I35
5,000+ Posts
Well he did give his word that he would support the republican nominee at the first debate. His principles are pretty flexible.
General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
Well he did give his word that he would support the republican nominee at the first debate. His principles are pretty flexible.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'd argue that Kasich was trying to be the sanity candidate by running a general election campaign. R primary voters didn't appreciate sanity.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
Incorrect. The tiebreaker for Prez goes to the House only. Each state gets one vote to cast among the top 3 vote receiving candidates in the general election.
I don't assume the Rep House would select Trump over HRC and Johnson, it's a near certainty. The RNC would make sure of that.
The VP race goes to the Senate. Which means we could have a split ticket (Trump/Kaine) presidency if the Dems reclaim the Senate and selected Kaine.
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Thanks Brad. Sorry for not being specific to the House. This is the Evan McMullin strategy. If he wins Utah he's 3rd in the electoral college thus gets into mix. Assuming the House stays with a "conservative" candidate it will be between Trump/McMullin. I'm sure the latter would have A LOT of support. Of course, the R's would be faced with imploding the party by not selecting Trump and clearly they haven't been willing to do that yet.
Can you imagine Kaine getting in there as VP? He'd be the most feckless (err marginalized) VP ever.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
Today's ABC/WaPO poll taken from 10/27-10/30 has Trump +1.
Trump leads 53-45 among voters strongly enthused by their candidate. Trump has held steady in this category since 10/20 while HRC has lost 8 points.
Among Red state voters Trump leads 60-34
Among Blue state voters HRC leads 54-37
In ABC's toss-up states (AZ, FL, NC, OH, UT) Trump leads 48-41
Trump leads 53-45 among voters strongly enthused by their candidate. Trump has held steady in this category since 10/20 while HRC has lost 8 points.
Among Red state voters Trump leads 60-34
Among Blue state voters HRC leads 54-37
In ABC's toss-up states (AZ, FL, NC, OH, UT) Trump leads 48-41
When I went on Saturday morning, some had said that weekday early voting had substantial lines (I am in the WLH area)...but on Saturday, it took all of maybe five minutes to get to the table. Expect it will pick back up in the next day or so as EV comes to a close...
Not that it is needed, but the email below is proof that the Justice Department is not interested in Justice. They do have an interest in helping Hillary though:
--------------------
From:[email protected]
To: [email protected] Date: 2015-06-24 16:32
Subject: Re: Proposed response to upcoming State Dept disclosure on Sid emails
Just spoke to State a little more about this. A few updates. 1. The plan at the moment is for them to do this tomorrow, first thing in the morning. 2. What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over. It also includes emails that HRC had that Sid didn't, as Brian noted. 3. They do not plan to release anything publicly, so no posting online or anything public-facing, just to the committee. That said, they are considering placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper), that would lay this out before the majority on the committee has a chance to realize what they have and distort it. On that last piece, we think it would make sense to work with State and the AP to deploy the below. So assuming everyone is in agreement we'll proceed. It would be good to frame this a little, and frankly to have it break tomorrow when we'll likely be close to or in the midst of a SCOTUS decision taking over the news hyenas. Will keep everyone posted if anything changes, including the timing. Nick On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> wrote:
--------------------
From:[email protected]
To: [email protected] Date: 2015-06-24 16:32
Subject: Re: Proposed response to upcoming State Dept disclosure on Sid emails
Just spoke to State a little more about this. A few updates. 1. The plan at the moment is for them to do this tomorrow, first thing in the morning. 2. What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over. It also includes emails that HRC had that Sid didn't, as Brian noted. 3. They do not plan to release anything publicly, so no posting online or anything public-facing, just to the committee. That said, they are considering placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper), that would lay this out before the majority on the committee has a chance to realize what they have and distort it. On that last piece, we think it would make sense to work with State and the AP to deploy the below. So assuming everyone is in agreement we'll proceed. It would be good to frame this a little, and frankly to have it break tomorrow when we'll likely be close to or in the midst of a SCOTUS decision taking over the news hyenas. Will keep everyone posted if anything changes, including the timing. Nick On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> wrote:
From:[email protected]
To: [email protected] Date: 2015-08-22 11:24 Subject:
Re: Emails - my thoughts
Jen and I are in the same place. Trying to figure out how to get her there and best way to execute.
On Saturday, August 22, 2015, Neera Tanden <[email protected]> wrote:>>
I know this email thing isn't on the level. I'm fully aware of that.
But> her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine> feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem> (more so than honesty).>> People hate her arrogant, like her down. It's a sexist context, but I> think it's the truth. I see no downside in her actually just saying, look,> I'm sorry. I think it will take so much air out of this.>> She always sees herself bending to "their" will when she hands over> information, etc. But the way she has to bend here is in the remorse. Not> the "if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't do it." A real feeling> of - this decision I made created a mess and I'm sorry I did that.
To: [email protected] Date: 2015-08-22 11:24 Subject:
Re: Emails - my thoughts
Jen and I are in the same place. Trying to figure out how to get her there and best way to execute.
On Saturday, August 22, 2015, Neera Tanden <[email protected]> wrote:>>
I know this email thing isn't on the level. I'm fully aware of that.
But> her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine> feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem> (more so than honesty).>> People hate her arrogant, like her down. It's a sexist context, but I> think it's the truth. I see no downside in her actually just saying, look,> I'm sorry. I think it will take so much air out of this.>> She always sees herself bending to "their" will when she hands over> information, etc. But the way she has to bend here is in the remorse. Not> the "if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't do it." A real feeling> of - this decision I made created a mess and I'm sorry I did that.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Johnson would not be a choice unless he wins a state. Per the Twelfth Amendment, the House decides between the top 3 in the electoral college, not the top 3 in the popular vote.
If McMullin wins Utah and that prevents both sides from getting a majority in the electoral college, things could get interesting. Is it possible that a few Republican states team up with the Democratic states in a last ditch "anyone but Trump". Nate Silver discussed this possibility a few weeks ago. Link.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
So you guys (non-Reps) really believe the Rep dominated house with candidates supported by the RNC will break ranks from their party's nominee and the overwhelming vote of their constituents to side with a guy who won ONE state??? 
I guess you don't understand how much the RNC values holding their party together. Rep candidates would be screwed for years to come if their own party (who had the election in hand) screwed the will of their people like that. Never happen.
Fyi, this is all moot, Trump will take Utah.
As for Texas the supposed battle ground state a few weeks back...recent polls are now at +12 and +14. I knew the "Texas will be close" narrative was garbage.
I guess you don't understand how much the RNC values holding their party together. Rep candidates would be screwed for years to come if their own party (who had the election in hand) screwed the will of their people like that. Never happen.
Fyi, this is all moot, Trump will take Utah.
As for Texas the supposed battle ground state a few weeks back...recent polls are now at +12 and +14. I knew the "Texas will be close" narrative was garbage.
I35
5,000+ Posts
I'm predicting Minnesota as a big surprise as well. They are being hit hard by a projected premium hike of 49% with Obamacare. That will piss off even the hardcore left that actually work for a living.
If the election goes to the House, things could get interesting. Each state gets only one vote, and the GOP has a massive majority if each state gets to vote only once. Furthermore, they will have a massive majority even if they lose some seats. At first glance, you might assume that Trump easily wins, but I wouldn't be so sure. He probably will, but I can see some shenanigans happening.
First, the numbers give HRC no chance at all. At most, she'll get 16 or 17 votes. That would fall well short of the 26 she'd need to win. However, I could see her releasing those votes to build a coalition to deny Trump. Where could McMullin win? He could win states that have Republican delegations but where Trump didn't do well, especially in the primary. Could they bring his total to 26? Definitely a long shot but not out of the question. And suppose the House is split. Does the Speaker cast the tiebreaker? If he does, then Trump is toast.
First, the numbers give HRC no chance at all. At most, she'll get 16 or 17 votes. That would fall well short of the 26 she'd need to win. However, I could see her releasing those votes to build a coalition to deny Trump. Where could McMullin win? He could win states that have Republican delegations but where Trump didn't do well, especially in the primary. Could they bring his total to 26? Definitely a long shot but not out of the question. And suppose the House is split. Does the Speaker cast the tiebreaker? If he does, then Trump is toast.
Christie Brinkley in your dream as well?
Horns11
10,000+ Posts
She only needs one out of NV, CO, or AZ if the aforementioned ones slip into Trump territory. She doesn't need them if the others hold firm.
I don't see it as MN. Even with the recent news, the closest it slipped into the MoE is +3 for HRC, and the other ones pretty much held firm at +9 or +10. Sure, they elected Jesse the Body, but I kind of see him as an anti-Trump figure.
I thought it might be WI but their trend line isn't dipping as fast as MN's was. Even Remington, the strange one that had HRC within the MoE in PA, had HRC +4 after the new story broke. I think people don't love the GOP guys leading the state there and are doing a lot to keep WI blue on a national scene, like the backfire of choosing Ryan as the 2012 running mate.
MI is more interesting. I think their trend line IS dipping low enough that it's conceivable Trump could win if there was poor minority turnout there. It was like +7 and +8 for some of the polls a week ago, but now similar ones are only showing +3 or as low as +1 for HRC.
Christie Brinkley in your dream as well?
I totally acknowledge that it's a long shot for the election to even get to the House and a further long shot for McMullin to win in the House. But it's our only hope for a respectable President. I'd take him over the Crook or the Kardashian.
If Trump simply did the opposite of what Obama would do, Trump would be the next Reagan.
If Trump would do the opposite of what Trump does, he would be the next Reagan.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I have no idea who will win but a lot of shot calling going on right now in what appears to be a dead heat race.
I35
5,000+ Posts
Last Friday morning the Clinton camp was leaking who Hillary would be looking at for her cabinet. The election was called until Friday after lunch came.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 173
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
