2016 Election Thread

[Squirrel]

 

I agree, but not to the extent that I don't expect minority turnout to drop significantly, you don't win elections by winning the support of the people that don't bother to vote.  I hate to use this word as often as I do, but it's what decides all elections especially primaries and caucuses but it's all about turnout.  Speaking of which special primary election tomorrow in the Anoka Andover Coon Rapids area. Guess what will decide that one?

No, it's not all about caucuses. We don't have caucuses in Illinois, and many states don't do the caucus system.

 

[mikecgrimes]

 

No, it's not all about caucuses. We don't have caucuses in Illinois, and many states don't do the caucus system.

 

Understood, that's why I said primaries and caucuses

[PseudoSABR]

Via Real Clear Politics

 

Tuesday, January 12

Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Presidential Nomination CBS/NY Times Clinton 48, Sanders 41 Clinton +7
Iowa Dem.  Caucus Quinnipiac Clinton 44, Sanders 49, Sanders +5
Iowa Dem.  Caucus PPP (D) Clinton 46, Sanders 40, Clinton +6
New Hampshire Dem. Primary Monmouth Sanders 53, Clinton 39, Sanders +14

 

Monday, January 11

 

Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Presidential Nomination IBD/TIPP Clinton 43, Sanders 39, Clinton +4
Iowa Dem. Caucus ARG Clinton 44, Sanders 47, Sanders +3
New Hampshire Dem. Primary ARG Sanders 47, Clinton 44, Sanders +3

He could win Iowa and NH; and his numbers in the nationwide polls continues to grow.   What's with the Sanders bump?  

[Shane Wahl]

 

Via Real Clear Politics

 

Tuesday, January 12

Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Presidential Nomination CBS/NY Times Clinton 48, Sanders 41 Clinton +7
Iowa Dem.  Caucus Quinnipiac Clinton 44, Sanders 49, Sanders +5
Iowa Dem.  Caucus PPP (D) Clinton 46, Sanders 40, Clinton +6
New Hampshire Dem. Primary Monmouth Sanders 53, Clinton 39, Sanders +14

 

Monday, January 11

 

Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Presidential Nomination IBD/TIPP Clinton 43, Sanders 39, Clinton +4
Iowa Dem. Caucus ARG Clinton 44, Sanders 47, Sanders +3
New Hampshire Dem. Primary ARG Sanders 47, Clinton 44, Sanders +3

He could win Iowa and NH; and his numbers in the nationwide polls continues to grow.   What's with the Sanders bump?  

 

I have been trying to figure it out. I hope:

1. It is actual support for the kind of deeper economic reforms that Sanders is proposing, as well as his other views.

2. That it isn't merely anti-Clinton attitudes, justified (she is just a moderate with a few liberal policy ideas) or unjustified (she is a woman).

[PseudoSABR]

 

I have been trying to figure it out. I hope:

1. It is actual support for the kind of deeper economic reforms that Sanders is proposing, as well as his other views.

2. That it isn't merely anti-Clinton attitudes, justified (she is just a moderate with a few liberal policy ideas) or unjustified (she is a woman).

I'm also thinking it's a corollary effect of Trump's rhetoric--emboldening the far left, and making their views seem relatively reasonable to the center. 

[mikecgrimes]

 

Via Real Clear Politics

 

Tuesday, January 12

Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Presidential Nomination CBS/NY Times Clinton 48, Sanders 41 Clinton +7
Iowa Dem.  Caucus Quinnipiac Clinton 44, Sanders 49, Sanders +5
Iowa Dem.  Caucus PPP (D) Clinton 46, Sanders 40, Clinton +6
New Hampshire Dem. Primary Monmouth Sanders 53, Clinton 39, Sanders +14

 

Monday, January 11

 

Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Presidential Nomination IBD/TIPP Clinton 43, Sanders 39, Clinton +4
Iowa Dem. Caucus ARG Clinton 44, Sanders 47, Sanders +3
New Hampshire Dem. Primary ARG Sanders 47, Clinton 44, Sanders +3

He could win Iowa and NH; and his numbers in the nationwide polls continues to grow.   What's with the Sanders bump?  

 

As I've been saying all along.  Clinton is an awful candidate.  Plus Democrats are ready for someone like Sanders, the rest of the country probably not, but the alternative is they have to vote Republican and Democrats might be convinced they won't. 

 

By the way since the last time I posted about this maybe 4 or 5 days ago Clinton has gone from an 80-20 favorite to a 63-37 favorite.  Win Iowa and Sanders becomes the favorite.

[Mike Sixel]

No way Sanders is the favorite if he wins Iowa. Even a NH win won't be enough to make him the favorite. It is really about the first, big, day when multiple states vote.

[mikecgrimes]

 

No way Sanders is the favorite if he wins Iowa. Even a NH win won't be enough to make him the favorite. It is really about the first, big, day when multiple states vote.

 

Because I agree with the fact Sanders would be the favorite the point I was making with that was probably missed.  I was saying the betting sites will consider him a slight favorite if he wins Iowa.  I do think someone other then Clinton or Sanders has a reasonable shot (5%+) of being the nominee at this point.

[drjim]

I'm still quite skeptical of Sanders' chances overall. He might steal a victory in NH, but Clinton is still an 82% favorite in Iowa right now according to 538. NH is close (it does border Vermont after all), and after that I suspect it gets really good for Clinton.

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/

[mikecgrimes]

Really want to see if Bernie Sanders wants to be president tonight. Going on offense might backfire but it could also clinch Iowa and turn the race in his favor. Nothing major has to happen other then pointing out claim nton does have major flaws which will hurt her in the general.

[Squirrel]

 

Really want to see if Bernie Sanders wants to be president tonight. Going on offense might backfire but it could also clinch Iowa and turn the race in his favor. Nothing major has to happen other then pointing out claim nton does have major flaws which will hurt her in the general.

They all have major flaws, imo ... on both sides, Dem or Rep. And if I choose one of those running, I'm going to have to swallow something to do it. Right now for me, no way I vote Rep; I think I've made that clear. So it's between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton is the most experienced. I like Bernie's platform best, though. If the Donald is the nom for the GOP ... I don't think it matters who the Dem is. He'll lose. If he doesn't, then I will really push for voters to pass an intelligence test.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm also thinking it's a corollary effect of Trump's rhetoric--emboldening the far left, and making their views seem relatively reasonable to the center. 

Unfortunately, I believe this to be the case.

 

Not necessarily that the left should be emboldened, only that this country continues to drift away from the populous middle. Little long-term good will come from this shift. The presidency should wiggle between slight left and slight right, not swing wildly between two polarizing viewpoints. The president's most important job is keeping the morons in Congress in check and it's hard to do that if everyone has radicalized to one side or the other.

[mikecgrimes]

 

They all have major flaws, imo ... on both sides, Dem or Rep. And if I choose one of those running, I'm going to have to swallow something to do it. Right now for me, no way I vote Rep; I think I've made that clear. So it's between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton is the most experienced. I like Bernie's platform best, though. If the Donald is the nom for the GOP ... I don't think it matters who the Dem is. He'll lose. If he doesn't, then I will really push for voters to pass an intelligence test.

 

I wouldn't be so sure Trump would lose the general election.  The key factor is that he would have already proved himself surviving the Republican nomination process which I had been assuming all along he had no chance but now just have my hands thrown up in the air hoping Cruz wins Iowa.  Trump is bringing in more Democrats then you think, and as much as the true tea party would never vote for him, that's no different then what happened for McCain and to a lesser extent Romney.  As long as Rush and Hannity don't turn on Trump he's in good shape.

[TheLeviathan]

I will say, Trump continuing to surge and dominate the Republican field is impressive.  I'm no longer convinced he loses the national election.

 

And like it or not, it's the Republican base that is fueling him along with some independents and tea party people.  

[mikecgrimes]

Polls indicate its Democrats and independents. As for the tea party there are several confused versions, but the only one worthy of being compared to the Boston tea party would oppose trump in every possible way.

[drjim]

 

Polls indicate its Democrats and independents. As for the tea party there are several confused versions, but the only one worthy of being compared to the Boston tea party would oppose trump in every possible way.

 

They really aren't Democrats and Independents anymore, they are Republicans or non-voters.

 

Democrats are primarily urban, college educated whites and minorities, with osome exceptions. This is pretty much the exact opposite of who is attracted to Trump. They might have been Democrats 10-15 years ago, but there is a reason they are supporting a Republican right now.

 

I think Trump is showing that the re-alignment of the past 10 years has left a significant stream of the Republican base that is not as conservative as is thought on many issues. Much more populist economically with a somewhat socially moderate stream (and relatively irreligious) that is more pushing back against social liberalism than really pushing towards social conservatism, and a desire to be more isolationist.

 

I do believe in the (more or less) three streams of the Republican party right now - business conservatives, social conservatives, and this new Trump supporting stream, with a little Neocon mixed in. I just don't see even one issue, aside from not wanting Hillary Clinton, that they can rally around.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Polls indicate its Democrats and independents. As for the tea party there are several confused versions, but the only one worthy of being compared to the Boston tea party would oppose trump in every possible way.

 

Oh please, I'd love to see those polls.  The idea that 40% of those polled in Iowa are Democrats infiltrating Republican primaries is a pretty outlandish claim.

[nicksaviking]

The stable and sane Republican voters will never turn out to vote for Trump. Even though I am not among them, I can still acknowledge that that is the majority of Republicans. The party wouldn't be so terrified of him if they didn't think he was unelectable.

 

There is 70 pages of crap here and even the Republican supporters are trying to say, "No way, he's not on MY team!"

 

I live in a Red State and have yet to meet someone who likes the guy. His supporters on TV are clearly the same folks who solely consume the drama of reality TV and haven't watched the news since they were a kid and had to sit through it with their parents because there was only one TV in the house.

[Squirrel]

There is 70 pages of crap here

Lol!

[DaveW]

 

I will say, Trump continuing to surge and dominate the Republican field is impressive.  I'm no longer convinced he loses the national election.

 

And like it or not, it's the Republican base that is fueling him along with some independents and tea party people.  

I dunno about that, read on five thirty eight that general election voters don't like him very much at all.

[DaveW]

 

 

Polls indicate its Democrats and independents.

Source?

[nicksaviking]

Source?

Ted Cruz I believe.

[Mike Sixel]

What I really find interesting about Trump is that, other than the military stuff, he's a left wing, protectionist, almost union guy......who doesn't believe in free markets really. It's almost as if a leftist on the economy and rightist on social issues is a populist. Which, wow. The number of my friends that claim to be free market republicans that want restrictions on pharmaceutical companies (and others) always amuses me, it's almost like they are still Republican because they've always been one.....

[Squirrel]

 

 it's almost like they are still Republican because they've always been one.....

This is a big problem in this country. On both sides. 'I've always voted this way, I'll always vote this way' or 'My parents always vote this way, so I will, too,' regardless of what individual candidates stand for. I'm certainly guilty of voting for a particular party in national elections, sometimes regardless, due to issues that I've already expressed many times over.

[Squirrel]

Okay, here's something I've been curious about this whole time ... Ted Cruz ... where's the 'birther outcry' on him? Seriously. He wasn't born in this country. His citizenship is listed as dual. Isn't it a 'law' that the president must be born in this country? I think it's time to rethink that law, but for now, that's what it is. There was outcry, huge outcry, that Obama wasn't born in this country. He did prove that he was, but still. Where's the outcry for Cruz not being born in this country? And why/how can he run if this is still the law?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What I really find interesting about Trump is that, other than the military stuff, he's a left wing, protectionist, almost union guy......who doesn't believe in free markets really. It's almost as if a leftist on the economy and rightist on social issues is a populist.

I avoid terms like "fascist" because they're overused to the point of being meaningless.

 

But Trump? He's basically a baby fascist. You just described how fascism starts in a nation. It's a combination of protectionism, government-controlled markets, militarism, and jingoism...

 

Basically, Donald J Trump in a nutshell. It's why I refuse to acknowledge him as a legitimate candidate for President. He's a "legitimate" candidate in the mold of George Wallace: a blemish on our history that we'll be ****ing embarrassed to admit happened 50 years from now.

[drjim]

What I really find interesting about Trump is that, other than the military stuff, he's a left wing, protectionist, almost union guy......who doesn't believe in free markets really. It's almost as if a leftist on the economy and rightist on social issues is a populist. Which, wow. The number of my friends that claim to be free market republicans that want restrictions on pharmaceutical companies (and others) always amuses me, it's almost like they are still Republican because they've always been one.....

I would say being leftist on economics is more populist, but probably more accurate to say anti-corporate and the favors government grants them. This doesn't fit left/right very smoothly but is certainly at odds with the elites in both parties.

 

Our current parties have masked it a little, but I think the biggest divide in the nation is the economic divide between (for lack of a better proxy) college and non college graduates. Neither party really does much for the non college group, so the battle is fought on other issues.

 

Trump is really the first to tap into this from the economic side, which is why he has such a sustained floor of support.

 

Of course there is more there, but this strikes me as a fundamental issue. Even if Trump is defeated, this political space he occupies isn't going away, and it's not clear which party can move in.

[Shane Wahl]

 

Unfortunately, I believe this to be the case.

 

Not necessarily that the left should be emboldened, only that this country continues to drift away from the populous middle. Little long-term good will come from this shift. The presidency should wiggle between slight left and slight right, not swing wildly between two polarizing viewpoints. The president's most important job is keeping the morons in Congress in check and it's hard to do that if everyone has radicalized to one side or the other.

What if "the truth of what ought to be done" is really not "slightly" either way, but actually more radical than that? Like . . . what if the "truth" is just on the side of a farther left candidate in terms of social policy and even economic policy. The moderate middle is still pretty . . . reactionary, in some people's estimation.

[Shane Wahl]

On Trump supporters, as though this was surprising (though it is nice that there is some detail here about this):

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

 

The authoritarian tendencies in many, many people also will point toward Clinton.

It would be nice if there were a rejection of both.

[Mike Sixel]

I couldn't be further from authoritarianism if I tried......