Clinton will win but only because the alternative is Trump. Trump is the only person Clinton could beat in an election. A sad state of affairs really
Your underestimating the connection and hook trump has with a large proportion of the American public.
It's loyalty from people that want things such as "not having to always be so f*cking politically correct all the time"
I think if a different republican nominee was up against Clinton. She would still win.
Probably be easier and more straight forward.
He can be connected to angry white people in Ohio all he likes, but he's completely disconnected from Hispanics, African Americans and women in the states which could flip the election like Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and potentially Arizona.
He's going to lose the states that matter, and as they've said on 538
Nevada: This could be the key state for determining who wins the presidency and the Senate. If Clinton wins it, she can become president without taking Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio.
A lot of my girlfriends family are American, based in Boston. All the females in that family are voting trump and I read an interesting article that one of them shared about women being against trump but backing Clinton, in this article there was some sort of story how Clinton had pressured and essentially bullied one of her husbands rape victims, which had made a lot of women not want to vote for her. (I'm aware I'm not being very clear as I read it about a month ago and can't remember it in detail)
This is a popular one on conservative (Fox News type) and alt right (Breitbart type) websites. This is something I looked in to a while back, because how we treat victims of sexual assault is really important. For me, the answer is there doesn't seem to be any particular evidence that she threatened anyone.
Bill Clinton is a shitty person and has almost certainly sexually assaulted women. But he is not running for president.
Here is an article on Juanita Broaddrick, it is long and incredibly depressing. Her story mimics one of so many rape victims in this contry, which is unacceptable.
In this, Broaddrick says: "Soon after, Broaddrick says, she ran into Hillary Clinton at a political rally Broaddrick had promised friends she would attend. Hillary shook her hand and thanked her for everything she had done for Bill. To Broaddrick, the gesture felt like a threat to stay silent. As attorney general and later governor, Bill Clinton was “the main person that regulated my business and my income,” Broaddrick said. “After she said what she did to me, I just thought, I will keep quiet.”
That's the one most often cited. And to me there's not evidence of any sort of threat.
She's certainly made some disparaging remarks about the women who have accused Bill of either affairs or sexual harassment, but nothing that amounts to threatening.
Clinton will win but only because the alternative is Trump. Trump is the only person Clinton could beat in an election. A sad state of affairs really
Your underestimating the connection and hook trump has with a large proportion of the American public.
It's loyalty from people that want things such as "not having to always be so f*cking politically correct all the time"
I think if a different republican nominee was up against Clinton. She would still win.
Probably be easier and more straight forward.
He can be connected to angry white people in Ohio all he likes, but he's completely disconnected from Hispanics, African Americans and women in the states which could flip the election like Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and potentially Arizona.
He's going to lose the states that matter, and as they've said on 538
Nevada: This could be the key state for determining who wins the presidency and the Senate. If Clinton wins it, she can become president without taking Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio.
A lot of my girlfriends family are American, based in Boston. All the females in that family are voting trump and I read an interesting article that one of them shared about women being against trump but backing Clinton, in this article there was some sort of story how Clinton had pressured and essentially bullied one of her husbands rape victims, which had made a lot of women not want to vote for her. (I'm aware I'm not being very clear as I read it about a month ago and can't remember it in detail)
This is a popular one on conservative (Fox News type) and alt right (Breitbart type) websites. This is something I looked in to a while back, because how we treat victims of sexual assault is really important. For me, the answer is there doesn't seem to be any particular evidence that she threatened anyone.
Bill Clinton is a shitty person and has almost certainly sexually assaulted women. But he is not running for president.
Here is an article on Juanita Broaddrick, it is long and incredibly depressing. Her story mimics one of so many rape victims in this contry, which is unacceptable.
In this, Broaddrick says: "Soon after, Broaddrick says, she ran into Hillary Clinton at a political rally Broaddrick had promised friends she would attend. Hillary shook her hand and thanked her for everything she had done for Bill. To Broaddrick, the gesture felt like a threat to stay silent. As attorney general and later governor, Bill Clinton was “the main person that regulated my business and my income,” Broaddrick said. “After she said what she did to me, I just thought, I will keep quiet.”
That's the one most often cited. And to me there's not evidence of any sort of threat.
She's certainly made some disparaging remarks about the women who have accused Bill of either affairs or sexual harassment, but nothing that amounts to threatening.
Interesting stuff, she's definitely as dodgy as they come but i think everyone knows that, right? I will have to try and dig out the article that I read about it, nothing of evidence in it just an interesting point of view/opinion from a woman, who, the news would have you believe, are all meant to be against trump.
Where do you stand on the Benghazi situation? She gets a lot of criticism and blame for the death of 4 Americans, one of them being the ambassador out there. I read a quote of her essentially saying the blame doesn't lie with the president etc but at the same time she didn't say the blame lied with her and a lot of people feel that it does.
All said and done, I'm just thankful I'm not American and having to vote for one of these two.
From the little I've read the Benghazi situation could have been handled better, but the whole Killary thing is way way OTT. For example, under the various different foreign secretaries during GW Bush's presidency, something like 200 US embassy staff died around the world, but that isn't mentioned, whilst the 4 in Benghazi make her a murderer somehow.
From the little I've read the Benghazi situation could have been handled better, but the whole Killary thing is way way OTT. For example, under the various different foreign secretaries during GW Bush's presidency, something like 200 US embassy staff died around the world, but that isn't mentioned, whilst the 4 in Benghazi make her a murderer somehow.
And yet you all forgot about Harambe #ripHarambe #gonebutnotforget
Trump now happy to pop the shotgun in his mouth and blow his campaign away saying it would be a massive waste of time, energy and money if he lost. Apparently he has spent 100 million dollars on this campaign. Firstly he rounds up everything to a 100million dollars and secondly he aint spent diddly squat of his own money.
From the little I've read the Benghazi situation could have been handled better, but the whole Killary thing is way way OTT. For example, under the various different foreign secretaries during GW Bush's presidency, something like 200 US embassy staff died around the world, but that isn't mentioned, whilst the 4 in Benghazi make her a murderer somehow.
And yet you all forgot about Harambe #ripHarambe #gonebutnotforget
Harambe 2020
Haters will say dead gorillas cannot be president.
Apologies if anyone has made the following point already (this thread is huge), but the way I see it, the FBI's recent re-intervention concerning HC's emails was designed with the aim of causing a big 'Question Mark' amongst the undecided voter - a huge, and crucial, group of people. The plan was, of course, to reveal, just before campaigning ended, that the 'investigation' was off. There was no illegality...thus swinging the bulk of 'the undecided' / doubters to side with Clinton. It's all about the vote, of course, but all the more to do with The Establishment doing its darndest to try and prevent a Trump victory. We see this sort of tactic played out with some regularity in politics...often around election time, strangely enough. First, there's the 'Awful News' scare story, creating fear and doubt among many and, a little while later....Guess what?.......It wasn't so bad, after all! Better than expected! Hurrah for the prevailing order. The Government! They'll look after us!
Cynical? Perhaps. Shame, say I, that Bernard Sanders was denied the chance to be the Democratic nomination. Independent....pro-Labo(u)r...and that nasty word, 'Socialist'. Sssssssss. The Establishment wouldn't have him, would it?
From the little I've read the Benghazi situation could have been handled better, but the whole Killary thing is way way OTT. For example, under the various different foreign secretaries during GW Bush's presidency, something like 200 US embassy staff died around the world, but that isn't mentioned, whilst the 4 in Benghazi make her a murderer somehow.
And yet you all forgot about Harambe #ripHarambe #gonebutnotforget
Apologies if anyone has made the following point already (this thread is huge), but the way I see it, the FBI's recent re-intervention concerning HC's emails was designed with the aim of causing a big 'Question Mark' amongst the undecided voter - a huge, and crucial, group of people. The plan was, of course, to reveal, just before campaigning ended, that the 'investigation' was off. There was no illegality...thus swinging the bulk of 'the undecided' / doubters to side with Clinton. It's all about the vote, of course, but all the more to do with The Establishment doing its darndest to try and prevent a Trump victory. We see this sort of tactic played out with some regularity in politics...often around election time, strangely enough. First, there's the 'Awful News' scare story, creating fear and doubt among many and, a little while later....Guess what?.......It wasn't so bad, after all! Better than expected! Hurrah for the prevailing order. The Government! They'll look after us!
Cynical? Perhaps. Shame, say I, that Bernard Sanders was denied the chance to be the Democratic nomination. Independent....pro-Labo(u)r...and that nasty word, 'Socialist'. Sssssssss. The Establishment wouldn't have him, would it?
Couple things here, first off, were the primaries set up in favor of Clinton? Yes, of course they were, because she is a lifelong Democrat and she's center-right to center-left matching a decent chunk of the party. And Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat in the senate, so the cynic in me wonders what he and more importantly his supporters expected. I would loved to have seen Bernie Sanders be the nominee, but that's been and gone.
Regarding your take on the FBI revelations, I don't agree at all. I think this was actually Director James Comey's attempt to play with a straight bat and keep congress informed. The way he communicated it was awful and stupid. The fact that the FBI is so full of leaks is scary for a Federal Agency in charge of carrying out investigations. More form The Guardian here.
But it's estimated that ~40% of voters will have voted early or via mail, so the whole last minute revelation will almost certainly not have moved any poll in a noteworthy fashion. It's debatable if the initial revelation of investigating emails on Weiner's computer moved the polls, because Trump was starting to close the gap before that.
I did lol at this. A young chap flouting the law on not wearing anything political in the polling station, by wearing a "Make America Great Again" baseball cap. What makes it is the way he adjusts his hood so you can see the message..
Trump threatening a lawsuit already, over voters being allowed in to the polling stations in Nevada after closing time (7PM). Quite rightly it's been ignored, as the voters were already in the queue. I had to laugh though, as today I've seen more Trump supporters than Hillary ones on Twitter spreading the word about remaining in the queue after the official closing times.
I'm confused as to how he seems to think they vetted the queues to ensure they were only Democratic Party supporters? If he genuinely believes a lot of these claims, then one must wonder whether he's got a legitimate mental health issue that manifests with paranoia. "Everything is rigged against you, and everyone is out to get you" - the gospel according to Trump.
He mentions that "It will be a tremendous waste of time" if he loses... no shit, Sherlock.
The odds on him winning are the same as Brexit according to Sky.. Interestingly, one of the only polls that predicted Brexit is predicting a Trump victory. Although Wall Street have factored in a Hillary victory; makes you wonder what the economic results will be should Trump win.
New York looks stunning in darkness as well. I must try and get out there at some time.
I switched on the BBC Coverage when it began, at 2315.. If anyones interested, I'd stick with Sky. Katty Kay on the Andrew Neil BBC Election show is looking absolutely cracking (Not when the camera zooms in to closely though) though. Reminds me a bit of an ex, if she aged 30 odd years and got with the whole milfy schoolteacher look.. and glasses...
One thing is clear though - and in a striking similarity with our Brexit vote - the fact that Trump has got so far, and is seriously being considered as a possibility, means that a sizable chunk of people are unhappy and desperately want change - even if that change is extreme. I think it's worrying to claim people are racist for not wanting to be in the EU, and likewise I find it concerning that those who support Trump are also being labelled as stupid or bigoted. This is essentially a story of disenfranchisement - disillusionment making people feel helpless and angry, as though they're powerless with the current situation. That's pretty damning assessment of any society - including both our own, and the American one.
For instance, 82% think Trump "can bring change": that's the main motivation. Anger at the status quo and current state of affairs. I dare say there's a lot of anger considering the election in itself; two of the most unpopular candidates ever to run according to the BBC.
(I'm editing this post whilst I watch, as I don't want to spam it with every little observation... if you wanted that, you'd watch the TV FFS.)
Comments
Bill Clinton is a shitty person and has almost certainly sexually assaulted women. But he is not running for president.
Here is an article on Juanita Broaddrick, it is long and incredibly depressing. Her story mimics one of so many rape victims in this contry, which is unacceptable.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape
In this, Broaddrick says:
"Soon after, Broaddrick says, she ran into Hillary Clinton at a political rally Broaddrick had promised friends she would attend. Hillary shook her hand and thanked her for everything she had done for Bill. To Broaddrick, the gesture felt like a threat to stay silent. As attorney general and later governor, Bill Clinton was “the main person that regulated my business and my income,” Broaddrick said. “After she said what she did to me, I just thought, I will keep quiet.”
That's the one most often cited. And to me there's not evidence of any sort of threat.
Here's another article from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-bill-clinton-accusers/
She's certainly made some disparaging remarks about the women who have accused Bill of either affairs or sexual harassment, but nothing that amounts to threatening.
Where do you stand on the Benghazi situation? She gets a lot of criticism and blame for the death of 4 Americans, one of them being the ambassador out there. I read a quote of her essentially saying the blame doesn't lie with the president etc but at the same time she didn't say the blame lied with her and a lot of people feel that it does.
All said and done, I'm just thankful I'm not American and having to vote for one of these two.
Haters will say dead gorillas cannot be president.
We see this sort of tactic played out with some regularity in politics...often around election time, strangely enough. First, there's the 'Awful News' scare story, creating fear and doubt among many and, a little while later....Guess what?.......It wasn't so bad, after all! Better than expected! Hurrah for the prevailing order. The Government! They'll look after us!
Cynical? Perhaps. Shame, say I, that Bernard Sanders was denied the chance to be the Democratic nomination. Independent....pro-Labo(u)r...and that nasty word, 'Socialist'. Sssssssss. The Establishment wouldn't have him, would it?
Regarding your take on the FBI revelations, I don't agree at all. I think this was actually Director James Comey's attempt to play with a straight bat and keep congress informed. The way he communicated it was awful and stupid. The fact that the FBI is so full of leaks is scary for a Federal Agency in charge of carrying out investigations. More form The Guardian here.
But it's estimated that ~40% of voters will have voted early or via mail, so the whole last minute revelation will almost certainly not have moved any poll in a noteworthy fashion. It's debatable if the initial revelation of investigating emails on Weiner's computer moved the polls, because Trump was starting to close the gap before that.
A bit like a game-show, but where you think both contestants are a bit shit.
For those wondering:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2016/11/how_history_has_been_used_and_misused_during_campaign_2016.html
We should have exit poll results soon.
Sky News has OK coverage at the moment, I will flip over to the BBC when it begins though.
Brexit and Trump. Marvellous
I'm confused as to how he seems to think they vetted the queues to ensure they were only Democratic Party supporters? If he genuinely believes a lot of these claims, then one must wonder whether he's got a legitimate mental health issue that manifests with paranoia. "Everything is rigged against you, and everyone is out to get you" - the gospel according to Trump.
He mentions that "It will be a tremendous waste of time" if he loses... no shit, Sherlock.
The odds on him winning are the same as Brexit according to Sky.. Interestingly, one of the only polls that predicted Brexit is predicting a Trump victory. Although Wall Street have factored in a Hillary victory; makes you wonder what the economic results will be should Trump win.
New York looks stunning in darkness as well. I must try and get out there at some time.
One thing is clear though - and in a striking similarity with our Brexit vote - the fact that Trump has got so far, and is seriously being considered as a possibility, means that a sizable chunk of people are unhappy and desperately want change - even if that change is extreme. I think it's worrying to claim people are racist for not wanting to be in the EU, and likewise I find it concerning that those who support Trump are also being labelled as stupid or bigoted. This is essentially a story of disenfranchisement - disillusionment making people feel helpless and angry, as though they're powerless with the current situation. That's pretty damning assessment of any society - including both our own, and the American one.
For instance, 82% think Trump "can bring change": that's the main motivation. Anger at the status quo and current state of affairs. I dare say there's a lot of anger considering the election in itself; two of the most unpopular candidates ever to run according to the BBC.
(I'm editing this post whilst I watch, as I don't want to spam it with every little observation... if you wanted that, you'd watch the TV FFS.)