Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)

[Greg Davidson]

Hillary Clinton will be the first Presidential candidate to get more than 70 million votes.

That not risky enough for you? Well, how about the following: 

I predict that she will earn a higher percentage of the vote than any other non-incumbent candidate has earned in the past 60 years except for Obama (and that includes Reagan with 50.75% of the vote in 1980).

Let's hear all of your predictions

[AI Wessex]

Since I have never understood why Trump has ever gotten any serious attention at all, I'm not brave enough to predict the outcome any longer.  But Clinton will win and it be an historic victory.  What is even harder to predict is how his rabid support base will react.

[D.W.]

I predict Hillary will win.  However I think it is going to be FAR closer than a lot of people think.  I don't think we'll be turning in early election night secure in the results.

[TheDeamon]

I predict Hillary will win.  However I think it is going to be FAR closer than a lot of people think.  I don't think we'll be turning in early election night secure in the results.

I think non-battleground states are likely to see either record low voter turnouts, or record levels of third party voting going on.

Even some of the battleground states may see very low turnout. This is a race between two of the least popular candidates seen in modern polling. That doesn't tend to motivate people to go out and vote.

To go a step further, the protest vote in some areas, paired with low/poor voter turnouts could cause some other amusing results happening. Such as third party candidates carrying entire precincts or counties. I doubt it will go so far as to have a 3rd party candidate get any electoral votes, but we'll see soon enough.

Edit to add: probable electoral landslide for Hillary. However, the popular vote will be under 50% and the total vote count she has will be lowest vote count seen for a Presidental (winning) candidate in decades. Possibly going so far that as far as vote tallies go, more people voted for Romney in 2012, or McCain in 2008 than vote for Hillary in 2016.

[Fenring]

My prediction: Hillary wins, not by landslide. I can't recall from the past: Is there an inaugural even swearing in the new President where the general public can attend to witness the festivities? If so I predict record low turnout for that event. I'll wait for another thread to make predictions about things that will happen during her Presidency.

[AI Wessex]

I predict Hillary will win.  However I think it is going to be FAR closer than a lot of people think.  I don't think we'll be turning in early election night secure in the results.

Not after Ryan's statement that was effectively a disavowal of Trump.

[TheDeamon]

Low voter turnouts can cause weird things to happen. Trump also has a dedicated core of support that won't be easily deterred, even by recent events. So while the preference race favors Hillary, that doesn't mean she'll handily carry off the "unassed to vote" category. I don't find the outcome to be probable IMO, but it is possible.

[TheDeamon]

My prediction: Hillary wins, not by landslide. I can't recall from the past: Is there an inaugural even swearing in the new President where the general public can attend to witness the festivities? If so I predict record low turnout for that event. I'll wait for another thread to make predictions about things that will happen during her Presidency.

I don't see her breaking 50% but I can see her finishing several points ahead of Trump, which for U.S. Presidential races is a comparative landslide. An "electoral landslide" that is grossly disproportionate to the margin by which she actually wins is also very possible to have happen due to the nature of the Electoral College. (Being winner take all on a state by state basis; she doesn't need majority support, she just needs the largest plurality in most states)

[AI Wessex]

True, Bill Clinton received 43% of the popular vote in 1992.  The turnout was 55% that year, which means that Clinton won the election with 23% of the eligible voters backing him.  If that seems shocking, recall that the American revolution was supported by about the same percentage of colonists.

[TheDrake]

To go a step further, the protest vote in some areas, paired with low/poor voter turnouts could cause some other amusing results happening. Such as third party candidates carrying entire precincts or counties. I doubt it will go so far as to have a 3rd party candidate get any electoral votes, but we'll see soon enough.

It is plausible that New Mexico could go for Johnson. More farfetched might be Utah based on recent events and Mormon leadership denouncing Trump.

I also expect Johnson to have the largest popular vote for a third party since Ross Perot, but not surpassing him. That's why they have locked 3rd party candidates out of debates since 2000.

[NobleHunter]

I have a sneaking suspicion the results of this election will be depressingly average. Except maybe a lower turnout. People will tend to line up behind their favorite team or stay home.

Is there any history of civil unrest following elections?  I was contemplating making a prediction about it but it just seems so un-American. But I don't know if they're actually a thing or not even if there seems to be some of the ingredients for it on both sides.

[TheDeamon]

Lincoln.

Otherwise odds are a Trump win == riots.

[AI Wessex]

There could also be riots when Trump loses. I think that's more likely given the ferocity of his supporters and the apparent lack of enthusiasm among hers.

[AI Wessex]

Also, I think Trump's meltdown will boost democratic voters because it makes them more confident that they could end up controlling the Senate. They might even feel energized enough to think they could take the House.   Go team!

[Wayward Son]

It is plausible that New Mexico could go for Johnson. More farfetched might be Utah based on recent events and Mormon leadership denouncing Trump.

I also expect Johnson to have the largest popular vote for a third party since Ross Perot, but not surpassing him. That's why they have locked 3rd party candidates out of debates since 2000.

Plausible, but highly unlikely at this time.  New Mexico currently polls Johnson at about 16%, and Utah at only 12.6%.   While the backlash from the latest tape hasn't been fully felt yet in the polls, I doubt it will affect them that much.  (After all, is anyone truly surprised by it? )

But he will doubtlessly have the largest popular vote for a third party candidate since Ross Perot's 19% back in '92, although, as you said, he won't surpass him, and still doesn't stand a chance.  Currently he is polling at 7%.  It will probably look like he "stole" the election from Trump (I, too, think it will be fairly close as far as the popular vote), but I'm pretty sure that such voters wouldn't have voted for Trump even if Johnson wasn't on the ticket.  In fact, Johnson will probably save the Republican down-ticket candidates by drawing voters to the polls who would otherwise have sat it out.

[Seriati]

Hillary Clinton wins by enough that her supporters are convinced they have a mandate (rather than winning because their candidate ended up being hated slightly less than the least electable person put up by a major party (unless you want to argue about Kerry, for completely different reasons)).  She either convinces herself it's her destiny to rule, or has no choice but to go along with it because her supporters believe they have a mandate, and overextends her policies, causing an even worse mid term result than Obama got, and possibly even ending up a one termer.

Of course, all predictions guaranteed 100% wrong.

[DonaldD]

CVOTER and Rasmussen have Clinton up on Trump by 5 or more percentage points nationally (likely voters), which, given the house effects of those two Trump-leaning pollsters' methodologies, translates to upwards of a 7% margin as of the past week.

Those are pretty huge numbers to overcome in less than one month - they might even put Arizona in play for Clinton.

Define "landslide"...

The House will go majority Democrat.  The Senate will likely remain Republican, though closely split.

[Wayward Son]

I kinda doubt the House will go Democrat and the Senate remains Republican controlled.  Because of gerrymandering and the way those who are like-minded (politically) tend to congregate together, most House districts are pretty safe.  It would take a real political tidal wave to wrest the House from the Republicans this election, and then the Senate would be swept-away, too.

So while there is a better than 50/50 chance the Senate will go Demcrat, I doubt the House will, too.

[scifibum]

You can all put some money on these predictions if you want:

https://www.predictit.org/

(Legal* gambling loophole!)

*Don't take legal advice from 'bums.

[DonaldD]

Oops - House = Senate / Senate = House.

[AI Wessex]

We figured .  The media may favor one candidate (editorially, except for FOX who favor them in the news coverage, too) but their stockholders love money.  They won't let the notion that it is a horserace die until it absolutely looks stupid to keep flogging it.  When that day comes they will put equal energy into flogging the historic significance of the landslide, and then start stoking stories about what might (or might not) come next.  Make no mistake about it, protests, arrests, crimes and even a mob riot is good for business.

[Wayward Son]

Ah, yes, rule #34: War is good for business.

[Seriati]

We figured .  The media may favor one candidate (editorially, except for FOX who favor them in the news coverage, too) but their stockholders love money.

Not sure I understand the "exception".  The media has been openly in favor of Clinton in coverage at all levels.  The wikileak stuff on the media coordinating with the Clinton campaign makes this pretty much unarguable at this point.  Even if you couldn't read the front page of the NY Times, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS and find negative "article" after negative "article" about Trump and positive ones about Hillary. 

[Gaoics79]

To be fair Seriati, the guy's basically a runaway garbage fire.

The media is biased against Trump, but at this point that bias has become incidental.

[AI Wessex]

Right, how come we never heard positive stories about Ebola, only negative ones?  But, to be fair we did hear a lot of negative stories about Obama's response to it, not all that many positive ones.

[Seriati]

To be fair Seriati, the guy's basically a runaway garbage fire.

Never said otherwise of course.

The media is biased against Trump, but at this point that bias has become incidental.

Disagree.  You have to ask yourself why he's the candidate at all, it's because the media went out of its way to give credence to his attacks and insults against Republicans.  And then why is he so ineffective against a candidate, Hillary, who is objectively worse than the primary opponents he faced, again because the media has gone out of its way to make it so.

Things often look inevitable after an effective propaganda campaign has been run, propaganda works.  To decide an American election you need to influence what?  Less than one in 100 people.  Think about everyone you know, do you not know anyone who can be influenced by surface arguments, emotional arguments and gotcha moments.  This campaign has literally been a process of elimination, find a horrible issue, broadcast it widely and eliminate a swatch of people who otherwise would have voted for a candidate, if you actually get them to switch sides they count double.

[AI Wessex]

To be fair Seriati, the guy's basically a runaway garbage fire.

Never said otherwise of course.

The media is biased against Trump, but at this point that bias has become incidental.

Disagree.  You have to ask yourself why he's the candidate at all, it's because the media went out of its way to give credence to his attacks and insults against Republicans.  And then why is he so ineffective against a candidate, Hillary, who is objectively worse than the primary opponents he faced, again because the media has gone out of its way to make it so.

Things often look inevitable after an effective propaganda campaign has been run, propaganda works.  To decide an American election you need to influence what?  Less than one in 100 people.  Think about everyone you know, do you not know anyone who can be influenced by surface arguments, emotional arguments and gotcha moments.  This campaign has literally been a process of elimination, find a horrible issue, broadcast it widely and eliminate a swatch of people who otherwise would have voted for a candidate, if you actually get them to switch sides they count double.

I blame a constant din of anger from conservative media and the Republican Party directed toward government generally and Democrats specifically.  Donald Trump is a natural culmination of two decades of that militancy to delegitimize anything and anyone that doesn't share their views.  Obama's election,  and worse his reelection, finally put them over the edge. It's gotten so bad that Republicans can't even find a candidate worthy of the office, and when they do find someone even marginally credible, like Bush or Kasick, they listen to what the Garbageman says about them instead of their own words. So I would say that any conservative or Republican who didn't stop Trump is to blame, not the media that thrives on sending camera crews to murder scenes and train wrecks.

[Seriati]

I blame a constant din of anger from conservative media and the Republican Party directed toward government generally and Democrats specifically.

By "conservative media" you must mean Fox News, why not just say that then.  The liberal media (or main stream media, and pretty much all of Hollywood) is in the tank for your side and easily overwhelms any message you are concerned about. 

Plus, the biggest problem the Democrats and the Government has is not bad publicity its being an autocratic mess that believes the people can't be trusted to make their own decisions, and through intentional design has taken steps to make them less educated and more dependent on Government and the Democrats.  Bad policy, not bad publicity is your issue, not a shock to see why you think better propaganda is the answer though.

Donald Trump is a natural culmination of two decades of that militancy to delegitimize anything and anyone that doesn't share their views.

I agree, the left media deliberately supported Trump's campaign to try and delegitimize all those who don't share their views. 

Obama's election,  and worse his reelection, finally put them over the edge. It's gotten so bad that Republicans can't even find a candidate worthy of the office, and when they do find someone even marginally credible, like Bush or Kasick, they listen to what the Garbageman says about them instead of their own words. So I would say that any conservative or Republican who didn't stop Trump is to blame, not the media that thrives on sending camera crews to murder scenes and train wrecks.

The only part of this nonsense I agree with, is that Republicans have themselves to blame.  They didn't have to fall for the manipulation, they didn't have to choose to put  Trump up as the nominee just because they hate all politicians.  Face it though, the reason you believe all Republican politicians are evil and Democratic politicians are not has nothing to do with any objective difference between the two groups in how they act or how corrupt they are, its just a matter of falling for propaganda.

Or to put it another way, there is no way in hell you'd think a Republican with Hillary's background was fit for office.

[D.W.]

I'm with you on the over all media bias Seriati but I can't believe you can lay the problems with education at the feat of the Democrats.  That would have me laughing out loud if it wasn't so damn sad.

And to be fair to AI, the Democratic side has MUCH better propaganda.  Better branding and a better dispersal engine. 

[Seriati]

D.W., not sure where else to lay it, when, particularly on a local level, the Teacher's union is almost always the biggest reason Democratic candidates win and when virtually every University and College is dominated ideologically by the left.  How is that not control by the left?

I'll give you one issue to think about.  There's real evidence that minority students get better results from Charter schools, yet Democrats consistently vote against them, even though they are the party that supposedly cares about minorities.  Why is that?  It's because they are a direct threat to a powerful constituency - the teacher's unions - that is totally tied into the Democratic machine.  What's not to love from a Democrats point of view?  Massive government spending, maximum impact of seniority rather than merit, no real expectations for success or measurement of it, and no matter what outcome they get they benefit (ie they can claim they were the cause of every success story, and every failure story creates more voters beholden to them, not to mention the opportunity to push curriculum and thought to towards their favored ideas).

[DonaldD]

Arizona  is actually now leaning Clinton according to both fivethirtyeight and realclearpolitics.  Without a serious bounce back, "landslide" would be a guarantee.

[D.W.]

Well if you are criticising WHAT is taught in higher education (university/college level) that's different.  I can agree that it is "controlled by the left" at that level. 

Where you look at charter school and see a solution being held back by the Democrats I see one of the single largest threats to education we've faced in my lifetime.  As much as I come off as suspicious of politicians I DO NOT TRUST LOCAL GOVERNMENT either.  I want standardization and oversight of education.  If you want to get cynical about education, I would prefer not to see tax dollars go into our local flavor of madrassa, thanks.  And the last thing we need is further siphoning of already under funded public schools into businesses we cannot control.

While as a rule I don't like some of the bureaucracy of unions and am sympathetic to a lot of the criticism directed towards them, but I know several teachers.  They are universally, under paid and often under appreciated.  They have a reason to be hypersensitive and defensive.  They get screwed on the regular.  What's not to love?  The spending isn't NEAR massive enough.  The seniority issue I agree.  It's not hard to spot teachers who (no longer?) have any business teaching our kids.  The merit issue however is a trickier situation.  That could easily be a whole thread in and of itself.

FYI The ideal for me would be one giant (federal) pool of money dolled out on a per pupil basis with standardized education across the nation.  If affluent areas complained their children weren't getting enough, they'd have to chip in, not enough to bring up their local school but enough to raise the standard to all students.  I would also tax private school tuition in such a way that trends towards that decision actually worked as a net increase in the pool rather than a decrease.  If you want to take your kid out of the system you not only STILL pay "their share" into the pool but an additional amount on top of that. 

An untenable solution to be sure, but that's what Great Leader D.W. would enact.  If he didn't just mandate public schools for all. 

[AI Wessex]

By "conservative media" you must mean Fox News, why not just say that then.

Ha, FOX, Limbaugh, Drudge, Breitbart, PoliticalInsider, Townhall, ConservativeTribune, CNS, WND, Newsmax, Malkin, American Thinker, <whew> it's tiring to type so many names!  There are more, plenty more...

The only part of this nonsense I agree with, is that Republicans have themselves to blame.  They didn't have to fall for the manipulation, they didn't have to choose to put  Trump up as the nominee just because they hate all politicians.

Ah, the untrammeled integrity of the Right is raised, tainted only by their weakness to be enticed and seduced by the evil sinners on the Left.  They are guilty of falling for the big con, not for having any responsibility of their own.  Keep flogging that horse, it may still rise from the dead and carry you to victory.

[LetterRip]

OANN - one american news network is another major cable news network that makes Fox look liberal.

[D.W.]

Read (what I found to be) a good article on cracked today.  Explaining why Trump has the support he does.  It meanders a bit but makes a lot of good points about how the partisan divide is almost living in two entirely different Americas. 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

[Wayward Son]

AI's right, Seriati.  Just look at what the crowds at Trump rallies chant. 

"Jail Hillary."

That's not any message I've heard from the Left-Wing Media.

What Trump has been doing is parroting everything the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters, Ingrahams, etc. have been preaching for years.  He's the only one who has the guts to say it, straight out, because he's the only one who thinks he'll never be held responsible for saying it.

So he says that climate change isn't true; that immigrants are causing many, if not most, of our problems; that you can't trust a Mexican-heritage judge to try your case; that cutting taxes will cause a huge increase in the economy that will cover any tax cuts; that Hillary is the devil.  None of these things are preached by the Left-Wing Media.  Hell, they spend hours debunking these lies.

But they are preached by the Hewetts, O'Reilys, and Becks.

Republicans have fallen for the lies and manipulations, all right, but not from the Left.  They've fallen for it from their own wing.  They've listened to their own propaganda for so long, they believe it, hook, line and sinker.  And so when a half-wit demagogue comes along and starts repeating the propaganda loudly, boldly, with no fear, about a third of the Republicans flock to him, because he's saying what they already know.  What they've been taught.

Republicans have been kowtowing to their demagogues for a couple of decades now.  They've made their bed.  Now they can lie in it.  Roll in it.

I just hope the rest of us won't have to join them.

[AI Wessex]

Republicans have fallen for the lies and manipulations, all right, but not from the Left.  They've fallen for it from their own wing.  They've listened to their own propaganda for so long, they believe it, hook, line and sinker.  And so when a half-wit demagogue comes along and starts repeating the propaganda loudly, boldly, with no fear, about a third of the Republicans flock to him, because he's saying what they already know.  What they've been taught.

Republicans have been kowtowing to their demagogues for a couple of decades now.  They've made their bed.  Now they can lie in it.  Roll in it.

Truth!

[DonaldD]

It's not even like the Republicans didn't already know this about themselves after 2008, and even more so after 2012.  They went back, licked their wounds, analyzed their failings, and announced to the world that they would not be able to survive without reaching out to women, blacks, hispanics and immigrants in general.

Instead, the party plurality simply could not accept the analysis... and may not be able to do so in the future, since the plurality now espouses values that are anathema to the very people the party needs to survive.

[DonaldD]

So... question: Clinton's "basket of deplorables" remark would ordinarily be electoral suicide (unless she already knew that she had the election won); but instead of suicide, was it possibly a gambit intended to force more moderate Republicans to push back against Clinton's statement in the hope of immediate electoral benefit, but over the short-to-medium term, really inviting those moderates to further associate themselves with xenophobes in their midst, and prolonging the split between the minority but more activist xenophobes and the more moderate but less activist conservatives?

[Seriati]

By "conservative media" you must mean Fox News, why not just say that then.

Ha, FOX, Limbaugh, Drudge, Breitbart, PoliticalInsider, Townhall, ConservativeTribune, CNS, WND, Newsmax, Malkin, American Thinker, <whew> it's tiring to type so many names!  There are more, plenty more...

Wow that's a "murders' row".  Fox is the only major news source there, what channel can I find the rest on?

You think that is equivalent to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, MSNBC, CNBC, the New York Times...?  I've never heard of more than half of those.  I'll grant you Limbaugh is a conservative talking head, and so?  Drudge heard of that one and definitely conservative.  Heard of Breitbart and Newsmax and no idea if they are conservative or not.  Never been to the websites of any of the others.  When you consider there are second tier liberal news sites as well, I'm not seeing a reasonable basis for this claim you made.

The only part of this nonsense I agree with, is that Republicans have themselves to blame.  They didn't have to fall for the manipulation, they didn't have to choose to put  Trump up as the nominee just because they hate all politicians.

Ah, the untrammeled integrity of the Right is raised, tainted only by their weakness to be enticed and seduced by the evil sinners on the Left.  They are guilty of falling for the big con, not for having any responsibility of their own.  Keep flogging that horse, it may still rise from the dead and carry you to victory.

[/quote]

Try reading that again.  They voted for Trump because they hate all politicians, not because of some excess of integrity.  Even people on the left hate politicians, they've just been deluded into thinking that some of them are "different".  They are stupid, most people are, to continue to believe "news" stories selected and written by people who think its their duty to change the direction of the country.

[D.W.]

So... question: Clinton's "basket of deplorables" remark would ordinarily be electoral suicide (unless she already knew that she had the election won); but instead of suicide, was it possibly a gambit intended to force more moderate Republicans to push back against Clinton's statement in the hope of immediate electoral benefit, but over the short-to-medium term, really inviting those moderates to further associate themselves with xenophobes in their midst, and prolonging the split between the minority but more activist xenophobes and the more moderate but less activist conservatives?

While I give her a lot of credit for being a VERY shrewd politician...  I think this was a case of letting slip what you think.  I feel the same way, but I'm not a politician and even I know that neglecting to say "some of his supporters are..." is dumb.

[D.W.]

Even people on the left hate politicians, they've just been deluded into thinking that some of them are "different".  They are stupid, most people are, to continue to believe "news" stories selected and written by people who think its their duty to change the direction of the country.

I am stupid enough to believe Sanders was different.    Oh well.

[Seriati]

AI's right, Seriati.  Just look at what the crowds at Trump rallies chant. 

"Jail Hillary."

That's not any message I've heard from the Left-Wing Media.

Was that a joke?  Not clear to me, as you heard nothing from the left and the left-wing media about Bush other than demands for "war crimes tribunals" (without ever identifying the actual war crimes).  Or about how Bush delayed his response to Katrina to kill black people. 

AI himself has argued on this board for Trump having committed more than one crime, which makes it especially hypocritical on his part.

What Trump has been doing is parroting everything the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters, Ingrahams, etc. have been preaching for years.  He's the only one who has the guts to say it, straight out, because he's the only one who thinks he'll never be held responsible for saying it.

I agree Trump is parroting a lot of that stuff, and that there is a core of voters who want to hear that, I don't agree that this is the principal reason we have him as a candidate.

So he says that climate change isn't true; that immigrants are causing many, if not most, of our problems; that you can't trust a Mexican-heritage judge to try your case; that cutting taxes will cause a huge increase in the economy that will cover any tax cuts; that Hillary is the devil.  None of these things are preached by the Left-Wing Media.  Hell, they spend hours debunking these lies.

That's not even relevant to what I said.  I never said the left wing media agreed with him.  I said they selected him as the candidate deliberately.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Hillary would be unelectable against any normal candidate, at least not without an even more obviously one sided hit job (which the media would have engaged in if they had to do so), but why bother when you can prop up Trump?  That's exactly what they did throughout the Republican primaries.  Were you under the impression that I think they picked him because they want him to win?

Republicans have fallen for the lies and manipulations, all right, but not from the Left.  They've fallen for it from their own wing.  They've listened to their own propaganda for so long, they believe it, hook, line and sinker.  And so when a half-wit demagogue comes along and starts repeating the propaganda loudly, boldly, with no fear, about a third of the Republicans flock to him, because he's saying what they already know.  What they've been taught.

Same as the Democratic voters who keep "flocking" to the Democratic politicians who keep repeating the lies that they can make life better by taking from the rich and converting into handouts.  Nevermind the continuous failure of those policies to demonstrate a long term improvement in people's lives.  I'm not going to get worked up because people choose to believe stupid lies, when you're only getting worked up because of which stupid lies they believe.

Republicans have been kowtowing to their demagogues for a couple of decades now.  They've made their bed.  Now they can lie in it.  Roll in it.

Hope and Change!  You have a President who was literally elected by "by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument," and you think the Republicans are the ones that kowtow to Demagogues? 

Hillary's entire campaign could be summed up as, "look how bad the other guy is."  Lol, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I just hope the rest of us won't have to join them.

I wish none of us had to join either of them.

[DonaldD]

Originally posted by D.W.:
I feel the same way, but I'm not a politician and even I know that neglecting to say "some of his supporters are..." is dumb.

Why do you think she neglected to say that?  She actually said the following (my bold): "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."

Was it stupid to say "grossly generalistic... half" instead of "some"?  I get the impression from what you wrote that you weren't aware of the modifiers in her statement, but maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote.

[DonaldD]

BTW - if you really were contrasting "grossly generalistic... half" with "some" then I agree - putting a number/percent on the bucket was politically foolish - although it probably does reflect her thinking.

[AI Wessex]

AI himself has argued on this board for Trump having committed more than one crime, which makes it especially hypocritical on his part.

Have I?  Please remind me where I said that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Hillary would be unelectable against any normal candidate

No, it takes a hyper-partisan to think it, though.

Hillary's entire campaign could be summed up as, "look how bad the other guy is."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you are ignoring all of her policy position statements, but I will agree that in this election that *is* all it takes.  If Trump held up a bottle of snake oil at a campaign rally he would give snake oil a bad name.

[D.W.]

I knew she said half.  That was a gaff (on her part).  I think it's close to the mark personally, but it's just not something you say as a presidential nominee. 

The whole war on politically correct works both ways.  It's just that liberals are trained to bite their tongue more effectively.  It's not in any way they are less judgmental.  I find myself reprimanding my liberal friends every bit as often (if not more so) on social media, than I do my conservative friends.

[AI Wessex]

I knew she said half.  That was a gaff.  I think it's close to the mark personally but it's just not something you say as a presidential nominee.

Agreed.  In the millions of words and sentences she's uttered over the years, there is at least a basket, if not a bushel of deplorable things in there.  The difference is that every time one of them is pointed out to her, she apologizes or explains what she meant.  Trump would probably defend his pussygate remark with an explanation like, "Well, a lot of women like cats, and so do I.  That's why I tweet so much.  Ask Hannity how I really feel about dogs, especially ones named Rosie."  His base would be mollified, I'm sure.

[Wayward Son]

I never said the left wing media agreed with him.  I said they selected him as the candidate deliberately.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Hillary would be unelectable against any normal candidate, at least not without an even more obviously one sided hit job (which the media would have engaged in if they had to do so), but why bother when you can prop up Trump?  That's exactly what they did throughout the Republican primaries.  Were you under the impression that I think they picked him because they want him to win?

And exactly how did The Media "prop up Trump?"  By reporting on the stupid, untrue and racist things that he said, and calling them stupid, untrue and racist?  That props up a candidate and makes him more desirable? 

How many votes did the Left-Wing Media think Trump would garner by reporting him calling a judge prejudicial because he had Mexican parents?  Are you saying the Left-Wing Media thought, "Oooh, this will help him clinch the nomination"?

The Media didn't pick him.  They reported on him, because he was the biggest clown of the bunch.  And somehow, Republicans thought what he said was great!  And he edged out the 16 others candidates.

No, the Left-Wing Media didn't prop up, choose, or help get Trump elected, just as they haven't influenced his supporters to chant "Jail Hillary."  They've reported what a huge, egotistical jerk he is.  The fact that many Republicans feel that is a good thing is not the responsibility of the Media.

Trying to blame Trump on the Media is like how some Congressmen tried to blame overriding Obama's veto on Obama.  It just doesn't fly.

[scifibum]

WS, I guess they propped him up by hating him, which would force the Right to love him more, because of the media's liberal bias. 

Seems legit.