What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Donald Trump for President thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gr00vus said:
Nate Silver's predictions are entirely based on other peoples' polls. He's good at analyzing data (most of the time). If the polls change, his "predictions" change. All he does is reiterate what people are feeling. If Trump can get himself together, get some cogent messages going, he could turn this thing around. Hillary's got a ton of flaws ripe for the plucking. The pollster he just promoted is a step in the right direction, the brietbart guy he just promoted is a step in the wrong direction. But you can't call this thing over yet.
Click to expand...
The reason it could possibly be over, which I won't argue that it is over, but in order to win the electoral college vote, Trump will have to win multiple states that Obama won in 2012. I don't see which states those will be.

 
bueno said:
Trump wins if:

1. Hillary has a health crisis, especially a mental health crisis.

2. Something surfaces that actually proves Hillary is a criminal, and it can't be swept under the rug.

3. ISIS launches a major terrorist attack in the U.S.

4. We have a major social meltdown - something like multiple race riots in multiple cities.

5. There is a major financial crisis similar to what happened at the end of the Bush Presidency.
Click to expand...
I don't think all five of those things are going to happen.

 
Gr00vus said:
Nate Silver's predictions are entirely based on other peoples' polls. He's good at analyzing data (most of the time). If the polls change, his "predictions" change. All he does is reiterate what people are feeling. If Trump can get himself together, get some cogent messages going, he could turn this thing around. Hillary's got a ton of flaws ripe for the plucking. The pollster he just promoted is a step in the right direction, the brietbart guy he just promoted is a step in the wrong direction. But you can't call this thing over yet.
Click to expand...
Not really

 
Trump has very likely been an overbearing racist ##### for 50-60 years of his life, has definitely been one over this past year while in the spotlight and you're telling me that there are enough people out there who will hear Trump read off of a teleprompter for 80 days and come away convinced that he's a changed man? I have a bit more faith than that in our species.

He doesn't even have 80 days due to early voting in October.

I'm of the opinion that he can close the gap but only to the extent that it nullifies a down ticket massacre.

 
bueno said:
No, I think both have happened. The country has shifted to the left, but The Dems have moved to the right as well. You'll note several far left issues missing in this election from anti-corporation policies to environmental issues.Hillary is in the pocket of big business and she doesn't give two ####s about the environment.
Click to expand...
Agreed that Hillary is to the right of Obama. And Obama is pretty much a centrist. So what does that make Hillary? Practically a Republican?

Is DINO a thing, like RINO?

 
SameSongNDance said:
Trump has very likely been an overbearing racist ##### for 50-60 years of his life, has definitely been one over this past year while in the spotlight and you're telling me that there are enough people out there who will hear Trump read off of a teleprompter for 80 days and come away convinced that he's a changed man? I have a bit more faith than that in our species.
Click to expand...
Really? I was literally just thinking that this country's attention span is so ####ing short that 2 months of acting like a decent human being could make the majority forget about everything he's shown before.

 
3C's said:
Not really
Click to expand...
:confused:

His thing is analyzing other peoples' polls and then applying a little demographic/economic analysis tweak. It says it right there in your link, multiple times. He does no polling of his own, he's completely reliant on other peoples' work.

All versions of the model proceed through four major steps:

  • Step 1: Collect, weight and average polls.
  • Step 2: Adjust polls.
  • Step 3: Combine polls with demographic and (in the case of polls-plus) economic data.
  • Step 4: Account for uncertainty and simulate the election thousands of times.
Click to expand...

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Agreed that Hillary is to the right of Obama. And Obama is pretty much a centrist. So what does that make Hillary? Practically a Republican?

Is DINO a thing, like RINO?
Click to expand...
Obama is center-left, I'd put Hillary in the same general area -- agree that she is right of Obama. The Republicans are having trouble because a huge chunk of their base has followed Hannity and Breitbart right off of the far right deep end.

 
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
Really? I was literally just thinking that this country's attention span is so ####ing short that 2 months of acting like a decent human being could make the majority forget about everything he's shown before.
Click to expand...
Maybe my faith is misplaced? I truly feel like the only people he can win over in these next couple of months are those just waking up from a coma.

 
So the gov of LA tells Obama to not go there so as to not deter badly needed resources, and look who shows up. Look at me! I'm handing out boxes of supplies!

 
Gr00vus said:
:confused:

His thing is analyzing other peoples' polls and then applying a little demographic/economic analysis tweak. It says it right there in your link, multiple times. He does no polling of his own, he's completely reliant on other peoples' work.
Click to expand...
In terms of polling, yeah. But IMO the ability to accurately analyze and project based on the aggregate polling numbers is the more valuable / important / rare skill.

 
Unfortunately for Trump, his predilection for making controversial statements and grabbing headlines, while sinking his polling numbers, has to be taking an enormous amount of pressure off Hillary, which decreases the chance she has a mental meltdown.  

 
perry147 said:
The idea here is to ensure that Trump loses not a Hillary victory.  I have this small hope that Hillary will lose the primary in four years and not be the nominee.  I honestly like some of GJ's stances on issue but at this point I can not in good conscious vote him. 
Click to expand...
Sitting President losing a primary? Has that ever happened?

 
Coeur de Lion said:
In terms of polling, yeah. But IMO the ability to accurately analyze and project based on the aggregate polling numbers is the more valuable / important / rare skill.
Click to expand...
Like I said, he's really good at data analysis. But he can't make his results say things that the polls weren't saying to start with. So I don't see what he does as prediction, so much as clarification. Probably just a semantic argument not worth having.

 
Gr00vus said:
Like I said, he's really good at data analysis. But he can't make his results say things that the polls weren't saying to start with. So I don't see what he does as prediction, so much as clarification. Probably just a semantic argument not worth having.
Click to expand...
Don't think we really disagree too much either.

 
On the debate issue I think Trump is dangerous for two reasons.

First, as I've pointed out before, the standard for "winning" the debate is totally different for the two candidates, just like it was for Gore-Bush and Biden-Palin.  Like Hillary, Gore and Biden were the smarter, better speakers, and much more versed in policy than their opponents.  But because everyone knew that going in and expected a blowout, those debates were seen graded as ties (or in Gore-Bush, Bush wins, based on some odd behavior by Gore).  Palin didn't answer a single question in her debate, she just did her word salad Palin-speak, but everyone thought she did better than expected.  Trump will benefit from this same phenomenon.

Second, "winning" and "losing" the debates is about the immediate visceral impression on the viewer.  Trump has an advantage in that he's not bound by normal human conscience (or even normal politician conscience) and is happy to just make things up as he goes.  There is no instant politifact to correct him, and it doesn't matter how many Pinocchios he gets in the next day's papers.  If his target audience believes those things, it doesn't matter if they are true or not.  Hillary then has to be careful about coming off as too intellectual or lawyerly when she corrects his facts.

 
badmojo1006 said:
Ford and Carter lost in the General and LBJ decided not to run
Click to expand...
LBJ decided not to run after losing primaries early on and recognized he probably wasn't going to get nominated again.

Ford and Carter lost multiple primaries when they were sitting presidents, which is what I was responding to. 

ETA:  Looks like I remembered wrong on LBJ.  He won NH, but by a close margin and then dropped out after RFK entered the race too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
randall146 said:
On the debate issue I think Trump is dangerous for two reasons.

First, as I've pointed out before, the standard for "winning" the debate is totally different for the two candidates, just like it was for Gore-Bush and Biden-Palin.  Like Hillary, Gore and Biden were the smarter, better speakers, and much more versed in policy than their opponents.  But because everyone knew that going in and expected a blowout, those debates were seen graded as ties (or in Gore-Bush, Bush wins, based on some odd behavior by Gore).  Palin didn't answer a single question in her debate, she just did her word salad Palin-speak, but everyone thought she did better than expected.  Trump will benefit from this same phenomenon.

Second, "winning" and "losing" the debates is about the immediate visceral impression on the viewer.  Trump has an advantage in that he's not bound by normal human conscience (or even normal politician conscience) and is happy to just make things up as he goes.  There is no instant politifact to correct him, and it doesn't matter how many Pinocchios he gets in the next day's papers.  If his target audience believes those things, it doesn't matter if they are true or not.  Hillary then has to be careful about coming off as too intellectual or lawyerly when she corrects his facts.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
Don Quixote said:
LBJ decided not to run after losing primaries early on and recognized he probably wasn't going to get nominated again.

Ford and Carter lost multiple primaries when they were sitting presidents, which is what I was responding to. 
Click to expand...
Reagan ran against Carter when Carter was the incumbent president. Any primary Carter may have lost before or after does not fit as a response to the question

 
The grading on a scale for the debates means that Trump is going to be graded like a special snowflake.  Like he only crapped his pants once and therefore still deserves to win.

 
Don Quixote said:
Ford, Carter, and LBJ to name a few.  (ETA: Or are you using primary as a substitute for nomination?)
Click to expand...
The poster I responded to used the word primary. LBJ decided not to run, Carter and Ford lost an election, not a primary.

I can't recall of a sitting President losing the PArty's nomination in the primaries.

 
msommer said:
Reagan ran against Carter when Carter was the incumbent president. Any primary Carter may have lost before or after does not fit as a response to the question
Click to expand...
The question was asking if a sitting president had ever lost a primary, and Carter lost many primaries to Kennedy in 1980.

 
perry147 said:
The idea here is to ensure that Trump loses not a Hillary victory.  I have this small hope that Hillary will lose the primary in four years and not be the nominee.  I honestly like some of GJ's stances on issue but at this point I can not in good conscious vote him. 
Click to expand...
I'm reposting what Perry said because some of you are not getting the context. The key statement is his hope that Hillary will lose in the primaries in four years and not be the nominee. Not lose a single state primary, but lose in the primaries. (Granted he could have stated it more clearly, but the intent is obvious.) I asked if this has ever happened.

LBJ, Carter and Ford are not examples of a sitting President losing the nomination in the primaries. So my question has not been answered.

 
randall146 said:
On the debate issue I think Trump is dangerous for two reasons.

First, as I've pointed out before, the standard for "winning" the debate is totally different for the two candidates, just like it was for Gore-Bush and Biden-Palin.  Like Hillary, Gore and Biden were the smarter, better speakers, and much more versed in policy than their opponents.  But because everyone knew that going in and expected a blowout, those debates were seen graded as ties (or in Gore-Bush, Bush wins, based on some odd behavior by Gore).  Palin didn't answer a single question in her debate, she just did her word salad Palin-speak, but everyone thought she did better than expected.  Trump will benefit from this same phenomenon.

Second, "winning" and "losing" the debates is about the immediate visceral impression on the viewer.  Trump has an advantage in that he's not bound by normal human conscience (or even normal politician conscience) and is happy to just make things up as he goes.  There is no instant politifact to correct him, and it doesn't matter how many Pinocchios he gets in the next day's papers.  If his target audience believes those things, it doesn't matter if they are true or not.  Hillary then has to be careful about coming off as too intellectual or lawyerly when she corrects his facts.
Click to expand...
I guess I just don't think Trump's schtick is going to work on people that haven't already bought in. He's not "Presidential" in any way, and his BS is totally transparent to anyone but the absolute dimmest of bulbs.

Hopefully I'm not overestimating the American people.

 
Don Quixote said:
The question was asking if a sitting president had ever lost a primary, and Carter lost many primaries to Kennedy in 1980.
Click to expand...
Well it mihgt be semantics but it seems to me that the question was not looking at state primaries but the overall (primary) nomination 

 
Coeur de Lion said:
I guess I just don't think Trump's schtick is going to work on people that haven't already bought in. He's not "Presidential" in any way, and his BS is totally transparent to anyone but the absolute dimmest of bulbs.

Hopefully I'm not overestimating the American people.
Click to expand...
You know the old saying: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

 
bueno said:
I'm reposting what Perry said because some of you are not getting the context. The key statement is his hope that Hillary will lose in the primaries in four years and not be the nominee. Not lose a single state primary, but lose in the primaries. (Granted he could have stated it more clearly, but the intent is obvious.) I asked if this has ever happened.

LBJ, Carter and Ford are not examples of a sitting President losing the nomination in the primaries. So my question has not been answered.
Click to expand...
Google is my best friend.

Presidents denied parties nomination


When Has A President Been Denied His Party's Nomination?






July 22, 200911:04 AM ET






KEN RUDIN






This question is from Michael Stubbs of Cincinnati, Ohio:



When was the last time, if ever, that a sitting president was not nominated by his party for a second term?


It only happened once to an elected president. That was Franklin Pierce, the 14th president, who was elected as a Democrat in 1852. His pro-Southern sentiments and his policy of failing to lead on the divisive issue of slavery badly hurt his standing with the voters. Especially damaging was his support for the pro-slavery Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which backfired on him as Kansas was overrun by pro-slavery forces, mostly from the slave state of Missouri. The events angered Northerners everywhere and helped lead to the creation of the Republican Party. When Democratic delegates gathered in Cincinnati for their convention in 1856, it was clear that they had had enough of Pierce. James Buchanan, who had been defeated by Pierce for the nomination four years earlier, won the nomination on the 17th ballot.

Four other presidents were denied the nomination of their party, but none of these were elected in their own right. They were:

John Tyler, Whig, 1844. Tyler became president in 1841 following the death of William Henry Harrison. Tyler, a conservative Southerner, was out of step with many in the Whig Party, which instead nominated Henry Clay for president.

Millard Fillmore, Whig, 1852. Fillmore also ascended to the presidency following the death of the incumbent. In this case it was Zachary Taylor, who died in 1850. Taylor's death left the Whigs in disarray, and the party convention chose Gen.Winfield Scott over Fillmore and Daniel Webster.

Andrew Johnson, Democrat, 1868. Johnson, a Southerner and a Democrat, was chosen to be part of a Republican unity ticket led by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864. Following Lincoln's assassination the following year, Johnson tried in vain to win the support of the late president's allies; in fact, he was impeached and nearly convicted by a GOP Congress. The Democratic nomination went to Horatio Seymour.

Chester Arthur, Republican, 1884. Arthur was picked for VP by James Garfield in 1880 in order to help the GOP carry New York. Following Garfield's assassination in 1881, Arthur alienated his erstwhile allies by attacking the patronage system that had helped his career until that point. Arthur lost the GOP nomination to James Blaine.


 
bueno said:
The poster I responded to used the word primary. LBJ decided not to run, Carter and Ford lost an election, not a primary.

I can't recall of a sitting President losing the PArty's nomination in the primaries.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see now that talking about losing the nomination.  LBJ announced that he was not going to run after the NH primary, when he saw the writing on the wall.  Truman similarly announced that he was not going to run after losing the NH primary to Kefauver.  I think they count, since their announcements were after the primary process started, and mostly to save face.

 
Courtjester said:
As a Trump supporter what I find humerous are articles like this from CNN

CNN Poll

it is almost like CNN decided wow we have been running Trump hit pieces non-stop and we are worried that people will actually believe all of them, think Clinton has this in the bag and not turn out in numbers we need.  We better manufacture drama and fear for ratings sake.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that an article covering a third party's poll results makes your upper arm hurt?

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Yo Mama
**** OFFICIAL FFA 2025-2026 Fake NBA Draft **** - Happy Ranks-Giving!!
19 20 21
Replies
1K
Views
12K
Desert_Power
Desert_Power
DA RAIDERS
Pick a fantasy team for the Tour de France. There will be prizes!
Replies
35
Views
3K
DA RAIDERS
DA RAIDERS
kutta
***Official 2025 Footballguy T-Shirt Exchange - OCT 12 SHIPPING DEADLINE (extended 2 weeks)***
3 4 5
Replies
226
Views
6K
Dennis Castro
Dennis Castro

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top