It's just 5% of funding Rev, it doesn't matter, you're wasting your vote, right? That money can't be spent on promoting the party and making it grow, resistance is futile, you should just succumb to Clinton-borg Collective or the Trumpian Empire. God, this makes me so pissed off.
She thought that's how you play Whack-a-Mole on iOS, you can't blame her. It said to tap at the moles, so she did - no harm done.
First, that would require that one care more about these things than about who wins the election this year. My point was about people who care who wins between the big two.
Clinton did not send or receive emails properly marked as classified. The c you're referring to is an improper marking, and it's in the body of the email. That means one has to open it in order to see that it's classified. Whoops.
The issue however is that if one really cares who wins the election then it would also depend on the state. Look at DC, it is overwhelmingly Democrat so much so that even if Trump is your preference between the two that voting for him is pointless As he has no shot to win the electoral votes. Same with Clinton in red states. Under the system there is no point to say that if you care who wins you should vote Hillary or Trump if the truth is that your state is going to vote overwhelmingly one way.
Well considering my point stands for 30 states than that is ok. Second I think you could even get away with a much lower number depending on the polling methods (6% is safe as or even 5% in a 4 way match).
Yes yes, the electoral college is stupid. Yes, the worth of a person's vote is based very much on which state one lives in. However, that doesn't take away from my argument. A vote for Trump or Hillary is still infinitely more substantial than a vote for Johnson if you care who actually wins, regardless of the state one lives in. If, however, one lives in a deep red/blue state and cares more about, for example, getting the libertarian party funding during the next election cycle rather than who wins the election, then I have no problem. My comments were not addressed to people who don't care who wins the election. In other words, if there's some other tangible thing that you value more than who actually wins the election, my argument is not for you.
Polling is far too volatile right now to make much of a determination regarding which states will be swing states this year. We know which ones will definitely be swing states (e.g. Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and many others), but there are others that are less clear. I actually really like your 8% number, because anything at around 6-8% difference could realistically fall to the 1-3% range by November. A state at 9-10% is unlikely to get very close by November.
True as we have to wait and see. In terms of how the states are going, well I personally see them growing further apart after the debates which Clinton will most likely do much better in giving her the lead wider and giving 3rd party members more relief that their vote will not be deciding elections. But I do feel if it is around the 6% or 8% about a week before election day then it will stay that way since the amount of people who decide day of is generally low.
I think this is what's most likely, but there will still be plenty of swing states.
If a state is 6-8% in November, it's not even close to being a swing state. Today, however, a state could be 5-6% and reasonably become a swing state by November. If one looks at the aggregates today, Missouri and South Carolina are at 5% and 6% respectively (both with Trump leading), but individual polls have shown them within striking distance for Secretary Clinton. It wasn't long ago that Clinton was ahead in Missouri by +5 in one good poll, and the two most recent polls out of South Carolina show a tie.
Although I must say that it heavily depends on who is ahead by the 5% or so today. I really do not think that Trump can make it up in time unless there is a big release about her past actions or he kills her in the debates (which I could see bit do not expect it).
Debates make the race much less predictable, and it doesn't take much to throw things into chaos. In 2012, Obama went from about +5 nationally to about +1 nationally almost overnight because he came off as low-energy and aloof during the first presidential debate. He spent the rest of the campaign season trying to regain the ground he lost after that debate, and he never fully recovered. He won by a little less than +4.
Plus it looked alot worse as polling in November had it much narrower at (AFAIK) around 2%. The issue (AFAIK) was they predicted that the amount of voters would slightly favor Romney since the minority vote was relatively low.
In this country, everyone, even the guilty, has a right to legal representation. If we held lawyers accountable for the crimes of their clients, our justice system would fall apart, and you obviously have no idea how our justice system works.
There's no reason to think Donald Trump actually raped anybody. The closest thing to a legitimate scandal involving rape and Donald Trump that I can think of is, when he was accused of raping one of his wives, that he hired a lawyer who said spousal rape does not exist.
As is the video the other guy posted
Agreed.
We don't believe something because there's no reason to doubt it. We believe something when there's reason to believe the story is true. Bill Clinton has allegedly been accused of rape, but that doesn't mean the story isn't garbage.
@
BigOnYa:
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@
HiradeGirl:
@
Veho:
