Gyroscopic Investing

But she does have the blessing of the mass media.  Their "votes" count for a lot.

Have you noticed that every published photo of Trump tries to make him look as bad as possible?  It's obvious the media doesn't like him, and that may even be quite understandable, but I'm thoroughly disgusted at the media's use of such tactics to tweak public opinion.  If there is such a thing as ethics in journalism anymore, this certainly violates it.

p.s. Check out the CNN headline about the Democratic Michigan primary results:  "What went wrong?"  In big letters.  Answer:  Nothing went wrong.  Sanders won.  It's only "wrong" because the candidate that the media was "voting" for didn't win.

She is very beatable in every way. If she's not in jail by then.

It may not be this election cycle, but soon, the Neo-con/Neo-lib teams will be broken.  Trump has started the conversation about making global trade more fair for the American people and its time is due.  If it's not Trump, some other smart politician will identify this opportunity and seize on that movement.  Hopefully it's before the working class is completely gutted.

WiseOne wrote: But she does have the blessing of the mass media.  Their "votes" count for a lot.

Have you noticed that every published photo of Trump tries to make him look as bad as possible?  It's obvious the media doesn't like him, and that may even be quite understandable, but I'm thoroughly disgusted at the media's use of such tactics to tweak public opinion.  If there is such a thing as ethics in journalism anymore, this certainly violates it.

p.s. Check out the CNN headline about the Democratic Michigan primary results:  "What went wrong?"  In big letters.  Answer:  Nothing went wrong.  Sanders won.  It's only "wrong" because the candidate that the media was "voting" for didn't win.

Perhaps the solution is to make the leadership of domestic media conglomerates an electable position.  Say, every four years the American public vote for those who they trust to wield the power to editorialize or even cherry-pick unflattering portraits of presidential candidates. 

The question then becomes, however, "what is domestic media in this day and age?"

A truly bizarre election year. Both parties are tripping over themselves in a mad rush to nominate their weakest possible candidates.

Latest odds at http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/ ... 16-futures have Hillary at -200 and Trump at +200, meaning if you bet on Hillary and she loses you pay $200 and if she wins you win $100, while if you bet on Trump and he loses you pay $100 and if he wins you win $200.

Real money is saying Hillary is still the favorite.

rickb wrote: Latest odds at http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/ ... 16-futures have Hillary at -200 and Trump at +200, meaning if you bet on Hillary and she loses you pay $200 and if she wins you win $100, while if you bet on Trump and he loses you pay $100 and if he wins you win $200.

Real money is saying Hillary is still the favorite.

Demographics say it too.

Trump will have to grab a bunch of moderate votes to win.  I think that it's within his reach, but it will be a challenge.  From here forward, all presidential elections will favor the Democratic candidate unless there is a serious shift in the electorate.

The Democratic candidate won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2012.  That's just reality, and it's something the Republicans should be paying more attention to, as opposed to trying to demonize Trump.

If Trump weren't running at all, the Republicans would still have a very tough time fielding an electable candidate.  IMHO, Kasich is the only other candidate who would potentially be electable in the fall, and he has suffered the same fate that most moderate Republicans face in trying to get out of the Republican primaries.

The demographics aren't as strong as they look.

Democrats have assembled a coalition of disparate groups that have nothing in common, mostly distrust each other, and many of them are not getting either their social or economic needs met by the party. The assumption of the past is that Democrats always win non-white voters. But why? These voters generally work at low-to-medium-skill manual labor jobs and have been devastated by the Democrats' economic policies, including "free trade," outsourcing, and illegal immigration. There isn't even any real support for unions anymore.

Socially, these voters look a lot like they should be strong Republicans, especially Hispanics: they become distressed when they can't do hard work, they have big families, they go to church regularly, they like big houses in the suburbs and trucks and ATVs and guns. Meanwhile the Democratic party has gone full-on leftist cosmopolitan and outright mocks the blue-collar culture of a goodly chunk of their voter base. Their wholehearted embrace of white liberalism is a dangerous game to play, akin to pre-Trump Republicans pursuing elitist economic and foreign policy priorities on the backs of people who couldn't care less.

It seems to me that there are a lot more independents and members of the Democratic coalition who may be attracted by Donald Trump's platform than there are members of the Republican coalition repelled by it. The National Review types are rare outside of Washington D.C. And you can't hurt and insult people forever and continue to see their support. A long time, maybe, for not forever.

MangoMan wrote: And yet, so many members here are certain that Trump will not just win, but crush Hillary in the general election. Somebody is mistaken.

A lot of people were sure that Romney would beat Obama by a convincing margin.

Isn't this the same?

Virtually all of the polls I've seen show Hillary Clinton beating Trump in a general election.

Things are definitely uncertain at this point.

But, the data we have shows Clinton beating Trump, so being sure that he'll beat her is "anti-data", just as the Romney supporters were./

Polling has been a bit spotty this election, for sure. There have been a couple of big upsets recently that completely blindsided the pollsters. I'd say it's a very different climate from the one we had in 2012 where the polls were consistently right and ignoring them was just wishful thinking. This election is driving pollsters crazy.

MangoMan wrote:

jafs wrote:

MangoMan wrote: And yet, so many members here are certain that Trump will not just win, but crush Hillary in the general election. Somebody is mistaken.

A lot of people were sure that Romney would beat Obama by a convincing margin.

I could be wrong, but my memory of the comments is that people tended to be hopeful that Romney could beat Obama, where as this time around the sentiment is more of certainty.

I was looking at this the other day. See the two articles below about "Anyone but Romney" and how he couldn't get above the 25% barrier in national polls during the primary process.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 11534.html
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ut-romney/

Now compare this to when Romney goes with "Anyone but Trump". This time around however, Trump's hovering around 30-35%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3823.html

MangoMan wrote:

jafs wrote:

MangoMan wrote: And yet, so many members here are certain that Trump will not just win, but crush Hillary in the general election. Somebody is mistaken.

A lot of people were sure that Romney would beat Obama by a convincing margin.

I could be wrong, but my memory of the comments is that people tended to be hopeful that Romney could beat Obama, where as this time around the sentiment is more of certainty.

I remember a lot of people being absolutely sure that Romney would win.

And, I don't mean just people on here, I mean a lot of people, generally speaking.

Caitlin Jenner calls Hillary a f'ing liar. Is that any way for a woman to talk?

http://www.gossipcop.com/caitlyn-jenner ... -season-2/

If Trump gets the nomination, I anticipate he will sound FAR more moderate heading into the fall.

He knows what he needs to win.

I don't think it's a certainty that Trump will win in the fall, but I think it's a certainty that he has a better chance of winning than any other Republican except Kasich.

TennPaGa wrote:

jafs wrote:

MangoMan wrote: I could be wrong, but my memory of the comments is that people tended to be hopeful that Romney could beat Obama, where as this time around the sentiment is more of certainty.

I remember a lot of people being absolutely sure that Romney would win.

And, I don't mean just people on here, I mean a lot of people, generally speaking.

This is my recollection too.  Here is an example of a Republican claiming polls were biased against Romney:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... osh-jordan

The thing that struck me about that was how close it was to the election.

Hell, even on election night, you had this:

https://youtu.be/E1lJ3tfQFpc

But eight months away, like we are now? Everyone is just spitballin'.  Including me.

As I recall, our prediction here in 2012 was 20-9 in favor of Obama winning.

TennPaGa wrote:

MediumTex wrote: As I recall, our prediction here in 2012 was 20-9 in favor of Obama winning.

Exactamundo!

To be fair, though, that poll began November 4, 2012 two days before Election day.  I expect the forum to be similarly accurate a couple of days before the election.

Hillary is a weak candidate, especially among male voters.

Trump's machismo will probably lure lots of male voters who might otherwise be likely to vote for the Democratic nominee.

I think that will be one of the fundamental dynamics of a Hillary vs. Trump race.

I think that Scott Adams said in his blog that even in the San Francisco area he had never personally met a single man who said he was going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Trump will appeal to some voters, but also bring out the "anti-Trump" vote.

Sure, every candidate brings out their anti-candidate vote.

Well, sure, but not all candidates are the same.

Kasich, for example, probably wouldn't bring out the same kind of anti-vote, since he's much less offensive to many people.

Caitlin for VP!

Tortoise wrote: Caitlin for VP!

A reality TV show host and a woman who used to be a man.

Idiocracy, here we come!!!

jafs wrote: I remember a lot of people being absolutely sure that Romney would win.

And, I don't mean just people on here, I mean a lot of people, generally speaking.

And this is why most people aren't worth listening to.