nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Who thinks Trump will win?

whiskeyman

Hope the mods don't mind a new thread, but I just want to see how many of us think Trump will beat Biden in Nov?
I think he just has so much of a populist ground swell and I wouldn't be surprised if 'external' participants get involved in the process.

Do you think he'll get reelected?
Where will that leave America?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Beechwoodspark

I’m Irish not American so won’t have a vote obviously but just my two cents

I don’t blame trump for covid - I blame the Chinese for the initial spread of it

but I DO blame him for his pathetic leadership of the response to avoid in America.

gmisk

The head of the USPS seems to have been doing his best to hobble the postal system...I wonder why....seriously dodgy and a mate of Trump's.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-robert-duncan-usps-super-pac_n_5f4dafa9c5b64f17e141d8a7

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/12/politics/postal-service-dejoy-conflicts-amazon-trades-xpo-stake/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/21/usps-post-office-mail-slowdowns-louis-dejoy

Faugheen

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well if you consider CNN a reputable source it would explain your optimism!!!!

It’s analysis of an actual poll carried out by ABC News and the Washington Post, where the piece cites various other sources and modelling forecasts such as FiveThirtyEight.

What is your problem with that exactly?

Seriously, some people here were happy to cite CNN when one of their polls a couple of months ago had Trump quite close. Now that it speaks against their dear leader they’re not a reputable source again.

These people don’t give a f*ck about Trump winning or losing, all they are are trolls who want to stick it to the lefties. The smugness about looking forward to the meltdowns is proof of that.

Outlaw Pete

namloc1980 wrote: »

I'll even take out the Covid piece, you know as Trumpists love to ignore that Covid happened:

No, we don't love to ignore Covid at all, we're just wise enough to know that citing job stats during a global pandemic, which has resulted in mass unemployment, but yet acting as if it's somehow a true reflection of a leader's ability to create manufacturing jobs, is about as absurd as it gets.

Are they really. Between his inauguration and February 2020 manufacturing jobs in the US increased by 483k ... Not sure if I'd call that exceptional by any stretch of the imagination. By contrast under Obama manufacturing jobs increased by nearly 1 million.

Baloney. Obama actually had a Net Loss in creating manufacturing jobs:

Obama’s Record on Manufacturing Jobs

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that 805,000 manufacturing jobs have been created since President Barack Obama has been in office. In fact, there has been a net loss of 303,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2009.

Earnest made the statement during a press briefing on Nov. 30. Carrier, a heating, air-conditioning and refrigeration company, earlier that day had announced a deal with President-elect Donald Trump so that the company would “continue to manufacture gas furnaces in Indianapolis, in addition to retaining engineering and headquarters staff, preserving more than 1,000 jobs.”

The president’s press secretary comes up with 805,000 by counting job growth since February 2010, which was the low point for manufacturing jobs in the U.S. following the Great Recession from December 2007 to June 2009. The administration frequently uses February 2010 as a start date when calculating manufacturing jobs, as it did on Aug. 8 to announce Manufacturing Day.

But Obama was president long before February 2010.

Manufacturing employment was 12,258,000 in October 2016, according to the most recent estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s down 303,000 from the number employed in January 2009, the same month that Obama was sworn in as president.

To make his point, Earnest just ignored all of the job losses that occurred during the first 13 months of Obama’s presidency.

Nice try though.

namloc1980

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, we don't love to ignore Covid at all, we're just wise enough to know that citing job stats during a global pandemic, which has resulted in mass unemployment, but yet acting as if it's somehow a true reflection of a leader's ability to create manufacturing jobs, is about as absurd as it gets.

Baloney. Obama actually had a Net Loss in creating manufacturing jobs:

Nice try though.

You do remember that 2009 was the middle of the great financial crisis recession. If you're going to include that in Obama's numbers even though it was a situation he inherited then you need to include Covid for Trump which happened on his watch. In that instance Trump has lost a huge number of Jobs. I mean fair is fair and all that.

hirondelle

Silentcorner wrote: »

You are correct...no more NEW pointless expensive wars.

So just the existing pointless ones then.

Outlaw Pete

namloc1980 wrote: »

You do remember that 2009 was the middle of the great financial crisis recession. If you're going to include that in Obama's numbers even though it was a situation he inherited then you need to include Covid for Trump which happened on his watch. In that instance Trump has lost a huge number of Jobs. I mean fair is fair and all that.

You're comparing 2009 to Covid? :pac:

Look, you tried to pull a fast one with the ole sleight of hand, but you got caught, just like Josh.

namloc1980

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're comparing 2009 to Covid? :pac:

Look, you tried to pull a fast one with the ole sleight of hand, but you got caught, just like Josh.

Nope just using your logic against you. :pac: You are including job losses in 2009 due to the global recession that started under Bush against Obama. Fine so let's include the current recession in Trump's numbers. So let's look at the numbers:

The lowest months manufacturing numbers under Obama was February 2010 at 11,453k and when he left office it was at 12,356k an increase of 903k or 7.9%.

Before Covid the lowest months manufacturing numbers under Trump was February 2010 at 12,400k and up to Covid in February it was at 12,852k an increase of 452k or 3.6%. Better performance by Obama.

Now let's go from inauguration to date or when Obama left office.

January 2010 at 12,561k and when he left office it was at 12,356k a decrease of 205k or 1.6%. Obama came in during the middle of the financial crisis - George Bush lost 1.5m manufacturing jobs during 2007 and 2008 and that decline continued in 2009 - perhaps you don't remember but there was a massive global recession from 2007-2009.

Now let's look at Trump from inauguration to date: 12,369k job in Jan 2017 to 12,132k today - a decline of 237k or 1.9%. Trump worse here too.

The stats don't lie

Outlaw Pete

No you weren't, as there was no pandemic in 2009 and anyway you said 1 Million jobs, there was 805,000, so more cooking of the books from you, even when ignoring all the 2009 job losses.

namloc1980

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No you weren't, as there was no pandemic in 2009 and anyway you said 1 Million jobs, there was 805,000, so more cooking of the books from you, even when ignoring all the 2009 job losses.

I said nearly 1m. Read the posts again. Your dear leader has not had the job performance that you think he had. I know it is hard for you to hear that.

[Deleted User]

Also there was a generally predicted recession by the end of this year. Covid just accelerated it.

namloc1980

Trump lost manufacturing jobs in the rust belt in 2019 (even before Covid) despite his 2016 promises and nationally only added 46k jobs in 2019 in manufacturing. Poor showing from the dear leader:

Pennsylvania recorded a drop of about 5,700 factory positions, while Wisconsin lost 4,100 and Michigan was down 5,300, though overall employment increased in those states, according to figures released by the Labor Department. National numbers released earlier this month showed that the U.S. added 46,000 manufacturing jobs in 2019, the second-weakest performance since 2009.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-24/manufacturing-jobs-fell-last-year-in-u-s-rust-belt-swing-states

Silentcorner

Faugheen wrote: »

It’s analysis of an actual poll carried out by ABC News and the Washington Post, where the piece cites various other sources and modelling forecasts such as FiveThirtyEight.

What is your problem with that exactly?

Seriously, some people here were happy to cite CNN when one of their polls a couple of months ago had Trump quite close. Now that it speaks against their dear leader they’re not a reputable source again.

These people don’t give a f*ck about Trump winning or losing, all they are are trolls who want to stick it to the lefties. The smugness about looking forward to the meltdowns is proof of that.

I've already linked to a video in this thread that points out some issues with polling, I asked anyone to critic that video but nobody did!!!

I've also posted a few videos showing the massive visible public support for the current President and explained why I don't trust the polls.

I am not even linking Rassmussen polls who were very accurate in 2016, even though they are very promising for the President.

You want to talk about smugness....just read this thread (or any other thread related to this topic) and see how many times people who support the President have been described as stupid or some version of stupid...the same people cannot name one single act/policy of Trumps that they would consider positive, not one!!!

I've probably posted the most positive points on the Trump Administration in this thread and I believe his performance is about average (versus his election promises in 2016).

If you cannot post a single positive policy of the Trump administration over the last 4 years then you have abandoned objectivity, it is that simple.

hirondelle

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, that would depend on what's exactly it is that's been done in name of "protecting the environment" now wouldn't it and rowing back on some of that nonsense (which is all the POTUS has done) is for sure a good thing.

Glad you agree that the other three things on that list are not bizarre to see as being good though and reasons to vote Trump in for another 4 years.

In terms of protecting the environment, I would say that unpicking the Clean Water Act (progressed by that well-known tree hugger Richard Nixon) allowing mining companies to dump contaminated wash from mining activities into headwaters is an example of Trump choosing commercial interests over and above protecting the environment.

A relevant example to think of here is the West Virginia coalfields (mountaintop removal mining)- the coal is washed near the point of extraction- and the process water returned to the watercourse. Trump is steering the EPA towards reducing the testing requirements by the mining companies. This introduces the potential for lovely flavours of cadmium, arsenic and other contaminants into the drinking water supply of the local populace (on a related note, I checked and 68% of the vote in WV went to Trump). So, Trump went for the industry (and the legacy jobs in a doomed industry) by reducing the requirement to test the water and publish the results instead of protecting the health of all the people relying on these water supplies.

All this dressed up as getting rid of "unnecessary" regulation by nasty "Big Government". Tell me Pete, are you personally in favour of a public water supply that is tested to ensure that human health is protected, or do you think the coal industry should be allowed to pollute it with impunity? Would you be happy with having water from these sources as your primary source of drinking water?

And a plea- if you do reply please don't "lol", it never, ever adds to the debate on adult fora.

Carfacemandog

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

September 21st, 2016 - Clinton 42.0%, Trump 40.3% (Link)

September 21st, 2020 - Biden 50.3%, Trump 43.5% (Link)

It's nearly October, it's ridiculous to be calling polls "early" at this stage.

Yes and no, it was in October that Clinton began go gain a bigger lead following the 'grab her by the pussy' video, though that lead fell away following Comeys double standards (something I hope the upcoming show properly addresses). A lot can happen in that time, though there are very few undecided voters left this time around, and it seems the most unlikely election for many to switch from one side to the other because of how polarising this one is.

What is worth noting is that for all the talk of Trump having caught up from his supporters (and chunks of the media interested in clicks above all else), the reality looks quite different. Before the conventions Biden had a lead of about 73/27 on 538s forecast... Trump briefly got to about 33/67 but that now stands at 78/22, the worst outlook for his campaign since they began their forecast. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

Silentcorner

They have Florida to go to Harris/Biden....a state they both visited last week...and had a disaster....that's going to Harris/Biden? Has Bloomberg already spent the €100 million he promised to spend?

I'll tell you something though...The Amish vote is going to Trump!!!

I don't care what any poll tells me...

He might be losing heavily according to the polls but he has the most diverse, geographically spread, enthusiastic, mobilized, passionate support of any losing candidate I've ever seen!!!!

hometruths

Silentcorner wrote: »

They have Florida to go to Harris/Biden....a state they both visited last week...and had a disaster....that's going to Harris/Biden? Has Bloomberg already spent the €100 million he promised to spend?

I'll tell you something though...The Amish vote is going to Trump!!!

I don't care what any poll tells me...

He might be losing heavily according to the polls but he has the most diverse, geographically spread, enthusiastic, mobilized, passionate support of any losing candidate I've ever seen!!!!

Totally agree. This is exactly why I doubted all the Hillary has it in the bag chat in 2016.

Seeing footage of her campaigning, addressing a rather bored looking rent a crowd of about 25 people compared with footage of Trump packing out venues with 1000s of enthusiastic supporters, looked a bit negative for Hillary’s chances.

Also the yard signs. Trumps vastly outnumbered Clinton’s everywhere it mattered.

Meanwhile all the talking heads were pontificating about Clinton’s poll lead and the fact that Trumps only chance was if there was a ‘shy Trump vote’.

Shy Trump vote?! Look out the bleedin’ window!

Cody montana

Silentcorner wrote: »

They have Florida to go to Harris/Biden....a state they both visited last week...and had a disaster....that's going to Harris/Biden? Has Bloomberg already spent the €100 million he promised to spend?

I'll tell you something though...The Amish vote is going to Trump!!!

I don't care what any poll tells me...

He might be losing heavily according to the polls but he has the most diverse, geographically spread, enthusiastic, mobilized, passionate support of any losing candidate I've ever seen!!!!

Except for Latinos, black peoples, Jewish people, Asian Americans, gay folk, native Americans.

mcmoustache

Cody montana wrote: »

Except for Latinos, black peoples, Jewish people, Asian Americans, gay folk, native Americans.

He's popular with quite a few sections of the Latino community. They're too diverse a bunch to be bundled together in my opinion but some groups do like him such as Cubans in Florida.

DangerScouse

Silentcorner wrote: »

They have Florida to go to Harris/Biden....a state they both visited last week...and had a disaster....that's going to Harris/Biden? Has Bloomberg already spent the €100 million he promised to spend?

I'll tell you something though...The Amish vote is going to Trump!!!

I don't care what any poll tells me...

He might be losing heavily according to the polls but he has the most diverse, geographically spread, enthusiastic, mobilized, passionate support of any losing candidate I've ever seen!!!!

Nobody believes the polls. Trump's polling numbers where worse 4 years ago and he won at a canter.

The democrats had one job and that was to put someone forward that could create a buzz among undecided voters to sway things their way and they put up a guy with the personality of a fence post and the energy of a brick.

Timberrrrrrrr

DangerScouse wrote: »

Nobody believes the polls. Trump's polling numbers where worse 4 years ago and he won at a canter.

The democrats had one job and that was to put someone forward that could create a buzz among undecided voters to sway things their way and they put up a guy with the personality of a fence post and the energy of a brick.

The difference between the two is astounding, but keep throwing out the Trump attack lines, it's hilarious proving you wrong.

Biden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBRauvbHL8Q

Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tszIXno2Q8

Mic 1972

I can't believe that video of Trump walking down the ramp is still been thrown around as evidence of anything. LOL

mcmoustache

DangerScouse wrote: »

Nobody believes the polls. Trump's polling numbers where worse 4 years ago and he won at a canter.

None of the statements in the quoted post above are true.

Polls are good indicators and campaigns themselves use them to adjust messaging. Trump's polling numbers were worse in absolute terms but this is a binary choice meaning that Biden's and Clinton's need to be taken into account here. Trumped scraped by with about 80,000 votes that mattered.

Oh, and here's a free fact that hasn't sunk in for many people - 538's polling aggregate was within the margin of error when compared with the actual outcome.

mcmoustache

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I can't believe that video of Trump walking down the ramp is still been thrown around as evidence of anything. LOL

It's the perfect response to all those posts about Biden's health.

namloc1980

DangerScouse wrote: »

Nobody believes the polls. Trump's polling numbers where worse 4 years ago and he won at a canter.

The democrats had one job and that was to put someone forward that could create a buzz among undecided voters to sway things their way and they put up a guy with the personality of a fence post and the energy of a brick.

I love these lines of attack!!

Trump sat for his entire low energy townhall last week. He probably didn't stand because he has that weird hinged stance and he sways around unless he can hold onto something.

Meanwhile Biden stood for almost his entire townhall.

But yeah let's talk about energy.

Mic 1972

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's the perfect response to all those posts about Biden's health.

It's a man walking down a ramp wearing slippery soles.
Trump isn't the most healthy person on the planet, i'll give you that.
Biden has a brain condition.

namloc1980

DangerScouse wrote: »

Nobody believes the polls. Trump's polling numbers where worse 4 years ago and he won at a canter.

The democrats had one job and that was to put someone forward that could create a buzz among undecided voters to sway things their way and they put up a guy with the personality of a fence post and the energy of a brick.

In 2016 there were a lot more undecided voters at this stage in the polls plus 3rd party candidates were doing much better last time also. Neither of those is a particular feature in the polling this time around.

[Deleted User]

DangerScouse wrote: »

Nobody believes the polls. Trump's polling numbers where worse 4 years ago and he won at a canter.

The democrats had one job and that was to put someone forward that could create a buzz among undecided voters to sway things their way and they put up a guy with the personality of a fence post and the energy of a brick.

Trump did not win at a canter.
He won a few close states by a small margin to put him over the top in the EC.
Clinton was at fault for not taking those states seriously enough and lost out.

The Dems needed someone to win back those states.
And more precisely win back a small demographic of voters in those states who would either stay at home or vote for Trump, while holding their noses as it were.

That demographic is older, white, blue collar and conservative with a small c.

Biden is and always was the only real chance the Democrats had of winning that demographic.

It doesn't matter about the progressives in California or New York, or the young people, or the black vote, Biden already has them.
But he needs the blue collar, older, whites.

There was an interesting point made on this website back during the 2012 election, and it was that had Romney won as smaller percentage of the white vote he would have won the election.

It's not about the minorities, it's a the majority that matters.

Outlaw Pete

namloc1980 wrote: »

I said nearly 1m. Read the posts again. Your dear leader has not had the job performance that you think he had. I know it is hard for you to hear that.

So you'd be fine with someone that was 4ft 8" saying they were "nearly" 6ft :pac:

A 5th is quite a chunk my friend.

Look, you were bs'ing about Obama's job numbers and you got caught.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHa_qwLm3bw

Only one person can beat Donald Trump for the American presidency: Donald Trump himself.

The Democrats lurch to the left seems to have orphaned some of the middle of the road Democrats while at the same time the Bernie Sanders wing of the party is not that enthused with Joe Biden perceiving him as inauthentic and pandering to special interests. The polls may tell one story getting the vote out for a candidate that is not trusted is a different story.