• NBC battleground map: Clinton now has enough safe states to win, doesn't need any toss-up states
    54 replies, posted
[t]http://i.imgur.com/uhLnw2al.jpg[/t] [url]http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/clinton-surges-past-270-electoral-votes-nbc-news-battleground-map-n630851[/url] [quote]After releasing our seven battleground-state polls last week -- and seeing several other state surveys -- we've update our NBC battleground map. The states in Hillary Clinton's column now add up to 288 electoral votes, which exceeds the 270 needed to win the presidency. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is at 174 electoral votes, and an additional 76 are in the Tossup category. Our last map, back in July, showed Clinton with a 255-190 advantage -- so Clinton's tally has gone up since the conventions, while Trump's has declined.[/quote] Put another way, if Trump went all-out and managed to sweep every single toss-up state, he would just about be able to narrowly lose the election
GG, Drumpf. GG. Please dont run again.
the "battleground" in the title caused me to have a real brainfart and for a second i thought this was something about the Clintons having their own nuclear, biological and chemical weapons
How long has it been since a candidate has been THIS far ahead this long before the actual election?
The idea of the Democrats making headway into the Deep South and taking a few states is mindboggling. The GOP fucked up so bad this election.
So, do we celebrate or cry now?
This is the best outcome of the election at this point.
This would be a good election to vote for yourself as a write-in just so you could say you've run for president once in your life.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;50889194]How long has it been since a candidate has been THIS far ahead this long before the actual election?[/QUOTE] if the polls are right and Trump gets less than 36.5% of the vote, he'll be the worst-performing nominee since John Davis (D) in 1924. so about 92 years ago
Can't wait to be hearing about how crooked shillary totes rigged the election
Unless there's some huge October Surprise or something similar, it seems that Clinton has this in the bag. What I'd hope to see (but I don't think it'll happen) is Johnson getting a higher percentage of the popular vote than Trump. That would really underline how ridiculous this election is. That's a very out-there possibility however. There will be no rest for the wicked however from both sides. The Democrats are not going to sit back and are going to keep going, and the Republicans... well, they're going to have to campaign for their Senate and House seats. :V
"But the debates" says incredibly nervous Trump supporter for the seventh time this year
[QUOTE=The Rifleman;50889398]This is the best outcome of the election at this point.[/QUOTE] I would have been annoyed because she's corrupt to the core, but then I saw that she changed her stance on marijuana and now I'm kinda fine with her winning. [url]http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-marijuana/[/url] All I care about is weed. If she's fine with it, then all is well. Would have preferred recreational pot but neither one's doing it except Johnson.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50889584]Unless there's some huge October Surprise or something similar, it seems that Clinton has this in the bag. What I'd hope to see (but I don't think it'll happen) is Johnson getting a higher percentage of the popular vote than Trump. That would really underline how ridiculous this election is. That's a very out-there possibility however. There will be no rest for the wicked however from both sides. The Democrats are not going to sit back and are going to keep going, and the Republicans... well, they're going to have to campaign for their Senate and House seats. :V[/QUOTE] That October Suprise would have to be something we never seen before and against Clinton, Trump's that bad of a candidate.
Good to see NC leaning Democrat. See ya later Pat McCroney
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50889659]I would have been annoyed because she's corrupt to the core, but then I saw that she changed her stance on marijuana and now I'm kinda fine with her winning. [url]http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-marijuana/[/url] All I care about is weed. If she's fine with it, then all is well. Would have preferred recreational pot but neither one's doing it except Johnson.[/QUOTE] Of all the single issue voters, why that single issue :v:
[QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;50889373]So, do we celebrate or cry now?[/QUOTE] Both.
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50889659]I would have been annoyed because she's corrupt to the core, but then I saw that she changed her stance on marijuana and now I'm kinda fine with her winning. [url]http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-marijuana/[/url] All I care about is weed. If she's fine with it, then all is well. Would have preferred recreational pot but neither one's doing it except Johnson.[/QUOTE] That's pretty pathetic to be honest.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50889726]Of all the single issue voters, why that single issue :v:[/QUOTE] Well I'm not even voting tbf but you can't say no to decriminalization. It's fucking bullshit how many times me and my bros have been pulled over for "weed smell" on our cars when we did nothing.
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50889760]Well I'm not even voting tbf but you can't say no to decriminalization. It's fucking bullshit how many times me and my bros have been pulled over for "weed smell" on our cars when we did nothing.[/QUOTE] If you did nothing and they pulled you over for that, I don't think that's why they pulled you over. Odds are it was just an excuse. I mean, there's the economy you could worry about. Security issues. I don't want to imply legalization is a bad thing or something not to strive for, but to have it not only the priority issue but the only issue to care about in an election, let alone a presidential one, seems a bit odd.
I wonder at this point if a good first debate for Trump will even make a big enough change for this election like it did for Romney in 2012.
[QUOTE=Charades;50889957]I wonder at this point if a good first debate for Trump will even make a big enough change for this election like it did for Romney in 2012.[/QUOTE] He would have to utterly OBLITERATE her, even worse than Carson got flattened in the debates which simply won't happen.
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50889760]Well I'm not even voting tbf but you can't say no to decriminalization. It's fucking bullshit how many times me and my bros have been pulled over for "weed smell" on our cars when we did nothing.[/QUOTE] I'm pro legalization well, and a stance in favor of recreational marijuana legalization is a positive mark for a candidate imo, but this such a odd choice for a "single issue" vote when stacked against everything else that's currently under debate.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50889584]Unless there's some huge October Surprise or something similar, it seems that Clinton has this in the bag. What I'd hope to see (but I don't think it'll happen) is Johnson getting a higher percentage of the popular vote than Trump. That would really underline how ridiculous this election is. That's a very out-there possibility however. There will be no rest for the wicked however from both sides. The Democrats are not going to sit back and are going to keep going, and the Republicans... well, they're going to have to campaign for their Senate and House seats. :V[/QUOTE] Unless Russia got something particularly damning in the DNC hacks, I really can't imagine there's anything daming about the Clintons that the Republicans wouldn't have found at this point, considering the number of investigate committees and multiple decades attacking them. And even if there is something bad, that story has to compete with whatever retarded thing Trump said when he opened his mouth that day. There's been more than a few bad stories for Clinton that got no traction because they were overshadowed by Trump saying something irresponsible that day.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50889639]"But the debates" says incredibly nervous Trump supporter for the seventh time this year[/QUOTE] Imagine Johnson getting 15% and debating while Trump skips out.
[QUOTE=Maegord;50890112]Unless Russia got something particularly damning in the DNC hacks, I really can't imagine there's anything daming about the Clintons that the Republicans wouldn't have found at this point, considering the number of investigate committees and multiple decades attacking them. And even if there is something bad, that story has to compete with whatever retarded thing Trump said when he opened his mouth that day. There's been more than a few bad stories for Clinton that got no traction because they were overshadowed by Trump saying something irresponsible that day.[/QUOTE] Honestly, it's very likely that if there is an October Surprise that damns Clinton, Trump will probably come out the same day and either deny the Holocaust or starts killing random people in the streets like he said he could. EDIT: [QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50890152]Imagine Johnson getting 15% and debating while Trump skips out.[/QUOTE] Oh man, that would be perfect. I could see a lot of Trump supporters being converted to Johnson in those debates. It'd be absolutely hilarious, even if I don't like Johnson myself.
For people talking about October Suprises... I just found an article back in 2014 where the people responsible for creating the stories admitted, [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/october-surprise-politics_n_5548712.html"]they are extremely overhyped[/URL].
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50890152]Imagine Johnson getting 15% and debating while Trump skips out.[/QUOTE] That made me think of a crazy scenario: Trump skips the debates, as he's been threatening to To keep the debates going (gotta get that ad revenue), the networks drop the requirement down to at least let the Libertarians in, maybe the Greens Johnson and maybe Stein spend an hour brutally going after Clinton; Johnson can appeal to conservative-leaning non-Republicans while Stein can debate policy and maybe catch the liberal voters who dislike Clinton Hillary's support drops sharply, Trump's drops only a little bit more for skipping completely Third parties spike but not up to the 40% level Trump is at Overall tighter race, the higher third-parties makes it likely no candidate will reach 270 and the election goes to the House Heavily-Republican House elects Trump Does anyone see a flaw in that scenario? This seems impossibly intelligent for Trump's campaign to be doing deliberately - more likely that I'm missing something than that Trump actually came up with a plan like this.
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;50889486]This would be a good election to vote for yourself as a write-in just so you could say you've run for president once in your life.[/QUOTE] No, seriously do not do this. Getting complacent at this point is the worst possible idea. Democrats have a history of losing elections because of low turnout or failing to unite their constituencies. Take your vote seriously and DO NOT write yourself in just for fun, or even worse, stay home on voting day.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50890289]That made me think of a crazy scenario: Trump skips the debates, as he's been threatening to To keep the debates going (gotta get that ad revenue), the networks drop the requirement down to at least let the Libertarians in, maybe the Greens Johnson and maybe Stein spend an hour brutally going after Clinton; Johnson can appeal to conservative-leaning non-Republicans while Stein can debate policy and maybe catch the liberal voters who dislike Clinton Hillary's support drops sharply, Trump's drops only a little bit more for skipping completely Third parties spike but not up to the 40% level Trump is at Overall tighter race, the higher third-parties makes it likely no candidate will reach 270 and the election goes to the House Heavily-Republican House elects Trump Does anyone see a flaw in that scenario? This seems impossibly intelligent for Trump's campaign to be doing deliberately - more likely that I'm missing something than that Trump actually came up with a plan like this.[/QUOTE] The flaw is that you're assuming Clinton won't be able to hold her own against Johnson or Stein. If anything, the one who would be seriously compromised in any debate is Trump. Clinton and I assume Johnson and Stein are all experienced debators. Trump's previous 'debates' can't be considered real debates at all. He wouldn't be able to outshout others in these type of debates.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.