The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Mr Bean]

These numbers are going to wobble all over the horizon, buddy. It is grossly, stupidly premature to assume that we can predict the election based on the results of specific polls at this time.

Funny where have I heard that about Trump and poll numbers before.

Seriously we are five months out at this point, I agree the polls are inaccurate but I'd not use the exact same verbage everyone else used about Trump and the polls back in December of last year.

Assume nothing about this election.

[SolarpunkFan]

Sorry, I'm nervous as hell about the election. I agree with Sanders more than Hillary, but I agree even more with Hillary than with Trump.

[Dalton]

Tracking polls are worse than useless at this point: They give a measure of unearned confidence to the winner and apprehension to the loser. Once we get past the primaries, then the tracking polls will really start to mean a little more. Also the electoral map is still very unfavorable to the GOP.

[Mr Bean]

Tracking polls are worse than useless at this point: They give a measure of unearned confidence to the winner and apprehension to the loser. Once we get past the primaries, then the tracking polls will really start to mean a little more. Also the electoral map is still very unfavorable to the GOP.

Still very unfavorable assuming standard election conditions which we are not likely to have. Obama won North Carolina in 2008 via a combination of high Democratic turnout and low Republican turnout as Nate Silver said a few months back. Not via making 200,000 Republicans switch to the Democratic party. If Trump can fire up his own side enough to generate a turnout increase he can win in surprising areas, example NJ which is typically a good Democratic state now is trending Trump pretty hard. The tendency in these contests is for pundits to look at the map give 2000 electoral votes to the Democrats and the same to the Republicans and argue about the last 130 as if both sides have 200 electoral votes set in stone.

This year that is unlikely to be the case and we don't know if Democratic strength in places like Arizona will be telling or offset by surprising showings in the North East for Trump.

[Borgholio]

Looks like Trump is indeed backing out of the debate. Now he's saying he wants to wait until after the Primary is over. No surprises there.

[Omega18]

Still very unfavorable assuming standard election conditions which we are not likely to have. Obama won North Carolina in 2008 via a combination of high Democratic turnout and low Republican turnout as Nate Silver said a few months back. Not via making 200,000 Republicans switch to the Democratic party. If Trump can fire up his own side enough to generate a turnout increase he can win in surprising areas, example NJ which is typically a good Democratic state now is trending Trump pretty hard. The tendency in these contests is for pundits to look at the map give 2000 electoral votes to the Democrats and the same to the Republicans and argue about the last 130 as if both sides have 200 electoral votes set in stone.

This year that is unlikely to be the case and we don't know if Democratic strength in places like Arizona will be telling or offset by surprising showings in the North East for Trump.

Uh, New Jersey is a good example of a state which its wildly implausible Trump could win, while North Carolina now functions as a swing state (albeit one probably a bit more Republican leaning at this exact moment.) The actual state polling for New Jersey doesn't even show it particularly competitive even right now with a somewhat divided Democrat electoral at the moment.

Basically right now Hillary's polling is suffering from it being a still officially contested Democratic Primary while Trump does not have the same issue on the Republican side. I still very much expect Sanders to ultimately end up making an effort to unify the party, especially when Trump for example just explicitly promised to back out of the Paris climate deal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... ge%2Fstory

The electoral conditions for Republicans remain horrible in some key respects, including the fact that Obama's approval rating has been trending upwards recently for example in Gallup Polls, which is especially a notable detail when the US Congress by comparison is around 17% or less, and puts Obama in a good position to effectively campaign for Hillary and suggests for a considerable portion of the general public Hillary being "a third term of Obama" actually sounds pretty good.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallu ... roval.aspx

In addition to Trump's horrible numbers with Hispanics, he has horrible numbers among Asian Americans as well for example with a recent poll showing him having just a 19% approval rating and 61% disapproval rating among this group of registered voters.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/d ... can-223502

In terms of fueling an increase of people voting in the election, Trump is basically guaranteed to do this among Hispanics who will be showing showing up to vote against him, but I strongly suspect a bunch of the current polls are simply not properly accounting for that issue with the polling turnout assumptions they have at this point. You also have actual evidence of surging Latino voter registration in the various states which mostly tend to track this stat among racial groups.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... again.html
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics- ... 68242.html

(California obviously should not be in play in the general, but its one of the states where voting registration by race is trackable and more specific info is available to a degree.)

[Wild Zontargs]

Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.

Optimistic take: Trump is playing chicken with the networks, hoping they'll cough up the cash.

Pessimistic take: The whole offer was just Trump attention-whoring again.

[maraxus2]

Still very unfavorable assuming standard election conditions which we are not likely to have. Obama won North Carolina in 2008 via a combination of high Democratic turnout and low Republican turnout as Nate Silver said a few months back. Not via making 200,000 Republicans switch to the Democratic party. If Trump can fire up his own side enough to generate a turnout increase he can win in surprising areas, example NJ which is typically a good Democratic state now is trending Trump pretty hard. The tendency in these contests is for pundits to look at the map give 2000 electoral votes to the Democrats and the same to the Republicans and argue about the last 130 as if both sides have 200 electoral votes set in stone.

This year that is unlikely to be the case and we don't know if Democratic strength in places like Arizona will be telling or offset by surprising showings in the North East for Trump.

Democrats haven't lost New Jersey in over twenty years. The closest the GOP ever came to winning it since Reagan was in 2004, when there was an incredibly high-turnout election in most of the country. Even then, the GOP lost the state by, IIRC, 6 points. NJ hasn't elected a Republican Senator since the Carter administration. The state's been trending Democratic for the last 20 years. If you have evidence to suggest that there could be "surprise showings" in the NorthEast, apart from Pennsylvania, then please present it. I suspect, though, that you pulled this reasoning out from your entire ass.

Optimistic take: Trump is playing chicken with the networks, hoping they'll cough up the cash.

Pessimistic take: The whole offer was just Trump attention-whoring again.

Realistic take: There was not a chance in hell that this was going to get off the ground.

[Flagg]

Realistic take: There was not a chance in hell that this was going to get off the ground.

Yeah. I think it speaks to Sanders character, though. He's losing the primary to Clinton, but he's willing to undercut her and the party he's a member of by debating the presumptive GOP nominee. But pay no mind, he's justified because of stuff and things.

[Raw Shark]

Yeah. I think it speaks to Sanders character, though. He's losing the primary to Clinton, but he's willing to undercut her and the party he's a member of by debating the presumptive GOP nominee. But pay no mind, he's justified because of stuff and things.

How would a Sanders-Trump debate undercut Clinton? They both get to state their points in public, everybody who was already voting Clinton continues down that path because vagina, corporate-friend moderate, and/or Barack legacy if she (likely) wins the nomination, and nothing changes except that there is still a progressive voice in the conversation saying things that very much need to be said.

[Knife]

How would a Sanders-Trump debate undercut Clinton? They both get to state their points in public, everybody who was already voting Clinton continues down that path because vagina, corporate-friend moderate, and/or Barack legacy if she (likely) wins the nomination, and nothing changes except that there is still a progressive voice in the conversation saying things that very much need to be said.

My impressions of Flagg, from this and other threads, is he is just a party man. Anything that can remotely hurt the party and/or establishment of said party is bad. He has a vitriolic hatred of any outsider coming into the party because 'insert no true Scotsman', regardless of how the messed up system forces people to join one of the two fucked up groups. Sander's is staying in, against the Party's wishes, thus he is bad.

Granted, this is my impression based on his posting and I could be wrong.

[Soontir C'boath]

I'd say it's spot on. For Flagg, a Democrat has to be a drone who sits in a call center hours on end begging people for money; Last Week Tonight w/ Jon Oliver

[Thanas]

You all jump to conclusions with little evidence IMO. For example, I share the opinion of Flagg that Sanders debating Trump when he has no chance to be the nominee will damage Clinton. Now I await your psychoanalysis.

Could it be that people view Trump as the greater threat? Nah, has to be because one is a party man, with a sidenote of character assassination to boot.

[Knife]

You all jump to conclusions with little evidence IMO. For example, I share the opinion of Flagg that Sanders debating Trump when he has no chance to be the nominee will damage Clinton. Now I await your psychoanalysis.

Could it be that people view Trump as the greater threat? Nah, has to be because one is a party man, with a sidenote of character assassination to boot.

I put forth the probability that I was wrong, but also stated it was just not this thread I'm using as my impressions. And, at this point, Sanders has such an absurd chance of being the nominee that it's the same as saying he has none. Doesn't change the fact that when he had a chance, the same shit was being said. It doesn't change the fact that the establishment has been actively against him during his run. It doesn't change the fact that the polls still have Sander's with a better chance of winning against Trump that Clinton. It doesn't change the fact that the independents that lean left that the Dems will need are being shit on. Doesn't change the fact that Clinton is still being investigated by the FBI. Doesn't change the fact that comments on these have stayed exactly the same by both sides for over 6 months.

As to Trump being the greater evil? Sure, but how much separation is there between incompetent and so utterly corrupt that nothing gets done.

[Thanas]

None of those things you listed can support your assertion that Flagg must be having his opinion because he is an establishment man (C'mon, it's Flagg. Does he strike you as any part of the establishment?)

[Gaidin]

None of those things you listed can support your assertion that Flagg must be having his opinion because he is an establishment man (C'mon, it's Flagg. Does he strike you as any part of the establishment?)

Honestly, more strikes me as a guy who wants Trump to lose than part of the establishment. And typically by this point a clear loser of the primary lightens the assault historically if they can't politically drop out, and Bernie clearly isn't. Which annoys a lot of people as it may make things harder in the long run.

[Knife]

None of those things you listed can support your assertion that Flagg must be having his opinion because he is an establishment man (C'mon, it's Flagg. Does he strike you as any part of the establishment?)

Again, that is my impression of him on this issue, yes. He is more than free to correct me if he feels I am wrong.

To boot, what he does say, an often, is his dislike of Sanders for being in effect a DINO. The only way to be POTUS at this time is via one of the two parties so being so mad at Sanders for 'pretending' to be a Democrat is just weird. Each of the two parties only represent roughly 30% of the population with the other 40% being 'independents', although that doesn't make that 40% a monolithic group. That Flagg continually hits this point while not slamming the current system that would make some of the 40% actual use one of the two parties as a vehicle to get elected instead of the just the parties using the 40% to get elected.

[Gaidin]

To boot, what he does say, an often, is his dislike of Sanders for being in effect a DINO. The only way to be POTUS at this time is via one of the two parties so being so mad at Sanders for 'pretending' to be a Democrat is just weird. Each of the two parties only represent roughly 30% of the population with the other 40% being 'independents', although that doesn't make that 40% a monolithic group. That Flagg continually hits this point while not slamming the current system that would make some of the 40% actual use one of the two parties as a vehicle to get elected instead of the just the parties using the 40% to get elected.

Well see, the strange thing here is that for all he may or may not be a DINO we're not yet running for President. We're running for candidacy of Democratic Party. Which is its own thing. Which means he has to appeal to the democrats in a lot of closed states. According to law AND court precedent the states and the party get to determine the rules on who get to vote in the primaries. Now, I forget the case name, but there is SCOTUS precedent saying the party CAN overrule the state when the state wants the primary done a certain open/closed fashion and do it differently(ironically insofar as this year's primary goes, the Party wanted an open primary in whatever state the case was based in). But this isn't just Independents walking in and saying "we want in". The Party or the State has to let them in. Many have. Many haven't. Bernie can make noise. Fine. But if we theorize a mid-size split for whatever is left-right split on Independents, that 20% that's the left-Independents have a while to wait before they manage to take over enough crap politically to holy crap change enough law to make everything Open. New York Rules difficulties aside, is there a reason they can't just register on time? Once? This is literally one of the few examples they get to have their cake and eat it too. By registering on time.

[Flagg]

I'm as much of a party man as I am a Trump supporter. I just hate dishonest pissants like Sanders who in any objective analysis is using the Democrats and their party structure for his own gains without contributing anything but discord. The man admits to joining the party for simple fundraising and media exposure! Frankly, I find it disturbing that so many don't take issue with what this assclown has done and is continuing to do. Especially now that it's clear he cannot win. But I've only said multiple times, only half-jokingly, that I despise him and his supporters most for making me support Hillary fucking Clinton.

If I had my way under the current 2 party system, the GOP would dissolve as any type of national party, the Democrats would be the mainstream centrist party and we would have an actual liberal party in the US that I might actually see myself being a part of. But I've only said this multiple times.

Though if I really had my way we'd get rid of the 2 party system and go the parliamentary route, but "UnAmerican, blargle blargle, democracy destroyed, blah blah, it won't work here!" Not that I'm saying anyone here feels that way, that's just the usual I hear when it's brought up in other places.

But yeah, I'm totally a "party man".

[Flagg]

Yeah. I think it speaks to Sanders character, though. He's losing the primary to Clinton, but he's willing to undercut her and the party he's a member of by debating the presumptive GOP nominee. But pay no mind, he's justified because of stuff and things.

How would a Sanders-Trump debate undercut Clinton? They both get to state their points in public, everybody who was already voting Clinton continues down that path because vagina, corporate-friend moderate, and/or Barack legacy if she (likely) wins the nomination, and nothing changes except that there is still a progressive voice in the conversation saying things that very much need to be said.

Because it puts structure to the lie that Sanders in any way has a chance. And it also gives Donnie Douchebag ammunition to use against Clinton in the actual debates. Because, shockingly, aside from "WALLSTREET BAAAAAD!!!", they share the same positions on most issues.

[Raw Shark]

Yeah. I think it speaks to Sanders character, though. He's losing the primary to Clinton, but he's willing to undercut her and the party he's a member of by debating the presumptive GOP nominee. But pay no mind, he's justified because of stuff and things.

How would a Sanders-Trump debate undercut Clinton? They both get to state their points in public, everybody who was already voting Clinton continues down that path because vagina, corporate-friend moderate, and/or Barack legacy if she (likely) wins the nomination, and nothing changes except that there is still a progressive voice in the conversation saying things that very much need to be said.

Because it puts structure to the lie that Sanders in any way has a chance.

Even I am not that much of a dreamer.

And it also gives Donnie Douchebag ammunition to use against Clinton in the actual debates.

Ha. That guy makes his own ammunition out of shit that he finds on the ground. He's like a renegade loose cannon just careening around the deck of the GOP ship and flattening guys who get in his way.

Because, shockingly, aside from "WALLSTREET BAAAAAD!!!", they share the same positions on most issues.

Please define "most" here? I personally see them as very, very far apart on issues, starting with the sole differing Patriot Act vote and then reaching through the single-payer healthcare issue into the direction of the potential Iran War to roughly scrape fingernails on Crazytown territory. Despite all appearances, I actually do possess a conscience, and I can support one of these but not the other.

[Flagg]

How would a Sanders-Trump debate undercut Clinton? They both get to state their points in public, everybody who was already voting Clinton continues down that path because vagina, corporate-friend moderate, and/or Barack legacy if she (likely) wins the nomination, and nothing changes except that there is still a progressive voice in the conversation saying things that very much need to be said.

Because it puts structure to the lie that Sanders in any way has a chance.

Even I am not that much of a dreamer.

And it also gives Donnie Douchebag ammunition to use against Clinton in the actual debates.

Ha. That guy makes his own ammunition out of shit that he finds on the ground. He's like a renegade loose cannon just careening around the deck of the GOP ship and flattening guys who get in his way.

Because, shockingly, aside from "WALLSTREET BAAAAAD!!!", they share the same positions on most issues.

Please define "most" here? I personally see them as very, very far apart on issues, starting with the sole differing Patriot Act vote and then reaching through the single-payer healthcare issue into the direction of the potential Iran War to roughly scrape fingernails on Crazytown territory. Despite all appearances, I actually do possess a conscience, and I can support one of these but not the other.

Women's rights, gay rights, immigration... Clinton may not be for single payer, but I doubt that would go through congress even if the Democrats had both houses and a Senate supermajority. The Patriot Act is a good point, but needs congressional repeal, which likely wouldn't happen. I don't see Clinton starting a war with Iran any more than Sanders would, so I don't know where you get that from.
And there's a difference between Trumped up (ha!) ammunition, and valid points Donnie Douchebag could use against her provided by her current primary rival. I mean where there's a Clinton, there's dirt. But there's "dirt" and "dirt that could be harmful because it's been given weight by a democratic challenger".

[Flagg]

Oh, and I like how you said people would only vote for her due to her vagina. It's refreshing to hear blatant sexism rather than the vague insinuations.

[Raw Shark]

Oh, and I like how you said people would only vote for her due to her vagina. It's refreshing to hear blatant sexism rather than the vague insinuations.

I did say and/or there. It's a reason, not the only reason. I'd personally like to see a female president happen on principle because it's about time, but not just anybody from that half of the species regardless of their positions.

[The Romulan Republic]

With all the attacks on Sanders over how much this debate would supposedly harm Clinton, I can't help but ask why, if it would be so damaging for her, the orange blowhard refused it. He is obviously many kinds of stupid, but he is also fairly media-savvy, unfortunately. Indeed, arguably his only real talent is playing the media. So if this would be so bad for Clinton, why did he turn it down?

Also, considering this only came up because Clinton reneged on her promise to give Sanders another debate, she would have herself to blame if it somehow weakened her. I obviously don't want to see Clinton weakened in the general election, because fuck Donald, but really, she has a remarkable talent for self-undermining, and at some point, my sympathy is limited.

In any case, this whole thing seems to have worked out just dandy for the Democrats, since by backing out, Dickless Donald once again showed that he is a blustering flip-flopper who, for all his tough guy persona, is really weak and pitiful. Chicken Trump is spreading all over the internet now, and if there's one way to hurt Dickless Donald, its to go after the tough guy persona he's crafted, because that's what a lot of people are voting for, not his constantly changing positions on the issues. So, much as I'd have liked to see Bernie lay into him on national television, I'm going to call that a win.