Any other dems disgusted with Clinton?

It is the Moderate Swing Vote that a Presidential Candidate must grab to win the election.

Now both Candidates have approx. the same numbers as far as those in their own party that will vote for them....BUT.....the only way to win is to get the Moderate Swing Voters.

Now Trump can take some solace in knowing that most of these Moderate Swing Voters really do NOT like Hillary Clinton.....BUT......they also do not like Trump either.

But so far...unless something changes Hillary will grab the majority of those swing voters.

AA

 

So this is your explantation for the claim that "she has the numbers'" ? Rather than taking YOUR opinion that "Hillary will grab the majority of those swing voters", I prefer to look at polling. Head to head polling currently is within the margin of error. That is correctly titled being a "statistical dead heat". Truth is this election could go either way at this point and there is a long way to go.

 

I agree with a good deal of the above yet have some different views.

First, who puts presidents in charge of the economy?

How can Bush get blamed when he was never in charge of the economy. Take a coach of a pro team. He gets the blame over what players do wrong. If the wrong is due to his coaching, and the coach made them use a lousy plan, of course you blame the coach. But if the team simply has the mental state of children, how can a coach change that>

The economy had causes of tanking. I am a Mortgage broker, that is when Dodd Frank did not stop me.

I understand the housing crash from all 3 angles. That of the broker selling homes. Since I was a licensed by the Feds, certified appraiser, I get the crash from that angle too. I also brokered loans for many years for the public. I get that part too. I knew once I learned what Fannie and freddie were doing the reason for the crash. I was simply too busy at the time doing loans to stop to see ahead.... and some claim they saw ahead, and this to me means they were not busy, but were trying to spend time looking for *****s in the armor...

The crash settled in over a few days period. It was like the world fell down in a week.

The professionals in our business realized who makes the rules all lenders follow. We know it was Fannie and Freddie. We know they actually created the programs hated by the public. By created I mean, they either did create them or they both took plans and accepted them. Maybe a few of the giants in wholesaling did create plans or programs the public were handed, but make no mistake, had Fannie and Freddie not endorsed them, we brokers never would have seen them in our system. To this day I still have some of the old flyers we used prior to the day of the internet. Before e mails.

Bush could not have made the mess. Bush simply did not have any authority nor power over even FNMA or Freddie to force them to create loans that were so flakey, that the public with poor credit were doomed from day one.

Here I have been fortunate that the vast majority of my clients were good quality people who pay on time. In areas of say Oakland, CA, they don't have that luxury. They have plenty of flakes for customers. Even some of the agents and loan people are flakes. Flakes are lousy for the public.

So, Obama has never been in charge of this economy and Bush was never in charge. Dodd Frank is a noose. It is not a help, it is as if Obama when signing it into law put business on the scaffold to be hung.

Have any or you any concept of the good for the economy a healthy housing industry has?

Look at a typical home. When you see the home, you see a building. Concrete for sidewalks and driveways were poured. Those are jobs. You can walk through the home to see all the components, carpet, windows, flooring, tiles, sinks, and on and on, each component amounts to jobs. Hillary can't simply create such jobs.

Bad regulations can kill jobs. Ergo Dodd Frank.

Democrats will not accept my explanation. I realize that. I know the professionals on the forum do though.

 

Look...as I said I am no fan of Hillary but she as a big lead in the swing states of Colorado, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina.

As well Moderate Swing Voters do NOT participate in early polls thus the data is notoriously inaccurate at this time and every poll specifically asking who such Moderates might vote for has been heavily in Clinton's favor.

Now as you said there is still a lot of time and things could change.

But if the election was done today....Clinton would win in a landslide.

AA .

 

You left out shes a hawk

 

As I said the U.S. Economy is cyclical and all we really want out of a President is for them NOT TO SCREW UP!!

When Bush W. was in he came in just as the Dot.Com bubble had burst and unlike Clinton did not enjoy a massive race to the stores to buy cell phones and computers and flat screens and then of course 9/11 occurred and consumer confidence went right out the window plus people were not traveling nor spending money.

Bush's biggest mistake was to change the original plan in Afghanistan to having the U.S. Military go Nation Building as the U.S. Military should NEVER be used to do that.

And invading Iraq was a mistake and I and many others like me were dead set against invasion as we knew as brutal as Saddam was....he was preventing the Sunni's and Shia's from starting a civil war.

AA

 

Colorado and Virginia are obviously going to be Democrat and have been for a while now, there is absolutely nothing new about that. Trump is actually leading in Florida and Clinton is currently leading by 2 in North Carolina with both of those being in the margin of error. So essentially what you have just held up as "proof" of your landslide prediction is two states that would be an utter shock if they were to go in the Republican column and acting as if those are somehow a barometer for this race and for good measure you pointed out 2 other states and misrepresented the current polling in those states. There is a LOT of movement to take place in polling between now and the election. For that matter most of those swing state polls are before either convention. The easiest thing to look at is the national number. You can say that it is the electoral votes that count, but in reality, the only way that an electoral result differs from the popular vote is in instances of razor thin national margins, and even then it has only happened twice in our nations history. At this point, this election could very easily be a 53-47 type result, and whichever candidate has 53 is going to win. If it is 50.5 to 49.5 u could POTENTIALLY see the electoral and popular votes diverge.There are surprises in various states in every election, and those surprises almost always favor the person that wins the popular vote.

To sit here today and predict a landslide victory in either direction amounts to nothing more than hot air.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nc/north_carolina_trump_vs_clinton-5538.html

 

LOL!!!

For some reason...and I have no idea why.....you reply to me as if you were replying to some Democrat who was pontificating the virtues of Clinton.

I am not.

Nor am I saying that what believe in any way is written is stone.

I am just looking at the current obvious.

That being.....the voters who always decide who wins the Presidency are the Moderate Swing Voters as these voters were the same one's who came out in MASSIVE NUMBERS to vote Ronald Reagan into office.

They are not inclined to vote party lines and tend to vote for the candidate that THEY believe is the best choice.

They do NOT participate in polls unless a Poll specifically targets them and even then such Polls have to go through a list that is 5 times the number of a standard open polling list because.....MODERATES DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN POLLS!! LOL!!

They are basically the silent MAJORITY and they will determine who is the nest President of the United States.....not the Democrats or Republicans who ALWAYS vote along party lines.

It is the Moderate Voters who determine who will win.

Now they do not do many Moderate Only Polls but they have done a few and you can Google them.

But the numbers are overwhelmingly voting for Clinton in such polls by a 30 point margin.

So....that's what we got right now.

AA

 

Sorry but I'm not buying that at all. I think that we are going to see the biggest silent majority vote in recent history. And I can tell you this they are not wanting another four years of the crap we've been subjected to for the last eight years. Mature people will vote! Far too many young lazy dems will sleep through it.

 

I don't believe democrats care about character. Never have before. In the end, they will all line up to kiss the ring of the establishment.

 

I am not debating against your party affiliation, I am debating against the beliefs that you are putting forth. You named 4 swing states, and were wrong about 2 of them ( Assuming that we believe realclear politics polling averages). Will you acknowledge that you were wrong about those 2 states ? I did give you the links from realclear on those numbers and they directly refuted your claim.

What you are talking about when you say moderate swing voters are what are called independents in polling parlayance. Independents do not take part in polls ?.....huh ? But they take part in independent only polls? So they hang up on the pollster UNLESS it is specifically an independent only poll? I'm sorry this assertion does not make a lick of sense.

At any rate, if you have a poll that shows Clinton winning independents by 30 point please provide a link because I have spent 10 minutes looking and have come across NOTHING. You cant credibly throw out such a claim without a shred of supporting evidence. I am going to go out on a limb and say that no such poll exists. I am not calling you a liar, rather I suspect you are probably confused about something. If either candidate were winning independents by 30 points they would be winning the national number by HUGE margins. Show me the poll that you THINK makes this claim, and I can then show you why you are mistaken as to its meaning.

 

If this election was based upon "character" then Tr(oll)mp with 4 bankruptcies and 3 marriages and who knows how many affairs would be tanking in the polls.

But instead he is being propped up the same extremist rightwingers who preached about "family values".

Dare we use the H-word?

 

I will take a look for it.

And I am not talking about Independents although they certainly would be in that mix.

I am talking about both Moderate Republicans and Democrats who do not always note along party lines.

And they do not tend to get involved with polls because their party affiliation exists right up until the time they vote for President and then it either remains the same or changes.

I will see if I can find it.

AA

 

Please do.

This link to a Monmouth University poll appears to directly refute what you are saying and in fact Gives Trump a sizeable lead amongst independents. I have been unable to find anything that gives Hillary the lead amongst this group. I'm open to seeing whatever you have though.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-surges-among-independent-voters/article/2596818

 

I can't find the damn thing.

Closest thing I found was an older one that did not name the poll.

But....even though I really don't want Clinton as President....I believe it's her election to lose.

AA

 

Part of what you say is very true. Hillary Clinton is a moderate, which isn't a bad thing to be, in my opinion. She is also far too cozy with the very rich class. Although the DNC clumsily attempted to rig the primary elections in her favor, she would have won anyway. Bernie Sanders knows that he would have lost even without the DNC's dirty tricks, and he therefore accepts the primary election result.

When it comes time to vote, we have to make the best pick from what's available. There is no perfect candidate. If we don't vote for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump wins the election, the resulting chaos will be our fault.

 

She isn't even a moderate, she is just a crook. She speaks progressiveness while she sells out to the Banks and the neocon warmongers, and since those are supposed to be actions on opposite sides of the spectrum, folks say "guess she is a moderate!" She isn't a "moderate" she is a lying contradiction.

She is a crook, a thief and a liar. And a study published on HuffPo shows that she not rigged and cheated, that Bernie would have blown her out.
~
Democrats are worried about Hillary Clinton’s inability to separate herself from Donald Trump in the polls, even after what they believe was a largely successful convention that represented a real step toward party unity.

Clinton is hoping for a big post-convention boost, but the reality right now is that she in behind Trump in the polls, and has been in a relatively tight race for weeks.

While the Electoral College may give her an advantage, party leaders and strategists say they remain concerned that Clinton is a tough sell when a majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track and want to shake up Washington.

“The most important thing is there is a bias for change and there’s an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll where people express that bias even when they don’t know what the change is going to be,” said Geoff Garin, a pollster who worked for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and now advises Priorities USA, a pro-Clinton super PAC.

That July survey showed a majority of voters, 56 percent, prefer someone who will bring major changes to government even if they don’t know what those changes will be. Only 46 percent wanted a candidate who would bring a steady approach to government.

It helps explain Trump’s success, and the strong challenge to Clinton in the Democratic primary from Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Away from the hoopla of the Wells Fargo, Democratic officials and strategists say it’s a major concern.

“I’m nervous. The country is in a bad mood. It’s such an unpredictable year,” said a Democratic National Committee official who requested anonymity to speak frankly about Clinton’s prospects.

Other concerns include the possibility of an enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats — Trump got more votes in the GOP primary than any candidate in history while Hillary received fewer votes than she did in 2008 when she lost — and a possible “October surprise.”

One labor official fretted that more hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee may surface later in the campaign and hurt Hillary.

I think there’ll be something. But her biggest weakness is that she’s most popular when she’s not in the news, and it’s hard to run a campaign that way.
~
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/289737-dem-anxiety-hangs-over-clinton

 

Great. Just make sure that you vote and try to consider the whole picture honestly.
If everyone does that, things will improve.

 

You couldn't find it because the claim just isn't correct. Did you see the links I gave you ? They show that Trump has a sizeable lead amongst independents. As I said from the beginning, this election could go either way, and anyone claiming that it is going to be a landslide is blowing hot air. This is surely the most unpredictable election of our lifetime's.

 

I don't like Trump at all, and I could never vote for the foul stench of the Clintons.

I am tired of voting for the least offensive. Time to vote my conscious and my values. Neither Trump nor Clinton exhibit them.

 

I'm voting Libertarian. I know, I know. I don't care. I can't stay home in good conscience and I want as many people as possible to cast protest votes.

Truth be known, it won't really be the end of the world if either T or C wins. We aren't electing a dictator, here. Separation of powers and divided government keeps us from going off the rails.

 

The thing to truely consider is the influence these elections will have on the future of the supreme court. Will Trump appoint conservative justices? Anyones guess, really ... but can HRC be trusted to appoint based on jurisprudence, or will she appoint her political cronies?

 

You just touched on something I find tricky: when you vote for someone just because they represent a "first" -- but they are incompetent to carry out the task, you've set them up to fail. Because they are a "first", their failure will set back the "cause" by decades.

There are some women out there that haven't forgiven the male corporate establishment for showing them to the secretarial chair when their college peers that were male got junior executive positions. They haven't forgotten the swats on the bottom and the innuendos from the CEO. They will vote for Hillary just "because", but that strategy really is damaging to women in the long run.

Hillary will fail. There will be scandals that will further embarrass the nation. She and her husband will lie to the people who voted them into power. We know that because of her past record. And evermore, folks will be saying, "See? Women shouldn't be president."

 

I think the fact that Justice Scalia "accidently" fell asleep with a pillow over his face might provide a clue.

 

The only think Hillary will do is rob your bank account, she's calling it investing just like Obama did.