Why Hillary Clinton Will Lose The 2016 Presidential Election

Well given the extent of the gerrymandering the GOP did in 2010 ... they're not totally wrong.

 

Great point.

A prime example is what is going on in Ohio where the GOP incumbent Senator is up double digits in his race, while Trump is basically neck-and-neck with Clinton.

So, if Trump loses Ohio and The GOP Senator wins by double digits, is the election "rigged"?

That is why Trump is such a clueless idiot.

Hopefully, most of his supporters are just doing internet schtick.
(It is hard to imagine that any thinking person could actually believe the delusions that they post).

 

Well, if the jackboot fits, lace that (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) up and wear it with pride! If you support a racist, misogynistic, sexually predatory, fraudulent Cheetoh Mussolini, own that (*)(*)(*)(*) and all that goes with it. It's really funny how Trumpeteers can only (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about Clinton - they can't even pretend to tout reasons to support Herr Drumph anymore...

Newsflash: Georgia (yeah - THAT Georgia) just went to leans Democratic, and Texas (EEK!) is now within the margin of error. Il (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) is turning die-hard Red States purple and some even blue. Even Goldwater didn't burn his party this bad.

 

Besides, if the election is rigged, it's by Republicans. 33 states have Republican legislatures and governors who drew up the district lines and who also are responsible for running the elections in their states. If the game is rigged against Cheetoh Mussolini, it's his own damn party that did it.

 

It could be right. Who is eligible for write ins aren't publicized. I found out about Stein by checking her web site. But with neither McMullin or Stein names appearing on the ballot, very, very few will know they are available as write in candidates.

 

Is that why he contested the outcome, requested hand counts in four counties, and forced the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

They have about a gerbil's attention span of factual historical awareness, and just make things up as they go along otherwise. It works fine on their ignorant voting blocs, not so much on anyone else.

To the topic, I've not been able to ground any kind of prediction of this election's outcome rationally. Still a tossup IMO.

 

The only people with a "gerbil's attention" in this entire election cycle are the delusional Trump supporters being led around by the nose by the imbecilic rantings of the ARNJ Fever Swamp.

And, btw--Trump has always been toast, and never had a real chance.

 

There are millions of us devoted to Hillary losing.

It is the media giving Democrats hope.

 

Bookies are so confident she's won they've already started paying out bets....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/paddy-power-presidential-betting-1.3810006

 

There is a serious methodological flaw to your argument. The New York Times guy, as though we are supposed to believe he is an unbiased expert, is cherry-picking the most egregious and exaggerated scenario possible that one person might sway the poll by 1%, but they themselves admit that the person hasn't even been included in the polling as of late.

The LAT poll isn't the only poll showing how close the race is; these polls show you how close it is as well.

Economist/YouGov, Clinton +4
IBD/TIPP, Clinton +3
Reuters/Ipsos, Clinton +4
ABC/ Wash Post, Clinton +4
Rasmussen, Clinton +0

It is the polls you rely on that are the outliers, the Hillary + 7 and higher polls. They are nothing more than propaganda tools of the liberal left.

 

I do not believe to this day that Democrats accepted their defeat when Bush defeated Al Gore.

They will argue all day long he actually won.

 

No one cares about ancient history.

In case you haven't heard, we are in 2016.

 

When you lose a national election by 500 votes, requesting a recount is legal and noncontroversial. Then the lawyers fight over exactly what gets recounted.

It was forced to the Supreme Court because Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (a Bush campaign co-chair) halted the recount and certified Bush the winner. Given her conflict of interest and a lack of clarity in the law, a lawsuit was a reasonable step to take.

Gore lost in circuit court, but won on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. That would seem to suggest that his suit was not obviously frivolous.

That ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Bush campaign.

When the Supreme Court ruled against Gore, he stopped contesting the election and accepted the results.

Gore fought as far as necessary and defensible -- and not a step further. He never cast doubt on the integrity of the electoral process. He did not, for instance, accuse Bush of stuffing the ballot box or any other sort of voter fraud. It was entirely about wanting an accurate count of the votes.

 

Er, what? He wasn't cherry-picking -- he was demonstrating how that one respondent was shifting the poll by a full percentage point all by himself. That wasn't the only example of excessive weighting of small demographics. It just illustrated the point.

Any poll that lets a single voter move the whole poll by that much isn't a well-designed poll. Period.

LOL. You just cherry-picked all the polls that are on the low side of the average. FFS.

I follow the average. I don't cherry-pick polls.

I rely on the average, as I have said repeatedly. So claiming I rely on the outliers is impossible by definition.

I really like how you just declare any poll that shows Clinton doing well as "propaganda tools", and arbitrarily choose to look only at those polls that show Trump in the best possible light. It's hilarious.

And I notice you are trying to ignore my detailed deconstruction of your main argument. I'm sure every other reader of this thread has noticed that, too.

 

All proper legal procedures in the case of a state fouling up a presidential election. (No one can "force" the Supreme Court to hear a case.)

No whining about a "fix", no provoking his supporters into resorting to violence.

The Supreme Court stopped the recount of votes in Florida, and, days later, essentially called the election for George W. Bush by saying that there wasn’t enough time under law to resolve the differences in counting votes in Florida’s contested counties.

Gore graciously accepted the verdict.

 

I get a kick out of how Democrats must reassure themselves on the internet and take the tough guy approach to posting.

 

Florida's trial courts stopped the recounts and the Florida state supreme court illegally reopened the count.

That is the action stopped by the Fed Supreme Court. Democrats have yet to be gracious at losing. They continue to this day to make excuses.

 

LOL at partisan hypocrisy.

 

And I return that back to you.

 

Jeb Bush's administration served Brother Dub well, indeed.

In any event, the 2016 election will not come down to one state that is run by a candidate's sibling screwing up an election, so let's hope that the loser behaves.

 

What did I say that was hypocritical?

You said the circuit court ruling was fine, but the Florida Supreme Court ruling was "illegal" -- which is ridiculous, by the way.

The only difference is that you agreed with the first one and disagreed with the second. Partisan hypocrisy, as I said.

 

You have to first construct a detailed deconstruction of an argument before it can be ignored. The New York Times guy did no such thing, and neither did you. So you at least need to get to step 1 before you can accuse me of step 2.

Rasmussen also shows the race tied. Do you also believe Rasmussen is an outlier? If so, why? You recently cited an NBC News poll as though it was gospel; showing Hillary up by 11. Do you think the NBC poll is an outlier? If not, why? Is it because NBC shows Hillary with a big double-digit lead, but the others don't?

 

1. The catch is that Trump doesn't belong in the same room with either McCain or Barack Obama.

2. You'll have to explain that one. I saw the video. I read the FBI report. etc. etc.

3. We need a president who has an understanding of policy. And, Trump can't stick to any policy for more than a few days. His idea of paying less on our public debt (dumping our debt on others) would be something Trump has done, but at a national level it would be catastrophic. His "fire the generals" idea. His bigotry. Etc., etc.

Trump is totally unqualified.

 

And you do not agree with the various trial courts but only agree with the Florida Supreme court who made an illegal ruling. That is why the USSC slapped them silly.

Thus the partisan hypocrisy belongs to you and not me.