EPTI keep seeing you make apocalyptic predictions for the left in this thread, yet you keep ignoring my offers to bet on the result of the GE. How come? Could it be that deep down you know Hillary's going to win?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4015
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
I keep seeing you make apocalyptic predictions for the left in this thread, yet you keep ignoring my offers to bet on the result of the GE. How come? Could it be that deep down you know Hillary's going to win? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 10 2016 10:09 ticklishmusic wrote: xDaunt and a few others in this thread (ad many more across the internet it would seem) simply doesn't believe there is actually a pretty big group of people who actually like Hillary Hey, I'm just looking at the voter turnout numbers for the democrat primaries. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 10 2016 10:08 Nyxisto wrote: Isn't it the case that democratic voters tend to show up way more frequently at presidential elections than anything else? Is the primary turnout really representative, especially given the fact that the Bernie - Hillary race was largely uneventful? on first Q, I woudln't say way more frequently, but they do show up quite a bit more frequently for presidential elections. The primary turnout is not representative; there's loads of analyses that found that primary turnout is mostly a question of whether there were interesting choices. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
He's energized a new demographic of republican voters that just didn't vote before. And all the die-hard GOP'ers, as much shit as they give him, will never vote for Clinton over him. And when the debates start he's going to sway the center with his superior persuasive skills. I do think it's pretty funny how both sides seem to believe it will be a landslide for their candidate. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On June 10 2016 10:14 xDaunt wrote: Hey, I'm just looking at the voter turnout numbers for the democrat primaries. relative to the other democratic nominating contests against non-incumbents (also excluding Al Gore), it's far from whatever image you're trying to paint. 2016 Clinton: 16m Sanders: 12.2m 2008 Clinton: 17.9m (including Florida, Michigan) Obama: 17.6m 2004 Kerry: 9.9m Edwards: 3.1m 1992: Clinton (Bill): 10.5m Brown: 4.1m Tsongas 3.7m | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On June 10 2016 10:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Trump shattered the record for primary votes by over a million he's going to have no problem getting the votes in the general. He's energized a new demographic of republican voters that just didn't vote before. And all the die-hard GOP'ers, as much shit as they give him, will never vote for Clinton over him. And when the debates start he's going to sway the center with his superior persuasive skills. I do think it's pretty funny how both sides seem to believe it will be a landslide for their candidate. quoted for posterity | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 10 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote: Yeah, because the general election voters were so pumped for the last GOP offerings. Wait, no. Trump doesn't know how to get general election voters and the people who decide elections. Primaries number don't matter. I was one of the people who actually didn't vote in 2012 because I was so uninterested in both Obama and Romney so speaking as a member of that demographic you just described, I can tell you that you are just wrong. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 10 2016 10:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I was one of the people who actually didn't vote in 2012 because I was so uninterested in both Obama and Romney so speaking as a member of that demographic you just described, I can tell you that you are just wrong. As someone who has been able to vote through in 4 times as many elections, you are not one of the demographics that decides elections. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 10 2016 10:14 xDaunt wrote: Hey, I'm just looking at the voter turnout numbers for the democrat primaries. Here, read this: Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election [...] But Democrats shouldn’t worry. Republicans shouldn’t celebrate. As others have pointed out, voter turnout is an indication of the competitiveness of a primary contest, not of what will happen in the general election. The GOP presidential primary is more competitive than the Democratic race. Indeed, history suggests that there is no relationship between primary turnout and the general election outcome. You can see this on the most basic level by looking at raw turnout in years in which both parties had competitive primaries. There have been six of those years in the modern era: 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2008. [...] Source | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On June 10 2016 10:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Trump shattered the record for primary votes by over a million he's going to have no problem getting the votes in the general. He's energized a new demographic of republican voters that just didn't vote before. And all the die-hard GOP'ers, as much shit as they give him, will never vote for Clinton over him. And when the debates start he's going to sway the center with his superior persuasive skills. I do think it's pretty funny how both sides seem to believe it will be a landslide for their candidate. Well, this is the internet. You're probably going to be hearing a lot more of the unrealistic voters, no? | ||
|
oBlade
United States5589 Posts
On June 10 2016 10:37 The_Templar wrote: My current prediction for the general is that neither Clinton nor Trump gets 270. It seems potentially very close to me. Well, this is the internet. You're probably going to be hearing a lot more of the unrealistic voters, no? Do you have a specific third candidate in mind already that you think will be able to win any electoral votes? | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
this'll get you hype | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
 | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On June 10 2016 10:45 ticklishmusic wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzLMf6QGONQ this'll get you hype LOL I was like "What the fuck is Warren doing at an American Chemical Society meeting?" | ||
| ||
