Why are so many Hillary supporters

[*PhilHos*]

Why are so many Hillary supporters hoping Trump drops out? If Hillary is forced to run against an actual "normal" candidate, she will lose in a landslide. Her only hope to become president, IMO, is if Trump stays in. It's no slam dunk even now (which says more about Hillary's unelectability) but it's far easier than going against someone who isn't an bloviating, narcissistic blowhard.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

[NATI BENGALS]

Mainly because the fact i wouldnt have to see or hear him again. But also because he is a tremendous embarassment to my country. By him dropping out we could just play it off like oh jk jk he wasnt super close to being the leader of the free world we were just playing.

[Bengalholic]

(10-11-2016, 12:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Why are so many Hillary supporters hoping Trump drops out? If Hillary is forced to run against an actual "normal" candidate, she will lose in a landslide. Her only hope to become president, IMO, is if Trump stays in. It's no slam dunk even now (which says more about Hillary's unelectability) but it's far easier than going against someone who isn't an bloviating, narcissistic blowhard.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

Exactly. I believe Hillary wins this election, barring a bombshell type surprise, and the reason she wins is because Trump is the only other alternative. It he were to drop out and be replaced with a viable candidate, even at this late stage, Hillary could be in trouble.

I know many people, myself included, who are going to cast a very begrudging vote for Hillary. The main reason we're doing so is because the idea of having the orange haired buffoon in the Oval Office is just too cringeworthy.

[BmorePat87]

I can't speak for her supporters, but as an American with dignity, I want him to drop out so that or country is just a little less embarrassed.

As for an alternative candidate, it's too late for an alternative to unify the base, especially if Trump is forced out. Enough people would still write him in.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-11-2016, 12:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Mainly because the fact i wouldnt have to see or hear him again. But also because he is a tremendous embarassment to my country. By him dropping out we could just play it off like oh jk jk he wasnt super close to being the leader of the free world we were just playing.

(10-11-2016, 12:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I can't speak for her supporters, but as an American with dignity, I want him to drop out so that or country is just a little less embarrassed.

While i understand that, Hillary supporters want her to win and the best case scenario is for her to run against Trump and things continuing on as they have been.

As of now, she only loses if something drastic happens like Trump transforming into a viable candidate or one of Hillary's scandals rears its head in a huge way (like irrefutable evidence comes out that she actually DID have people killed). How sad is it that the latter is more likely to happen?

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2016, 12:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While i understand that, Hillary supporters want her to win and the best case scenario is for her to run against Trump and things continuing on as they have been.

As of now, she only loses if something drastic happens like Trump transforming into a viable candidate or one of Hillary's scandals rears its head in a huge way (like irrefutable evidence comes out that she actually DID have people killed). How sad is it that the latter is more likely to happen?

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

Yeah, I don't get it. The last electoral math I saw had her with something like a little over 340 electoral votes. If you throw someone else in there, even this late in the game, it could really throw that off. Not sure if it would cost her the election, but you never really know.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I don't understand it, either. What are the chances the RNC is able to find a nominee more unlikeable than Hillary two times in a row?

[Rotobeast]

As I've stated in another thread, the only way Hillary loses is if enough Republicans move from Trump to endorse Johnson, get him into the last debate, and build momentum into November.

That is EXTREMELY unlikely and it would also be dependant on Johnson not blanking in the debate.

I don't see any feasible way for the GOP to introduce another candidate and be remotely successful, this late in the game.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Benton]

I dunno, I haven't heard it that much by Hillary supporters that I know. most of the people I know wanting Trump to withdraw are the people who abhor the idea of that big of a sycophant getting elected.

Just my guess, but I'm speculating at least a third of Hillary's votes will just be anti-Trump votes.

[*bfine32*]

Allen West asked a similar question of why did Republicans want Hills to drop out (emails). These two are just bad enough to compete against each other.

My continued hope is that the GOP gets enough big guns behind McMullin. Denouncing Trump does absolutely nothing.

[Benton]

(10-11-2016, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Allen West asked a similar question of why did Republicans want Hills to drop out (emails). These two are just bad enough to compete against each other.

My continued hope is that the GOP gets enough big guns behind McMullin. Denouncing Trump does absolutely nothing.

I think the difference there is the GOP actually has several decent candidates who got pushed aside in the Trump fervor. There's a half dozen people who could do fairly well in a general election against Hillary.

The Democrats — mostly by design — had a very short list after Clinton. Maybe a couple governors and Biden, but not really anyone who got supported by the party. It was bad enough Bernie Sanders actually had a pretty decent run. In a normal election cycle, he would have been eliminated quickly, but the Dems didn't want any legitimate threat to Hillary.

[Rotobeast]

(10-11-2016, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Allen West asked a similar question of why did Republicans want Hills to drop out (emails). These two are just bad enough to compete against each other.

My continued hope is that the GOP gets enough big guns behind McMullin. Denouncing Trump does absolutely nothing.

Isn't McMullen only on the ballot in 11 states ?

I'm not trying to knock him, but The House only picks from the top 3, correct ?

It's not impossible, but I think the only state he could remotely have a chance with is Utah.
That would also depend on Johnson winning none and Hills and T-Dog splitting down the middle.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Rotobeast]

(10-11-2016, 05:10 PM)Benton Wrote: I think the difference there is the GOP actually has several decent candidates who got pushed aside in the Trump fervor. There's a half dozen people who could do fairly well in a general election against Hillary.

The Democrats — mostly by design — had a very short list after Clinton. Maybe a couple governors and Biden, but not really anyone who got supported by the party. It was bad enough Bernie Sanders actually had a pretty decent run. In a normal election cycle, he would have been eliminated quickly, but the Dems didn't want any legitimate threat to Hillary.

Rand Paul would have stomped Hillary's guts in.

There are e-mail's where they expressed great concern over him.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2016, 05:18 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Isn't McMullen only on the ballot in 11 states ?

I'm not trying to knock him, but The House only picks from the top 3, correct ?

It's not impossible, but I think the only state he could remotely have a chance with is Utah.
That would also depend on Johnson winning none and Hills and T-Dog splitting down the middle.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

He is on the ballot for 11 states, though he has write-in access to more. 84 electoral votes on ballot, 317 with write-ins.

Write-in states he will be inconsequential. The number of people that will write in an actual candidate is not high enough to be a challenger. For the 84 electoral votes he is on the ballot for there is the issue that only two states have had polls so far with him included that I could readily find. Those were Utah and Virginia. In Utah he is hovering around 10% (two 9% polls in a six-way race, and a 12% in a five-way). In Virginia he started at 3% in a five-way race twice, and then has dropped down to 2%, then 1% in the most recent poll that included him.

Without adequate polling data it is hard to tell what kind of role he could play. Electoral math right now gives Clinton 341 votes (last that I saw) but with most of that polling not including McMullin we can't be certain. The states where he is on the ballot are a mixture of red and blue (for this election) so his effect is hard to measure.

Edit to add: The electoral count in the states he is on the ballot for and are currently considered to be wins for Clinton total 37. So taking that away from the 341, Hillary still wins the college with 304. Again, lots of things still to be played out, but that's the electoral map at the moment based on polling.

[Rotobeast]

(10-11-2016, 05:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He is on the ballot for 11 states, though he has write-in access to more. 84 electoral votes on ballot, 317 with write-ins.

Write-in states he will be inconsequential. The number of people that will write in an actual candidate is not high enough to be a challenger. For the 84 electoral votes he is on the ballot for there is the issue that only two states have had polls so far with him included that I could readily find. Those were Utah and Virginia. In Utah he is hovering around 10% (two 9% polls in a six-way race, and a 12% in a five-way). In Virginia he started at 3% in a five-way race twice, and then has dropped down to 2%, then 1% in the most recent poll that included him.

Without adequate polling data it is hard to tell what kind of role he could play. Electoral math right now gives Clinton 341 votes (last that I saw) but with most of that polling not including McMullin we can't be certain. The states where he is on the ballot are a mixture of red and blue (for this election) so his effect is hard to measure.

Thank you, Matt !

I'll be honest though, I don't put too much faith in polls.
They seem a little insignificant, given the majority are only conducted via landlines (generally targeting the older voters that haven't switched completely to cell-phones).


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2016, 06:03 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Thank you, Matt !

I'll be honest though, I don't put too much faith in polls.
They seem a little insignificant, given the majority are only conducted via landlines (generally targeting the older voters that haven't switched completely to cell-phones).


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

That's a part of the margin of error calculations. Things like that are a concern, and polling is flawed for a number of reasons. This is why the information I tend to look at comes from places where they aggregate all of the different polls and come up with these figures using further statistical calculations.

[Rotobeast]

(10-11-2016, 06:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's a part of the margin of error calculations. Things like that are a concern, and polling is flawed for a number of reasons. This is why the information I tend to look at comes from places where they aggregate all of the different polls and come up with these figures using further statistical calculations.

Do they include online polls ?

Also, can you share some links to your favorites of which you described ?

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2016, 06:17 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Do they include online polls ?

Also, can you share some links to your favorites of which you described ?

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Most do, at least polls conducted online using good methodology. The bias in polls posted on websites that can be answered by anyone contain too much of a bias to be adjusted for using calculations.

My usual go to, being a Virginian, is here: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

They use aggregates from state polling to come up with their maps. Having interacted with those folks over at the CFP I have a great respect for them and their methods as political scientists.

RCP also does pretty good aggregate math. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/2016/

You can see that they still have some states as toss ups. Public opinion, by its very nature, is not factual.

[Rotobeast]

(10-11-2016, 06:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Most do, at least polls conducted online using good methodology. The bias in polls posted on websites that can be answered by anyone contain too much of a bias to be adjusted for using calculations.

My usual go to, being a Virginian, is here: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

They use aggregates from state polling to come up with their maps. Having interacted with those folks over at the CFP I have a great respect for them and their methods as political scientists.

Thanks
I'll have a look.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2016, 05:18 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Isn't McMullen only on the ballot in 11 states ?

It really doesn't matter if he's only needs 1 if the cards fall right. 

The link below is possible (McMullin takes UT, Johnson takes NM):

http://www.270towin.com/

WTS, I think Hills and the RNC are in cahoots or at a minimum what to preserve the 2-party system so much that they are willing to hand the White House to the Dems. If it went to congress I think Hills would get it. A little firepower behind Johnson or McMullin could cloud the waters.