Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

Nov 4 place your bets

  • Trump will win, 100%

    Votes: 42 16.9%

  • Hilary will win, 100%

    Votes: 82 32.9%

  • Trump will win, but I'm worried Hil might triumph

    Votes: 9 3.6%

  • Hilary will win, but I'm scared the chances.

    Votes: 116 46.6%
  • Total voters
    249
Dr. Keith said:
If you sell yourself as a business genius and then admit to booking a billion dollar loss, some people have a hard to reconciling those positions. Maybe some of those people are working class voters of Ohio.
Click to expand...

Yes.
The business acumen is not the cornerstone of the campaign, it is the entire foundation of the campaign. That's all he's got.

He has no political experience.
He has no goodwill in congress.
He Has such a level of toxicity about him that the Republican leaders have to threaten senators to endorse Trump.
He has no knowledge of economics, foreign relations, and military preparedness.
He has no idea of how to drop a subject.
He has no idea how to be both strong and personable.
He has no idea how to show empathy or compassion.
He has no idea how to spin a previous statement to make it sound less tone deaf.

The business experience and his BS are the only two things he has.

I have seen BSers sometimes bump up against hard facts. They don't handle it well.


ETA
some might argue that he has no idea how to learn from his mistakes.

MORE ETA
he has no idea how to take the advice of experts that he has hired. (That may be the most troubling of all).
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
That's a distinctly unfair comparison.

There's no doubt Silvio is an actual billionaire.
Click to expand...


Who rates people as billionaires or not billionaires? Are you in the business?

Or perhaps you are clairvoyant, and see the real truth so you can inform the rest of us.


BTW. Trump's appeal is hard to pin down. Personally I think he handled the first debate badly, and he should take a lesson from Pence.

The Nuclear issue. Apparently one man (the President), together with an appointee can launch a nuclear first strike. Can one get TWO men so crazy (I don't think Trump is crazy) as to do so? If so, why has the US not limited such powers? Such as appointing a "sane" man as the second man with the codes? Or having Congress authorize first strikes?

It seems that the President does not have to authorize a nuclear counter-strike. Imagine a President on sleeping pills at 3am in the morning.
 
Dr. Keith said:
If you sell yourself as a business genius and then admit to booking a billion dollar loss, some people have a hard to reconciling those positions. Maybe some of those people are working class voters of Ohio.
Click to expand...


Which of the many business geniuses and pundits saw the crashes in the decades of 1990 and 2000 coming?

Alan Greenspan not only did not see them coming, he fueled them. A bit late to admit he was wrong.

How many companies did he put out of business?
 
PartSkeptic said:
The Nuclear issue. Apparently one man (the President), together with an appointee can launch a nuclear first strike. Can one get TWO men so crazy (I don't think Trump is crazy) as to do so? If so, why has the US not limited such powers? Such as appointing a "sane" man as the second man with the codes? Or having Congress authorize first strikes?

It seems that the President does not have to authorize a nuclear counter-strike. Imagine a President on sleeping pills at 3am in the morning.
Click to expand...

We've been over this a few times already, or so it seems to me.

Yes, the SecDef has to ok the launch, but he can't veto it. He is also a person appointed by the president, and so is unlikely to be completely at odds with him. He can also be fired on the spot by the president, should he refuse.

The reason for the power is the 12min rule: that's supposedly the time it would take a Russian ICBM to reach Washington: if the President hasn't ordered the strike by then, he might not be able to do so at all.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
(snip)
Yes, the SecDef has to ok the launch, but he can't veto it. He is also a person appointed by the president, and so is unlikely to be completely at odds with him. He can also be fired on the spot by the president, should he refuse.
(snip)
Click to expand...

Does not make sense to me.

The second person (SecDef?) will go along with a crazy person just to keep his job? And if he is fired on the spot, I suppose there will hand-puppet SecDef 2 right there will his own set of codes?

A little bit of change. THE US made clear its policy of regime change in Syria and backed the rebels (terrorists some of whom morphed into ISIS).

Aleppo is under siege and the US says "The forces we support will never surrender. They will fight to the last man. (PS The civilians are just collateral damage.)

Now US media wrings it hands over the human suffering. Does the US public have such short memories as to who fomented the uprising?

And why do the liberals (such as is found on this forum) in the US not take a stand and say "Enough suffering. The rebels must just give in. No more US arms."
 
PartSkeptic said:
Which of the many business geniuses and pundits saw the crashes in the decades of 1990 and 2000 coming?

Alan Greenspan not only did not see them coming, he fueled them. A bit late to admit he was wrong.

How many companies did he put out of business?
Click to expand...

You live by the soundbite you die by the soundbite.

These fancy long winded explanations give me tired-head and make you sound like Shillary.
 
Trump has not bribed enough of the Florida officials to get Florida on a recount. Otherwise, he will only get Florida if he gets it on the first count. Ot may be close, as close as Ohio at this point. Nuclear strikes are not on the mind of Trumpeteers. They want to protest or to "get Hillary."
 
Dr. Keith said:
You live by the soundbite you die by the soundbite.

These fancy long winded explanations give me tired-head and make you sound like Shillary.
Click to expand...

Well played, sir.

I was going to congratulate you on the phrase, "give me tired-head" but my phone autocomplete seems to already have that in it.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Because he did it for himself and his family, but now he's going to do it for all his fellow countrymen! Yay!

Remember that it is better to promise than to carry out. People prefers hope over thankfulness.
Click to expand...

Normally your grammar is perfect, so I'll point this out just in case it's an English/Spanish structure difference: a person prefers, while many people prefer. Seems like it should be other way around, but English is a palimpsest of other languages' bad ideas.
 
PartSkeptic said:
Who rates people as billionaires or not billionaires? Are you in the business?
Click to expand...

Most billionaires - as in those who actually have a billion dollars - are quite happy to prove their net worth, unlike your beloved orange leader.

I'd be prepared to bet a box of chocolate fish his net worth is less than a billion. Don't forget that Mr Orange keeps telling everyone how great he is and how much better he is - the discussion is all down to his unsupported claims.

PartSkeptic said:
BTW. Trump's appeal is ...
Click to expand...

...evaporating, is the word you're looking for.
 
From the Badscience.net forum and an interesting view:


liverpoolmiss said:
I think Trump's current problem is that views of voters are becoming fixed. So he has to shake the table to loosen things up again.

But he also has to be boring and presidential, as that's what worked for him in September. By being more normal, he slowly crept up in the polls, helped along by some bad Clinton news and her illness.

Boring and presidential doesn't shake the table and won't get any attention. Voters watched the debate and have moved on from thinking about the election. The relatively disengaged voter won't notice the day-to-day political stuff, won't talk about it round the water cooler.

Everyone enjoys the reckless, entertaining Trump. He'll get the attention only if he does more mad stuff. And that damages his boring and presidential fake persona. He's trapped.

What's that term in chess, where every move you could make is a bad one and you'd rather not move? It's like that. He has to move to change the current position on the board, but any move that would change things would be a bad move.
Click to expand...
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Normally your grammar is perfect, so I'll point this out just in case it's an English/Spanish structure difference: a person prefers, while many people prefer. Seems like it should be other way around, but English is a palimpsest of other languages' bad ideas.
Click to expand...

Thank you. It's a mistake I make as soon as I get a bit distracted. "Gente" (people) in Spanish is singular and feminine. I was told in the 70's that in BE it was acceptable and I learned it wrong.
 
I think that one month out from the election the OP question can now be answered an emphatic "No".

He ain't coming back from here.

As far as I can tell, the only time the numbers have said he was a real chance was immediately after the convention. He closed a couple of times after that but never sustained it.

The thread about peak Trump should be resurrected, because it looks like that date has passed and it could be the greatest landslide since Reagan.
 
Now it's all kinda Clinton + 3.5

More importantly battleground states are changing, both the list and whom they're leaning towards. Virginia and Pennsylvania are now back in blue and out of my list.

Last polls in some of the remaining battleground states:

Michigan: Clinton 43%, Trump 32% / Clinton 46%, Trump 36%
Florida: Clinton 47%, Trump 40% / Trump 43%, Clinton 42% / Clinton 41%, Trump 38% /
Nevada: tied in 43% / Clinton 44%, Trump 41%
Arizona: Clinton 44%, Trump 42% / tied in 42%
Ohio: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%
North Carolina: Clinton 46%, Trump 42% / Clinton 45%, Trump 39%/ Clinton 46%, Trump 44%
New Hampshire: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%
Wisconsin: Clinton 50%, Trump 47%

So my eyeballing rule of thumb threefiftyeight-ish forecasts is: if the elections were tomorrow, chances of winning would be: Clinton 97%, Trump 3%

But you know, Trump is bouncing back a bit, so stay tuned.

I am out for a couple of weeks. I'll be in a (sort of) spiritual retreat, in contact with nature and doing physical work, almost off the grid, so no phone, no tv, no internet, no newspapers. See you! Signing off, Alec.
 
aleCcowaN said:
I am out for a couple of weeks. I'll be in a (sort of) spiritual retreat, in contact with nature and doing physical work, almost off the grid, so no phone, no tv, no internet, no newspapers. See you! Signing off, Alec.
Click to expand...

Have fun!
 
aleCcowaN said:
Now it's all kinda Clinton + 3.5

More importantly battleground states are changing, both the list and whom they're leaning towards. Virginia and Pennsylvania are now back in blue and out of my list.

Last polls in some of the remaining battleground states:

Michigan: Clinton 43%, Trump 32% / Clinton 46%, Trump 36%
Florida: Clinton 47%, Trump 40% / Trump 43%, Clinton 42% / Clinton 41%, Trump 38% /
Nevada: tied in 43% / Clinton 44%, Trump 41%
Arizona: Clinton 44%, Trump 42% / tied in 42%
Ohio: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%
North Carolina: Clinton 46%, Trump 42% / Clinton 45%, Trump 39%/ Clinton 46%, Trump 44%
New Hampshire: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%
Wisconsin: Clinton 50%, Trump 47%

So my eyeballing rule of thumb threefiftyeight-ish forecasts is: if the elections were tomorrow, chances of winning would be: Clinton 97%, Trump 3%

But you know, Trump is bouncing back a bit, so stay tuned.

I am out for a couple of weeks. I'll be in a (sort of) spiritual retreat, in contact with nature and doing physical work, almost off the grid, so no phone, no tv, no internet, no newspapers. See you! Signing off, Alec.
Click to expand...

Don't eat any inedible plants ;) See ya when you get back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom