Say GOP insiders.
I too am convinced that Trump is toast. Maybe if he’d kept his big yap shut he’d have had a better chance but I’m really grateful that he didn’t. I think the US and the whole planet dodged a bullet here.
Does anybody here still think that he has a chance of winning?
Sure. Putin can hack our voting machines:
I, for one, do not feel comfortable speaking of Trump’s campaign in the past tense at this stage of the game. Don’t get me wrong, it would be a great relief to be able to.
A terrorist attack, a really big one, especially on US territory, might do it.
I notice that even suggesting Hillary be assassinated if elected didn’t move many Repubs (McCain, I am looking at you) to jump ship.
I don’t blame him. Look what happened the last time he jumped out of something.
So, stick a fork in him?
I’ve said I figure the question of Syrian refugees will come up at the debates, because why wouldn’t it? And I figure Trump will say keep them out, because why wouldn’t he? And I figure Hillary will say, no, let even more of them in, because why wouldn’t she?
And if a Syrian refugee then shouts ALLAHU AKBAR while slaughtering tons of innocent Americans, I figure that debate clip will get played over and over and over until she loses, at which point it’ll – well, still get played over and over and over.
He got captured and served his time honorably in the enemies POW camp and then was labeled a war hero for over 43 years, elected multiple times to the US Senate and ran for POTUS. Go ahead and jump Senator.
If I were a GOP official who wanted to suppress Democratic voter turnout, I’d tell them that Trump has no chance of winning.
I think anything’s possible until November 9.
Is it likelier that Hillary will win? Yes.
Because, chances are, if you’ve thought of this as a possibility, her campaign has too, and they’ll be prepared with a better answer than what you suggest she’ll give.
The really good news is that Trump just isn’t getting it. He apparently has no idea how poorly he’s doing.
Oh, I think she’ll festoon it with fine-sounding words about how the United States has to do more to help, given that it’s the biggest refugee crisis since WWII, and how it would be a cruel irony indeed if ISIS can force families from their homes and then also prevent them from finding new ones. But she ultimately still kinda sorta hasta give a “yes” or a “no” right there on live national television, doesn’t she?
And when Trump trashed veterans, he folded like a cheap tent.
Hopefully he is just playing his hand out slowly and is waiting to pile onto Trump with all the other people he has insulted. When people (fellow republicans and veteran lovers) didn’t step up and to defend him against Trumps attacks he knew it wasn’t the right time to attack him alone. I’m thinking he is a revenge is a dish best served cold and at the right time kind of guy. If not then he will go down as a wussy. There just has to be an end game here.
Yes, I think he has a chance of winning. Trump is running an unconventional campaign, so of course the party professionals will resent it. And newspaper quotes of political professional are selective, while those quoted have an agenda other than objective analysis.
Horse race journalists, OTOH, are at best equally bad. Probably worse.
So let’s turn to the historical models. These currently give Trump a 12-23 percent chance of victory.
In contrast, the chance of rolling doubles on the board game Monopoly or losing a single round of Russian roulette is 16.7%. I don’t consider such odds to be tiny.
Now the models are a baseline, not a proper forecast in my view. A decent political forecaster will start the conversation with such models. Otherwise their views can be dismissed. Just think of such nonsense as static or perhaps the babbling of an innumerate drunk who has just taken up heroin.
The models are based upon past data. But only one of the two candidates is running a conventional campaign. Nate Silver: [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump. [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] So the models are broken. They tell us what would happen on average in a typical Presidential election, after averaging over the past 45 years or so.
They are still a good starting point. Clinton is favored to win. But you have to increase the odds of a Clinton landslide (relative to what polls predict now) as well as a narrower Trump victory.
I’m frankly not sure what that means at the moment. I do know that we shouldn’t dismiss Trump’s chances. For example Trump isn’t advertising at all: he is losing by 6-7 points while he is the recipient of a one sided ad-bomb. What happens if he starts spending ad money in September? Does Hillary have a glass jaw? I doubt it, but again I can’t rule it out.
Main scenario: Trump is running a scampaign, and is raising money to pay back his loans. But Trump is ego driven: if he snaps he just might decide to spend some big bucks on advertising. Luckily, he is also a skinflint. And whatever happens he can say he spent tremendous amounts on advertising because he is indifferent to reality.
I currently put Trump’s odds at 20% and falling. That’s too high. I want to see a Clinton landslide. She would have to be up by about 16 points for that. That’s not currently likely, but also not impossible. We have our work cut out.
Not at all. Have you heard politicians talk before? Or lawyers? Or lawyer politicians? Regardless of how she will handle the refugee situation as president, I would be thoroughly surprised if she committed a hard “yes” to that question during a debate. She has very little to gain by doing so, and much to lose.
The models that use the “fundamentals” are indeed broken, but they are the ones that say that Trump should be doing better. The poll-based models are not nearly so broken. The only possible flaw is in determining likely voters–if Trump does activate a bunch of previously untapped voters, then the models will be off. However, he must activate a substantial number for that to work. He did not activate very many new voters in the primaries.
So I say the poll-based models are probably accurate. That doesn’t mean he can’t win, but that their numbers are pretty much representative.
I guess you missed that he was actually using Hillary’s own words and that she did basically gave a hard “yes” in a televised interview.
I’ve had this idea running through my head for some time now that Trump might just be running as a shill for Hillary. That is, he intended to get the nomination and then lose, whether by withdrawing from the race at the last minute (which could still happen), or just by running a spectacularly bad campaign. That his whole purpose in entering the race from the git-go was to ensure that Hillary would win. Every time this idea enters my head, I dismiss it - of course it’s silly, just a wild fantasy, couldn’t possibly be so. Just the same, I’m hard pressed to think of what he would be doing differently if my theory were true.
I think most political junkies, including myself, suffer from this ailment. Jeet Heer compares the Trump campaign to Mel Brook’s Producers.