Trump still has no path to 270 Electoral College votes-

At this point, I don't think anybody on either side should take any of polls at face value.

Too many conflicting methodologies.

It will be hilarious if the polls are still all over the place in late-October.

I honestly am going to be very.interested to see what Nate Silver has to say on Election Eve.

Especially, if it is "too close to call".

 

One thing Trump did was to expose just how RINO a lot of these RINOs actually were. I think the face of the whole thing might have been William Krystol, the neo-con of neo-cons, and then Romney, HW Bush, and all the others that followed suit.

 

In August, Larry Sabato had essentially called the election for Hillary, giving her 347 EC votes to Trump's 191, with no toss-up states.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/06/h...al-ball-projection-portending-doom-for-trump/

As of now, Sabato's so-called "crystal ball" shows Hillary with 272 EC votes to Trump's 215, with 3 toss-up states awarding the remaining 51 votes; Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada. Recent polls show Trump leading in all three of those states, which would give Hillary a 272 to 266 win in the EC vote.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...prediction_shifts_in_donald_trumps_favor.html

I happen to think Sabato is pretty generous to Hillary, but even if he is correct, Trump only needs to win those remaining three battleground states, and one more to secure the win.

 

It is a good thing the election is 7 weeks away.

Look for the map to tilt back toward Clinton. Trump is peaking too early.

 

The daily tracking poll already shows it tilting back some towards Hillary. The first debate will be like reshuffling the deck all over again.

 

Absolutely, Trump has made the "progressive-lites" take off their Republican masks and reveal their deceiving hearts.

 

Anyone who knows history understands that there is an ongoing trend towards an ever more liberal society. The modern era began with the Magna Carta back in 1215 and is still trending liberal.

- - - Updated - - -

Link??

- - - Updated - - -

The Roman empire only survived half as long as the current liberal trend.

 

The Magna Carta? Was a document giving noble's more power, it has nothing to do with liberalism. Roman Empire survived for a Millennia, we should be so lucky.

 

Betrayers!

This has to be the worst way to look at partisan politics..

 

Romans were slavers who raped boys. That's your dream society?

 

Did you want to try and say that was the Majority.....or just a small fringe like your Special people today.

Try reading some (*)(*)(*)(*)ing World History.....this way you will actually know something other than being a Hillary and Democrat cheerleader.

 

Ignorance of the historical facts does not alter their reality.

The Roman Empire only lasted 500 years and the Magna Carta REMOVED the "divine right of kings" and replaced it with "govern with the CONSENT of the governed" thus bringing the monarch UNDER the Law of the Land. It also defined individual rights such as habeas corpus.

 

And this can be a damnation for the Democrat candidate in case of a victory based on electoral votes, but not sustained by the popular vote.

It's clear that this has happened in the past and that it can happen without a drama: it's like US system works when it's time to elect the President.

But in this case, Hillary Clinton is arriving at the election day with a luggage of scandals, suspects, secrets ... if she won't win the popular vote, it will be unavoidable that she will be considered a kind of abusive occupier at the White House. I repeat, not because of how she would be elected, but because of the context. Now popular vote is pivotal, since it means trust. A President winning in the shadow of the popular mistrust, this time, could have serious problems [the first woman to become President ... without winning the popular vote? It would mean a tremendous low result for Hillary].

 

Trump's pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and supports paid maternity leave and laws to address gender pay inequity.

Is this the new "conservatism"???

- - - Updated - - -

The Right didn't seem bothered by a President winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote...



in 2000.

 

Yes ignorance of Historical facts. Try reading A World History Book. Or a College History Book on Western Civilizations.



How long the Roman Empire lasted?

The imperial successor to the republic lasted approximately 1.500 years. The first two centuries of the empire's existence were a period of unprecedented political stability and prosperity known as the Pax Romana, or "Roman Peace".

Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire



Roman Empire - Ancient History Encyclopedia
www.ancient.eu/Roman_Empire

 

Who was the "imperial successor to the republic"?

 

Octavian Caesar....try reading the link.

 

In 2000 US didn't see the FFP [First Female President]. Those were ordinary elections. These elections are not ordinary, since we've got the FFC [First Female Candidate]. If she will win the Presidency without the majority of the popular vote the signal will be clear: despite she's the FFC [and this should give her a great advantage and a great appeal], she is not able to conquer the trust of at least the 50% of the electors expressing their vote.

Really a tragedy ...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Roman_Empire

 

So the Roman Empire existed for 1500 years after Octavian Caesar?

 

This must be the new post-Clinton winning spin from some Rightwing pundit. "Gotta declare the first female President illegitimate, because she is a Democrat not a Republican".

Sort of like the reason for Birtherism. "Gotta declare the first black President illegitimate...for both partisan reasons and bigotry."

 

Oh, I don't know. Trump promising to profitize, oh--I mean privatize, the entire US of A, including the VA and our national parks, and his promise to do away with the sometimes ridiculous, but still necessary, EPA are pretty standard core principles of the GOP; and Trump is on top of these.

 

Yeah, but Trump's a populist...not a conservative. His pro-tariff policy isn't the current manifestation of conservative economics. (which includes some pro-free trade Dems too of course). He favors popular spending programs like paid maternity leave. And "Gov't intruding in the free market" things like fighting against gender pay inequity.

He opposes Ryan and other conservatives on "reforming" (aka privatizing) Social Security and Medicare....because he sees how that is unpopular and how it blew up in Bush's face in 2005 and Ryan's in 2011.

He plays down his "pro-life" position (because a rabid anti-choice agenda isn't popular outside the Right). He plays down his support for gay rights (ditto above). Or be generous and say he actually is a social liberal and supports choice and gay rights. Doesn't matter either way....he's not an ideological conservative.

He BOTH "talks tough" on foreign policy....but contradicts himself for anything he knows the public won't support like deploying 10s of 1000s of ground troops in the Middle East.

He's trying to boost his abysmal polling with African-Americans....so yesterday he was sounding like BLM on the North Carolina shooting.

IOW, Trump will go "where the people want him to go" on policy.

Which also means, despite his rhetoric, he'll abandon conservatism when it suits him.

 

America won't survive another 750 years. It will be lucky to survive another 75 years. It is the conglomeration of power, capital and resources into the hands of very few people who will never be satisfied with what they have, and will always want more, that will be the death of us all. Privatizing the VA and turning it into a profiteering organization whose bottom line depends on demanding the highest prices for the least amount of product is just one example of why we will never make it. Instead of giving tax breaks to the super wealthy who already do not pay their fair share of taxes, our government should raise their taxes to fund the VA and the rebuilding of infrastructure. It is in the super wealthy's interest that we usually go to war in the first place, and they use our infrastructure probably more so than anyone else.

 

Read the link and get back to me Gorn.....you wont be able to help out DT and his version of History.

The Eastern Roman Empire endured for another millennium, eventually falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.....snip~

You can Count.....Correct? Its basic addition.