no kidding. some little #### is always there to ruin the occassion.

The Trumpster is going to walk it, god help the USA.

Don't be fooled by the "national" polls - where populous states average down the differential. The Presidential election is counted state-by-state and, by that measure, Trump is still losing heavily.

Romney got his hat handed to him last time around, but the difference in the "popular" (nationwide) vote was only about 5%. So, when polls show Clinton up by 3% or the like, that's actually a big deal. When you look individually at the state-by-state polls, though, Trump's position looks even more stark.

To win, Trump has to hold all of the "red" states carried by Romney last time around, win a majority of the swing states - most of which Romney lost - and maybe even turn some marginal blue states to red. In this regard, he is not fairing well.

He is losing comfortably in the blue states but also in a number - too many - of the swing states. Even some of the red states are "turning purple", which means he has to spend time and money to prop up his base, while Clinton's base is rock solid allowing her to go on the offensive in the swing and marginal red states.

In this landscape, feinting spells aside, Clinton is already ahead comfortably, has her opponent on the ropes and has a significantly larger campaign organisation and war chest. If she's anything, she's a consummate campaigner, and the race was all-but over coming out of the conventions, but...

The press has a two-horse race to cover, so a lack of drama in the result does not sell newspapers or get ratings. They need to gin up a close race - even a fake one - to make all of their efforts pay off. That's why the press had McCain and Romney in the mix right up until the polls closed in California. Within seconds of that moment, the races were called for Obama - the final margin being laughably wide.

It's truly annoying, because it's unsettling to have Trump's chances endlessly exaggerated.. However, when it all comes out at the end of the day, it can lead to the spectacle of Karl Rove having a priceless, on air Duke Brothers moment, demanding that they turn the machines back on...
[Link]

For those interested in a more in-depth analysis of Trump's trouble in the swing states, go here:
[Link]

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

The establishment don't care who wins as they always come out on top.

Even if Trump got in, do you think anything would actually change? If he tried to implement any of his daft ideas, he would be blocked by Congress. Whilst his party hold a large majority, a lot of them don't like him and wouldn't necessarily back him.

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.

Don't get me wrong, I think Clinton is, at best, a stale choice. It's the major flaw of the US's two-party system that they get to pick the two options we get. The Democratic establishment wanted Clinton last time around before Obama crashed her party; Sanders had a good go at gazumping her this time too, but the party had its thumb heavily on the scale.

Unless and until the national offices are decided my a national poll (not state-by-state) there will be no room for disruptive and/or third party candidates.

The "electoral college" currently used is a throw back to the pre-media days when candidates had to travel the country to pitch their case in person. Assigning a value to each state ensured that the candidates would actually show up in the low-population states. Nowadays, you have the ridiculous situation that the election results hangs on the decision of a few states and the rest of our votes are secondary and assumed given. So, for example, while Romney won 57% of the vote in Texas, he received the full weight of Texas' 38 votes in the electoral college - the 2nd largest haul in the nation. The 3.3mm votes for Obama are, essentially, ignored.

Representatives are elected by voters in their district. Senators are elected by voters in their state. It's time that Presidents were elected by voters in the nation, not this 18th century, horse and cart model. There's only been one president since the 1800s who has been elected while losing the "popular vote" (i.e. the nationwide vote count), and that was George W. Bush in 2000...

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Republicans are likely to hold their majority in the Senate, but it may get a little thinner. In this regard, the Democrats will be able to play spoiler and block much of what President Trump would do. But they can't stop him hitting the big red button on his desk to nuke someone for dissing his hair...

The real influence of the next President will be that they will get to nominate at least one, and probably two, justices to the Supreme Court. Bush Jr. got to put two on there, and he chose very young and very conservative judges. Obama got to put two on there, and he chose two very young and very liberal judges.

Whoever gets to choose the next two, will establish the political slant of the court for the next generation.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.