The New American Politics thread

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

If I was to generalize based on people I know, most democrat leaning people are ok with Hillary. A few like her, a few grudgingly accept that who is they are going to vote for, but most are ok with her. Other than really young people, ost like what Bernie is doing, but didn't vote for him because they didn't think he had a good chance of winning, and didn't think what he wants to do is realistic. All democrats I've ever talked to would vote for whoever was running against Trump though and are very passionately anti Trump.

Most Republican people I know despise Trump, and would never vote for him. They despise Hillary too though. I'd guess most of those think Hillary is less worse, and would either not vote at all in the general election, or grudgingly vote for her.

Trump hasn't proven he can get more than about 10% of probable general election voters out to vote for him, and I strongly doubt that there are many people who haven't voted for Trump yet that would vote for him in a general election. Clinton Trump will be a Reagonesque slaughter.

i think you're underestimating the Trump potential. There are much more than 10% of Americans who are not happy with the current government, not happy with the lack of jobs (imagine a guy out of work for pass the 99 weeks of EI offered, what other choice does he have?). He's rallied the blue collar people and yes there are hatred and racists there as well.

How true is the phrase "the American job is gone"? That's his campaign.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

And Hillary is Frank.

It depends on what you know/believe about Bill!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

This gets amazing towards the end.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-ch...-official.html

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by nik-

This election is going to have a brutal turnout. I can see a lot of Sanders supporters just not bothering. I can also see a lot of independents refusing to just hold their nose and pick one of Trump or Clinton and instead just not voting at all.

I don't think I'd vote for either of them.

There may not be many motivated to vote for either one, but there will surely be a large number of people who are motivated to vote against both of the candidates. In my case I wouldn't want to vote for Clinton but I would if it helped to keep Trump from the presidency. It will be very interesting to see the voter turnout for the election.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by nik-

She's a hawk, a political weather vane and is basically a Republican when it comes to funding. "Hate" is strong, but there's some pretty good reasons why people don't want her in power.

Not to mention her character assassination of Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky.

Then there is Whitewater.

There are plenty of reasons to Hate Clinton. She is a very unlikable person.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This gets amazing towards the end.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-ch...-official.html

That actually clarifies one of the questions I had about this rule 40b, that the nominee has to have 50% of the delegates in 8 states; but that's based on how the delegates declare at the convention, not how the delegates are elected. So if, for example, Rubio releases his delegates and encourages them to vote for Kasich, then suddenly places like Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. could become states where Kasich has 50% of the delegates.
Such a coalition could also take a plurality in Virginia, and tie Cruz in Iowa. (A plurality isn't significant right now, but my understanding is that the rule used to be about a plurality rather than a majority until recently, and could easily be changed back.)

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

10% of Americans

To be fair to both sides what he said was that Trump hasn't proven that he can get more then 10% of probable general election voters. Which is true, he's proven (so far) that he can get about 37% of Republican primary voters... my gut says that 10% of likely general election voters is probably a fair number based on those 37%. Having said that Trump would easily get more then that in the general.

Thinking about past candidates I think Trump and Cruz would both probably be akin to Barry Goldwater (in that they would both be figures unpopular with they're own party and holders of unpopular political positions amoungst the larger electorate). Cruz is a more direct analog to Goldwater but I believe Trump would fall into the same sphere... Goldwater got 38.5% in the general and I think that would be the more realistic downside outcome for Trump.

[Parallex]

Quick question to anyone who knows... what is Trump's state level organization like? I mean is he a traveling road show whose organization evaporates when the primary/caucus is done or does he have a sizable state organization that sticks around through the delegate selection process?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Quick question to anyone who knows... what is Trump's state level organization like? I mean is he a traveling road show whose organization evaporates when the primary/caucus is done or does he have a sizable state organization that sticks around through the delegate selection process?

Everything I've read is he has no real organization, it's all being done on the back of his zeitgeist popularity and free news coverage, even the primaries.

Trump is completely dependant on riding a wave of discontent and novelty, if at any point the wave breaks he likely collapses utterly.

[dino7c]

Trump is getting the "dey took yer jarb" vote for sure

Honestly though I can't see any way Hillary loses a general election...No matter how pissed Bernie Sanders supporters are they are still voting Hillary over Trump

For many it will be a vote against Trump not one for Hillary

[the_only_turek_fan]

Candidates aside, the Dems have a structural advantage.

The blue wall has been intact since 1992.

Hillary or Sanders would have beaten any GOP candidate.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Everything I've read is he has no real organization, it's all being done on the back of his zeitgeist popularity and free news coverage.

If that's the case then he's completely ####ed if it get's down to a contested convention. Regardless of how few delegates he's down by.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Quick question to anyone who knows... what is Trump's state level organization like? I mean is he a traveling road show whose organization evaporates when the primary/caucus is done or does he have a sizable state organization that sticks around through the delegate selection process?

Yeah, AFC is right, but to expand on what he said, basically Trump and Rubio both thought they could win without worrying about delegate selection, Kasich has no state infrastructure beyond Ohio, and Cruz went all in on grassroots organization. I read an article about a month ago in which one of Trump's staffers said 'he doesn't really know or care about how the delegates work.' And I'm not sure if he's changed his tune since then. I think his plan is that if he doesn't win outright, just to scream blue murder about any attempt to take it away from him.

Given that Rubio has a bunch of delegates allocated but not yet selected, Cruz probably has the upper hand in getting delegates loyal to him selected. I could easily see a scenario where Cruz just totally steamrolls a contested convention on the second ballot. Although given that state organizations have mechanisms in place for picking delegates, it's also possible that there's a strong establishment contingent.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Trump is getting the "dey took yer jarb" vote for sure

Honestly though I can't see any way Hillary loses a general election...No matter how pissed Bernie Sanders supporters are they are still voting Hillary over Trump

For many it will be a vote against Trump not one for Hillary

The correct term is "jerb".

Just helping you out so you don't sound like a redneck.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The correct term is "jerb".

Just helping you out so you don't sound like a redneck.

fine my mistake

[troutman]

Cruz was secretly singer for Stryper?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I could easily see a scenario where Cruz just totally steamrolls a contested convention on the second ballot. Although given that state organizations have mechanisms in place for picking delegates, it's also possible that there's a strong establishment contingent.

Yeah, that's what I figure. I knew Cruz has a good ground game just don't know about the rest.

After the first ballot we'd see a bunch of Cruz sleeper agents and a strong contingent of delegates controlled by the individual state GOP apparatus... hence Trump is ####ed.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Not to mention her character assassination of Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky.

Then there is Whitewater.

There are plenty of reasons to Hate Clinton. She is a very unlikable person.

A Trump/Clinton election would be interesting because Trump would bring up all that dirt plus questions about her "marriage" with Bill, etc. It would get very ugly.

[Zarley]

Speaking of that, Trump's new Hilary attack ad is hilarious.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Speaking of that, Trump's new Hilary attack ad is hilarious.

That is legit hilarious.

But sad and scary that the contest to become the commander of the US military has ads like that.