Tuesday 11 October 2016

Can Donald Trump still win ?


The weird debate is over. for some reason the TV studios thought it best if the potential presidents had a stool to sit on, next to a really tiny table, and a wireless microphone with no stand.
So when it was Hillary's turn she walked right to the edge of the platform, as if to hug the person asking the question. Which, if she could have made a few more steps, I'm sure she would have. And a few cheek to cheek kisses too. Standing right at the edge like that meant that trump could be seen behind her. Walking about and trying to get into shot like Eric Morecambe with his raincoat and bag.
It was a strange way to present a show. But, it was a strange debate.
Trump has had a terrible two weeks and his numbers have fallen quite dramatically. Enough to make the Republican party that was tacitly, if unenthusiasticly supporting him, because he was doing well, abandon him now he looks like a loser.

So Trump went on the offensive and was offensive. Sparky, but angry too. He semi-closed out his lewd behaviour as locker room banter. But again couldn't reasonably explain his tax payments as Hillary can't reasonably explain why Bill paid off Paula Jones with $850,000.
He did much better than before. Hillary Clinton still has no answer to her email deletions. The spin she tried made it easy for Trump to call her a liar, and to tell her she should be in jail. Which did get a very loud round of applause from an audience told not to applause.

So, Trump did better. He did OK. Although post polling has given the debate to Clinton.
The problem for The Donald is needed to do much better than OK. He needs to do very, very well.

The map above is Oct 9th. On the face of it, its a Clinton win. She has 260 leaning votes and only needs one more mid sized state of the 7 still undecided to win. Trump has 165 votes. He needs to win at least eight  of the undecided nine. 

These are polls and not actual in the bag votes. Only the Darkest colours should be taken as 100% certainty. Which does give Trump slim hope. 
Hillary has 115 seats in the solid camp. Trump has 49.
Clinton's 115 are all 'safe' US Democrat seats. Most have been Liberal since 1992. When the other Clinton ended the Republican landslides. These aren't the states Team Trump will have been hoping to gain. If Donald Trump can finally nail down Texas, which has been Republican voting since 1980, his number goes from a very poor 49 to a better 87. That could give momentum to his campaign.

With his own party denouncing him, however, it does look like its all over already. It would take some really damaging evidence of a Hillary misdeed to come to light to boost him far enough to start taking states from her. And if Team Trump had any evidence, they would have used it already.

Trump must hoping for:

Millions of non-voters suddenly turning out with a real, fierce passion, because of powerful arguments such as immigration and sovereignty, which the opponent has no answer for. Voters willing to vote for someone portrayed as a hateful figure like Nigel Farage. Because they think he is on their side. Voters fed up with being told they are racist and stupid and with a desire to ignore the people who tell them that. People who also just stop listening to the endless warnings of all the dangers in voting against the status quo, and decide that even if it isn't in their own best interests they are prepared to do that anyway.

 There are parallels. And in the debates if you listen to Trump's somewhat incoherent message he is campaigning for the same issues as Brexit. 
Immigration controls. Lower taxes. Better healthcare. A say in the running of the country. American jobs for American workers.

It could happen. The Brexit miracle. 

But its more likely an even more damaging piece of information emerges about Trump. Possibly several more. Or he gaffes up again and again and again. After all, he hasn't been in office for donkey's years. Being schooled on the art of saying nothing too controversial. Making sure to stay on message and blandly platituding the masses. 

How the Republican's must wish they had seen this 'Corbyn' like figure coming. Their own Primaries were like the Labour leadership race. Bland long serving flippy-flops, not prepared to say anything at all that might alienate someone or noobie unknowns trying to go against the party voters grain.
Both not hearing the loud, banging drum of the next wave of politics.

Hillary Clinton  is a really vulnerable Democratic candidate.  But she is electable.


CityUnslicker said...

latest gossip I heard, unattributable of course, is that there is a video of him with an underage girl from years ago they are waiting to spring.

No idea if this is true, way too late for Trump now anyway, the first debate debacle did for him and, honestly, should have done - he was terrible. let's face it he is up against one of the worst candidates ever for president and still screwed it up - he really is crap.

Dick the Prick said...

I think we vaguely touched on this over at Guido's yesterday BQ and I think i'm gonna hold my hands up and accept defeat.

In my head, i've also been casually comparing Trump's candidacy with our Brexit but I think the parallels are beginning to disintegrate. Farage has been singing the same song for 20 years and became amazingly adept at it yet the punters never felt confident enough to vote for him en masse in serious elections. Sure, Donald's taken over an established party whereas Nigel built one from scratch which should aid acceptability but he ain't no Farage.

Farage came across as both a professional politician yet also the geezer in the boozer. Grannies liked him as much as did me and my disenchanted Tory buddies. Trump's a celeb who's done some woefully tedious Telly programmes and is perhaps much more akin to Corbyn in that for the last 30 years he could say anything, support anything as no-one really expected anything more from him.

Whilst Trump has undoubtedly tapped into a rich stream of both disenchantment and frustration, his cavalier attitude doesn't come over as serious, philosophically coherent or reliable. I'd still vote for him but my mum wouldn't and she adored Brexit and Farage.

Sure, the nuances of American elections escape me but if the natives do genuinely think they're electing the candidate for the most powerful job in the world then I think quite a few may find the joke wears thin in the ballot box.

And, to cap it all - I've got a £10 on Trump!

Steven_L said...

I've £20 on trump, I've written it off and started betting on Strictly instead.

Dick the Prick said...

@Steven - hats off to Ed Balls, loving the gusto! #Louise to win though, crikey Moses!

Steven_L said...

You still fancy Louise then, she has aged better than Britney hasn't she? She is one of four I placed a fiver on, I passed on Ed despite the long odds. He fails on the under 45 and fit and athletic test and therefore simply cannot win.

It's a simple formula:

* male or female but bearing in mind men have the advantage of leading a sexy female pro
* aged 45 or under and fit/athletic
* manly men only as women will not vote for girly effeminate men,
* look comfortable and confident on the dance floor to start with
* not the favourite / obvious best dancer in the competition.

So I got:

Louise 5/1
Danny Mac - 6/1
Greg Rutherford - 12/1
Laura Whitmore - 14/1

It's a controversial view, but I think non-white contestants also have a disadvantage in the public vote.

Whereas the darlings of state TV (i.e. Laura) have a PR advantage, although she is doing rubbish now.

I fear the young gymnast girl the most, but I reckon she and her partner might be too young to win the public vote.

Blue Eyes said...

Bet they wish they didn't have term limits.

Imagine if we had to choose between, say, Corbyn and Hague Circa 2001.

Luckily, as Obama has shown, the President has very little actual influence.

andrew said...

I have 20 @6-1
And overpaid on those odds.

The question in my mind is is trump style politics the new normal?
Can you really lie and not pay a price?

Dick the Prick said...

@Steven - no, i'm just a pervert. It's lovely that they put something in for the dads. Ed Balls dancing in bad trousers followed by Louise dancing in a leotard was ace Saturday entertainment.

Bill Quango MP said...

This is how it is for Trump - Its negative all the way. - from BBC website
The PRRI/Atlantic poll released two days after the second US presidential debate suggested Mrs Clinton holds a 49-38 lead over her opponent.

then this from lower down, same page..BBC Poll of Polls.
Which turns the horrendous 11% behind into a very challenging but not defeated 6% behind.
That poll is the worst Trump has had for a very long while. After all his bad press. In reality he may not be drifting that much away either.


Hillary Clinton


Donald Trump

Wildgoose said...

I genuinely think that Clinton could start a shooting war with Russia.

She is that dangerous.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are amongst her biggest donors and they are using the USA in their ongoing Sunni/Shia Civil War with Iran, with Syria as the battlefield and ISIS as their proxy.

Syria, Iran and Russia are all attacking the Wahabi Salafist Islamic State and thereby making a stand for a secular future in which non-Moslems are allowed to exist in the Middle East. I am not saying they are nice people. Far from it. But Islamic State, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are all FAR WORSE PEOPLE.

So the West should either steer well clear, or they should support the non-genocidal dictators over the genocidal dictators.

It really is that simple.

But instead, Clinton at the State Department is using American airpower, arms and money in direct support of the Islamic State.

In return, Clinton is getting big donations for her Presidential bid, which she will no doubt be expected to pay back with even bigger military favours.

So far they have only used airstrikes against Syrian Government forces that are fighting Islamic State. What do you think Russia's reaction will be to Russian forces being attacked by the USA? We have even heard UK MPs today seriously demanding a "no fly zone" in Syria, (i.e. more tacit support for ISIS)!

Do these idiots seriously think that Russia will just let them shoot down their jets?

Clinton is already highly likely to start a shooting war that could easily turn into World War Three, and she is absolutely GUARANTEED to start a new Cold War even if she doesn't trigger a Hot War. She really doesn't need any encouragement!

By contrast, however loathesome Trump is, his (un)diplomatic incidents are more likely to be international offence caused by him shooting off his fat mouth.

I can't stand Trump, but given the alternative is so dangerous, I would have to support him over Clinton.

Laban Tall said...

It was depressing to hear the same Parliament that's so keen on having a veto over Brexit howling for a shooting war with Russia. Andrew Mitchell is despicable. And Boris, while I understand he's acting as a kind of ablative heat-shield, sounded a bit third-world when he encouraged us all to head down to the Russian Embassy with our pitchforks.

(A/c/t the BBC 25 civilians were killed in Aleppo yesterday, which while sad is a pretty low number given that Syrian forces are fighting their way in and presumably needing and getting air support. 40,000 civilians were incinerated by the RAF in one raid on Hamburg (27/7/43).)