New Predictions

[brimstoneSalad]

Trade is one issue, and Johnson has the position of establishment republicans on it, which makes me think Johnson appeals in that regard to republicans who feel disaffected with Donald Trump. But again, that's one issue.

A lot of those votes (along with independents) should belong to Hillary, though. They weren't going to vote for Trump.
She's one of the most conservative Democrats in a long time, and a number of establishment Republicans have come out to say they are reluctantly voting for her because they can't support Trump.
Johnson, seen as a middle ground for them to not support Trump but also not vote for Hillary, may steal those votes along with a sizable block of socially liberal independents who would never vote Republican (because Johnson himself is very likable and socially liberal). If Johnson was a socially conservative asshole, I wouldn't be as worried about him stealing votes from Hillary.
He's probably also going to be very popular with the Hispanic block, many of whom may support him over Hillary (Trump had no hope with that demographic).

That's true about him being socially liberal, but I think the more establishment republicans who hate Trump would overlook that.

I agree that they'll overlook that, but we need them voting for Hillary to stop Trump. Giving them another option is probably a bad idea.

The liberal independents who supported Bernie seem unlikely to go to Johnson.

I disagree. A lot of people who supported Sanders did so on what they saw as his character. Now that Sanders is out of the race, Johnson is probably the most likable human being running. He could pull a lot of support from independents on that basis.

A big part of Bernie's campaign was trade, and Bernie favored protectionism.

The people who liked Sanders because of protectionism have already flocked to Trump. Those who liked his socially liberal beliefs and character, or even anti-establishment principles and consistency, are likely to move to Johnson.

They also disagree about pretty much all economic issues, and solving income inequality through liberal policies was at the heart of Bernie's campaign.

Doesn't really matter, I don't think most people are that insightful. Consequentialists who are mainly concerned with social welfare were mostly already on board with Clinton; it's Sanders' anti-establishment rhetoric that drew support.

[EquALLity]

A lot of those votes (along with independents) should belong to Hillary, though. They weren't going to vote for Trump.

I don't think it's clear that all the anti-Trump republicans would go to Hillary. Republicans hate Hillary Clinton.

She's one of the most conservative Democrats in a long time, and a number of establishment Republicans have come out to say they are reluctantly voting for her because they can't support Trump.

She is? >.<
I thought she was just like any other establishment democrat.

Either way, that's not how conservatives see it. They might hate her more than Obama.

That's true about the republicans, but far more have come out in support of Trump.

along with a sizable block of socially liberal independents who would never vote Republican (because Johnson himself is very likable and socially liberal). If Johnson was a socially conservative asshole, I wouldn't be as worried about him stealing votes from Hillary.

That's an interesting point.
I still think the establishment republicans make up a larger chunk of the electorate than those particular liberals, though.
A lot of those liberals probably wouldn't have voted anyway. They would've stayed home.

He's probably also going to be very popular with the Hispanic block, many of whom may support him over Hillary

What makes you think that?

(Trump had no hope with that demographic).

I wonder why.

I agree that they'll overlook that, but we need them voting for Hillary to stop Trump. Giving them another option is probably a bad idea.

I don't think all of them are going to support Hillary.

I disagree. A lot of people who supported Sanders did so on what they saw as his character. Now that Sanders is out of the race, Johnson is probably the most likable human being running. He could pull a lot of support from independents on that basis.

That's interesting, but like I said, I don't think those liberals would've voted for Clinton anyway.

The people who liked Sanders because of protectionism have already flocked to Trump. Those who liked his socially liberal beliefs and character, or even anti-establishment principles and consistency, are likely to move to Johnson.

That's not true. Liberals tend to be protectionist than conservatives in general, from my understanding. It's not really a huge issue for most people though.

Doesn't really matter, I don't think most people are that insightful. Consequentialists who are mainly concerned with social welfare were mostly already on board with Clinton; it's Sanders' anti-establishment rhetoric that drew support.

Are you saying that Clinton supporters were rational liberals, and that Bernie supporters didn't care about policy and just cared about rhetoric?

Every politician tries to sound anti-establishment. Even Hillary Clinton said she wasn't apart of the establishment because she's a woman running for President.
The reason why what Bernie was saying resonated wasn't just because he used rhetoric, it was because his record actually backs up the idea of him being an anti-establishment person of integrity. It was about policy; the rhetoric was just a helpful tool to get people excited.

Anyway, you don't have to be that insightful. Anyone who knows anything about Bernie knows that a huge part of his campaign was income inequality. I don't think that's the most important issue in politics, but that was certainly at the heart of his campaign. I think most Bernie supporters wouldn't go to Johnson do to that, though I concede that some pretty much only cared about him being anti-establishment and likable.

[EquALLity]

Who else voted for moderately and slightly Hillary Clinton?

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think it's clear that all the anti-Trump republicans would go to Hillary. Republicans hate Hillary Clinton.

They hate Trump more, and they know how it works.

There are a lot of lists like this, and growing all of the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/30/heres-the-growing-list-of-big-name-republicans-supporting-hillary-clinton/

This seems to be unprecedented in political history, as far as I know.

If they start swinging to Johnson instead, that could put Hillary's race in jeopardy.

That's true about the republicans, but far more have come out in support of Trump.

Doesn't matter. Trump is the default assumed position of republicans. Those are the votes we always assumed he had. We don't see mainstream Democrats coming out against Clinton in the same way. There's a broken symmetry here.

That's an interesting point.
I still think the establishment republicans make up a larger chunk of the electorate than those particular liberals, though.

Independents often decide elections, because they're swing voters. We can't underestimate their importance.

In most elections, we have assumed democrat support and assumed republican support, and it's pretty close. Independents are an important part of the tie breaker (along with voter turnout, which favors Democrats).

A lot of those liberals probably wouldn't have voted anyway. They would've stayed home.

But some of them would have.

He's probably also going to be very popular with the Hispanic block, many of whom may support him over Hillary

What makes you think that?

He's pretty big on open borders, and had a little rant against calling them "illegal".

I don't think all of them are going to support Hillary.

They don't have to. Republicans swinging basically count double, because they reduce Trump's support and increase Hillary's. A small number have a huge effect on the polls.

That's interesting, but like I said, I don't think those liberals would've voted for Clinton anyway.

Not to stop Trump? I don't know about that. Hate can motivate voter turnout too.

That's not true. Liberals tend to be protectionist than conservatives in general, from my understanding. It's not really a huge issue for most people though.

The Democratic party is pretty much identical on Free trade. They're not significantly more protectionist, maybe even less so, from what I know it's not a partisan thing.

Are you saying that Clinton supporters were rational liberals, and that Bernie supporters didn't care about policy and just cared about rhetoric?

For the most part.

The reason why what Bernie was saying resonated wasn't just because he used rhetoric, it was because his record actually backs up the idea of him being an anti-establishment person of integrity.

Being anti-establishment is a point of rhetoric. Having a long history of it, likewise. If it's really about policy, it should be about what politicians believe today, not what they've advocated in the past.

Anyway, you don't have to be that insightful. Anyone who knows anything about Bernie knows that a huge part of his campaign was income inequality. I don't think that's the most important issue in politics, but that was certainly at the heart of his campaign.

It's a big part of Trump's too.

[PsYcHo]

If I were a betting man, I'd liquidate all my assets an put the money on Hillary. Not that I like her, I just think she will win.

(VOTE GARY JOHNSON! If there has ever been a time in history when a third party candidate SHOULD win, now is that time.)

[EquALLity]

Changing my vote to that I think Hillary Clinton will win, strongly.

I think the sexual assault tapes hurt him, 'bigly'. He's down by a lot in important swing states (he's even pulled out advertising in some of those states, indicating he's giving up), his son just went on TV and said winning the election would be a step DOWN for Donald Trump, Roger Ailes ditched the campaign because Trump 'couldn't focus', he quite clearly got destroyed in the last debate, and Hillary Clinton is leading in all the important swing states and even some deeply red states.

Thank god... I don't even think I need to do phone-banking for Hillary Clinton. It's over. *sigh of relief*
I believe she'll win in a landslide.

How was this election even ever CLOSE?

My grandmother's friend posted this on FB. So you want a President who talks like a Middle Schooler? *facepalm*

[brimstoneSalad]

Changing my vote to that I think Hillary Clinton will win, strongly.

Predictions don't necessarily take into account the likely unprecedented level of election rigging by meddling republicans who control key swing states.

They have the power to shut down polls and selectively throw bureaucratic red tape across certain districts by changing the process and creating long lines, basically blocking huge swaths of the population (in districts that are more minorities or democrat) from voting.

https://thinkprogress.org/north-carolina-counties-that-slashed-early-voting-sites-see-hours-long-lines-fcffa0151748

Guilford County reduced the number of polling sites in the first week of early voting from 16 in 2012 to a single location this year. Turnout so far is down 85 percent.

If Republicans effectively block 85% of minority voter turnout, Trump could still take the white house.

Maybe you should phone bank.

How was this election even ever CLOSE?

It doesn't have to be that close for Republicans to steal it. Unless you think Trump and his generation of Republicans are too honorable to do something like that...

[EquALLity]

Predictions don't necessarily take into account the likely unprecedented level of election rigging by meddling republicans who control key swing states.

They have the power to shut down polls and selectively throw bureaucratic red tape across certain districts by changing the process and creating long lines, basically blocking huge swaths of the population (in districts that are more minorities or democrat) from voting.

https://thinkprogress.org/north-carolin ... ffa0151748

So basically what the democratic party did to Bernie Sanders in the democratic primary.

If Republicans effectively block 85% of minority voter turnout, Trump could still take the white house.

Maybe you should phone bank.

Holy shit, 85?! O_O
Ok, maybe I should phone bank.

It doesn't have to be that close for Republicans to steal it. Unless you think Trump and his generation of Republicans are too honorable to do something like that...

[EquALLity]

Ok, I take it all back. The polls have tightened substantially.
Shit... O_O

Trump is very likely to win Ohio, Florida is basically even, and he's making a comeback in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania (the idea that Pennsylvania will vote red seems unlikely based on it's record, but it IS a purple state).
If he wins those states and holds onto the states he's already expected to win, then he'll become President.

He's also surging in Virginia and Colorado.
If she wins Virginia, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, then she can win without Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina. But her leads are slipping all across the country.

Please, if you can, donate to Hillary Clinton's campaign, or volunteer for it. It really can make a difference in an election so close. Her national lead in the popular vote has completely evaporated, and it's now within the margin of error.

He's surging. After all this time of his decline, he's SURGING right before the election.
It seems like it's primarily because of the FBI re-opening the email investigation, which is because of Anthony Weiner, of all people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t_blwDZfrg

[miniboes]

I ain't gonna change my vote but this is getting pretty damn scary