Bright red states such as Georgia (16 Electoral College votes) have HRC leading by 7-points now, up three from the most recent state poll (those suburban white Republican married women are killing Trump -- nationally). The only blue states that are close are Iowa (6 EC votes) and Nevada (4 ECV). HRC is way ahead in red North Carolina (16 ECV) and HRC leads in red Missouri (11 ECV).

 

Kasich just Sunday pronounced Trump dead in Ohio (cremation will be held on November 8th).

 

Game over. 

 

(Don't just cheer -- vote!)

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, ttthailand said:

Let's see what happens after the first debate in September. If Gary gets in its a new ball game. If not then I agree that Hillary will be our next Obama, business as usual.

 

Reasonable enough to say let's hold off till the first debate (in late September).

 

The bottom line is that in the election of Potus a united and unified Democratic party wins.

 

HR Clinton has 92% of Democrats supporting her. This clinches it. It was vital to cleanly wrap up Bernie's campaign at the convention and Bernie agreed to it. HRC and her campaign were magnanimous to Bernie which is the perfect approach. (Putin came up short again and he will always come up short in this. Putin and his employee Assange would have to show us HRC gave Russia the nuclear launch codes or some such, so all of that is yet another anti-Clinton lost cause.)

 

Trump pours more gasoline on himself each day while Hillary chooses the color matches of the day. (It's said she like to match with the color of her pants suit   ). 

 

Presently it stands that Johnson-Weld will probably finish with 5% of the national vote, no states won, no Electoral College votes. If Johnson is smart, however, he'd start now to campaign seriously in Utah to try to get a polling lead there. It's a bright red state that rejects Trump and HRC, so he should have fertile ground. 

 

If Johnson can get a polling lead in Utah, in one actual state, he might get some traction in other closer states, such as Iowa or possibly Oregon (out in the west, not east of the Mississippi River valley). If Johnson can grab a lead in polls in even one state people will start to ask about him to find out more. But he's showing no signs of being smart. (We don't even know who's running his campaign -- manager, senior strategists, advisors etc.)

 

Democrats pay no mind to the Libertarian Party because we see it as a club of personally eccentric Republicans who consider themselves superior to other Republicans and who care virtually nothing about D party issues of economics. Independent voters don't give the Libertarian party much mind either because Libertarians are neither here nor there (almost all "Independents" are in fact either here or there). Republicans see it as a Plan B in the event of an emergency...but they have to break the glass first. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Publicus
Text

[Scott]

Off-topic and inflammatory posts removed.  

[Andaman Al]

Is Trump woefully unfit to be President?

 

Decide for yourself   I would really look forward to an explanation and in particular a justification of the range of contradicting views by the Trumpeteer's on here. It IS embarrassing.

 

 

Vote Johnson/Weld

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Andaman Al

[ttthailand]

Publicus, where are you getting that 92% of democrats are supporting Hillary ? Is that including Bernie supporters. I follow most of the mainstream news and Internet news channels but missed that 92%.

[Publicus]

35 minutes ago, ttthailand said:

Publicus, where are you getting that 92% of democrats are supporting Hillary ? Is that including Bernie supporters. I follow most of the mainstream news and Internet news channels but missed that 92%.
 

 

I'd posted this the other day to another thread but no problem to post it here and now to vous. I added the emphasis to it in this post.

 

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by eight points nationally, 50% to 42%.

 

“Clinton winning 92% support among self-identified Democrats. That compares with 86% support just before the Republican convention and is an indication that the Democratic convention helped consolidate supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders behind her candidacy. 

 

In contrast, Trump is winning 83% of self-identified Republicans, nearly identical to the 82% support he had among Republicans before his convention in Cleveland.”

 

A new Morning Consult poll finds Clinton leading Trump by nine points, 46% to 37%.

 

Today somebody on television said a new poll finds Trump getting support of only 76% of Republicans. but I'm still chasing after the source. Trump had been in the low 80s percentage as of a few days ago among Republicans, which still sounds generous.

 

The 92% of Democrats supporting HR Clinton is in fact and reality exactly what a D running for Potus needs. With 270 Electoral College votes needed to win, the D starts out with 232 safe or likely ECV states. So HR Clinton is presently looking at the neighborhood of 350 ECV with her present lead in polling of red states such as Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, and turning blue previous red states such as Virginia and beginning with Barack Obama in 2008 turning the purple state of Florida blue.

 

No "third" party can keep up with this or even remotely compete with it. Hell, the Republican party can't even come close to it themselves as we're currently witnessing. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Publicus
Text

[Guest]

As it might be hilarious to watch the debates between Hillary and Donald, I wonder what those debates would be like?

For the past years I have seen some US 'debates', which have been just yelling contests. The one who speaks the loudest and longest, seems to get the most attention.. and thus be the winner. 

The issues talked were only superficial, mainly against the person. 

 

That should not be the case. 

The way I understand debate is that two sets of idea go against each other. The person behind delivering the ideas don't really matter, not in the exchange of ideas part. It's just the delivery guy. The DHL. 

The person behind the ideas comes along, after the ideas have been laid to the table. Do voters trust that the delivery person can deliver what he or she promised for the voters. Do voters think that he or she is full of marketing BS and the promises don't happen. 

But first, it's the message, which is important. Can these ideologies which the delivery persons are presenting be fireproofed and checked so that the voters can understand what they are actually supporting?

That, for me, is the process of debates. Talking, checking and understanding what the ideologies and the delivery persons are all about. With grace and respect, without yelling and name calling. 

I'm pretty sure that both sides support of going deep in to the issues. Make sure it really happens. 

[boomerangutang]

Publicus; "Baker was a legal beagle in the 2000 Bush chad fiasco in Florida."

 

Boomer's response:  That's true. I wondered how many others noticed.  During the 2000 screw-up in FL, I recall Baker shouting, and I mean SHOUTING, red faced at reporters in a low-ceilinged room.  He was telling the reporters that they shouldn't insist on recounts, and the Bush was the winner (in fact, he wasn't, according to vote tallies).   Incidentally, all those paper ballots (from Dade County, and maybe other counties) are being kept in a locked room somewhere in Florida.  

 

Jingthing; "This woman (Jill Stein) has no government experience and believes in totally flaky anti-science views on thing like vaccinations."

 

Boomer's response: She came out yesterday and clarified that she is in favor of vaccinations. 
 I vote absentee in the California contest.  I will likely vote for Jill Stein.  I like HRC, but I prefer Stein.  For decades, I was registered in CA's Green Party.  It's foregone that HRC will win CA, so a vote for Stein can be seen as a 'protest vote' and a small step toward giving the Greens a chance of playing on the national stage in the near future - like being allowed in on the debates.  

[JetsetBkk]

On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 at 6:04 AM, webfact said:

Trump is 'unfit,' Obama says

 

Pot, kettle, black.

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

Pot, kettle, black.

 

 

I'm curious where this comes from. 

Obama was not the most Kennedy like president during his fist term. The peace price given by Norwegians, was a huge mistake. It was simply saying thanks to the GWB era. 

The second term of Obama was much, much better. It was actually good, once he could relax a bit. and do his work. 

Now we have the same question about Hillary. Has she done her work somewhat badly? Has she been a incompetent person in the government? 

Or is this just the way the previous tea-party members wished us all to think and what the Trump party has so much yelled about?

They'r saying: Your government, you are a bad, bad person; ideology still work in manipulating what people think?

What if Hillary has actually done her job pretty well. What if all the yelling against her is just what the dark side wishes to accomplish? 

I don't know personally, but these are the thoughts every voter should think about. 

[Jingthing]

Stein has  no qualifications whatsoever. If the Greens want to be taken seriously, put up someone serious. Sure have a protest vote. It's not a SERIOUS vote.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.  

[iReason]

Donald Trump needs a miracle to win

 

"Three months from now, with the 2016 presidential election in the rearview mirror, we will look back and agree that the presidential election was over on Aug. 9th."

 

"Journalistic neutrality allegedly forces us to say that the race isn’t over until November, and most media organizations prefer to hype the presidential contest to generate viewers and readers rather than explain why a photo finish is unlikely."

 

"But a dispassionate examination of the data, combined with a coldblooded look at the candidates, the campaigns and presidential elections, produces only one possible conclusion: Hillary Clinton will defeat Donald Trump in November, and the margin isn’t likely to be as close as Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/09/donald-trump-needs-a-miracle-to-win/

 

Done deal.

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, oilinki said:

As it might be hilarious to watch the debates between Hillary and Donald, I wonder what those debates would be like?

For the past years I have seen some US 'debates', which have been just yelling contests. The one who speaks the loudest and longest, seems to get the most attention.. and thus be the winner. 

The issues talked were only superficial, mainly against the person. 

 

That should not be the case. 

The way I understand debate is that two sets of idea go against each other. The person behind delivering the ideas don't really matter, not in the exchange of ideas part. It's just the delivery guy. The DHL. 

The person behind the ideas comes along, after the ideas have been laid to the table. Do voters trust that the delivery person can deliver what he or she promised for the voters. Do voters think that he or she is full of marketing BS and the promises don't happen. 

But first, it's the message, which is important. Can these ideologies which the delivery persons are presenting be fireproofed and checked so that the voters can understand what they are actually supporting?

That, for me, is the process of debates. Talking, checking and understanding what the ideologies and the delivery persons are all about. With grace and respect, without yelling and name calling. 

I'm pretty sure that both sides support of going deep in to the issues. Make sure it really happens. 

 

It is a political debate to win election to the office of Potus (and vp).

 

It is not a debate society or a debate event at a high school or a university. In formal debate there is a judge or three judges, no cheering by observers, coaches or any sound made by anyone in attendance (ejection). Reality does not factor in formal debate societies because they are academic, not real and certainly not political to involve elections to the highest offices of the land. (In academic debate one can advocate raising taxes by $2500 per capita and the judge does not as much as raise and eyebrow.)

 

The political debates in the primary/caucuses campaigns among the numbers of candidates in each party are almost always shouting matches, it's just that Donald Trump redefined the meaning of loud, crass, vulgar, base, obnoxious, crude, offensive, ignorant and then some. In real life political "debate" there are no (formal) judges and no official scoring, based on which the judge(s) declare a formal winner (team or individual).

 

Clinton and Sanders did get pretty heated most of the time but each is a hollerer or a shouter to begin with.  HRC was an elected US Senator (New York state) and Bernie was in the US House a decade with another couple of six-year terms still occurring in the Senate. Academic debate declares a winner at the conclusion and everyone goes home. A political debate is another event of the campaign; it is a factor, not a conclusive event per se. In political debate they make ad hominem attacks because their names are on the ballot; in academic debate this is not present so in academic debate you cannot call the other guy a liar, thief, cheat or make any comment on his hands or ears or whatever (would you vote for that face???).

 

To be elected Potus, your debate performance has to be, well, presidential. There's a zinger now and then, but anyone who thinks a Potus debate in September and October when they occur are shouting matches might well be a milquetoast who best stays out of any such arena. They are not shouting matches.

 

It's also a good suggestion to not try to be holier than thou.

[Guest]

One of the things I like about the Potus election is that there is a fierce questioning about the policies what the future Potus might represent. This is done by the press and the supporters of the other party.

But what is missing is a good old debate. Giving both sides 30 second each to say what they want to say and then kill the microphone. In normal civilizations, this would be a norm during a debate. In USA it doesn't seem to be so. So enforce the rule. 

That 30 seconds is the time when the person can make the point. Anything over that is just abusing everybody's time. That's what Trump has been doing all the time. Filling the air with nonsense so that nobody have a chance to talk about real issues. 

Stop the abuse. 
 

[Skywalker69]

Did he really say that? Trump slips up in economic speech and says 't***ies' instead of 'cities'

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3730366/Did-really-say-Trump-slips-economic-speech-says-t-ies-instead-cities.html?ITO=1490

 

[Chicog]

This is why I think Trump will try and avoid the debates.
 

Quote

The first debate will be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on major topics to be selected by the moderator and announced at least one week before the debate. The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. Candidates will then have an opportunity to respond to each other. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a deeper discussion of the topic.

 

Trump being able to give a straight two minute answer to even the simplest of questions is simply not going to happen. He has no grasp of the issues or the facts related to them.

And every time he waffles, Clinton will have two minutes to tear him to pieces.

Similary, when Clinton does give a clear answer, his response will probably veer from Benghazi to emails to Bill getting a BJ off an intern.

 

But the moderator(s) will need to be on the ball to keep them both on time. Trump would like nothing more than a slanging match with them both talking over each other. That would be playing into his hands.

 

I suspect Clinton will do her best to avoid it descending into such farce.

 

 

 

 

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, iReason said:

Donald Trump needs a miracle to win

 

"Three months from now, with the 2016 presidential election in the rearview mirror, we will look back and agree that the presidential election was over on Aug. 9th."

 

"Journalistic neutrality allegedly forces us to say that the race isn’t over until November, and most media organizations prefer to hype the presidential contest to generate viewers and readers rather than explain why a photo finish is unlikely."

 

"But a dispassionate examination of the data, combined with a coldblooded look at the candidates, the campaigns and presidential elections, produces only one possible conclusion: Hillary Clinton will defeat Donald Trump in November, and the margin isn’t likely to be as close as Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/09/donald-trump-needs-a-miracle-to-win/

 

Done deal.

 

The piece is by Republican consultant and independent pollster and analyst Stu Rothenberg who I've read for decades. I read him because he is naturally and comfortably a balanced centrist Republican. Stu is resolute in respect of his reputation and few politicos (if any) are more "objective" in the traditional sense.

 

When the cautious, deliberate and balanced Stu Rothenberg says it's over it means the fat lady has broken out in song. Her siren song is bursting out and no earplugs can possibly block it out or deny it.

 

Stu Rothenberg does in fact confirm Prof. Larry J. Sabato who is director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and who regularly does election night analysis live on BBC. He too has called this election for HRC by upwards of 330 or more Electoral College votes (270 needed to win). Dr. Sabato also has yet to miss a call over an equal number of decades to those of Stu Rothenberg.

 

Nobody is perfect and this is a risky business to predict or project. But given the reality that Donald Trump has to prove the two of 'em wrong, each of 'em knows that the mountain is very high before him.

 

(Honorable mention to the relative newcomer Nate Silver.)

 

Trump Kaput.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Publicus
Typo

[Ulysses G.]

59 minutes ago, Chicog said:

Similary, when Clinton does give a clear answer, his response will probably veer from Benghazi to emails to Bill getting a BJ off an intern.

 

But the moderator(s) will need to be on the ball to keep them both on time. Trump would like nothing more than a slanging match with them both talking over each other. That would be playing into his hands.

 

 

 

Correct and the moderators will do everything they can to favor Hillary when they design the questions. However, I'm not sure that they can keep him on the straight and narrow. The only chance he has is to rip her to pieces and he is pretty good at that.

[Chicog]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Correct and the moderators will do everything they can to favor Hillary when they design the questions. However, I'm not sure that they can keep him on the straight and narrow. The only chance he has is to rip her to pieces and he is pretty good at that.

 

What rubbish.

Mind you the same accusations were levelled at Megyn Kelly for daring to remind Trump that he's a boorish woman hater, which he subsequently confirmed with his crass "bleeding from wherever" comment.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

51 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

What rubbish.

 

 

 

You will have to be more specific. Are you claiming that the moderators will not tailor the questions to make them hard for Trump to answer or that he will not rip her to pieces if given the chance?

 

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Ulysses G.