After one debate he'll be in the single digits!

on our local news station thread that get on my nerves. Thank goodness Virginians see through this con man.

SIGH

Hampton Roads is a very diverse area with an an extremely large military population. Most of your republican types live in Virginia Beach or Chesapeake and in some of the smaller, more rural, areas like Gloucester or Mathews county. Otherwise it is a very solid Democratic stronghold.
To win HR and NoVa, you win the state.

America is coming to its senses after the long devastation started by that bastard Raygunz!

Take the white house, the Senate, the House and the SCOTUS democratic party!

For the PEOPLE!!!

so many smithereens that a phalanx of psychiatrists couldn't put Trumpty-Dumpty's ego together again. He needs to be humiliated and consigned to historical ignominy.

He is very popular in VA and locks up that state. With VA as a lock her path to 270 is remarkably easy.

I went on a two-week camping trip SW VA (Jefferson Forest?) about three years ago and the land there may be some of the most beautiful scenery I've ever witnessed. Being a dust-oriented Texas boy and seeing the mountains, the green, the mist, the old-growth forest-- well, it was simply the most enchanting camping trip I've ever been on.

The Appalachians are some of the most ancient mountains on earth. The New River is the second oldest, after the Nile.

What's next for Republicans?

Less crazy, far far right hate and rhetoric. More measured, more sane. Focused on right wing economics but less bigoted on social issues.

I'd still hate them and never side with them... but the party will simply die out if they stick to their current course.

I don't see how they reconcile. I don't see any logic or reason in any of them. The racists are all emotion: hate. The rest of them are all lust for power: greed.

I don't believe they will EVER give up their support for unlimited access to guns, and abolition of women's right to choose. Meaning the wacko fringe will continue to determine their electoral choices, from state legislators to president. They need to overhaul the entir Repug platform, but are too terrified of offending their crazy base.

I have to agree. They are lost without something to rub up against.

Going back to anything is irrational enough, but the 1950s that they envision is pure nostalgic fantasy.

Rump is such a bad candidate that he can't do it for them. But next time they will probably resurrect Cruz or Jeb. Hillary has got to be very careful during her first term. She simply cannot give them any ammo.

And how are they going to put their coalition back together?

I don't worry about them, I do worry about us. We're quite capable of blowing a sure thing .

It'd be an act. A pretense. A sham. They are not capable of making those sorts of changes. It's an ingrained, inbred mental deficiency.

An early lesson for me was sitting in a room in my college fraternity trying to explain to my frat brothers the concept of being nice to people for no reason other than to be nice.

I failed.

"What's next for Republicans?"

I believe the GOP is at a critical, factional cross-roads much as the Democratic party was during the immediate post-war period (the genesis of which, arguably began during FDR's first term). The Democratic party presented itself with the choice of allowing the Dixiecrats to not simply engage the party, but to drive it towards their own agenda, or to remove and deny the Dixiecrat any voice within the party.

In the here and now, the GOP appears to be a victim of this same factional distinction; the moderate wing (e.g., Colin Powell, Charlie Baker, McCain, Olympia Snowe, etc) will either embrace the Evangelical, Tea-Bagger wing (Ashcroft, Santorum, Huckabee, Condi Rice, etc.) and its policies, or reject them en toto as the Dems did to the Dixiecrats.

Rejection of the bagger wing would hurt them in the short run, but (I think) allow the GOP to remain viable as a player in the party system for the forseeable future. Fully embracing the Bagger wing however, will do to the GOP what would have happened to the Democratic party in '48 if the party had allowed the Dixicrats to remain a strong party voice (Strom Thurmond as a viable candidate for President, reinforcement of Jim Crow, etc), and we'll witness the outright dissolution of the GOP as a valid part of the political system.

That said, I also predicted Trump would be the second or third candidate to drop out of the GOP primary race, so my track record for prognostication is at best, spotty.

Lanternwaste I think you make a good case, but I really don't know. I don't see their alleged "moderates" as being all that moderate or functional.

But then I have been wrong too.

First - the MOE is 4% so that tempers the results just a bit.

Hillary is over 50%. In any poll it is significant to go past the peak.

Hillary is pulling 60 in Tidewater?!???! Tidewater is Williamsburg to Va. Beach. Heavy heavy military and associated government spending. This shows that at best Hillary's message is working or that they don't want anyone messing with their Uncle Sucker money (I grew up there - you hear that phrase a lot). I think it also shows that Trump's comments about the military being weak and, more importantly, his dismissal of McCain's sacrifice are being remembered.

Lastly - Trump should be pulling more than 58% in the southwest. That's feeding ground for Republican votes. There's not a huge population there but 32% for Hillary are bonus votes.

The only time we've seen anything from Don The Con was when he visited the other local con man Pat Robinson . That's it ! I keep asking myself, "where are the ads?"

What is he spending money on? Offices aren't that expensive - not that he has any of those either.

No the Khan spat (who live in Va too) didn't help especially in Hampton Roads.

Johnson and Stein are still running. What is the point of a poll question that ignores the other candidates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/08/16/National-Politics/Polling/release_437.xml?tid=a_inl

That ain't gonna happen at this point.

Johnson ended up getting 1% of the vote and Nader ended up getting 2.75% of the vote.

After they are excluded from the debates I expect their numbers to wane.

Nader approached 7 percent once early in the summer. By August his numbers were similar to election day.

Ross Perot's numbers actually got better closer to election day. I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson's improve slightly too as Trump implodes.

Gary Johnson has never reached those lofty heights. Also, Perot was in the mainstream of American politics. Libertarianism or libertarianism has never been.

But Johnson doesn't show any signs of waning (to Hillary's disadvantage).

538 says it hurts Clinton slightly.

The majority of pollsters (12) have Clinton’s margin over Trump shrinking when at least one third-party candidate is included. The difference in margins, however, varies among pollsters, and a few, such as Ipsos, have Clinton’s lead rising by the tiniest of bits when at least Johnson is included. Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

We can argue about the significance of a single percentage point. It’s not a very big deal when Clinton is leading by 5.5 percentage points in the FiveThirtyEight national polling average and is projected to win the national vote by 6.3 percentage points in the FiveThirtyEight polls-only model. (Note that our model prefers the versions of polls that include Johnson. Otherwise, Clinton’s advantage would be slightly larger.1) The discrepancy could, however, become an issue if the race becomes tighter. Although Clinton has been hurt by the inclusion of third-party candidates over the past month, it hasn’t been consistent


The fact that there is a difference puts some pressure on pollsters to decide whether a full ballot or partial ballot test is giving them a more accurate representation of the race. As I noted above, third-party candidates often fade later in the campaign. If that happens this year, the inclusion of third-party candidates in the polls could be artificially inflating Trump’s chances of winning at this point.

But it’s also possible (and, I would argue, probable) that because Clinton and Trump are two of the most disliked presidential candidates of all time, third-party candidates are going to do better than usual. Johnson looks especially likely to peel votes from Clinton and Trump because he will probably achieve ballot access in all 50 states, which is unusual for a non-major-party candidate.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-johnson-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/

Hillary Clinton holds an identical nine-point edge over Trump in a head-to-head general election question (51%-42%) as well as in a general election question that names libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (45%-36%; 11% support Johnson).

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/

538 does not report a summary of results when ONLY Clinton, Trump, and Johnson are included, which is what you would need to have to determine what his possible effect is. It refers to "at least one" third party candidate in the first sentence. Stein may account for the reduction in margin where it was observed. Even then, 538 says some polls show Clinton's lead RISING when "at least" Johnson is included.

I remember when he was flyin high for a while.

I suspect political gravity would have caught up with him and Dems and Reps would support their own candidates.

I guess

Most elections, they barely register 3% if you combine all of them. Granted, they might reach 8% combined this year but that will be a stretch as 5% seems more likely.

This is a well-observed phenomenon.

And as I noted above,

The majority of pollsters (12) have Clinton’s margin over Trump shrinking when at least one third-party candidate is included. The difference in margins, however, varies among pollsters, and a few, such as Ipsos, have Clinton’s lead rising by the tiniest of bits when at least Johnson is included. Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

We can argue about the significance of a single percentage point. It’s not a very big deal when Clinton is leading by 5.5 percentage points in the FiveThirtyEight national polling average and is projected to win the national vote by 6.3 percentage points in the FiveThirtyEight polls-only model. (Note that our model prefers the versions of polls that include Johnson. Otherwise, Clinton’s advantage would be slightly larger.1) The discrepancy could, however, become an issue if the race becomes tighter. Although Clinton has been hurt by the inclusion of third-party candidates over the past month, it hasn’t been consistent

The fact that there is a difference puts some pressure on pollsters to decide whether a full ballot or partial ballot test is giving them a more accurate representation of the race. As I noted above, third-party candidates often fade later in the campaign. If that happens this year, the inclusion of third-party candidates in the polls could be artificially inflating Trump’s chances of winning at this point.

But it’s also possible (and, I would argue, probable) that because Clinton and Trump are two of the most disliked presidential candidates of all time, third-party candidates are going to do better than usual. Johnson looks especially likely to peel votes from Clinton and Trump because he will probably achieve ballot access in all 50 states, which is unusual for a non-major-party candidate.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-johnson-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/

I want to see him obliterated

Reading the article, her lead could grow depending on AA turnout.

I believe my people will turn out. They hate the turd (Trump) for all of that birther crap.

2. to blot out or render undecipherable (writing, marks, etc.); efface.

The low info voters that made Trump possible must be beaten too otherwise the next candidate they support will be worse than Trump.

With the big military bases here, you'd expect Trump to have quite alot of support...but as I've said before and often, there hasn't been a SINGLE Trump campaign ad, I've yet to see ANY Pro Trump ANYTHING on tv or signs anywhere around here . Nothing. Blank . Zero . Bush had a lot of signs and ads, McCain sure did, Romney did....but not Trump. At the same time, I've seen and met Hillary campaign workers all over the place ! So the numbers are true.

We have to beat this racist asshole into the ground so HRC goes in with a clear mandate and Republicans feel no power what so ever!

We have a bad habit of getting lazy when it looks like we are going to win. Our voters stay home if there is a cloud in the sky or a pain in their butt. We MUST vote, we MUST get our neighbors to vote.

These polls are wonderful news, I'm not saying otherwise, I am just continuing to send out the warning that we have to vote! She can do nothing of substance if she doesn't at least get the Senate.