Would you really vote for someone that is 10 times the racist/sexist you think Trump is?
Is Bloomberg really that bad?
- Thread starter MoneyMatthew
- Start date
Would you really vote for someone that is 10 times the racist/sexist you think Trump is?
And Clinton got millions more votes as the polls said she would.Yes Trump got lucky with that 78,000 vote EC win but I would not count on something with 10% odds happening back to back
I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg.That doesn't mean I think he still wouldn't beat Trump.May the best racist win.
Last edited:
So you really can’t lose is what you are saying.
Polls like this are useless then.
Find the polls that show who will win the POTUS. State by state.
Not who will get most votes.
America elects based on electoral college. Not popular vote.
I have heard right here on the forum non-stop for months that all a person has to do is to win South Carolina to become president.
True but...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election#History
Although the nationwide popular vote does not directly determine the winner of a presidential election, it does strongly correlate with who is the victor. In 53 of the 58 total elections held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote.
They are very useful imo.They are very accurate at predicting who will get the most votes.Person who got the most votes won 53 of 58.
Like I said.....
The X mark
Sandwiched between two giant generations, the boomers and the millennials, the Generation X, now mostly in their late 30s to late 50s, may end up determining both the Democratic and ultimately the November election.
Xers have done comparatively better than millennials, but not nearly as well as the Boomers. Their ascent is somewhat inevitable; by 2030 they will own 30 percent of the nation’s assets, doubling their share in 2015.
As property and business owners, as well as parents, Xers are caught between their somewhat liberal social views and their interest in preserving their assets. These have grown under Trump and done so far more quickly than in Obama’s second term.
X generation voters, particularly the more affluent and well-educated, may want Obama-like changes, but not the kind of “revolution” that Sanders epitomizes. “They don’t want a revolution,” observed Matthew Walther in The Week. “They want more of the same, but without the mean tweets and with the approval of their neighbors.”
Trump does only slightly better with Xers than millennials and almost half identify as Democrats.
But Sanders’ leftist agenda has done poorly among these middle-aged voters so far, and it is not inconceivable that many Xers may, albeit reluctantly, rally to the president, choosing offensiveness over catastrophic change. After all, Xers have already paid off their college debts and worked hard to buy a house; a socialist revolution would essentially devalue these investments and make a mockery of their thrift.
Last edited:
Too bad you don’t understand that things are changing in America.
The most populated areas are deep blue and getting more populated. Take away NY and CA and Hillary loses by 3 Million votes. Let’s not forget the significant number of red voters who don’t bother to show up on Election Day in these states because their ‘votes won’t count’.
show me a poll that says who wins POTUS based on how the election actually happens. And I’ll listen.
till then - you are just whistling Dixie.