₦airaland Forum

nerilove:
Trump didnt win the debate. Hillary beat him hand down. Where's your source?

I quoted fox news up there.

But shameless CNN is spreading putrid saliva everywhere talking rubbish

Online votes declare Trump debate winner, despite media consensus for Clinton
Published September 27, 2016
FoxNews.com
Facebook

Twitter

livefyre

Email

NOW PLAYING
Who will get the post-debate bump?
If polls only included media pundits, Hillary Clinton would have won Monday’s debate by a landslide, but online surveys had Donald Trump as the yuge winner.


The Drudge Report online vote had 80 percent of respondents giving the victory to Trump, and a Time.com survey had the Republican nominee leading Clinton by 4 percentage points – 52 percent to 48 percent – after more than 1,300,000 votes were cast. CNBC and Breitbart votes also had Trump winning the event, at New York’s Hofstra University.

A Fox News online vote had Trump winning with 50 percent of respondents, Clinton at 35 percent and the other 15 percent declaring no one won.

The online surveys are not scientific and, in many cases, supporters of either candidate can cast multiple ballots. Still, the disconnect in judging Trump’s performance was reminiscent of the Republican Party primary, when pundits often said his competitors bested him while online polls put him on top.

Experts say the online votes are a good gauge of enthusiasm, which could mean Trump’s performance was enough to energize those who already backed him.

Experts were near unanimous in finding Clinton was more disciplined and armed with greater recall of facts, but Trump’s supporters believe his blunt style and unconventional background are among his best attributes.

Dear God thank you for giving us Jonathan.

Yeah I did a thread on this few days ago, its in the foreign affairs section. Trump all the way.

jmichlins:
there's no curse as deadly as APC and Buhari. I curse the day the two came into existence. The government already had the plans Dangote just let the cat out of the bag

I am as pained as you are, bro, may all those who sold this death to Nigerians never know peace.

lonelydora:
I am skeptical about this 'speed limiter' since it was introduced. For most of us highway travelers, what happens in the case of an going robbery (God forbid) and you want to escape?

I have been chased by robbers in a Golf 3 car along Enugu - Okigwe route some years back. Thank God for my V6 engine. What if I have the speed limiter installed, what would have happened?

I'm just scared abiut this whole thing shaa.

Our leaders are dullards. This same device is being phased out in many countries and they want to bring it here, meanwhile poverty is beating the sh..t out of Nigerians.

Nice

fearNORTH:
Have mercy on your self young man.

Jumping from one Biafran thread to the other thus whiling away your precious time wouldn't put food on your table.

The guy is pathetic. I wonder how old he is.

Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of presidential outcomes correctly
By Peter W. Stevenson The FixSeptember 23 at 8:00 AM
Who will win the 2016 presidential election? This professor has predicted correctly for 32 years Play Video4:11

Prof. Allan Lichtman created his "13 Keys to the White House" more than 30 years ago – and he's ready to predict who will win in 2016 (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
Nobody knows for certain who will win on Nov. 8 — but one man is pretty sure: Professor Allan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984.

When we sat down in May, he explained how he comes to a decision. Lichtman's prediction isn't based on horse-race polls, shifting demographics or his own political opinions. Rather, he uses a system of true/false statements he calls the "Keys to the White House" to determine his predicted winner.

And this year, he says, Donald Trump is the favorite to win.

The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman’s book “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016” are:

Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, sat down with The Fix this week to reveal who he thinks will win in November and why 2016 was the most difficult election to predict yet. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.


THE FIX: Can you tell me about the keys, and how you use them to evaluate the election from the point where — I assume it's very murky a year or two out, and they start to crystallize over the course of the election.

LICHTMAN: "The Keys to the White House" is a historically based prediction system. I derived the system by looking at every American presidential election from 1860 to 1980, and have since used the system to correctly predict the outcomes of all eight American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012.

The keys are 13 true/false questions, where an answer of "true" always favors the reelection of the party holding the White House, in this case the Democrats. And the keys are phrased to reflect the basic theory that elections are primarily judgments on the performance of the party holding the White House. And if six or more of the 13 keys are false — that is, they go against the party in power — they lose. If fewer than six are false, the party in power gets four more years.

So people who hear just the surface-level argument there might say, well, President Obama has a 58 percent approval rating, doesn't that mean the Democrats are a shoo-in? Why is that wrong?

It absolutely does not mean the Democrats are a shoo-in. First of all, one of my keys is whether or not the sitting president is running for reelection, and right away, they are down that key. Another one of my keys is whether or not the candidate of the White House party is, like Obama was in 2008, charismatic. Hillary Clinton doesn't fit the bill.


The keys have nothing to do with presidential approval polls or horse-race polls, with one exception, and that is to assess the possibility of a significant third-party campaign.

What about Donald Trump on the other side? He's not affiliated with the sitting party, but has his campaign been an enigma in terms of your ability to assess this election?

Donald Trump has made this the most difficult election to assess since 1984. We have never before seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump may well break patterns of history that have held since 1860.

We've never before seen a candidate who's spent his life enriching himself at the expense of others. He's the first candidate in our history to be a serial fabricator, making up things as he goes along. Even when he tells the truth, such as, "Barack Obama really was born in the U.S.," he adds two lines, that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement, and that he finished it, even though when Barack Obama put out his birth certificate, he didn't believe it. We've never had a candidate before who not just once, but twice in a thinly disguised way, has incited violence against an opponent. We've never had a candidate before who's invited a hostile foreign power to meddle in American elections. We've never had a candidate before who's threatened to start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too close to us. We've never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a murderous, hostile foreign dictator. Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150 years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it.


We're a little bit less than seven weeks out from the election today. Who do you predict will win in November?

Based on the 13 keys, it would predict a Donald Trump victory. Remember, six keys and you're out, and right now the Democrats are out — for sure — five keys.

Key 1 is the party mandate — how well they did in the midterms. They got crushed.

Key number 3 is, the sitting president is not running.

Key number 7, no major policy change in Obama's second term like the Affordable Care Act.

Key number 11, no major smashing foreign policy success.

And Key number 12, Hillary Clinton is not a Franklin Roosevelt.

One more key and the Democrats are down, and we have the Gary Johnson Key. One of my keys would be that the party in power gets a "false" if a third-party candidate is anticipated to get 5 percent of the vote or more. In his highest polling, Gary Johnson is at about 12 to 14 percent. My rule is that you cut it in half. That would mean that he gets six to seven, and that would be the sixth and final key against the Democrats.

So very, very narrowly, the keys point to a Trump victory. But I would say, more to the point, they point to a generic Republican victory, because I believe that given the unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy and Trump himself, he could defy all odds and lose even though the verdict of history is in his favor. So this would also suggest, you know, the possibility this election could go either way. Nobody should be complacent, no matter who you're for, you gotta get out and vote.

5-Minute Fix newsletter
Keeping up with politics is easy now.
Sign up
Do you think the fact that Trump is not a traditional Republican — certainly not an establishment Republican, from a rhetorical or policy perspective — contributes to that uncertainty over where he fits in with the standard methodology for evaluating the Keys?

I think the fact that he's a bit of a maverick, and nobody knows where he stands on policy, because he's constantly shifting. I defy anyone to say what his immigration policy is, what his policy is on banning Muslims, or whoever, from entering the United States, that's certainly a factor. But it's more his history in Trump University, the Trump Institute, his bankruptcies, the charitable foundation, of enriching himself at the expense of others, and all of the lies and dangerous things he's said in this campaign, that could make him a precedent-shattering candidate.


It's interesting, I don't use the polls, as I've just explained, but the polls have very recently tightened. Clinton is less ahead than she was before, but it's not because Trump is rising, it's because Clinton is falling. He's still around 39 percent in the polls. You can't win if you can't crack 40 percent.

As people realize the choice is not Gary Johnson, the only choice is between Trump and Clinton, those Gary Johnson supporters may move away from Johnson and toward Clinton, particularly those millennials. And, you know, I've seen this movie before. My first vote was in 1968, when I was the equivalent of a millennial, and lots of my friends, very liberal, wouldn't vote for Hubert Humphrey because he was part of the Democratic establishment, and guess what? They elected Richard Nixon.

And, of course, as I have said for over 30 years, predictions are not endorsements. My prediction is based off a scientific system. It does not necessarily represent, in any way, shape or form, an Allan Lichtman or American University endorsement of any candidate. And of course, as a successful forecaster, I've predicted in almost equal measure both Republican and Democratic victories.

Bujumbura:
They are Not MUSLIMS


WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF pakistan

Islamabad!

Shameless hypocrite they call a president.

Now I am convinced buhari is a fool, a very big one.

Brooklynsouth:
obj has 10k and now a billionaire what do have to say about it don't u think it would have helped the poor yoruba people?

Now I am convinced buhari is a fool, a very big one.

sonofluc1fer:
I'm really not bothered if the source of disturbance in my neighborhood happens to be a church, mosque or club. Unlike you, I don't know how to manage 'noise' and 'disturbance'. The church on our street installed some sound insulation material and also removed the speakers they placed outside the church. Now, there's peace and quiet, and they can still worship their God without disturbing others. That's rationality, that's intelligence, that should be commended. Not advicing people to manage/tolerate nonsense because you, or attempting to raise suspicions as to my real motive.

Nice move by that church on your street. Such should be emulated.

Ranchhoddas:
Hahahahaha. Tell me with a ''straight face'' that the doctors said that ''church noise was responsible for your condition''.

You tell me with a straight face that noise from churches is less harmful than that from elsewhere. Fact is many churches are constituting a health hazard by being very inconsiderate in their use of public space. Christianity is not to blame,...FALSE CHRISTIANITY is to blame.

Ranchhoddas:
What does ''unsavoury'' mean?

Well there are as many meanings as there are people who are just about fed up. It could mean burning the church down if you are talking about miscreants, or if the matter persists government could step in and wield the big stick... I hope our brethren don't shout persecution then.

Ranchhoddas:
I think the people who make all these complaints about churches and their noise exaggerate the matter a bit. There is a church beside my house that ''make noise'' frequently; up to three times weekly and a mosque that does its own five times daily. I have adapted to these different sources of ''disturbance'' and I also believe everyone else has. The mosques have even turned to an alarm for some other people with their early morning call to prayer so I don't really understand the level of antagonism that I see all the time on the internet. I am not supporting public disturbance in any way but it is what it is...

It is what it is until you push people to the wall and they react in unsavory ways and then we blame it on persecution?? Please let's do the right thing.

Correct guy
Like play like play this guy don old . Life sef.

Correct guy
Like play likenplay this guy don't old . Life sef.

It's becoming rather embarrassing , the type of inconvenience some of our brethren cause others in their " Zeal??" . how do you explain a church , a small church, sited in a residential neighborhood setting up big loudspeakers and constantly blaring out multiplied mega decibels of unwanted noise I'll love to hear someone try and justify this because...I just can't. I can think of several reasons for this and not one of them is scriptural. It is morally, socially, health Wise, and otherwise wrong . people come back from work stressed needing some rest and they can't because you are literally shouting at the entire neighborhood. Many times its nonsense that these loudspeakers are spewing out. Yes...nonsense: some prayer leader is speaking in tongues that pass zero message across ( pray how can uninterpreted tongues edify the hearer? ), or a song leader leading 7 people in praise with a loudspeaker Its our job as Christians to call ourselves to order...to judge ourselves. The bible says if we would judge ourselves we would not be judged...I cor 11.31. What if we don't judge ourselves, who could he send to judge us I don't even want to guess. You are praying for peoples health and all the while increasing their stress load and blood pressure The Muslims do it too? ...yea well we've been condemning and continue to condemn them; by the way it doesn't make it right. Lest anyone be in doubt, I am as Christian as they come (!! ) and I serve the lord Christ, but I wouldn't hesitate to support a sanction for this indiscipline. Let's be an example in word and in deed, and let's follow Jesus who went to a solitary place to pray ...Mark 1.35. He didn't disturb people. Shalom!

hakimmiyya:
This is what we have been telling them but fail to understand because they follow blindly.
Even the bible itself says:

Mark 4:12

“That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them

The author of this article has freely aired his opinion without harassment, critiquing the bible as he deems fit and no one has called for his head.
Can the Koran be challenged this publicly without a fatwa being pronounced? Or even a riot with shedding of innocent blood and burning of property? You see , you say you've been telling them and they fail to understand? Maybe its because what you are is so loud they can't hear what you are saying. Islam belongs in the past when men were animals living the jungle life. Christianity belongs to an eternal age of peace and tolerance. Shalom.

"Over blessing " dey worry igbos! Igbo nwe mmadu mmamma nu oo!!

AtlanticBreeze:
the mere commissioner?

Okonjo Iweala was more powerful in government than this mere commissioner who is not allowed into security meetings

yeye

QuotaSystem:
Lol you sound like a bad joke.

Who cares if you love Jonathan or not? You also love Biafra; are they not both failures? Lmao.

Go and tell the bolded to Obiano and ask him to shut up about SE infrastructural underdevelopment and stop disturbing cyberspace.

Northern quota system presidents are the bad joke . deal with your illiterate dullard from daura. Jonathan is not in your league.

QuotaSystem:
Absolute trash. Yes the failure to develop your region was deliberate because he looted the resources instead knowing he was sure of your support because you're doomed to play sentimental ethno religious politics.

Do you even know how shameful it is to admit that the person who the SE gave 99.9% of its support spent his time serving the North alone to their own detriment? Is that foolishness or plain cowardice?

Well you can excused for supporting a weak President because you had no choice, but you cannot be excused for validating the abuse of the mandate you gave Jonathan because I'm sure those that were screaming for his re-election were not doing so out of love for the North and their desire for him to continue focusing on northern development.

Who is talking about serving north? I repeat Jonathan in all his imperfection benefited Nigeria more than any northern president at the very least. He believed in Nigeria unlike your thieving uncles and spread development around and that's why you have the guts to spew thrash on nairaland. The world keeps recognizing him daily, where are your thousand and one past northern leaders? The world is either trying to repatriate their loot (abacha et all), or dealing with the fall out of their mediocre regimes. We love GEJ , hug transformer for all I care.

QuotaSystem:
Keep quiet, you're just confused and torn between your hatred for Peter Obi and sycophancy for Jonathan.

So you agree with Obiano that Jonathan failed to adequately develop the region but still want to claim that he is loved for his incompetence? Are y'all bipolar?

Maybe you're trying to agree with Obi that Jonathan gave Ndigbo its identity, otherwise I don't see why you're arguing with Obianos position.

You keep quiet. In what way Were ndigbo specially shortchanged by GEJ? did he build the east-west road, lagos Ibadan, etc ? Aren't you hearing some bayelsans saying they didn't gain much from their own son? Jonathan did what he could for the country given the kind of chokehold Hausa and Yoruba had him in, and sensible Igbo don't blame him. Abuja lokoja road and beyond was done to serve north south travellers, etc Jonathan worked.
It is now your buhari's turn.

Nice observation. I rarely read govt addresses these days to be honest, I sincerely don't expect anything great from this team and I pray they prove me wrong. Plagiarism is a big issue but ours is a country where anything goes, sadly it may not attract the attention it deserves.

Mrsprof:
Maybe she go don drop out of school. Our politicians are all liars. Tufiakwa! I was deceived too

So you voted for buhari?

hodusglobal:
A Christian. When its time to worship Orunmila, he will be there also.

A christian??really? Na wa o

Is this guy a Muslim or a Christian?

newsburster:
The relationship between the Republican Party and its most important constituency group, the Christian Right, has often been compared to a marriage of convenience that does not involve a lot of mutual respect or
trust.
As a couple of thousand Christian Right activists gathered in Washington for the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit this weekend, it was more obvious than ever that the GOP is straining the loyalties of the faithful. The star attraction, Donald Trump, was, after all, the fifth-place finisher in the presidential straw poll at last September’s VVS.
But like a long-suffering spouse,
the Christian Right is sticking with Donald Trump as we head toward Election Day because he is convincingly the enemy of its enemies and is willing to make a few key gestures in the direction of the righteous, albeit in a clumsy and offhand way.
None of the Christian conservative leaders who have made opposition to Trump (e.g., Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention) a matter of conscience were allowed near the podium of the VVS. Still, much anxious rhetoric was aimed at

http://www.newsburster.com/2016/09/christian-right-renews-vows-in-marriage.html

Good. Go Trump go.