I'm curious to see why you see Michigan as a swing state. It's one that the Democrats won by 10% last time, it's got a large african american population with some serious social justice activism (even more of an issue if there's a vacant SCOTUS seat), they've generally supported Democratic nominees for the last 20 years, and their Republican governor has seen his own reputation go down the drain as a result of the Flint water crisis.
I'm open to arguments why it should be considered a swing state, but I just haven't seen it listed as such.
Presumably for the same reason people think Bernie would have a better chance than Hillary at beating Trump: The polling. Trump is ahead of both in Michigan in a perspective matchup. Add in his populist message, and going after Detroit automakers for shipping jobs to Mexico, and I expect it's a tight state that could go either way, but with Trump I'd have the GOP slightly ahead.
That's what is so odd about Trump, if he's the nominee they probably have a good chance in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. If it's Cruz or Rubio, I give them little to no chance in those states.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Presumably for the same reason people think Bernie would have a better chance than Hillary at beating Trump: The polling. Trump is ahead of both in Michigan in a perspective matchup. Add in his populist message, and going after Detroit automakers for shipping jobs to Mexico, and I expect it's a tight state that could go either way, but with Trump I'd have the GOP slightly ahead.
That's what is so odd about Trump, if he's the nominee they probably have a good chance in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. If it's Cruz or Rubio, I give them little to no chance in those states.
I'm not sure any republican is going to be able to overcome the stench of poisoning children in order to save a few hundred grand.
It's the kind of issue that keeps your base at home for a cycle or two.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Umm, okay... you've got some more recent Trump vs. Clinton head-to-head Michigan polls that this aggregator didn't pick up? Please share.
I can't find the poll right now, but it was an Elon University poll that had Trump slightly ahead of both of them. But you show that RCP aggregate from about 5 months ago and Trump was only 5 points behind. In that time it's pretty much indisputable that Trump has gone up and Hillary has gone down. Michigan is definitely going to be in play for Trump.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
I can't find the poll right now, but it was an Elon University poll that had Trump slightly ahead of both of them. But you show that RCP aggregate from about 5 months ago and Trump was only 5 points behind. In that time it's pretty much indisputable that Trump has gone up and Hillary has gone down. Michigan is definitely going to be in play for Trump.
It's certainly possible that such a poll could exist, but it's not showing up on the Elon University Polling website, or on any poll aggregators I can find.
Personally, I'd be skeptical of a Michigan poll from Elon, given that they say that they're area of interest is in polling North Carolina and other southern states. Do they have the experience and knowledge to do a meaningful Michigan poll?
Of course I'm also skeptical of four month old polls like those I linked to from RCP.
I'd be equally skeptical of any sort of extrapolation along the lines of "it was a certain margin in state polls several months ago, and national favorability ratings have moved since then, therefore the state poll would now have moved a significant amount in a certain direction." It's just not good use of polling data. Especially given that Trump's favorability ratings have really stayed largely the same at a national level, and internally are becoming better with Republicans and worse with independents and Democrats.
Hopefully with Michigan's primary a couple weeks away, we'll get some useful data from the great lakes state. Until then, like I say, I'm skeptical. (But open to seeing a convincing argument to the contrary.)
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
The current law has no restrictions on children using long guns or shotguns under their parents’ instruction but prohibits them from using handguns.
State Rep. Jake Highfill (R) said the new bill, which passed 62-36, “brings the code in line with long guns and shotguns” by allowing children to also use handguns under direct supervision from a parent or legal guardian.
I'm admittedly completely confused by gun culture in general, but I can understand why a parent would be okay with their minor child having a rifle to go hunting together and things of that nature, but why in the hell does a minor need to possess a damn handgun??
I'm sure Iowa has no other more important legislation they could be passing right now.
I'm admittedly completely confused by gun culture in general, but I can understand why a parent would be okay with their minor child having a rifle to go hunting together and things of that nature, but why in the hell does a minor need to possess a damn handgun??
I'm sure Iowa has no other more important legislation they could be passing right now.
You make two basic mistakes trying to understand this law, first that there's some sensible reason to have a gun and second that the average voter isn't a moron.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
This is Trumps momentum high point and Clintons low mark though, and she's still killing him.
Trump has no 'machine' to get the vote out, he isn't the choice of his party, he has the largest negative approval rating of any candidate in modern history an Slovenian wife with a heavy accent who's just out of high school.
It's going to be a massacre.
Not that any of this matters but I had to look her up. She's actually 45, so if she's just out of high school, she's been in there for a very, very long time.
__________________ "We are no longer living. We are empty of substance, and our head devours us. Our ancestors were more alive. Nothing separated them from themselves."
Not that any of this matters but I had to look her up. She's actually 45, so if she's just out of high school, she's been in there for a very, very long time.
I was being facetious, she is, none the less, the most ludicrous potential First Lady ever, she's a couple of years older than his daughter, half his age, has an unintelligible accent, not the kind of thing that your older mid western voter will cotton too.
I was being facetious, she is, none the less, the most ludicrous potential First Lady ever, she's a couple of years older than his daughter, half his age, has an unintelligible accent, not the kind of thing that your older mid western voter will cotton too.
So, people won't vote for Trump because his wife is younger and has an accent? Is that what you're saying? I'm genuinely confused as to what point you're trying to make.
So, people won't vote for Trump because his wife is younger and has an accent? Is that what you're saying? I'm genuinely confused as to what point you're trying to make.
Yes that's pretty much the point I'm making, hes running on a platform of nativist racism, keep out the foriegners, but he's married to a foreigner and employs thousands of illegals like every other hotelier and construction magnate.
As facile as it is this will alienate many voters in the conservative Christian fundy block he has to have, thus far he hasn't really been tested, he's just been a talking head.
An awefull lot of voters will wake up in six months having caucused for trump without really knowing anything about him and be genuinely appalled at what they've chosen.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 02-24-2016 at 11:30 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
I can't find the poll right now, but it was an Elon University poll that had Trump slightly ahead of both of them. But you show that RCP aggregate from about 5 months ago and Trump was only 5 points behind. In that time it's pretty much indisputable that Trump has gone up and Hillary has gone down. Michigan is definitely going to be in play for Trump.
Hillary may have taken a hit in that time (and clearly she is a flawed candidate in many respects) but I am not going to accept that it is "indisputable" that Trump's net favourables have been improved over the past 4 months. Trump's biggest obstacle is the same as it always has been: people don't like him.
He is Clinton's best friend right now, because he is the best possible matchup for her. Parties do occasionally have these populist ground swells where they reject the party establishment and nominate someone from the party's fringes--but this doesn't usually translate into success in the general election.
In Trump's case it's worse, as he has almost literally no ability to appeal to the key demographics in the swing states, and will mobilize Latino and African-American voters to come to the polls and vote against him. He could very well do even worse among Latinos than Romney, and that's saying something.
That's why I think, unlike you, that Trump has a very difficult electoral path. He has to swing not only Ohio, but ALSO one of Colorado or Florida and the Latino problem is huge for him in both states. And that is with giving him New Hampshire, which I think he has the best shot in among the "swing" states.
Hillary may have taken a hit in that time (and clearly she is a flawed candidate in many respects) but I am not going to accept that it is "indisputable" that Trump's net favourables have been improved over the past 4 months. Trump's biggest obstacle is the same as it always has been: people don't like him.
He is Clinton's best friend right now, because he is the best possible matchup for her. Parties do occasionally have these populist ground swells where they reject the party establishment and nominate someone from the party's fringes--but this doesn't usually translate into success in the general election.
In Trump's case it's worse, as he has almost literally no ability to appeal to the key demographics in the swing states, and will mobilize Latino and African-American voters to come to the polls and vote against him. He could very well do even worse among Latinos than Romney, and that's saying something.
That's why I think, unlike you, that Trump has a very difficult electoral path. He has to swing not only Ohio, but ALSO one of Colorado or Florida and the Latino problem is huge for him in both states. And that is with giving him New Hampshire, which I think he has the best shot in among the "swing" states.
Unlike the republicans the Dems will coalesce after the candidate is picked, Bernie will throw his full support behind Hillary and I suspect carry the North East for her. I don't think Tru mp has a chance in New Hampshire.
I have a suspicion that Hillary, if she wins vs Bernie, will name Elizabeth Warren as her VP pick. That way she puts further emphasis on the woman vote and adds the Bernie vote in earnest. Enthusiasm would be restored on the Dem front 100% and would potentially set Warren up to run herself down the road.
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
The Following User Says Thank You to Caged Great For This Useful Post:
Yes that's pretty much the point I'm making, hes running on a platform of nativist racism, keep out the foriegners, but he's married to a foreigner and employs thousands of illegals like every other hotelier and construction magnate.
As facile as it is this will alienate many voters in the conservative Christian fundy block he has to have, thus far he hasn't really been tested, he's just been a talking head.
An awefull lot of voters will wake up in six months having caucused for trump without really knowing anything about him and be genuinely appalled at what they've chosen.
Trump is running on immigration issues. Deport the illegals, undocumented workers stealing jobs from citizens and legal residents.
As for his wife, she's a 45 year old former Slovenian model who became an American citizen a decade ago. I know it's horrific she has an accent speaking English and 3 additional languages!
Trump is running on immigration issues. Deport the illegals, undocumented workers stealing jobs from citizens and legal residents.
As for his wife, she's a 45 year old former Slovenian model who became an American citizen a decade ago. I know it's horrific she has an accent speaking English and 3 additional languages!
AFC,s not saying he has a problem with it, he's saying the Republican public might. Facts have never been something they were too concerned with, particularly those that Trump is appealing himself too. These are the people who still think Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen. They don't care what the actual truth is, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.
AFC,s not saying he has a problem with it, he's saying the Republican public might. Facts have never been something they were too concerned with, particularly those that Trump is appealing himself too. These are the people who still think Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen. They don't care what the actual truth is, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.
Damn immigrants stealing jobs in the trophy wife sector.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
