Let's talk polls and betting odds

[leetp]

The no tax on tips thing is designed to give higher earning republican voters a break on their taxes by allowing them to classify their earnings as tips. Tariffs (which are beyond idiotic as a policy in 2024) and building a wall (which he didn't get done). Are not unique to Trump. Right wing populists have been pushing that for ages.

Yes, expanding healthcare is not a Kamala-specific proposal. In many ways she is a standard run of the mill Democrat on policy. Some Dem politicians have different areas they focus on (ie Biden on labor) but for the most part the party has a coherent message and platform. Can't really say the same for Republicans.

I think her proposal for a new Child Tax Credit is a very good one that will have a positive impact for Americans.

This thread is about polling, not policy.... but I'll bite.... The no tax on [your text here] is idiotic demagoguery and is stupid not matter who espouses it. Twisting this into a repub-exclusive high wage earner handout is not and angle I've seen. What sort of mental gymnastics does one have to do to arrive at that conclusion?

At any rate, the people with means will never tire of finding ways to avoid paying taxes. This is a stupid game both sides like to play to pit two ends of the electorate against the middle.

We could fix nearly all issues in this country tomorrow with the following tax code overhaul: replace current tax code with a national flat tax. Every earner pays the same flat tax on every dollar earned or realized gain. The flat tax is the amount expected to zero the budget by the end of the tax year. There shall be NO deficient except in a congressionally declared war or national emergency. In such case a deficient is incurred during an emergency, the flat tax will be set such the deficient is resolved within 10 years.

You want student loan forgiveness? Fine. Every single earner's national tax will be increased to pay for it. Want expanded national healthcare. You got it. But the flat tax will be raised to cover it. Bottom line, everybody pays. Period. AND there is downward pressure on the ever-growing cost of entitlement and defense spending.

 

[Spencer_York]

This thread is about polling, not policy.... but I'll bite.... The no tax on [your text here] is idiotic demagoguery and is stupid not matter who espouses it. Twisting this into a repub-exclusive high wage earner handout is not and angle I've seen. What sort of mental gymnastics does one have to do to arrive at that conclusion?

At any rate, the people with means will never tire of finding ways to avoid paying taxes. This is a stupid game both sides like to play to pit two ends of the electorate against the middle.

We could fix nearly all issues in this country tomorrow with the following tax code overhaul: replace current tax code with a national flat tax. Every earner pays the same flat tax on every dollar earned or realized gain. The flat tax is the amount expected to zero the budget by the end of the tax year. There shall be NO deficient except in a congressionally declared war or national emergency. In such case a deficient is incurred during an emergency, the flat tax will be set such the deficient is resolved within 10 years.

You want student loan forgiveness? Fine. Every single earner's national tax will be increased to pay for it. Want expanded national healthcare. You got it. But the flat tax will be raised to cover it. Bottom line, everybody pays. Period. AND there is downward pressure on the ever-growing cost of entitlement and defense spending.

Yeah I'm just categorically opposed to a flat tax and deficit hawk stuff

 

[CUT93]

I just don’t see how she over polls.

She is a lackluster candidate that does not bring any authentic enthusiasm.

She is a horrible, horrible candidate. That should be expected when you have an appointing instead of an election.

Does anyone really believe people are going to get off their ass to vote for a cackling hyena? lol, not happening.

They won't. - but they will do so to vote against trump. Not saying her being probably the worst candidate in history has no impact, but a significant percentage of people voting for her are voting against trump and would vote for Joseph Stalin if he were the alternative. This is what die hard trump supporters just don't seem to understand.

I hope trump wins, but he has run the worst campaign in history. You would think losing in 2020 would have showed him that being an arrogant jackass cost him votes. When he focused on the issues he has strong support for(Economy/Border) and stopped with the personal name calling and attacks right before and during the biden debate, his polling went up significantly. He was giving people, particularly independents, a reason to vote for him rather than acting like a third grader with personal attacks and giving people a reason NOT to vote for him.

All he had to do was keep that up and he would have this election won easily right now. Instead, he chose to try and convince people KH was not black and was weak. All this did was turn away some of the minority voters he had on his side and piss off women for portraying them as being weak(er) than a man. If he loses this election it is 100% bc of his absolutely idiotic political strategy to play to his base with childish attacks and ads focusing on issues that almost no one would have as a single issue voter. Poll after poll tells you people care about the economy and the border. Why run ads about he/she/they pronouns and guys in girls sports? He already has that vote. Furthermore, anyone who decides who they are going to vote for based primarily on that, not only is an low iq, but more importantly a tiny % of the electorate. If I didn't know better, I would think he bet a few $100M on him losing the election. It's like he's intentionally throwing the game.

 

[Spencer_York]

They won't. - but they will do so to vote against trump. Not saying her being probably the worst candidate in history has no impact, but a significant percentage of people voting for her are voting against trump and would vote for Joseph Stalin if he were the alternative. This is what die hard trump supporters just don't seem to understand.

I hope trump wins, but he has run the worst campaign in history. You would think losing in 2020 would have showed him that being an arrogant jackass cost him votes. When he focused on the issues he has strong support for(Economy/Border) and stopped with the personal name calling and attacks right before and during the biden debate, his polling went up significantly. He was giving people, particularly independents, a reason to vote for him rather than acting like a third grader with personal attacks and giving people a reason NOT to vote for him.

All he had to do was keep that up and he would have this election won easily right now. Instead, he chose to try and convince people KH was not black and was weak. All this did was turn away some of the minority voters he had on his side and piss off women for portraying them as being weak(er) than a man. If he loses this election it is 100% bc of his absolutely idiotic political strategy to play to his base with childish attacks and ads focusing on issues that almost no one would have as a single issue voter. Poll after poll tells you people care about the economy and the border. Why run ads about he/she/they pronouns and guys in girls sports? He already has that vote. Furthermore, anyone who decides who they are going to vote for based primarily on that, not only is an low iq, but more importantly a tiny % of the electorate. If I didn't know better, I would think he bet a few $100M on him losing the election. It's like he's intentionally throwing the game.

So while I don't agree that Kamala is some uniquely awful candidate and actually think she's run a good campaign, I do agree with your criticisms of the Trump campaign, which has been pretty awful.

Trump's best shot of winning has revolved around running on the economy and the border. What is his campaign focusing on in the closing days? Transgender stuff, which does not work as an attack. Voters just don't want to be reminded of it and don't care about it. The Dems not touching it is smart by them while Trump focusing on it is idiotic by him and his campaign.

Swing state voters, especially Latinos, are open to moving to Trump because of the economy. You can even convince some Latinos to support you over immigration. The problem was that comedian calling Puerto Rico a garbage island. That backfired massively. Latino voters don't care as much when you go after "illegals" (they see that as Venezuelans) or Haitians, but they do care when you attack them or people very similar to them.

Do you know why Trump is focusing on this stuff, besides him being terrible at message discipline all the time but especially as his brain is rotting? It is because a lot of skilled GOP operatives don't want to work for his campaign anymore, for a number of reasons. This means there are too many "yes men" involved. They didn't consider Biden would actually drop out so rather than burying the hatchet and picking a good VP choice like Burgum or Haley, they instead went with Vance to double down on their base. Trump's campaign is also way too "online" meaning way too caught up in right wing twitter and websites. Those groups think going after trans people is awesome and included some trans folks from the Biden administration that no one outside of RW media remembers . Most voters don't give a rat's ass about this.

 

[yoshi121374]

They won't. - but they will do so to vote against trump. Not saying her being probably the worst candidate in history has no impact, but a significant percentage of people voting for her are voting against trump and would vote for Joseph Stalin if he were the alternative. This is what die hard trump supporters just don't seem to understand.

I hope trump wins, but he has run the worst campaign in history. You would think losing in 2020 would have showed him that being an arrogant jackass cost him votes. When he focused on the issues he has strong support for(Economy/Border) and stopped with the personal name calling and attacks right before and during the biden debate, his polling went up significantly. He was giving people, particularly independents, a reason to vote for him rather than acting like a third grader with personal attacks and giving people a reason NOT to vote for him.

All he had to do was keep that up and he would have this election won easily right now. Instead, he chose to try and convince people KH was not black and was weak. All this did was turn away some of the minority voters he had on his side and piss off women for portraying them as being weak(er) than a man. If he loses this election it is 100% bc of his absolutely idiotic political strategy to play to his base with childish attacks and ads focusing on issues that almost no one would have as a single issue voter. Poll after poll tells you people care about the economy and the border. Why run ads about he/she/they pronouns and guys in girls sports? He already has that vote. Furthermore, anyone who decides who they are going to vote for based primarily on that, not only is an low iq, but more importantly a tiny % of the electorate. If I didn't know better, I would think he bet a few $100M on him losing the election. It's like he's intentionally throwing the game.

He makes so much money with the bullshit "Big Lie" fleecing of his rube base that I think he either doesn't actually care if he wins, or actually want to win.

It's hard to imagine he's either so lacking in self-discipline, or not being told constantly from having advisors exactly what you've said.

 

[CUT93]

So while I don't agree that Kamala is some uniquely awful candidate and actually think she's run a good campaign, I do agree with your criticisms of the Trump campaign, which has been pretty awful.

Trump's best shot of winning has revolved around running on the economy and the border. What is his campaign focusing on in the closing days? Transgender stuff, which does not work as an attack. Voters just don't want to be reminded of it and don't care about it. The Dems not touching it is smart by them while Trump focusing on it is idiotic by him and his campaign.

Swing state voters, especially Latinos, are open to moving to Trump because of the economy. You can even convince some Latinos to support you over immigration. The problem was that comedian calling Puerto Rico a garbage island. That backfired massively. Latino voters don't care as much when you go after "illegals" (they see that as Venezuelans) or Haitians, but they do care when you attack them or people very similar to them.

Do you know why Trump is focusing on this stuff, besides him being terrible at message discipline all the time but especially as his brain is rotting? It is because a lot of skilled GOP operatives don't want to work for his campaign anymore, for a number of reasons. This means there are too many "yes men" involved. They didn't consider Biden would actually drop out so rather than burying the hatchet and picking a good VP choice like Burgum or Haley, they instead went with Vance to double down on their base. Trump's campaign is also way too "online" meaning way too caught up in right wing twitter and websites. Those groups think going after trans people is awesome and included some trans folks from the Biden administration that no one outside of RW media remembers . Most voters don't give a rat's ass about this.

Kamala is a historically terrible candidate. There is a reason she was never even a possibility and way down the list in the primary. As a black female, she should have been much higher just based on her demographic(s).
She has been historically far left(prior to her taking Biden's place), and either historically stupid or has a historically bad grasp of the English language. Her senate voting record was far left when she actually decided to show up and vote.

 

[Spencer_York]

Kamala is a historically terrible candidate. There is a reason she was never even a possibility and way down the list in the primary. As a black female, she should have been much higher just based on her demographic(s).
She has been historically far left(prior to her taking Biden's place), and either historically stupid or has a historically bad grasp of the English language. Her senate voting record was far left when she actually decided to show up and vote.

Have you heard Trump try to talk recently?

 

[CUT93]

Have you heard Trump try to talk recently?

My argument was not that trump is a great candidate. Did not say that. That has nothing to do with the fact she is historically awful. As @yoshi121374 said, any other pub candidate would be a massive winner against Harris.

 

[Spencer_York]

Kamala is a historically terrible candidate. There is a reason she was never even a possibility and way down the list in the primary. As a black female, she should have been much higher just based on her demographic(s).
She has been historically far left(prior to her taking Biden's place), and either historically stupid or has a historically bad grasp of the English language. Her senate voting record was far left when she actually decided to show up and vote.

She ran a bad campaign in 2019/2020 but has shown herself to be a decent campaigner otherwise. Her current campaign is also quite good considering she was starting out so far behind the 8 ball.

She’s a better general election campaigner than a primary one. The 2020 Dem primary was super crowded and she struggled to chart a lane for herself because of that. Bernie and Warren had the left wing/progressive lane, Biden and a bunch of others had the centrist lane and Harris tried to do the racially progressive lane and it didn’t work.

This isn’t unique either, there are some GOP politicians who would be better in the general than in the primary, especially the crowded 2016 primary. See John Kasich for instance. I also think Brian Kemp or Doug Burgum would be way better in the general than the primary.

 

[leetp]

Yeah I'm just categorically opposed to a flat tax and deficit hawk stuff

Why? What system could be fairer? What system provides a better control for runaway spending?

 

[leetp]

She ran a bad campaign in 2019/2020 but has shown herself to be a decent campaigner otherwise. Her current campaign is also quite good considering she was starting out so far behind the 8 ball.

She’s a better general election campaigner than a primary one. [...].

This is proving to be objectively untrue. She skyrocketed in the polls without doing anything at all... then when she did start campaigning and speaking to the press, her polls plummeted to the point that it's been a complete reversal. Sure, there could be a variety of reason for why she could not sustain her early momentum that have less to do with how she campaigns, but I am at a loss of how you could come away with that opinion.

 

[yoshi121374]

She ran a bad campaign in 2019/2020 but has shown herself to be a decent campaigner otherwise. Her current campaign is also quite good considering she was starting out so far behind the 8 ball.

She’s a better general election campaigner than a primary one. The 2020 Dem primary was super crowded and she struggled to chart a lane for herself because of that. Bernie and Warren had the left wing/progressive lane, Biden and a bunch of others had the centrist lane and Harris tried to do the racially progressive lane and it didn’t work.

This isn’t unique either, there are some GOP politicians who would be better in the general than in the primary, especially the crowded 2016 primary. See John Kasich for instance. I also think Brian Kemp or Doug Burgum would be way better in the general than the primary.

Regardless of how this election ends, it will be interesting to watch and see what happens with the Republicans moving forward. I truly don't think the MAGA rhetoric will play without Trump. You have to give it to the guy, he really could kill someone in the street and his followers would be fine with it.

 

[CUT93]

Why? What system could be fairer? What system provides a better control for runaway spending?

A flat tax could be many things. I am not opposed, but I do think some things like food, gas and utilities should either be phased in based on income or left out.

 

[leetp]

A flat tax could be many things. I am not opposed, but I do think some things like food, gas and utilities should either be phased in based on income or left out.

Those are sales taxes. I am talking about income taxes.

Still, sales taxes do have a place...particularly fuel taxes. I mean, what better way to pay for roads than to tax in proportion to their use (via fuel)? I strongly support keeping the relationship of what is taxed to the purpose as close as possible. The key is that the feedback loop--both positive and negative--must remain intact.

 

[leetp]

Regardless of how this election ends, it will be interesting to watch and see what happens with the Republicans moving forward. I truly don't think the MAGA rhetoric will play without Trump. You have to give it to the guy, he really could kill someone in the street and his followers would be fine with it.

I am with you up until your last sentence. It will be interesting to see how Vance evolves should Trump win.

 

[Spencer_York]

This is proving to be objectively untrue. She skyrocketed in the polls without doing anything at all... then when she did start campaigning and speaking to the press, her polls plummeted to the point that it's been a complete reversal. Sure, there could be a variety of reason for why she could not sustain her early momentum that have less to do with how she campaigns, but I am at a loss of how you could come away with that opinion.

She had negative favorables when she took over a campaign 100 days before an election when the campaign was down big and by an increasing margin. She now has positive favorables and a narrow lead in an election that is seen as a toss up (per 538). Yes, the polls have tightened over the last month or so but that is expected in a tight and polarized electorate.

 

[leetp]

She had negative favorables when she took over a campaign 100 days before an election when the campaign was down big and by an increasing margin. She now has positive favorables and a narrow lead in an election that is seen as a toss up (per 538). Yes, the polls have tightened over the last month or so but that is expected in a tight and polarized electorate.

Those negative favorables turned exclusively on the media's recasting of her. The favorables changed without her doing anything whatsoever. As her exposure grew, the polls declined.

 

[fatpiggy]

They won't. - but they will do so to vote against trump. Not saying her being probably the worst candidate in history has no impact, but a significant percentage of people voting for her are voting against trump and would vote for Joseph Stalin if he were the alternative. This is what die hard trump supporters just don't seem to understand.

I hope trump wins, but he has run the worst campaign in history. You would think losing in 2020 would have showed him that being an arrogant jackass cost him votes. When he focused on the issues he has strong support for(Economy/Border) and stopped with the personal name calling and attacks right before and during the biden debate, his polling went up significantly. He was giving people, particularly independents, a reason to vote for him rather than acting like a third grader with personal attacks and giving people a reason NOT to vote for him.

All he had to do was keep that up and he would have this election won easily right now. Instead, he chose to try and convince people KH was not black and was weak. All this did was turn away some of the minority voters he had on his side and piss off women for portraying them as being weak(er) than a man. If he loses this election it is 100% bc of his absolutely idiotic political strategy to play to his base with childish attacks and ads focusing on issues that almost no one would have as a single issue voter. Poll after poll tells you people care about the economy and the border. Why run ads about he/she/they pronouns and guys in girls sports? He already has that vote. Furthermore, anyone who decides who they are going to vote for based primarily on that, not only is a low iq, but more importantly a tiny % of the electorate. If I didn't know better, I would think he bet a few $100M on him losing the election. It's like he's intentionally throwing the game.

No they won’t.

Nobody is getting off their ass to vote against Trump after the last 4 years. Those people see their grocery bills.

 

[CUT93]

No they won’t.

Nobody is getting off their ass to vote against Trump after the last 4 years. Those people see their grocery bills.

Even in the tiny sample size that encompasses the posters in this thread you have people that are voting against trump and not necessarily for Kamala.
If they exist in this thread, surely you see they exist in greater numbers in the whole of America.
The term never trumpers doesn’t exist for no reason.

 

[okclem]

This might move the number a point or two.

 

[leetp]

Even in the tiny sample size that encompasses the posters in this thread you have people that are voting against trump and not necessarily for Kamala.
If they exist in this thread, surely you see they exist in greater numbers in the whole of America.
The term never trumpers doesn’t exist for no reason.

All of that's anecdotal. Fact remains PA is well within the margin of error. Betting markets have PA in the mid 50s for Trump to upper 40s for Harris. If Trump doesn't get PA, he has to take 2 between MI, WI, and NV. Trump has mostly trailed in NV since Harris entered the race--that is, up until a few weeks ago. His lead there has been within the MoE, but the most recent poll from Atlas Intel on 10/30 has him +4, above its MoE of +/-3. FWIW, Atlas has Trump up in every single swing state, including WI and MI (but with sub 1 pt margins in those two). Note that lefty darling Nate Silver uses Atlas as one of his trusted pollsters in his 538 aggregate average.

While you'd certainly rather have Trump's poll numbers, it's a coin flip right now in PA. If there are some special tea leaves to be read somewhere, should not the betting markets reflect it at this point? They are largely sitting between 1/2 and 2/3 odds for Trump overall.

 

[TigerGrowls]

I just don’t see how she over polls.

She is a lackluster candidate that does not bring any authentic enthusiasm.

She is a horrible, horrible candidate. That should be expected when you have an appointing instead of an election.

Does anyone really believe people are going to get off their ass to vote for a cackling hyena? lol, not happening.

The dems will undoubtedly manufacture a lot of votes in the big cities on election day by outright paying people to go in and vote and then slipping boxes full of filled out ballots into the count from dead people and illegals that were registered but will not actually show up to vote in person. Lets hope its not enough.

 

[TigerGrowls]

So while I don't agree that Kamala is some uniquely awful candidate and actually think she's run a good campaign, I do agree with your criticisms of the Trump campaign, which has been pretty awful.

Trump's best shot of winning has revolved around running on the economy and the border. What is his campaign focusing on in the closing days? Transgender stuff, which does not work as an attack. Voters just don't want to be reminded of it and don't care about it. The Dems not touching it is smart by them while Trump focusing on it is idiotic by him and his campaign.

Swing state voters, especially Latinos, are open to moving to Trump because of the economy. You can even convince some Latinos to support you over immigration. The problem was that comedian calling Puerto Rico a garbage island. That backfired massively. Latino voters don't care as much when you go after "illegals" (they see that as Venezuelans) or Haitians, but they do care when you attack them or people very similar to them.

Do you know why Trump is focusing on this stuff, besides him being terrible at message discipline all the time but especially as his brain is rotting? It is because a lot of skilled GOP operatives don't want to work for his campaign anymore, for a number of reasons. This means there are too many "yes men" involved. They didn't consider Biden would actually drop out so rather than burying the hatchet and picking a good VP choice like Burgum or Haley, they instead went with Vance to double down on their base. Trump's campaign is also way too "online" meaning way too caught up in right wing twitter and websites. Those groups think going after trans people is awesome and included some trans folks from the Biden administration that no one outside of RW media remembers . Most voters don't give a rat's ass about this.

MAGA voters care about everything deeply that you said no one cares about. Bank on that.

 

[scotchtiger]

What you say sounds reasonable. And, yes, GOP'ers still have an aversion to mail-in voting (I certainly do). And as I said, PA is mail-in only...no in-person EV.

Still, in general, a larger window to vote should lead to more total votes--even if only nominal. And even just a nominal increase for GOP is not ideal for Dems.

There is another poll I often cite when talking demographics, and that is the long running Gallup poll on political ideology (Conversative vs. Liberal vs. Independent). Conservatives and Moderates are roughly split at 36 and 37% of the country. Libs makeup 25%. My takeaway from this, getting a greater percentage nationwide voting is an advantage for GOP. To your point, Dems get-out-the-vote in dense urban areas that go 85-90% Dems is the only reason Dems every win a nation-wide election. In an admittedly very shallow interpretation, Dems should never win a nation-wide election.

This chart tells me that if republicans can moderate in a couple of areas (ex abortion) and move past a polarizing candidate, center right candidates and policies should absolutely dominate American politics.

 

[scotchtiger]

Who called for her to get removed?

Which policy do I support enthusiastically? The expansion of Medicare to include the costs of in-home care. As Boomers age the private care industry is going to siphon up more and more money, leaving the Boomer's kids with not that much left over. Expanding medicare to include the cost of at home care will help stop that.

How will you fund that?

 

[scotchtiger]

She had negative favorables when she took over a campaign 100 days before an election when the campaign was down big and by an increasing margin. She now has positive favorables and a narrow lead in an election that is seen as a toss up (per 538). Yes, the polls have tightened over the last month or so but that is expected in a tight and polarized electorate.

538 has Trump in the lead as far as winning the election. Harris in the lead for popular vote, which is meaningless.

Who Is Favored To Win The 2024 Presidential Election?

538’s 2024 presidential election forecast model showing Democrat Kamala Harris’s and Republican Donald Trump’s chances of winning.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

 

[Cavitybacks]

Could you imagine if Bill Clinton was running against Trump?

Talk about a landslide victory for Clinton.

 

[fatpiggy]

Could you imagine if Bill Clinton was running against Trump?

Talk about a landslide victory for Clinton.

Pre or post Epstein client Clinton?

 

[TigerGrowls]

Could you imagine if Bill Clinton was running against Trump?

Talk about a landslide victory for Clinton.

Have you seen Bill Clinton lately? He's not exuding energy or conviction.

 

[Cavitybacks]

Have you seen Bill Clinton lately? He's not exuding energy or conviction.

Talking about 1993 Clinton.

 

[leetp]

Talking about 1993 Clinton.

Clinton was far-right MAGA Republican by today's standards. Serously.

Per a quick google search: "what was clinton's platform in 1992"

"Bill Clinton also focused on the economy in 1992 due to the recession and ran on school choice, balanced budget amendment, opposition to illegal immigration and support for NAFTA"

 

[leetp]

Latest betting odds:

​	9:10 AM Thurs​	​	3:30 PM Thurs​		9:00 AM Fri
​	Trump​	Harris​	Trump​	Harris​	Trump​	Harris​
BetOnline​	65.5​	37.7​	64.91​	38.46​	64.3​	39.2​
Betfair​	62.9​	37.3​	62.89​	37.31​	60.2​	39.7​
Betsson​	66.7​	38.5​	64.5​	40​	62.5​	41.7​
Bovada​	66.7​	37.0​	63.6​	40.8​	63.6​	41.7​
Bwin​	66.7​	38.5​	65.5​	40​	65.5​	40.0​
Points Bet​	65.4​	40.0​	64.5​	40.8​	64.5​	40.8​
Polymarket​	65.0​	34.9​	60.7​	39.4​	62.7​	37.5​
Smarkets​	61.7​	38.2​	60.61​	40​	59.5​	40.7​
Average​	65.1​	37.8​	63.4​	39.6​	62.9​	40.1​

 

[leetp]

Chart of recent betting market volitiliy:

Presidential Election Winner 2024

Polymarket | This market will resolve to “Yes” if Donald J. Trump wins the 2024 US Presidential Election. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.” The r...

polymarket.com

 

[WapPride]

Clinton was far-right MAGA Republican by today's standards. Serously.

Per a quick google search: "what was clinton's platform in 1992"

"Bill Clinton also focused on the economy in 1992 due to the recession and ran on school choice, balanced budget amendment, opposition to illegal immigration and support for NAFTA"

Guessing that makes Reagan/Bush libs by today's standards

 

[Spencer_York]

Clinton was far-right MAGA Republican by today's standards. Serously.

Per a quick google search: "what was clinton's platform in 1992"

"Bill Clinton also focused on the economy in 1992 due to the recession and ran on school choice, balanced budget amendment, opposition to illegal immigration and support for NAFTA"

Trump won in 2016 in large part because he ran against NAFTA

 

[Spencer_York]

New South Carolina poll today has Trump only up +7. He's obviously going to win it but that+the Kansas poll show some slippage

 

[scotchtiger]

Clinton was far-right MAGA Republican by today's standards. Serously.

Per a quick google search: "what was clinton's platform in 1992"

"Bill Clinton also focused on the economy in 1992 due to the recession and ran on school choice, balanced budget amendment, opposition to illegal immigration and support for NAFTA"

Remember his work for welfare bill? The dems would call that racist today.

 

[leetp]

View embedded media

Guessing that makes Reagan/Bush libs by today's standards

They're spot on. Both of them.

 

[okclem]

 

[leetp]

Trump won in 2016 in large part because he ran against NAFTA

Indeed. Didn't mean to imply that it was a 100% match.