Jump to content

The 2016 US Presidential Election

Adamski

By Adamski
in The Politics Forum

Recommended Posts

Kejan

Kejan

Posted
Posted

How exactly can Trump win?

 

I think he'll end up the nominee. The Republicans will write off 2016 - they are fucked anyway ; Trump - when you've got the likes of Erick Erickson, Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham all against him - , many GOP voters  will stay at home/can't be arsed. Cruz - not electable, and I'm more surprised he's still in it, rather than Trump still being there.

 

1/3 for a Democrat win in November is pretty amazing for big-time gamblers to cash in on.

 

I've never believed in conspiracies (more their shitey GIFs/graphics) than the message, but Hillary must be over the moon that someone who has negative polling ratings - poll after poll - can still be president thanks to the alternative being that much worse.

 

Might think again when I've seen the map, but if it's Trump v Clinton in November - Trump will win at most 15-20 states, never mind the college or popular vote.

 

PS Hillary Clinton is a c**t. She's awful, a fake, and a fraud with negative polling. Even against Kasich every poll in the last few months she's behind, yet she'll romp home.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Yank Mike

Yank Mike

Posted
Posted

How exactly can Trump win?

 

I think he'll end up the nominee. The Republicans will write off 2016 - they are fucked anyway ; Trump - when you've got the likes of Erick Erickson, Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham all against him - , many GOP voters  will stay at home/can't be arsed. Cruz - not electable, and I'm more surprised he's still in it, rather than Trump still being there.

 

1/3 for a Democrat win in November is pretty amazing for big-time gamblers to cash in on.

 

I've never believed in conspiracies (more their shitey GIFs/graphics) than the message, but Hillary must be over the moon that someone who has negative polling ratings - poll after poll - can still be president thanks to the alternative being that much worse.

 

Might think again when I've seen the map, but if it's Trump v Clinton in November - Trump will win at most 15-20 states, never mind the college or popular vote.

 

PS Hillary Clinton is a c**t. She's awful, a fake, and a fraud with negative polling. Even against Kasich every poll in the last few months she's behind, yet she'll romp home.

I've brought this up before:

Obama won 96 and 93% of black voters.

66% of eligible blacks voted. 64% of eligible whites voted.

This was the first election since 1968 in which whites voted at a lower rate than blacks. There was a black man on the ballot and a large part of his campaign strategy was based around depressing white blue collar turnout for vulture capitalist Romney after the Obama campaign concluded that their best bet with this demo was trying to get them to stay home rather than convince them to vote Obama.

These demographic quirks gave Obama victories in several states that a white Democrat would have lost, or perhaps a better Republican candidate would have won.

Let's assume that black and white voting rates revert to historical norms. Let's assume that Trump can pick up at least 10-12% of the black vote (maybe 15-18% if we are very optimistic). Let's assume that white blue collar workers are especially motivated to turn out by Trump after sitting out the last election.

Hispanics and Asians are a long term problem for Republicans. However, for the most part they are currently concentrated in states which are not up for grabs. There are only a couple states that have recently switched at this date from the lean Republican or swing state column to lean Democrat column based on Hispanics or Asians. The Republicans lost California decades ago. Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada are the recent states I can think of.

Romney's showing is likely the bottom for Republicans in 2016 barring some sort of amazing Trump implosion during the general election.

These are the states that Obama lost where he got at least 45%. Georgia - 45.5%, North Carolina - 48.4%. These states are most likely going to go for Trump.

These are the states that Romney lost where he got at least 45%. Colorado - 46.1%, Florida - 49.1%, Iowa - 46.2%, Nevada - 45.7%, New Hampshire - 46.4%, Ohio - 47.7%, Pennsylvania - 46.6%, Virginia - 47.3%, Wisconsin - 45.9%. He was also just short of 45% in Michigan and Minnesota. Assume that anti-Trump Hispanics push Colorado and Nevada even more Democratic. Trump's road to victory would be winning Florida (Obama by 0.88%), Ohio (2.98%), and Virginia (3.87%) based on the difference in the black/white vote referenced above. That puts him within 4 electoral votes of winning. Then he'd try peeling off the white blue collar vote in the heavily unionized areas in Michigan and Pennsylvania where Democrats are still competitive with those folks. He might have success in this if he's running against Hillary who has represented the Wall St / free trade side of her party for over two decades now. If he can't win one of those he'd have to hope to pick up one of the smaller, white states where the majority of white people voted for Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vikingTON

vikingTON

Posted
Posted

From your article:

Comparing Reagan and Trump on favorability ratings

Trump is also off-base on favorability ratings.

We didn’t find many questions on favorability in the Roper database, but one April 1980 poll from Cambridge Reports found Reagan at 39 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable. That’s five percentage points "under water" -- favorable minus unfavorable.

 

From the Washington Post on April 15, 1980:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/15/anderson-cancels-five-state-campaign-swing/b0827503-2af3-4d35-81d1-ee09242f7d82/

The other poll was taken by the Los Angeles Times on March 25, the day of the New York primary. It asked Republican and Democratic voters to record favorable and unfavorable impressions of candidates.

Anderson finished in the poll with a 68 percent favorable rating. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy was second with a 60 percent favorable rating followed by President Carter with 51 percent and Ronald Reagan with 30 percent.

 

That's where Trumps number came from, but it seems there's controversy as Gallup today can't locate the original poll cited by the Washington Post in 1980.

 

Any of this sound familiar?

http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0305/030542.html

Is defeat probable for GOP if Reagan wins nomination?

Washington — The nation's Republicans are working against the clock to answer two key questions: Can conservative Ronald Reagan possibly attract enough independent and Democratic votes to win in November?

An if he is likely to lose, has former President Gerald Ford time enough to challenge him for the GOP nomination?

. . .

But some experts caution: Don't count Ronald Reagan out as a national candidate for the fall. He is not, they say, "a McGovern or a Goldwater" -- fringe candidates who led their parties to one-sided defeats in 1972 and 1964. Intellectuals don't want to take him seriously, but he does well with working-class voters.

. . .

"Reagan is the opponent of choice for Carter," says I. A. Lewis, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll, a point on which most analysts agree. "But Reagan can reach across and cause mischief in the Democratic constituency," Mr. Lewis says. "Reagan appeals to blue collar, working-class voters. He can win Democratic votes."

"Carter could beat Reagan more easily than he could Bush or Baker," Mr. Lewis says. "A moderate Republican would appeal to moderate Democrats, while upper-income Republicans might defect from Reagan to the Demcorats. Ford is of course, the strogest in the polls against Carter.

. . .

Austin Ranney, American Enterprises Institute authority on the US election system, sees only difficult scenarios ahead for a late Ford entry into the race. First, if Mr. Reagan takes perhaps 40 percent of the delegates to the convention , then "theoretically there could be a brokered convention with Bush and [sen. Howard H.] Baker throwing support to Ford."

 

Literally none of what you've quoted, copied and pasted here even remotely answers the claim that Reagan was as unfavourably rated as Trump in April 1980. Because he evidently wasn't. Reagan's favorability rating as, as shown by the previous link, was in negative single figures in April of the election campaign. Trump is in negative double figures because he's an utter moron.

 

Thanks for playing anyway.

 

Utter fail; better luck next tine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LongTimeLurker

LongTimeLurker

Posted
Posted

How exactly can Trump win?

 

....

 

PS Hillary Clinton is a **** She's awful, a fake, and a fraud with negative polling. Even against Kasich every poll in the last few months she's behind, yet she'll romp home.

 

Will she though? I think you answered your own question. The problem she has is that she has a lot of skeletons in the closet/cupboard. Trump is likely to bring those up in live debate in a way that more conventional politicians would shy away from. There is also the question of exactly what he knows about how the Clintons operate having dealt with the Clintons closely as a businessman rather than a politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yank Mike

Yank Mike

Posted
Posted

The Maine governor says that Lyin Ted Cruz is up to his old tricks. Allegedly the Cruz, Trump, and Kasich campaigns had an agreement heading into the state convention to split delegates proportionally by the results of the state caucus, which Cruz won. The Cruz campaign backed out of the deal at the convention and managed to fill the entire slate of delegates except one with Cruz loyalists. Ben Carson was at the convention supporting Trump. Dr. Carson was of course the first victim of Cruz's underhanded tactics when the Cruz campaign distributed a false story to the various Iowa caucus sites that Carson was dropping out of the race right as the votes were about to happen.

 

Cruz and Kasich have announced that they will focus on different remaining states in an effort to stop Trump from obtaining a majority of the delegates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
welshbairn

welshbairn

Posted
Posted

Interesting thought but I'm not so sure. Are there any polls to support that proposition?

 

Not that I can find, but his chances may improve with a higher profile. Kasich consistently leads her by a few points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sooky

Sooky

Posted
Posted

I think there's been about 15 polls in a row showing that John Kasich beats Hillary by a quite a few points each time.

So obviously the GOP will pick someone who'll do awful in the GE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bishop Briggs

Bishop Briggs

Posted
Posted

Good article here on how the Republican party created the paranoia for Trump to exploit.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/opinion/trump-is-no-accident.html?_r=0

 

Paul Krugman is a liberal and partisan Democrat so he's not impartial. It's a very poor article with nothing of substance to back up its ludicrous claims.

 

The "movement conservatives" have not taken over the Republican Party. Big business, which has funded the Republican Party over those decades, has supported liberal immigration policies as it wants a ready supply of cheap labour.

 

Until Trump came along, the GOP was pro-immigration when under the control of the neoconservatives. Rubio and Jeb Bush were the favoured candidates of the neocons, big business and the GOP establishment. Trump out-campaigned them even in their home states.

 

The neocons are pro-war, pro-immigration and pro-welfare former Democrats. They were leading the opposition to Trump who opposes their policies. Leading neocons are now talking about going back to the Democrats to support Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paco

Paco

Posted
Posted

I think there's been about 15 polls in a row showing that John Kasich beats Hillary by a quite a few points each time.

So obviously the GOP will pick someone who'll do awful in the GE.

To be fair nobody knows who Kasich is, and Clinton has a 56% unfavourable rate. Not a massive surprise.

How many Presidents have failed to win the popular vote to be their parties candidate, out of interest?

Trump is 65% unfavourable v Clinton on 56%. That could be reversed with a couple of home truths about Hillary in a live debate, I reckon..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
welshbairn

welshbairn

Posted
Posted

Paul Krugman is a liberal and partisan Democrat so he's not impartial. It's a very poor article with nothing of substance to back up its ludicrous claims.

 

The "movement conservatives" have not taken over the Republican Party. Big business, which has funded the Republican Party over those decades, has supported liberal immigration policies as it wants a ready supply of cheap labour.

 

Until Trump came along, the GOP was pro-immigration when under the control of the neoconservatives. Rubio and Jeb Bush were the favoured candidates of the neocons, big business and the GOP establishment. Trump out-campaigned them even in their home states.

 

The neocons are pro-war, pro-immigration and pro-welfare former Democrats. They were leading the opposition to Trump who opposes their policies. Leading neocons are now talking about going back to the Democrats to support Clinton.

 

The Republican party elite's main objective has always been reducing taxes on the wealthy. How do you get votes from the poor and uneducated that you need to get elected? Throw a few bones to satisfy and stir up populist bigotry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...