I thought our aging bridges and infrastructure and water delivery systems... not to mention a a dangerously vulnerable energy delivery system - were a given. Is it third world? ... its only an EMP or strong terrorist act away from being stone age. 90 percent of america could possible die in a Carrington solar event. We could be better off in a third world country.
Road to 270: The electoral college map By David Chalian, CNN Political Director Updated 9:07 AM ET, Wed May 4, 2016 WashingtonNow that Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee, it's time to start looking at general election match-ups between him and the likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Here's the CNN Political Unit's first look at the battleground map of 2016. This is where the state of play begins. Trump could confound some of these assumptions, but we'll need to see polling data, campaign organizing and spending, candidate schedules, and campaign engagement before we can adjust the playing field. And we will do just that as often as the campaign game plans dictate. Donald Trump has already suggested some of the first opportunities he sees to potentially flip the map in the industrial Midwest. Trump hopes to reawaken the so-called Reagan Democrats who once helped put states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio in the GOP column. Conversely, the Clinton campaign sees significant demographic advantages in traditional battleground states such as Nevada and Colorado and perhaps even in reliably (of late) Republican Arizona. The battleground map will evolve from now through the fall and just like the rest of this election season, it will be anything but predictable. Road to 270: Electoral College map Watch below to see John King run general election scenarios on the Magic Wall and explain why Donald Trump will focus on the Rust Belt: What will it take for Trump to win the presidency? 08:36 Solid Republican: Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Missouri (10), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3) (164 total) Leans Republican: Arizona (11), Georgia (16) (27 total) Battleground states: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), New Hampshire (4), Nevada (6), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10), North Carolina (15) (110 total) Leans Democratic: Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) (36 total) Solid Democratic: California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), DC (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12), Minnesota (10), New Mexico (5) (201 total) http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/road-to-270-electoral-college-map/index.html
Media projections don't hold much water in my opinion. Considering how wrong and how often they were wrong about Trump during the Primary.
Why the Bern should run as an independent: Here's what people searched for on Google after Trump triumphed over Cruz ...The Libertarian Party search surge, which was reported by the "Hit & Run" blog on the libertarian-oriented website Reason.com, suggests that some voters may be looking for a third-party alternative to voting for either Trump or likely Democratic nominee Clinton this fall. While some Republicans have indicated they will never vote for Trump, there is discomfort among many of them about casting a ballot for Clinton, who with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have long been bogeymen for the GOP.... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/04/here...n-google-after-trump-triumphed-over-cruz.html
It does? Obama got 66 million votes to win Presidency. Trump has to turn out nearly 9x the number of people that he turned out in the Primaries. I just don't see it. Hilary and The Bern have to turn out 6x and 7x. Doable.
Trump will clinch the GOP nomination with more votes and delegates then Romney, GW, or Bush Snr. Now, the key is to compensate for population growth and see if those numbers hold up. I'd be very interested in seeing how primary votes play out to general election votes. What the traditional ratio is. For example. for every 1 democratic primary vote, roughly 10 democrats vote in the general election. That's what it comes down to: turnout. From what I read off Drudge, Democratic turnout is very low this year. Republican is very high. Yet, Democratic turnout is still larger then Republican. Was it always this way? Was Democratic primary turnout in 2000 and 2004 much larger then the Republican turnout? And GW still won the General election? That's what I'm interested in.
The general election is a totally different animal. I suspect Clinton will get 70 million votes. That is what Trump has to beat.