US Presidential Race 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
CitizenTID said:
I feel this has become much more appropriate since it's release, with the US commandeering influence within the EU with the likes of TTIP to prep for economic warfare with the East (inc. global surveillance) and what feels like more within NATO whereby they're effectively the leader everyone is hanging onto the coattails of:


Just look how much everyone feels the importance of this election outside the US. I don't feel it's necessarily the USA we're all "living under," it's corps/bankers of various nationalities pushing various agendas such as globalisation/like-minded governmental systems they can influence via campaigns and a global banking monopoly, it's just the US has the most easily abused political system to further those aims, what with all their resources too. Governments change, the people can get rid of Presidents/Prime-Ministers/ruling parties they don't like, but if the system doesn't change, those influencing politics by funding campaigns in return for furthering their agendas, doesn't change - they are effectively the tyrant. By making continual power grabs to grow their influence by measures such as created a world of western-type "democracies" or global banking monopoly, they ensure their sustainability and effectively create their own ruling dynasty (by way of influence via funding campaigns). In the case of banking monopoly, this protects them against threats such as cryptocurrency (which they will seek to control power over, otherwise it threatens the existence of their whole banking system) and allows them to control the markets of every level, from governments to paupers.
Click to expand...


You're not far off at all, but people are wilfully blind and it's why they get away with what they do. The Brexit was a proper spanner in their works and they are trying their best to stop it.
 
SWP's back said:
All I really care about are economics and there is no economic argument to support Trump so whilst they may be both top class wankers, this isn't even a close vote. Trump would bankrupt the States inside two years.
Click to expand...
You say there is no economic argument to support Trump, and then go on to make an economic argument to support Trump.
 
City_Sean said:
Who's most likely to win?
Click to expand...
Just been looking at the numbers. Whoever wins each state gets a set number of electoral college votes depending on the population of the state. so New York has 29, California has 55, Texas 38 whereas the smaller states have 2 or 3. There are 538 in total so you need 270 to win.

Looking at states that should be near certainties, Clinton will have 182 and Trump 143 electoral college votes. Clinton's solid states appear to include:
  • California (55)
  • New York (29)
  • Illinois (20)
  • New Jersey (14)
  • Massachusetts (11)
  • Maryland (10)
  • Washington (10)
Trump's major wins should be
  • Texas (38)
  • Indiana (11)
  • Tennessee (11)
  • Missouri (10)
  • Alabama (9)
When you add in states in the "look reasonably likely" category that should take Clinton to 269 whereas Trump should only have 179. For Clinton these should be;
  • Pennsylvania (20)
  • Michigan (16)
  • Virginia (13)
  • Wisconsin (10)
  • Minnesota (10)
  • Colorado (9)
Trump needs to win most of these to stand any chance. His likely states in that 179 are:
  • Ohio (18)
  • Georgia (16)
  • South Carolina (9)
  • Utah (6)
  • Iowa (6)
  • Alaska (5)
If Clinton wins any of these then she'll walk it.

If that's right then just winning New Hampshire (4) of the remaining states (which she should do) should see Clinton over the line. The closest ones seem to be Florida (29), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15). If she wins Florida then she's absolutely home and dry. Those states appear to slightly favour Clinton as things stand, according to the polls so how she does there will be a good indicator.
 
I don't think people realise how hard it is for a Republican to win. Especially if the Democrat opponent is popular (like Obama). The Democrat starts with a big electoral advantage. Clinton is disliked because she is a dishonest and corrupt politician. Luckily for her...Trump is just as disliked (if not more).

If the republicans had nominated Rubio for example....he would probably have wiped the floor with Hillary. And if it wasn't for term limits, Obama could probably win a 3rd term.
 
BlueCityfan said:
I don't think people realize how hard it is for a Republican to win. Especially if the Democrat opponent is popular (like Obama). The Democrat starts with a big electoral advantage. Clinton is disliked because she is a dishonest and corrupt politician. Luckily for her...Trump is just as disliked (if not more).

If the republicans had nominated Rubio for example....he would probably have wiped the floor with Hillary. And if it wasn't for term limits, Obama could probably win a 3rd term.
Click to expand...

Yep every four years the demographics get worse and worse for Republicans in a national race. More Hispanics voting every 4 years. Younger (new) voters skew Democratic and Older (dying) voters skew Republican. In the post mortem they did in 2012 the party said they have to change their approach to Latinos. Then 4 years later they nominate Trump. Its basically a case of the party knowing how to win but not having a voting base that will do what it takes to win.
 
karen7 said:
Trump would be like having Farage as prime minister so that would be the worst fuck up by far
Click to expand...
On the face of it yes but Clinton could be worse in other ways, neither are fit for that office if you ask me....
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Just been looking at the numbers. Whoever wins each state gets a set number of electoral college votes depending on the population of the state. so New York has 29, California has 55, Texas 38 whereas the smaller states have 2 or 3. There are 538 in total so you need 270 to win.

Looking at states that should be near certainties, Clinton will have 182 and Trump 143 electoral college votes. Clinton's solid states appear to include:
  • California (55)
  • New York (29)
  • Illinois (20)
  • New Jersey (14)
  • Massachusetts (11)
  • Maryland (10)
  • Washington (10)
Trump's major wins should be
  • Texas (38)
  • Indiana (11)
  • Tennessee (11)
  • Missouri (10)
  • Alabama (9)
When you add in states in the "look reasonably likely" category that should take Clinton to 269 whereas Trump should only have 179. For Clinton these should be;
  • Pennsylvania (20)
  • Michigan (16)
  • Virginia (13)
  • Wisconsin (10)
  • Minnesota (10)
  • Colorado (9)
Trump needs to win most of these to stand any chance. His likely states in that 179 are:
  • Ohio (18)
  • Georgia (16)
  • South Carolina (9)
  • Utah (6)
  • Iowa (6)
  • Alaska (5)
If Clinton wins any of these then she'll walk it.

If that's right then just winning New Hampshire (4) of the remaining states (which she should do) should see Clinton over the line. The closest ones seem to be Florida (29), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15). If she wins Florida then she's absolutely home and dry. Those states appear to slightly favour Clinton as things stand, according to the polls so how she does there will be a good indicator.
Click to expand...
I don't see Washington DC listed there and they have 3 votes which would put Hillary Clinton at 272. So if Trump wins ALL of the ones you think he has to win most of he'd still lose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.