For Me The Point Isn't That Hillary Has A 98% Chance of Winning

It's that 42% of the country can support a candidate like Trump.

Later polls give Clinton only a 70% chance of winning.
That's not good enough for me to be comfortable: "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people."

_Howard wrote:

That's not good enough for me to be comfortable

Agreed. It's not the thought of Trump as President that's so scary: they won't let him carry out his stupid "policies". But the people really running the country would be the same stupid fuckheads and criminals who gave us the great recession and the Iraq war.

To be fair, the stupid fuckheads inhabit both parties, and the Clintons have performed their share of abominable policy moves. And Hillary's a hawk militarily, make no mistake. I wouldn't put it past her to get us into a big war in late 2017-early 2018 when it become apparent that Congress isn't going to let her accomplish ANYTHING. The Clintons are great believers in the power of war to unite the country.

I'm also not too sure "trickle down economics" is exclusively the domain of the GOP. It seems to be popular with everyone whose taxes stand to disappear, and that includes a lot of Hillary's backers.

But in a choice between an admitted stupid fuckhead and a candidate who claims not to be a stupid fuckhead, I think the only rational choice to vote Hillary.

NoCoPilot wrote:

...the Clintons have performed their share of abominable policy moves.

Bill Clinton had policies. "The Clintons" did not.
I didn't always agree with Bill, but I'm not sure sure I would say that he had a number of "abominable" policies. What did you have in mind?

NoCoPilot wrote:

The Clintons are great believers in war...

Where do you get that?

No matter how this turns out, the country isn't going to be united behind the winner.

That's the real tragedy of Trump's candidacy.

The election is shaking out to be much closer than anyone anticipated.

That is scary.  And sad.

Just yesterday I read an analysis that predicted Hillary would win 325 electoral college votes.  Now it looks like both candidates will have 260+ and the election could hinge on a single state, perhaps Michigan (where Trump currently leads).

New York Times just gave Trump an 81% chance of winning.

Lots of analysis on the 5 or 6 channels I'm flipping between, the most insightful (surprisingly) has been Fox News.  They pointed out, quite rightly I think, that this election is not a referendum on left versus right, or Democrat versus Republican.  It's a referendum on establishment versus anti-establishment.

Nobody knows what a Trump Administration will look like.  He's a cipher.  He has no record.  Up until a few years ago he was a lifelong Democrat, and is known to be generally liberal on social issues.  During the campaign he has adopted whatever positions he feels will get him elected.

So he's elected.  

What do we do now?

Middle America, the farmers and truck drivers and waitresses who feel abandoned by elitist politicians, would rather throw a Molotov cocktail into American politics.  They want a total realignment where politicians no longer work for their own benefit.  I doubt (hell, I KNOW) Trump isn't that candidate, but you can taste the electorate's displeasure in this vote.

Ironically.... had Sanders been allowed to win the Democratic nomination, I think he would've won by a landslide.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Just yesterday I read an analysis that predicted Hillary would win 325 electoral college votes.

Yeah, the stats are way off this year.
Then again, consider that someone shoots at your head and misses the right temple by one inch. Of the next shot, he misses your left temple by one inch. On average, you are dead.