US Election: It's a post-TrumpDay world

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Aren't California Republicans (in the post-Arnie era anyway) more economics-focussed than Cruz-style culture warriors?

That's my understanding, although I am far from an expert on California Republican politics. And I believe that was Fiorina's style of politics when she ran for the Senate. But then that chopping up baby body parts nonsense happened.

[Ormond]

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:23 PM, TrackerNeil said:

I have a hard time believing that twenty-year-old scandals that didn't hurt Clinton in the 90s will significantly affect her now. I don't have data on this, but it just strikes me as highly unlikely. But maybe millenials are just lusting to revisit dusty old witch-hunts they've heard about only in history class.

Well, unless high school history has changed a great deal since I went to high school, they are really unlikely to have heard much about this in history class! My memory of high school history classes is they give short shrift to anything that happened  while the students' parents were alive and old enough to have strong opinions about it, in order to avoid controversy and complaints.

[Fez]

10 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Well, unless high school history has changed a great deal since I went to high school, they are really unlikely to have heard much about this in history class! My memory of high school history classes is they give short shrift to anything that happened  while the students' parents were alive and old enough to have strong opinions about it, in order to avoid controversy and complaints.

I think its gotten worse since then. My experience was we'd take such a slow pace for the first half of the year that come early March or so we'd only be mid-way through the Revolutionary War, the teacher would realize we were way behind schedule and speed things up so that we'd get to the Civil War by late April. We'd spend about a month on that, and then, with time running out, we'd just jump to WWI for a day or two, and then jump again to WWII for the roughly two weeks until the year ended.

And we did this two years in a row, since first there was a year of state history and than a year of US history. And there's not much daylight between New York history and US history; especially in the pre-colonial and colonial periods. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm a millennial, and my experience was very similar to what Fez described. We'd spend a disproportional amount of time on earlier eras, and the more modern stuff would get heavily condensed as the year came to an end. Between History and Civics classes I doubt we spent more than a week on the Clinton presidency. The Clinton "scandals" were barely discussed iirc. But I grew up in a deep blue state so that could be playing a role.

The thing you have to keep in mind with younger voters and Clinton is that we don't have any built in sympathies for her, generally speaking. Older voters witnessed how poorly she was treated and seem to be much more defensive when she gets criticized.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think one advantage Clinton does have is that even for younger voters, her husband represents the world as it was before Everything Went To Shit. I mean, the US economy was healthy (albeit in a bubble), unemployment was low, there was no foreign war causing chaos (apart from Kosovo, and since that was an air war, it pales beside Iraq and Afghanistan). Terrorism was something that happened from time to time in Northern Ireland (and even that got sorted at the end of the decade). The underlying attribute of the 1990s was its naive optimism.

[Commodore]

Trump performs best in areas with large black populations. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

9 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Trump performs best in areas with large black populations. 

I'm sure. Close proximity to the Other inflames his white supremacist supporters. 

[Maester Drew]

14 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I did say "depending on the state". If it's Texas, fine.

I mean, there is there an off-chance that Trump could conceivably make Texas competitive via high hispanic turnout and grumpy Cruz loyalists, but if that happened, Hillary would already be over 400 Electoral Votes anyway.

While Texas does have a high Hispanic population, there aren't enough Hispanic registered voters to make Texas competitive. As for grumpy Cruz loyalists (my BIL's one of 'em  ) I'm not really sure, but given the choices I think they'll hold their nose and vote Trump, other than that maybe they'll go for a third party candidate (Libertarian and such) but actually voting for Hillary? That's a long shot, because she is widely despised by Texas Republicans.

 

If you want to learn more: Will Trump Put Texas in Play for the Democrats?

[Commodore]

11 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I'm sure. Close proximity to the Other inflames his white supremacist supporters. 

yep, poor racist whites are his strongest supporters

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The thing you have to keep in mind with younger voters and Clinton is that we don't have any built in sympathies for her, generally speaking. Older voters witnessed how poorly she was treated and seem to be much more defensive when she gets criticized.

Yes, I have noticed that lack of sympathy, here and there. 

[maarsen]

19 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So Cruz thinks prematurely announcing Fiorinna as has running mate is going to do something to stem the Trump tide? Is it because she's also a coporate insider instead of a Washington insider?

On one side we have a candidate who has managed to go bankrupt 4! times and on the other side a running mate is picked who is known for almost destroying a well respected corporation. This is the best that can be dredged up for a party that panders to business? Are Republicans really crypto-communists?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Yes, I have noticed that lack of sympathy, here and there. 

There's a difference between being sympathetic and accusing every criticism of Clinton as some right wing fever dream. 

[lokisnow]

3 hours ago, Commodore said:

Trump performs best in areas with large black populations. 

within the limited electorate of a republican primary, this is true. Thus, Trump can win an entire Congressional district that is majority black (population around 700,000) with less than 1000 votes. 

Thus, Trump can do VERY well--IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY--in areas with large black populations because the Republican population in these areas is often very low, so Trump is working from a relatively small pool of available voters.

That Trump can win an area with less than one-tenth of one percent of the population of the area is indeed impressive but it does not extrapolate out to the general election when 50-70% of the population is voting rather than just the Republican primary electorate.

[ThinkerX]

To me, the establishment democratic party grumpiness about Sanders followers seems very similar to the establishment republican party grumpiness towards Trump/Cruz voters.  In both cases, I get the impression the establishment wants very badly to just pretend these voters don't exist and are of no significance whatsoever, or that they can be squashed or whipped into line after the election. 

 

And some of the comments by the pro-Clinton folks on this board reinforce this.

 

[Kalbear]

Personally, I want more of them. What I want even more than that, however, is coherent ones that aren't wanting to vote for Trump (as a recent Salon article suggested) and are willing to try and get more progressive local and state and congressional positions open. 

As well as those who aren't wanting to scream 'conspiracy' whenever things don't go their way. 

[ThinkerX]

As well as those who aren't wanting to scream 'conspiracy' whenever things don't go their way. 

Problem is, the major parties do have a history of squelching outside competition. 

[Kalbear]

11 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Problem is, the major parties do have a history of squelching outside competition. 

Perhaps they do, but perhaps said outside competition should be, ya know, more competitive before yelling about it. When said outside competition does the best in the least representative form of voting that exists it's not really all that reasonable to shout about voter suppression. 

If Sanders had had some kind of actual shot at the nomination - like, ya know, winning the popular vote or winning the most states or winning the most delegates (any of those, really) - and the superdelegates turned against him? That'd be one thing. But right now said outside candidate and a number of his supporters are suggesting loudly that the system should ignore the popular vote, the states votes and the delegate votes and instead vote for him. Which...is kind of the opposite of what he supposedly wants. 

[ghostdancer]

...any chance Hillary would pick  Bernie 4 VP or he would pick her?

   White House correspondents dinner tonight should be interesting.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, ghostdancer said:

...any chance Hillary would pick  Bernie 4 VP or he would pick her?

   White House correspondents dinner tonight should be interesting.

No, zero chance. Sanders wouldn't want it, Clinton would get nothing for doing it, and it doesn't help much at all. 

[ghostdancer]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, zero chance. Sanders wouldn't want it, Clinton would get nothing for doing it, and it doesn't help much at all. 

beg to differ, Clinton would get Bernie voters move closer to her ,and the first jewish VP is another groundbreaking thing.....with first women prez...just my silly little brain thinking...

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: