Being out the country for the last 15 years made me ineligible to vote. Why? I did try to vote Remain though (perhaps obviously). To this day l don't know why l was excluded when Irish and Commonwealth citizens residing in the UK were able to vote. I feel sure the expat community alone could have swung the result back to Remain, as it happens the racists and idiots swung it to Leave.
Clinton smashed Trump in the debate really although I was reading yesterday the debates have little impact on voting intention.
Calling all people who voted out stupid and racists is stupid and discriminatory in itself. Look at the pages of discussions on here regarding the reasons people voted the way they did. There's not a racist reason anywhere. You're just displaying your own prejudices. You're an intelligent man and better than that.
and you would be correct of course...if that was what I said. I already clarified to Jumbo I meant a majority rather than every single person. I also have always said stupid OR racist (not and) which you will agree is a world of difference. Four million self confessed racists voted Leave (the actual number presumably considerably higher) with 1.7 million being the margin of Leave's victory.
On the latter point, people continually misunderstand US election cycles. About 85 to 90% of those who vote exclusively vote for one party. The Republicans could literally run a resurrected Hitler as their candidate and Republican voters would vote for him. For most of the US voters, politics in the US is more akin to supporting a football team than looking at what's on offer and making an informed choice. It's all about Team Red v Team Blue, so for those people it's absolutely accurate to say the debates have little impact. They're not switching their votes regardless of outcome. This election cycle is highly interesting in that a significant percentage of the Republican party will not endorse or support Trump, and in some cases they are outright hostile to him. That doesn't seem to have influenced too many Republican voters though, who hate Clinton more than they hate Trump. It should be noted that the Republican party absolutely did not want Trump to win the nomination; the Republican primary voters made it happen, much to the dismay of Republican leadership. The most important segment of the voters are the 10% to 15% who identify as independents. They tend to be candidate or issues driven, rather than rooting for a team. This is compounded by the fact that the US uses electoral college, making certain states highly important as "battleground" states because they can flip either way depending on how the independents lean. States like California or Texas are lock-ins for the Democrats and the Republicans respectively. It's the swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan that truly decide the direction of the vast majority of elections. Within those states, the independent voter block is key to the outcome in that state. As a result, this means that if you win over the highest percentage of independent voters in the swing states you win the election. This situation is doubly difficult for Republican candidates; the required EC votes after lock-in states are considered tends to put them into a position where they need to win most (if not all) of the swing states to win the Presidency. Ohio is particularly important in this regard; historically speaking, any Republican who doesn't take Ohio loses. Clinton is going to continue to show Trump up in the debates. She's excellent at US debate formats, while clear Trump isn't. He's a novice and it shows. It won't change the minds of diehard Republican or Democrat fans...er voters, but it will be noticed by independents.
Out of interest is this election likely to see a record number of votes (protest or otherwise) to the third largest US party?
More likely it's going to be a low turnout, i heard a stat but can't remember where, that around 50% of Americans don't vote. Independents make up the largest secion of potential voters - many will hold their nose and vote Hillary because they fear a Trump presidency. Some will vote Trump to end establishment rule and they detest Hillary. Dr Jill Stein (Green Party) will pick up alot of Bernie Sanders supporters and Gary Johnson (Libertarian) will vote pick up votes from Republicans who hate Trump. The worst part is the private corporation which runs the debates is owned by Republicans and Democrats, therefore they marginalise Stein and Johnson by declaring they have to poll at 15% to be included. Johnson is polling at aound 10% and Stein about 3% - HOWEVER - most polls don't include 18-34 demographic (millenials) and the large majority will vote Stein. So they doctor the polls to exclude 3rd parties from debates and Jill Stein has been arrested numerous times for attending debates. Last 3rd party candidate to be included in the presidential debates was Ross Perot in 92 and 96 who polled at 19%.
CNN poll Here's a humourous look at it from Redacted Tonight...which I really enjoy. [YT]OsJOO01UQLo[/YT]
Bernie Sanders had that 'millenial' demographic nailed during the Democratic primary because they are 'Progressives'. The majority of them are part of the 'Never Hillary' brigade and Jill Stein's policies are progressive in line with Bernie Sanders. So the majority would vote Stein but because of the doctored polls they won't likely vote at all. There are many articles stating Hillary hasn't courted the millenial progressive vote because they see right through her and many see Bernie Sanders as a sell out for endorsing Clinton and campaigning for her. They won't let Jill Stein debate because Hillary is afraid of her and with good reason.
the 18-34 poll on NBC had Clinton at 39%, then trump, then Johnson, then stein. so not a majority by any margin. there are loads of polls out there showing this, unless you're ignoring them in favour of finding that one piece of evidence which backs up what you already set to prove
I was quoting that poll from memory. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...lennial-support-nationally-key-states-n650076 the actual figure were wrong, but the substance the same. Clinton in front. stein bottom. Johnson and trump in between.
Considering I'm following the election very closely, then I am correct....apologies if that upsets you.
This race is having a odd effect down ballot. I do a bit of democratic work in local state elections, and at least by me, trump has energized Republican voters to get out and vote for "real" republicans in their local election, while leaning Gary Johnson or no one in the federal. It also does not help the Dem. at the top of the ticket is the most disliked in polling history.
Is it surprising though that the Dem down ticket candidates and the registered voters were fed a lie with regards to fundraising? The big hoohaa over th George Clooney $300k a plate fundraiser was supposed to be for down ticket Dems as well, the DNC distributed it to the state Democratic parties, then a day later almost the same amount was donated back to the Clinton campaign. It was money laundering, plain and simple perpetrated by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Clinton campaign. Then you have a so-called 'Progressive warrior' in Senator Elizabeth Warren, selling out after being very critical of Clinton. She chose not to endorse Bernie Sanders who's political views mirror her own and with her support would have beaten Clinton in Massachusetts and changed the landscape on the Dem Primary. She sat on the fence and then endorsed Clinton when Bernie had all but withdrawn - probably hoping to be the VP pick to unite the party. Warren was played like an amateur by Clinton and now is pretty much despised by Progressives as being spineless. Warren hasn't helped her cause, because she picked the low hanging fruit in attacking Wells Fargo for their fraudulent behaviour - yet Wells Fargo are a major contributor to the Clinton campaign. Warren demanded the CEO resign and hand back the bonuses...but she's kept very quiet on going after Clinton and demanding she return the tainted campaign contributions.
It won't make much difference, but https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ology-as-sex-boast-tape-horrifies-republicans There is probably a massive stash of this stuff waiting to be drip-fed to the media...
Just watched last night's "Real Time". Four things made a real impression on me: 1) Johan Hari is an absolute ******. Why is he never introduced as "Disgraced Journalist Johan Hari"? 2) Trump, after this latest snippet, has actually been dis-invited from appearing at one of his own fund-raisers. 3) Hearing billionaire Mark Cuban talking about Trump's "business" was eye-opening. Especially Cuban's remark that you never hear any endorsements for Trump's "business acumen" from anyone who's ever done business with him. 4) A very compelling argument was made for Trump actually bailing out before the election.
I love Robert de Niro. https://www.theguardian.com/global/...-like-to-punch-donald-trump-in-the-face-video
What's worse, Trump's unpleasant remarks from over a decade ago about the women he claims to have groped, or John McDonnell's comment about wanting Esther McVey 'lynched'?
As predicted, Trump crashed and burned in the debates and the Republican rats are streaming off the sinking ship. Trump is in open war with the GOP and has lost a significant number of endorsements from his own party, which is unprecedented for a US presidential candidate. Most normal swing states are firmly going to Clinton based on current polling and Arizona is actually in play for a potential Democrat win. The Democrats have only won Arizona once in the last 64 years, and even that win was down to Perot splitting the Republican vote enough to hand the state to Bill Clinton. The fact that Trump has managed to perform so poorly in Arizona that Hillary Clinton might win it (she's currently ahead by a slim margin) is nothing short of remarkable. Utah is hilarious - there is a candidate called McMullin who emerged from absolutely nowhere to hold about 26% of the polling due to the fact that he isn't Clinton or Trump. Utah is a state so conservative that it should be an absolute lock, but a third party candidate is only 9 points below him at the moment! Ohio looks lost (60% likely to be a Clinton win per fivethirtyeight) and Florida even worse (73% chance of a Clinton win). Trump realistically can't win without Ohio and losing Florida would be a massive blow. It's going to be a landslide victory for Clinton, probably one of the most one-sided EC counts in modern US election history.
I wouldn't be so quick to condemn Trump. Wikileaks is starting to get interesting...very interesting. Not forgetting Project Veritas.... One of the campaigns is about to implode...
Trump is done. The writing is on the wall for everyone to see. There is a vested interest in the media for making it seem tightly fought, as they did with 2012, but in reality it's going to be nowhere near close unless the polls are horrifically, dramatically wrong. Bearing in mind Trump tended to under perform his polls in the primaries that would be very surprising indeed.
Michael Moore (of all people) sums up the Trump phenomenon [video=youtube;pADHLsECWxY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pADHLsECWxY[/video]
So the FBI have re-opened the Clinton email investigation. Rumour has it that Anthony Wiener, who was married to Huma Abedin (Clinton's top aide) had classified documents on either his laptop or phone. Wiener (unfortunate surname) was caught sexting an underage girl. Popcorn time...
320 million people to choose from and the best the US can come up with is these 2 losers Somethings broken
Even worse, the third running candidate Gary Johnson was asked what his positio was on Aleppo. He looked confused and then admitted he did not know what a Leppo was. He was then unable to name a single foreign capital city or a single forwign national leader. There is just no hope. Get Clinton in and then impeach her.
I find the email/server stuff Clinton has done utterly insignificant besides what the Republicans do every time in foreign adventures, or even usual US policy.
Without being patronising, you should educate yourself on the latest. To be fair to Trump, even though he is an idiot, he's talking about hitting ISIS, he's not advocating regime change/intervention wars. Clinton, on the hand, through the leaked emails has stated she wants to circle China with missiles, send troops back to Iraq/Afghanistan to finish the job and enforce a 'no fly zone' in Syria - which means shooting down Russian planes and US troops in Syria. Her campaign is constantly blaming Russia for the Wikileaks email - so she's itching for a fight with Putin. As Secretary of State, she is sold arms to the Saudis who are armed ISIS and in the leaked emails, she admits to knowing this and STILL sold them arms - she has to make profits for her donors. Under Obama, there have been more drone strikes than ever, a newly discovered factory in Africa manufacturing drones, troops in Africa and US warships off the coast of Yemen. Why are they there? To support the Saudis who are bombing Yemen and also some theories to re-enact the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam 'war'. This has nothing to do with Republicans - this is the new Democratic 'neo-liberals' party, with Hillary as the main warhawk.
Part of my Saturday morning routine is to watch the previous night's "Real Time with Bill Maher" (next week's one with Obama should be good) - today's had Moore as a guest where he plugged his "Trumpland" film. I've just watched it on youtube (it's on C4 tonight) and it was, on balance, OK: [video=youtube;2iCUI-k723A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iCUI-k723A[/video] It's very much a film of two halves: Spoiler The first half when he talks directly about Trump to the, largely Trump voting, audience is Moore being extremely engaging and very funny. The second half where he focuses on Hilary less so. I'm assuming that th clip that the OP put up is where he draws parallels between Brexit voters and possible Trump voters which is interesting. As I watched it on youtube via my xbox automatically played this afterwards: [video=youtube;X0sUZxwJHNQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0sUZxwJHNQ[/video] which was a very odd collection of clips - looking at the views of three Trump supporters: upper middle-class (with a Latina daughter-in-law), a working class plumber and someone I can only describe as "sh1t outta luck".
