What will happen if Clinton is elected President

[pbrower2a]

(08-05-2016, 10:01 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 07:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 06:49 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 12:40 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: First let me say that I highly doubt she will be elected.  Her post convention bump was far lower than Trump's, and her unfavorablity is growing, also it is quite likely she will not fare well in the debates.  Seriously Grouchy Commie Grandpa (Sanders) trounced her on a regular basis and he wasn't even really trying to hurt her.  Trump won't be nearly as nice, and HRC's reputation as being a hard as nails political animal negates her gynocentric advantage.

Furthermore she's been running as Obama's third term thus far.  As such it is likely that in the unlikely event that she is elected she will be an unsuccessful one term president.  That of course assumes she isn't forced out for corruption, high crimes and misdemeanors (and the GOP Congress will be looking to take her out...Hillary Hunting is their pastime) impeachment or even health factors.

All of that said in over 200 years of having presidents only one has resigned, and two impeached (both unsuccessfully) and as such I doubt that would resign unless there was a Nixion level scandal (though she does make her own drama and reaps that karma) or she has a stroke or something on national TV.

That said I think it is telling that she's not had a press conference in 243/4 days....not good....not good at all.

She will be elected President. The only question is now actuarial. The most likely entity to stop her from succeeding Barack Obama as President is the Grim Reaper.

At this point she is on par with where Barack Obama was on Election night, 2008. I'm not saying that she will win Indiana, but maybe she ends up with Arizona or Missouri instead. As late as early September 2008 the Presidential race looked close to even.  

Obama won Florida by just under 4% in 2008 and just under 1% in 2012. Up 6%? Bill Clinton did that in 1996 when Ross Perot siphoned off lots of usual R voters. Maybe that happens this year. Carter won Florida by about 5%... when he won every former Confederate state except Virginia.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have not voted for a Republican Presidential nominee since at least 1988. You need remember that Hillary Clinton was shown up 11% in Pennsylvania, probably the shakiest of those states Michigan is up 9%. Those states and the District of Columbia hold 243 electoral votes between them. Florida has 20. 270 wins. Do the math.

The material for the negative campaigns is already in place. If you got sick of the "Willie Horton" ads in 1988, don't worry. The Clinton campaign has a variety this time. Negative ads work.  He has bad business dealings, bankruptcies, and preferential hiring of foreigners (even if they come on H1B visas to be hotel staff). He has stiffed contractors. He has shown admiration of nasty dictators -- like Satan Hussein.

...As for Congress taking her out -- one pollster has the generic ballot for Congress at 49-41. Because of gerrymandering, Democrats need to win about 54-46 in House elections overall to win back the House. Republicans have lots of brittle targets in the Senate.

Democrats solved almost all their problems in their Convention. Republicans got through a formality and otherwise solved nothing.

You're forgetting several factors:

1.  The Greens while not on the ballot in every state are on the ballot in most states.  The only third party that can claim more states are the Libertarians and honestly they never get more than 1% and are unlikely to get 2% if all the #NeverTrump clowns try to flood into that party.  There simply isn't enough of them, were there, they would have won the GOP primaries.

2.  Negative ads do work.  Trump has more than enough material for his own, and he has more than enough of his own money and donations to roll out his own ads.  That said, negative ads work by supressing the vote, which historically does NOT favor Democrats.  Given the hundreds of scandals HRC has been in, and the relatively little dirt there is on Daddy (cause seriously were there real dirt they'd used it by now--hell the Establishment GOP would have used it) I hope HRC goes negative she'd end up shooting herself in the foot that way.

3.  At current some 20% of Sanders supporters are lining up behind Trump.  If we can get this up to 25% or even 30% the Obama coalition would start to break apart.  The cracks are already showing seeing as the Dems had to fix their own primaries with the help of MSM acting as their do-boys to block Sanders (and under normal conditions he shouldn't have had a snowball's chance in Hades).

4.  At present Trump's got the Panhandle and Miami locked in for FL.  Only the I-4 makes FL a contention state, and we are putting a lot of effort in down here.  DC is going to be blue, but PA and OH are likely to turn red this time round.  IN won't be going blue--2008 was a fluke due to the October Surprise that happened that year (which wasn't really a surprise to anyone who was actually watching the economy).  Further HRC's VP pick was purposely done to retain VA as a blue state....unfortunately for her Kaine is pretty much hated in VA.

5.  The only polls that matter are the ones that open in November.  Goldenboy of '08 and '12 Nate Silver has been making a lot of wrong predictions this year.  Methinks  he is an inverse indicator this year.  That is to say that his track record this cycle has been so consistently bad that betting against his prediction is the more prudent course.

Gad, this fact-free horseshXt is simply hilarious -20% of Sanders voters going to Trump; Clinton scandals that mean anything to normal people; Trump has a shot at FL, OH, PA; Kaine is hated in VA (this is the most bizarre)???

We actually have our very own "The Donald" on this forum!  Maybe a moniker change? The K-Trump or maybe K-Dump?

Or maybe you can be "The Donald's Brain" and on election day you can mutter around about how Clinton's win just can't be true because the polls are skewed?  You sure you're not "JustPassingThrough?"

1. I see polls with the Libertarians getting 10% or more of the vote. Many of those voters are not hard-core Libertarians; they are orthodox Republicans. Millions of orthodox Republicans find Donald Trump a demagogue and dangerous for that. They may disagree with me on what the best alternative is, but they know that Donald Trump is untrustworthy.

In many states such will allow Hillary Clinton to win with 45% or so of the vote. This could throw Hillary a bunch of states that just do not vote for Democratic nominees for President. Donald Trump is a horrible match for states whose people don't like flamboyance. I have seen that pattern in Utah.

Gary Johnson and William Weld have political assets that no pair of third-party or independent nominees have had since 1912: they both have held one of the two usual penultimate  elective offices for an elected President: Governor of a state. (the other is US Senator). Both Johnson and Weld have far more experience in elective office than does Donald Trump.

2. The Democrats gave copious material for negative ads against Donald Trump -- and against anyone who chooses to support him. That could be a double-whammy for many incumbent Republicans. Unlike the case with the "Willie Horton" ads the Democrats can rotate ads so that people don't get sick of them. Yes, negative ads work -- and Democrats have them to use if necessary.

3. Disgruntled Sanders supporters will go to Jill Stein and her Green Party. Donald Trump has little to offer them.

4. I have never been in Florida, so I can't refute you directly on that.  Deny the significance of polls if you wish -- but in the years in which I have followed statewide polls they have told a story that held up. There have been bad pollsters, but see enough and you see patterns.

Hillary Clinton can win without Florida. At this point I see no evidence that Hillary Clinton will not win all seventeen states (CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, ME, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, and WI) and the District of Columbia. Those states account for 243 electoral votes.

A composite of Presidential elections, 1976 and 1992-2012:



 
Deep red -- Democrats win every Presidential race. 243
Medium red -- Democrats win all but one Presidential race. 15
White -- always went with the winner 23
Pale blue -- went for the winner in all election, but in that exception went for the Republican 38
Yellow -- twice Democratic, but seeming to now drift Democratic 13
Green -- twice Democratic but seeming to drift Republican (Missouri in a light shade because Obama was close in 2008, others deep green) 38/48
Medium blue -- Republicans win all but one Presidential race. 58
Deep blue --Republicans win every Presidential race. 98

NE-02 is the middle box in Nebraska even if the district is Greater Omaha.

Mass dissatisfaction with the Republican party is strong outside core GOP areas. Republicans will need either a catastrophic failure of the Obama Administration or a quickly-forming cultural trend (like a right-wing religious revival) in most Blue (Atlas Red) states to create an opportunity. (comment: That seems not to be happening. The Millennial Generation is not amenable to religious revivals). The political cultures that make Republican wins of those states is well entrenched.

OK, one might trade Nevada for Iowa... but that leaves the Republican nominee with several must-win states (Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina), none of which will be certain. The states

The winner of the Democratic nomination gets the Obama campaign apparatus intact. 

... Hillary Clinton has plenty of ways to win. With 29 electoral votes Florida puts Hillary Clinton over the top even if she gets no other state outside the Blue (here Red as this map comes from a source that still uses red for Democrats and blue for Democrats. I make no waves there over that). The Blue Firewall (on my map maroon) and Florida put Hillary Clinton over the top at 272.

If she wins all three of the states that have gone no more than once for a Republican nominee for President, then with this she is at 258 electoral votes. At that point, Colorado and Nevada put her at 272 electoral votes. Virginia has her at 271. Ohio puts her at 276.

So why don't I discuss Arizona? Because she is not going to win Arizona without also winning Colorado and Nevada. North Carolina? She's not going to win North Carolina without also winning Virginia. Georgia? Not without also winning Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina. Indiana? Not without also winning Ohio.

5. The argument that the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day? I have typically heard that from electoral losers. Good politicians do not play up polling results because complacency creates losses.

Why do you think politicians campaign actively? Bad polling results indicate that something is very wrong with the politician or his campaign.