By how much % will Trump lose to or beat Clinton by in November? (1 Viewer)

[jamesrage]

I think the second the republicans nominated Trump they gift wrapped the election and handed it to Clinton along with male strippers and a collection of fine pant suits for her victory party. I am surprised the people on MSBC weren't playing We are the Champions by Queen when it was official that Trump won the republican nominee. But people have other opinions so I thought I would ask the following question-

By how much will Trump lose to or beat Clinton by in November?

He will lose to Clinton anywhere between less than 1% to 5%.
He will lose to Clinton anywhere between 5% to 10% to Clinton.
He will lose to Clinton anywhere between 10% to 15% to Clinton.
He will lose to Clinton by 15% or more.
He will beat Clinton by anywhere between less than 1% to 5%
He will beat Clinton by anywhere between 5% to 10%
He will beat Clinton by anywhere between 10% to 15%
He will beat Clinton by 15% or more.
I think a 3rd party candidate will win the presidency this year.
I don't know.

I think Trump will lose by anywhere between 10% to 15%(I think that is being generous) to Clinton.Clinton is going to metaphorically curb stomp Trump in November.But it can know one knows what a curb stomping is then use the following video as a reference.

 

[molten_dragon]

I agree 100%. I see no likely scenario that leads to Trump beating Clinton.

I'm guessing he'll lose by about 10-15% in the popular vote, and around 100 electoral votes.

 

[1751Texan]

I have assumed the poll was Electoral votes and not popular votes.

Popular votes 5-10% points.

EV 10%+

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

your complicit bought and paid for media machine could not stop him in the primary, and it won't stop him in the general. buckle up.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Percentage points on the national vote are pretty irrelevant to the election of a US President, so I won't comment on that number, but I would say it's pretty clear to me that Hillary Clinton will be the next President and she will win the electoral college vote significantly and perhaps with one of the largest EC victories in US history. It's remarkable, to me, that American Republicans are so bloody brain dead that they can manufacture the election to President of one of the most despised and distrusted bitches ever to put her sorry ass on a national ballot. The Republican Party owes the American people an apology for the mess this election has become and for making Hillary Clinton almost assuredly the next President.

 

[SDET]

I agree 100%. I see no likely scenario that leads to Trump beating Clinton.

I'm guessing he'll lose by about 10-15% in the popular vote, and around 100 electoral votes.

That math doesn't add up. If Trump loses by double digits, he loses Georgia, Missouri, and several states that Romney won. It would put Trump under 100 EV.

 

[SDET]

Percentage points on the national vote are pretty irrelevant to the election of a US President, so I won't comment on that number, but I would say it's pretty clear to me that Hillary Clinton will be the next President and she will win the electoral college vote significantly and perhaps with one of the largest EC victories in US history. It's remarkable, to me, that American Republicans are so bloody brain dead that they can manufacture the election to President of one of the most despised and distrusted bitches ever to put her sorry ass on a national ballot. The Republican Party owes the American people an apology for the mess this election has become and for making Hillary Clinton almost assuredly the next President.

It wasn't the Republican Party directly, it was a hostile takeover by Trump. Indirectly, you could blame the Republican elites for being Democrat "lite" (using the dumbed-down marketing spelling of the word). The same thing could happen up there in Canada if the Conservatives try to be Liberal "lite". I suspect some Canadian reality TV star is watching all this and thinking "hmmmmmmmmmm", smelling an opportunity.

 

[jamesrage]

Percentage points on the national vote are pretty irrelevant to the election of a US President, so I won't comment on that number, but I would say it's pretty clear to me that Hillary Clinton will be the next President and she will win the electoral college vote significantly and perhaps with one of the largest EC victories in US history. It's remarkable, to me, that American Republicans are so bloody brain dead that they can manufacture the election to President of one of the most despised and distrusted bitches ever to put her sorry ass on a national ballot. The Republican Party owes the American people an apology for the mess this election has become and for making Hillary Clinton almost assuredly the next President.

I wouldn't say they hold all the blame.Trump did well in open primary states where opposing parties can rat **** or party raid the opposing party's primary election. And in closed primary states people are allowed to switch parties when the primary candidates announce all the way until the primaries are over. Although I suppose republicans might have a hand in keeping legal the open primaries and party switching in closed primary states while primary race campaigns are still going on.

 

[jamesrage]

your complicit bought and paid for media machine could not stop him in the primary, and it won't stop him in the general. buckle up.

I have the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge and some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you and I am a Nigerian prince who wants to give you lots of money.

 

[upsideguy]

That math doesn't add up. If Trump loses by double digits, he loses Georgia, Missouri, and several states that Romney won. It would put Trump under 100 EV.

Not really. Obama beat McCain by 7 points... and McCain had 173 EV....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Real Clear Politics currently scores this Clinton 357; Trump 181 with a 7% advantage in the national polls

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Note, RCP scores Arizona as blue.

If the blue states turn bluer (very likely), and the battleground states go to Clinton by 5+ points, then she can do it with an electoral split similar to Obama/Mc Cain.

Georgia and Arizona, however, are in danger of turning blue.

 

[upsideguy]

It wasn't the Republican Party directly, it was a hostile takeover by Trump. Indirectly, you could blame the Republican elites for being Democrat "lite" (using the dumbed-down marketing spelling of the word). The same thing could happen up there in Canada if the Conservatives try to be Liberal "lite". I suspect some Canadian reality TV star is watching all this and thinking "hmmmmmmmmmm", smelling an opportunity.

I blame the Republican Party for not implementing the precepts of the 2012 GOP (Growth and Opportunity) Project.

GOP.com: Growth and Opportunity Project

Had they done so, they would have actually had policy and an agenda, which would have created the garden that would have grown vision and leadership. Instead, of having a plan, the Republicans chose to remain rudderless, which will make any crew angry. Rather than recognize and address the anger, they fed it. Rather than implementing the Agenda (GOP Project), they wasted their time trying to bring Hillary down. Having a vision that pretty much is limited to your hatred for the other guy, does not sell to people that really want vision and leadership.

The anger and leadership void of the Republican Party fertilized and tilled the soil that germinated the seed of the weed that is now Donald Trump.

 

[CanadaJohn]

It wasn't the Republican Party directly, it was a hostile takeover by Trump. Indirectly, you could blame the Republican elites for being Democrat "lite" (using the dumbed-down marketing spelling of the word). The same thing could happen up there in Canada if the Conservatives try to be Liberal "lite". I suspect some Canadian reality TV star is watching all this and thinking "hmmmmmmmmmm", smelling an opportunity.

I blame the Republican Party directly, and all Republicans indirectly, because it is they who establish rules that allowed a lifelong liberal Democrat to run in their primaries and take the nomination. I also blame them for allowing none Republicans, in several States, often supporters of Hillary Clinton who knew Clinton had a lock on their State's delegates, to come into Republican primaries and do mischief with the results. There needs to be serious work done, over the next couple of years, to tighten up both who can run and who can vote to represent the Republican brand.

As for Republicans being Democrat "lite", that would be Trump except for the "lite" part. I always find it amusing that some conservatives and Republicans in the US feel it's a badge of honour to be obstinately inflexible when it comes to collaborative governance. It's not a sign of weakness for a leader to be able to work with and convince the other party to follow his/her lead. Ronald Reagan, the Republican's sainted one, knew exactly how to compromise and work collaboratively with the opposing party when nothing would be gained by obstinance.

Any number of other candidates in the Republican primaries - three Governors and a couple of Senators - would be odds on to win the White House had Republican primary voters, and those on the left who feared them, hadn't ensured that the unelectable Trump got the nomination. Not since FDR has a Democrat won the White House following 8 years of a Democrat Presidency, and that was only because the world was at war. And yet, a totally despicable excuse for a human being is going to waltz her way into the White House because an even more despicable excuse for a human being has been chosen by Republicans to oppose her in the election. That's utterly insane and shameful.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I wouldn't say they hold all the blame.Trump did well in open primary states where opposing parties can rat **** or party raid the opposing party's primary election. And in closed primary states people are allowed to switch parties when the primary candidates announce all the way until the primaries are over. Although I suppose republicans might have a hand in keeping legal the open primaries and party switching in closed primary states while primary race campaigns are still going on.

I agree - the rules need to be changed. It's inexcusable, in my view, that lifelong Democrats and liberals can both run for the Republican Presidential nomination and vote for who will represent the party in the election. Remarkable that many Republicans and conservatives howl about voter ID laws and yet let virtually anyone run for and/or select their nominee.

 

[FieldTheorist]

I think the second the republicans nominated Trump they gift wrapped the election and handed it to Clinton along with male strippers and a collection of fine pant suits for her victory party. I am surprised the people on MSBC weren't playing We are the Champions by Queen when it was official that Trump won the republican nominee. But people have other opinions so I thought I would ask the following question-

By how much will Trump lose to or beat Clinton by in November?

He will lose to Clinton anywhere between less than 1% to 5%.
He will lose to Clinton anywhere between 5% to 10% to Clinton.
He will lose to Clinton anywhere between 10% to 15% to Clinton.
He will lose to Clinton by 15% or more.
He will beat Clinton by anywhere between less than 1% to 5%
He will beat Clinton by anywhere between 5% to 10%
He will beat Clinton by anywhere between 10% to 15%
He will beat Clinton by 15% or more.
I think a 3rd party candidate will win the presidency this year.
I don't know.






I think Trump will lose by anywhere between 10% to 15%(I think that is being generous) to Clinton.Clinton is going to metaphorically curb stomp Trump in November.But it can know one knows what a curb stomping is then use the following video as a reference.

There's major factors to consider here:

1.) How well does Johnson or Stein catch on?
2.) How damaging are Wikileaks next round of leaks going to be?
3.) On the debate stage, who will do worse?


Currently, I'm assuming that Clinton is going to beat Trump by a few percentage points. At this juncture, I do not believe it will be a knock-out blow.


EDIT: Also, when does Wikileaks release it's next round of emails? That could do lasting damage, depending on when they time it.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

There's major factors to consider here:

1.) How well does Johnson or Stein catch on?
2.) How damaging are Wikileaks next round of leaks going to be?
3.) On the debate stage, who will do worse?


Currently, I'm assuming that Clinton is going to beat Trump by a few percentage points. At this juncture, I do not believe it will be a knock-out blow.


EDIT: Also, when does Wikileaks release it's next round of emails? That could do lasting damage, depending on when they time it.

Does Wikileaks have clintons private emails?

 

[Casca XV]

Enjoy it while you can Dems. The poll spread is already closing and within 2 weeks it will be back to Trump with a lead. The fact is Trump has charisma and Hillary has none. Trumps negatives are fluid while Hillary's are permanent. All Trump has to do is stop saying things that give ammo to his detractors and he will be President.

 

[SDET]

I blame the Republican Party directly, and all Republicans indirectly, because it is they who establish rules that allowed a lifelong liberal Democrat to run in their primaries and take the nomination. I also blame them for allowing none Republicans, in several States, often supporters of Hillary Clinton who knew Clinton had a lock on their State's delegates, to come into Republican primaries and do mischief with the results. There needs to be serious work done, over the next couple of years, to tighten up both who can run and who can vote to represent the Republican brand.

As for Republicans being Democrat "lite", that would be Trump except for the "lite" part. I always find it amusing that some conservatives and Republicans in the US feel it's a badge of honour to be obstinately inflexible when it comes to collaborative governance. It's not a sign of weakness for a leader to be able to work with and convince the other party to follow his/her lead. Ronald Reagan, the Republican's sainted one, knew exactly how to compromise and work collaboratively with the opposing party when nothing would be gained by obstinance.

Any number of other candidates in the Republican primaries - three Governors and a couple of Senators - would be odds on to win the White House had Republican primary voters, and those on the left who feared them, hadn't ensured that the unelectable Trump got the nomination. Not since FDR has a Democrat won the White House following 8 years of a Democrat Presidency, and that was only because the world was at war. And yet, a totally despicable excuse for a human being is going to waltz her way into the White House because an even more despicable excuse for a human being has been chosen by Republicans to oppose her in the election. That's utterly insane and shameful.

Sometimes fools need the rod to correct their folly. Trump is that rod, as is Hillary RODham Clinton.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Does Wikileaks have clintons private emails?

No one knows. The only thing that has been declared by Assange on the matter is that it would "definitely" be enough to convict Hillary --although Assange has also said that we already know enough to convict (or at least indict) Hillary, so it's pretty much a moot point no matter what.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

No one knows. The only thing that has been declared by Assange on the matter is that it would "definitely" be enough to convict Hillary --although Assange has also said that we already know enough to convict (or at least indict) Hillary, so it's pretty much a moot point no matter what.

Are you sure assange actually said he has somthing that will indict Clinton, or is this a just a rumor blown out of proportion combined with confirmation bias?

 

[Painter]

A long time ago I predicted Trump would win the Presidency by a small margin.
I still support that prediction.

I also predict that if my first prediction is wrong and that if Trump is polling badly before the election that Trump will drop out in the final week.
I say this because the man is a quitter for sure, but he would rather die than be a loser.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Are you sure assange actually said he has somthing that will indict Clinton, or is this a just a rumor blown out of proportion combined with confirmation bias?

That is Julian Assange's claim. Assange has clearly been gathering information on Hillary for years now, which is sort of an amusing case of Hillary's hubris. One of those irrelevant plebeians that Hillary attempted to crush might actually have more power than she bargained for. We'll see.

 

[Mr Person]

I say trump loses by 1-5%. Hopefully America proves itself better than my current view of it; let's just say that thus far, this election cycle has made me feel more negative than ever about a good chunk of my countrymen.

 

[coyotedelmar]

I'll go with 1-5% loss for Trump, don't think we'll see a blowout unless he does something really (really) crazy before November. Not going to say I'm confident of picking Hillary to win though.

 

[tres borrachos]

He's going to lose to Clinton by at least 5% but probably somewhere closer to 10%.

Goddamn shame. A decent Republican candidate (i.e. pretty much anyone except that fraud Trump) would have beaten her by probably the same margin.

 

[Fiddytree]

He's going to lose to Clinton by at least 5% but probably somewhere closer to 10%.

Goddamn shame. A decent Republican candidate (i.e. pretty much anyone except that fraud Trump) would have beaten her by probably the same margin.

I'm betting the popular vote will be much tighter than that. She may get him with maybe 3-4%. As much as Republicans have been fighting, the vast majority come around to support their nominee and some stay home.