It’s hard to say exactly how well (or poorly) Trump might fare as the Republican nominee. Partisanship is strong enough in the U.S. that even some of his most ardent detractors in the GOP would come around to support him were he the Republican candidate. Trump has some cunning political instincts, and might not hesitate to shift back to the center if he won the GOP nomination. A recession or a terror attack later this year could work in his favor.
But Trump would start at a disadvantage: Most Americans just really don’t like the guy.
Contra Rupert Murdoch’s assertion about Trump having crossover appeal, Trump is extraordinarily unpopular with independent voters and Democrats. Gallup polling conducted over the past six weeks found Trump with a -27-percentage-point net favorability rating among independent voters, and a -70-point net rating among Democrats; both marks are easily the worst in the GOP field. (Trump also has less-than-spectacular favorable ratings among his fellow Republicans.)
His unlikeability should matter...except all the traditional metrics that said he should already be gone have proven incorrect. It's time to stop analyzing Trump as anything like a traditional candidate, he's a once in a lifetime candidate beyond compare. Traditional metrics and things that should be terrible or doom a normal candidate do not apply to him.
I mean this is a candidate who has consistently retweeted from explicitly racist posters (such as last week retweeting from someone called White Genocide...), whose spokesperson is on TV trolling non-stop, who herself has racists tweets in the past....and his numbers continue to rise. I know people want to keep acting like this is a sideshow that's going away, but those are likely the people who will be posting here wondering what he hell just happened when it's November 9, 2016 and it's President-elect Trump.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Not that I feel Beck is credible, but the names of the authors are listed alphabetically.
Trump is giving voice to anger, and that's the only thing he's doing. There is a large proportion of Americans who are angry about a number of things. That the America they felt they were promised has not materialized, that their wages have been stagnant for years, that they 'have' to be politically correct. That Earth Day is a thing, and incandescent bulbs are gone.
Mainly it's the first thing though. The 'American Dream' of work hard and you'll be rewarded with prosperity has failed. There are a whole slew of reasons for this and both Liberal and Conservative solutions have been offered.
That anger has become directed at Government. Palin was the first appearance of it, her "pitbull with lipstick" thing resonated with an anger which hadn't simmered to the surface yet.
The Tea Party was the second manifestation. 'Elect us and we'll stop Obama' they promised. Then they didn't (as far as the average voter is concerned) the GOP is the same as the Dems, is the rallying cry of the 'base.'
And now along comes Trump. He's not a conservative, has no policy positions really, and does not present anything substantive, ever. But he is MAD. And people identify with that, the feeling of "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." So he's got them, they connect emotionally, then they see him get attacked, and, since they identify with Trump, they are attacked.
Now cognitive bias kicks in, a bunker mentality develops and Trump supporters are now personally emotionally invested in his success, they can't desert him because that might mean they have to examine their own thinking or biases. He's got them, they're locked in.
But that's all he's got. He has that section of the electorate which have already emotionally committed to him and no one else. That's a road-map to a bunch of early primary wins, a contested convention, and a compromise, establishment candidate coming out of the convention.
The thing is outside the staunch Bush/Kasich/Rubio supporters, most of the rest of the GOP base will fall in line with Trump as a candidate, particularly when the alternatives are Hillary or a person they view as a socialist (in the scary, Glenn Beck way). Trump as GOP nominee is no different than most GOP nominees, even as insane as he is he's virtually locked in with 40% of the popular vote already. He just needs to find 10% more, might not be easy but certainly doable.
And a brokered convention is never happening. Hillary or Sanders will win in a landslide if they eliminate Trump that way. The level of excitement for Bush or Rubio brokered would likely result in the lowest GOP generally election turnout ever.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Your underestimating how un-likeable he is. While he enraptures the angry mob, no one with his unfavorabilty has ever been elected. He's not the first with this shtick to get this far. All he'll do is submarine the GOP's chances of taking the Whitehouse
As I've mentioned before, even George Wallace recognized that you needed more than the crazies to win a general election. At some point you need moderates - millions of them - to vote for you.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
His unlikeability should matter...except all the traditional metrics that said he should already be gone have proven incorrect.
Like what, exactly?
Quote:
It's time to stop analyzing Trump as anything like a traditional candidate, he's a once in a lifetime candidate beyond compare. Traditional metrics and things that should be terrible or doom a normal candidate do not apply to him.
History still applies. He is not the first populist. Maybe in your lifetime.
Quote:
I mean this is a candidate who has consistently retweeted from explicitly racist posters (such as last week retweeting from someone called White Genocide...), whose spokesperson is on TV trolling non-stop, who herself has racists tweets in the past....and his numbers continue to rise. I know people want to keep acting like this is a sideshow that's going away, but those are likely the people who will be posting here wondering what he hell just happened when it's November 9, 2016 and it's President-elect Trump.
The GOP's race is far, far different from the general election. Trump can win a race between 6 or 7 candidates for an electorate where his populism has enough ardent followers. He will have almost no support among moderates or undecided, and even less among the left. He has no chance
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Nate Silver, using all his traditional metrics and approaches, has been saying since July Trump would never last and will never be the nominee. He now concedes Trump will very likely be the nominee. This is someone who studies this for a living, and he's been wrong again and again and again on Trump. He's essentially trying to use a traditional approach to analyzing a candidate who is so far from traditional he might as well be running as an alien.
Quote:
History still applies. He is not the first populist. Maybe in your lifetime.
History hasn't applied even slightly so far. But now it's just going to start mattering? Nevermind that he hasn't gotten to a true one-on-one against Hillary. Remember he basically has carte blance to be as sexist and over the top with her as he needs to be. We have 7 months that shows his disgusting approach won't hurt him in the polls, and is more likely to help him. He's also the first social media populist, where the lack of facts matters even less.
Quote:
The GOP's race is far, far different from the general election. Trump can win a race between 6 or 7 candidates for an electorate where his populism has enough ardent followers. He will have almost no support among moderates or undecided, and even less among the left. He has no chance
Once again, you are assuming Trump's supporters are actually nothing but GOP supporters. This is simply not true. I wouldn't be slightly shocked if Trump has stolen 15-20% of the Democratic base in this election. He's not appealing to the GOP base as I mentioned before, he's appealing to stupid, scared, racist, ignorant people. People who think Trump has no chance assume that can only be because his base of hate is simply the GOP base. No, it's a lot of Americans, a lot more than people think. And a lot more than just the GOP base.
Trump only has to flip 4 states from Obama in 2012, hold the one's Romney won (which is essentially guaranteed), and he's President. It's surprising people think him winning is literally impossible. Keep dismissing him at your own peril, but even many influential Democrats are starting to realize (and say) this isn't a joke, this could really happen.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
The thing is outside the staunch Bush/Kasich/Rubio supporters, most of the rest of the GOP base will fall in line with Trump as a candidate, particularly when the alternatives are Hillary or a person they view as a socialist (in the scary, Glenn Beck way). Trump as GOP nominee is no different than most GOP nominees, even as insane as he is he's virtually locked in with 40% of the popular vote already. He just needs to find 10% more, might not be easy but certainly doable.
And a brokered convention is never happening. Hillary or Sanders will win in a landslide if they eliminate Trump that way. The level of excitement for Bush or Rubio brokered would likely result in the lowest GOP generally election turnout ever.
Well 50% is largely irrelevant. Can he swing states that voted for Obama? Certainly not Latino-Heavy swing states like Florida, Colorado and New Mexico. There's even the possibility that the Latino vote may bring Arizona and Texas into play, at least forcing the republicans to play defence in those states. Trump would probably have only one path to victory: Ohio plus a whole lot of other smaller states in the rust belt and Midwest. It's a really narrow and unlikely path.
Nate Silver, using all his traditional metrics and approaches, has been saying since July Trump would never last and will never be the nominee. He now concedes Trump will very likely be the nominee. This is someone who studies this for a living, and he's been wrong again and again and again on Trump. He's essentially trying to use a traditional approach to analyzing a candidate who is so far from traditional he might as well be running as an alien.
No, that's simply not true. Silver never said he thought Trump wouldn't win because of metrics.
"But the reason I’ve been#especially skeptical#about Trump for most of the election cycle isn’t listed above. Nor is it because I expected Trump to spontaneously combust in national polls. Instead, I was skeptical because I assumed that influential Republicans would do almost anything they could to prevent him from being nominated."
And for the record, he's still skeptical of Trump winning the nomination
Quote:
History hasn't applied even slightly so far. But now it's just going to start mattering? Nevermind that he hasn't gotten to a true one-on-one against Hillary. Remember he basically has carte blance to be as sexist and over the top with her as he needs to be. We have 7 months that shows his disgusting approach won't hurt him in the polls, and is more likely to help him. He's also the first social media populist, where the lack of facts matters even less.
Again, I don't think you're giving the general electorate enough credit. Trump has a -70 unfavorabilty index amongst Democrat voters and - 27 amongst independents. That is favorable minus unfavorable and you're telling me he has stolen 15-20% of the Democratic vote? No he hasn't, you're making up numbers.
Quote:
Once again, you are assuming Trump's supporters are actually nothing but GOP supporters. This is simply not true. I wouldn't be slightly shocked if Trump has stolen 15-20% of the Democratic base in this election. He's not appealing to the GOP base as I mentioned before, he's appealing to stupid, scared, racist, ignorant people. People who think Trump has no chance assume that can only be because his base of hate is simply the GOP base. No, it's a lot of Americans, a lot more than people think. And a lot more than just the GOP base.
You're making sampling assumptions here that aren't true. Trump supporters are up to 20% self identifying as liberal. What you're missing here is that of self identifying liberals, only a small fraction of them don't absolutely loathe him. What do I mean? Trump only has support from 27% of the population right now. What percentage of his supporters are liberal is irrelevant here. Head to head polls against Hillary and Sanders have him losing my a fairly wide margin (though they don't predict much as it's too early, they give a decent look at where candidates are currently).
Quote:
Trump only has to flip 4 states from Obama in 2012, hold the one's Romney won (which is essentially guaranteed), and he's President. It's surprising people think him winning is literally impossible. Keep dismissing him at your own peril, but even many influential Democrats are starting to realize (and say) this isn't a joke, this could really happen.
Firstly, that's all Romney had to do and he had better polling numbers amongst almost every demographic.
Secondly, what's my peril here? Of course Democrats are telling people to worry about a Republican nominee and manufacture fear. It serves their purpose.
Things can always change. No one can say is impossible for a Trump to win. It is improbable though
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Nate Silver, using all his traditional metrics and approaches, has been saying since July Trump would never last and will never be the nominee. He now concedes Trump will very likely be the nominee. This is someone who studies this for a living, and he's been wrong again and again and again on Trump. He's essentially trying to use a traditional approach to analyzing a candidate who is so far from traditional he might as well be running as an alien.
No, that's simply not true. Silver never said he thought Trump wouldn't win because of metrics.
"But the reason I’ve been#especially skeptical#about Trump for most of the election cycle isn’t listed above. Nor is it because I expected Trump to spontaneously combust in national polls. Instead, I was skeptical because I assumed that influential Republicans would do almost anything they could to prevent him from being nominated."
And for the record, he's still skeptical of Trump winning the nomination
Again, I don't think you're giving the general electorate enough credit. Trump has a -70 unfavorabilty index amongst Democrat voters and - 27 amongst independents. That is favorable minus unfavorable and you're telling me he has stolen 15-20% of the Democratic vote? No he hasn't, you're making up numbers.
You're making sampling assumptions here that aren't true. Trump supporters are up to 20% self identifying as liberal. What you're missing here is that of self identifying liberals, only a small fraction of them don't absolutely loathe him. What do I mean? Trump only has support from 27% of the population right now. What percentage of his supporters are liberal is irrelevant here. Head to head polls against Hillary and Sanders have him losing my a fairly wide margin (though they don't predict much as it's too early, they give a decent look at where candidates are currently).
Firstly, that's all Romney had to do and he had better polling numbers amongst almost every demographic.
Secondly, what's my peril here? Of course Democrats are telling people to worry about a Republican nominee and manufacture fear. It serves their purpose.
Things can always change. No one can say is impossible for a Trump to win. It is improbable though
These are all the same things over and over we've been hearing for months about Trump. To date they've consistently, and often spectacularly, been wrong. I still think far too many people think this is a sub 5% chance of happening rather than a 40% chance of happening. You are overselling the average American voter, the same American voter that consistently votes against their own best interest.
You also have to remember Hillary has skated through a very easy primary. Sanders almost appears scared to attack her. Her numbers will go down once she takes a beating, and there's a lot to go after her for. But Sanders is a very easy candidate to run against too. That's another thing people aren't factoring in as to why this can actually happen: The potential Democratic opponents are both deeply flawed and easy to attack. When Bernie has to get specific and not speak in his own type of populism (which he is using I'm sure you can see), he's probably finished.
Now I am projecting to a degree, but the consensus is if Trump wins the first 3 primaries, it's over. Nate is now predicting Trump will win the first 3 primaries. So I suppose I am putting words in his mouth, but it's not a stretch.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
These are all the same things over and over we've been hearing for months about Trump. To date they've consistently, and often spectacularly, been wrong. I still think far too many people think this is a sub 5% chance of happening rather than a 40% chance of happening. You are overselling the average American voter, the same American voter that consistently votes against their own best interest.
You also have to remember Hillary has skated through a very easy primary. Sanders almost appears scared to attack her. Her numbers will go down once she takes a beating, and there's a lot to go after her for. But Sanders is a very easy candidate to run against too. That's another thing people aren't factoring in as to why this can actually happen: The potential Democratic opponents are both deeply flawed and easy to attack. When Bernie has to get specific and not speak in his own type of populism (which he is using I'm sure you can see), he's probably finished.
10 days ago he had Trump with little chance of winning Iowa. Today he has him as the overwhelming favorite.
Now I am projecting to a degree, but the consensus is if Trump wins the first 3 primaries, it's over. Nate is now predicting Trump will win the first 3 primaries. So I suppose I am putting words in his mouth, but it's not a stretch.
Again, winning the GOP isn't the same race as the general election.
Now I am projecting to a degree, but the consensus is if Trump wins the first 3 primaries, it's over. Nate is now predicting Trump will win the first 3 primaries. So I suppose I am putting words in his mouth, but it's not a stretch.
That is not the consensus at all. The reason? The first few primaries are not all or nothing awards for delegates but rather proportional. Part of the reason is that they don't want a runaway race early on in the nomination proceedings and I imagine because the GOP essentially doesn't trust some of those states to not go for an out there candidate. The all or nothing awarding states tend to lean far more to the center.
But the reason that either Trump and Cruz have a chance at the nomination is because there is no GOP proven candidate the establishment can rally around. It was supposed to be Bush but he was so spectacularly disappointing. They tried to convince Romney to run again. The last one left is Rubio...and his voting patterns are extremely anti-establishment and the party doesn't really trust him anymore than Cruz or Trump even if they like him on a personal level more. And when that happens, it is difficult to see how the party can coalesce around the nominee.
And all of this ignores something that 538 mentions and has mentioned several times...the ground game. It is suspected that Trump has a weak ground game compared to Cruz and Rubio.
Now I am projecting to a degree, but the consensus is if Trump wins the first 3 primaries, it's over. Nate is now predicting Trump will win the first 3 primaries. So I suppose I am putting words in his mouth, but it's not a stretch.
Okay, but again you're cherrypicking what suits your argument, by going with the "polls-only" forecast rather than going with the "polls plus". (And in 538's own methodology, they say that polls-plus should be the more accurate methodology model, although not by a wide margin). Under polls-plus, Cruz still narrowly leads in Iowa, and while Trump still leads in New Hampshire, it's with a less than 50% probability of winning.
I think where you and I differ massively is that you look at the data and see this as increasing certainty for Trump. I look at the same data and see this as increasing uncertainty in a lot of different directions. This is definitely a very strange primary and a lot of the precedents don't hold true here; but that only means that we should further admit that we don't know what's going to happen, not instead say that what once seemed unlikely now seems certain, simply because it's far less unlikely than it once was.
Mayor Bloomberg is going to jump in the ring and beat out Trump and Hillary for the win... just watch.
Dare to dream. He would be the most competent candidate since Bush Sr/B.Clinton, and maybe going much further back than that. It would be interesting for sure. If it's Trump v Clinton, that's probably the most loathed pair in history - I can't imagine a better scenario for an independent. But even then - can anyone overcome the party machines? Would be so fascinating....
Mayor Bloomberg is going to jump in the ring and beat out Trump and Hillary for the win... just watch.
So he's going to run as an independent. Its long odds for him to win because its going to be tough to pull enough votes from the Democrats and Pubs to win.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Would Bloomberg pull more Democratic voters, or Republicans? I assume GOP?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
