Trump

[Tredman]

Clinton won South Carolina with a massive landslide. She is definitely going to be the Democrat candidate now, unless there is a huge change on super Tuesday. And Clinton will beat Trump as well.

Nah, not necessarily. Sanders gave up on South Carolina, but is ahead in a good few of Tuesday's states.

I do think Hilary will get it though.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

She will easily win in the end. The only way the Democrats lose in November is if they present too socialist a candidate, and thereby galvanise conservative (small c) America to vote like fuck for whomever is up against that socialist. Sanders, nice chap as he probably is, is their only possibility of losing the White House against Trump. Clinton is a safe bet for keeping power.

 

[Lycan]

She will easily win in the end. The only way the Democrats lose in November is if they present too socialist a candidate, and thereby galvanise conservative (small c) America to vote like fuck for whomever is up against that socialist. Sanders, nice chap as he probably is, is their only possibility of losing the White House against Trump. Clinton is a safe bet for keeping power.

Polls saying exactly the opposite of that right now. Bernie beats Trump by a much larger margin than Hillary does.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Bernie won't beat Hilary though. Not a chance.

 

[Lycan]

Love John Oliver. He seemed really riled up with this one.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Very good!

Still, modern electorates don't tend to factor in things like facts and reasoning into their decision making.

 

[EdgeOfTheAlps]

Very good!

Still, modern electorates don't tend to factor in things like facts and reasoning into their decision making.

The more hypocritical he is, the more outrageous he is, the more racist he is, the money outwardly violent, insulting and plain bad he is, the more his base love and defend him and the more morons he attracts.

He's seen as a blustering joke figure, much like some other bloke in early 20th century history. Not saying the outcome will be the same or even remotely similar, but they and their followers are similar - angry people with feelings of inadequacy

 

[So Long Architect]

And much like with UKIP here, the mockery from the "liberal elite" just confirms the outsider status and increases their popularity.

Just as you can't reason a person out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into, you can't laugh a person out of it, if they have no sense of humour.

 

[visage]

He's like Farage - his supporters are loud and passionate. So it appears there are more of them than there are. ANother similarity is there isnt much of a middle ground - he's like marmite.

So in the general he is going to strgggle to win the floating voters who will ultimately decide the election.

 

[thehistorymakers]

He's like Farage - his supporters are loud and passionate. So it appears there are more of them than there are. ANother similarity is there isnt much of a middle ground - he's like marmite.

So in the general he is going to strgggle to win the floating voters who will ultimately decide the election.

Floating voters take their time, as it takes longer for things to sink in.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Or they make their minds up very quickly not to touch an extreme.

See Performance, UKIP at 2015 election.

 

[nimrod]

Or they make their minds up very quickly not to touch an extreme.

See Performance, UKIP at 2015 election.

do you mean when 3.8 million people voted for them, or the 1 MP they got from a system that is as "anti-democratic" as so called democratic rules allow, propped up by the two largest parties that benefit from it?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I mean that they had 3.8 million core vote months before the election and managed to persuade a very tiny number of floating voters to come on board on the day.

 

[nimrod]

that may be a fair point, not that i studied ukip's vote profile in an election run up. though it's a bit unproven in the end - you could have had a whole number that when it came to the crunch returned to vote conservative, say, swayed by the anti SNP argument, and the same proportion of floating votes voting ukip that represented their end proportion of the vote. that's not a hypothesis, just maths.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

UKIP gained votes (as I remember) in certain constituencies from labour rather than the Conservatives, which may back up your point. It is something I would need to look into to be sure but it rings a bell on election night that there was some surprise at how well UKIP was doing in terms of votes gained in the labour heartlands.

I think the big blurred area in this is the same area that the pollsters struggled with. It was just not perceived as desirable to admit to a pollster that you were going to vote conservative and so their vote was hugely under-estimated. I don't think they came swinging back from UKIP, I just think they weren't truthful to the pollsters in the first place.

 

[Law's Bus]

I think the big blurred area in this is the same area that the pollsters struggled with. It was just not perceived as desirable to admit to a pollster that you were going to vote conservative and so their vote was hugely under-estimated. I don't think they came swinging back from UKIP, I just think they weren't truthful to the pollsters in the first place.

Nobody votes Tory yet they keep getting elected.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Or they make their minds up very quickly not to touch an extreme.

See Performance, UKIP at 2015 election.

Not really the same comparison. As they vote state by state its performance in each state that matters. you can get 1% of the vote in 10 states and 51% in 11 and win. The other candidate may have more people who voted but you won the state. Add to that some states have a loading making them worth more than others and the latest guesstimate was that 22-25% of the vote could secure a Trump win if he won the right states. UkIP got about 14-15% of the vote and 1 MP. For a 7% swing USA could get a president. You get nothing for second place and UKIP got 120 second places. And UKIP may be many things but I dont think " Extreme" covers it. Jeremy Cobyn's left of centre politics are therefore equally " extreme" ( and they are not) Here is the country map. May be worth comparing to 2010 http://www.cityam.com/215414/genera...second-every-seat-including-120-silver-medals Here is the breakdown from the Guardian of what went wrong and where votes shifted. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/election-2015-where-the-votes-switched-and-why

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

UKIP is extreme by UK political standards. In the same way as the Tea Party and Trump policy is extreme by US political standards.

There are obviously different levels of extremity - the BNP is considerably more extreme than UKIP.

I would say it is very similar in terms of voting percentages and the states thing. UKIP could have got 1% of the vote in 250 constituencies and 32% in the rest and Farage would be Prime Minister about now.

Trump won't win the right states anyway. He needs states like Florida (27 delegates) to have a chance. He won't get anywhere near Cailfornia (55 delegates) or New York (29 delegates) or indeed Illinois (20 delegates). Republicans will no doubt hold Texas with 34 delegates.

 

[Lycan]

Don't believe the hype. Clinton hasn't won this yet. A more than decent Super Tuesday for Bernie, he's closing in on her.

 

[Lord Knows]

Don't believe the hype. Clinton hasn't won this yet. A more than decent Super Tuesday for Bernie, he's closing in on her.

Yes, I agree. Bernie should do well next week. Has Elizabeth Warren endorsed Bernie Sanders?