• NBC battleground map: Clinton now has enough safe states to win, doesn't need any toss-up states
    54 replies, posted
[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] yes absolutely, if hillary went up against jill stein she'd still come out ontop because she's not really that much different than bernie and you're critically forgetting that the electoral college is winner take all ergo hillary just needs to come in 1st on the ballot which even with an enourmous upsurge in libertarian and green votes would still be pretty much guaranteed in heavy blue states and many of the swing states, even if she only wins by 5% on a split ballot she still wins the entire state the chances of a 3rd party winning a state without having held any local offices or state wide offices are so minuscule its not possible. the only time i ever see that happening is when a 3rd party already controls a significant portion of the local and state governmnet that they have the machinery to keep the republicans or democrats out, this happened in the 30s with the labor parties in the US but it hasn't happened since.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50890333]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.[/QUOTE] Fair point, she probably would not do all that badly provided she has prep time, but making Clinton debate third-parties instead of Trump still leads to a better average expected outcomes for Trump. Clinton vs. Trump would be a massacre. Clinton vs. Johnson has a chance that Hillary will fuck up and say something stupid (are we calling this "pulling a Trump" yet?), and lets Trump at least shut up and not say anything stupid in front of a camera for a bit. [QUOTE=Sableye;50890338]yes absolutely, if hillary went up against jill stein she'd still come out ontop because she's not really that much different than bernie [/QUOTE] Good point, she's already faced someone with similar politics, and come out ahead. There might be some ex-Bernie bros that jump ship from hearing about Stein, but I expect most of them have already heard of the Green Party and either left, or decided to stay. No real change from there. [QUOTE=Sableye;50890338]and you're critically forgetting that the electoral college is winner take all ergo hillary just needs to come in 1st on the ballot which even with an enourmous upsurge in libertarian and green votes would still be pretty much guaranteed in heavy blue states and many of the swing states, even if she only wins by 5% on a split ballot she still wins the entire state[/QUOTE] I did not neglect the FPTP nature of the electoral college... my whole theory hinged on what happens if nobody gets past the post. But on further thought, the third-parties do seem more likely to steal from Trump than Clinton, so overall they'll probably not turn blue states green, but rather turn red states yellow. And Clinton has a big enough lead that she can afford a few small states turning green, while Trump desperately needs every state he can get. [QUOTE=Sableye;50890338]the chances of a 3rd party winning a state without having held any local offices or state wide offices are so minuscule its not possible. the only time i ever see that happening is when a 3rd party already controls a significant portion of the local and state governmnet that they have the machinery to keep the republicans or democrats out, this happened in the 30s with the labor parties in the US but it hasn't happened since.[/QUOTE] Historically, you're correct, but conditions may be different enough that historical trends do not apply. A strong showing in a national debate would easily cause an influx of voters to third-parties. Combined with record-low approval ratings for both main-party candidates, that could swing some states yellow or green. And even though they'll never win this election, all they have to do is make it competitive enough that nobody gets a majority on election day.
wow that means we can stop covering the horse race three months early right?
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50890152]Imagine Johnson getting 15% and debating while Trump skips out.[/QUOTE] well trump is already making stupid excuses like the NFL thing, I honestly would not be surprised if he tried to avoid taking part
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50890445]Fair point, she probably would not do all that badly provided she has prep time, but making Clinton debate third-parties instead of Trump still leads to a better average expected outcomes for Trump. Clinton vs. Trump would be a massacre. Clinton vs. Johnson has a chance that Hillary will fuck up and say something stupid (are we calling this "pulling a Trump" yet?), and lets Trump at least shut up and not say anything stupid in front of a camera for a bit.[/QUOTE] Ford literally said in a debate that Russia didn't dominate eastern Europe as détente was ending but still won 48% of the popular vote when he lost in 1976... There is nothing within any realistic scenario that Clinton could say to have this effect.
"but all of my friends are voting trump!"
[QUOTE=Bobie;50890748]"but all of my friends are voting trump!"[/QUOTE] I did see this poll that showed that around 35% of Trump supporters knew no-one supporting Clinton and around 45% of Clinton supporters knew no-one supporting Trump. This is actually even worse with Clinton supporters.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;50889097]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[/QUOTE] what if you won the presidency by out killing your opponent
[QUOTE=J!NX;50890832]what if you won the presidency by out killing your opponent[/QUOTE] Ivory Coast briefly tried it, wouldn't recommend
I'm sure that absolutely nothing will change in the next three months.
[QUOTE=Chonch;50891830]I'm sure that absolutely nothing will change in the next three months.[/QUOTE] Don't worry, things will. Texas will become a battleground state too and Trump will do so poorly Johnson will be Clinton's biggest challenger.
The most recent poll for Indiana seems to indicate a tie. For those of you unfamiliar with Pence, he's pretty hated here and he's almost done more to revitalize the Democrats here than he has to help the Republicans with his countless ineptitudes.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50890152]Imagine Johnson getting 15% and debating while Trump skips out.[/QUOTE] Don't be a cock tease now
[QUOTE=Chonch;50891830]I'm sure that absolutely nothing will change in the next three months.[/QUOTE] ballots start being cast as early as october in many states and early voting usually reflects a snapshot of the time it was cast, thats how rubio was still picking up 3-5% of the primary votes even though he was out of running
[QUOTE=Chonch;50891830]I'm sure that absolutely nothing will change in the next three months.[/QUOTE] Normally a losing candidate, could make a comeback [B]If he buckled down and listened to advisers[/B], The Bolded part is why I doubt Trump could make a comeback.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50889639]"But the debates" says incredibly nervous Trump supporter for the seventh time this year[/QUOTE] The debates are the only thing that would save Trump's campaign for presidency. That's only thing he has to do, outperform Hillary in debates. But he's so far refusing to attend debates until [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1530114"]his unreasonable conditions[/URL] are met. And if he were to be crushed in a debate by Clinton? Well, may as well crown Hillary by that point, because there's no way up for Trump anymore then.
What's this about Nuclear, Biological, Chemical battles?
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;50893592]The debates are the only thing that would save Trump's campaign for presidency. That's only thing he has to do, outperform Hillary in debates. But he's so far refusing to attend debates until [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1530114"]his unreasonable conditions[/URL] are met. And if he were to be crushed in a debate by Clinton? Well, may as well crown Hillary by that point, because there's no way up for Trump anymore then.[/QUOTE] The reason I doubt that Trump will skip the debates is that it's pretty much the only chance he has to make a difference and because he has already performed past all expectations in the primary debates. There's no way crushing his opponents didn't appeal to his ego. Personally, I hope that he does participate in the debates and that the GOP keeps supporting him all the way. When he loses, he'll lose fair and square, and his only excuse will be that it was rigged or something. He needs to be slaughtered badly enough so that he is permanently out of politics, and anyone who tries something akin to his antics will become a laughing stock as a result. Imagine what a blow to the alt/far-right a humiliated Trump would be.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50891858]Don't worry, things will. Texas will become a battleground state too and Trump will do so poorly Johnson will be Clinton's biggest challenger.[/QUOTE] I thought you were JOKING!? Texas DT 44% Clinton 38% [URL="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/08/trump-leads-by-only-6-in-texas.html"]Poll[/URL]
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50895261]I thought you were JOKING!? Texas DT 44% Clinton 38% [URL="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/08/trump-leads-by-only-6-in-texas.html"]Poll[/URL][/QUOTE] "We continue to find that Trump voters overwhelmingly buy into his preemptive claims about the election being rigged. Just 19% of Trump voters grant that if Clinton wins the election it will be because she got more votes, while 71% say that it will just be because the election was rigged. More specifically 40% of Trump voters think that ACORN, which hasn't existed in years, will steal the election for Clinton to only 20% who don't think it will, and only 20% who are unsure." holy shit.
I'm so proud that my home state of Georgia now has enough liberal-minded people to be considered a toss-up state
[QUOTE=TheHydra;50895275]"We continue to find that Trump voters overwhelmingly buy into his preemptive claims about the election being rigged. Just 19% of Trump voters grant that if Clinton wins the election it will be because she got more votes, while 71% say that it will just be because the election was rigged. More specifically 40% of Trump voters think that ACORN, which hasn't existed in years, will steal the election for Clinton to only 20% who don't think it will, and only 20% who are unsure." holy shit.[/QUOTE] The result of people left and right discrediting (by this, I don't mean legitimate criticism, I mean the utter hysteria and conspiracy theories and 'media control' and so on) of all government and the '''establishment''' for years, especially in America but in the West in general.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;50895275]while 71% say that it will just be because the election was rigged. [/QUOTE] I legitimately thought that the possibility of violence in the wake of a Trump loss was an exaggeration, but this kind of shit makes me reconsider. A massive part of the population doubting the validity of the electoral process is absolutely dangerous for democracy. Stay safe, guys.
[QUOTE=phaedon;50895464]I legitimately thought that the possibility of violence in the wake of a Trump loss was an exaggeration, but this kind of shit makes me reconsider. A massive part of the population doubting the validity of the electoral process is absolutely dangerous for democracy. Stay safe, guys.[/QUOTE] The only reason they are believing it will be rigged is because Trump has told them that on numerous occasions. It seems Trump does a very good job of attracting sore losers like himself.
[QUOTE=sb27;50897837]The only reason they are believing it will be rigged is because Trump has told them that on numerous occasions. It seems Trump does a very good job of attracting sore losers like himself.[/QUOTE] I'll say it again, most Trump supporters would stop breathing if Trump told them it was bad. I am surprised that TEXAS is close to becoming a battleground state. This election is both interesting, and horrifying.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.