2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red-Jeff said:
Why do voters need to have an affiliation to vote for presidential nominees? I get that it is the process of the party but that is the problem. Excluding an entire subset of voters (independents) from deciding who gets to run for president is crazy!
Click to expand...
Some states have open primaries and independents can vote in them, others do not. You could debate that they are not really excluded but have made a choice of not affiliating themselves with a specific party, therefore they are making a decision not to participate in either parties nominating process. I see both sides of this issue, the parties are saying, why should anyone but a registered party member get to decide who our nominee is. But allowing independents to be included, perhaps letting them pick which primary they will vote in (Democrat, Republican or one of the other smaller parties).

Obviously independents can vote in the general election. So they get their say then.
 
JustAFan said:
Some states have open primaries and independents can vote in them, others do not. You could debate that they are not really excluded but have made a choice of not affiliating themselves with a specific party, therefore they are making a decision not to participate in either parties nominating process. I see both sides of this issue, the parties are saying, why should anyone but a registered party member get to decide who our nominee is. But allowing independents to be included, perhaps letting them pick which primary they will vote in (Democrat, Republican or one of the other smaller parties).

Obviously independents can vote in the general election. So they get their say then.
Click to expand...

It's undemocratic that two parties have so much control of the political process that any legitimate bid for president must come through them. I am not arguing that they are breaking rules, I am arguing that the current rules that our political process operates under are not conducive to a thriving democracy in which all voices hold equal weight.
 
Seems the mainstream media are finally catching on...calling for Wasserman-Schultz to resign. And this from MSNBC, who are previously accused of shilling for Hillary.

 
Not sure this is a good poll but the results are quite astounding: http://datatargeting.com/POTUS/

Here are the key findings:

  1. As it stands today, the most likely scenario is that Hillary Clinton will win the general election. While Donald Trump has continued to improve in the popular vote, the electoral college map, because of his major problems among key demographics and battleground states, while possible, remains very difficult for him.
  2. Here are the most striking, historic numbers: 58. 55. 65. What are they?
    1. 58% of respondents are dissatisfied with the current group of Republican and Democratic candidates for President.
    2. 55% of respondents favor having an independent presidential ticket in 2016.
      1. A shocking 91% of voters under the age of 29 favor having an independent candidate on the ballot.
    3. 65% of respondents are at least somewhat, pretty or very willing to support a candidate for President who is not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
  3. In a ballot test against Clinton and Trump, a truly independent candidate starts off with 21% of the vote.
    1. This number increases to 29% in the “Big Sky” region, 30% in “New England” and 28% in the “West” region.
    2. Among voters with an unfavorable opinion of both Trump and Clinton, the independent actually wins the ballot test:
      1. TRUMP: 11%
      2. CLINTON: 7%
      3. INDEPENDENT: 56%
  4. Both major candidates continue to have historically high negative name ID.
    1. 56% of voters have an unfavorable impression of Hillary Clinton.
      1. Among males, her unfavorable number is 64%
      2. Among Republicans, her unfavorable number is 78%
      3. Among Independents, her unfavorable number is 57%
    2. 55% of voters have an unfavorable impression of Donald Trump.
      1. Among women, his unfavorable number is 60%
      2. Among Democrats, his unfavorable number is 71%
      3. Among Independents, his unfavorable number is 58%
Click to expand...
 
Raoul said:
Seems the mainstream media are finally catching on...calling for Wasserman-Schultz to resign. And this from MSNBC, who are previously accused of shilling for Hillary.

Click to expand...


If you had your tin foil hat on like me you would know they are just saying that while using subliminal messaging to interrupt your beta waves and keep you in line! Shills!
 
Last edited:
Red-Jeff said:
It's undemocratic that two parties have so much control of the political process that any legitimate bid for president must come through them. I am not arguing that they are breaking rules, I am arguing that the current rules that our political process operates under are not conducive to a thriving democracy in which all voices hold equal weight.
Click to expand...
All voices holding equal weight will never happen. But the only way to break the two party strangle hold is if people move away from them and start voting for other parties. Or if say the Repubs splinter into seperate parties.
 
JustAFan said:
All voices holding equal weight will never happen. But the only way to break the two party strangle hold is if people move away from them and start voting for other parties. Or if say the Repubs splinter into seperate parties.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for that. I think you're right about people needing to vote for other parties to break our current political duopoly up but people are afraid of the possible consequences of those votes as it may hand the presidency to a lunantic. If a party splinters the establishment will choose which party to prop up and move forward allowing the other party to decay and fade. The current political climate does not allow for serious challengers outside of those backed by the establishment, it's too expensive to run a campaign.
 
One of the people Trump recommended for the Supreme Court if he's elected has apparently been trolling him on Twitter.

 
Raoul said:
Seems the mainstream media are finally catching on...calling for Wasserman-Schultz to resign. And this from MSNBC, who are previously accused of shilling for Hillary.

Click to expand...

That guy talks a lot of sense (sort of suspect he may be a Republican though, as his advocacy of a Sanders independent campaign is just terrible for the Democrats).

It's rare you even hear Sanders touted as a New Dealer, which is what he is.
 
Scarborough is indeed a Republican but the others are all Dems. In Scarborough's case, I think he genuinely feels Bernie is getting shafted by the party apparatus. Mika's reaction was a bit unexpected though.
 
I agree that Sanders has been unfairly treated, but Hillary has always been the inevitable nominee. Best thing Sanders can do for the people who gave him his campaign funds is to run until the end, but after that, get right behind the Clinton campaign. He can't allow fanaticism to distract from the actual election. What's worse? Clinton in the White House or Trump? Easy decision, but a lot of Sanders' supporters probably view it the other way.

Sanders eventually needs to mend bridges and try to galvanize part of his base to get behind Hillary.
 
Raoul said:
Well there goes Hillary's lead over Trump. Donald has had a calamitous two weeks in the media and has completely closed the gap. Not looking forward to what may happen if he actually starts to do things correctly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Click to expand...

Apparently there hasn't been a live interview poll since Trump became the presumptive nominee. I'd have to look around for it to post it here but there was a persuasive article out there somewhere today that described the difference between live interview and automated calls and how Trump consistently performs better in automated call polls. Not a massive difference but enough to be significant.

In any event, it's always about the state polls. You always want to look at Florida and Ohio and you might as keep a close eye on North Carolina and Virginia too. Without all four, Trump has to win Michigan and that looks a nearly impossible task.
 
Raoul said:
Well there goes Hillary's lead over Trump. Donald has had a calamitous two weeks in the media and has completely closed the gap. Not looking forward to what may happen if he actually starts to do things correctly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Click to expand...

Part of the reason for the dip is that the GOP base consolidated after he became the nominee, while the Dem fight is still on.
But it also shows that she does need us Berniebros and Sanderbots to be safe.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Brazil's is a former DNC chair, and Cardona I'd presume is one of the 438 elected members of the DNC.

I'd say you can scrap most of those 438, leaving only the 100 chairs and vice chairs from states Democratic party, and get 100 prominent grassroots activists from progressive groups in. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Now I understand why "crooked Hillary"....
 
Spock said:
In any event, it's always about the state polls. You always want to look at Florida and Ohio and you might as keep a close eye on North Carolina and Virginia too. Without all four, Trump has to win Michigan and that looks a nearly impossible task.
Click to expand...

Add PA to the list. The Duck will play hard there. 538 has an article the other day about swing states voting trend and while FL and NC is trending blue, PA has gone redder last 3-4 cycles.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Add PA to the list. The Duck will play hard there. 538 has an article the other day about swing states voting trend and while FL and NC is trending blue, PA has gone redder last 3-4 cycles.
Click to expand...

Trump could win Pennsylvania, where he polls well, but the lifting is still very heavy for him. All roads for Trump lead him through having to sweep the Rust Belt and I'm having a hard time seeing him being competitive in Michigan. The man needs factors beyond his control to beat Hillary. Any kind of September Revelation or October Surprise will do just fine and given the nature of surprises they're impossible to predict.

Not to be alarmist, but something could go terribly wrong in Rio this summer, an airport in Europe or a train station in New York City and -- poof! -- just enough "independent" voters break for the demagogue in November.
 
Spock said:
Trump could win Pennsylvania, where he polls well, but the lifting is still very heavy for him. All roads for Trump lead him through having to sweep the Rust Belt and I'm having a hard time seeing him being competitive in Michigan. The man needs factors beyond his control to beat Hillary. Any kind of September Revelation or October Surprise will do just fine and given the nature of surprises they're impossible to predict.

Not to be alarmist, but something could go terribly wrong in Rio this summer, an airport in Europe or a train station in New York City and -- poof! -- just enough "independent" voters break for the demagogue in November.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put it past trump to manufacture an incident... eg. pay a bunch of people to pretend to be members of ISIS and gun down a class full of school kids before escaping over the border into mexico...
because to make america great we have to hit isis, we have to let teachers carry guns and we have to build a wall...
the man is odious and I put nothing past him and bythe time he is president anybody who tries to expose what he did will be chucked in gitmo and waterborded till they give a confession then executed.
 
sun_tzu said:
I wouldn't put it past trump to manufacture an incident... eg. pay a bunch of people to pretend to be members of ISIS and gun down a class full of school kids before escaping over the border into mexico...
because to make america great we have to hit isis, we have to let teachers carry guns and we have to build a wall...
the man is odious and I put nothing past him and bythe time he is president anybody who tries to expose what he did will be chucked in gitmo and waterborded till they give a confession then executed.
Click to expand...

Oh come on! He's a bigoted asshole but do you really think he is going to hire people to kill a bunch of kids?
 
sun_tzu said:
I wouldn't put it past trump to manufacture an incident... eg. pay a bunch of people to pretend to be members of ISIS and gun down a class full of school kids before escaping over the border into mexico...
because to make america great we have to hit isis, we have to let teachers carry guns and we have to build a wall...
the man is odious and I put nothing past him and bythe time he is president anybody who tries to expose what he did will be chucked in gitmo and waterborded till they give a confession then executed.
Click to expand...

So you're basically inventing something out of thin air and framing Trump for it. Interesting.
 
Raoul said:
If Trump is leading in all national polls, he will win the Presidency, as it will also mean he is doing very well in swing states.
Click to expand...

I'll start to panic if it's October and he's leading.

McCain tied or lead Obama end of July/August 08 after the GOP convention. I'd take the same result this time.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I'll start to panic if it's October and he's leading.

McCain tied or lead Obama end of July/August 08 after the GOP convention. I'd take the same result this time.
Click to expand...

The main issue is she has been well ahead of him in most polls and now that the public are finally digesting that they will indeed face each other, he is beginning to close the gap. Not good for Hillary, as she should be widening the gap right now.
 
Raoul said:
The main issue is she has been well ahead of him in most polls and now that the public are finally digesting that they will indeed face each other, he is beginning to close the gap. Not good for Hillary, as she should be widening the gap right now.
Click to expand...



Reverse the number and you have Clinton + 4-5, outside the MoE and well in line with the current RCP average, while Trump is enjoying a presumptive nominee boost.

No party will win the presidency by a 10+ popular vote landslide anymore, partisanship took care of that. However, by polling data as well as conventional wisdom, Clinton is primed for a +4-6 points win, which will be an electoral landslide.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:


Reverse the number and you have Clinton + 4-5, outside the MoE and well in line with the current RCP average, while Trump is enjoying a presumptive nominee boost.
Click to expand...


Well you have both Fox and Rasmussen - lets hope they are outliers and not the beginning of a trend. Otherwise we may see an insurrection at the DNC in Philly.
 
Raoul said:
The main issue is she has been well ahead of him in most polls and now that the public are finally digesting that they will indeed face each other, he is beginning to close the gap. Not good for Hillary, as she should be widening the gap right now.
Click to expand...
I think the gap was always going to close a bit as it narrowed to two (regardless of who the two were) but the bookies odds now show
clinton 2/5
trump 5/2
and that is surmountable especially if Sanders does not throw genuine support behind Clinton and if trump can find a VP that energises his campaign or helps him out a lot in some of the demographics he seems to struggle with.
 
Raoul said:
The main issue is she has been well ahead of him in most polls and now that the public are finally digesting that they will indeed face each other, he is beginning to close the gap. Not good for Hillary, as she should be widening the gap right now.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't panic yet. Trump is the nominee so there is a bit of consolidation behind him whereas Clinton is still waiting to put hers to bed.

I think these polls start becoming relevant only after conventions.

Clinton's team will be itching to get Obama and possibly Warren out stumping for her, to fire up the base.
 
I also just checked RCP. Rasmussen had Trump leading by 2 3 weeks ago when IBD/TIPP had Clinton +7and CNN had Clinton +13 ( :lol:). Fox and Rasmussen use the same model and in Fox's case doesnt provide demographic breakdown but only party affliliation, which is way off.

Last PPP poll on May 10 had Clinton + 6. I'd think the true polling now is about 4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.