Donald Trump Bounces into the lead

[belfpala]

I'm going to trust Nate Silver's work for the eighth year straight. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/

[kail]

So, the next poll they take, there should be a bump for Hillary?

Maybe, maybe not. Polls have gone rather wild between the two candidates. I'm curious how far Trump can get ahead of Clinton.

[Synadrasa]

God help us all.

[cubby]

Sorry if this was a repost. Had a quick look at the first few pages and did not see it.

From 'Clinton' News Network

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/25/po...oll/index.html



Quite a bit more text in the link but I didn't want to spam the forum.

Do you think that Trump can maintain this momentum, particularly after the DNC scandal? Or is this just a one time boost from the convention?

He shouldn't maintain either the momentum nor the lead - he's a blowhard that is about to crumble as Hillary's full campaign gets into motion. And the DNC "scandal" is already done. The DNC is a pretty united party ready to take the GOP out.

[Feral Camel]

The length of a US election is utterly fucking ridiculous.

Our last one only being 8 weeks felt like it was too damn long!

[Bushtuckrman]

Neither one of them will win. Soon as Gary Johnson gets into the debates, it's over.

lol libertarian party...

[cubby]

Maybe, maybe not. Polls have gone rather wild between the two candidates. I'm curious how far Trump can get ahead of Clinton.

He's at his peak now - candidates always get a bump in the polls immediately following their convention. Hil-dog will get hers, and given the lack of GOP unity and their basic hate-campaign, she should keep and expand the lead into November.

[Bushtuckrman]

He shouldn't maintain either the momentum nor the lead - he's a blowhard that is about to crumble as Hillary's full campaign gets into motion. And the DNC "scandal" is already done. The DNC is a pretty united party ready to take the GOP out.

Can't wait until November to lol at you and the rest on here!

DNC party united, lmao clearly you haven't been watching the shitshow that is the dnc convention.

[Pix757]

He shouldn't maintain either the momentum nor the lead - he's a blowhard that is about to crumble as Hillary's full campaign gets into motion. And the DNC "scandal" is already done. The DNC is a pretty united party ready to take the GOP out.

lmfao no. no. no. no.

[cubby]

Can't wait until November to lol at you and the rest on here!

DNC party united, lmao clearly you haven't been watching the shitshow that is the dnc convention.

Actually, it appears you haven't been watching. But I don't expect Trumpers to do anything but flaunt their own opinions, casting both facts and logic aside.

"Make America Great Again Through Hatred and Stupidity!" -Trumpers

- - - Updated - - -

lmfao no. no. no. no.

Link me a news story from post 5pm today covering the "scandal".

Lol, that's what I thought. Good try though. You Trumpers crack me up. Figured out the world is round yet?

[akris15]

What you are witnessing is a post convention bump, which happens with basically any modern campaign on both sides, one which Clinton will probably see next week but anyways...

Someone please explain to me how Trump can win with only win with non-educated whites, literally zero ground game (this is much bigger than people give it credit for its easy to say you support someone but you have to still get them to the polls and identify the voters as you lead up to the election), no ad buys, no ground presence from the RNC because they are going to defend the senate (plus they have zero interest for him to be president because "donors" wouldn't be happy but a Trump win would be nice but no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater if he explodes) has to win basically 5 of the 7 battleground states all on hype alone?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...-the-election/ As we stand now college educated whites are 50/50 for Trump but due to the popularity of both candidates I expect turnout from this demographic to go down. Right now Trump is getting about 67-72% of the non-educated white vote but unless we are looking literally at historic numbers (65%+ turnout) hes in trouble (which he could get that high if he had, you know, offices in high profile industrial countries in Ohio and Penn). The Black community is looking at 92-96% support for Clinton and there is a good chance that turnout will be similar to Obama number turnout (ie Blacks participation has been strong since the late 90 but exploded obviously for Obama). If she plays up the 3rd term Obama line expect similar turnouts. Latinos, yeah we know this is going to skyrocket. Right now we are looking at about 72-78% support for Clinton. I would fully expect this to go up to about a low-mid 60s% maybe even up to 70% turnout levels if he really gets out of hand. Asians are about the only group that could support Trump but honestly who are at most "endanger" of illegal immigration are actually Asians (I bet most of you didn't see that coming). Asians could trend towards Clinton but since this group is already in "liberal" states and due to their wild card nature with Trump I could expect this demographic to go down.

So please can someone explain to me without using terms like Hype or Make America Great Again how trump is going to expand his base or going to get voters to the actual ballot box without resources.

Like Skroe, who I might disagree with some point on, but honestly the most intelligent poster on this board put it best the other day:

Let's talk how campaigns are run.

The most important campaign since Kennedy in 1960 was Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. Most campaigns did and to a degree still use the classic model Kennedy pioneered. Obama in 2008, undermanned and underresourced in the primary, designed something superior. It leveraged technology and data analysis to get a very high resolution look at metrics in battleground states to, almost by the house, figure out where they needed to campaign to win. It was high technology and took a lot of brilliant people to design - people who have since commercialized and monetized the model and exported it around the world. But that is how Obama beat Hillary in 2008 despite the immense disadvantages he started with. While she was carpetbombing states with adds, he was engaging in a high tech ground game / get out the vote effort that spent resources highly efficiently. McCain, running the classic model, didn't stand a chance in the general. In 2012, Republicans again, ran a most conventional campaign, and lost badly. One of the first things they blamed with the lack of data analysis driving the get out the vote effort. It is, in the modern era, that important. It is how campaigns win.

In the 2016 primary, the following happened: Hillary's staff early on reassembled and grew the Obama 2008/2012 data / ground game team. A few went to sanders, but most went to Hillary. They've been laying the infrastructure for their operation for two years now. Sanders didn't stand a chance in these high population states, despite drawing huge crowds, because the Clinton team algorithmically figured out where to campaign in order to nullify a Sanders crowd. Sanders by contrast, ran a mostly conventional campaign. He employed some mostly useless digital stuff, such as "Facebanking" and Reddit, and $27 donations online, but it didn't make up for the lack of good data that the Clinton campaign had.

Republicans were in a simular boat. Of all the campaigns, the only one who ran a proper, modern, Obama-style campaign was Ted Cruz. For all of his disgust of Obama as a President, he basically constructed a Republican version of the Obama model. It is this that helped him surivive. It could not endure Trump's approach, but it made him the second to last man standing. Everyone else ran the Mitt Romney / John McCain model, that is obsolete.

Why do I mention this? Because the mechanics of winning the election are well researched and analyzed. It's all out there. It does matter. It matters that Clinton did what she did and Sanders did not. But Team Sanders... getting back to what Is aid at first, they didn't care. They believed that Sanders didn't need it because his message was so potent. They never had the introspection enough to stop and ask "woah woah woah, Hillary has a weapon that is going to ruin us and we need to counter it". Romney's team realized that, too late, in 2012, and tried to fix it.

[Yvaelle]

Neither one of them will win. Soon as Gary Johnson gets into the debates, it's over.

I actually think this has an increasing likelihood - that if Gary hits the debates - isn't Trump, and isn't Hillary - most of the country wants to vote for "Anyone Not-Trump/Hillary" at this point: any third party who can get even the hint of a possibility of winning is going to see a skyrocketing boost in polls. Gary is almost at 15% right now, if he gets into those debates and is seen as a legitimate alternative - he only actually needs to win 33%, not the 50% of a usual 2-candidate race: that makes this all much, much closer to reality.

Now you're into, essentially, Canadian politics - where you have the vote split between the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and the Conservative Party - and if both other candidates have essentially disqualified themselves - but-for-the-fact-one-must-win - a literal pile of bullshit could squeak the win out between the two of them.

[Merkava]

Link me a news story from post 5pm today covering the "scandal".

Lol, that's what I thought. Good try though. You Trumpers crack me up. Figured out the world is round yet?

Lol, what? You're saying the scandal is over because there's maybe a 12 hour, after business hours time frame where no new stories are published? What the fuck would that even prove?

[timberx]

I actually think this has an increasing likelihood - that if Gary hits the debates - isn't Trump, and isn't Hillary - most of the country wants to vote for "Anyone Not-Trump/Hillary" at this point: any third party who can get even the hint of a possibility of winning is going to see a skyrocketing boost in polls. Gary is almost at 15% right now, if he gets into those debates and is seen as a legitimate alternative - he only actually needs to win 33%, not the 50% of a usual 2-candidate race: that makes this all much, much closer to reality.

Now you're into, essentially, Canadian politics - where you have the vote split between the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and the Conservative Party - and if both other candidates have essentially disqualified themselves - but-for-the-fact-one-must-win - a literal pile of bullshit could squeak the win out between the two of them.

I'm pretty sure he'll still need 50% of the electoral votes, no matter how many candidates are in the race. That's the reason why our races are usually between two major candidates in the first place.

[Bushtuckrman]

Actually, it appears you haven't been watching. But I don't expect Trumpers to do anything but flaunt their own opinions, casting both facts and logic aside.

"Make America Great Again Through Hatred and Stupidity!" -Trumpers

- - - Updated - - -



Link me a news story from post 5pm today covering the "scandal".

Lol, that's what I thought. Good try though. You Trumpers crack me up. Figured out the world is round yet?

bahahaha the salt is real. Hillary is done.

[belfpala]

I actually think this has an increasing likelihood - that if Gary hits the debates - isn't Trump, and isn't Hillary - most of the country wants to vote for "Anyone Not-Trump/Hillary" at this point: any third party who can get even the hint of a possibility of winning is going to see a skyrocketing boost in polls. Gary is almost at 15% right now, if he gets into those debates and is seen as a legitimate alternative - he only actually needs to win 33%, not the 50% of a usual 2-candidate race: that makes this all much, much closer to reality.

Gary Johnson has been floated as the third party choice for the last two POTUS elections. I don't know that I have ever seen him, and I'm very well connected with US politics (if you look at my Join Date, it mght be a familiar one). Sell him to me, someone.

[styil]

So, the next poll they take, there should be a bump for Hillary?

It depends how this DNC scandal plays out. If that scandal gains momentum it could be disastrous for Clinton.

[Belize]

Neither one of them will win. Soon as Gary Johnson gets into the debates, it's over.

We can only dream

[Nfinitii]

Normally I would agree that Hillary would get a spike after the dnc, but considering how things have started. I feel she will get a small bump if she is lucky. Probably a drop imo.

[Yvaelle]

Gary Johnson has been floated as the third party choice for the last two POTUS elections. I don't know that I have ever seen him, and I'm very well connected with US politics (if you look at my Join Date, it mght be a familiar one). Sell him to me, someone.

For what I assumed to be a nutjob, he's surprisingly sane (kooky, but in a likeable way).



I think Samantha said it best when she said, "I agree with about half of everything you say" - and really - that should probably be the Libertarian Party slogan: because all Americans will probably agree with half of their platform - at which point the question becomes, "Do you agree with more than half of what Hillary / Trump stand for?"