• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

QV said:
There are also reports that he is laying low to not create news in order to allow the bad press on Clinton to be at the forefront of the news cycle for a change. 

With all that has surfaced, how can anyone consider Clinton for POTUS? 

This election is Establishment vs The People.  The more pundits suggest only fools/idiots/uneducated would vote Trump, the more people will turn to Trump.  This could go in a similar fashion as the most recent Alberta election when a pretentious Prentice told Albertans to look in the mirror for blame on failings in government...after 40 years of conservative rule.  I think this election will essentially be: "Out with you!" to the political class/establishment who consider themselves the elite when it is becoming more and more evident some of them are corrupt.  The Clinton Foundation, how could that be allowed to go on is beyond me. 

My guess is Trump takes the win by 10 points or more.

You make some good points but unfortunately you are forgetting a lot of things.  Clinton does not need the popular vote to win.  She needs eth electoral college votes to do so.  she has most democratic states locked in.  She's actually making some ground in swing states and Trump unfortunately is losing in some key republican states that are listening to the Republican establishment.  Also he's behind in the polls (he had a good week but we've seen him squander good days).  While we all likely to say a week is a long time in politics it isn't so much in the US.  No one has come back from that kind of deficit in polling in US elections.  Trump has his base locked in.  What he isn't gaining in is in undecided, women Latino and black votes.  This why he's changing his tone on immigration deportation and appealing to the Black community.  Without their support or a chunk of it the math won't add up.  His campaign knows this which is why they are changing their tune.

As for Clinton, I think most voters are apathetic to that.  Almost as if they are shrugging it off as business as usual and expect this from their politicians.  Now what could help Trump is if something criminal or revelatory comes from these e-mails.  THAT could help. 

Lastly, it is possible that third party types might just act as spoilers, enough to make it closer. 

My guess is Trump loses by 5-10 points.

The out with you thing will likely happen at the congressional and senate level.  And may hit the Republicans more than the Democrats.
 
Remius said:
As for Clinton, I think most voters are apathetic to that.  Almost as if they are shrugging it off as business as usual and expect this from their politicians.  Now what could help Trump is if something criminal or revelatory comes from these e-mails.  THAT could help. 

This right here. Most people don't want to rock the boat; better the devil they know than the devil they don't.

Besides, between the Clinton Foundation and her family's friendship with good Samaritans like George Soros, we're looking at a potential executive branch that really believes in charity.
 
Lumber said:
This right here. Most people don't want to rock the boat; better the devil they know than the devil they don't.

Besides, between the Clinton Foundation and her family's friendship with good Samaritans like George Soros, we're looking at a potential executive branch that really believes in charity.

You mean so long as it conforms to the 144th Rule of Acquisition...

"There's nothing wrong with charity, so long as it winds up in your pocket."
 
I was thinking more along the lines of rules 60 and 99.

60: "Keep your lies consistent." and

99: "Trust is the biggest liability of all."
 
Eric Grenier with some analysis. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-update-aug22-1.3730844

The last two paragraphs caught my eye.

In Iowa, where the YouGov poll suggests there's a tie and Trump has just as much support as he does in Ohio, he scored worse on all of these measures. But so did Clinton. That suggests Trump may have a floor that his campaign's problems can't sink him below, but Clinton can be moved into a tie with Trump in some states in part due to her problems on issues like trust.

It raises the question: just how badly would Donald Trump be losing if his opponent wasn't Hillary Clinton?


Trump really can't go any further down.  But Clinton could.  also one could say how badly would Clinton be losing if Donald Trump wasn't her opponent.
 
No one has come back from that kind of deficit in polling in US elections.

Depends on which poll of course. Not sure that +2 is a deficit

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-gains-ground-against-clinton-1471817853-htmlstory.html
 
muskrat89 said:
Depends on which poll of course. Not sure that +2 is a deficit

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-gains-ground-against-clinton-1471817853-htmlstory.html

Eric Grenier's tracker is pretty good.  it's an aggregate of many polls.  If you look at it you'll see an average of national polls but more importantly the electoral college vote spread and where they stand.  That's the one to watch. It really does not matter what the popular vote says.  Right now, Trump is way behind.
 
muskrat89 said:
Depends on which poll of course. Not sure that +2 is a deficit

There is a problem in correlation between national polls which show Trump gaining some (it you can call +2 something more than fluctuations in the polling base), and the state level polls which show that he is losing ground across the board. State level polling tends to give results closer to the final vote than do national poles in the past few election cycles.

Election Update: National Polls Show The Race Tightening — But State Polls Don’t

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-the-race-tightening-but-state-polls-dont/

Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight has an interesting discussion on the LA Times poll, and polling in general.

Election Update: Leave The LA Times Poll Alone!
Instead of arguing about it or ignoring it, adjust for it.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

Also another fivethirtyeight article on the myth that polls are skewed in one way or another.

The Polls Aren’t Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/
 

Attachments

  • silver-electionupdate-0823-41.png
    silver-electionupdate-0823-41.png
    46.9 KB · Views: 70
Remius said:
Trump has his base locked in.  What he isn't gaining in is in undecided, women Latino and black votes.  This why he's changing his tone on immigration deportation and appealing to the Black community.  Without their support or a chunk of it the math won't add up.  His campaign knows this which is why they are changing their tune.

Trump doesn't have the GOP base locked in. A lot of the changes in tone the past week or so are a sign that there is concern with not making enough gains in traditional GOP voter groups. But there is the problem too in that if the campaign leans too much back to try and shore up the so-called establishment GOP voters, he will lose some of the core group that got him the nomination in the first place.

Trump's Schizophrenic Base Strategy

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439255/trumps-schizophrenic-base-strategy

The Republican base still has not united behind Donald Trump.

This explains why he’s polling at or below 40 percent in the majority of surveys taken, both nationally and in battleground states, over the past three weeks. That’s a sharp drop-off from late July, when, immediately following a week of solidarity-themed speeches at the GOP convention, Trump registered in the mid-forties in a chorus of surveys and was neck-and-neck with Hillary Clinton.

Forget about wooing independents or pilfering Democrats. If Trump is to get back on track and regain a competitive stance against Clinton, he must first solidify his standing among rank-and-file Republican voters, as party chairman Reince Priebus acknowledged on “Face the Nation” yesterday. “That is the easiest piece for us to take care of,” he said. “Once the Republican base gets back up to where it was after the convention, those polls in Ohio and North Carolina and New Hampshire are going to be right back where we need them to be.”

But that’s easier said than done. The reason Republicans remain divided, even at this late stage, is simple: Trump has spent the past 14 months appealing to one wing of the party at the expense of the other.

To review: Republican voters, broadly speaking, can be divided into two camps. The first is comprised of those who live in middle- and upper-class suburbs, earned college degrees, and have white-collar careers. The second is home to those who live in rural settings or working-class suburbs, are less educated, and hold blue-collar jobs. (Ron Brownstein dubbed these groups “Managers” and “Populists.”) The latter was hugely supportive of Trump during the GOP primary, in large part due to his policies and rhetoric on immigration, and continues to back him enthusiastically. The former was divided between several candidates, Trump included, and has not fully embraced him as the party’s standard-bearer, in large part due to his policies and rhetoric on immigration.

Trump is finally making a sincere effort, particularly over the past two weeks, to engage the managers inside the party. But his loyalty to the populists, rooted in the reality that he shares their core political convictions, has hindered that outreach. It’s apparent that Trump finally understands — perhaps after digesting weeks of polling that allows for no alternate conclusion — that he must expand his appeal to stand a chance of winning in November. But it’s equally apparent that Trump has no appetite for abandoning the tactics that brought him this far.

The result is a schizophrenic strategy for consolidating the Republican base, one that vacillates between different sound bites for different voters on different days. Instead of a standard campaign playbook that emphasizes consistency, Trump is now adopting a scattershot approach that has something for everyone.

Consider the events of last week:

– On Monday, Trump gave a major national-security speech in Ohio, likening the fight against radical Islam to the Cold War and calling for aggressive new measures to combat terrorism. Trump did not mention his pledge to prevent all Muslims from entering the U.S. — which proved decidedly unpopular with the GOP’s managerial wing — but still implied blanket opposition to accepting any Syrian refugees, and proposed “extreme vetting” for anyone coming from a country afflicted with terrorism. He also called for an “ideological test” to ensure that immigrants share American values.

– On Tuesday, Trump delivered a speech in Wisconsin ostensibly aimed at black voters, whom he said Democrats had “failed and betrayed” with their policies. Trump gave the speech not in Milwaukee, which is 40 percent black, but in suburban Washington County, which, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel notes, “has a black population of 1.2%” This was no accident: College-educated Republicans have been most adamant about their party projecting compassion and inclusiveness toward minority communities — and Trump has struggled to win their support as a result. Trump wasn’t speaking to urban, black Democrats on Tuesday; he was speaking to suburban, white Republicans who think its important that the party speak to urban, black Democrats.

– On Wednesday, Trump made two major staff changes that sent dueling signals about the direction of his campaign. Trump announced that Stephen Bannon — the establishment-bashing chairman of Breitbart Media, an ultra-conservative website that’s become home to the xenophobic and race-baiting “alt-right” — would become his campaign’s new CEO. At the same time, Trump announced he was elevating pollster Kellyanne Conway — a longtime Republican operative who has focused on appealing to women, and who once supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants — to become his new campaign manager. 

– On Thursday, Trump gave a speech in Charlotte that was widely praised as his finest of the campaign, during which he expressed vague “regret” for offenses he may have caused (while stopping short of offering specifics or any sort of apology.). Trump continued his outreach to black voters, asking them, after decades of failed Democratic leadership in America’s cities, “What do you have to lose?” He also struck notes of unity and optimism, pledging to protect equality for women, gays, Hispanics and other minority groups. Trump talked of a “New American Future” and, as the Washington Examiner’s Byron York observed, used the word “together” seven times. It was the closest Trump has sounded to a centrist in 2016.

– On Friday, Trump released his first TV ad of the general-election campaign, a 30-second spot featuring dark and ominous images of immigrants streaming across open borders and warning that Syrian refugees would “flood in” under President Hillary Clinton. … An hour after the ad’s release, Trump confirmed the resignation of campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who months earlier had replaced the bomb-throwing former manager Corey Lewandowski atop Trump’s electoral enterprise in what allies described as a pivot for Trump away from controversies and toward being more presidential.

– On Saturday, Trump broadened his message to the black community, telling a rally in Virginia, “The GOP is the party of Abraham Lincoln. And I want our party to be the home of the African-American voter once again.” … He also met with his Hispanic advisory council at Trump Tower in New York City, and reports quickly surfaced in BuzzFeed and Univision that Trump was softening his stance on immigration — and even considering mass legalization for those living in the U.S. illegally. Those reports suggested that Trump was preparing to announce a significant shift in his immigration policy this coming Thursday in Colorado.

– On Sunday, Bannon’s website Breitbart.com pushed back forcefully against those news accounts: “Trump did not say or suggest that he was open to granting any legal status–amnesty–to any illegal aliens in the United States at his campaign’s National Hispanic Advisory Council meeting as reported in BuzzFeed and Univision.” … On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Conway was quizzed on these conflicting reports, and asked repeatedly whether Trump still supported the “deportation force” he promised during the GOP primary. After deflecting twice, she finally responded, “To be determined.”
 
Remius said:
As for Clinton, I think most voters are apathetic to that.  Almost as if they are shrugging it off as business as usual and expect this from their politicians.

It's more of a case that voters have been listening to this year after year since 1991 when Bill threw his hat into the ring for the '92 election. Every few months, weeks and even days now a new allegation, a new conspiracy, a new scandal gets air time. After 25 years of incessant drum beating, it's more of a case that many of the voters just don't hear it any more. Like the construction worker who for years hears the backup alarms going constantly, but gets run over because he's tuned it out.

And Clinton isn't entirely wrong when she starts spouting off about the vast right wing conspiracy that has been out to get her and her husband. The past two years of constant drum beating from congressional investigations, calls for special prosecutors to investigate criminal accusations, and the associated right wing media campaign show that the conservative right is out to get her, and destroy any chance of getting into the White House.

“Anyone not paranoid in this world must be crazy. . . . Speaking of paranoia, it's true that I do not know exactly who my enemies are. But that of course is exactly why I'm paranoid.”
― Edward Abbey, Postcards from Ed: Dispatches and Salvos from an American Iconoclast

One of my issues with the Clintons is that they keep doing stupid things. And then they go the legal weasel words for explanations or justifications. And then they do something else just as stupid.

DON"T FEED THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY AND MAYBE IT WILL STOP

And this will become a liability for her in office, as we will face 4 years of gridlock that will make the last 8 look like the Woodstock Festival. Constant calls for her head by the GOP in congressional hearings. Accusations of lack of transparency, cover-ups and scandals by the truck load. I don't think that this country can take any more gridlock in congress. There is too much that has sat undone in trying to defeat Obama, even after he won reelection. I can just imagine where the US would be if there was cooperation in congress rather than obstruction by both parties. It would be in a hell of a lot better position than it currently is. But at lest it isn't as bad as Trump's dark apocalyptic view of the US.

This is why I believe Clinton should not have been the Democratic nominee, because it will be worse than what we've just gone through.

And the GOP hasn't done anything to give a viable alternative to another Clinton presidency.
 
Remius said:
Trump really can't go any further down.  But Clinton could.  also one could say how badly would Clinton be losing if Donald Trump wasn't her opponent.

Which is why I shake my head at all the people that say, "Trump is beating the establishment!".... No, he's actually pretty much guaranteeing that the establishment, the Clinton's, stay in power. Perhaps there can be a comeback, but I dont think so. It feels too much like last autumn when people kept hoping the Conservatives could pull it out.

that is, if Hillary stays out of jail. This could end up as a Joe Biden/Bernie Sanders vs. Cruz battle after all.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
This could end up as a Joe Biden/Bernie Sanders vs. Cruz battle after all.

Joe will turn 74 this year. Bernie 75. They say age is just a number...
 
Quote from a conservative radio host while discussing the shift in Trump' immigration policy:

"I have a proposal for a new product he can add to his line of luxury items: TRUMP WAFFLES"
 
There is a problem in correlation between national polls which show Trump gaining some (it you can call +2 something more than fluctuations in the polling base), and the state level polls which show that he is losing ground across the board. State level polling tends to give results closer to the final vote than do national poles in the past few election cycles.

I'm well aware of statistical analysis, polls, margin of error and how all those things work. My issue is that you make statements in absolutes - there are exceptions to your absolutes.

You make statements, someone counters them, then you change the argument. If you say "All skies are blue" and I say "Well, actually in Arizona they are grey today. Thus, not all skies are blue." My statement is no less accurate than yours. Probably more accurate.

On the other hand if you make the statement "Night time and local weather conditions aside, the sky is generally blue across the nation" - I guess I wouldn't have much to add to that now would I?

 
Not sure who you're responding to, since the quote isn't linked...  ;D

muskrat89 said:
My issue is that you make statements in absolutes
.....but that  seems to be a common denominator in these politics "discussions."  Sometimes even the Recruiting threads seem more rationally developed.  ;)
 
Journeyman said:
Not sure who you're responding to, since the quote isn't linked...  ;D
.....but that  seems to be a common denominator in these politics "discussions."  Sometimes even the Recruiting threads seem more rationally developed.  ;)

Rational? In a world where a conservative can be hided by the media for $16 OJ but $288 a day in meals for a Liberal is the "wrong focus" for accountability?
 
Lightguns said:
Rational? In a world where a conservative can be hided by the media for $16 OJ but $288 a day in meals for a Liberal is the "wrong focus" for accountability?

Shhhhhhh, you'll upset the Liberal cheerleaders that live here.  >:D
 
Lightguns said:
Rational? In a world where a conservative can be hided by the media for $16 OJ but $288 a day in meals for a Liberal is the "wrong focus" for accountability?
weird. I thought this was American politics.
 
Lightguns said:
Rational? In a world where a conservative can be hided by the media for $16 OJ but $288 a day in meals for a Liberal is the "wrong focus" for accountability?

I'm curious, and this is off topic but related to this.

The max rate for food is 148 euros a day?  So 215$ a day using today's currency exchange.  And are they calculating the incidentals as part of that?  That might bring it to 288.  Unless there were extenuating circumstances.

Also you can't tell me that some events we're not catered and that a meal wasn't provided though at some points for some people.

It stinks but 288 CAD doesn't seem too far off the mark depending on how it was looked at.

Edit: actually 148 does include incidentals.
 
Back
Top