politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Your timetable for this historic day

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Your timetable for this historic day

November 8th 2016 (all times GMT)

Read the full story here

nunu

Surely Trump should win easily in those two tiny areas in New Hampshire? They are rural and I'm guessing white which is like the only group he does well with.

williamglenn

Trump's final rally in Michigan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLERzuzgOaY

RobD

Third like Scottish Labour!

Charles

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

RobD

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Yeah, it stinks.

619

https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/795826068255100928u

williamglenn

RobD said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Yeah, it stinks.

What's the mood in the east bay? A write in landslide for Bernie on the cards?

SimonStClare

Morning all – Cheers Mr Hayfield, much appreciated.

AndyJS

Thanks Harry.

AndyJS

Dixville Notch has seven voters this year, six in person and one absentee.

How it's has voted down the years:

1960: Nixon 9, Kennedy 0.
1964: Goldwater 8, Johnson 1.
1968: Humphrey 8, Nixon 4.
1972: Nixon 16, McGovern 3.
1976: Ford 13, Carter 11, McCarthy 1.
1980: Reagan 17, Carter 3, Anderson 2, Clark 1.
1984: Reagan 29, Mondale 1.
1988: Bush 34, Dukakis 3, Kemp 1.
1992: Bush 15, Perot 8, Marrou 5, Clinton 2.
1996: Dole 18, Clinton 8, Perot 1, Browne 1.
2000: Bush 21, Gore 5, Nader 1.
2004: Bush 19, Kerry 7.
2008: Obama 15, McCain 6.
2012: Obama 5, Romney 5.

nunu

AndyJS said:

Dixville Notch has seven voters this year, six in person and one absentee.

How it's has voted down the years:

1960: Nixon 9, Kennedy 0.
1964: Goldwater 8, Johnson 1.
1968: Humphrey 8, Nixon 4.
1972: Nixon 16, McGovern 3.
1976: Ford 13, Carter 11, McCarthy 1.
1980: Reagan 17, Carter 3, Anderson 2, Clark 1.
1984: Reagan 29, Mondale 1.
1988: Bush 34, Dukakis 3, Kemp 1.
1992: Bush 15, Perot 8, Marrou 5, Clinton 2.
1996: Dole 18, Clinton 8, Perot 1, Browne 1.
2000: Bush 21, Gore 5, Nader 1.
2004: Bush 19, Kerry 7.
2008: Obama 15, McCain 6.
2012: Obama 5, Romney 5.

Looks like its pretty right wing apart from for Obama. Doesn't seem like a Clinton friendly place.

Charles

AndyJS said:

Dixville Notch has seven voters this year, six in person and one absentee.

How it's has voted down the years:

1960: Nixon 9, Kennedy 0.
1964: Goldwater 8, Johnson 1.
1968: Humphrey 8, Nixon 4.
1972: Nixon 16, McGovern 3.
1976: Ford 13, Carter 11, McCarthy 1.
1980: Reagan 17, Carter 3, Anderson 2, Clark 1.
1984: Reagan 29, Mondale 1.
1988: Bush 34, Dukakis 3, Kemp 1.
1992: Bush 15, Perot 8, Marrou 5, Clinton 2.
1996: Dole 18, Clinton 8, Perot 1, Browne 1.
2000: Bush 21, Gore 5, Nader 1.
2004: Bush 19, Kerry 7.
2008: Obama 15, McCain 6.
2012: Obama 5, Romney 5.

30% decline in turnout

RobD

AndyJS said:

Dixville Notch has seven voters this year, six in person and one absentee.

How it's has voted down the years:

1960: Nixon 9, Kennedy 0.
1964: Goldwater 8, Johnson 1.
1968: Humphrey 8, Nixon 4.
1972: Nixon 16, McGovern 3.
1976: Ford 13, Carter 11, McCarthy 1.
1980: Reagan 17, Carter 3, Anderson 2, Clark 1.
1984: Reagan 29, Mondale 1.
1988: Bush 34, Dukakis 3, Kemp 1.
1992: Bush 15, Perot 8, Marrou 5, Clinton 2.
1996: Dole 18, Clinton 8, Perot 1, Browne 1.
2000: Bush 21, Gore 5, Nader 1.
2004: Bush 19, Kerry 7.
2008: Obama 15, McCain 6.
2012: Obama 5, Romney 5.

Severe depopulation there!

nunu

Dixie notch results:

Putin write in 5 - Jamie Dimon write in 5.

Harambe 2.

Sandpit

Morning all. Thanks Harry for the informative thread. Orders large bag of popcorn and sufficient alcohol for a very long night ahead.

RobD

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Yeah, it stinks.

What's the mood in the east bay? A write in landslide for Bernie on the cards?

Ready to feel the Bern?

AndyJS

Voting taking place in Dixville Notch:

http://www.livenewson.com/american/cnn-news-usa.html

Charles

AndyJS said:

Voting taking place in Dixville Notch:

http://www.livenewson.com/american/cnn-news-usa.html

CLINTON 4 / TRUMP 2.

4 votes still to be counted...

(sunderland would be done by now...)

Pulpstar

Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch

AndyJS

If Clinton wins with 6 out of 8 voters being white men, that has to be a good result from her point of view.

RobD

Pulpstar said:

Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch

Election is done now, right?

williamglenn

Write in for Mitt Romney!

AndyJS

Clinton 4
Trump 2
Johnson 1
Romney (write-in) 1

Charles

Pulpstar said:

Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch

Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)

I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:

4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows

RobD

Charles said:

Pulpstar said:

Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch

Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)

I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:

4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows

I thought they could legally only declare if they had 100% turnout?

AndyJS

That's it, Clinton has won.

Charles

RobD said:

Charles said:

Pulpstar said:

Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch

Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)

I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:

4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows

I thought they could legally only declare if they had 100% turnout?

Do you think I'm a politics nerd or something?

nunu

williamglenn said:

Write in for Mitt Romney!

If trump won both Romney and Johnson he would have drew. Shows he's not keeping his base.

nunu

Charles said:

Pulpstar said:

Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch

Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)

I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:

4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows

Andy says its seven this year.(before result).

ToryJim

So in essence the results last time were 50:50 and Hillary has held up the Dem share but Trump hasn't maintained the GOP share and seen some go to Johnson and some to write in. If that is repeated nationwide then Hillary is going to have a good day.

AndyJS

nunu said:

Charles said:

Pulpstar said:

Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch

Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)

I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:

4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows

Andy says its seven this year.(before result).

That's what they said on CNN beforehand.

nunu

Josh Jordan
Josh Jordan – Verified account ‏@NumbersMuncher

Mitt Romney currently has 12.5% of the vote in Dixville Notch... which just goes to show how completely screwed the Republican party is.

RobD

nunu said:

Josh Jordan
Josh Jordan – Verified account ‏@NumbersMuncher

Mitt Romney currently has 12.5% of the vote in Dixville Notch... which just goes to show how completely screwed the Republican party is.

That may be a tad hyperbolic. He is correct regarding the party though.

ToryJim

Better news for Trump in Millsfield NH just scored a 16-4 blow out there.

Pulpstar

Trump wins Millsfield loses Hart

RobD

Pulpstar said:

Trump wins Millsfield loses Hart

The Electoral College is surely populated now?

AndyJS

Result from Hart's Location, New Hampshire:

Clinton 17
Trump 14
Johnson 3
Sanders 2

Result from Millsfield, New Hampshire:

Trump 16
Clinton 4
Sanders 1

Pulpstar

Hart's location weirdly trended democrat judging by its primary count

Pulpstar

Bernie Sanders DESTROYING Mitt Romney right now

AndyJS

Seems weird that some places have finished voting while Clinton and Trump's final rallies are still going on.

Charles

nunu said:

Charles said:

Pulpstar said:

Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch

Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)

I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:

4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows

Andy says its seven this year.(before result).

4+2+1 = 7. I think.

not_on_fire

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

Pulpstar

2016 New Hampshire midnight voting (Dixville Notch, Harts, Millsfield):

Trump 32 Clinton 25

2012:

Obama 28 Romney 14

Perhaps its NOT all over

nunu

Pulpstar said:

Bernie Sanders DESTROYING Mitt Romney right now

The battle of the New Englanders.

RobD

Pulpstar said:

2016 New Hampshire midnight voting (Dixville Notch, Harts, Millsfield):

Trump 32 Clinton 25

2012:

Obama 28 Romney 14

Perhaps its NOT all over

Grab those bags of popcorn!

Pulpstar

Millsfield, NH 2012: Romney 16, Obama 5 Millsfield, NH 2016: Trump 16, Clinton 4, Sanders 1
Hart's Location election results 2012: Obama 23, Romney 9

So actually

Notch - good for Clinton
Harts - Good for Trump
Millsfield - Same

Overall +ve for Trump maybe

RobD

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

Why would you want to modify FPTP? It is the zenith of voting systems.

FluffyThoughts

Off-topic:

And from memory (t'Economist many, many, many moons ago) the only US state with the right to leave 'the Union' is Maine. Following the War of 1812 the UK returned northeastern Massachusetts - a loyalist stronghold - back to the Septics: Maine then sought succession from the Boston [MODERATED]!

So Maine may leave the USA but only on condition that the state returns to The Crown. One for Canada to monitor....

MarqueeMark

Pulpstar said:

Millsfield, NH 2012: Romney 16, Obama 5 Millsfield, NH 2016: Trump 16, Clinton 4, Sanders 1
Hart's Location election results 2012: Obama 23, Romney 9

So actually

Notch - good for Clinton
Harts - Good for Trump
Millsfield - Same

Overall +ve for Trump maybe

Results not polls, people.....

Black_Rook

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.

Charles

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

Nigelb

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them). </blockquote

The top Republican candidate received around 8% of the vote in the primary. It's hardly a democratic outrage that they are not on the ballot

Nigelb

Black_Rook said:

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.

And without the racism. "Strident rhetoric about Mexico" doesn't quite catch it.

Nigelb

Black_Rook said:

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.

And that candidate could just as well be a better version of Saunders running as a Democrat against the Clinton legacy.

Charles

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

In 2012, the last Senate election, the Republican candidate received 37.5% of the vote.

So about 60% of the votes should equal 100% of the seats? And c. 40% of the voters not even getting the chance to vote for a party of their choice?

I think it is outrageous that a party is prevented from standing a candidate in a general election.

DecrepitJohnL

Black_Rook said:

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.

And maybe finding a Democrat screw-up -- Flint is a Republican scandal.

But what Trump has shown is, first, that the GOP establishment has just as big a sense of entitlement as Hillary Clinton, and its scions are equally poor at campaigning; second, and more importantly, that the appeal of Tea Partiers and Ted Cruz is not their policies but their outsider status.

Taken together, there is room next time for a decent GOP campaigner who is neither extremist nor bat-shit crazy.

Pong

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

RobD

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Welcome back Pong! An interesting bet

Black_Rook

Nigelb said:

Black_Rook said:

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.

And without the racism. "Strident rhetoric about Mexico" doesn't quite catch it.

Hmmm... you may be being overly optimistic there. It all rather depends on the relative strength of the candidates. Arguably, given how close this election looks like being in terms of vote share, a Republican candidate with an aptitude for subtle dog-whistling (as opposed to giving serious offence to most voter groups) would be on course for victory today.

Nigelb said:

And that candidate could just as well be a better version of Sanders running as a Democrat against the Clinton legacy.

Quite possibly, yes. I don't know if anyone has any evidence to hand about the extent of switching of support directly from Sanders to Trump after the former was beaten to the Democratic nomination, but I am given to understand that it is actually a thing.

Gallowgate

Can we gleam anything from the midnight voting? I tried to compare primary voter numbers (democrat/republican) to actual results but every 'town' seemed different...

not_on_fire

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)

ToryJim

Gallowgate said:

Can we gleam anything from the midnight voting? I tried to compare primary voter numbers (democrat/republican) to actual results but every 'town' seemed different...

Probably not much.

not_on_fire

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

In 2012, the last Senate election, the Republican candidate received 37.5% of the vote.

So about 60% of the votes should equal 100% of the seats? And c. 40% of the voters not even getting the chance to vote for a party of their choice?

I think it is outrageous that a party is prevented from standing a candidate in a general election.

Voters had the chance to vote Republican in the first round, and none of the Republicans were popular enough to finish in the top 2.

I'm no fan of FPTP abut it's odd to see people who think it's fine for Westminster criticise essentially the same system in a different election.

RobD

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

In 2012, the last Senate election, the Republican candidate received 37.5% of the vote.

So about 60% of the votes should equal 100% of the seats? And c. 40% of the voters not even getting the chance to vote for a party of their choice?

I think it is outrageous that a party is prevented from standing a candidate in a general election.

Voters had the chance to vote Republican in the first round, and none of the Republicans were popular enough to finish in the top 2.

I'm no fan of FPTP abut it's odd to see people who think it's fine for Westminster criticise essentially the same system in a different election.

FPTP in Westminster only has one candidate from each party, so a big stretch to say "essentially the same system".

ToryJim

I do love election reporting as it always follows a pattern of shoehorning the facts to fit a narrative rather than actually determining what the facts are telling you.

Sandpit

Black_Rook said:

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.

Absolutely. There's a huge amount of resentment from those who don't think politics works for them in the US, a similar insurgent with fewer negatives than Trump stands a good chance in the future.

Charles

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?

Charles

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)

Even so why shouldn't the Republicans be allowed to put up a candidate?

Charles

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

In 2012, the last Senate election, the Republican candidate received 37.5% of the vote.

So about 60% of the votes should equal 100% of the seats? And c. 40% of the voters not even getting the chance to vote for a party of their choice?

I think it is outrageous that a party is prevented from standing a candidate in a general election.

Voters had the chance to vote Republican in the first round, and none of the Republicans were popular enough to finish in the top 2.

I'm no fan of FPTP abut it's odd to see people who think it's fine for Westminster criticise essentially the same system in a different election.

No publicity, minimal turnout.

A proper run off system (like France) is fine although I don't like the delay. This isn't that.

ToryJim

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)

Even so why shouldn't the Republicans be allowed to put up a candidate?

They do but it's the vagaries of the jungle primary

foxinsoxuk

Charles said:

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?

There was one in 1916 too.

YellowSubmarine

Come on Hillzilla ! The West needs you.

Pong

Charles said:

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?

Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.

Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;

1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.

Charles

ToryJim said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)

Even so why shouldn't the Republicans be allowed to put up a candidate?

They do but it's the vagaries of the jungle primary

Which was set up by the Democrats to bias towards them

Charles

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?

There was one in 1916 too.

Guess they felt 1916/1 would be too generous...

foxinsoxuk

Pong said:

Charles said:

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?

Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.

Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;

1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.

Declarations of war are a bit old fashioned, most wars happen without nowadays.

weejonnie

If I were a democrat I would be concerned about Sanders Write-ins.

YellowSubmarine

foxinsoxuk said:

Pong said:

Charles said:

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?

Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.

Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;

1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.

Declarations of war are a bit old fashioned, most wars happen without nowadays.

And Trump can't declare War. Constitutionally that power is reserved to Congress.

RochdalePioneers

Idiot American electoral system with polls closing stupidly early and the telly declaring the winner before they finish counting the votes...

Anyway, busy at work (with good things in the offing and people I need to continue impressing) and a choice of viewing- do I go to my friend's party and stay up late, or do I stay home go to bed really early then get up around 2am?

Charles

YellowSubmarine said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Pong said:

Charles said:

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?

Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.

Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;

1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.

Declarations of war are a bit old fashioned, most wars happen without nowadays.

And Trump can't declare War. Constitutionally that power is reserved to Congress.

Why would you need to declare war? We've always been at war with Eurasia

ToryJim

Pong said:

Charles said:

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?

Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.

Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;

1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.

Even if he wins the Presidency, Trump can't declare war on anyone. That power is reserved to congress.

not_on_fire

Charles said:

ToryJim said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)

Even so why shouldn't the Republicans be allowed to put up a candidate?

They do but it's the vagaries of the jungle primary

Which was set up by the Democrats to bias towards them

Only in the sense that the Democrats are far more popular than the Republicans in California. Nothing to stop the Reps just running one candidate in the first round. If they are sufficiently popular, they'll make it through.

Of course, AV would be a far better system (no joke) to use here.

MarqueeMark

weejonnie said:

If I were a democrat I would be concerned about Sanders Write-ins.

That was the biggest surprise about these early results. Tiny sample and being in the spotlight makes it more worthwhile to make a protest. But even so, if you are a Trump-hating Democrat but still think the Clinton Foundation has a nasty smell about it, Sanders is the way to still feel good about yourself. If he were to do this well nationwide...a tenth of the Democrat vote would be far bigger than the polls have suggested.

That said, I don't know how you write in on voting machines? Is it easier to do in New Hampshire?

Charles

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

ToryJim said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?

It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.

My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).

Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)

Even so why shouldn't the Republicans be allowed to put up a candidate?

They do but it's the vagaries of the jungle primary

Which was set up by the Democrats to bias towards them

Only in the sense that the Democrats are far more popular than the Republicans in California. Nothing to stop the Reps just running one candidate in the first round.

49% turnout. If it were the GOP restricting the ease of the vote you'd be screaming bloody murder

not_on_fire

ToryJim said:

Pong said:

Charles said:

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?

Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.

Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;

1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.

Even if he wins the Presidency, Trump can't declare war on anyone. That power is reserved to congress.

Other than women, hispanics, reason....

edmundintokyo

ToryJim said:

Pong said:

Charles said:

Pong said:

https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics

Say Your Prez

US Politics - Say Your Prez

Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico

Stake
£10.00

Odds
1846/1

Bet Cost
£10.00

Potential Return
£18,470.00

Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.

Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?

Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.

Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;

1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.

Even if he wins the Presidency, Trump can't declare war on anyone. That power is reserved to congress.

lol

Edit: See your point. They'd go to war, not declare war.

edmundintokyo

Pulpstar said:

2016 New Hampshire midnight voting (Dixville Notch, Harts, Millsfield):

Trump 32 Clinton 25

2012:

Obama 28 Romney 14

Perhaps its NOT all over

Huge rural-urban divide this time, I imagine.

Monksfield

RobD said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Yeah, it stinks.

Shouldn't be that hard for the GOP to get someone in the top 2, they only have to nominate a decent candidate. Anyway it's not that dissmiliar to what happens in Louisiana. Any comment on that?

edmundintokyo

Black_Rook said:

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.

OTOH low-education white men are a declining demographic, that's why they're losing control of the country and that in turn is why they're so angry. I'm not saying it's impossible to win on this platform in 2020, but it's getting harder all the time.

Charles

Monksfield said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Yeah, it stinks.

Shouldn't be that hard for the GOP to get someone in the top 2, they only have to nominate a decent candidate. Anyway it's not that dissmiliar to what happens in Louisiana. Any comment on that?

I don't know the system in Louisiana but if it's the same my reaction would be the same.

There should be no restricting on who wants to stand as a candidate in the full election. I don't like second round systems and especially not those that are designed to limit the choice of the voters to a single party.

logical_song

Monksfield said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).

When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.

Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.

They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.

Yeah, it stinks.

Shouldn't be that hard for the GOP to get someone in the top 2, they only have to nominate a decent candidate. Anyway it's not that dissmiliar to what happens in Louisiana. Any comment on that?

The US needs an electoral commission.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/05/the_gop_screwed_themselves_the_brilliant_gerrymander_that_gave_republicans_the_congress_and_created_donald_trump/

Monksfield

edmundintokyo said:

Black_Rook said:

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

Railing against globalisation. How are we going to deal with AI?

foxinsoxuk

edmundintokyo said:

Black_Rook said:

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.

OTOH low-education white men are a declining demographic, that's why they're losing control of the country and that in turn is why they're so angry. I'm not saying it's impossible to win on this platform in 2020, but it's getting harder all the time.

I agree with that analysis. It is not going to get easier for the Repulicans, especially with the campaign costs to run. If only multi millionaires can afford to then it is a pretty shalllow pool to fish in.

Casino_Royale

edmundintokyo said:

Black_Rook said:

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.

OTOH low-education white men are a declining demographic, that's why they're losing control of the country and that in turn is why they're so angry. I'm not saying it's impossible to win on this platform in 2020, but it's getting harder all the time.

Not to worry. I'm sure it will end well.

Alistair

Is it over yet? Who won?

Pong

Looks like the SP is 1.22/5.5

Any other GOP candidate would have been between 1/5 and evens vs. Hillary on the day of the election, IMO.

ANY other candidate.

Even the thoroughly unlikeable Ted Cruz would have run HRC close.

ToryJim

Alistair said:

Is it over yet? Who won?

The Lizards who control everything! If only we'd listened to David Icke!

ThreeQuidder

Alistair said:

Is it over yet? Who won?

We all win 24 hours from now when it's finally over...

logical_song

Nate now showing both Florida and North Carolina for Hillary.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

GeoffM

edmundintokyo said:

Black_Rook said:

Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:

"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.

OTOH low-education white men are a declining demographic, that's why they're losing control of the country and that in turn is why they're so angry. I'm not saying it's impossible to win on this platform in 2020, but it's getting harder all the time.

Amnesty and a few other changes by Clinton that can be done by Executive Order and the entire voting demographics of the USA will be changed overnight and forever.

The GOP will never win nationally again.