US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

[Fez]

51 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is a little harsh. I don't think it's too hard to imagine a field without Donald Trump where immigration and race weren't THE central issue of the Republican primary. In that alternate universe, the Republicans would have been delivering bog standard Republican speeches on the economy and Obama's "disastrous" foreign policy, and Rubio would have been leveraging his "Gang of 8" credentials on comprehensive immigration reform as a positive for him, as opposed to essentially disavowing the only kind-of accomplishment he had in the Senate. In that universe, Rubio is a younger, more compelling Romney (ie: a fairly unexciting, moderate, business-focused Republican), and he rides into the general with the mild support of his base plus a larger than expected share of the Hispanic population allowing him to be at least competitive with Clinton. 

Probably. On the other hand, its also not too hard to imagine an alternate primary field where one of the other candidates stumbled into the realization that a lot of Republican primary voters respond really strongly to that immigration and race message. And then all of a sudden we have Mike Huckabee running as Trump did. Its true that Trump had name recognition and resource advantages over someone like Huckabee; but on the other hand Trump also made a lot of missteps that a more seasoned campaigner wouldn't have.

After all, assuming Trump doesn't win, the biggest threat he poses isn't that his supporters do anything crazy after the results are announced, its that someone more competent takes his message and runs on it in 2020.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

So if we had a completely different GOP and the law were such that things that aren't illegal suddenly were for no discernable reason, she'd have troubles? I mean, I guess. If reality were hugely different and people had fish for heads the results would likely be different I supposed

If we stick to some non-fish-head-based silly alternate reality, there's no way the email thing leads to prosecution because how does that ever even happen and Clinton has a tougher time against a JEB! or something, but still likely wins because the GOP still has no good or easy road to the White House and Clinton has a really good campaign operation going. (in large part because it's mostly Obama's campaign mark 3)

Trump being a dumpster fire of a candidate makes her job way easier in some ways, but also way more important because her losing becomes suddenly ALOT worse. And Trump or something like him is, in many ways, an inevitable outcome of the GOP's trajectory anyway.

She has been rather fortunate that the laws regarding her mails were not any stricter and that the GOP is such a freakshow with Trump as the last clown standing. I am not sure why you were so dismissive about pointing that out.

That the bar for prosecution was not gross negligence looks really like a lucky break for her. And that would not really be an unreasonably low bar. As much as I prefer Clinton over Trump, but the Republicans have a point when they attack her on her e-mails. 

And yes, with a legit opponent and not that dysfunctional mess called the GOP, Clinton would indeed be in trouble. Of course you can simply dismiss both points. But the point is, if the Democrats manage to lose this election they will only have themselves to blame. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Ok this is just sad:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-trump-polls_us_57bda57de4b03d51368bbf0f

Who among us is an undercover Trump voter? Is it you @Manhole Eunuchsbane? Are you a little orange Trumpette? 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Ok this is just sad:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-trump-polls_us_57bda57de4b03d51368bbf0f

Who among us is an undercover Trump voter? Is it you @Manhole Eunuchsbane? Are you a little orange Trumpette? 

I read that same article, and the scary thing is I think it's potentially valid. I'm not one of them (I promise, you can trust me, a lot of folks are talking about it) but it does strike me as being a reasonable fear. How many people are willing to admit they're voting for Orange Foolious?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I read that same article, and the scary thing is I think it's potentially valid. I'm not one of them (I promise, you can trust me, a lot of folks are talking about it) but it does strike me as being a reasonable fear. How many people are willing to admit they're voting for Orange Foolious?

Eh, I wouldn't sweat it that much. From the article:

Quote

But as HuffPost’s Sam Stein and Ariel Edwards-Levy reported earlier this month, pollsters for both parties say there is little evidence to suggest that Trump voters are being seriously undercounted:

“It’s possible [that some respondents won’t admit to supporting Trump], but I don’t think so,” said Bill McInturff, a longtime Republican pollster. “For two candidates with unusual negatives, the ballot by sub-group looks pretty traditional for what we’ve been seeing the last few cycles.”

And from the article that's taken from:

Quote

A pollster for Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump’s rival in the primaries, told Politico last month that Cruz’s campaign faced “no challenge accurately measuring Trump voter support” and saw “zero evidence” of a shy Trump effect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-embarrassed-voters_us_57a0dcdae4b08a8e8b5faf73

[The Anti-Targ]

I don't know why someone would lie about who they would vote for in a telephone poll. Maybe in a stop people on the street with their friends / family listening they might take the undecided option. But I can't imagine any secret Trump supporter choosing Hillary in a poll. What are the numbers for 3rd party candidates like compared to the past? I assume with both Hillary and Donald's negative approval ratings the vote for 3rd parties should be up on historic averages, so that probably wouldn't belie a secret Trump vote.

Or is the secret vote people who refuse to participate in the polls when approached?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Eh, I wouldn't sweat it that much. From the article:

And from the article that's taken from:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-embarrassed-voters_us_57a0dcdae4b08a8e8b5faf73

Yeah, I doubt it would be enough to give him a serious jump in the polls, but I feel like this is a thing. Think of how many users here start a post with "I'm not voting for Trump, BUT" and then follow with a string of attacks against Hillary and lukewarm Trump defenses. I tend to not believe the "I'm not voting for Trump" bit after awhile.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Like Nate Silver said, you can claim that the polls are underestimating your support because:

A. Your voters are too embarassed to admit that they want to vote for you

B. Pollsters don't go to your yuge rallies and see how enthusiastic your supporters are.

But you can't claim both.

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

20 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Like Nate Silver said, you can claim that the polls are underestimating your support because:

A. Your voters are too embarassed to admit that they want to vote for you

B. Pollsters don't go to your yuge rallies and see how enthusiastic your supporters are.

But you can't claim both.

 

 

Eh, I'm not so sure. It's easy to let loose with a bunch of people that you know share your point of view. It's kind of self-affirming. I imagine you could have some of both.

[ummester]

36 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Like Nate Silver said, you can claim that the polls are underestimating your support because:

A. Your voters are too embarassed to admit that they want to vote for you

B. Pollsters don't go to your yuge rallies and see how enthusiastic your supporters are.

But you can't claim both.

 

 

Yet both could occur, simultaneously? Why can't you claim the existence of both?

[The Marquis de Leech]

And another couple of polls. Arizona is Trump +5 (we need more polling out of there!) and North Carolina is Clinton +1. Which I think is roughly consistent with Hillary +6ish nationwide.

[ummester]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Ok this is just sad:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-trump-polls_us_57bda57de4b03d51368bbf0f

Who among us is an undercover Trump voter? Is it you @Manhole Eunuchsbane? Are you a little orange Trumpette? 

That's kind of the obvious result of the media and a vocal minority Trump shaming though. And the more the media and that vocal minority shame, the more it will turn into Trump support - ie people will vote for Trump because they dislike the self righteous anti Trump bandwagon.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, ummester said:

That's kind of the obvious result of the media and a vocal minority Trump shaming though. And the more the media and that vocal minority shame, the more it will turn into Trump support - ie people will vote for Trump because they dislike the self righteous anti Trump bandwagon.

Maybe he's referring to those voters that he brought up in this speech.

"Stop winning! We can't take it anymore. Enough with the winning!"

 

[ummester]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Maybe he's referring to those voters that he brought up in this speech.

"Stop winning! We can't take it anymore. Enough with the winning!"

 

Well, I personally think he will win the election but I don't think he'll save the country.

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I read that same article, and the scary thing is I think it's potentially valid. I'm not one of them (I promise, you can trust me, a lot of folks are talking about it) but it does strike me as being a reasonable fear. How many people are willing to admit they're voting for Orange Foolious?

Look, OK? It's what they're not saying that tells you, ok? I mean, c'mon. Really? Like you can call somebody in the middle of the night- RING RING!!!! And what do you think they're gonna say? What do you think that person who's telling lies! That people are gonna feel comfortable there when crooked Hillary and Obama are on the phone lines? It's fine, I mean it's fine! I understand but look at all the people here I mean really and you think it's not rigged? We're gonna figure it out I mean that's what I'm hearing ok? Trust me, I've been around ok? We're gonna go get the jobs and bring them back... OK, who's that guy? Who's this guy? Can we get him out of here? I mean c'mon... everyone else give him a hand, maybe we'll see you in the parking lot ok? I mean boy, when I tell ya how it used to be, maybe my second amendment people can help this guy get it outside.

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Notone said:

She has been rather fortunate that the laws regarding her mails were not any stricter and that the GOP is such a freakshow with Trump as the last clown standing. I am not sure why you were so dismissive about pointing that out.

That the bar for prosecution was not gross negligence looks really like a lucky break for her. And that would not really be an unreasonably low bar. As much as I prefer Clinton over Trump, but the Republicans have a point when they attack her on her e-mails. 

And yes, with a legit opponent and not that dysfunctional mess called the GOP, Clinton would indeed be in trouble. Of course you can simply dismiss both points. But the point is, if the Democrats manage to lose this election they will only have themselves to blame. 

 

I keep trying to figure out why a home email server is intrinsically less secure than one in a government building. Accessing  an email server is just as simple in either location. Any reasonably good password would give as good protection,  no matter the location. Gross negligence would be using 1234 as your password,  regardless of the location of the server.

As for the GOP, having a lying buffoon as their nominee is no accidental bit of bad luck. Jeb Bush didn't even register in the first primaries. If a reasonable middle of the road Republican had run, they would have done worse than Jeb. Trump is a sign of a party in its death throes. The Tea Party was the first sign of an organization that no longer has a focus.  A new GOP may arise but not till this version is ashes, courtesy of Trump.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, maarsen said:

I keep trying to figure out why a home email server is intrinsically less secure than one in a government building. Accessing  an email server is just as simple in either location. Any reasonably good password would give as good protection,  no matter the location. Gross negligence would be using 1234 as your password,  regardless of the location of the server.

 

 That's the irony here. If memory serves, the State Departments server was hacked during this time period. I believe the FBI has stated at some point that the email issues likely occurred on the State Departments server, not Hillary's.

 http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/

[sologdin]

1 hour ago, ummester said:

That's kind of the obvious result of the media and a vocal minority Trump shaming though. And the more the media and that vocal minority shame, the more it will turn into Trump support - ie people will vote for Trump because they dislike the self righteous anti Trump bandwagon.

are there voters so trifling and unserious as to vote for someone simply because third persons heaped ridicule thereupon?

[ummester]

5 minutes ago, sologdin said:

are there voters so trifling and unserious as to vote for someone simply because third persons heaped ridicule thereupon?

no doubt - they've been guided by an emotionally driven, superficial media circus for so long that they don't know the difference. After the last 20 years of American politics, it's extremely unwise to underestimate the vacuousness of the US voters.

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is a little harsh. I don't think it's too hard to imagine a field without Donald Trump where immigration and race weren't THE central issue of the Republican primary. In that alternate universe, the Republicans would have been delivering bog standard Republican speeches on the economy and Obama's "disastrous" foreign policy, and Rubio would have been leveraging his "Gang of 8" credentials on comprehensive immigration reform as a positive for him, as opposed to essentially disavowing the only kind-of accomplishment he had in the Senate. In that universe, Rubio is a younger, more compelling Romney (ie: a fairly unexciting, moderate, business-focused Republican), and he rides into the general with the mild support of his base plus a larger than expected share of the Hispanic population allowing him to be at least competitive with Clinton. 

I can't see it. The Gang of 8 thing, its whole failure, is a good example of why imo. The whole attempt to pivot to a more immigrant friendly platform had already failed long before Trump came along. The GOP base won't stand for it. You can't get around the race issue imo.