Thing is, they are both terrible. I'm not the only one saying it.

The fact that there's still talk of a Trump presidency indicates they are close.

It's been 8 years but I don't recall much talk of a McCain presidency a month before the election.

365-173

Bet it's closer this year.

Um, you don't remember it but McCain and Romney were closer in the polls a month out than Trump is.

And there's a reason for that. McCain and Romney were serious candidates who had the skills to be President. In 08 and 12, Americans had two viable options.

Thats not the case this year. Which is why George HW Bush is voting for Clinton. It's why no major newspapers have endorsed Trump.

Do you think Hillary will win by 192 electoral votes?

I'm going to assume "no" because you'd have been throwing out wagers the moment I said "bet".

So why, with no serious candidate from the Republicans, do you think Hillary isn't running away with this election?

I don't know. I do know that she's the only viable option we have this election.

HILLARY--- 364 DRUMPF----174

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2016 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I don't know. I do know that she's the only viable option we have this election.

Then why won't she win in a landslide?

I think there's still a chance that she does. The closer we get to the election, the more Trump might completely self-destruct.

If she's the only viable candidate, why would she need that to happen?

Why do you care?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2016 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2016 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I don't know. I do know that she's the only viable option we have this election.

Then why won't she win in a landslide?

A) She probably will. Don't know if it will be a 2008-like landslide, but she'll clear 300 electoral votes.

B) How close the election will or will not be is a separate argument from the fact that there's a significant difference between the candidates in terms of whether or not they are competent enough to be President.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2016 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2016 9:38:00 AM (view original):
OK. We'll just pretend that Trump's cool, and all will be good if he's elected.

You can't find the article about all the bad things Hillary COULD do? Weird.

There's no need to pretend anything. Trump is a ******* nightmare. But hatchet jobs from daily rags are sort of pointless.

Read this article this morning -
Republican-leaning papers endorse Clinton; what will the Wall Street Journal do?

Apparently EVERY newspaper is endorsing Clinton. Even ones that never did. I read the other articles that were linked too. (Actually thats a lie. The Chicago Times endorsed that Johnson guy).

So EVERYONE is doing a 'hatchet job' on Trump. Seems like that might mean something. Trump is so bad, so stupid, that even the most right leaning papers are endorsing Hillary. You have to be pretty bad to do that.

I'm sure Rupert is monitoring the ratings so he can decide what he'll tell the WSJ editorial board to endorse. I'm guessing they'll say Trump, and hope that - when the smoke clears after Clinton annihilates Trump - they don't have too much egg on their faces.

I'm sickened that the Republican Party got to this point. It used to be my party that had their **** together. No longer.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2016 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2016 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2016 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I don't know. I do know that she's the only viable option we have this election.

Then why won't she win in a landslide?

A) She probably will. Don't know if it will be a 2008-like landslide, but she'll clear 300 electoral votes.

B) How close the election will or will not be is a separate argument from the fact that there's a significant difference between the candidates in terms of whether or not they are competent enough to be President.

A) Maybe. I haven't seen anything predicting that she'll get 300. Of course, I haven't really looked.

B) Not really. If the American people think enough of Trump to keep him in it, I'm not sure they think Hillary is all that competent.

Of course, if Hillary didn't have so much trouble with the truth, she might be running away with it.

Posted by sjpoker on 10/2/2016 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2016 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2016 9:38:00 AM (view original):
OK. We'll just pretend that Trump's cool, and all will be good if he's elected.

You can't find the article about all the bad things Hillary COULD do? Weird.

There's no need to pretend anything. Trump is a ******* nightmare. But hatchet jobs from daily rags are sort of pointless.

Read this article this morning -
Republican-leaning papers endorse Clinton; what will the Wall Street Journal do?

Apparently EVERY newspaper is endorsing Clinton. Even ones that never did. I read the other articles that were linked too. (Actually thats a lie. The Chicago Times endorsed that Johnson guy).

So EVERYONE is doing a 'hatchet job' on Trump. Seems like that might mean something. Trump is so bad, so stupid, that even the most right leaning papers are endorsing Hillary. You have to be pretty bad to do that.

I'm sure Rupert is monitoring the ratings so he can decide what he'll tell the WSJ editorial board to endorse. I'm guessing they'll say Trump, and hope that - when the smoke clears after Clinton annihilates Trump - they don't have too much egg on their faces.

I'm sickened that the Republican Party got to this point. It used to be my party that had their **** together. No longer.

I don't really buy the whole "liberal media" thing that Trump champions but, truth is, the media is pretty liberal.