You missed my point in response to your assertion that any new revelations about Hillary would have no appreciable effect on the election and that historically, revelations about candidates don't have any real impact. You cited your many years of observing elections.
I see this election this way... Hillary has her support, and its all she can get... its about 42/43% of the population, that’s it.. .nothing she says or does will get more than that to vote for her.. .election day 60M votes is probably the best she could possibly do.
McCain and Romney got 60 million and 61 million respectively. Hillary will do better given the Dems very effective GOV efforts. Obama got 69 million and 66 million, the two highest totals in US history. Hillary will get at least 65 million.
Trump has this thing in the bag either way, and if he has something by all means out with it, but as to being some huge tectonic shift to the race, I highly doubt it, regardless of what it is.
Sorry, but Trump is going to have a hard slog. It remains to be seen what his ceiling is. And then there is voter fraud. The Dems steal elections year after year. The big cities manufacture the votes the Dems need to win. As someone who done duty many times as an election officer or a poll watcher, we need to have our people in these cities along with plenty of lawyers, like the Dems always have, ready to jump in.
Hillary has taken bribes to sell weapons to and uranium... all documented, all publicly known,
Documented by whom and how well is it known to the LIV. Only 41% of the people according to a Fox poll even know the names of the VP candidates.
Trump has this won already, just as long as he doesn’t do anything stupid, as long as he looks reasonable he will continue to gain support and broaden his lead.
I wish I could share your optimism, but I know too well from personal experience and as a political science major including graduate school that the Dems have built a formidable political machine. And couple that with the rapidly changing demographics of this country fueled by mass immigration and high minority birth rates, the Dems are on the cusp of becoming the permanent majority party. Demography is destiny.
Guess we’ll see who’s right a month from now... Given every prediction regarding Trump has been wrong to date by the pundits, I hold little belief that the standard arguments apply.
Obama has huge enthusiasm, that Hillary does not have... 65 M votes on Election Day for her is wishful thinking. She has nowhere near the support, enthusiasm or anything else to be close to Obama’s 12 numbers.
Evaluating this election through the lense of recent modern elections is simply refusing to see that this is a disruptive cycle... Something that hasn’t happened in US politics at the national level in a long long time.
If you think 2016 will be anything like 2012 you are showing a bias toward what was over what is. Comparing 2016 to 2012 is a false premise from the get go.
Let’s take one state shall we? PA for example. 2008. I got just shy of 3.3M votes.. 12 just shy of 3M. R got 2.65 and 2.68 respectively. So with dud candidates R can put 2.7 in the box without trying.
Hillary won’t be anywhere near O’s 2012 numbers in PA and Trump will blow the 2.7M of 08 & 12 out of the water. Hillary will be lucky if she sees 2.5/6M in PA. Trump will be close to 3M. Philly machine will not be able to put enough in the box to carry the state.
A month from now we’ll see.. The traditional pundit believes this is a slog and up hill election that will be close... I see it as a disruptive cycle that isn’t going to be close at all.
A few more weeks we’ll see whose right. Given the traditional arguments have fallen to reality this entire cycle... Trump should have never been the nominee based on traditional approach... Yet here we are and folks still keep trying to argue the traditional viewpoint.
Time will tell. I see it Hillary has a functional max or low 40s, no matter what she does she won’t top that. Trump should easily manage far above that as long as he doesn’t self destruct.