I posted this Saturday, Senate race predictions: By seniority of sitting Senator: Vermont: Leahy wins eighth term over Scott Milne Iowa: Grassley wins seventh term over Patty Judge Arizona: McCain wins sixth term over Ann Kirkpatrick Alabama: Shelby wins sixth term over Ron Crumpton Maryland: Chris Van Hollen defeats Kathy Geligo California: Kamala Harris beats Loretta Sanchez Nevada: Joe Heck beats Catherine Masto Washington: Murray wins fifth term over Chris Vance Oregon: Wyden wins fourth full term over Mark Callahan New York: Schumer wins fourth term over Wendy Long Alaska: Murkowski wins third full term over 2 opponents Idaho: Crapo wins fourth term over Jerry Sturgill South Dakota: Thune wins third term over Jay Williams Georgia: Isaakson wins third term over Jim Barksdale North Carolina: Burr wins third term over Deborah Ross Louisiana: David Duke beats 17 opponents including a December runoff Colorado: Benet wins second full term over Daryl Glenn Wisconsin: Johnson wins second term against Russ Feingold again Indiana: Evan Bayh returns to Senate beating Todd Young Utah: Lee wins second term over Misty Snow Connecticutt: Blumenthal wins second term over Dan Carter Illinois: Kirk wins second term over Tammy Duckworth Florida: Patrick Murphy unseats Rubio Pennsylvania: Katie McGinty unseats Pat Toomey Kentucky: Paul wins second term over Jim Gray New Hampshire: Maggie Hassan unseats Ayotte Missouri: Blunt wins second term over Jason Kandor North Dakota: Hoeven wins second term over Eliot Glassheim Kansas: Moran wins second term over Patrick Kresner Arkansas: Boozman wins second term over Conner Eldridge Ohio: Portman wins second term over Ted Strickland Hawaii: Schatz wins full term over John Carroll Oklahoma: Lankford wins full term over Mike Workman South Carolina: Scott wins full term over Rev. Thomas Dixon
OK that's a lot of predictions but this one ^^^ are you for real? John Kennedy is crushing it there in the polls. Besides that, do you really think there are that many racists in Louisiana?
First of all, I didn't look at any polls. I knew when I first studied the list of Senators up for election this year (February) that David Vitter was dead in the water. He figured that out too and quit the race. Also I keep forgetting that in Louisiana November 8 is the primary and all candidates appear together (as in California where Harris and Sanchez are both Democrats). I waited until the primaries were over (making sure the 4 old men in the race didn't die or get sick) so I could think about the actual matchups. Then in September I got 2 new jobs, my internet was shut down and my social media posts were dominated by weather reports, so I haven't had enough time to really probe all the races as I once hoped to. Trump got 41% in Louisiana while Hillary trounced Bernie. To my way of thinking anti-Semitism led heavily to her huge numbers in the south, so yes, hatred is at a contemporary high and this-if ever-is the year Duke could win an election. I think the haters can get him into second place and no one will get near 50%. The haters are more passionate about this election than the rest of it and they will turn out in the runoff while others will have a lower percentage. Perhaps with more time I could have studied the long list as I did the more contested races and picked a likely winner, but Duke is the only name most outside Louisiana have heard of. I would say the name John Kennedy is enough to get several thousand votes but also lose any chance of almost as many in Louisiana. Who do you think might finish second if not Duke?
I don't know much about Louisiana politics but I know that making David Duke a U.S. senator would be a national travesty. I'd guess the second place finisher would be Boustany, he's been a congressman and has experience running for national office (and winning). But I agree that the racists are more motivated to vote than the average well-meaning citizen, so if Duke does make it to the runoff it could be a shocker. BTW congratulations on the new jobs - these days people are happy just to find one new job!
The media rigged the election. They had this "sexual predator" evidence during the primaries and unleash it just as early voting starts. But this only scratches the surface of the corruption. Our only hope is Julian Assange lol.
Clinton: 347. Trump: 191. As Americans learn more about the two unpopular nominees, the differences become more stark. Even if the reality tv performer succeeds in hiding his tax returns, a data dump of Madame Secretary's emails the size of Everest cannot rival the lurid attraction of seemingly endless personal accounts affirming the truthfulness of the reality tv performer's recorded boasts of being a sexual predator. The flaxen-haired bimbo's occasional distraction from whining, "Liar! Liar! Liar!" as of late is savaging the democratic system and the Republican Speaker of the House. If the campaign for the presidency were a shooting range, the political ingenue is not only consistently missing the target; he keeps plugging his instructors right between their crying eyes.
340+ sounds about right for the EV. As far as the emails? In the overall Electoral scheme: It a simple case of mind over matter. 1) Hillary's supporters don't mind, and 2) Trump's supporters don't matter. At this point, it is clear that only the ARNJ Fever Swamp types even care about the emails. Most rational people could not care less, and the emails won't change one vote.
Succinctly put! Those who object to John Podesta's risotto recipe will certainly have limited impact in the swing states.
Why are many US citizens prepared to put a novice politician, failed business con man into the Presidential position rather than an experienced - if flawed - politician. Tact, diplomacy and respect are required. Something Trump does not have. Though he does have the gift of changing his mind. Which is a bit unfortunate if your lack of tact has just started WWIII. It only affects me, as a UK citizen, from the world point of view, but from a distance promises Trump has made are just empty promises. You will not stop illegal immigration from Mexico with a wall, just make it harder - at the same time add to the defence/national security budget. Which, by the way, is taking over 50% of your discretionary Federal budget. You would be far better helping the Mexican's to overcome the cartels, and then invest in the country. You can never compete with China in trade, without opening sweatshops in your own country. Still, I mustn't interfere with US politics. But please, if Trump gets in, gag him.
Your observations are eminently valid. The disgruntled in the US electorate are having a Tantrump, lashing out incoherently, and an experienced, show business huckster has exploited the discontent in the Republican Party to secure its nomination and give voice to their nebulous angst. This is a transitional period, and seismic political shifts are inevitable. When 16 GOP canaries keeled over in their nomination process, it was a sure sign of the fetid vapours in the air.
I think Trump wins easily. Hillary is an evil genius though. She knows if she loses, she may go to prison. So, along with the MSM, they get Trump to admit he reserves the right to contest the results. Why is this even an issue or newsworthy? It's a fall back plan for her. If she happens to lose, she will initially contest the results, and will then cut a deal giving Trump the presidency in exchange for not being prosecuted for her many crimes.
Why indeed. So many of us are asking the same question. Poor judgment? Lack of education? Fear of losing the social superiority they're used to getting for being white? At the same time, we're just as perplexed why the UK would vote to leave the EU. The embrace of Trump is associated with a dangerous sense of nationalism that is cut from the same cloth as those who voted for Brexit.
For much the same reason Americans need a warning label to explain not to put a plastic bag over their heads.
For much the same reason Americans need a warning label to explain not to put a plastic bag over their heads.
I can tell you why the UK is leaving the EU. Apathy on the part of the young people who did not vote. Those who did were in a majority for staying in the EU. The OAP's of this country who are often living in the past, and the poorer people who had not thought through, or understood the possible consequences of exiting. I'm an OAP who has taken the trouble to look into all the possibilities. I voted to remain. Many old people talk about going back to the good old days of the 60/70's. Try explaining to them that history shows that those days were not good days and if we hadn't joined the EU we would only have survived as a poor nation. We were going downhill fast.
Well we have some of the same problem here, at least in the sense that it's all the old people wanting to relive their glory days who are backing Trump. Young people here consider Trump a disaster, but they aren't especially motivated to vote Hillary. The pols are doing what they can to get the young vote out, though, so we don't end up waking up full of regret on the Wednesday after election day.
That's another reason that Hillary is going to lose. Youth almost always votes Left when they can be bothered to vote at all. But since Hillary and the DNC AND the MSM colluded to destroy Bernie Sander's campaign most college age youths ARE NOT going to vote for Hillary. They are either going to stay home on election day or vote third party. The irony being that a third party vote by college youths is equivalent to voting FOR Donald Trump.
Yep, my brain dead generation ISN'T voting for Hillary like in Obama's coalition. Could be enough to give Trump the victory.
If you're generation won't vote for Hillary, they are not alone, and they are not brain dead. My two cents ...
