• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

As I pointed out, the fundamental problem of republicans is that they have alienated too many groups. Kasich, while a nice fellow, wouldn't be able to fix the biggest problem; the republican treatment of women. His main fault is his mysogyny, and as we are seeing, that is now decisive.

Personally, I think next time we will have an unprecedented sweeping away of previous contenders in the republican camp, and the emergence of new leaders. Kasich might end up the candidate or Vice President to a younger candidate. But I expect that all the usual bets will be off. The big question will anyone be able to unite the two factions again.
 
Sarpedon said:
As I pointed out, the fundamental problem of republicans is that they have alienated too many groups. Kasich, while a nice fellow, wouldn't be able to fix the biggest problem; the republican treatment of women. His main fault is his mysogyny, and as we are seeing, that is now decisive.

Personally, I think next time we will have an unprecedented sweeping away of previous contenders in the republican camp, and the emergence of new leaders. Kasich might end up the candidate or Vice President to a younger candidate. But I expect that all the usual bets will be off. The big question will anyone be able to unite the two factions again.
Click to expand...
During the primaries, at least as far as I remember, opinion polls said Kasich would beat Clinton, and barely lose to Sanders. Granted, that's no guarantee for the election, but it seems to me the electoral distance between the parties (even among women) isn't so great if he can win in opinion polls.
 
Trump seems to have retreated into his safe space now. He's surrounded himself with his base and is throwing out red meat for the alt-right and reveling in the applause and doesn't really talk to anyone outside of Fox News.

Some say that this is part of a potentially winning strategy. His campaign was flailing last week and now he is shoring up his base to keep that from collapsing and then can move on from there starting next week to build his poll numbers back up outside of it. I don't see that being the case. Not only has voting already started, so a strategy of slowly building support over the next several weeks is not a winning strategy, but it's not like the upcoming weeks are going to have some kind of lack of new sex scandals from him which will dominate the headlines and destroy whatever other messages he wants to be focusing on. I mean, Clinton isn't going allow herself to go into the third debate with only a main scandal that's a week and a half old to talk about.

It's only going to get worse for Trump and he's going to lash out more and have his rage validated more by the people at his rallies. Then he's going to realize after the election that the idea that this represents the country as a whole is just math that crazy people do to make themselves feel better.
 
ZiprHead said:
LAKELAND, Fla. — On Wednesday, Donald Trump said Paul Ryan made a “sinister deal” to undermine him, charged that the Islamic State would conquer the United States if Hillary Clinton defeats him and vowed to jail Clinton’s lawyers along with their client.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-florida-rallies-229695

:eek:
Click to expand...

ROFL! By the time he's done he'll have jailed everyone in the country except for himself. Wouldn't it be easier to simply jail him?
 
Elixir said:
ZiprHead said:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-florida-rallies-229695

:eek:
Click to expand...

ROFL! By the time he's done he'll have jailed everyone in the country except for himself. Wouldn't it be easier to simply jail him?
Click to expand...

I think he should just demand that we pay for, and build a REALLY REALLY YUUUGE WALL around him. That way he can be safe from all us conspirators/crooks/rapists/Mexicans/Jews/Women/Veterans/Muslims/.... I'd be good with that.
 
Yes, people had good feelings about Kasich in the primary, because he was not the subject of so much scrutiny. I think it is possible that he would have beaten Clinton, but I don't think it was a foregone conclusion. Every analyst says that those hypothetical head to head polls are unreliable, but people love doing them. In a general election, Kasich's condescending tone on women would have rallied many of them around Clinton. Not to the extent that the monster Trump does, but if she can get more women than Kasich can get men, she's gold.
 
funinspace said:
Elixir said:
ROFL! By the time he's done he'll have jailed everyone in the country except for himself. Wouldn't it be easier to simply jail him?
Click to expand...

I think he should just demand that we pay for, and build a REALLY REALLY YUUUGE WALL around him. That way he can be safe from all us conspirators/crooks/rapists/Mexicans/Jews/Women/Veterans/Muslims/.... I'd be good with that.
Click to expand...

We could just plaster up the bottom 5 floors of the Trump Tower. That becomes a really big wall, right?
 
Meanwhile, Trump is blaming America's ills on global institutions that are working with the Clintons to devour our nation. Isn't "Global institution" alt-right speak for Jews?
 
Sarpedon said:
I think it is possible that he would have beaten Clinton, but I don't think it was a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...
Sure, I agree.

Sarpedon said:
Every analyst says that those hypothetical head to head polls are unreliable, but people love doing them. In a general election, Kasich's condescending tone on women would have rallied many of them around Clinton. Not to the extent that the monster Trump does, but if she can get more women than Kasich can get men, she's gold.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but there are plenty of conservatives who hate Clinton and would have voted for pretty much every Republican candidate other than Trump. That applies to women as well. For example, Evangelical women in many cases cannot stand Trump. But they (most of them) probably would have no trouble voting for Kasich - especially if the alternative is Clinton.

Kasich (or people supporting him) could have attacked Clinton on the emails, her behavior in the past when Bill was governor, etc., while he wouldn't have been nearly as easy a target as Trump. His anti-atheist stance - for example - wouldn't hurt him much politically.

Generally, my point is that if he manages to run in 2020 against Clinton, he might win (i.e., we can't rule that out, given available info, even assuming Clinton's presidency is mostly unsurprising, without more scandals and stuff than usual).
 
Sarpedon said:
Yes, people had good feelings about Kasich in the primary, because he was not the subject of so much scrutiny. I think it is possible that he would have beaten Clinton, but I don't think it was a foregone conclusion. Every analyst says that those hypothetical head to head polls are unreliable, but people love doing them. In a general election, Kasich's condescending tone on women would have rallied many of them around Clinton. Not to the extent that the monster Trump does, but if she can get more women than Kasich can get men, she's gold.
Click to expand...

She's gold? She's the better of a very bad couple of candidates. Gold she's certainly not!
 
angelo said:
Sarpedon said:
Yes, people had good feelings about Kasich in the primary, because he was not the subject of so much scrutiny. I think it is possible that he would have beaten Clinton, but I don't think it was a foregone conclusion. Every analyst says that those hypothetical head to head polls are unreliable, but people love doing them. In a general election, Kasich's condescending tone on women would have rallied many of them around Clinton. Not to the extent that the monster Trump does, but if she can get more women than Kasich can get men, she's gold.
Click to expand...

She's gold? She's the better of a very bad couple of candidates. Gold she's certainly not!
Click to expand...
Clinton isn't a great candidate, but she isn't an awful one. Trump is an awful one. Jebus! He is going nuclear in a Presidential campaign, just how would anyone expect him to perform under duress in the White House?
 
Major poll outcome, Texas.

The Lonestar State had a poll come out on Wednesday that RealClearPolitics seemed to have missed. The poll shows Trump is leading 47 to 43. This indicates a couple very important potential realities.

First, third parties are falling and Johnson's numbers are going to do the typical third party plop in the final month.

Second, the national popular vote could get ugly for Trump. Republicans have won Texas since 2000 by 11 to 23 points. If Trump is only leading by 4 points in the largest state Republicans can win it would be very ugly with the national popular vote. To kill this awful movement, an '84 outcome popular vote wise is the high watermark in my opinion.

Other Reliable to Deep Red States
Alaska, Utah, Georgia, and South Carolina all have leads in the low single digits, and most of the polls are late September to early October, before the second Trump meltdown.

Battleground
Which then makes us wonder, if Alaska is 5 points, why is New Hampshire, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina so close? The answer may be they aren't. The polling this year has been very hard and a lot of work needs to go into figuring out how to poll in the future, though undoubtably, someone has it right. The other issue is turnout. A lot on election polling is dependent on guessing the turnout for a candidate. With the absentee numbers coming in with Democrats favor, this may indicate Democrat turnout will be higher than expected, therefore the polls are underpredicting Clinton support.

And one anecdotal thing, based on my personal experience at yard signs, I've seen only two more yard signs for Johnson than I have seen for Perot (yes, an old Perot sign). I think Johnson, at least in Ohio is going to be a blip.
 
Additionally in Texas, there are no Senatorial campaigns this year. In other states, it's easier to get people out to vote when there's a Senate seat on the line even if they have no interest in the nominee. If a number of the GOPers who hate Trump or a number of the Trumpers who hate the GOP end up staying home because they don't want to come out and just vote for a Congressman, the Dems would have a decent chance of picking up a couple of seats there if the race is that close.
 
Fivethirtyeight did a good piece on how the vote is shifting this cycle, which explains why these things are happening: Short answer, geography is less significant now than gender and education. This is why states that never used to be close are suddenly close, in both directions. Blue states are still blue and red states are still red largely because of different levels of educational attainment, which has historically been higher in blue states. However, that difference is not as great as regional identity differences used to be.
 
ZiprHead said:
Republican nominee Donald Trump claims he gave generously to help his city in the dark days after the deadly terrorist attacks. But new records show a pledged promise to donate $10,000 to a major 9/11 charity must have somehow slipped his mind.
Click to expand...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-lied-donating-9-11-charities-article-1.2829908?cid=bitly
Click to expand...

$10,000 to a NYC charity for 9/11 when you are supposedly a billionaire is insultingly paltry. And then he didn't actually give it?

He seems to think that just saying he will donate to charities is the same as actually doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom