Why Trump might win the Presidency

I stopped posting on OT well over a year ago and wasn't fond of the political discussions here.

So what do you mean?

If he wins, that would be worse than any sig space loss. And trust me, I am no Hillary fan. Ask her ardent supporters.

Well, it's an open bet to anyone who thinks Hillary's going to win at this point.

I think Trump has it in the bag from here.

Are Americans idiots or is the media who controls what you see making Americans idiots? The way I see it, and I for one am 50/50 with the guy, is they take snip-its of what he says to fit their agenda and the message that they are trying to get across. Half the people that call him racists and a hate mongering fool don't actually listen to the full interview or speech of what he says. The man has no substance to what he says and can't elaborate on a lot of what he is trying to push to people, however he is not a racist and he is not pushing hate. He is just saying things that people don't like to hear, its called hard truths. The bottom line is the issues he brings up are issues we should be concerned with, however people don't like how he brings them up. Well, I for one have no issue with him coming around in a brash manner, because frankly I'm sick of seeing the existing president pussyfoot around an elephant in the room to appease people and the other candidate who is a fraud and a career politician who frankly sucked at foreign policy and supports the current administrations approach to the how they view the world when our relations are at its worst. At least I can possibly give Trump the benefit of doubt because he has yet to prove himself, however I know what Clinton gave us as secretary of state and it was horrifying at best.

Trump's inflammatory remarks may very well be acceptable in American society, but they would be completely unacceptable in many European countries, especially the UK, which found his remarks so inflammatory that the UK parliament were debating whether to ban Trump (but decided not to because he's a presidential candidate). A candidate like Trump would never be able to rise to power in the UK, where many similar far-right candidates have tried and failed to attract anything beyond a small cult following. So don't be surprised if so many Europeans think Americans are ignorant idiots. Trump is basically a living stereotype of how the rest of the world views Americans.

I can agree with his approach being a tad overboard, and not presidential. However, seeing the past decade or so having presidents that are more presidential sounding haven't turned out that great either. I would think come general election he will change his way of how he does things because he will have no choice. I'm not agreeing with his approach nor some of the outlandish things he has stated, but at the end of the day it isn't necessarily a bad thing to have someone not be fake. If you think for one second because Obama sounds presidential on TV that this is how he is in the private then you are naive. I'm fine with a candidate being a little more outspoken then the same old run of mill candidate who panders to everyone.

People also forget that Trump knows how to work Reality TV vs Scripted TV. He knows how to be the good and bad guy in order to get viewers to watch The Apprentice.

Sure there is always a method to someone's madness and he knows how to work it well. No matter how you feel about the guy as far as his business credentials are he has been around long to have some success. Otherwise, he would have been an afterthought a long time ago.

Spare me this self righteous bullshit. Europeans have just as many loonies. You can act all holier than thou, but you are hypocritical at best.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3624382/Controversial-right-winger-Marine-Le-Pen-surges-polls-twice-popular-France-s-President-Hollande.html

And trump's remarks are not all and well in american society. He has been strongly denounced by the media, the left, and even his own party.

Hahaha.... Until most of them decided to support him anyway. Sigh.....

I think a lot of them just won't vote. They probably won't vote for Hillary, but there have been a few prominent ones that said they may rather than Trumpf.

If the Democratic party does the smart thing and installs Bernie as their representative, considering he's the only one leading Trump in the polls, then they can prevent it from happening.

The thing is that Trump is fake... He keeps contradicting himself all the time:

Donald vs. Trump

There's barely anything consistent about Trump. He doesn't stick to principles, but keeps flip-flopping and says whatever Republican voters want to hear.

I said many European countries, not all of them.

Trump is the candidate for emotional people with a kneejerk, contrarian response. I get it: people are scared of the shit they see on TV and can't grasp the concept that that stuff rarely happens; newsworthy stuff is generally unique, once-in-a-lifetime crap that sells well but apparently it is enough to make people scared of transgenders, black people (a fear white America has had ever since the '60s), hispanics, and so forth.

But Hilary, well, we don't like her. FOr some reason, I don't know maybe because she yells into the microphone or laughed about killing a bad person. But she is the logical choice. I just hope my countrymen let their passions cool and make the smart choice, not the impulsive one.

The mods do a wonderful job in this community. I'm already a mod on one of the largest photography forums on the web. The mods that lean to the left have every right to do so as I respect everybody's viewpoints as long as they are fair. I wouldn't want the job these guys have. There's a lot of loons on this site that like to give mods hell. :D

Hilary is a sociopath. She might be the better choice, but she is not a good one.

@hillelslovak: lol those tapes have been debunked; they're almost as misguided and misinforming as those Planned Parenthood "dead babies for sale" tapes. Or if you like, as misguided and misinforming as that lie that Trump said in People (?) that he'd run as a Republican because Republicans are idiots.

So, she didn't say those things that it is clear she said? What about this?

She is flippant about not making a dictator be accountable to international law.

@hillelslovak: That was a NATO operation, so as far as accountability goes that was covered.

But yeah she is flippant. And Trump is a loudmouth bully. What's the point? They're both terrible people. The difference is one is a terrible person who is qualified and has a vagina, and the other is a terrible person that is not qualified and has a dick.

Personally I think we are screwed either way and I would just love love love for everyone to pick a third party and for neither candidate to get any votes, but as long as idealism is still thought of as unrealistic, that will never happen.

Oooooooooh you should have seen the look my mom gave me when I said I was voting for a third party. Thought she was going to disown me.

Hilary is leading trump by 5.4 points in the HuffPost poll average right now and she's also leading him in other poll aggregates to.

This is the huffpost poll aggregate right now

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

He keeps putting his foot in his mouth which is making Hillary Clinton's road to presidency a cake walk.

I have huge reservations about Hilary, but she is the clear choice. I really do not get the nihlistic nature of Trump supporters. The tantrum need to smash the system just to see what it looks like. It's worrying to see from millions of people.

You probably won't find any hivemind thinking at GS. We don't ban folks for not following the mold.

Doesn't seem like it. :P

Our crew isn't as delicate as some of the others you might find out there on the web. ;)

The situations are not even remotely comparable. Clinton is a generic Democrat/generic politician. Yes, a lot of people wish her brand of politics would go away, but she's not anything out of the ordinary and she consistently shows an impressive grasp on the issues. Whereas Trump is a disaster in just about every level and shows less understanding about policy/world events than many laypeople. Not to mention that he's incredibly mean-spirited, going as far as to mock a disabled man and incite violence.

No matter how much people try to make it work, the Clinton-Trump equivalency is not going to happen. The former represents the status quo, which is highly disappointing and dispiriting, but the latter represents chaos and a profound moral deterioration.

Sanders may have been real change, but he's not qualified to be the President. He has no understanding of policy and he has a simplistic view of the world. Frankly, I'm sick of these anti-establishment know nothing candidates. Being anti-establishment can be a good thing, but not if you're just going to throw bombs and whine.

But in response to the thread in general: Trump absolutely could win, but the data/fundamentals are on Clinton's side. The TC can go ahead and have fun with his YouTube video, but I will use sites that analyze data and historical trends. Needless to say, the data driven website that I linked (which predicted Trump would win the nomination from the beginning by using data and historical trends) is coming to the conclusion that Hillary is heavily favored. Not to mention that those polls that seemed to be tightening are moving in Clinton's direction again. It will only get worse once Sanders gets on board.

Not to mention that Trump is getting outraised by ridiculous margins and refuses to build a credible campaign apparatus. People that think that what worked for Trump in the primary will work for Trump in the general are in for a rude awakening.

This post is spot on.

The mods are definitely left leaning, but that doesn't make the forum overall left leaning. A left leaning forum wouldn't cry about the PCness or SWJs or feminism ad nauseum. I'd go as far as this forum would look even less liberal when you consider that some posters here just seem liberal because they love to hate on religion but they actually behave like rightwingers in most respects.

Also, it doesn't surprise me that most of the mods are liberals. The rightwingers on this site are mostly cranks. That's not to say that rightwingers are cranks in general and it's definitely not dismissing the rightwing intellectuals out there; just acknowledging that most of the right leaners on GameSpot are Trump supporting loons. I've seen plenty of rightwing mods on websites with a healthy population of sensible rightwing posters.

With all due respect, what puzzles me about your faith in Trump's strategy is that you never acknowledge that so far his strategy has a) produced historically high unfavorables and b) destroyed his image with minorities and women, which is why he consistently trails in polling. The most recent poll shows Clinton up 12 points. You may have a vague feeling in your gut that Trump's strategy is going to work, but the actual numbers suggest the opposite. If Trump's "strategy" so far has amounted to pissing off people he needs to make inroads with to win and failing to win over enough white voters to make up the difference, what do you think is going to change to make the strategy a success in November? You never explain specifically how this strategy actually leads to Trump picking up support in the areas he needs to win.

Weirdly enough, I think you're making the same mistake that pundits who failed to predict Trump made. You're ignoring the data/evidence in favor of punditry.

Also, what is your evidence that using an axe is a sounder strategy? As I've explained, so far the evidence suggests that it's not. Actually, unless you think Hillary is polling better because people like her (of course this is not the case, as evidenced by her poor favorability numbers), then the evidence would suggest that Hillary is winning because she's seen as the safer choice, which in turn would suggest that maybe an axe strategy is not particularly sound.

Aside from your assertion that only Bernie leads Trump in the polls being factually incorrect, how in the world can you say with a straight face that overturning the will of the Democratic electorate is "the smart thing"? The Democratic Party would destroy itself it replaced the candidate that won with the candidate that lost.

Gotta put the critical thinking cap on instead of believing what gives you warm and fuzzies. You're acting like the Bernie supporter in this video:

Unfavorables matter, but they wont make or break the campaign. Trump's favorability was very low in the primaries and Sanders had a much better favorability rating than Hillary, yet both lost. Trump's strategy is not about making himself look good, but make people vote for him over his oppositoin. His unfavorables were record high even in the primaries, but he still won those by a landslide, did he not? Unfavorability amongst minors isnt as big of an issue as you make it out to be. Considering how corrupt the system is, and how the GOP will do their best to pass laws preventing minorities from voting.

The numbers have had Trump in a lead against Hillary Clinton among independants recently (Hillary fares even worse than Gary Johnson even). And those numbers worry me a lot.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/11/hillary-sinks-to-third-place-among-independent-voters-poll/

If Hillary lets trump take the swing votes from her, she has no chance in the election. But her political campaign is so goddamn stupid and are so out of touch with the american population, I doubt she will sway anyone, if not, only turn more left wingers behind Trump's cause.

The idiot is trying to use Obama's strategy, but Obama's strategy wont work for her, simply because people dont like or trust her. Likewise, the political climate has changed, and we now have people disenfranchised from the PC culture. This ad just gave them more reasons to hate her.

Have you ever played Fire Emblem? I was specifically referring to the weapon triangle in that game. Doesnt matter if Hillary is a better politician, Trump is in a position which allows him to easily fling mud at Hillary. He is in a position which will allow Trump not only to outflank Hillary from the left, but also from the right.

I'm going to address these arguments in bullet points.

+I think what you're overlooking as far as favorability numbers are concerned is that a) primary favorability numbers and general election favorability numbers are two different beasts. Clinton has very high favorability among Democrats. There's no way she would have won the Democratic nomination if her favorability numbers among Dems looked like her favorability numbers among the general electorate. By the same token, while Trump's favorability numbers among Republicans were not great, they were much better than his general election numbers; and b) Trump won the Republican primary through a nightmare scenario (for the GOP) in which Trump won pluralities in a divided field, negating some of the effects of his bad favorability numbers. And I wouldn't say he won in a landslide. For most of the primaries, he failed to get a majority of the vote, and only ended up with 44% of the overall vote.

+Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but actually can't think of a single election in which the candidate with with clearly worse favorability numbers won the popular vote. I think it would make more sense to argue why Trump's numbers will improve rather than arguing that the numbers won't matter when everything is said and done.

+As for the GOP trying to keep minorities for voting, they tried to do that last time, and they still lost. They might try to disenfranchise minorities, but it's simply not realistic to think that they will be able to it in such numbers too solve Trump's minority problems. Not to mention that his unfavorables with women are even more fatal, considering that tend to vote in higher numbers and more reliably than men do.

+The idea that Clinton has to win independents to win the election is categorically false. Obama lost independents to Romney and had a huge electoral college advantage and won the popular vote by 4 points, which is close to Clinton's popular advantage in the same poll that shows her losing independents. The mistake people make is that they assume that independents=swing voters. Not true. Though there might be some overlap, they are not the same thing at all.

+I don't see why it matters that Obama's strategy entire strategy won't work. The only part of Obama's strategy that she needs to work is that she needs to be seen as the adult in the room. The Clintons are well aware that this is a lesser of two evils election. They're just using Obama-like rhetoric to throw Trump's divisive rhetoric into sharper relief.

+What evidence do you have that that ad will give people reasons to "hate her"? Also, that ad is not even particularly PC (not to mention that you need to provide some evidence that the electorate at large is recoiling against PCness rather than just vocal groups of voters). Do you think it's PC to call someone out for inciting violence? Cause that's not PCness, that's basic human decency. Basically, the ad is your standard unity "let's lift people up" ad. What evidence do you have that such a message is pissing the average voter off? I tend to dislike these political ads because they're fucking basic but if I don't see how that ad could piss somebody off unless said person is just completely angry and bitter. There's literally nothing offensive about it. I really don't get your point about this ad. Can you elaborate?

+No, I've never played Fire Emblem, but I'm not getting your argument here. Yes, Trump is a better position to fling mud but where's the evidence that mud flinging is going to help him win a general election? What are you basing that on? Again, his penchant to fling mud is part of the reason why he's in the hole he is in in the first place. What works in a GOP primary doesn't necessarily work in a general election. Also, what makes you think that Clinton's attacks against Trump are going to be so ineffective. Most people seemed to agree that her foreign policy speech was a pitch perfect way to attack him. The assumption that Trump's hits will constantly land and Hillary's attacks won't seems ridiculously biased to me. Also, your theory here hinges on the idea that the American electorate has changed so fundamentally that a candidate who childishly throws mud will eventually be more appealing that the one who attacks their opponent in a more standard way? What is your evidence that in the course of four years, there's been such an insane shift in public temperament and values?

+You keep dancing around the polls, which is our best evidence of whether or not Trump's strategy is working. If Trump's strategy is better, why is he losing? Even if you believe that the strategy will bare it's greatest fruits later, surely there should be undeniable movement toward him? Yet the polls are moving in the opposite direction. At some point you're going to have to explain why the polls look the way they do and why Trump's strategy is not responsible for how they look.

@GreySeal9

Gonna do so as well,

1. Do you have any sources which show their favorablity amongst the parties, I only saw the general favorability.
2. Hmm... looking at the unfavorability polls that came out VERY recently, disregard anything I said about favorability. Trump is now at a whooping 7 out of 10 americans look at him unfavorably. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-unfavorables-spike-clintons-challenged-poll/story?id=39856303
3. I recall hearing that the GOP have been pretty successful in setting up these thinly veiled Jim Crow laws, in the past 4 years.
4. Yet the strategists in the GOP would argue otherwise. Especially at the rate Hillary is losing with the independants.
5. Obama's strategy not working is pretty relevant, since she is more or less using the same tactic at the moment. Hope, Unity... cliches. It worked for Obama because that guy had some serious charisma. It doesnt work for hiillary since she lacks not only charisma, but actual trust. This Obamalike rethoric.... I am not convinced it works.
6. Doesnt seem to be a vocal minority, considering how much attention and support Trump has gotten. But maybe it is. I dont have much evidence, just going by my own unscientific observations. Anyways, I do agree that Hillary Clinton is not PC, but sadly her message may be portrayed, especially by the more radical right wing cranks as PC because it does not conform to their redicilous agenda, and much like the term SJW, PC has been overused so it has lost any meaning (now anything non-PC is anything that supports the radical right's redicilous agenda). I was called an SJW a while back because I argued for that the benefits of same sex marriage greatly outweighed those of not having it. On the topic of PC... Donald Trump is significantly more politically correct than Hillary Clinton... that guy is the epitome of the PC police. But facts dont matter in terms of this as much as the general perception, sadly enough.
7. In Fire Emblem Swords counter axes, axes counter lances and lances counter swords. Trump is in a position to fling mud at hillary clinton, and he will use this to his full advantage, in the same way he used it to utterly dominate the republican primaries. I am not saying that Trump wins every discussion against hillary, nor that every attack hillary does against trump is a miss. But more often than not, Trump's attacks against hillary seem to land than Hillary's attacks vs Trump. I have made several posts in the past criticizing terrible attacks made by donald trump, like this one.
8. I based my posts on the data I had back then, but between the hours I made that post and now, I did see evidence that Hillary has gotten the lead again. Right now, I see the results, very shaky. This is a coinflip election.

@GreySeal9: Can't wait to see trump in your sig for a month <3

The results would probably turn out like Obama vs. Romney. In that election, Romney had more white voters than Obama, yet still lost, because most of the minority and female voters voted Obama. And right now, Trump is even more unpopular with minority and female voters than Romney was. And despite desperately trying to court white votes, his popularity doesn't seem to be any higher among white voters than Romney was. The only way I can see Trump winning is if he can somehow manage to win over minority and female voters, which is highly unlikely.

Trump gonna win for sure after what happened at PULSE. American People will support him more now.

Polls show that Trump's favourability ratings actually got worse after Orlando... His first response to the massacre was to self-congratulate himself. That was his one chance to win over minority voters, and he blew it.

Trump’s Unfavorables Spike, But Clinton’s Challenged, Too

Like the poll above shows, there's very little difference between Clinton and Trump when it comes to favourability among men. Trump is only 1% more popular with men than Clinton is. On the other hand, Clinton is 28% more popular with women than Trump is. The odds are heavily in Clinton's favour.

Like I said, the only way for Trump to win the elections is to win over female and minority voters (and younger voters under 50, and college graduates). And I just don't see that happening.

Yup, that is the one I saw, and it was that that changed my mind. From saying Trump is the most likely to win to it being a coin flip election.

For you Hillary Supporters. I want Hillary to win over Trump. But I dont care about his racist or sexist streak. That thing is minor compared to that 14 trillion dollar debt he will add to the US economy through his policies.

@Jag85 said:

Donald "The line of 'Make America great again,' the phrase, that was mine" Trump’s Unfavorables Spike, But Clinton’s Challenged, Too

Even if trump gets a lot of white men to come out and vote for him that will be canceled out by the increase in voter turnout for minorities and people in general that don't want to see trump win. Depending on how things go this election campaign may be the biggest victory for a political party in a US presidential election in over 32 years unles trump somehow becomes more appealing. I think he's going to lose by at least 7 percentage points but he may lose by 10 percentage points or more if he continues to mess up. The only way he can win is if he wins the rust belt area, but from the polling we have seen so far in places like Wisconsin he's going to get beat there pretty easily.

I would love to see this be the case. But I am not that optimistic about this.

I would love to see the Republican Party's fate if they lose this election. A friend of mine argues they might split up if they do lose, simply because of how divided they are right now. This in turn would most likely guarantee another 4 years of a liberal in the white house, and might even send over the congress to the democrats again. After they lost it in 1994 during Bill Clinton's presidency.

I don't think they are going to spilt into multiple parties unless the loss is really devastating in terms of both the electoral college and popular vote(i.e. the style of losses you use to see in the 20th century at times where a presidential candidate gets well over 400EV's and wins the popular vote in a landslide). At most you would probably see some red states trending blue a bit earlier than usual which will hurt the republicans in future elections and more demographics moving to the democrats for a long time which will lead to a slow death for the republicans if they don't change in the future.

In case you haven't been keeping up with polls.....Trump made some very insensitive comments after the shooting in Orlando and has completely flatlined. He is not going to be the next POTUS.

Really?

SOURCE

I don't think we talk enough about the fact that Trump's national campaign apparatus is ghetto.

It’s generally understood that presidential elections are decided in the so-called swing states. Everything reduces to turnout. Which is why the ground game is so important: You can’t get people to the polls without a sophisticated voter targeting operation, and thousands of staffers and volunteers on the ground doing the dirty work. To the extent that that’s true, Republicans are in trouble.

A new Politico report confirms the GOP is way behind in all the states that matter. Because their nominee has no interest in data or analytics or infrastructure, the RNC is forced to shoulder the entire burden. By contrast, Clinton already has a political machine up and running in each of the swing states, and the DNC is coordinating with the campaign as it prepares to do the heavy lifting. Republicans, meanwhile, are hostage to the whims of their nominee. Trump doesn’t do retail politics, so the party has no choice but to rely on his personality and media presence. While Democrats are focused on organization and digital operations, Republicans are hoping Trump’s demagoguery will carry enough angry white men to the polls. “His job is to be Mr. Trump,” said Rob Gleason, who chairs the Pennsylvania Republican Party. “His appeal is very different than a normal politician…All he has to do is announce three days ahead of time he’s going to be somewhere and a huge crowd shows up.” I admire the optimism, but surely Mr. Gleason knows circus-like crowds won’t translate to election day turnout. Attracting people to spectacles is easy; getting them to the polls when it counts is not.

It’s scarcely a plan, but GOP operatives are saying (publicly, at least) that Trump’s cult of personality will energize disaffected blue collar workers in places like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And they assume that any anxieties about Trump’s blinding incompetence will be eclipsed by hatred of Clinton. Again, I admire the optimism, but this is wish-thinking, not a strategy.

Logistics aside, the poll numbers in the 11 or so swing states also portend trouble for Republicans. Currently, Clinton holds a 5-point overall advantage over Trump according to Politico’s polling average. She’s leading in 8 of the 11 individual states (including Florida and Ohio), and those numbers are likely to improve as Trump continues to unravel and the Democrats unite behind their nominee. It’s still early, but the numbers offer a snapshot of where the electorate is heading.

The national poll numbers tell the same story. A recent Bloomberg poll shows Clinton with a double-digit lead over Trump (49 percent to 37 percent), a noticeable spike since Clinton became the presumptive nominee. The gender gap is especially worrisome if you’re a Republican. 63 percent of women say they could never vote for the Republican nominee. Women represent a majority of voters – if 2 out of 3 won’t vote for Trump, the race is over before it begins.

The groups that will decide the election, particularly in swing states, are also strongly opposed to Trump. Clinton is winning 57 percent of women, 58 percent of single voters, and 77 percent of non-whites. Trump is doing far better among white men, but that won’t compensate for his negatives among every other demographic. Besides, Trump’s appeal with white men is often overstated. As Bloomberg’s John McCormick pointed out, “White men are among Trump’s strongest demographics. But even there he’s not showing as much strength as the party’s last nominee, Mitt Romney, who beat Obama in 2012 by 62 percent to 35 percent among white men.” (Trump is currently at 50 percent).

The closer you look at the numbers and the more obvious the organizational gap becomes, the harder it is to see a path to victory for Trump. He’s quickly confronting the limits of his amateurish, media-centric campaign. Anything is possible in November, but there’s no question that Republicans are comparatively disadvantaged. They’re led by an organizationally inept candidate who can’t appeal to women and non-whites and has proven himself incapable of compromise.

Good luck with that.

Really, Trump is too lazy to be President. He's not willing to put in the work to learn the issues and build a competent campaign. Anti-establishment candidates tend to be lazy demagogues tho. Bernie Sanders was also lazy, though not to the same extent.