The 2016 election.

oldsoldier wrote: As we look forward to 4 years of more idiocy from who ever wins let's take a moment to thank Obama and his accomplishments. 1. Inedible school lunches. 2. Unaffordable Health insurance 3. Blue lives no longer matter 4. And a population far more divided than before he took office despite 'the promise' of unifacation. If you do not fear the next four years of whoever is in office, you really do not understand the world around you, and the idiots we put in charge to run it.

Reb Cpl wrote: StormyKnight wrote: agentwhale007 wrote: So I guess the question I have is: If Trump is going to pull off a victory, which states break from their polling trends to get him there? I'd go out on a limb and say either New York or Pennsylvania.  Those are the only main states that would make a large enough impact.  My gut feeling is Clinton will carry both.  But of the two, I think Trump has a better chance at Pennsylvania than New York. As a New Yorker, I can say with almost certainty that Trump won't take it. As with most other cases, "Upstate" will vote republican, but "The City' historically votes democratic, and carries through each time. It's one of the frustrations of living in the rural part of NY. The overwhelming geographic majority of the state carries zero weight in elections at the state or national level....even when the republican candidates aren't jackasses. The whim of NYC is where everything ends up.

I really do not trust the polls, as a lot of 'underground' Trump supports for fear of Democrat 'retribution' are staying 'down' till they get in the voting booth.

NH was up in the air last I saw. PA is a possible swing for Trump. Not sure if the polling there has really gotten out into the "T" that tends to go conservative or not. I do know that driving through there to see the inlaws, I see a LOT more Trump signs than Hillary signs.

MD could be interesting in theory. We just voted in a Republican governor 2 years ago, and the Senate and House races are anything but a done-deal. Szeliga is carrying a lot of weight with cross-over democrats that also voted for Hogan during the Gubernatorial races, same goes for Amie Hoeber in the House race in my district. Dems have done a lot of early voting, but the reality here is that a "D" on your voter's registration doesn't guarantee a vote for that party anymore. There's been a HUGE "DINO" push recently to affect the primaries as much as possible to shake up the state's situation. So who knows which way it'll go in the end. I think it'll still go Clinton, but it'll be a tighter race than she'd have hoped for.

usafpilot07 wrote: Trump ending up as the Republican nomination in a year when the GOP should have been able to stomp towards a landslide, and Hillary ending up in a tight race hoping swing states don't fall against her even though she's against Trump: Both exceptional examples of how horribly mismanaged both major parties are.

Yup. The GOP could have put virgually ANYONE up there other than Trump and won in a landslide. I'll be interested to see how any super delegates are added to the GOP convention process in the next 4 years.

I made this handy election day guide.

usafpilot07 wrote: Interesting to see so many newspapers officially endorse Clinton. So, corporations should be restricted when it comes to campaign contributions and political voice, but ones from the media should be allowed to be partisan. Got it. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/2016_newspaper_endorsements.php

Well that went differently than expected. 

I'm going going back back to war war. 

Me right now.