We don't elect presidents via a national poll. Latest RCP Electoral map.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Clinton needs another 43 votes out the battleground states, Trump needs 127. This isn't really different than before.
I think the electoral map is still mostly running on polling data from two months ago and in some cases from 2 years ago.
Polls showing Trump closing the gap or even being ahead in some polls shouldn't be a surprise. It was bound to happen after he became the presumptive nominee. We're not even into the general election campaign yet so as I've said before, these polls don't mean much right now. Trump is still struggling on the electoral map, but that could change as well.Trump's tax returns "mysteriously" show up on a table in the West Wing just outside of the press briefing room. With enough copies for each reporter.
I wonder what the October surprise will be?
Right now the electoral map is highly inaccurate
Trump's tax returns "mysteriously" show up on a table in the West Wing just outside of the press briefing room. With enough copies for each reporter.No, that can't be right. There's not a "smudge of corruption" in this administration.
Oops. That darn IRS. Must be a mid-level management glitch.
Really? Which one of these states is NOT a solid Democrat win? This is Clinton's 227 head start. This why she only needs Ohio and Pennsylvania to win. This is why, after the euphoria of winning the nomination wears off, Republicans will be faced with the ugly reality that they have once again chosen a candidate that is a loser.I think Trump can actually win Maine and New Mexico and while not likely, maybe Wisconsin if he plays his cards right. Though after the primary debacle maybe not. Either way, I agree that Clinton has a solid lead already in the general election but again, we're so far out.
California (55)
New York (29)
Massachusetts (11)
Vermont (3)
Rhode Island (4)
Maryland (10)
DC (3)
Hawaii (4)
Delaware (3)
Illinois (20)
Maine (3)
Washington (12)
Connecticut (7)
Maine CD2 (1)
Michigan (16)
Minnesota (10)
New Jersey (14)
New Mexico (5)
Oregon (7)
Wisconsin (10)
Really? Which one of these states is NOT a solid Democrat win? This is Clinton's 227 head start. This why she only needs Ohio and Pennsylvania to win. This is why, after the euphoria of winning the nomination wears off, Republicans will be faced with the ugly reality that they have once again chosen a candidate that is a loser.
California (55)
New York (29)
Massachusetts (11)
Vermont (3)
Rhode Island (4)
Maryland (10)
DC (3)
Hawaii (4)
Delaware (3)
Illinois (20)
Maine (3)
Washington (12)
Connecticut (7)
Maine CD2 (1)
Michigan (16)
Minnesota (10)
New Jersey (14)
New Mexico (5)
Oregon (7)
Wisconsin (10)
I think Trump can actually win Maine and New Mexico and while not likely, maybe Wisconsin if he plays his cards right. Though after the primary debacle maybe not. Either way, I agree that Clinton has a solid lead already in the general election but again, we're so far out.
The last time Wisconsin went Republican was 1984 although it did get close in 2000 and 2004.I think Bush was a far better candidate in terms of conservative ideals and principles but Trump may be able to win these states given the angry vote he's been able to tap into. I'm not saying he will win those states, I'm saying I think he has a chance to.
For New Mexico, it was 1988 but again close in 2000 and 2004.
In Maine, it was 1988 and it hasn't been less than a 5% spread since.
Do you think Trump is a better or worse candidate than Bush was? All three of these states that you named have voted blue since Reagan was president. What is going to happen to change that?
As in flying, hope is not a strategy.
Six months out, the conventions haven't happened yet. Trying to claim the above is locked up is down right foolish at this time frame.
These aren't wild guesses. They're based on polling, which was the topic when you started this thread. Some of those polls include past presidential elections. You tell me that you think Wisconsin is going to change? That Pennsylvania is going to move 5 percentage points to the right?
I agree that things can change. I don't see it happening, Trump is not that kind of candidate.
The process used by Republicans to choose a candidate is broken.
I think Bush was a far better candidate in terms of conservative ideals and principles but Trump may be able to win these states given the angry vote he's been able to tap into. I'm not saying he will win those states, I'm saying I think he has a chance to.
Just your opinion based upon your bias. Opinions are like assholes, some are bigger than others.
Sure. And he has a chance to win California too, but not a very good one. Trump needs about about a 6 percentage point shift to eek out a victory. IF he can do that, then he will win Florida, which is the tipping point state right now.I agree. I'd argue that since we haven't entered the official general election campaign yet there's still a lot that can happen. If Hillary is indicted, or even if the FBI publicly releases that they've made the recommendation that she be indicted, that could shift things quite a bit. There's a lot that can happen over the summer to sway this.
It's not impossible But it's very unlikely for a candidate to swell 6 points above their spring high. Trump is at his high point right now. The last one to do it was Reagan in 1980...thanks to the Iranian hostage crisis.
These aren't wild guesses. They're based on polling, which was the topic when you started this thread. Some of those polls include past presidential elections. You tell me that you think Wisconsin is going to change? That Pennsylvania is going to move 5 percentage points to the right?Well, all the anti-trumpers are saying that Trump is too liberal. If that is the case, then PA. Doesn't have to move to the right because Trump is closer to the left.
I agree that things can change. I don't see it happening, Trump is not that kind of candidate.I have been hearing for a year that Trump will never win the GOP nomination because he will be stuck at around 30% of the GOP base.
The process used by Republicans to choose a candidate is broken.I can't argue with that.
Well, all the anti-trumpers are saying that Trump is too liberal. If that is the case, then PA. Doesn't have to move to the right because Trump is closer to the left.This is why I think Trump has a shot at winning states that Bush, McCain and Romney didn't. Trump has more appeal to independents and possibly even some Democrats (think the old "Blue Dog Democrats" that have been run out) than the others did. I'm not sure this is a good thing unless your only concern is a candidate with an "R" next to his name getting the White House.
This is why I think Trump has a shot at winning states that Bush, McCain and Romney didn't. Trump has more appeal to independents and possibly even some Democrats (think the old "Blue Dog Democrats" that have been run out) than the others did. I'm not sure this is a good thing unless your only concern is a candidate with an "R" next to his name getting the White House.My concern is NOT getting a socialist President that has already declared that they would like to jettison the 2nd Amendment and that we KNOW will appoint liberal SC Justices and will further empower the Federal Government at the expense of States. Regardless of the fears of some over Trump, he would be nowhere near as damaging to the country as any of the Ds.
I think Bush was a far better candidate in terms of conservative ideals and principles but Trump may be able to win these states given the angry vote he's been able to tap into. I'm not saying he will win those states, I'm saying I think he has a chance to.
Bush said the right thing then became a fiscal liberal in office. Trump may have wider appeal in some of those states. Who knows.He probably does have a wider appeal in many states because he's a populist. What happens if he becomes an actual liberal in office, instead of a fiscal liberal?
He probably does have a wider appeal in many states because he's a populist. What happens if he becomes an actual liberal in office, instead of a fiscal liberal?
He probably does have a wider appeal in many states because he's a populist. What happens if he becomes an actual liberal in office, instead of a fiscal liberal?At least with Trump the question is "What happens if . . ."
At least with Trump the question is "What happens if . . ."Do you not find it sad and concerning that we're at the point where we are having to have the discussion of "what if" a "Republican" nominee does something liberal?
With Hillary, the question is "What happens when . . . "
Do you not find it sad and concerning that we're at the point where we are having to have the discussion of "what if" a "Republican" nominee does something liberal?
Do you not find it sad and concerning that we're at the point where we are having to have the discussion of "what if" a "Republican" nominee does something liberal?Perhaps the sad part is that some people do ask the question, and panic about the presumed answer. I never expect that politicians will do everything they promise, and I am never disappointed. Trump is the first politician that has said that once the rubber meets the road, the plans may have to change. I call that honest. A very rare quality in a politician.
Like Bush 41 and Bush 43? Or like a candidate such as McCain? or Romney? or Jeb Bush? or ???Do you think Bush 41 or 43 were as bad as what Trump likely will be? At least they were actual Republicans even if they didn't get everything right. Nobody questioned whether or not either of those were Republicans. Trump is labeled as a Republican but until recently hasn't really shown many Republican tendencies.
Perhaps the sad part is that some people do ask the question, and panic about the presumed answer. I never expect that politicians will do everything they promise, and I am never disappointed. Trump is the first politician that has said that once the rubber meets the road, the plans may have to change. I call that honest. A very rare quality in a politician.I don't expect politicians to deliver on every promise either. I do expect them to pass some basic tests for the party they want to run for and Trump, until recently, really hasn't.
Do you think Bush 41 or 43 were as bad as what Trump likely will be?
At least they were actual Republicans even if they didn't get everything right. Nobody questioned whether or not either of those were Republicans. Trump is labeled as a Republican but until recently hasn't really shown many Republican tendencies.
If Hilary came out and said that she was suddenly pro-2A, would anybody believe her? No. So why believe Trump is when he's on record being for the assault weapons ban and on record for supporting President Obama after Sandy Hook? The same goes for several of his policy stances. He's saying things people like now and is being given a free pass on everything in his past.
We are continuing to try and justify and legitimize Trump when he doesn't pass basic Republican tests, let alone conservative tests and I don't understand it. I've said several times I think he'd be better than Hilary but I'm not sure by how much and I'm not convinced it'd be a lot.
You are falling into the same delusional mind set of the TDS crowd and making wild speculations.How? Because I genuinely don't think Trump is the right person for the job?
Again, you are falling into the same BS and the TDS mindset.
Nothing Trump says or does will ever satisfy the NeverTrump crowd or the TDS sufferers. But you would quickly back a career politician (republican) who gives teleprompter speeches with careful poll tested key words regardless of what he has actually done.I've already given Trump praise for several of his attempts to reach out to the conservative crowd. So you're clearly not referring to me. As for backing career politicians, you're wrong on that also, and now you're the one making assumptions. Just because I don't think Trump is the right guy doesn't mean I fall in line with the other Republicans. Believe it or not, it is possible to have my own views and opinions.
And yet you wonder why the GOP has failed.No, I fully understand why the GOP has failed. Where do you get this idea, out of everything I've posted, that I'm some sort of establishment guy?
And yet you still don't get why the RNC and the hard core conservative crowd have failed, repeatedly.
It wouldn't surprise me to see Trump win, even with the overwhelming fraud that will be committed by the democrat party.If he surrounds himself with smart people he should do alright. He already resurrected Reagan's economic team and put forth a decent list of potential SCOTUS nominees. As long as he recognizes that he needs help and then fills those positions with the right people, he will probably do alright.
The bad thing is that he hasn't a clue as to how to be president, any more than the walking crime spree in a Moa pants suit.
Regardless of whom he surrounds himself with, he's shown zero evidence that he listens to anyone but the voices in his own head.For a guy with an extensive business background, the fact that he chose to resurrect Reagan's economic team does speak a little to his willingness to reach out and surrounding himself with others, even if he does have knowledge in a particular area.
For a guy with an extensive business background, the fact that he chose to resurrect Reagan's economic team does speak a little to his willingness to reach out and surrounding himself with others, even if he does have knowledge in a particular area.Just because he hired a bunch of folks, I've seen zero evidence of him listening to them..he hired a campaign staff and shows no signs of listening to them either.
Heya, Lucifer, you haven't been posting the RCP average lately...why is that?Let's see, at the beginning of your graph, Clinton was at about 53. Now she's at about 44. Down 9
Here, I'll help you out:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClKI10jUgAIrHV1.jpg:large)
Let's see, at the beginning of your graph, Clinton was at about 53. Now she's at about 44. Down 9Notice the trend. Like
At the beginning, Trump was at 34. Now he's at 38. Up 4.
That is a 13 point shift with 6 points current difference.
Or are you saying that the last couple of weeks are all that matter?
Notice the trend. LikeUnless you want to cherry pick your data points, the trend, according to the graph, is up for Trump and down for Clinton. And now that Clinton has pretty much wrapped up the nomination, the real campaigning is about to get started.TrumpkinsLemmings off a cliff.
One or the other could be hit by flaming space debris. November is a long ways off.
The June 20-24 poll showed that 46.6 percent of likely American voters supported Clinton while 33.3 percent supported Trump. Another 20.1 percent said they would support neither candidate.
Trump had enjoyed a brief boost in support following the June 12 mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, as he doubled down on his pledge to ban Muslims from entering the country, cutting Clinton's lead to nine points.
But Trump's rise in popularity appeared to be only temporary, unlike his lasting surge among the Republican field last year after the attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino, California.
Clinton's 13.3 percentage point lead is about the same as she had before the Orlando attack.