CoffeeJanitor
Member
Catholics behind Trump? Really?
Post the rest, y'all.
If that's true it's certainly an interesting result. Does not line up with what we've seen till this point
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting
- Thread starter Crayons
- Start date
- Status
If that's true it's certainly an interesting result. Does not line up with what we've seen till this point
White Catholics. Romney had 59%.
cartoon_soldier
Member
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/...e-ad-blitz-aims-to-wrap-up-latino-vote-078036
Obama started spanish language ads in April. Hillary should have started in July to follow up the DNC.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
That's that. I wouldn't have expected her to come anyway.
Sexism.
I love Sam Wang, but if something crazy happens and Trump wins, all his credibility is gone. I'm surprised he is going as far in as he has been these last few months.
I can't think of any other event. If it wasn't that then something is seriously wrong with the polling.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
His model is still at 72/82 Clinton.
Honestly would not be crazy if Trump won using his model as well
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Maybe, maybe not. More than one poll has me a touch skeptical. Could be Gary Johnson voters moving to Trump (although that would be odd, considering there is evidence when Johnson is not in the ballot, Hillary gains). Could be bizarre coincidental statistical noise. Could be undecideds finally coming around to Trump.
Regardless, state polling is what really matters, and we should be getting some this morning.
True, but he seems to be throwing a lot of shade at Silver for his "Trump still has a good chance" articles.
That's one thing that has always scared me a bit -- what if Johnson voters start flocking to Trump? And the ones who are more liberal minded still stick with him because they hate Hillary?
MisterShine
Member
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General
Third parties that can get above 5% nationally get a boost in federal funding. If one of the third parties can do that, it will allow them to make serious pushes in states that are more friendly to their message.
Of course, the irony of a Libertarian party relying on federal support to get ahead... heh.
I think the Charlotte riots probably would have had more of an impact than the bomber. A lot of the polls from earlier last week showing better results for Clinton were during that weekend or slightly afterwards.
But I wouldn't read too much into one credible poll showing a shift. We need more data than that.
Obviously the best thing that could happen is Clinton kills it at the debate and is seen as more likable/honest afterwards. That's something she can control regardless of which Trump shows up.
35 and a half.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's not really ironic at all. A part of Libertarian thought is the the idea that company-specific subsidies prevent proper market functioning by preventing competitors who can't access those subsidies. This is exactly what the Democrats and Republicans do: give themselves party-specific subsidies preventing proper electoral functioning by blocking out parties who can't access those subsidies. That makes it necessary for the Libertarians to get those subsidies too. The ideal world, of course, for Libertarians would be that none of the parties had subsidies at all.
Shambalakan
Member
Thank you for this. Didn't know anything about it!
Ok, thought it was like 21:00 in GMT.
9PM EST for all 4 debates.
shinra-bansho
Member
You're comparing a sitting President Which makes no sense.
In April, she was still contesting a primary.
In July, I'm assuming you mean running ads on the 29th-31st though because before then she hadn't accepted the nomination.
In August, she was doing all the fundraising you keep complaining about to pay for the ground game and the ads you complain the campaign isn't running.
In September, she was. Oh she aired Spanish-language ads in Florida.
gutter_trash
Banned
21:00 Eastern Time (New York) = 1:00 GMT (London)
Which is... 2am British Summer Time, and 4am where I currently am, in Jordan.
Fuck. Won't be able to sleep properly thinking about the debate, but won't be awake enough to really process it if I watch it live. :/
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Wise decision, for sure. I think I'm at the very least in the post-2nd debate mode.
As for the bedwetting in the thread title, I've never been this concerned about an election. I didn't like GWB, but I thought he could still lead a country. I voted for Obama twice, but felt ok if McCain and/or Romney was leading.
Trump literally makes me nauseous. I have woken up in the middle of the night sick because I had a dream he won. Maybe it's because I have 4 kids and want them in a better country. Maybe it's because I feel like he'd idiotically start a war unnecessarily. Maybe because of the Supreme Court implications, or maybe because I believe he'd set back the poor and middle class 20 years. Maybe because I'm a teacher and in a decade will have all of my student loans eliminated, and I'm scared full republican control will eliminate that. Maybe it's all of that together.
It's one of her policy stances that I find infuriating. Represents the worst of her political tendencies.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
It's somewhat callous, but the whole Keith Scott tragedy being entirely about him being black and with a joint would be a good way to justify a flip-flop on it and say decriminalizing pot is part of bringing down institutional racism.
gutter_trash
Banned
i screwed up my math, you are right. 5 hours diffence. i cant count for shit
so 21:00 (9pm) New York = 2am in London
i need new fingers
shinra-bansho
Member
Huh, I've been busy this week, but with all the fuckery was there no discussion of the FEC reports, and Trump's campaign funnelling another $11.1 million dollars - over a third of all his campaign's expenditure for the month to Giles-Parscale??
I looked at the consolidated number of $29 million and thought, how the fuck is he spending so much money when he doesn't have offices and staff. Then it became clear.
I looked at the consolidated number of $29 million and thought, how the fuck is he spending so much money when he doesn't have offices and staff. Then it became clear.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
That's the way I see this
Just more smoke and mirrors from dumbo
Says something and then steps it back
Bernie and Warren were just there across like 4 cities a week ago
banefirelord
Banned
Kinda wishing I had had my LSATs next weekend instead of yesterday because now all of my undivided stress gets to be directed at the debate. 😑
I know.
It's just is that element that really annoys me about Hillary - it's clearly a principles-based policy that would help out a ton of people and has scientific backing, but she feels compelled to watch the numbers and take these quarter measures. Undoubtedly being a woman forces her to be more cuatious, but sometimes I wish she'd take more aggressive stances on things that are just clearly the right move.
If she ends up supporting legalization I just know it's going to be full of credits and half measures and waiting periods and a bunch of other bullshit, kind of annoying.
Her job rn is just to win though, so ultimately I guess she feels she needs to play this super safe.
BotoxAgent
Member
Between this and not sending Kaine to Florida makes me wonder about her strategy sometimes
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked