With regards to voters without a party affiliation ("independents", or undecided), everyone should be required to read this: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/independent-voters-are-overrated/ There's some terrible logic out there that the surge in "unaffiliated" ballots in early voting is great news for Trump, since he tends to win independents in polls. The thing is, just because someone describes himself as independent doesn't make it so. In fact, as the 538 article points out, many of these so-called independents are actually more ideologically extreme than the admitted partisans -- and that's why they don't want to label themselves GOP or Dem. It's especially the case this year, given all the infighting in the Republican party -- you have a lot of very conservative voters who simply don't want to align themselves with the national GOP party, so they say they're independent. However, when it comes to actual ballot returns, independent/unaffiliated is not measured against how a person describes himself. Instead, it's measured against previous voting patterns. In other words, if you voted for Trump in the 2016 GOP primary (I'm guessing quite a few of these self-proclaimed independents did), you're counted as a GOP voter, not independent. Bottom line: The margin among independents, as tabulated in a self-identified survey, is going to be VERY different vs. measuring independents based on voting history.
An AI system which uses number of times someone is mentioned or searched or referenced or used in the internetz Problem is it doesn't detect the sentiment or whether it's positive or negative.
Clueless? The article predicts he will win. No need to insult because it doesn't go along with your rhetoric.
But....I have correctly predicted every presidential election since I started voting in 1976. It's generally not that difficult if you take "homerism" out of the equation. That AI program's got nothing on me (and I suspect a lot of other people on this board).
Alleging that she only wins because of the failure of a man makes it sound like you're delighting in the idea that women cannot perform as well as men. Besides, why should our first female president be so awesome anyway? We have had our share of not-so-great male presidents. Is the expectation for female presidents higher? We shouldn't let one in unless she's really exemplary? I'm thinking of gaffes as self-inflicted wounds. So, her basket of deplorables comment seems like the biggest in the general, and she staunched that wound very quickly. I don't think the Wikileaks stuff counts as a 'gaffe' because that's something political opponents did. Besides that, they didn't do ****. They released some stuff that shows she has a more nuanced view of the world that what she messages in public speeches. Big whoop. It didn't do anything. The only other thing they've got on her is the email scandal, which is a little hard to define as a 'gaffe' though she definitely deserves to be hurt by her misbehavior there. If Trump didn't have that email thing weighing her down, she'd be a golden candidate. Trump meanwhile has been a gaffe-machine. And every time he steps in it, he doubles down to make sure we don't forget what an idiot he is.
I'm not alleging, she IS only wining because of a failure of a stupid little man. I don't say that because women are not capable but because it's true. Defeating Trump is a slam dunk and the election is close right now?!?! How the hell is it even close? A sack of potatoes would beat Trump. Just proves the point, she is so weak in comparison to other great women who would have destroyed very capable men. Because the first is and should be momentous. It signifies a change in culture, identity, progress. Minimizing it is disingenuous or simply a ploy to make a counterpoint. I think it would have been awesome if the first was one of our best. And yes I think our expectations should always be to elect a POTUS that is better than their predecessor and tell me why that's a bad thing. It's clear that both Clinton and Trump will be worse than Obama so that is a regress not progress and we should all be pissed off about that.
Obamacare failing, Hillary's email investigating opening and now Hillary gets caught pushing for rigging the Palestinian election. I think it's destiny.
it's trump for godsakes. it should be a slam dunk win for even a sack of potatoes against trump. if hilary loses it would be worse than the Oilers collapse against the Bills. No, it's called choking.
I think Hillary is a pretty flawed candidate too, but IMO she destroyed him pretty badly in the debates and has done a fairly good job exposing him as the incompetent buffoon that he is. The problem is that the guy has somehow become immune to controversies and gaffes that would have torpedoed any other presidential campaign. He does and says one idiotic thing after another and almost always doubles down on every gaffe that he makes and, yet, when he's able to stay out of the spotlight for a few days his numbers start to climb right back up to where they were prior. I almost think it's possible that he's just such a mistake-prone moron that a good portion of the electorate has just accepted it as what it is and consider it "Trump being Trump." It's easy to say that any other candidate would be crushing him right now but I'm not so sure that would be the case.
Grab'em by the ***** wouldn't be considered a gaffe by your terms, yet was the tipping point for women voters and some GOP leaders. Keep telling yourself she'd be a Golden Candidate "without the email thing". You brushed off the leaks because the dirty details were already baked in. What's also baked in is across the spectrum distrust or dislike with her brand. It's more like she looks like Golden Candidate because of Trump rather than in spite of him. A Golden Candidate would expect a 100 days or longer honeymoon. Last time I checked, no quarter will be given for Hillary by extremes from both sides.
