Trump will win, says Prof who predicted every election since 1984

[socotra 3,357]

48 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Those who don't vote for Clinton in the General Election will be the ones who are held responsible, 

Why the people didn't select the safer and more logical candidate who beat Trump considerably in head-to-head polling is beyond me. Instead, we are stuck with a flawed candidate whose countless scandals may cost the United States dearly. Donald Trump should be a very easy candidate to beat, and instead the Democrats chose to rig the primary in favor of a candidate who is deeply unpopular, polarizing, and ultimately divisive at a time when we need a candidate who unites.

I personally have no problem with Clinton at this point policy-wise, I think she would be a satisfactory Commander-in-Chief, but there is no question in my mind that Bernie Sanders would be beating Donald Trump by at least 15% in the polls if he had been the nominee. 

[Goosey 3,017]

2 hours ago, LePetitMonstr said:

6 months ago, I would of laughed at this and brushed it off. Now, im actually starting to belive it

I guess @Goosey must be happy

2 hours ago, FATCAT said:

Good job, Clinton. You ****ed it up.

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, PaperIz said:

Maybe if Clinton and the dnc weren't complete crooks they might get people to vote for them.  

----

Anyways this is why Bernie should've gotten the nom 

Bernie didn't get the nomination because he didn't get the most votes or win the most state delegates. The people gave Hillary the nomination, by voting for her.

Same will be true with the General Election. The candidate with the most electoral votes will win the election. 

[Whispering 18,865]

28 minutes ago, Indyl said:

Why the people didn't select the safer and more logical candidate who beat Trump considerably in head-to-head polling is beyond me. Instead, we are stuck with a flawed candidate whose countless scandals may cost the United States dearly. Donald Trump should be a very easy candidate to beat, and instead the Democrats chose to rig the primary in favor of a candidate who is deeply unpopular, polarizing, and ultimately divisive at a time when we need a candidate who unites.

I personally have no problem with Clinton at this point policy-wise, I think she would be a satisfactory Commander-in-Chief, but there is no question in my mind that Bernie Sanders would be beating Donald Trump by at least 15% in the polls if he had been the nominee. 

Because they weren't convinced he was safer or more logical. He couldn't even back up his main points with policies that were realistic or detailed. 

Trump isn't an easy candidate to best, or one of the 15 more reseasonable (MUCH more logical and safer) would have given him a run for his money for the nomination. Instead, a Trump beat them all handily. 

The election wasn't rigged. It was held in the same way it has been held for decades...the same way it was conducted when a little known senator by the name of Obama beat the well known favorite eight years ago. Obama convinced the voters that he was the best candidate for the Democratic nomination...Bernie failed to do the same. 

Oh please, the political climate is such that elections are close leading up to the General election. Most primary elections are also close. The same bigots and Republicans and people who are against human rights and the right of women to control their bodies woukd be voting for Trump, no matter who was the Democratic nominee. 

[Goosey 3,017]

5 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Bernie didn't get the nomination because he didn't get the most votes or win the most state delegates. The people gave Hillary the nomination, by voting for her.

Same will be true with the General Election. The candidate with the most electoral votes will win the election. 

When I browsed r/SandersForPresident, many Sandernistas were complaining of voter fraud. Not sure if true.

[Whispering 18,865]

4 minutes ago, Goosey said:

When I browsed r/SandersForPresident, many Sandernistas were complaining of voter fraud. Not sure if true.

When I browsed r/hillaryclinton, many people are saying that Trump is a member of Nambla. Not sure if true. 

 

[PaperIz 7,354]

34 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Bernie didn't get the nomination because he didn't get the most votes or win the most state delegates. The people gave Hillary the nomination, by voting for her.

Same will be true with the General Election. The candidate with the most electoral votes will win the election. 

The election fraud says hi lol

[Whispering 18,865]

Just now, PaperIz said:

The election fraud says hi lol

The votes were counted and reported and the candidate with the most votes won the nomination. If enough people had voted for Bernie, he would have won. He didn't win because he didn't get the most votes. 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

That's not what the electoral map looks like. Hillary will win imo, but it will still be close. As long as a few important battleground states stop trending towards Trump, Hillary will win. She really only needs to win 1 major state considering she is already polling strong in the states that'll push her to 270.

[socotra 3,357]

21 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Because they weren't convinced he was safer or more logical. He couldn't even back up his main points with policies that were realistic or detailed. 

Trump isn't an easy candidate to best, or one of the 15 more reseasonable (MUCH more logical and safer) would have given him a run for his money for the nomination. Instead, a Trump beat them all handily. 

The election wasn't rigged. It was held in the same way it has been held for decades...the same way it was conducted when a little known senator by the name of Obama beat the well known favorite eight years ago. Obama convinced the voters that he was the best candidate for the Democratic nomination...Bernie failed to do the same. 

Oh please, the political climate is such that elections are close leading up to the General election. Most primary elections are also close. The same bigots and Republicans and people who are against human rights and the right of women to control their bodies woukd be voting for Trump, no matter who was the Democratic nominee. 

The DNC was not actively conspiring against Obama 8 years ago. A majority of the voter ID laws that were in place for the 2016 primary did not exist in the 2008 primary. This did not happen in 2008. Obama beating Clinton was an upset by all means, but had Clinton been favored in 2008 as she was in 2016, I very much doubt that Barack Obama would have won --- especially considering the fact that Clinton won the popular vote in 2008. 

Above all, Bernie Sanders is an independent. He has supporters from across the entire spectrum, and I doubt you'd disagree with that assertion. One of the failures of the system in the U.S. is that independents are largely discounted, and independents were largely cut out of the Democratic Party's process this time around with a difficult means to joining the party and being able to vote for Bernie in time. Perpetuates the 2-party system.

Trump touched on a nerve in the same way Bernie Sanders did. One glaring difference is that the Republican Party does not have superdelegates, and thus the media was forced to put all candidates on (essentially) equal footing. Hillary Clinton went into the primary assumed to be the winner, with news stations using superdelegates to make it appear as though Sanders was too far behind (all the time) to ever catch up. Trump got near-constant news coverage, whereas Sanders was almost always ignored. You can blame it on "He didn't convince people" or the fact that the odds were heavily stacked against him. That he got so close to winning as he did in spite of everything is amazing in itself. 

Regardless, the worst thing you can say about Sanders is that he's an unrealistic dreamer and that he's a socialist. Clinton has abundantly more baggage. The whole point of my original post was that many people (often Hillary supporters) look down upon voting third party because it's a "wasted vote" and that "It's a vote for Trump if you vote third party". It's interesting to apply that logic to the primary, wherein you could view a vote for Hillary as a vote for Trump in the sense that you voted for the very clearly weaker candidate. 

Again, I stress that I have very little policy differences with Hillary Clinton and she'd be a fine (albeit status-quo-perpetuating) president. However, I call foul on those who voted for the weaker candidate and now stress the importance of swallowing a weaker-candidate vote in order to prevent a Trump. It's hypocritical. 

[Goosey 3,017]

37 minutes ago, Whispering said:

When I browsed r/hillaryclinton, many people are saying that Trump is a member of Nambla. Not sure if true. 

It's not true, I fact-checked.

Fact-checked the voter fraud... remained unsure. The allegations were reported by various major news outlets.

[Whispering 18,865]

22 minutes ago, Indyl said:

The DNC was not actively conspiring against Obama 8 years ago. A majority of the voter ID laws that were in place for the 2016 primary did not exist in the 2008 primary. This did not happen in 2008. Obama beating Clinton was an upset by all means, but had Clinton been favored in 2008 as she was in 2016, I very much doubt that Barack Obama would have won --- especially considering the fact that Clinton won the popular vote in 2008. 

Above all, Bernie Sanders is an independent. He has supporters from across the entire spectrum, and I doubt you'd disagree with that assertion. One of the failures of the system in the U.S. is that independents are largely discounted, and independents were largely cut out of the Democratic Party's process this time around with a difficult means to joining the party and being able to vote for Bernie in time. Perpetuates the 2-party system.

Trump touched on a nerve in the same way Bernie Sanders did. One glaring difference is that the Republican Party does not have superdelegates, and thus the media was forced to put all candidates on (essentially) equal footing. Hillary Clinton went into the primary assumed to be the winner, with news stations using superdelegates to make it appear as though Sanders was too far behind (all the time) to ever catch up. Trump got near-constant news coverage, whereas Sanders was almost always ignored. You can blame it on "He didn't convince people" or the fact that the odds were heavily stacked against him. That he got so close to winning as he did in spite of everything is amazing in itself. 

Regardless, the worst thing you can say about Sanders is that he's an unrealistic dreamer and that he's a socialist. Clinton has abundantly more baggage. The whole point of my original post was that many people (often Hillary supporters) look down upon voting third party because it's a "wasted vote" and that "It's a vote for Trump if you vote third party". It's interesting to apply that logic to the primary, wherein you could view a vote for Hillary as a vote for Trump in the sense that you voted for the very clearly weaker candidate. 

Again, I stress that I have very little policy differences with Hillary Clinton and she'd be a fine (albeit status-quo-perpetuating) president. However, I call foul on those who voted for the weaker candidate and now stress the importance of swallowing a weaker-candidate vote in order to prevent a Trump. It's hypocritical. 

Obama won the Democratic nomination because he secured the minority vote, which Bernie failed to do. 

Yes, Independents who declare themselves as a Democrat for a few months are going to have a harder time getting Democrats to vote for them. Trump, who is a Democrat/Republican/ Independent turned Republican for this election won his Primary...something Bernie failed to do. 

The superdelegates did not decide the Democratic nomination. The popular votes and delegates from the individual states won the nomination for Hillary, just like they won the nomination for Obama back in 2008. If Bernie had received the most votes, he would have won the nomination. He didn't. 

A vote for a third party is essentially a wasted vote, but it is still an option that is available. Every individual decides if they want to vote for a Republican, Democrat, third party or not vote at all. 

The majority of voters that showed up for the Democratic Primaries thought that Bernie was the weaker candidate. When the majority of those who voted in the Democratic primary, they had no idea who would end up being the Republican nominee. 

It is your opinion that Hillary is the weaker candidate, but millions of voters simply disagreed with you. Every citizen over the age of 17 gets the opportunity to cast one vote and that's the way it works. 

[Whispering 18,865]

5 minutes ago, Goosey said:

It's not true, I fact-checked.

Fact-checked the voter fraud... remained unsure. The allegations were reported by various major news outlets.

Loll

Unsure means unsure. Allegations are allegations. There are allegations that Trump is involved with the mob, raped young girls and has ties to the Russian government...all three have been reported by various news outlets. 

The Russian government have been involved with hacking state election sites. If Trump wins, it will be because they rigged the election. 

[Guest]

It's way too obvious Trump will win, we don't even need this professor. With everything that's against Hillary, it would be a miracle for her to win and lord knows what's going to happen during the debate, she might have a coughing fit and ****. I worry though about riots and protests after his election, but who knows, not my country but good luck to y'all americans out there, both choices were terrible anyway but Trump is a better choice than Clinton sadly, that's how it is (Trump has an awful character but Clinton been lying too long and made poor choices her whole career). 

[socotra 3,357]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

Obama won the Democratic nomination because he secured the minority vote, which Bernie failed to do. 

Yes, Independents who declare themselves as a Democrat for a few months are going to have a harder time getting Democrats to vote for them. Trump, who is a Democrat/Republican/ Independent turned Republican for this election won his Primary...something Bernie failed to do. 

The superdelegates did not decide the Democratic nomination. The popular votes and delegates from the individual states won the nomination for Hillary, just like they won the nomination for Obama back in 2008. If Bernie had received the most votes, he would have won the nomination. He didn't. 

A vote for a third party is essentially a wasted vote, but it is still an option that is available. Every individual decides if they want to vote for a Republican, Democrat, third party or not vote at all. 

The majority of voters that showed up for the Democratic Primaries thought that Bernie was the weaker candidate. When the majority of those who voted in the Democratic primary, they had no idea who would end up being the Republican nominee. 

It is your opinion that Hillary is the weaker candidate, but millions of voters simply disagreed with you. Every citizen over the age of 17 gets the opportunity to cast one vote and that's the way it works. 

You kinda just restated what you originally said... did you read my post?