Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2016, 04:34 AM
 
Location: Renton - Fairwood, Washington
759 posts, read 629,058 times
Reputation: 875

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
I thought it was time for a woman then too, so I voted for McCain. (The DNC ticked me off.)
You should use that same reasoning in 2016. It may very well be "time" for a woman...

... But we can do a whole lot better than the one running.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2016, 05:37 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,230 posts, read 17,779,642 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharpshooterTom View Post
This should have been a fairly straight forward election for the GOP.

I always characterized this election way back a year or two ago that Americans, quite simply did not want to elect another politician named CLINTON or BUSH. I've had strong suspicions that Americans were looking to purposefully avoid electing those two dynasties if they could.

So logically I assumed that if the Republicans could put any electable candidate not called BUSH, they would have an excellent chance in this election as Americans were looking to vote away from one of those dynasty families that have been in power for so fricking long.

So it isn't surprising that almost every Republican (apart from Cruz who doesn't fit my definition of electable) polled positively against Clinton, simply because they weren't called CLINTON. "Anybody but Hillary" is the mindset of many Americans, please give me something else.

Sadly, however, they have arguably put up the worst presidential candidate for one of the two major parties in our lifetime, certainly in terms of unfavorable ratings lack of resources, lack of knowledge of how the government is run etc. Outlandish racial remarks etc, offending everyone.

I mean they've effectively found the only candidate to have higher unfavorables than her.

This was an easy election to win for Republicans. And for me I think they've blown it. There's a lot of crowing from Democrats that they have a lock on elections, but they don't.

This reminds me of the 2010 Delaware senate race between what should have been Mike Castle (R) vs Chris Coons (D). Moderate Mike Castle was projected to win by 10+ points, but they primaried him and put in "Tea Party" Christine O'Donnell who was projected to lose by 15 points, the voters knew of those polls, but put her in anyway. And she lost by exactly that.

Republicans have a terrible judgment of electability in the past few years.
I don't think so. I think the Repub power people wanted Trump so they will have a clear popular go-ahead to clean out the GOP of the resident nut jobs that had taken it over. A massive election defeat is what the GOP needs and wants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 08:17 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,220,178 times
Reputation: 7621
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChloeC View Post
The entire "We know Hillary sucks, but Trump is worse" Democratic campaign strategy.
Hey, NO ONE is worse than Trump. He has the worse approval ratings of any candidate in U.S. presidential election history. So, even with all of Hillary's baggage, she's wayyyyyyyyy better than Trump. If GOP voters weren't so stupid they might have had a shot in this election.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 04:05 PM
 
11,989 posts, read 5,237,374 times
Reputation: 7284
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Hey, NO ONE is worse than Trump. He has the worse approval ratings of any candidate in U.S. presidential election history. So, even with all of Hillary's baggage, she's wayyyyyyyyy better than Trump. If GOP voters weren't so stupid they might have had a shot in this election.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Ken
When 54% of those polled prefer head lice to you, you know you're in trouble.

Donald Trump Less Popular Than Head Lice -- NYMag
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 05:03 PM
 
12,270 posts, read 11,275,596 times
Reputation: 8065
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
She's not blaming white people for everything. Sheesh!
.
Well actually, she is. But I've noticed that's where Democrats seem to be going this election. They're abandoning any pretense of going after the white vote while at the same time running lily white candidates. And really, why would the white middle class vote for her? It's just going to mean higher taxes and skyrocketing medical expenses along with being blamed for all this country's problems. She's lucky the Trump campaign is floundering, any other candidate would have crucified her by now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Renton - Fairwood, Washington
759 posts, read 629,058 times
Reputation: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Hey, NO ONE is worse than Trump. He has the worse approval ratings of any candidate in U.S. presidential election history.So, even with all of Hillary's baggage, she's wayyyyyyyyy better than Trump. If GOP voters weren't so stupid they might have had a shot in this election.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Ken
... and Hillary isn't that far behind. 70% to 55% at last check? She's still the 2nd worst candidate in history.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...lity.html?_r=0

Wayyyyyyyyy better?

At least you got the stupid part right... it's a known fact that 1 out of every 3 Hillarybots are just as stupid as the other 2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Texas
3,251 posts, read 2,528,971 times
Reputation: 3122
Don't worry, Clinton is practically a republican, so everybody loses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 11:28 PM
 
9,005 posts, read 13,759,992 times
Reputation: 9631
This election sure is strange.....

Trump should be a Democrat and Hilary a Republican.

Look at their policies.

Also,why do people believe Cruz would not have beat Hilary?

In the polls i saw,Cruz would have beat her,while Trump would have lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Glendale NY
4,840 posts, read 9,869,022 times
Reputation: 3598
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u View Post
This election sure is strange.....

Trump should be a Democrat and Hilary a Republican.

Look at their policies.

Also,why do people believe Cruz would not have beat Hilary?

In the polls i saw,Cruz would have beat her,while Trump would have lost.
Cruz would only recieve support from die hard religious Republicans, which is not enough. IMO He was even more likely to lose to Hillary then Trump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,378 posts, read 16,297,566 times
Reputation: 5923
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharpshooterTom View Post
A recent SurveyMonkey poll showed Ryan beating her by two points, and Romney tied with her. A consistent theme has shown was any competent Republican who wasn't far right was polling at least neck and neck with her.
Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney ran for President in 2016 ???

surely you understand why arguing with examples of people who didnt run is a fraudulent argument

Quote:
I would say the flipside to your statement is that there were only two candidates consistently losing to her, Trump and Cruz.
My argument was never that she was beating everyone else in a land slide, so no, thats not really the "flipside" of my argument.

Besides, polls this far out dont mean much unless they are landslides all around. beating someone by 12 nationally, but only by 3 in swing states leads me to believe someone is over polling.

Thats why the Rasssmussen and FOX polls never make sense. They have the Republicans leading or tied, but still losing the swing states by 2 or 3 points. It means they are over polling people in red states.

Others have done the same on the Democratic side.

Last edited by dsjj251; 07-11-2016 at 12:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top