U.K. Independant: Donald Trump will win the presidency by a landslide (against Hillary)

[Binkie The Clown]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by BooScout (a host of the General Discussion forum).

LINK

---SNIP---
Democrats are kidding themselves if they think Republicans opposed to his candidacy won’t vote for Trump when it comes down to the wire.
---SNIP---
Winning and losing elections in America is not about pinching votes from the other team. It is getting your team out to vote. In the US, voter turnout hasn’t exceeded 60 per cent for nearly 50 years. In 1968, 60.7 per cent of eligible voters actually managed to drag themselves out of bed and exercise a right that people had fought and died for. In 1996, less than 50 per cent bothered turning up.

---SNIP---

... Trump has one advantage: he is inspiring first-time voters to turn out on polling day.

---SNIP---

Clinton will get fewer votes than Obama. Trump will get out far more first-time voters than the Republicans have ever achieved before, while regular Republican voters will hold their noses and punt for Trump. Unless the left stop dreaming up reasons for Trump to lose, and start campaigning like he might win, the 2016 election will be the landslide for Trump.

The author points out, rightly, that Clinton simply does not inspire.

That's why we need Bernie.

[cali]

1. Take it to the primary forum

[SickOfTheOnePct]

2. +100000000000000000 n/t

[wryter2000]

11. Hear, hear! eom

eom

[brush]

3. The New York times just had a column stating the exact opposite

I'll go with a paper here rather than a British tabloid across the ocean.

[mr blur]

6. The Independent is NOT a tabloid. It's a real newspaper.

You must remember them, the amount of times The Guardian and Independent get linked to on DU?

Oh, and f.y.i:

Andrew MacLeod is visiting professor in the Policy Institute at Kings College London, a corporate director in the US and a former UN official

One of yours, I think.

[brush]

7. One of mine? Meaning what, you're not a Dem?

[Ed Suspicious]

19. Meaning he's an American, I think. Settle.

[Hoppy]

10. The best projection is with the U.k. bookies. They are showing

Hillary a bit behind.

Among the analysis is the lack of enthusiasm for her campaign. Or as I put it more clearly in past posts, "Who da fuck WANTS to vote for her?"

[maq-az]

23. Oh I don't know

Perhaps those 3 million more votes over Sanders and what ever it is over Trump. What do you call that?

[Cassiopeia]

39. Sorry, Republican turnout this primary season

has been far greater than turnout on the Democratic side.

Whether that translates out to the GE or not is debatable, but the R's have been far more active this primary season.

[TwilightZone]

71. Clinton has a higher popular vote total than either Sanders or Trump

If we're talking about getting people to vote, Clinton no doubt has. Trump ran away with the GOP nomination in the end, and she still had more votes than he did.

The "she can't get out the vote" meme is demonstrably false. Wishing it doesn't make it so. Besides, in presidential elections, there are more items on the agenda than just the top of the ticket.

[BainsBane]

54. 3 million more than voted for Bernie

That's who: the democratic majority of people of color, women, elderly, LGBT, and other Democrats across the country.

[ish of the hammer]

50. it's called "catapulting the propaganda" when you believe our newspapers over their's.

[frankieallen]

63. The independent is not a tabloid, and they don't make the news as our MSM tends to do

I trust their reporting over the NYT any day.

[justhanginon]

4. Bernie and his supporters inspire me

to vote for Hillary.

[Gene Debs]

9. How so? Or better yet, let me put it this way:

I have asked this question numerous times on open threads on this site, and not once have I ever gotten a response from a Clinton supporter. Not one single response. Zero. Crickets. (which, to be fair, was exactly what I expected...)

So I'm asking you, justhanginon, directly. This is the text of the question I posted:

"So let me ask this, in all seriousness. What exactly is it about Hillary Clinton that makes her most breathless supporters so on fire to see her become President? And I mean something substantive, not that vague sense that she's "awesome" that seems to be the cornerstone of so many of her supporters' convictions.

Is it her trade policy? Because that sucks. Is it her foreign policy experience? Because that's nothing to be proud of either. Is it her stances on minimum wage and income inequality and gay rights? Because she came late to all those parties, too, and when she got there her reluctance was palpable. Is it because she's a woman? if that's the case, I can only conclude that they'd be equally happy with Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin. Is it her pledge to "take on" Wall Street? Because that one's laughable on its face.

So please tell me, because I don't get it."

Well?

[CK_John]

13. She is not Trump, or Johnson.

[GoneOffShore]

14. You're not going to get an answer to those questions,

Because Hilary!

Or HRC-WJC Inc. (Since 1979)

[zeemike]

18. Don't hold your breath.

Because the answer is simple...the first woman president.
But they don't want to say it because it seems so shallow...but that is the state of politics in today's world.

The fact that we need fundamental change is of no importance to some people...the status quo is just fine as long as we have a "first"

[tavernier]

21. I will vote for her.

She is a very hard worker on behalf of her constituents . Even her republican co workers admit that.

She has a lifetime of experience and connections.

She is very smart and learns from her mistakes and those of of others.

She is loyal to her friends and family, even choosing to stay in a marriage with problems.

She is a laugher. I love a person with a hearty laugh. I don't think I've heard Trump laugh.

Ok, you asked, so there you go. Don't make a pissing contest out of this, please, because I won't play. You asked, I answered, and now I'm finished.

For the record, I'm a Bernie fan as well, but I choose to campaign with the person who will be our nominee.

[bjobotts]

32. Sounds like my pet lab...except for the marriage part

She is another corporate dem multimillionaire who refuses to take on the oligarchy because she has taken so much money from them. If she is the nominee I will vote for her but it would be a real shame to pass over a real progressive who stands with the working man. Whose honesty and integrity is unmatched. Seldom do we get a chance to elect such representative who stands above the status quo of a lobbyist controlled legislature.

[aggiesal]

35. And none of those are policy positions ...

A laugher?

[Gene Debs]

36. Right.

She works VERY hard on behalf of Wall Street. To pretend otherwise is laughable in the face of evidence.

She has a lifetime of connections to all the wrong people.

She's not all that smart. A smart person doesn't tell a room full of reporters a story about running from sniper fire when everyone in the room knows it's a colossal lie even before the sentence has finished coming out of her mouth. She has a long, well-documented history of appallingly bad judgment. And if there's one thing we've seen time and time again, it's that she DOESN'T learn from her mistakes.

"Staying in a marriage with problems" might be a good thing, it might not. What it looks like to me is that the marriage you refer to—which looks as much merger as marriage to me, but what do I know—is more of a power alliance. Bill is cut out of the same cloth as Hillary, and both of them know full well that they work better as a team of grifters than they do if wither of them went solo.

"She's a laugher"? Seriously? Leaving aside that that's not really a good basis on which to choose a President, are you referring to that explosive cackle that she'd let loose whenever she got a debate question that made her uncomfortable, that cackle that said, underneath, that she would like to stab the questioner through the heart with a pen?

I thought I asked for a genuinely substantive answer. I guess I'm never gonna get it.

[Fritz Walter]

47. +2^(infinity) n/t

[Thor_MN]

24. It's obvious from your tone that you never will get it, so why should anyone bother?

I'm not a "breathless supporter" of any candidate, but I am a supporter of the Democratic Nominee.

Your condescending tone is not going to garner you any answers (which you obviously will ignore any way).

[Gene Debs]

30. That doesn't even come close to answering my question. Not that I expected it.

[Thor_MN]

34. I wasn't answering your question, I was explaining why you won't get many answers.

You didn't address it to me. I'm neutral in your little rant. And I can see by your reply that you don't bother to read any replies at all.

[Gene Debs]

37. I'm asking any Clinton supporter who cares to give a substantive answer.

[Thor_MN]

40. Still having issues with reading what anyone replies?

Read carefully this time. Would it help if I type slowly?

You are not getting many answers because you ask your question in an arrogant, assholish manner. It is quite obvious that you are going to dismiss what anyone says. Why should any Clinton supporter bother with a poster that is so clearly closed?

[Gene Debs]

42. Bye, Thor.

[Thor_MN]

43. And you wonder why no one answers...

[greiner3]

58. Because he/she doesn't get real answers

[Thor_MN]

65. Wow. Must be something in the water.

He/she asks an insulting question to "breathless" Clinton supporters and wonders why no one bothers to answer.

He/she was unwillingly to even read a reply from a neutral Democratic supporter, so would be completely blind to anything written by a Clinton supporter.

At this stage of the game, no one's mind is going to be changed. There's two types of Sanders supporters, the true believers, ranging from still hoping to denial to delusion, and the Trump Trolls.

The Trump Trolls want to sow discord and irritate the supporters of the primary loser to sit out the general. The question is if people are going to let them succeed.

[LibDemAlways]

66. I have asked the same question, in a respectful tone, and have

never received an answer based on policy. Apparently Hillary supporters are unable to defend her policy positions so they inevitably come up with generalities like "experience." Voting for her on the basis of her cackle is a new one though and quite a stretch. LOL

[Fritz Walter]

45. It's because she's entitled to be POTUS

If not for our current, much-beloved, and Nobel Peace Prize-winning President, who deprived Her Highness of that honor in 2008, She -- and Her loyal supporters -- believe with every fiber of their being, that this nomination is owed Her.

Bottom line: there is so much mistrust and visceral dislike of Her Hiney that, not only is invisible to Her and all Her minions, but also would end disastrously for all of us.

Please, step outside the bubble and listen to what others are saying, and read what they are writing. Calmly, and objectively.

[L. Coyote]

16. More and more every day, and this post just added more reasons.

I like Bernie sanders, but the posters he is attracting, Trump paid trolls included, are enough to turn off thinking voters. My guess, that's what they are paid to do, create hostility among Dems. Good old divide and conquer bullshit.

[greiner3]

60. Thinking voters do not wish Hillary the nomination

So many reasons this is true in above posts. Please enlighten me who are these overwhelming thinking Hillary supporters

[Maedhros]

17. You inspire me to put you on my ignore list.[n/t]

[Ed Suspicious]

20. Your vote is your own to cast as stupidly as you desire.

This is part of our social contract.

[libodem]

5. We Need Bernie

Goddess help me, if I could change my mind, and just go along, to get along, I would.

Just can't.

[SCantiGOP]

44. "We need Bernie"

Too bad he lost.

[bhikkhu]

8. Ignoring the electoral college, demographics, and a crushingly bad popularity rating

...basically ignoring reality. As pointed out upthread, the article is published in a regular newspaper, but in this case it is behaving like a tabloid.

[Equinox Moon]

12. I'm just sayn'....

Historically, the ones with the biggest aura win in politics. Big energy wins.

[struggle4progress]

15. How exciting! Andrew MacLeod has an opinion!

I had never fuggin heard of him

So I dropped briefly into Googleland

He seems an interesting enough chap. But nothing there really suggests we should regard him seriously as a source of insights into US elections

[LiberalFighter]

22. I'm wondering if he doing that because of his connection with Trump's mother.

[MFM008]

25. Isn't the Independent

One of Rupert Murdock rags?

[AntiBank]

29. no

Owner(s) Alexander Lebedev Evgeny Lebedev
Publisher Independent Print Limited
Editor Amol Rajan
Founded 1986
Political alignment Liberal, radical centre

[Bradical79]

26. Got it wrong in the first sentence

Trump is not inspiring large amounts of first time voters. It's an "analysis" based on a flawed premise, never mind ignoring demographics and the electoral college system. He should have spent a couple minutes with google first before writing this.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

27. Record

Unfortunately he has set the record for the most votes received in GOP primary history. I'm not putting my head in the sand simply because it is hard for some of us to believe.

[AntiBank]

33. Hillary's depressing turnout even in the primaries,she won Kenturcky with less than half what Obama

got in 2008.

If you wanted new, first time voters, Bernie was your man for that job.

Hillary versus Trump is the worst choice of my lifetime.

[bjobotts]

38. Asking voters who do you hate the least..New hate=Trump; Old hate = Hillary.

60% of voters hate these two.

[book_worm]

28. Obviously the moderators are not here or else they would lock this and tell the poster to take

it to GD-P

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Foreign media has been warning of this

For months. They see the danger in Trump t is not a game

[padfun]

41. Our Elections are electoral vote driven

I don't think a general overview of the election, like this article covers, is accurate. The US Presidential Election will be decided over about 10 purple states, how those state's voters are manipulated, and which party can steal some from the other.

There might be more young participants voting than in previous but some of that might be because many states have Marijuana legalization propositions on their ballots as well, and that can bring out the vote. Even the young see what an important election this is, at least the ones I am talking to do.

And 50% voting doesn't mean that 50% didn't want to. There will be groups who will "suddenly" not be registered, and other sleazy shenanigans to collar the vote participation. Katherine Harris threw what, 10,000 voters off of the rolls? And this stuff goes on in lots of area's. Some of it in small precincts but they can turn a close election.

I think this election is going to turn out to be one of the dirtiest ones. Trump blasting Clinton, Clinton firing back. And both have lots of money behind them. The media will once again, fail to see what is truly happening and get it wrong, but they do have their marching orders to obey.

[shenmue]

46. If she does not inspire, why does she have more votes?

[BainsBane]

51. That point would seem obvious

Clearly Bernie is the one who has not inspired enough people, or he wouldn't have lost by such a wide margin.

[lunamagica]

53. Right. Of the three people running for POTUS, Sanders is in third place. Last place

behind Hillary and Trump.

Hillary is in a comfortable first place, ahead of second place Trump, and last place Sanders/

[BainsBane]

48. 51 recs for Trump winning

Something is seriously wrong here.

Bernie is not the nominee. He has not earned the votes. Rather than accepting that fact, accepting the right of the electorate to choose their nominee by the ballot box, some here turn to rooting for Trump.

[johnp3907]

49. British tabloids now?

[AntiBank]

73. its not a tabloid

[Bad Dog]

52. It's an opinion piece.

And one of many from individual columnists. It doesn't represent the paper's beliefs. Not a very optimistic view, but one that's shared by a great many over here, Trump will get in because the two Democratic camps are too busy squabbling amongst themselves.

[SusanLarson]

55. Republican antichrist

I have said from the beginning that nominating Clinton is the best get out the vote gift that anyone could give the Republican Party. Clinton is quite literally the Republican antichrist. If you want to ensure a record turnout for the Republicans she is how you do it.

[pnwmom]

62. Trump will get out his own anti-vote among women, young people, minorities,

and men who think.

[SusanLarson]

74. Keep thinking that

He will gain more than he loses because most independents will not for for Clinton. The majority of millennials will definitely not vote for Clinton, and the vast majority of Sanders supporters will not vote for Clinton. Then you have the fact that with the polls nice and tight. A lack of turnout for Clinton, combined with a massive turnout for the Republicans = President Trump.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

67. +1

And that doesn't just lead to a possible lost presidential election, but possible losses in the house and senate. People vote for silly reasons though. She's a big cog in the party machine so people here of course support her like crazy.

Identity politics over policy. That stuff drives me nuts.

In fact, we're seeing a whole lot of identity politics on both sides. Trump is a blowhard with tons of cash. Clinton is a party loyalist of questionable integrity who seems to believe that the key to the White House and playing on emotions with her "I'm a woman" thing. Other than that there's not much to Clinton, seemingly.

Don't get me wrong, guns are a big issue that I've hounded on before too. I don't think it's a bridge issue though. I don't think it's an issue you can necessarily win an election on because it's so divisive. When it comes to guns, people get stupid and unreasonable. That's why you have to have a nuanced gun policy.

[StayFrosty]

56. And Bernie inspires people?

Apparently he hasn't inspired enough people

[PoliticalMalcontent]

70. Yes, Sanders inspires people.

If the situation was a bit different I believe he would be our nominee.

Seeing as how he started out with very little name recognition, was working through a DNC who most certainly was not interested in working with him (naturally, since he is a democratic socialist combined with the fact that they're loyal toward Clinton), and the primary/caucus process ISN'T the most inclusive process around it's not terribly surprising that he couldn't overcome all of those factors in such a short amount of time. That's not to say he clearly hasn't inspired people. He'd have been much more electable in a general election as republicans would have been much more likely vote for him over Clinton.

Also, fundraising. He was neck and neck with Clinton in fundraising until recently, despite the fact that Clinton is pretty much the most well known woman on Earth. He did this with smaller donations as opposed to large corporate fundraisers which Clinton relied on. Who knows how she's going to pay that back if she's elected, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to help people in my situation.

Anyway, yes. Yes he inspired people. My hope is that he continues to speak out. I'm glad he's endorsing liberal candidates to keep an eye on instead of sitting on his hands.

[Adrahil]

72. And yet, he is losing the primary.

Having "enthusiastic" supporters isn't much help if you don't have enough to beat your opponent.

FWIW, Bernie doesn't "inspire" me to anything but annoyance these days.

[Mass]

57. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion.nt

[Andy823]

59. I disagree

First off there has already been talk about how Trump is NOT bringing in first time voters. He makes that claim, but like a lot of other claims, it's just another lie. The reason so many people turned out for republican primaries is that so many republicans can't stand Trump and they came out in droves to vote for the other candidates. Sure he has a lot of new "racists", KKK types, and tea baggers coming to his rallies and voting for him, but most of these people have always came out to vote for the republican no matter what.

The other thing is Trump will implode between the time he gets the official nomination, and the election. He can't keep his mouth shut, and he will alienate even more people between now and then. Many republicans just won't vote period, and others who have been against him all along, will vote for Hillary, and not tell anyone, especially women.

Trump can't win the Latino vote, the AA vote, the Asian vote, the women's vote, and he can't win the vote of anyone who is sane enough to know just how terrible he would be as President.

[L. Coyote]

61. The really great thing about an opinion piece like this, the writer gets paid

exactly what the opinion is worth, ZERO!

[gregcrawford]

64. Okay, here's an idea...

... since nobody likes anybody in this sick fuckin' circus, how 'bout a Clinton/Sanders ticket? Stop the infantile squabbling and unite to crush Trump, or he and his horde of racist Nazi sympathizers will surely crush us all. I'm sick of this shit. Grow the fuck UP!

As Benjamin Franklin once put it so succinctly, "We must hang together, or we will surely hang separately."

[procon]

68. No, trump isn't "inspiring" any first-time voters.

Donald Trump Is Not Expanding the GOP
A POLITICO analysis of early-voting data shows little evidence for one of the Republican nominee’s core claims.

Donald Trump likes to say he has created a political movement that has drawn “millions and millions” of new voters into the Republican Party. “It’s the biggest thing happening in politics,” Trump has said. “All over the world, they’re talking about it,” he's bragged. But a Politico analysis of the early 2016 voting data show that, so far, it’s just not true.

While Trump’s insurgent candidacy has spurred record-setting Republican primary turnout in state after state, the early statistics show that the vast majority of those voters aren’t actually new to voting or to the Republican Party, but rather they are reliable past voters in general elections. They are only casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-polling-turnout-early-voting-data-213897#ixzz4AAUSR1vW

No, Trump's still not inspiring "new" voters, and we don't "need" Bernie, but we really do need to stop repeating Republican lies and posting Republican propaganda on DU.

[rock]

69. So we need Bernie

Because the U.K. Independant has a reporter who thinks that Clinton simply does not inspire. You don't listen to what you say, do you?