Trump To Win The General. What Do You Think

[dieseldick]

https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-likely-to-win-the-2016-election


i think people will vote in trumo, they have seen enough of hillary, they have seen through her lies, she has been around 8 yrs then bill before her, she will not win.

my moneys on trump . Media URL: https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-likely-to-win-the-2016-election
Description:

[Old_Geezer]

Well let's be honest, we all got Trump totally wrong. Seems that he is an amazingly gifted visionary after all !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36219612

[jim360]

Trump still doesn't have his own party onside. He'll need that to happen before his election becomes even possible, let alone likely. I suppose, from Trump's point of view, he couldn't have asked for a better opposing candidate in Hillary Clinton.

He's too polarising, I'd have thought. Just as Corbyn thrashed all-comers from within his own party, so has Trump, but neither leader can necessarily be expected to appeal more widely.

[naomi24]

I think he might just do it.

[Old_Geezer]

But Clinton is polarising too. It'll be interesting to see how close it is: or is not.

[jim360]

Clinton isn't polarising at all, or at least not in the same way.

People love Trump, or absolutely detest him, and a majority appear to go for the latter; he is currently running the highest negative approval ratings in US history, apparently (see http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating ).

Clinton is more of a "meh" candidate, really. That could play into Trump's hands. But the elections just gone were merely for a candidate, and provided an ample opportunity to send a message without consequence. The election in November is for real -- might that count against Trump? Maybe, or maybe not. If anyone can defy political common sense, Trump can.

[naomi24]

We all know about polls.

[jim360]

As in, that polls are right some of the time?

[Old_Geezer]

If she is not there seems to be a lot of opinions expressed of the "love her" or "hate her" style.

[naomi24]

Polls can only be deemed accurate after the event.

[jim360]

Depends on the event in question. For polls asking, "do you like such-and-such a candidate now?", the event of "now" happened as soon as the question was asked, so they can be fairly accurate measures of how someone is perceived. The same or similar polls have also spent the last nine months or so telling us that Trump was on course to win, and win big, in the Republican race. So... that turned out to be pretty accurate too.

At the moment, the polls show that Trump is disliked by many more people than he is liked by, and also that, since the polls started, his ratings have essentially remained constant. Clinton's picture is similar but less polarized. Once they start going head-to-head, it will be interesting to see how Clinton copes, although she's managed just about to hold off concerted opposition from her left.

[naomi24]

Jim, last year the polls revealed that a lot of people said they liked Labour.....

[jim360]

Did they? They revealed that about 35% of people might vote for Labour, essentially the same as the Tory predicted vote share. That was not exactly a ringing endorsement. In the event, the Labour vote share was overestimated, but it wasn't a collapse from predicted Labour majority to actual Labour destruction.

And besides, the two pictures are rather harder to compare at further levels, too. In practice, the US election is still a two-horse race; in the UK, there were about six parties competing for a reasonable vote share, if not seats. You aren't comparing like with like when you question the US results by drawing attention to the recent failures in the UK.

In most cases, polling remains a reasonably accurate measure of people's intentions (but intentions aren't always outcomes, of course) and opinions. At any rate, they are the best we can expect to do.

[naomi24]

Jim,//Did they? //

Yes, they did. Labour was pretty consistently ahead in the polls - in fact we on here were treated in no uncertain terms to regular updates! But perhaps you've forgotten. Anyway, you believe those that suit you if you like. I'll reserve judgement.

[mikey4444]

DD....I sincerely hope he doesn't. The world will be a much more dangerous place if this ogre is in the White House.

[jim360]

Most of the polls had Labour neck-and-neck with the Tories, and not leading convincingly, so that's a plain misrepresentation to say that they were giving Labour a lead. As to your last point... I don't believe those that suit me. It doesn't suit me to see Trump predicted to win big in so many states. It doesn't suit me to see Bernie Sanders trailing Clinton -- I think you'll have gathered by now I find frustrating that she's going to be the Democrat nominee. It doesn't suit me to see, for that matter -- in a poll you were only too happy to accept in full, even when you didn't read all of it -- to see all those results painting a sizable number of Muslims in a bad light.

So no, I don't just believe polls that "suit" me -- that's a ridiculous and entirely false claim.

[mikey4444]

Well said Jim !

[naomi24]

Mikey, come off it! You were the one posting the polls!!

[dieseldick]

mikey..wise up !!!!

obama ?
corbyn - uk ?
now we have a muslim mayor.....................hmmmmmmmmmmmmm