Trump calls a female reporter a "c**nt"

[Landslide Lyndon]

Here's my question:

If Trump is THAT BAD (and, indeed, there seems to be a steady drumbeat from all sorts of media that he is), then why isn't he about to lose in a McGovern-esque landslide.

Because of people like you who constantly turn a blind eye due to the R next to his name.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Right now, we're talking about Trump GAINING states over Mondale.  

That's...just about the lowest bar there is.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's my question:

If Trump is THAT BAD (and, indeed, there seems to be a steady drumbeat from all sorts of media that he is), then why isn't he about to lose in a McGovern-esque landslide.

Because of people like you who constantly turn a blind eye due to the R next to his name.

I'm a registered Republican but an independent voter.  I voted for Carter in 1976, abstained in 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, W in 2000, Kerry in 2004, McCain in 2008, and Obama in 2012.  I'm likely to vote for Patrick Murphy, Democrat, for Senate, and not Marco Rubio.  I'm voting for Bill Posey (R) for Congress because of a purely parochial issue.

So tell me again:  Why isn't Trump losing on the short end of a 45 state landslide?

[ag]

Here's my question:

If Trump is THAT BAD (and, indeed, there seems to be a steady drumbeat from all sorts of media that he is), then why isn't he about to lose in a McGovern-esque landslide.

Because there are a lot of bad people out there. Trump is horrible, but his voters are a lot worse. And, yes, that includes you.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Right now, we're talking about Trump GAINING states over Mondale.  

That's...just about the lowest bar there is.

I meant gaining states over Romney; a much higher bar.

[Dr. Arch]

Right now, we're talking about Trump GAINING states over Mondale.  

That's...just about the lowest bar there is.

I meant gaining states over Romney; a much higher bar.

If by gain you mean OH+IA+ME2 being offset by losing NC and possibly AZ, then sure, that's "gain."

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm likely to vote for Patrick Murphy, Democrat, for Senate, and not Marco Rubio.

What is it with all the R-FL avatars who support Trump but not Rubio? Is it because Rubio is Hispanic?

I don't support Rubio over a purely parochial issue.

I voted for Mel Martinez in 2004, so it's not because he's Hispanic.  And, again:  I'm a 2012 Obama voter, FWIW.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Right now, we're talking about Trump GAINING states over Mondale.  

That's...just about the lowest bar there is.

I meant gaining states over Romney; a much higher bar.

If by gain you mean OH+IA+ME2 being offset by losing NC and possibly AZ, then sure, that's "gain."

I have always though that Trump was the only candidate that was likely to shake up the Electoral Map, one way or another, in 2016.

I don't believe Trump is going to lose NC and AZ.  They are competitive, but that's nothing new.  NC went for Obama in 2008 and AZ went for Bill Clinton in 1996.

[Dr. Arch]

Right now, we're talking about Trump GAINING states over Mondale.  

That's...just about the lowest bar there is.

I meant gaining states over Romney; a much higher bar.

If by gain you mean OH+IA+ME2 being offset by losing NC and possibly AZ, then sure, that's "gain."

I have always though that Trump was the only candidate that was likely to shake up the Electoral Map, one way or another, in 2016.

I don't believe Trump is going to lose NC and AZ.  They are competitive, but that's nothing new.  NC went for Obama in 2008 and AZ went for Bill Clinton in 1996.

And OH and IA went for Bush. What is your point then? Aside from ME-02, the map looks pretty conventional with large swings towards D on the Mormon vote in the mountain states.

[HisGrace]

If Trump is THAT BAD (and, indeed, there seems to be a steady drumbeat from all sorts of media that he is), then why isn't he about to lose in a McGovern-esque landslide.

By that standard anyone who wins (or even gets 40-45 percent of the vote in an election since that's the range Trump's polling in right now) can't be "that bad". Trump could win 99% of the vote and that still wouldn't make him a not terrible human being.

If we're just talking about Trump as a candidate, remember that most political scientists think the "fundamentals" favor Republicans this time around and that Clinton has the highest unfavorability ratings of any major party presidential candidate prior to this election cycle. A decent Republican candidate would have a comfortable lead right now and be on the way to winning 300+ electoral votes.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't support Rubio over a purely parochial issue.

I voted for Mel Martinez in 2004, so it's not because he's Hispanic.  And, again:  I'm a 2012 Obama voter, FWIW.

It makes no sense to vote for Trump and then the Democratic Senate candidate who will do everything to block the Trump agenda.

I don't think gridlock is that bad.

I voted for Clinton and the Republicans in 1996.  Oddly enough, some pretty good public policy came out of that.  I voted for John McCain and the Democrats in 2008; indeed, I voted for McCain in large measure because I thought it inevitable that the Congress would be hugely Democratic.

I also believe that Trump will work with the Congress he's dealt with.  Clinton is hated by the GOP Congress and no amount of endorsements by traditionally Republican newspapers will change that.  

Gridlock blocks bad ideas whose time has come.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I don't support Rubio over a purely parochial issue.

I voted for Mel Martinez in 2004, so it's not because he's Hispanic.  And, again:  I'm a 2012 Obama voter, FWIW.

It makes no sense to vote for Trump and then the Democratic Senate candidate who will do everything to block the Trump agenda.

On the contrary.  There are some people who intentionally vote this way with the intention of allowing neither party to have full control of government.  I used to have some sympathy with this viewpoint because it forced the parties into some measure of consensus and compromise.  However, since those have become dirty words to hard-line Republicans, all that mixed-party government accomplishes now is to prevent anything from getting done.

[DrScholl]

Here's my question:

If Trump is THAT BAD (and, indeed, there seems to be a steady drumbeat from all sorts of media that he is), then why isn't he about to lose in a McGovern-esque landslide.

Right now, we're talking about Trump GAINING states over Mondale.  GAINING Iowa.  GAINING Ohio.  Even in Florida for all practical purposes.  Closing the gap in Pennsylvania.  Why isn't he leading only in an handful of Deep Southern states and a couple of the Mountain West states?  Hasn't Trump given everybody enough ammo for that to happen?  Trump's behind, but he's NOT on life support at this writing.  Why is that?

Nobody knows exactly how bad he will lose until after election day. With that said, polarization makes a 50 state landslide impossible nowadays. Nonetheless, he's pretty much done and has been for months regardless of some people say.

[HisGrace]

I don't think gridlock is that bad.

I voted for Clinton and the Republicans in 1996.  Oddly enough, some pretty good public policy came out of that.  I voted for John McCain and the Democrats in 2008; indeed, I voted for McCain in large measure because I thought it inevitable that the Congress would be hugely Democratic.

I also believe that Trump will work with the Congress he's dealt with.  Clinton is hated by the GOP Congress and no amount of endorsements by traditionally Republican newspapers will change that.  

Gridlock blocks bad ideas whose time has come.

You like gridlock so you're going to vote for the GOP candidate when they already control both houses of Congress? On top of that the Dems retaking the Senate isn't a slam dunk, and there's no way they'll retake the House, so the only way to ensure gridlock would be to vote Clinton, if that's your goal. The presidential party retaking a chamber of Congress is quite rare, so she'll pretty much be ensured a divided government the whole time, even if the Dems do take the Senate this year.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't think gridlock is that bad.

I voted for Clinton and the Republicans in 1996.  Oddly enough, some pretty good public policy came out of that.  I voted for John McCain and the Democrats in 2008; indeed, I voted for McCain in large measure because I thought it inevitable that the Congress would be hugely Democratic.

I also believe that Trump will work with the Congress he's dealt with.  Clinton is hated by the GOP Congress and no amount of endorsements by traditionally Republican newspapers will change that.  

Gridlock blocks bad ideas whose time has come.

You like gridlock so you're going to vote for the GOP candidate when they already control both houses of Congress? On top of that the Dems retaking the Senate isn't a slam dunk, and there's no way they'll retake the House, so the only way to ensure gridlock would be to vote Clinton, if that's your goal. The presidential party retaking a chamber of Congress is quite rare, so she'll pretty much be ensured a divided government the whole time, even if the Dems do take the Senate this year.

Like many folks, I'm doing the best I can do here, in the face of a number of crappy choices.

[Suburbia]

Ugh.

[Badger]

Here's my question:

If Trump is THAT BAD (and, indeed, there seems to be a steady drumbeat from all sorts of media that he is), then why isn't he about to lose in a McGovern-esque landslide.

Because of people like you who constantly turn a blind eye due to the R next to his name.

I'm a registered Republican but an independent voter.  I voted for Carter in 1976, abstained in 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, W in 2000, Kerry in 2004, McCain in 2008, and Obama in 2012.  I'm likely to vote for Patrick Murphy, Democrat, for Senate, and not Marco Rubio.  I'm voting for Bill Posey (R) for Congress because of a purely parochial issue.

So tell me again:  Why isn't Trump losing on the short end of a 45 state landslide?

i think this demonstrates FB is HARDLY a reflexive R voter.

That said, FB, any thoughts on Trump's comment he'd like to see Peter Thiel on the SCOTUS

[Bojack Horseman]

Some have said this election is like the Louisiana governor's race in 1991. Others have said it's like the race between Cory Booker and Steve Lonegan in 2013. Right now it's reminding me of Clatey and The Lady, the 1990 Texas governor's race: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY3mWJ1Cd0Y

As it stands now, I get the feeling that the final result might be similar to that race as well.

[Meclazine for Israel]

A decent Republican candidate would have a comfortable lead right now and be on the way to winning 300+ electoral votes.

I doubt it, but it is an interesting argument that Governor Kasich would be using.

Would you really expect Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio to be ahead at this stage?

They do not have the 'media' appeal of longevity in the minds of US reporters.

[HisGrace]

A decent Republican candidate would have a comfortable lead right now and be on the way to winning 300+ electoral votes.

I doubt it, but it is an interesting argument that Governor Kasich would be using.

Would you really expect Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio to be ahead at this stage?

They do not have the 'media' appeal of longevity in the minds of US reporters.

I thought Cruz was only slightly more electable than Trump during the primaries, but given that Trump is polling substantially better than I would have thought at this stage, I would say Cruz would have a very narrow lead or be in a genuine dead heat right now. I do think Kasich/Rubio would be the frontrunners right now. In spring polling they had leads in Penn/NH and all through the rust belt. Kasich was even tied with her in NJ and leading in Connecticut. Keep in mind that this is at the same time where Trump still trailed her massively. They obviously would hit a ceiling and not gain the same amount of points Trump has, but I think Clinton is a weaker candidate than she appeared to be in spring and they were polling well against her even then.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's my question:

If Trump is THAT BAD (and, indeed, there seems to be a steady drumbeat from all sorts of media that he is), then why isn't he about to lose in a McGovern-esque landslide.

Because of people like you who constantly turn a blind eye due to the R next to his name.

I'm a registered Republican but an independent voter.  I voted for Carter in 1976, abstained in 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, W in 2000, Kerry in 2004, McCain in 2008, and Obama in 2012.  I'm likely to vote for Patrick Murphy, Democrat, for Senate, and not Marco Rubio.  I'm voting for Bill Posey (R) for Congress because of a purely parochial issue.

So tell me again:  Why isn't Trump losing on the short end of a 45 state landslide?

i think this demonstrates FB is HARDLY a reflexive R voter.

That said, FB, any thoughts on Trump's comment he'd like to see Peter Thiel on the SCOTUS

Well, Thiel is a Stanford Law grad.  He'd be an incredibly unorthodox pick, as he seems to have absolutely none of the normal qualifications one would seek in a SCOTUS Justice.  I can't imagine the ABA finding him "qualified".  If he actually did this, there would likely be immediate blowback. 

[PRESIDENT STANTON]

The language is way too demeaning and it needs to stop!