Will you be happy when Trump loses?

For me, November 8th is going to be a glorious day! Simply glorious! On that day Trump will become what he hates the most - a loser. In a long line on presidential losers.

No longer will Trump be in the daily news cycle. No more anoyying New York accent, no more retarded policies including of course the Trump wall or banning all Muslims, no more racist and sexist comments.

In time his presidential campaign will be forgotten and more importantly he will be forgotten.

Personally speaking I'm Canadian and not really a Clinton supporter but rather more of a Trump hater.

I wanna seem him lose and I want to see him lose bad. And not only him but all his ridiculous surrogates, total political suicide for them.

Yes, November 8th will be glorious!

Can't wait for November 28th.

I will be happy and relieved when it's over and he loses. I am a bit concerned at what some of the crazy fanatical Trump supporters might do though given the inflammatory rhetoric that he is spewing out.

I'll be watching what the GOP does, both in it's leadership and in it's voters. It's still a mystery as to who wrestles control of that party away from the other and what changes they implement in it's platform.

@SOedipus:

Lol, I see what you did there.

@mattbbpl:

I think the GOP might completely implode after the 8th. Maybe even splinter into two political parties.

No.

The fact that people support a candidate like Donald Trump is disturbing. It's also important to note that Trump is an unsophisticated candidate. I predict that there will be a candidate who is like or worse than Trump but appeals to the masses. If anything, this sets a disturbing precedent in this country that can ruin our democratic values.

Donald Trump is the beginning. This country will go downhill if people fall for those types of beliefs, thinking that they're supporting freedom and the constitution when really they're supporting an authoritarian who's willing to subvert freedom for all and more so for those deemed less worthy such as Muslims or Hispanics.

As for the Republican Party, they won't win the presidency for a long time but they still maintain control over the house and senate, all because of the incompetence and laziness of Democratic voters and younger voters. Trump could change that but I highly doubt it.

we freak out about his bigoted comments and general sleaze but not enough attention has been focused on his comments about rolling back libel laws so he can sue people who print negative news about him. I think that's the good thing that is coming out his threats to jail Hillary that the authoritarian side is finally becoming obvious to people. There's a lot of dangerous hiding in that nest of crazy. It's also giving us the chance to see how cowardly certain congressmen are.

but I'm not going to assume anything about Nov 8 right now. Lot of time for stuff to happen and you just never know

Yes, the stock market won't go crazy, we will have better Supreme Court justices, we will pay attention to climate change, improve education costs, improve healthcare, and have an intelligent experienced hand as president.

Peace of mind :)

Relieved but not happy. This election has been disturbing.

I wouldn't be so sure of Trump losing. Hillary has one of the least qualified candidates to run against. Whose hurt his own campaign efforts with his own mouth. And she is barely winning (4 points) in a recent ABC/Washington Post poll. And the popular vote does not win an election. Electoral votes does.

The fact that Hillary has failed to knock Trump out, despite how much of an ass Trump has made himself out to be at times. Just shows how unpopular she really is. And Clinton likely would have gotten murdered in the polls by another qualified Republican candidate.

4 points is not "barely winning." Obama won by 4 points in 2012 and that was an electoral college landslide. There is no way that Hillary would lose the electoral college vote if she won by a 4 point margin or even a 3 point margin. Not to mention that state polls currently show Trump with no path to 270. The only state he leads is Iowa.

"Hillary has failed to knock out Trump" is one of the dumbest talking points out there, as dumb as when Rush Limbaugh kept saying that Obama was failing to close the deal. Political polarization has resulted in a climate where landslides ala Reagan 1980 and 1984 are simply not going to happen. Clinton is doing about as good in the polls right now as Obama was in 2008. What is this "knock out" supposed to look like?

And I'm not sure what your definition of "qualified" is. Your definition of qualified simply seems to hinge solely on whether you like a candidate or not, which is useless.

Yes, Hillary is unpopular, but Trump is more unpopular as evidenced by every favorability poll that has been taken this election. The more popular candidate wins in national elections and that is what is currently happening.

Happy? THat's a bit too strong of a word.

I imagine I will feel relieved.

I Might feel scared, sad, and frightened, however, depending on how the "losers" react; Trump has given a lot of those people a voice, and they are angry. I imagine there will be some violence, denial, and hate for quite some time after it.

In 8 years, though (or 4, maybe) I am voting for a third party. I am so over this two party bullshit. LET THEM DEBATE!

No, I'd only feel happy if every single politician (well, at least at the federal level) was assassinated, somehow died, or stepped down and the whole thing came crumbling down. Tabula rasa, clean slate, fresh start.

Boy this thread will be a lot of fun. I will enjoy bathing in the tears of you shattered delusions, fellas.

@GreySeal9: Obama was running against John McCain. A respected senator and veteran with an incredible POW story. Hillary is a very well known politican, running against a businessman who makes inflammatory statements with no official political experience. Hardly a comparison. She had it easier than lesser known Obama. Raised far more money than Trump. And is barely beating him in the poll; with moments of being virtually tied.

4 points is barely winning. As those polls have statistical variation and are subject to change. Which may just happen in Trump's favor this coming debate. As now Clinton has to answer for those Podestra emails, that have angered a powerful Catholic/Christian voting block.

@jak42: I will say that Hillary has a 5.5 point lead on average. On top of that she's only 14 votes away (according to rcp) from winning the 270 votes she needs from the electoral college where as Trump is 170 points away. I don't discount the fact that a big swing could very well happen, but it would have to be really really big for Trump to actually win. Not to mention all the reports I've heard thus far is that Clinton's campaign is much larger and more well organized than Trump's unorthodox style of campaign. Really this should be over before the final debate even begins.

Repeating that 4 points is barely winning doesn't make it true. As I said before (because you didn't get it the first time), Obama won by a 4 point margin in 2012 and that was considered an EC landslide. Not to mention that to tout the Washington Post poll above others would be cherrypicking. The aggregation of polls shows Hillary with a lead anywhere from 6 to 8 points (and there is a WSJ post showing Clinton up by double digits). And again, if Clinton wins by 4 points, she will dominate the EC. That is a simple matter of math (though you'll probably find a way to argue with math as well).

It's absurd to say that one election can't be compared to another. If Obama's lead was comfortable in 2008, than Hillary's similar lead is comfortable now. Yes, Clinton is a flawed candidate who is probably running weaker against Trump than a less flawed Democratic candidate would be, but it doesn't matter. As I said, Trump is more flawed and even more unpopular, which is why he is losing. This is not rocket science.

Most modern elections have been tied at "moments." If an underdog candidate can only tie the frontrunner even during her worst news cycles, that shows a problem with the underdog's support.

There's no reason to believe that the third debate will swing things up in Trump's favor. Clinton won the first two, Trump is not very good at debating, and third debates historically don't move the needle. And for all the emails that Hillary win have to answer for, Trump will have to answer for the accusations of sexual assault. To emphasize Hillary's problems without mentioning Trump's is downright laughable.

Honestly, your hate boner for Hillary combined with your lack of political knowledge is causing you to not analyze this election clearly.

Should Trump lose I will be both relieved and saddened that so many people think a guy like Trump should be president.

he was talking about Romney, too, whom Obama beat by 4% nationally and had a fairly large electoral victory. Can't really say either was unknown then.

Now, I'm not saying the polls are without a doubt accurate, but you keep hanging on that 4% one when the other polls that came out this week were 11%, 9% and 7%. The state by state polls that came out this week also were not great for Trump. Now that could all change, but I feel like if you're legitimately trying to have an argument here you have to stop cherry picking the polls you like and ignoring the rest.

Exactly. It's for this reason that I don't point to the poll where Clinton is winning by 11 points and assume some kind of Reaganesque landslide is going to happen.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for Political Correct Policing, Feminism cancer, Social Justice bullshit, and a censorship state.

I rather have a Tump presidency to be honest.

So you would vote for a candidate who wants the change the law so he can sue people for saying true things about him that he doesn't like?

If you oppose political correctness and censorship, Hillary is the obvious choice.

and let's not forget this whole pretense of going around acting like every cop is beyond reproach that the Trump campaign has been doing is another form of political correctness. They're just arguing what to be PC about, not to do away with it entirely.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who think it's absurd to complain about a "censorship state" and then say "I'd rather have a Trump presidency." But then again, kend0_kap0ni is the same guy who thinks that building state-run cafeterias and restricting people to two meals a day would be a cost effective and ethical alternative to the current forms of government assistance, so it's not like he has a good track record when it comes to making sense.

@Ish_basic: That poll was from two liberal media outlets. They have no reason to screw those numbers in favor of Trump. Not that I believe they would. Which is why I find those polls quite relevant. Now if I posted conservative outlet polls. That would really be cherry picking.

And in the post I replied to. He spoked of the 2008 election, and made no mention of Romney.

@GreySeal9: Clinton hasn't been a stud at debating either. And isn't a great public speaker. So lets not go that far.

And we already know about Trump's sexual comments. Which were discussed in the opening of the 2nd debate. Sure there's still room to discuss individual accusations, if that even gets mentioned. But its perfectly fair to say Clinton has much to address to a Catholic voting block. That usually goes to the Democrat nominee. On a topic that is a recent development.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/14/fox-news-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-7-points.html

No even the conservative media says Hilary is winning by quite a bit.

In the post you replied to, I mentioned the 2012 election, which included Romney.

It doesn't matter if Clinton is not "a stud" at debating and it doesn't matter that she isn't a great public speaker. She doesn't have to be Obama to win a debate against Trump. She is a better debater than Trump and she won the first two debates convincingly (Trump's defeat in the first debate is when his drop in the polls began). And as I said, third debates historically don't move the needle.

Cherrypicking doesn't simply refer to the political bias of the publication. Cherrypicking is the act of isolating a result that is favorable to your argument or tells you what you want to hear. You are absolutely doing that. You're putting undue importance on a single poll instead of looking at the average or the entire data pool.

To think that comments made about Catholics/evangelicals by a Clinton spokesperson and not Clinton herself will somehow overshadow allegations of sexual assault is absurd wishful thinking on your part.

I wouldn't be surprised if jak42 thinks that a 7 point lead is "barely winning."

I'll be happy when we have the farcical elections behind us so that we can finally concentrate on reclaiming our nation by ... effective means.

:-P

@GreySeal9: Who said anything about overshadowing. And the Clinton campaign has not taken action towards these spokesmen. Further suggesting this isn't some isolated incident. But a culture one. Particularly since were not talking about some low level employees.

I mentioned Clinton not being a stud debater. As you stated she won both debates. Which is a bit silly. As she didn't really say much of substance either in the debates. And there are actually some other polls with Trump leading I could have picked from the link below.With others that do have a 4 or 5 point margin as well.

@toast_burner: That poll is from 4 days ago. The one I shared is from 1 day ago.

There's also a few other polls that have Clinton around a 4 point lead. With a few that have Trump leading.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

I think it's alarming that a person like Trump gets so much support in the first place. People are so f'd up.

You implied that this issue of this spokesperson making these comments about Evangelicals/Catholics will affect the race in a meaningful way whereas Trump's sex stuff is old news. That is absurd wishful thinking.

I don't care if you think she said anything of substance or not. The consensus of voters and analysts was that Clinton won the debates. Your opinion is irrelevant, especially since you are unable to talk about Clinton without your biases clouding your analysis.

Looking at your link, there are two polls that show Trump leading nationally and one of those is Rasmussen, which has a Republican leaning house effect and has been leaning towards Trump all year. And then there is the LA Times poll showing Trump 1 point ahead, which is actually bad news for Trump as that poll usually has him ahead by much more (and it has a flawed methodology; it's sample is not random. Random sampling is the hallmark of accurate polling). The other poll showing him leading is a poll of Montana, which is a deep red state, and Indiana, another red state.

There is only one national poll showing Clinton winning by only 4 (the Washington post poll; it shows up twice because there is a 4-way race version and a head to head version). The other poll where she is leading by 4 is a poll of Florida. Winning by 4 points in Florida is different than winning by 4 points nationally.

Why is it too much to ask for you to accurately report/interpret what's in your own link?

Also, this is a terrible way of reading the FOX poll, especially considering that the WSJ poll showing Clinton up 11 points was released at the same time as the Washington Post poll showing her up by 4. The statistically literate way to read the FOX poll is to compare it to the next round of polls from FOX. That will give a better idea of whether or not Trump gained ground or not. Saying "this poll is newer by 3 days" is not a valid argument.

Really, awesome irony. Lose the election historically, showing yourself to be the biggest clown in the history of the public square in America, then go on trial and get further exposed. Gonna be sweet. I wonder if Vegas is taking bets on him crying on air. I wonder what the over under is on him completely ruining his makeup.

No. I'll just be sad that Clinton won.

If both lost, I'd be happy.

I will be sad, as America will go back to being the world's most boring country. And the news will again be filled with their boring politics. Trump is the most interesting thing about America.

I will be relieved for sure. Happy... not really I will probably miss Obama.

But at least Clinton did not openly state that she did not rule out nuking europe.

Make that 3.

I am so glad the table has finally turned. God it was so annoying when people assumed that right wingers could not be PC. When in fact some of the right wingers were by far some of the biggest offenders of said phenomenon.

edit: And I think the comments the hillary campaign made on both reforming christianity and islam shows that Hillary is not as PC as they would like to make her out to be.

@TheMadGamer:

The only thing I'll be happy about would be that the media will finally shut the **** up about including the presidential election every fucking day. I'm so sick of hearing about it 24/7.

Of course, it will mean the republican will take over government in 4 years.

No.

It's more of a protest vote than anything else.

Is it certain trump will loose ?

@Elaisse:

The Republican party will barely exist in 4 years, at least anything like it is now, it's imploding. I doubt they will come up with anyone who could win including Mike Pence.

Let's face it, it doesn't matter which of the two the Americans chose, it's going to be one of the worst presidents ever. I don't think there is anything to be happy about unless some 3rd party wins

Her lead is more like 6-7 points right now and possibly expanding still. Her lead is big enough now to make it possible for her to win some republicans states like Arizona and maybe Utah. She's also really competitive in Alaska, Texas, Georgia and maybe South Carolina,Indiana and Missouri right now.

@ArchoNils2

Trump will be the death of the Republican Party. Republicans have to reform every few years around their policies, now they'll have to completely rebuild their party. But I don't feel it's enough, I think we are seeing the last days. Not sure about the rise of the Lib Party, but the Democratic party will get more competitive.

no. I never said I would vote for Trump. I wont vote at all actually. The US is not my country.

Hillary is not the obvious choice.

After trump they will do well and with another 4 years of dem rule. By 2020 you will be under heavy republican rule and the democratic party will be fracturing.