"DAVID WASSERMAN 7:43 PM If I had to bet on second place, I’d put a very slight bet on Rubio over Cruz at the moment. Very early returns in Charleston County show him leading Cruz there 2-to-1, and very early returns in Greenville County show a virtual three-way tie between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz."
"DAVID WASSERMAN 7:43 PM If I had to bet on second place, I’d put a very slight bet on Rubio over Cruz at the moment. Very early returns in Charleston County show him leading Cruz there 2-to-1, and very early returns in Greenville County show a virtual three-way tie between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz."
No one has previously won NH and SC and failed to win GOP nomination. It's Trump v Clinton. And Trump wins that handily.
He has huge negative figures, even among his own party, without THAT much in the line of attacks from the Democrats Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
If Rubio makes it to 2nd I think he's going to get all the "momentum" media coverage, and a bunch of money from the establishment as they give up on Bush. Wouldn't like to bet much ainst him despite Trump's strength.
No one has previously won NH and SC and failed to win GOP nomination. It's Trump v Clinton. And Trump wins that handily.
He has huge negative figures, even among his own party, without THAT much in the line of attacks from the Democrats Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
2 national polls this week showed Trump beating Hillary by 2 and losing to Hillary by 3, with Bloomberg in he wins convincingly.
And those where not Fox News polls that where the only ones previously that showed good numbers for Trump.
No one has previously won NH and SC and failed to win GOP nomination. It's Trump v Clinton. And Trump wins that handily.
He has huge negative figures, even among his own party, without THAT much in the line of attacks from the Democrats Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
You could paint a face on my left testie and it would beat Hillary in the election.
No one has previously won NH and SC and failed to win GOP nomination. It's Trump v Clinton. And Trump wins that handily.
He has huge negative figures, even among his own party, without THAT much in the line of attacks from the Democrats Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
2 national polls this week showed Trump beating Hillary by 2 and losing to Hillary by 3, with Bloomberg in he wins convincingly.
And those where not Fox News polls that where the only ones previously that showed good numbers for Trump.
Look at favourabilities:
Hillary 37/57 Trump 37/57
Hillary has fallen to Trump levels.
Precisely my point is not that Clinton is currently ahead, but that Trump has further to fall and not just in favourable numbers - for one thing, 100 per cent of Democrats will be behind Clinton
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
If Rubio makes it to 2nd I think he's going to get all the "momentum" media coverage, and a bunch of money from the establishment as they give up on Bush. Wouldn't like to bet much ainst him despite Trump's strength.
Rubio would still theoretically have a chance of winning the nomination if he could consolidate the anti-Trump vote (obviously Kasich and Bush's voters should be his targets, but also I still think he has a chance of picking off some of Cruz's less-hardcore Christians) -- but the problem is it's getting very late in the day for that consolidation to take place in time. By this time in two weeks, nearly 50% of states will have voted already.
On paper his path to the nomination is there, but he needs all the stars to align, and QUICKLY.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
If Rubio makes it to 2nd I think he's going to get all the "momentum" media coverage, and a bunch of money from the establishment as they give up on Bush. Wouldn't like to bet much ainst him despite Trump's strength.
Rubio would still theoretically have a chance of winning the nomination if he could consolidate the anti-Trump vote (obviously Kasich and Bush's voters should be his targets, but also I still think he has a chance of picking off some of Cruz's less-hardcore Christians) -- but the problem is it's getting very late in the day for that consolidation to take place in time. By this time in two weeks, nearly 50% of states will have voted already.
On paper his path to the nomination is there, but he needs all the stars to align, and QUICKLY.
Some of Kasich and Bush's voters will go to Trump and Cruz and most of Carson's. No candidate, GOP or Democrat, has lost Iowa, NH and SC and gone on to win their party's nomination, the odds very much do not favour Rubio at this point
Wouldn't surprise me either if it's 50-0 to Trump.
I think he will get all 50 delegates, so much for the myth states being proportional before March 15th, the reality is that most states are still winner take all under certain conditions.
Wouldn't surprise me either if it's 50-0 to Trump.
I think he will get all 50 delegates, so much for the myth states being proportional before March 15th, the reality is that most states are still winner take all under certain conditions.
Well this one was WTA under quite explicit conditions, moderated only (perhaps) by the cube rule...
No one has previously won NH and SC and failed to win GOP nomination. It's Trump v Clinton. And Trump wins that handily.
He has huge negative figures, even among his own party, without THAT much in the line of attacks from the Democrats Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
2 national polls this week showed Trump beating Hillary by 2 and losing to Hillary by 3, with Bloomberg in he wins convincingly.
And those where not Fox News polls that where the only ones previously that showed good numbers for Trump.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
The media narrative might be all Rubio and the GOP establishment will be cheering him on but what states does he actually win on Super Tuesday? Not as many as Trump or Cruz thats for sure. The race for the nomination is over. Trump's won.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
Hispanics, minorities and women will win it for Hillary
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Looking at Super Tuesday, Kasich could maybe win Vermont? Left-wing state with a primary open to all voters. Doesn't seem like great territory for the "Big 3".
He ain't winning the nomination obviously, but I guess he may as well stay in to make a pitch for the VP spot / a future presidential run.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
Hispanics, minorities and women will win it for Hillary
It might be difficult for Hillary to maintain the same level of turnout among minorities that Obama did.
Looking at Super Tuesday, Kasich could maybe win Vermont? Left-wing state with a primary open to all voters. Doesn't seem like great territory for the "Big 3".
He ain't winning the nomination obviously, but I guess he may as well stay in to make a pitch for the VP spot / a future presidential run.
Trump is leading in Vermont by a lot.
The only state that Trump is losing in the polls is Texas, and that one to Cruz.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
Hispanics, minorities and women will win it for Hillary
Nothing like taking your voters for granted. Without Obama on the ticket Dem turnout will be lower. Ohio and Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida all go Trump he wins.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Says who?
Punters judging by their implied odds.
Ignore them. The last DEM to win an election after 2 (or more) previous terms was almost 70 years ago, and he was a new incumbent...
Only one non-incumbent DEM has achieved it. Van Buren in 1836, and he at least was Veep.
It seems the endorsement by all elected officials, except Sanford and Graham, and every local media for Rubio got him an extra 7 points.
So endorsements matter, but only in close races.
Haley's approval rating is almost 90%. Sen. Tim Scott also has sky high approval ratings. I think it depends who and where it is. The dream endorsements used to be local papers, but no more.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
Hispanics, minorities and women will win it for Hillary
Nothing like taking your voters for granted. Without Obama on the ticket Dem turnout will be lower. Ohio and Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida all go Trump he wins.
No, wrong. Hispanics despise Trump and would vote for Satan if he was on the ballot against him, women will also vote for Hillary over Trump, though Trump will win white men by a large margin. North Carolina and Florida go to Trump, maybe New Hampshire, Colorado and Iowa too but Hillary wins Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania and Virginia, enough for a narrow Clinton win
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
Hispanics, minorities and women will win it for Hillary
Nothing like taking your voters for granted. Without Obama on the ticket Dem turnout will be lower. Ohio and Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida all go Trump he wins.
No, wrong. Hispanics despise Trump and would vote for Satan if he was on the ballot against him, women will also vote for Hillary over Trump, though Trump will win white men by a large margin. North Carolina and Florida go to Trump, maybe New Hampshire, Colorado and Iowa too but Hillary wins Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania and Virginia, enough for a narrow Clinton win
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Says who?
Punters judging by their implied odds.
Ignore them. The last DEM to win an election after 2 (or more) previous terms was almost 70 years ago, and he was a new incumbent...
Only one non-incumbent DEM has achieved it. Van Buren in 1836, and he at least was Veep.
It's the GOP's to lose.
Yes, well looks like they are quite willing to lose it!!! If Rubio or Kascih were GOP nominee the GOP would almost certainly win, Trump or Cruz offers the Dems a get out of jail free card! Bush Snr also managed it for the GOP in 1988
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
Hispanics, minorities and women will win it for Hillary
Nothing like taking your voters for granted. Without Obama on the ticket Dem turnout will be lower. Ohio and Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida all go Trump he wins.
No, wrong. Hispanics despise Trump and would vote for Satan if he was on the ballot against him, women will also vote for Hillary over Trump, though Trump will win white men by a large margin. North Carolina and Florida go to Trump, maybe New Hampshire, Colorado and Iowa too but Hillary wins Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania and Virginia, enough for a narrow Clinton win
With the (currently) Six Cabinet Ministers lined up with Vote Leave does that increase their chance of being the 'official' Electoral Commission body? Instead of 'Barking' or 'Whining' ('Moaning' - the Nats already have 'Whining' - ed)
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Says who?
Punters judging by their implied odds.
Ignore them. The last DEM to win an election after 2 (or more) previous terms was almost 70 years ago, and he was a new incumbent...
Only one non-incumbent DEM has achieved it. Van Buren in 1836, and he at least was Veep.
It's the GOP's to lose.
Yes, well looks like they are quite willing to lose it!!! If Rubio or Kascih were GOP nominee the GOP would almost certainly win, Trump or Cruz offers the Dems a get out of jail free card! Bush Snr also managed it for the GOP in 1988
You forget Clinton, who cancels any toxicity in the GOP candidate.
She trumps Trump in that department!
Besides, candidates are shown to have negligible impact on the fundamentals of the cycle...
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Says who?
The polls. Rubio leads Clinton by 4.7% in the RCP poll average, Clinton leads Trump by 2.8%. Rubio and Sanders are tied, Sanders leads Trump by 7.8% http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
It seems the endorsement by all elected officials, except Sanford and Graham, and every local media for Rubio got him an extra 7 points.
So endorsements matter, but only in close races.
Haley's approval rating is almost 90%. Sen. Tim Scott also has sky high approval ratings. I think it depends who and where it is. The dream endorsements used to be local papers, but no more.
And that was worth only 7%. I told you that the Haley endorsement isn't worth much, it didn't give victory to Romney in 2012 and it didn't for Rubio in 2016.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
Hispanics, minorities and women will win it for Hillary
Nothing like taking your voters for granted. Without Obama on the ticket Dem turnout will be lower. Ohio and Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida all go Trump he wins.
No, wrong. Hispanics despise Trump and would vote for Satan if he was on the ballot against him, women will also vote for Hillary over Trump, though Trump will win white men by a large margin. North Carolina and Florida go to Trump, maybe New Hampshire, Colorado and Iowa too but Hillary wins Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania and Virginia, enough for a narrow Clinton win
Ohio and Pennsylvania blue-collar W/C voters will give them to Trump (no matter how often they wheel out Bill and Biden. Virginia trending GOP, Nevada - Trump casinos - it goes Trump. Trump wins (and he doesnt need to try particularly hard)
Jeb's votes will split to Kasich, Rubio and Trump methinks.
Mostly to Kasich and Rubio, in that order. Don't think there'll be many going to Trump or Cruz.
Bush doesn't have many votes, he has 3% in Nevada, 5% nationally. That's why those who drop out dont matter a lot since they already have very few votes.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Says who?
The polls. Rubio leads Clinton by 4.7% in the RCP poll average, Clinton leads Trump by 2.8%. Rubio and Sanders are tied, Sanders leads Trump by 7.8% http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
National polls based on hypothetical match-ups this far out are even more meaningless than usual; its state polls that matter.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Says who?
The polls. Rubio leads Clinton by 4.7% in the RCP poll average, Clinton leads Trump by 2.8%. Rubio and Sanders are tied, Sanders leads Trump by 7.8% http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
If all you needed was the polls, you wouldn't need PB and its successful contrarian pundits now, would you?
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
Hispanics, minorities and women will win it for Hillary
Nothing like taking your voters for granted. Without Obama on the ticket Dem turnout will be lower. Ohio and Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida all go Trump he wins.
No, wrong. Hispanics despise Trump and would vote for Satan if he was on the ballot against him, women will also vote for Hillary over Trump, though Trump will win white men by a large margin. North Carolina and Florida go to Trump, maybe New Hampshire, Colorado and Iowa too but Hillary wins Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania and Virginia, enough for a narrow Clinton win
Trump will not do worse than Romney with these groups.
No, the statement was correct. The Quinnipiac general election poll last week had Trump winning just 17% of Hispanics against Hillary, Rubio won 30% of Hispanics. Romney won 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012 so Trump does 10% worse than he did! http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02182016_Urpfd42.pdf
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Says who?
The polls. Rubio leads Clinton by 4.7% in the RCP poll average, Clinton leads Trump by 2.8%. Rubio and Sanders are tied, Sanders leads Trump by 7.8% http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
If all you needed was the polls, you wouldn't need PB and its successful contrarian pundits now, would you?
Indeed but until the evidence changes I will go on the evidence we have, delightful though these arguments are
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Says who?
The polls. Rubio leads Clinton by 4.7% in the RCP poll average, Clinton leads Trump by 2.8%. Rubio and Sanders are tied, Sanders leads Trump by 7.8% http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
National polls based on hypothetical match-ups this far out are even more meaningless than usual; its state polls that matter.
Only once has the loser of the popular vote won the EC vote in the last 50 years, George W Bush and he lost the popular vote by less than 1%
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
She's never had to face someone with Trump's gift for trolling. She backed off very quickly when he showed he was willing to bring up the details of her past as a fixer for her husband.
That is one way to look at it - another way is that she insulted him, he insulted her, scores even - I don't think that it will be a surfeit of negatives from Democrats but a deficit of positives among Republicans that will defeat Trump qua nominee
It's a geographic election. Trump will win over enough Reagan democrats in the flyover states to swing the election. It won't matter if some Republicans aren't willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because they'll all be in the places where Clinton will pile up votes anyway.
The pendulum, aka regressive component, favours the GOP massively in 2016.
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353 DEM 46.6% 185
If Kasich or Rubio were the GOP candidate it would favour them, but if it is Trump and Cruz then it does not and Hillary must be favourite to narrowly win
Says who?
The polls. Rubio leads Clinton by 4.7% in the RCP poll average, Clinton leads Trump by 2.8%. Rubio and Sanders are tied, Sanders leads Trump by 7.8% http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
If all you needed was the polls, you wouldn't need PB and its successful contrarian pundits now, would you?
Indeed but until the evidence changes I will go on the evidence we have, delightful though these arguments are
Polls at this stage are not evidence of anything - except perhaps too many polls...
Comments
If I had to bet on second place, I’d put a very slight bet on Rubio over Cruz at the moment. Very early returns in Charleston County show him leading Cruz there 2-to-1, and very early returns in Greenville County show a virtual three-way tie between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/nevada-caucus-south-carolina-primary-presidential-election-2016/
Not entirely convinced but could be.
I say its still 50-50.
Clinton has had all the attacks from the Republicans already; she wins if she is not subjected to criminal charges
Trump 34.2%
Cruz 21.5%
Rubio 21.1%
Bush 9.6%
Kasich 7.4%
Carson 6.1%
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/sc/Rep
FUCK OFF BACK TO DUBYA
CHEERIO
CHEERIO
CHEERIO
And those where not Fox News polls that where the only ones previously that showed good numbers for Trump.
Look at favourabilities:
Hillary 37/57
Trump 37/57
Hillary has fallen to Trump levels.
http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/south-carolina-gop-primary/
Wouldn't surprise me either if it's 50-0 to Trump.
On paper his path to the nomination is there, but he needs all the stars to align, and QUICKLY.
It will be close but I think Hillary beats Trump by about 1% or less
my first long-range 2016 forecast...
REP 53.4% 353
DEM 46.6% 185
But Bush doesn't have many votes, apart from Florida he is usually at 2,3,4%.
Also why oh why is betfair down?
'We're hitting up four states over the next four days. In VA, GA, MS or LA? Check out our events page to RSVP! '
https://twitter.com/JohnKasich?lang=en-gb
Basically you're in until you aren't.
Having said that Kasich has barely tried here, so that's different from Christie who poured everything into NH
I'm cashing out at a small loss so my win on Trump can stand.
He ain't winning the nomination obviously, but I guess he may as well stay in to make a pitch for the VP spot / a future presidential run.
So endorsements matter, but only in close races.
The only state that Trump is losing in the polls is Texas, and that one to Cruz.
Only one non-incumbent DEM has achieved it. Van Buren in 1836, and he at least was Veep.
It's the GOP's to lose.
THAT is astounding
But the winner takes all in SC
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/breaking-poll-40-of-blacks-line-behind-trump-45-of-hispanics/
Trump will not do worse than Romney with these groups.
She trumps Trump in that department!
Besides, candidates are shown to have negligible impact on the fundamentals of the cycle...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
I told you that the Haley endorsement isn't worth much, it didn't give victory to Romney in 2012 and it didn't for Rubio in 2016.
I haven't decided yet. I'll be spending next week going to a lot of meetings.
I wish I could find my post comparing TimB and TimT to remove any confusion.
That's why those who drop out dont matter a lot since they already have very few votes.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02182016_Urpfd42.pdf