There is so much to attack Clinton on that if Trump can stop himself saying something overly mental (practically impossible) he might land some blows.
She is horrendously unlikable in debates as well.
1 Like
Trunp destroyed the field in the GOP debates. I expect the same with HRC.
Negative ratings for candidates donât necessarily mean a low turnout - they can lead to a high turnout as people vote against a candidate.
Turnout in the primaries in 2016 was almost as high as in 2008.
Pew Research have done a study of public attitudes to this election:
Here are some of the key findings:
80 percent of respondents say they have thought âquite a lotâ about the election, the highest share measured in the past quarter century.
85 percent report that they are following the news about the presidential candidates very or fairly closely, also a quarter-century high.
74 percent believe that when it comes to making progress on important issues facing the country, it âreally mattersâ who wins the election. This measure began in 2000, when it stood at only 50 percent. In 2004, when the controversy over the Iraq war was at its height, it rose to 67 percent. In 2008, it fell slightly to 63 percent, where it remained in 2012.
60 percent say that they are more interested in politics than they were four years ago, second only to 63 percent in the precedent-shattering 2008 presidential election.
These four trends apply to both political parties, with Republicans enjoying slightly higher shares overall.
It is tempting to conclude that if interest in the election is high and most people think the outcome matters a lot, then turnout is likely to surge, all the more so because it fell by 4 pointsâfrom 62 to 58 percentâbetween 2008 and 2012. There is, it appears, plenty of room to grow.
Trump is on record as saying heâd invade Syria and Iraq. He also called for US intervention in Libya in March 2011, actually criticised Obama and Clinton for not being aggressive enough in their intervention, and lies about his opposition to the 2003 Iraq War.
Heâs in favour of torture.
That does not sound like a non-interventionist President in waiting to me, and makes Hillary Clinton look positively dovish.
Heâs debating Tracy Flick now bud,sheâs a whole different ball game,heâs lucky sheâs such a horrible auld hag or heâd be out of the race long ago
Are you comparing Donald to Chris Klein? Donaldâs far more handsome than him thatâs outrageous.
vox.com 
vox is the left wing equivalent of fox, nobody with a functioning brain would use either as a credible source.
The turnout in the 2016 primaries was due to two factors; Bernie Sanders who brought out a whole new generation of young voters, and the Republican turnout which was the highest since 1980. Hillaryâs challenge is to get the Bernie supporters out to vote, the history of young people voting isnât good, and many of them hate her because of the way the DNC treated Bernie.
The stats that matter right now are:
- In the latest Gallup poll conducted in late July, both candidates have equivalent favorable (37%) and unfavorable (58%) ratings. Hillaryâs favorability has been dropping like a stone since the convention.
2.In the latest CNN country wide poll, Trump is now ahead by 2 points.
This election is much closer than the liberal media portrays it. The debates will be decisive. Hopefully Hillaryâs coughing fits will have subsided by then.
Please debate the quotes used in the article rather than childishly attacking the source. Attacking the source of an article which uses quotes by Trump himself merely reinforces the widespread image of you on this forum as a paranoid conspiracy nut.
Late July? Weâre in September now. The convention was in late July. Youâre talking about favourability ratings since the conventions but quoting the âlatest pollâ from late July? WTF? 
The CNN poll is based on a sample of 786. CNN is roundly vilified by Trump supporters, but clearly theyâre happy to accept a poll from it when it suits their biases.
The NBC poll from 29/8 to 4/9 which is based on a sample size of more than 32,000 shows Clinton up by 6.
Exactly the same was said in the last two Presidential elections. I think you can remember how that worked out.
I am the voice of reason on this forum mate, a counterpoint to the insane Marxism sprouted by yourself.
As I am not a Trump supporter, I see no reason to defend anything he has said. While his message has been confusing, from what I have heard (from actually listening to what he says, rather than reading a biased article), he is not in favor of the US engaging in regime change or nation building in the ME. I certainly support that. Confronting and wiping out ISIS does not have to involve regime change or nation building.
On the unfavorability polls, as always in your rush to judgement, you miss the point. Hillaryâs unfavorability was at 40% (averaged across all polls) at the beginning of the primaries. It started to ramp in early summer 2016, and bar a small pop in favorability during convention week, has continued to ramp. The latest IBD poll condicted a few days ago has her at 59% unfavorability, probably the highest in history of any candidate. The primary reason for this is that more people are started to wake up to the fact that she is a lying sack of shit, and cannot be trusted.
This elction is like no other in US history, you can draw no conclusions from what happened in 2008 and 2012.
2 Likes
The Irish media is comically biased in this election . Not dissimilar to brexit . Not that it matters a shit . To be honest the seethe will be comical if DT wins . Personally I hope HRC wins but the seethe here could be very very fun.
Is trump not also seen as a pathological liar in the US?
Both of them are seen as very dishonest. For comparison, according to CBS and Pew research polls, in 2008, 28% of Americans regarded Obama as dishonest and 30% regarded McCain as dishonest. Today, those numbers are 56% for Trump and a staggering 67% for Clinton.
Some of that is the increasing focus on fact checking every word that a politician utters, and some of it is biased reporting. Mostly though itâs based on their track records, Hillary (and Bill) have spent a lifetime denying and trying to cover up various scandals, while Trump boosts about his business success which at best is a mixed bag. Clintonâs lies tend to be defensive (âI was always in favor of same sex marriageâ, no Hillary, you were not, and the footage is there to prove it), while Trumpâs are offensive (âMexico are sending their drug dealers and rapistsâ, no Donald, Mexico are not sending anyone, Mexican people come across a porous border, and some of them are criminals as you would expect).
The overall perception is that Trumpâs lies are off the cuff and mostly bluster in nature, while Hillaryâs lies tend to be covers ups and calculated. The nature of Hillaryâs lies are what make her such a loathsome and loathed figure, independents for example tend to dislike Trump but detest Clinton.
1 Like
Cheers.
Iv no skin in this game whatsoever. But it will be utterly utterly bizarre if Trump is elected. He has zero credentials whatsoever to be president surely?
Whatever about Clintons lies etc, at least she has at least a thorough understanding of what the role involves and the machinations of government. Trump would be learning it on the fly. God fucking knows who he would appoint as chief of staff, a crony from the business world?
I spent a few weeks in the Chicago area a few months back as my brother lives over there, this was a major topic of discussion amongst his American friends and colleagues. One group of 8 came to the conclusion anyways that between them they could not name one person who (would admit to) vote for Trump. They wouldnt be his demographic granted, but stillâŚ
Youâve hit the nail on the head there. The key phrase is âwould admit toâ vote for Trump, as while people are hesitant to publically state their support for him, the reality is he won the Republican primaries in a landslide, and is at worst a few points behind in the polls, so obviously a lot of people have and will vote for him. The reason people are hesitant, is that anyone stating their support for Trump is immediately labelled a bigot and a racist, so itâs not worth the bother. Most Americans tend to not talk politics anyway, although this election is getting plenty attention.
Iâve been trying to explain this to the forum since early in the primaries, but the conversation keeps getting sidetracked by knuckleheads like sidney who donât understand the issues. The majority of Americans work for a living, and are increasingly angry at the direction of the country over the past few decades. Their anger is actually directed at both parties, and for good reason. Both parties have embraced corporatism, so basically the large corporations and banks get to do whatever they want, no matter how much it screws people who work for a living. An incredible statistic is that the profits of the biggest Wall St banks have grown by 900% over the past few decades while wages have grown 9%. Wages are stagnant while the cost of living, especially health care and education, have skyrockeed (driven by the same corporatism).
Nobody in their right mind believes anything would change under Clinton. Why would it?, she is owned by corporations, not just normal political donations, but massive donations to her foundation. Whether Trump would or could do anything about it is at least debatable.
The second issue is the growth of socialism in a country where it was unknown. Welfare was something for those in need, or to help people while they were out of work. The US is now turning into Europe, where the govt provides just enough in welfare (using debt that future generations can pay off) to make working an unnecessary burden for many. Thatâs the great lie regarding the âlowâ unemployment rate in the US, the govt doesnât count people not looking for work, which is an incredible 50 million or 25% of those between the ages of 20 and 65 (the official # of unemployed is 8.5 million).
People are angry, the corporations are raping the country, and the government pay 25% of the working age population just enough to survive on to shut up. Trump is tapping into this anger, itâs really that simple.
A lot of people are also fed up to the teeth of all the PC bullshit, especially from social media, but also increasingly by their government. Americans by and large donât like to be told what to think.
Why would you think Trump would do anything to curtail rampant capitalism. You are having a laugh surely? His whole life and career is built on capitalism. Has he ever done anything civic minded in his life?
Clinton has her serious flaws no doubt about that. but she has at least done some public service over her career. the money and power flowed from this. Trumps power, if it comes, will only be coming from his money.
Another question for you. Has anyone asked trump how he feels about his entire business empire being placed in a blind trust? How does he feel about that, you need to be absolutely sure there is nothing messy hiding in there surely before you could do such a thing?
What are the mechanics of the blind trust anyways? Who nominates the trustee?
Again I note no attempt to engage with the content of what I posted even though it directly rebutted what you wrote in your previous post, because I referenced a factual article which doesnât suit your obvious pro-Trump bias.
Really piss poor debating from you yet again.
âBeing seen as dishonestâ does not equal dishonest, pal.
The actual facts (ie. as checked by reputable fact checking organisations*, not you) show Clinton is much more honest than Trump. Itâs not even close.
This is another basic point that seems to fly over your head, which really is pretty funny when you constantly and erroneously accuse me of missing the point.
Yet again you mistake your individual biased perception (ie. something that is in no way related to reality) for fact.
*Such as Pew Research, who you refuse to acknowledge as reputable simply because they donât suit your far-right bias.
Oneâs in cloud cuckoo land and the otherâs in Galway.
1 Like
Galway is cloud cuckoo land .