The Republican House committees can’t damage her, no. The NY Times can, and they are always looking for new things to report.
That’s what all your faint hopes ride on now, isn’t it?
So after hearing trump’s “speech” it sounds like he’s going all negative (plus as many conspiracy theories about the Clintons the far right will feed him) and ZERO actual ideas or plans (well sane plans not border walls)…
I am actually disappointed that there are dopers that would actually vote for this demagogue, it’s a shame
Are there any dopers who are? They seem few and far between, even among the conservative Dopers.
If we took a Doper poll, I bet Trump would finish third, maybe even fourth. Hey, I should start one!
I am greatly looking forward to his Monday speech about “The Clinton’s”. Should make a drinking game out of this somehow…
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), facing a tough reelection campaign, has withdrawn his endorsement of The Donald: http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/sen-mark-kirk-withdraws-support-for-trump/
Great victory speech by Hillary tonight. I got teary when she talked about her mother near the end.
Okay, after Mr. Sanders’ speech on the 7th of June, I’m a little less sanguine. So, recalculating, with a couple of assumptions. First, obviously, that Sanders refuses to drop out. Second, that he siphons off 5% of the votes from Ms. Clinton.* Third, that no votes are siphoned from Trump.
*Nader got 2.74% of the vote in 2000.
Nailbiter! You have Clinton winning, but just barely.
I like your map. My map would be different thus (relying on instinct, here, not polls): Trump gets Michigan and New Hampshire, while Clinton gets Florida and Arizona. The squeaker is Wisconsin – it all comes down to that state, where the winner will win by less than a thousand votes. Iowa and Virginia will also be tight toss-ups.
(I actually think Clinron will beat Trump pretty handily, but if it’s close, I see it being close more or less in the way I’ve just outlined)
With my scenario, Trump could win Iowa and Virginia (but lose Wisconsin), or win Iowa and Wisconsin (but lose Virginia), and he’d still lose. The only 2-out-of-3 situation where Trump wins if if he takes Virginia and Wisconsin.
I’ll swap Iowa for Colorado and Ohio and Florida are close. I don’t see Colorado going red since it’s gone blue twice and since then they have gone green, and considering the federal precariousness of weed I don’t see them going red.
Yeah, it’s interesting to see a scenario where someone gets exactly 270, but I don’t see CO going red while IA goes blue. I also think FL is likely in the bag for the Democrats this time, as they have had a *huge *increase in their Latino population just since 2012.
There hasn’t been an election since the change in relations with Cuba, so we don’t know the effects that will have. I worry that that is going to hurt Democrats with the Cuban population. Don’t assume that Mexicans and Cubans are allies just because they both speak Spanish.
Younger Cuban-Americans are much less Republican than they used to be.
More from another Pew report:
You misspelled “yuuuuge.”
Today’s Rasmussen is Clinton +4. Last two weeks before had Clinton +1. Week before that Trump +5.
“Surge” is an overstatement but “trend” from a bottoming out middle of last month with a change of 9 points Clintonward in the same house (one with an identified GOP lean), about the same change over three to four weeks that the Reuters/Ipsos method reported? Yeah.
Oh. Links help. Sorry.
An then one has to remember how Rassmusen is a bit biased in favor of the Republicans and then looking at other polls I have to say that the trend should be in reality much better for Clinton.
Nobody today is mocked as a “square” because nobody today uses that word, a point you missed. If you don’t know how people speak, how do you know what they’re saying?
I like that trend. I also think Trump’s comments about the “Mexican judge” (who was born in Indiana) truly had a negative effect on him. He’s made outrageous statements before, but this one seemed different imo.