Fivethirtyeight.com predicts 80% chance for Clinton victory

[Fugus]

even a 20% chance of trump winning is too big. what is wrong with people??

What is wrong is whom Trump is running against isn't worth voting for either.

This seems to be an election of who turns away the least voters as neither side has anything worth voting for. If I remember correctly, I recall this being a historic election in that we have the candidates from both parties with the lowest approval ratings in history of nominees running.

It is quite literally 2 unelectable candidates as the choices shoved down our throats.

And the current winner appears to be Clinton who's main saving grace is "At least I'm not Trump" and that is both a huge thing while at the same time, a pathetically small thing.

[Raunchy]

After all this, i still love that man trump. The amount of hate he gets only makes me love him more.

[Fugus]

After all this, i still love that man trump. The amount of hate he gets only makes me love him more.

I describe him as the Golgothan shit demon from Dogma. The more shit you throw at him, the stronger he gets.

http://monster.wikia.com/wiki/Golgothan

[BuckSparkles]

even a 20% chance of trump winning is too big. what is wrong with people??

I could say the same about Clinton.

[Gray_Matter]

It is quite literally 2 unelectable candidates as the choices shoved down our throats.

Bernie lost to Clinton. How is that being shoved down your throat? There are obviously a lot of people that preferred her.

[zenkai]

Dude are you kidding me? What about the idiots that were literally calling Trump "President Donald Trump" five minutes after he declared he was running?

Get over yourself if you think Shillary fans are any different than the raving fuck heads that support Trump.

That's your excuse? some dumbass declared he was a winner and I should get over myself? LOL Hillary and Trump Zealots crack me up

[Fugus]

Bernie lost to Clinton. How is that being shoved down your throat? There are obviously a lot of people that preferred her.

I saw you in the older Sanders thread so I know you read others mention how the media and DNC twisted the primary from the start to avoid having a straight up-and-up election. You been trying to ignore it the entire time, ignoring the events don't mean they didn't happen.

Would have loved to see a legit primary between Clinton and Sanders and see who would have won, but we never got that chance this primary.

As for Clinton and Trump, neither of them are electable to many people. You have to ask yourself, that come the general, how many of them are actually voting for their candidate so much as they are voting against the other guys and fear "Throwing their vote away".

[Forogil]

Bernie lost to Clinton. How is that being shoved down your throat? There are obviously a lot of people that preferred her.

He has repeatedly shown that he is unable to grasp that many prefer Clinton.

[Fugus]

He has repeatedly shown that he is unable to grasp that many prefer Clinton.

No, I grasp that perfectly well, you just refuse to grasp the other end of that equation or the events that happened.

I understand that many prefer Clinton just as I grasp that many also prefer Sanders.

I also grasp the events that happened during the primary prevented a straight up election between the two with the DNC and media and such twisting it to the favor of one of the candidates. That is the part too many prefer to remain willfully ignorant of and either turn apologist on or go in full on denial of it.

[Xeones]

Bernie lost to Clinton. How is that being shoved down your throat? There are obviously a lot of people that preferred her.

I don't even understand what Bernie has to do with it?

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say they are both unelectable since they both became presumptive nominee. But the point was how they both have astronomical unfavorable ratings, something Bernie has no relation to.

[Forogil]

No, I grasp that perfectly well, you just refuse to grasp the other end of that equation or the events that happened.

I understand that many prefer Clinton just as I grasp that many also prefer Sanders.

I also grasp the events that happened during the primary prevented a straight up election between the two with the DNC and media and such twisting it to the favor of one of the candidates. That is the part too many prefer to remain willfully ignorant of and either turn apologist on or go in full on denial of it.

Media and others will always influence any election - for the US presidential election both the primaries and the general election. If Sanders is so inept to get his message out in the primary - what chance would he have in the general election?

[Fugus]

Media and others will always influence any election - for the US presidential election both the primaries and the general election. If Sanders is so inept to get his message out in the primary - what chance would he have in the general election?

Luxury of the general election, both sides are getting tons of coverage regardless.

And it had nothing to do with inept when you have the DNC and media actively working against you. Sanders actually did very well getting his message out given the circumstances. Most in his situation wouldn't have gotten near as far as he did with that level of push back and if it wasn't for the internet nowadays which the media doesn't control, most of the people who know him now still wouldn't have known who the hell he was, let alone was his policies were.

[Xeones]

Media and others will always influence any election - for the US presidential election both the primaries and the general election. If Sanders is so inept to get his message out in the primary - what chance would he have in the general election?

I'm not sure what inept has to do with it? He did a great job getting his message out, on his own, he was doing some spectacular fund raising. The issue was the DNC and mainstream media going all out against him. Sadly, unlike Trump those efforts worked and people bought the trash that he wasn't "electable".

[Xires]

Illuminating indeed. Says Hillary did nothing wrong. Not what you expected huh. Oh who am I kidding. You didn't read all 800 pages your silly, silly man. Don't even pretend. I doubt you even downloaded it.

131 days Penguin. Then it's open season on every single muppet that backed the racist, fascist, sexist, nativist, know-nothing thug. You people will never live it down. This stays with you. Be it some weenie in a forum or twitter or one of those absurd Trumpbots on cableTV, there is no second chances. Everyone who supports Donald Trump gets "Alex Jones'd". The lunatic fringe is going to be doing some growing.

The day Hillary wins, you're gonna be my first. Save the date

Hillary's best bud was a member of the KKK, in the 90's Hillary referred to black people as "super predators" and played a role in having more minority's locked up. The same shit Trump is saying about Mexico was the same shit Hillary was saying just a decade ago yet HE is the "racist". Let's look at Mexico's immigration laws and see who the REAL racist country is or are only white men held accountable today?

Hillary sent millions of jobs overseas with NAFTA which she championed for years only to NOW say "it was a bad thing". Hillary says she is against "wallstreet" yet she has taken in millions from wallstreet and big banks..but...who cares, right? Their is a 13 minutes video that everyone can see of her saying one thing years before...and then another years later. Claiming one thing years before....and being called out as a liar by a video showing otherwise years later only for her to say "Oh..I mis-remembered" which is the new political correct way of saying "Yeah, I lied you caught me- so what?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI That video if you were wondering.

She was ordered to hand over her ILLEGAL server and before she did she DELETED over half of them. What would of happened if any normal person had done that? Prison.

The only lunatics are the ones LOONY enough to vote for her simply because she has a uterus and use that and only that as a bases for being President. She is under multiple FBI criminal (yes CRIMINAL) investigations that will make watergate look like a tea party (which by the way she was fired from watergate by a democrat who said she was a liar and looked to subvert the constitution). The people that her husband molested she called them a liar. She cares more about her political career then anything and she doesn't give a damn about "progressives" or anybody else except herself.

She is batshit crazy and the only difference is as long as she paints a fake smile and says what airheads want to hear...she has a voting base.

[Forogil]

Luxury of the general election, both sides are getting tons of coverage regardless.

And it had nothing to do with inept when you have the DNC and media actively working against you. Sanders actually did very well getting his message out given the circumstances. Most in his situation wouldn't have gotten near as far as he did with that level of push back and if it wasn't for the internet nowadays which the media doesn't control, most of the people who know him now still wouldn't have known who the hell he was, let alone was his policies were.

Still ignoring the possibility that he got the message out, but people didn't want his policy.

[twiddler]

Pages of MMO-C users crying about the integrity of data science-based articles. Nothing new here.

[Fugus]

Still ignoring the possibility that he got the message out, but people didn't want his policy.

Your willful ignorance of the events that happened on their effects on getting your message out is astounding.

I am not saying that he didn't try to get his message out, I am saying that the DNC and media made sure to keep his message from getting out as much as possible. Most of the people I have seen don't know crap about him or his policies thanks to them. Quite literally, most see him as "That guy running against Clinton" or the guy on the facebook meme's are claiming is trying to force a 90% tax rate on them to support freeloaders. But can't tell you little to anything of substance.

You keep ignoring the possibility that the media and DNC interfered to the point they effected the election greatly and that the public didn't get the information on the large scale.

Could Clinton beat Sanders in a straight up election where the DNC actually did their job and remained neutral? Maybe, maybe not but we don't know now because they didn't allow that to happen.

[BrerBear]

I am not saying that he didn't try to get his message out, I am saying that the DNC and media made sure to keep his message from getting out as much as possible. Most of the people I have seen don't know crap about him or his policies thanks to them. Quite literally, most see him as "That guy running against Clinton" or the guy on the facebook meme's are claiming is trying to force a 90% tax rate on them to support freeloaders. But can't tell you little to anything of substance.

This is the weakness of your argument.

You can't point to any of Bernie's successes and claim that they are legitimate if you are also going to claim that people "don't know crap about him or his policies". Because, as much as you would like to think that people exposed more to Bernie's positions would support him, there is also ample evidence that many people currently supporting Bernie don't back his actual positions, either.

[Fugus]

This is the weakness of your argument.

You can't point to any of Bernie's successes and claim that they are legitimate if you are also going to claim that people "don't know crap about him or his policies". Because, as much as you would like to think that people exposed more to Bernie's positions would support him, there is also ample evidence that many people currently supporting Bernie don't back his actual positions, either.

That isn't a failing on my part, you are taking it to mean that.

I claimed that a large portion of the voters don't know crap about him or his policies due to their crap. I did not claim that everyone didn't and just as there are some Sanders supporters who don't know much about his policies, there are MANY more Clinton or Trump supporters who know nothing of his policies.

And I know not everyone exposed to his positions would support him, that is basic common sense that not everyone will agree when it comes to political view points or just about anything really.

The question of how many would or would not support him if they knew his views is what comes into question in that regard which the DNC and media made sure didn't happen.

But your post does further support what I was getting at the entire time, that the supporters as a whole were not given access to the information to make an informed decision without having to actively go out and look for the information above and beyond what should have been needed while they were trying to manipulate public opinion enough that most wouldn't see Sanders as having enough of a chance to even look into.

Now what the results would have been if the DNC had done their job and the public were properly informed about both of them, that we could debate till the end of time as that is a theoretical that never happened. But their actions having a major effect on the election, that isn't up for debate at this point, the only thing in debate is the extent of the effect and if it changed the results of the election.

AFK

[BrerBear]

I claimed that a large portion of the voters don't know crap about him or his policies due to their crap. I did not claim that everyone didn't and just as there are some Sanders supporters who don't know much about his policies, there are MANY more Clinton or Trump supporters who know nothing of his policies.

And your basis for this? Where's your evidence that more Clinton voters don't know her policies than Sanders voters don't know his?

But your post does further support what I was getting at the entire time, that the supporters as a whole were not given access to the information to make an informed decision without having to actively go out and look for the information above and beyond what should have been needed while they were trying to manipulate public opinion enough that most wouldn't see Sanders as having enough of a chance to even look into.

By the end of 2015, Sanders was a major media presence and extremely well-known among the US populace, months before any voting started. Do we need to remind you with examples again?

Now what the results would have been if the DNC had done their job and the public were properly informed about both of them, that we could debate till the end of time as that is a theoretical that never happened. But their actions having a major effect on the election, that isn't up for debate at this point, the only thing in debate is the extent of the effect and if it changed the results of the election.

That's not a settled point at all. What the hell were you expecting the DNC to do for him? I'd really like to know this, because it's a repeated talking point to keep deflecting Bernie's loss to actions by other people.

Everyone knew about the Bernie phenomenon by the end of 2015, before the first voting even happened. By that time, Bernie was already winning Time's Person of the Year polls.
No extra debates would have made any difference. Even the ones that did happen didn't move the polling results.
Bernie was #3 in media coverage across both parties, while much of Trump and Clinton's coverage was harshly negative.
Bernie also vastly out-fundraised and outspent the other candidates in advertising.
Bernie's social media presence was beyond far ahead of Clinton's.

Yet, he still lost the primary.
I know it's hard for his supporters to accept. Bernie's message resonated with a group of people whose loudness vastly exceeded their numbers. And this lulled them into thinking that he was more popular than he actually was.