Who said anything about liking her? What is she a Facebook status or a Presidential candidate?

Let's move the goalposts back to where they were: supporting her.

As I said, she's going to win in a historic landslide. By definition, supporting her is not edgy.

Edited 8/17/2016 12:15:06

Probably not. Most Americans (~60%) disagree with Democrap's policies. The problem is the GOP people hate you if you don't 100% agree with him.

Donald Trump is doing something good if both parties hate him. Then again, he is still an idiot.

Edited 8/17/2016 12:37:36

Who said anything about liking her? What is she a Facebook status or a Presidential candidate?

This is politics, and if public perception of you is poor and the majority are voting for you to keep another candidate that's seen as worse, one, people are going to be drawn away from you easier (in the case of Bake The Cake Johnson getting more former Clinton supporters than Trump supporters) and if you do manage to win (this isn't "historic, other presidents have done better), you're going to be at a huge risk of losing the reelection, because few supported you for you and your policies, and instead supported you against another candidate.

Yes you're right that people will be drawn away from her easily. That's why a lot of Democrats supported Bernie and now came back to her. But it's not the ideology they dislike, it's just her. Obama is popular. The Democratic Party platform is popular. That shouldn't change.

I think policy-wise, he clearly fits on conservative lines, but I think many Amercan conserves don't like him since he is too rash and too racist/fop (banning all Muslims, despite most having lower killrates than Americans? and they can't just lie?).

As I said, she's going to win in a historic landslide

There's not much potential for too spectacular of a landslide either way. Here are the "swingy" states:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/njxpx

Here light states are states where the leading candidate is ahead by less than 5%, whereas slightly darker states are 5-12% leads.

Even if clinton grabs all the light/less light red states, trump still gets 108 electoral votes, which would put him at... Umm the 34th lowest electoral vote count in history.

It's getting worse for Trump all the time though. He's probably going to win Texas, that map has it pink.

He just hired the Breitbart CEO to run his campaign, he's going full batshit. Watch these polls get worse and worse and worse.

This iteration of the GOP (an uneasy coalition between business conservatives, evangelicals, working-class whites with high racial resentment, etc.) is probably dead. I don't see the Libertarian party becoming the replacement- probably just a new GOP coalition. The last third party to replace a major party was the GOP in 1858 with the collapsed Whigs- not just electorally routed but internally collapsed and lacking a common ideology that could hold them together. This was a very special case. Since then, all routed parties gave just updated their coalitions. Libertarianism just isn't nearly as compelling as abolitionism was in the 1850's.

There's a whole lot of room for the GOP to pick up a new coalition- conservative Hispanic Catholics, socially conservative Southern African-Americans, and other demographic groups that current lean D are ripe for the GOP to pick up as long as the Democratic Party keeps just counting them as "demographics" and not actually listening to them.

There's no reason for this election to result in any sort of single-party monopoly. It's probably just the end of a party era.

The GOP was too divided to stay together anyway; it has 4-5 politic groups inside it that could each have a party of their own. Trump only accentuated this rupture and now lifelong republicans are considering voting for Clinton. The democrats should be losing by a landslide if the republicans had a decent candidate.

That being said, the democrats could implode soon as well; core Clinton policies and voters have more in common with moderate republicans than they do with Bernie democrats.

These are really weird elections.

It's getting worse for Trump all the time though

Eh, not really. It's is pretty much the same map that Sabato's crystal ball has had published for around 6 months now I believe (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-president/), as well as being very similar to the map fivethirtyeight is showing right now.

He's probably going to win Texas, that map has it pink.

I'd imagine so, it hasn't voted democrat in 40 years.

A slave holding one party state is great?

You need to check your history. The parties swapped social standards in the 50's and 60's. I don't think calling the Democrats slaveholders is really a valid insult anymore.

B-but the Democrats hate the blacks! The blacks just don't know what's good for them and keep voting for the SLAVERY PARTY!!!

Libertarianism just isn't nearly as compelling as abolitionism was in the 1850's.

In 1852, the Free Soil Party (the abolitionist party) got 5% of the vote.

A slave holding one party state is great?

You need to check your history. The parties swapped social standards in the 50's and 60's. I don't think calling the Democrats slaveholders is really a valid insult anymore.


again

I was referring to before the Republican Party.

Anyway, the democrats and republicans didn't swap social standards, they both became less racist.

MGSB is capable of blaming you for a crime a distant relative of you did a thousand years ago just because he has your family name lol

Democrats of the 1860s would burn Obama if they could, and Lincoln would likely campaign against Trump for these elections.

According to you 90%+ of blacks are voting democrat because Clinton defends slavery as one of her policies? Your logic is stupid.

When did I say Clinton supports slavery? And was it actually serous?

I didn't even say the democrats were more racist than the republicans here, I said they lessened their racism too.

Democrats of the 1860s would burn Obama if they could, and Lincoln would likely campaign against Trump for these elections.

Lincoln was for mass deportation of blacks, no real difference in the main issue applicable (mass deportations yes/no). And yes. The democrats got less racist, like the republicans.

The Democrats just went from manipulating the race game one way, to manipulating it another.

They claim to support minorities, but do very little to actually assist them while crying about "It's the GOP's fault! Vote for us more and maybe we can beat them!". They encourage herd thinking by saying their polices represent the best interests of all X, and thus anyone who opposes them hates X and must be a Y, which is evil.

The Republicans use the same formula to manipulate Christians, gun owners, and so forth. Both parties love identity politics because it's so much easier to control people that way.

They claim to support minorities, but do very little to actually assist them

Private job/university hiring priority based on sex, skinhue, and if Clinton is picked, "gender"? It doesn't take much to know as some kind of minority that the Democratic Party is best pick for you.

Gosh, another anarchist...