Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:35 pmFirst
So how is your preferred candidate doing in your state?
So how is your preferred candidate doing in your state?
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
US Gen. Election Thread V: The Hunt for Red October Surprise
Page 1 of 501
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:35 pmPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:35 pmThe polls are interesting so far.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:37 pmI'm surprised more people didn't think Trump won the debate. He certainly did better than last debate.
Third
Third
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:37 pmArlenton wrote:Eol Sha wrote:Bernie hacks?
I'd participate in this. PV predictions, I think, would be more interesting than EV predictions, anyway.
The "Bernie would win in a landslide!" people. I saw plenty of them in the primaries. Polar opposite of the "Trump will win in a landslide!" people and it was funny to watch them debate.
And why not both? You would have to not only predict the winner of each state, since multiple people predicting the correct electoral college map is pretty common, but would have to predict both the popular vote and the percentages of each state. Whoever predicts all the states correctly and has their PV prediction and state result predictions the closest to the actual results win.
Y'know, other than the polling saying otherwise, but whatever. No reason to get into that tired argument.
Both is fine by me.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:37 pmNew thread smell, whiff it in boys while you can.
Well, it's a new decade. We have people like Donald Trump who is just disgusting, even their own party is admitting that. It won't be long before candidates don't even have a record and is only popular from television or social media.
Ebliania wrote:I mean, I really miss the days where if something like this came out he'd get like 30% of the vote.
Well, it's a new decade. We have people like Donald Trump who is just disgusting, even their own party is admitting that. It won't be long before candidates don't even have a record and is only popular from television or social media.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:38 pmPrioca wrote:I'm surprised more people didn't think Trump won the debate. He certainly did better than last debate.
Third
Considering how badly he did last debate that isn't saying much.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:38 pmPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:42 pmMissouri
Governor: Chris Koster, is going to win and it's not going to be close.
Senate: Jason Kander is in a virtual tie with Roy Blunt, there hasn't been a poll in a couple weeks but Kander had a great debate. He has superior money, and a better field organization. I think he stands a reasonable chance of victory.
House: This is St.Louis, Lacy Clay already won before he announced.
President: Hillary is behind by less than 6 points. It's not impossible for her to win Missouri, but I think it'll be hard. If Trump continues to flop and she sees big turnout for the Senate race, then she could bring this race from 6 points to maybe 1 or 2. I expect her to lose Missouri, but if she wins I won't be shocked.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:42 pmI feel actively insulted by all of the main party candidates this time around.
First time for everything, I suppose.
I can only hope that this election either leads to the death of the two-party system, or reforms within the Republican party so they're less likely to put forth such awful candidates.
First time for everything, I suppose.
I can only hope that this election either leads to the death of the two-party system, or reforms within the Republican party so they're less likely to put forth such awful candidates.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:43 pmPrioca wrote:I'm surprised more people didn't think Trump won the debate. He certainly did better than last debate.
Third
More people did think Trump won the debate compared to the one last month. At least for this thread's voters, the percentage went up from 17% to 30%. ranted those polls were set up immediately after the end of the debate, but still...
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:46 pmCute thread name.
The thread might not even cover the rest of October. I'm guessing the 30th, for when it hits 500 pages.
The thread might not even cover the rest of October. I'm guessing the 30th, for when it hits 500 pages.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:47 pmEol Sha wrote:Prioca wrote:I'm surprised more people didn't think Trump won the debate. He certainly did better than last debate.
Third
More people did think Trump won the debate compared to the one last month. At least for this thread's voters, the percentage went up from 17% to 30%. ranted those polls were set up immediately after the end of the debate, but still...
Yeah, but I thought it would be closer to 50-50. NS tends to be more liberal though I suppose.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:48 pmRegarding the poll - none of the above. In the end, it doesn't really matter does it? The scandal with the primaries in New York was huge then it faded away. I bet this will only occur during debates but both candidates have their fair share of sins so it doesn't matter.
EDIT: The only reason Donald Trump's conversation with Mister Bush is so popular is because its recent. If it was in August then it wouldn't be a major crunch for Trump.
EDIT: The only reason Donald Trump's conversation with Mister Bush is so popular is because its recent. If it was in August then it wouldn't be a major crunch for Trump.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:49 pmGlad to see Trump won the debate. The media narrative shouldn't sway us.
Proof
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTr ... 8854876160
Despite the media constantly denying the usefulness of online polls, it's clear they just want to make up for Hillary's bad performance.
Proof
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTr ... 8854876160
Despite the media constantly denying the usefulness of online polls, it's clear they just want to make up for Hillary's bad performance.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:53 pmChristian Conservatism wrote:Glad to see Trump won the debate. The media narrative shouldn't sway us.
Proof
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTr ... 8854876160
Despite the media constantly denying the usefulness of online polls, it's clear they just want to make up for Hillary's bad performance.
That's from the 9/26 debate, first off -- and second, I'd like to see actual links to those polls, please.
Edit: Nevermind, they're online polls. I can only assume you're being sarcastic.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:54 pmChristian Conservatism wrote:Glad to see Trump won the debate. The media narrative shouldn't sway us.
Proof
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTr ... 8854876160
Despite the media constantly denying the usefulness of online polls, it's clear they just want to make up for Hillary's bad performance.
Your name is kind of ironic.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:55 pmIn Florida, self proclaimed swingiest swing state, Hillary has the edge. The latest Marist poll had her up by 3 points.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:58 pmNagarael wrote:I feel actively insulted by all of the main party candidates this time around.
First time for everything, I suppose.
I can only hope that this election either leads to the death of the two-party system, or reforms within the Republican party so they're less likely to put forth such awful candidates.
They could use paid membership I guess. Or keep the same primary system but then hold a popular vote* to choose between the top two or top three from the primaries.
*As I speculated about the Dem process, they'd give everyone who voted in the state-by-state primaries a unique coupon to vote online at the end.
But I doubt they'll do either of those. It takes something quite drastic to stop dumb voters from choosing a dumb candidate.
More likely, the GOP will identify 'too many candidates' as the cause of this year's problem, and introduce a rule to cull the back runners in early primaries. For instance, only the top 6 can go on from Iowa to NH, then only the top 5 from NH to (whatever's next, say NC), and no more than 4 still in the race on the first big day ("Super tuesday").
I'm not saying that's a good idea, just that the RNC might identify too many candidates staying in too long as the problem, and that's one way to "fix" the problem.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:59 pmWhich pretty much means Trump has the edge, if you actually bother to unskew the poll.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:00 pmHere we go guys!
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:00 pmPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:02 pmI will copy UTP's format. Shamelessly copy, in fact. 
Georgia
Governor: N/A, but if Nathan Deal were up for re-election, he'd easily cruise to victory no matter who the Democrats put up against him. No doubt about it. The man has a 58% approval rating.
Senate: I think Johnny Isakson is gonna be re-elected. Jim Barksdale is down by anywhere between 12% and 15%. He doesn't have enough time or money to turn his campaign around. Interestingly enough, though, the last presidential year a Senate race took place here was in 2008. Saxby Chambliss was brought down by Jim Martin and Allen Buckley (L) to under 50%, forcing a runoff in the process. Chambliss easily won in the runoff, but I do find that interesting. Of course, I think the need for a runoff was due to Barack Obama's coattails (and Clinton is no Obama), but that's just me.
House: Sanford Bishop's support base is heavily concentrated in Columbus, Georgia. His re-election is an even surer thing than Johnny Isakson's or Nathan Deal's. The Dems are strong in this city. The mayor is a Democrat (even if she's technically an independent), the city is 45% black, and not since 2000 has he garnered less than 60% of the vote in a presidential year. His re-election campaign is a mere formality.
President: Unlike some Democrats, I don't think Clinton ever had much of a chance here. I fully expect Trump to win here and I'll be surprised if Clinton finishes within 4% of Trump. Let alone flips the state.
Georgia
Governor: N/A, but if Nathan Deal were up for re-election, he'd easily cruise to victory no matter who the Democrats put up against him. No doubt about it. The man has a 58% approval rating.
Senate: I think Johnny Isakson is gonna be re-elected. Jim Barksdale is down by anywhere between 12% and 15%. He doesn't have enough time or money to turn his campaign around. Interestingly enough, though, the last presidential year a Senate race took place here was in 2008. Saxby Chambliss was brought down by Jim Martin and Allen Buckley (L) to under 50%, forcing a runoff in the process. Chambliss easily won in the runoff, but I do find that interesting. Of course, I think the need for a runoff was due to Barack Obama's coattails (and Clinton is no Obama), but that's just me.
House: Sanford Bishop's support base is heavily concentrated in Columbus, Georgia. His re-election is an even surer thing than Johnny Isakson's or Nathan Deal's. The Dems are strong in this city. The mayor is a Democrat (even if she's technically an independent), the city is 45% black, and not since 2000 has he garnered less than 60% of the vote in a presidential year. His re-election campaign is a mere formality.
President: Unlike some Democrats, I don't think Clinton ever had much of a chance here. I fully expect Trump to win here and I'll be surprised if Clinton finishes within 4% of Trump. Let alone flips the state.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:02 pmThanks to email leaks we know Hillary wants open trade and open borders. It's like she wants to create something as awful as the EU, but worse because it would have Mexico. She just wants to export our jobs because she doesn't put America first!
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:04 pmYasuragi wrote:Christian Conservatism wrote:Glad to see Trump won the debate. The media narrative shouldn't sway us.
Proof
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTr ... 8854876160
Despite the media constantly denying the usefulness of online polls, it's clear they just want to make up for Hillary's bad performance.
That's from the 9/26 debate, first off
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:05 pm