2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raoul said:
A single poll? She has plunged off a cliff in recent weeks in nearly every imaginable poll. I'd imagine things won't get any rosier since Trump is firing up the Bill Clinton rape allegations and Sanders is continuing to draw massive crowds at his rallies.
Click to expand...

PPP poll on May 10, which is more than a fortnight ago, had her at +6. Incidentally, about the time Drumpf became the nominee.

During the last week, you have Fox -3, CBS/NYT +6, NBC/WSJ +3, Ipsos/Reuters+5, ABC +6/-2 Morning Consult+3, NBC/Survey Monkey +4. (I refuse to include Rasmussen, but feel free).

Don't see that cliff. There's a 2-3 points drop, which is historically in line with the 'presumptive nominee' effect.
 
She was leading Trump by considerably more last month, so yes, the wheels seem to have come off the coronation express a bit. She should be beating Trump by the sort of numbers Sanders is.
 
Raoul said:
She was leading Trump by considerably more last month, so yes, the wheels seem to have come off the coronation express a bit. She should be beating Trump by the sort of numbers Sanders is.
Click to expand...

Last month everyone was salivating over the prospect of a brokered convention. Since the Acela primaries on the 26th, it's been pretty much +6, +7 and below.

And no, she wouldn't be beating Trump by Sanders's numbers,and Sanders himself wouldn't be beating Trump by his current numbers even if the election is held today. That's just downright impossible. Party loyalty trumps everything else. The economy crashed under Bush and McCain got 46% of the popular vote running with Sarah bloody Palin.

This election will be decided within 5 points either way, I'm confident enough to bet on it.

Edit: huffpost pollsters tracker

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
 
Raoul said:
She was leading Trump by considerably more last month, so yes, the wheels seem to have come off the coronation express a bit. She should be beating Trump by the sort of numbers Sanders is.
Click to expand...

It's May, which is a notoriously unreliable month historically for potus polling. McCain was beating Obama in May of 2008.

Polls won't mean a whole lot until both nominees are settled. Hillary is still dealing with Sanders and until that's settled and we know where Bernie's voters end up we don't know jack.

I believe the overwhelming majority of Bernie's voters come home to Hillary but until we see what actually happens with them we just can't form conclusive judgments about who will win this election. My gut tells me Trump has maxed out on older white males and that his only realistic hope is to bring in a sizable chunk of Bernie's voters who are so "anti-establishment" that they couldn't possibly bring themselves to support Hillary. We shall see where they break, but I'd be very surprised if they don't consolidate around Hillary. Very surprised. We've seen Reps consolidate around Trump, right?
 
Spock said:
It's May, which is a notoriously unreliable month historically for potus polling. McCain was beating Obama in May of 2008.

Polls won't mean a whole lot until both nominees are settled. Hillary is still dealing with Sanders and until that's settled and we know where Bernie's voters end up we don't know jack.

I believe the overwhelming majority of Bernie's voters come home to Hillary but until we see what actually happens with them we just can't form conclusive judgments about who will win this election. My gut tells me Trump has maxed out on older white males and that his only realistic hope is to bring in a sizable chunk of Bernie's voters who are so "anti-establishment" that they couldn't possibly bring themselves to support Hillary. We shall see where they break, but I'd be very surprised if they don't consolidate around Hillary. Very surprised. We've seen Reps consolidate around Trump, right?
Click to expand...

No doubt things will change and they may move in her favor once Sanders bows out - but that may not happen for another month until after the convention, during which Trump will be working to bring up his own numbers (which he has already more or less done). There are also rumblings that Trump may be able to nick Pennsylvania due to the heavy blue collar white voters in the western part of the state, which has been economically depressed for years.

I'm increasingly worried that Hillary is a weak candidate with extremely high negatives (as high as Trump's), which doesn't give the Dems any sort of advantage in November, especially when you couple that with Trump probably bringing various blue states into play this time.
 
Raoul said:
No doubt things will change and they may move in her favor once Sanders bows out - but that may not happen for another month until after the convention, during which Trump will be working to bring up his own numbers (which he has already more or less done). There are also rumblings that Trump may be able to nick Pennsylvania due to the heavy blue collar white voters in the western part of the state, which has been economically depressed for years.

I'm increasingly worried that Hillary is a weak candidate with extremely high negatives (as high as Trump's), which doesn't give the Dems any sort of advantage in November, especially when you couple that with Trump probably bringing various blue states into play this time.
Click to expand...

I'm worried too, not because I like Hillary all that much but because Trump represents the worst tendencies in Americans and he must be stopped, at nearly any cost.

There's no doubt that the Dems are in for a dogfight regardless of who they nominate. Trump has tapped into something deep within the psyche of older, white male Americans and what this election ultimately be is a three-month knife fight between older, white males and women/minorities. These older white males see their world crumbling around them and they're terrified. I don't have the answer for Hillary on whether she should turn the firehose back at Trump or rise above it. Whatever the right answer, she has to turn out women and minority voters in huge numbers. We know she can do that in the bid cities of Philadelphia, Cleveland and Detroit, but can turn out her voters in the "inner-suburbs" -- voters who work in the big city but commute from a close suburb. We shall see.

Pennsylvania is definitely up for grabs, as a big chunk of the state is still coal country and Hillary has done herself no good at all by celebrating the deal of coal. She's got the same problem in Ohio. But it would still take something special from the Donald to overcome the disastrously low support he'll have from women in the suburbs. They may not be pro-Hillary, but they're definitely anti-Trump. Meanwhile, Hillary will rack up huge numbers in the big cities and their nearyby suburbs. But this thing with Bernie has to come to an end soon after June 7.
 
Spock said:
I believe the overwhelming majority of Bernie's voters come home to Hillary but until we see what actually happens with them we just can't form conclusive judgments about who will win this election. My gut tells me Trump has maxed out on older white males and that his only realistic hope is to bring in a sizable chunk of Bernie's voters who are so "anti-establishment" that they couldn't possibly bring themselves to support Hillary. We shall see where they break, but I'd be very surprised if they don't consolidate around Hillary. Very surprised. We've seen Reps consolidate around Trump, right?
Click to expand...
As a person who voted for Bernie, I could never see myself casting my lot for Trump in the general election. I don't know how a voter who identifies with the social democracy espoused by Sanders can reconcile themselves with a vote for a person like Trump.

What I think you will find.. And what I hope will happen in the case of a Hillary nomination.. Is that Bernie pushes Hillary to the left, and Bernie's base comes together around that compromise.
 
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-fundraises-statehouse-candidates/

ANAHEIM, Calif. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday sent an email to his national fundraising list in support of eight candidates running for seats in state legislatures around the country. Sanders previously used his small-dollar fundraising juggernaut to raise funds for four congressional candidates, Lucy Flores of Nevada, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Zephyr Teachout of New York and Tim Canova of Florida.
Click to expand...
 
Carolina Red said:
As a person who voted for Bernie, I could never see myself casting my lot for Trump in the general election. I don't know how a voter who identifies with the social democracy espoused by Sanders can reconcile themselves with a vote for a person like Trump.

What I think you will find.. And what I hope will happen in the case of a Hillary nomination.. Is that Bernie pushes Hillary to the left, and Bernie's base comes together around that compromise.
Click to expand...

A vast majority of Bernie supporters wouldn't support Trump, but there is some overlap in their rhetoric; specifically on trade, interventionism, and the "rigged system" where corporations buy politicians through campaign donations. Naturally Bernie is authentic in his interests about these issues, whereas Trump is cynically using them to create the illusion that he is for the common citizen.
 
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/21...fight-colorado-anti-fracking-ballot-measures/

OIL AND GAS COMPANIES are spending heavily to crush three Colorado ballot initiatives that would limit fracking. And some of the state’s most powerful Democrats are helping them.

The stakes are particularly high for several Colorado communities that have voted to limit or ban oil and gas development locally. Those limits were nullified in two cities by state Supreme Court decisions earlier this month. So the ballot initiatives may be their last best chance to slow development whose speed has surprised even cities that initially supported oil and gas projects.
Click to expand...

The price of winning:

If anyone knows the power of Colorado cash to swing local politics, it’s Trimpa. He was an architect of Colorado Democrats’ surprise take-back of state politics from Republicans in 2004. The scheme involved aiming the cash of four wealthy donors, known as the “Gang of Four,” at key races, and later evolved into an infrastructure for coordinated Democrat donations through a network of non-profits.

The “Colorado miracle” became a model for Democrats nationwide. Trimpa has since served as a board member of some of the national Democratic Party’s most important funding and policy appendages, including Democracy Alliance and ProgressNow, as well as the American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, which supports the Clinton campaign through a Super PAC of the same name.

He’s joined on the Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development advisory committee by Democratic superdelegate and former Gov. Roy Romer. And Trimpa’s old pal Tim Gill, one of the Gang of Four, is now chairman of another group, Colorado Concern, that has put money down to halt the initiatives.
...
The anti-fracking campaign says it won’t get fooled again. “CREED is very sensitive to the fact that our Democrats had a large hand in the initiatives being pulled last time, because they had so much control,” said Lauren Petrie, a senior organizer for Food and Water Watch, a nonprofit backing the Colorado campaign. This time around, she said, they’re “making sure that this is remaining a grassroots-led effort.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Regardless of what one may think about Hillary or Bernie, voting for Trump is an embarrassment to our country. If people can't see behind his rhetoric and the consequences his presidency could have on our country, I'm worried for our people.
 
Wade3 said:
Regardless of what one may think about Hillary or Bernie, voting for Trump is an embarrassment to our country. If people can't see behind his rhetoric and the consequences his presidency could have on our country, I'm worried for our people.
Click to expand...
1) Truer words and all that.

2) You and me both!
 
langster said:
I agree completely with you on the first two sentences, many of us have been saying the same for months.

With regards to the US electorate, I wish I could share your certainty, after all, they did elect George W Bush. Twice! I also can't see him getting elected either, and think along the lines of @Raoul, however I am slightly more worried simply because I said that about him just getting the Republican nomination. I thought he would be found out and laughed off months ago, or that he would implode, and none of that happened and in the end he won quite easily. Now his numbers are rising and he is catching Hillary in many national polls, and it's slightly worrisome. He's a fecking snake oil salesman and the worst thing anyone can do (as proven thus far) is underestimate him. There are plenty of thick or disinterested people out there that will vote for him and not care about the consequences.
Click to expand...

Surely helped he ran against the worst collection of candidates in history. From completely clueless (Carson, Jindal) to deranged (Christie) to evil (Cruz) to no personality types (Kasich) to Koch-bought (Walker), etc. Even decent candidates like Bush and Rubio couldn't garner a single ounce of enthusiasm.

Add in his reality show persona and prior public profile to create the perfect cocktail. Most, if not all, only picked up on him due to his celebrity status. If he had been a regular Jo-schmo spouting that rhetoric he would have been shuffled off as a lunatic, and most would not have sided with him to begin with (erratic, fringe, volatile).

This piece kinda highlights why he won out although same may differ. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story
--But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.--
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
A vast majority of Bernie supporters wouldn't support Trump, but there is some overlap in their rhetoric; specifically on trade, interventionism, and the "rigged system" where corporations buy politicians through campaign donations. Naturally Bernie is authentic in his interests about these issues, whereas Trump is cynically using them to create the illusion that he is for the common citizen.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't Adelson's 100m pledge to Trump trump Trump's rhetoric?
 
Carolina Red said:
As a person who voted for Bernie, I could never see myself casting my lot for Trump in the general election. I don't know how a voter who identifies with the social democracy espoused by Sanders can reconcile themselves with a vote for a person like Trump.

What I think you will find.. And what I hope will happen in the case of a Hillary nomination.. Is that Bernie pushes Hillary to the left, and Bernie's base comes together around that compromise.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I expect to happen.

As for Latinos, Trump is a disaster for Republicans. Polling data that will be published in California later this week is going to show extremely bad news not just for Trump, but Republicans who publicly support Trump.

Good. Fukk these a$$holes and their support for Trump.
 
Spock said:
That's exactly what I expect to happen.

As for Latinos, Trump is a disaster for Republicans. Polling data that will be published in California later this week is going to show extremely bad news not just for Trump, but Republicans who publicly support Trump.

Good. Fukk these a$$holes and their support for Trump.
Click to expand...

I thought you are a Republican? Or independent with a conservative leaning?

Edit:

'We win when turn out is high' @berbatrick

Edit 2: Holy feck

 
Last edited:
Mrs Smoker said:
cnuts throwing bottles and rocks at horses.

(no shots, no tear gas)
Click to expand...
Its all well and good disagreeing with Trump and his proposals - but behaviour like that is not going to attract anything but negative publicity to to protesters and potentially (with the way he tends to control the news cycle) give Trump ammunition to go spinning to the media
 
sun_tzu said:
Its all well and good disagreeing with Trump and his proposals - but behaviour like that is not going to attract anything but negative publicity to to protesters and potentially (with the way he tends to control the news cycle) give Trump ammunition to go spinning to the media
Click to expand...
I'm sure the immigration would have a field day if they showed up there :lol:
 
Imagine the protests at both conventions if Trump and Hillary - two candidates broadly reviled by the masses - are the nominees.
 
Raoul said:
Imagine the protests at both conventions if Trump and Hillary - two candidates broadly reviled by the masses - are the nominees.
Click to expand...

A lot will depend on Sanders and how willingly he endorses Clinton and weather he goes for a convention fight or not.

I'm beginning to think more and more that Hillary needs Liz on the ticket.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
A lot will depend on Sanders and how willingly he endorses Clinton and weather he goes for a convention fight or not.

I'm beginning to think more and more that Hillary needs Liz on the ticket.
Click to expand...

He will offer a tepid endorsement but that won't be enough to win his supporters who will surely feel hard done by. There's even talk in Washington that Hillary's lap dog Wasserman-Schultz, should quietly step down to prevent a lot of booing at the convention.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
@berbatrick Pertinent to a previous discussion about popular vote count is all. The votes turned in were 650k, when the caucus had 230k.
Click to expand...



Yes, and AFAIK there was no effort at all from the Bernie side. Do you really think the vote represents anything at all?
Consider Oregon (neighbouring state, closed primary went Bernie 56-44), and the opinion polls. The only polls, conducted in May 2015, had him at 25-35%. He was at 18-32% in NH (open primary) at the same time. Washington was an open caucus. IMO the "open" matters more than the "caucus", and "relevant" matters more than both.
 
Raoul said:
He will offer a tepid endorsement but that won't be enough to win his supporters who will surely feel hard done by. There's even talk in Washington that Hillary's lap dog Wasserman-Schultz, should quietly step down to prevent a lot of booing at the convention.
Click to expand...


She was a big part in spreading what has been proven to be false about the Nevada caucus. Unfortunately, as Trump knows very well, fact-checkers can never undo the damage caused by confidently asserting lies.
 
berbatrick said:
Yes, and AFAIK there was no effort at all from the Bernie side. Do you really think the vote represents anything at all?
Consider Oregon (neighbouring state, closed primary went Bernie 56-44), and the opinion polls. The only polls, conducted in May 2015, had him at 25-35%. He was at 18-32% in NH (open primary) at the same time. Washington was an open caucus. IMO the "open" matters more than the "caucus", and "relevant" matters more than both.
Click to expand...

As if there is more effort from the Clinton side :lol:.

The Washington primary is a mail-in ballot, so the easiest voting method possible. Turnout was 1/3 of the actual Democratic vote for Obama in 2012. Oregon primary that actually matters only had 619k votes by the way, lower than this pointless primary.

Results like this and Nebraska illustrate two points, 1) popular vote margin will shift very little, if at all, if states hold primaries instead of caucuses and 2) Sanders's argument that he wins when turn out is high is at best, unsubstantiated.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
As if there is more effort from the Clinton side :lol:.

The Washington primary is a mail-in ballot, so the easiest voting method possible. Turnout was 1/3 of the actual Democratic vote for Obama in 2012. Oregon primary that actually matters only had 619k votes by the way, lower than this pointless primary.

Results like this and Nebraska illustrate two points, 1) popular vote margin will shift very little, if at all, if states hold primaries instead of caucuses and 2) Sanders's argument that he wins when turn out is high is at best, unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...


I doubt there's any exit polling done on these but I would assume older retired people who are the most regular voters (a disadvantage for Dems, an advantage for Hillary) would dominate these inconsequential primaries.
The Oregon turnout was 66% of all registered Dems btw. http://oregonvotes.gov/results/2016P/index.html
 
berbatrick said:
I doubt there's any exit polling done on these but I would assume older retired people who are the most regular voters (a disadvantage for Dems, an advantage for Hillary) would dominate these inconsequential primaries.
The Oregon turnout was 66% of all registered Dems btw. http://oregonvotes.gov/results/2016P/index.html
Click to expand...

Anyone who wouldn't wish to spend half a day at a caucus. That's 300k older retired people following your logic. Sanders got above 300k too, which nearly doubled his caucus turn out.

Anyhow, a very interesting read that I think most likely apply to most if not all of us.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-supporters-dunning-kruger-effect-213904
 
berbatrick said:
I doubt there's any exit polling done on these but I would assume older retired people who are the most regular voters (a disadvantage for Dems, an advantage for Hillary) would dominate these inconsequential primaries.
The Oregon turnout was 66% of all registered Dems btw. http://oregonvotes.gov/results/2016P/index.html
Click to expand...

Just look at their crowd sizes - one draws massive crowds, the other seems more manufactured by the party apparatus.
 
Raoul said:
Just look at their crowd sizes - one draws massive crowds, the other seems more manufactured by the party apparatus.
Click to expand...


Following Indian politics akes me wary of using crowd size.This is the turnout at a Communist Party protest in a state where they came 2nd/3rd depending on your parameter.
Raoul said:
Just look at their crowd sizes - one draws massive crowds, the other seems more manufactured by the party apparatus.
Click to expand...
nat1.jpg
 
berbatrick said:
Following Indian politics akes me wary of using crowd size.This is the turnout at a Communist Party protest in a state where they came 2nd/3rd depending on your parameter.

nat1.jpg
Click to expand...

In a democratic context, I generally view crowd size as a measure of populism.
 
Raoul said:
In a democratic context, I generally view crowd size as a measure of populism.
Click to expand...

The Communist parties are very much part of Indian parliamentary democracy. They are in power in 2 states and till a decade ago controlled about 10% of the seats in parliament. The tiniest one has a leader whom I follow on facebook :p https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavita_Krishnan



I think the obvious size and enthusiasm in Bernie's crowds is because of the profile of his supporters - young and passionate - coupled with the fact that he holds his rallies on campuses. It's tougher to get the same response at a senior centre (or indeed hold a rally there) but they vote more regularly.
 
I often wonder if Bernie shouldn't have made the "damn emails" comment. It's helped keep his negatives down among Dems, but attacking her more aggressively on all issues including this and the Clinton Foundation might have been the way to go. And further scrutiny of her time as SoS (her interview when asked about achievements was embarrassing).

I have said every time I don't expect Bernie to win the GE 50-40 or whatever the average is right now; attacks on tax, his Soviet honeymoon *will surely hit. But there is a lot of stuff about her that hasn't been hit so far and Trump can go to town with it. Though right now he seems to have started off with Bill Clinton is a rapist, not sure how that will work.

*his unstinted support for BLM would hurt him immensely too, and unfortunately did nothing for him in the primary.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.