Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1372
  • Posts: 22846
May 21st, 2016 at 4:36:35 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

Trump is leading Hillary in the two latest polls. "President Trump" -- get used to hearing those two words together. It could happen.



I'll give you +225 on Trump.

This actually goes against what I've been saying for years -- that since the television age, the more charismatic candidate has won every time for president. We'll start that with the first election to have televised debates in 1960. I'd have to give charisma to Trump easily.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 928
May 21st, 2016 at 6:13:00 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I'll give you +225 on Trump.

Eight online bookmakers are offering +225, and two are offering +240 (link), so I'm afraid your offer isn't especially attractive compared to what I can get elsewhere.

At this point it still doesn't look like Trump will win, but with odds, the bet looks interesting. And what we've learned in this election cycle is that outcomes are hard to predict. No one seriously thought Trump would get the nomination, then boom! So now I think it would be foolhardy to write him off completely for the general. Anything can happen between now and November.

Quote: Wizard

This actually goes against what I've been saying for years -- that since the television age, the more charismatic candidate has won every time for president. We'll start that with the first election to have televised debates in 1960. I'd have to give charisma to Trump easily.

I'd argue that in 2000, the more charismatic candidate (Bush) didn't actually win; the election was stolen through fraud. (e.g., 1, 2) Even before considering voter suppression, it's indisputable that he got fewer votes than Gore.

About Trump, his charisma is relative. Women are far more likely to find him creepy than charismatic.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1372
  • Posts: 22846
May 21st, 2016 at 9:33:34 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

I'd argue that in 2000, the more charismatic candidate (Bush) didn't actually win; the election was stolen through fraud. (e.g., 1, 2) Even before considering voter suppression, it's indisputable that he got fewer votes than Gore.



That is risking getting off topic, but I just said "win." I don't wish to get into it, but I think the Bush camp has their complaints as well, like the Gore side fighting to not count military votes on technicalities in the recount.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 928
May 21st, 2016 at 11:09:04 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

"A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Good job on cherry-picking your quote. From the same article: "But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots."

It's not clear whether that even addressed the issue of the illegal military ballots cast for Bush, which was the point that the Wizard and I were discussing.

Quote: SanchoPanza

And that is based on . . .

Wow, a right-winger asking for evidence? Usually the right-wingers on this forum seem to pull random misinformation out of thin air and dismiss any evidence offered to the contrary. This is quite a reversal.

But in any event, Gallup shows that 70% of women have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, a figure which includes nearly half of *Republican* women. Now, maybe you'll argue that the poll didn't specifically use the word "creepy", to which I would reply, whatever.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 224
  • Posts: 12332
May 22nd, 2016 at 3:59:35 AM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay



I'd argue that in 2000, the more charismatic candidate (Bush) didn't actually win; the election was stolen through fraud. (e.g., 1, 2) Even before considering voter suppression, it's indisputable that he got fewer votes than Gore.



It was Gore that tried to steal that election, not Bush. Not sure how you do it, but if I count something three times and get the same result 2 times and a different the third, I am more believing in the result I got the 2 times. Gore did not even want every ballot "recounted." He will go down in history as the sorest loser of all time,

Quote:

About Trump, his charisma is relative. Women are far more likely to find him creepy than charismatic.



The women that do like him are drawn to his alpha-male charisma. Nobody is drawn to Hillary because of her personality. Some women just want a woman, preferably a lefty woman. Some like omega males they can control. Some will just never vote against a Democrat. The fact that Trump gets plenty of support from married women bears all of this out.

Does anyone like listening to Hillary talk? Either totally boring or screaming at you. If not for Bill she would be a low-level associate proofreading contracts for a local Saul Goodman.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
May 22nd, 2016 at 4:31:56 AM permalink
All the 2000 stuff is off-topic but, instead of rehashing tired old stuff about the vote count, why not focus on the reason Gore, McCain, and Romney did not win their respective elections...their message did not resonate enough with the people. Perhaps Gore took some blame for Clinton, but Clinton was pretty popular after the impeachment even, and McCain for Bush...but all three of these guys were within striking distance of the Presidency and lost momentum at critical points. They all three lost the election. All of them had a solid chance to win.

On to this election...Hillary is dull and has not really excited her party. Bernie would be close under different rules, but he has no chance at the nomination...but he does excite a large group of people. If Hillary can bring those people to her instead of having them sit out the vote, she has a fantastic chance of winning the election. To do that, she may have to shift further left. That becomes a potentially dangerous maneuver because she could alienate some more moderate independents. She is hard for me to listen to and it isn't just that I don't like her--I did not like her husband, but he could give a speech (though he is not nearly as good now from what I have seen).

A lot of the same type of factors on the other side...Trump is more exciting, of course, but he has turned off the establishment. Mittens was out trying to bring in a third party but that appears to have died out. Trump is not hard to listen to, but he turns off a lot of people.

It may come down to which one turns off the least potential voters from their side and the middle instead of which one excites people the most...the people Trump has excited can't win the election for him; Hillary excites very few and needs to excite the Bernie people...she can't win without some of them...
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 224
  • Posts: 12332
May 22nd, 2016 at 5:10:37 AM permalink
Quote: RonC

All the 2000 stuff is off-topic but, instead of rehashing tired old stuff about the vote count, why not focus on the reason Gore, McCain, and Romney did not win their respective elections...their message did not resonate enough with the people. Perhaps Gore took some blame for Clinton, but Clinton was pretty popular after the impeachment even, and McCain for Bush...but all three of these guys were within striking distance of the Presidency and lost momentum at critical points. They all three lost the election. All of them had a solid chance to win.



Bush had Gore in charisma, but he did not have the personality to put the guy away early. That election became a total love-in, with both sides refusing to land a strong punch. It was a sign that both guys were afraid to take the slightest risk of "offending" any one person lest things be just that close. Gore kept making a jackass out of himself with claims of inventing the internet and people taking dog medicine because it was cheaper. Bush never took real advantage, and as such when the DUI non-issue broke late he lost almost all of the undecideds.

McCain was sent out to lose. Like Steve Lombardi or some scrub Division-1 school who plays the powerhouse in early September, when you watch you have to think he was just put out to allow Obama to get over with the population. (for those of you who do not know what that means, look up the wrestling term "over.") Whether the GOP figured it was a lost cause (maybe) to the Trilateral Commission telling them they had to lose (maybe again!) I cannot imaging a worse candidate.

Romney could have won. High and persistent unemployment 2008-2012 alone should have gotten him near the finish line. Two things killed him. He allowed the Democrats to control the message over and over. From the silly "war on women" to claims of not paying his taxes. He did not attack and with it still close near the end, the images of Obama handling Sandy probably tipped it.

This is a big appeal of Trump. The Democrat attack machine, to paraphrase Hillary, will use the same tricks until they no longer work, Just like a football team keeping the same offense until it no longer scores. Trump, however, attacks first. He knows that if he talks about Bill's harassment of women then Hillary cannot ask about say his casinos failing. Every day he keeps her off-message is a day he wins the news cycle. That is a huge name of the game.

Quote:

It may come down to which one turns off the least potential voters from their side and the middle instead of which one excites people the most...the people Trump has excited can't win the election for him; Hillary excites very few and needs to excite the Bernie people...she can't win without some of them...



I will take excitement over least offending any day of the week. GM used to focus-group car designs to death to be sure they did not offend people. Other makers were too small to pay for all that. Look what happened,
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 928
May 22nd, 2016 at 8:08:04 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

It was Gore that tried to steal that election, not Bush.

Didn't read either source I provided, did you? Not surprised.

BTW, Wizard, the problems in the 2000 election that I mentioned, and that I linked to, had *nothing* to do with dangling chads. Those issues are more jarring, and should have gotten more attention.
Calder
Calder
Joined: Mar 26, 2010
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 519
May 22nd, 2016 at 10:21:34 AM permalink
I'm still pissed about Adams - Jackson in '24.
OzzyOsbourne
OzzyOsbourne
Joined: Jul 10, 2012
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 184
May 22nd, 2016 at 10:46:29 AM permalink
Quote: Calder

I'm still pissed about Adams - Jackson in '24.



I'm still upset about it too. At least we still got 8 years of Old Hickory. Take that Indians and the national bank!
casino's money disappears the execs worry when the wizard is near He turns tears into joy Everyone's happy when the wizard walks by

  • Jump to: