The New American Politics thread

[peter12]

Latest Quinnipiac poll shows Trump leading Rubio in Florida by 16 points (44-28). He is also substantially improving his likability factor as 21% of Florida voters saying they would not support Trump, compared to 26% saying the same for Cruz.

GOP women voters appear to go to Trump as well, 39-31 (over Rubio).

More cold water on those saying Trump has a high floor, low ceiling, and will fizzle in the long run. Trump is showing that he can adapt to increase his widespread appeal. It is just Republican's now, but his adaptability, and subsequent increasing popularity among special groups, will be an important factor heading into a Presidential election.

Stop counting out Trump because you don't agree with him.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2327

[VladtheImpaler]

The posters looking down their noses at Trump forget that the majority of voters are stupid, that Hillary has no charisma, and is arguably the most personally unlikable candidate in a long time. There is a reason her campaign cratered in the face of the empty suit (Obama). I actually think she would be a good president, but she is not much of a candidate... I think you people are seriously overestimating the average voter...

[peter12]

Well, come on, I kind of agree with what you are saying, but it only touches the surface of Trump's mass appeal. The American political spirit is a roiling maelstrom right now, and a lot of passions are starting to escape that once ordered social contract.

As I have said before, it probably boils down to status quo versus radical alternative. Clinton has a ton of political capital, but her inseparable association with a regime and economic system that many Americans find unjust and intolerable is slowly hurting her. Simply put, for the average American voter (both Dem and Rep) Granny Clinton isn't so cuddly for the average American voter. Her real interests lie with the oligarchs on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley.

The maverick candidate only has to point out those hypocrisies, and mock them. Solutions don't matter much at this point - as both Sanders and Trump demonstrate. A lot of Americans just want to someone from their elite classes to say what a lot of them are feeling.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The posters looking down their noses at Trump forget that the majority of voters are stupid, that Hillary has no charisma, and is arguably the most personally unlikable candidate in a long time. There is a reason her campaign cratered in the face of the empty suit (Obama). I actually think she would be a good president, but she is not much of a candidate... I think you people are seriously overestimating the average voter...

Agreed wholeheartedly.

NO ONE wants to vote for Hillary. She's incredibly unlikeable.

Trump on the other hand has the same charismatic draw as Hitler.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by peter12

Latest Quinnipiac poll shows Trump leading Rubio in Florida by 16 points (44-28). He is also substantially improving his likability factor as 21% of Florida voters saying they would not support Trump, compared to 26% saying the same for Cruz.

GOP women voters appear to go to Trump as well, 39-31 (over Rubio).

More cold water on those saying Trump has a high floor, low ceiling, and will fizzle in the long run. Trump is showing that he can adapt to increase his widespread appeal. It is just Republican's now, but his adaptability, and subsequent increasing popularity among special groups, will be an important factor heading into a Presidential election.

Stop counting out Trump because you don't agree with him.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2327

Great poll for Trump, no question. Winning Florida would be a great coup for him and would need Rubio to make some major upsets elsewhere.

However, it would be a mistake to take a poll of likely primary voters in a state that limits primary voting to registered Republicans, and use that as proof of him increasing his widespread appeal. He's been steadily improving favorability scores with Republicans, and decreasing them with independents and Democrats, and this poll does nothing to change that narrative.

As well, there's going to be a 'talking themselves into it' phase for Republicans as they become resigned to Trump as their nominee. And it'll happen with the Democrats and Clinton; when it becomes clear Sanders has no chance, then the pro-Sanders element of the party will decide to that Clinton actually isn't so bad and her favorability scores amongst Democrats will increase.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The posters looking down their noses at Trump forget that the majority of voters are stupid, that Hillary has no charisma, and is arguably the most personally unlikable candidate in a long time. There is a reason her campaign cratered in the face of the empty suit (Obama). I actually think she would be a good president, but she is not much of a candidate... I think you people are seriously overestimating the average voter...

While Hilary is unlikable, Trump has her beat by orders of magnitude. Objectively.

And lost to one of the most charismatic/grass roots campaigns in a while. You can argue whether there was substance or not, but Obama captured the world with his campaign.

Your analysis is waaaaaaaaaayyyyy off

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

While Hilary is unlikable, Trump has her beat by orders of magnitude. Objectively.

And lost to one of the most charismatic/grass roots campaigns in a while. You can argue whether there was substance or not, but Obama captured the world with his campaign.

Your analysis is waaaaaaaaaayyyyy off

I agree that Obama was a good President, and certainly more than an empty suit. All you have to look at is his record on ethics. The guy is pretty straight-up, and has held the course on a pretty leaky ship. I admire Barack Obama, and I think that Clinton's ultimate goal is to serve as the natural continuation of his presidency. Certainly, that seems to be the purpose of her campaign rhetoric.

The problem is, she is having a lot of problems with not just one more, but two high-charisma/grass-roots campaigns. What happens if Trump is able to capture that, but within a different American demographic? As I said earlier, Clinton as the safe candidate may just not work anymore - not just for her past ethical failures, but because the US culture doesn't work that way anymore.

Time will tell, but it is very important not to count a candidate like Trump out at this stage. Indeed, by previous analysis, he is the favourite for the Republican nomination.

[peter12]

I think you start to see a lot of cross-over among Sanders and Trump supporters as the race continues. The main reason being that Trump alone is not so stupid as to stand against universal health coverage. Voters on both sides love single-payer healthcare, so while Trump has said he will repeal it, he has also been open about his admiration for the "Canadian" system. He just doesn't think that model would work very well in America, which isn't a dumb position. A lot of people say that Obamacare is too expensive.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

While Hilary is unlikable, Trump has her beat by orders of magnitude. Objectively.

And lost to one of the most charismatic/grass roots campaigns in a while. You can argue whether there was substance or not, but Obama captured the world with his campaign.

Your analysis is waaaaaaaaaayyyyy off

Your prejudice clouds your judgement. Trump has charisma and he is a "celebrity". He appeals to the economic "losers". Hillary is unpleasant and an oligarch. This is going to be an interesting election.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Your prejudice clouds your judgement. Trump has charisma and he is a "celebrity". He appeals to the economic "losers". Hillary is unpleasant and an oligarch. This is going to be an interesting election.

I agree there. But Trump has charisma with a certain group of people. It just doesn't fall along typical lines. It's not your usual demographic groups. A full 20% of his voters disagree with the Emancipation Proclamation which is higher than any other candidate. He appeals to the xenophobic in America, who happen to be in higher proportions in the Republican party. Just because his support isn't categorized by typical demographic groups, doesn't mean he had wide appeal. He simply doesn't

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think you start to see a lot of cross-over among Sanders and Trump supporters as the race continues. The main reason being that Trump alone is not so stupid as to stand against universal health coverage. Voters on both sides love single-payer healthcare, so while Trump has said he will repeal it, he has also been open about his admiration for the "Canadian" system. He just doesn't think that model would work very well in America, which isn't a dumb position. A lot of people say that Obamacare is too expensive.

That's a good analysis. You guys are assuming that the "Left" will rally to Clinton to repel the Fascist Trump onslaught. You keep forgetting, that when you get down to it, Trump's populism is left of Hillary. Sure, the feminists, the university crowd, all those people that are repelled by Trump will be with her - but that's a relatively small number of people. But the actual poor, you know the people that the Left claims to be fighting for, Trump sure seems more appealing to that contingent. There is a chance that this goes the way of Reagan in terms of winning the blue collar Democrats. Obviously, different times, different demographics, but I am just saying there is potential for that sort of swing. I can definitely see the Rustbelt swinging to Trump. I think this is going to be a very interesting election - I can honestly foresee and not be surprised by a Trump sweep or a Hillary sweep, or the too-close-to-call outcome - it just seems so wide open...

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I agree there. But Trump has charisma with a certain group of people. It just doesn't fall along typical lines. It's not your usual demographic groups. A full 20% of his voters disagree with the Emancipation Proclamation which is higher than any other candidate. He appeals to the xenophobic in America, who happen to be in higher proportions in the Republican party. Just because his support isn't categorized by typical demographic groups, doesn't mean he had wide appeal. He simply doesn't

I don't know - I can see the white trash racist voting for him and I can see blacks voting for him. I think you are underestimating his ability to push a lot of buttons, often contradictory, at the same time. A lot of Rebuplicans don't like him, but they will likely come out to vote against Hillary. And, as I mentioned in my other post, I think a lot of the lower-end Democratic base may like Trump's song...

[peter12]

Trump has steadily eroded away all of the so-called barriers to his low-ceiling. Latinos have started voting for him, so have women.

People want to pretend that the Left has somehow solidified its position within a successful big-tent party that manages to appeal to both social libertarian and progressive fiscal voters at the same time. That is, people who value their moral autonomy, but want a sort of robust (although far less robust than the Reagan years) social safety net. This is probably partially true, but since the B. Clinton years, the Democrats have played a pretty tenuous balance act between satisfying coastal sophisticates and elites - the bankers, VCs, and college profs who almost uniformly vote Democrat - and trying to maintain a hold on blue-collar union members, blacks in general, Latino immigrants etc...

The problem is, that since the recession, these groups have developed strongly competitive interests. It is fairly obvious that Silicon Valley has benefited tremendously by assisting, and driving the transition towards a more automated, globalized economy. Well, where does that lead the more numerous people at the bottom? How does that affect the long-term prospects of a party devoted to upholding the interests of the former, but depending upon the electoral support of the latter? Perfect opportunity for a populist candidate to exploit.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Well apparently it's over for Trump already...

A professor of political science at Stony Brook University has forecasted that Donald Trump has a minimum 97 percent chance of winning the general election as the Republican nominee.

Professor Helmut Norpoth’s forecast presentation took place Monday evening in the SUNY Global Center in Manhattan, which was organized by the Stony Brook Alumni Association.

Norpoth created a statistical model of presidential elections that uses a candidate’s performance in their party’s primary and patterns in the electoral cycle as predictors of the presidential vote in the general election.

Donald Trump has a 97 percent chance of defeating Hillary Clinton and a 99 percent chance of defeating Bernie Sanders in the general election, according to Norpoth’s formula.

“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth said, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”

Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.

https://www.sbstatesman.com/2016/02/...ection-winner/

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well apparently it's over for Trump already...



https://www.sbstatesman.com/2016/02/...ection-winner/

I'd probably have more faith in a model that relies on primary results if all the primaries had actually been held instead of the four(?) out of fifty one we've had so far.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well apparently it's over for Trump already...



https://www.sbstatesman.com/2016/02/...ection-winner/

Every poll has shown Bernie crushes Trump in the general.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'd probably have more faith in a model that relies on primary results if all the primaries had actually been held instead of the four(?) out of fifty one we've had so far.

To be fair his model has been correct 96% of the time (25/26). So it could be flawed for sure, but his overall accuracy with the model is pretty good.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Every poll has shown Bernie crushes Trump in the general.

It's February and Bernie has more or less skated so far when it comes to being harshly attacked. Once that starts I think he's in trouble. His polling numbers outside of young people (obviously the least reliable voting block there is) are not that great either. Plus there's that fact he's gonna struggle to win more than 10 more states between now and the Dem convention. He's still very unlikely to be the nominee.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'd probably have more faith in a model that relies on primary results if all the primaries had actually been held instead of the four(?) out of fifty one we've had so far.

All that model is using is a predictive sample based across time. The degree of accuracy shows that it works, but I am not totally sure how he estimates political spirit or the political cycle or whatever. Just Democrat to Republican President or something?

One that thing that Vlad has made very clear is how fresh the ground is that we are walking on. Basically, anything is possible at this point. The world has changed so much in 8 years.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

To be fair his model has been correct 96% of the time (25/26). So it could be flawed for sure, but his overall accuracy with the model is pretty good.



It's February and Bernie has more or less skated so far when it comes to being harshly attacked. Once that starts I think he's in trouble. His polling numbers outside of young people (obviously the least reliable voting block there is) are not that great either. Plus there's that fact he's gonna struggle to win more than 10 more states between now and the Dem convention. He's still very unlikely to be the nominee.

I'm not arguing whether it's a good model, but if it relies on primary results it cannot be accurate now, as we have only had three primaries.

There is no way the primaries of Nevada New Hampshire and South Carolina can predict anything other than their own states, at least he'd need 2/3rds of the primaries to have any chance of applying his model to a national result.

[troutman]

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox to Trump: We're "Not Paying For That F***ing Wall"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...fing_wall.html