U.S. Elections 2016 - Polls in mirror appear closer than they are

[TrackerNeil]

7 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

Joe Biden would be mopping the floor with Trump. Bernie would be doing worse than Hillary. I'm not as familiar with the rest of the bench on the D side.

Romney would be mopping the floor with Clinton. None of the other 2016 Republican primary contenders was the total package, but Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and even Ted Cruz would probably be beating Clinton comfortably, not by double digits.

Those are assertions, no doubt, and easy to make since it's impossible to test them. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If you are counting on "tribalism" to explain Haley's win how do you explain how she won the Republican nomination in the first place?

I'm not going to pretend that I know a lot about South Carolina state politics. All I can do is point to 2006, which was a wave year for Democrats and the Republican Gubernatorial candidate out preformed Haley's 2010 bid, which was a wave year for Republicans. Obviously there were other factors that contributed to the results, but it's something worth noting. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not going to pretend that I know a lot about South Carolina state politics. All I can do is point to 2006, which was a wave year for Democrats and the Republican Gubernatorial candidate out preformed Haley's 2010 bid, which was a wave year for Republicans. Obviously there were other factors that contributed to the results, but it's something worth noting. 

You're missing my point if an ethnic Indian woman can be elected governor in South Carolina that suggests to me that things are doing better than some might suspect when it comes to sexism.

[The Marquis de Leech]

53 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

Joe Biden would be mopping the floor with Trump. Bernie would be doing worse than Hillary. I'm not as familiar with the rest of the bench on the D side.

The difficulty here is that you run into grass is greener problems. Someone's negatives are always much greater when they are actually running - as it was, Clinton had perfectly solid ratings as Secretary of State.

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The difficulty here is that you run into grass is greener problems. Someone's negatives are always much greater when they are actually running - as it was, Clinton had perfectly solid ratings as Secretary of State.

True. I do think Biden would be doing better than her though. The two big hits on Biden are his gaffes, which pale in comparison to Trump's, and the plagiarism issue, which I don't think holds much juice anymore. There's also the question of whether he could generate the same black turnout that Clinton looks likely to, but the whole "I'm Obama's VP" thing could probably help with that.

And on the flip side, he's very likable to most people and is white man, which unfortunately is very important to a lot of people.

But no sense debating a hypothetical.

Personally, I look forward to going on vacation for the next two weeks and not paying any attention to the election coverage. I'm hoping that when I'm back Clinton's polling will have fully rebounded; its already looking like its starting to a little bit.

[Seli]

2 hours ago, SerPaladin said:

Tomato, to-mah-to. 42% of the country hears unfit dangerous and associates one name, and another 42% hears unfit dangerous and associates a different name.

I'm a "pox on both your houses" sort of guy.

I kind of understand where people voting GOP and Trump come from, even though I think they are very wrong in their worldview.

I can't understand people who claim that the Democratic party and  the GOP -science denialism, wilfully blind for evidence, big on legalizing morality and all- are equally awful. I can't even get what worldview ends up in a position like that. 

[Mexal]

David Fahrenthold is having a blast looking to the Trump Foundation. The newest...

Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

Quote

Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.

Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.

In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the size of a flagpole.

In a settlement, Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Trump sent a check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

21 hours ago, Shryke said:

Yeah man, she clearly doesn't appeal to the many many people who voted for her in the primaries. And she certainly didn't have high approval ratings before she decided to run for office.

Nobody is saying that. But it seems to me that the Clinton voters are more staunch (or tribal if you like) Democrats, while the people who did not vote for her in the primaries appear to be somewhat less comitted to the Democratic Party. In a way she is in that respect somewhat of the exact opposite to Trump. Different fractions of the GOP did and do not like him, but they appear to vote for him (in sufficiently large numbers at least) nevertheless because of the GOP label, Supreme Court appointment(s). While Trump voting base... I will switch to Mormont here.

 

19 hours ago, mormont said:

But they're not all of Trump's support. A lot of Trump's support, I think, is people who are less likely than the average voter to turn out, who are disaffected but also disengaged, who are low-information voters who sort of like the vague idea they have of Trump from the bits and pieces they've overheard (and who certainly won't vote for Clinton) but who, when it comes to the day, might or might not remember to actually vote for him

I think you might be mistaken on that one, and you might be in for a rude awakening. Yes, I also think quite a bit of Trump supporters fit into the category of disaffected and disengaged voters, who may or more likely may not have voted in past General Elections. But to assume they will not turn out on this election day to stick it to the Washington Elites as some sort of protest, well, I would not want to bet my house on it. Remember he had to win the GOP primaries somehow. And the turnout numbers for him in the GOP primaries were indeed HUGE. Or simply let me ask you this, how many of the Brexit voters would you put into the disaffected and/or disengaged voter category? 

[Commodore]

5 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I was talking with my father about this recently because he is going to vote Trump. He doesn't like him, but the idea of someone who will blow up the 'business as usual' Washington crowd is appealing to him. Trump has said many things that, as my dad put it, 'makes my skin crawl', but he's still voting for him. His reason boils down to the Supreme Court. It's pretty much that simple for him. He thinks any damage done by Trump will be tempered by those around him and that the damage would be worse if Hillary gets to appoint new justices.

I loathe Trump but the binary nature of the outcomes is making me rethink my third party vote (I'm in Missouri so it probably won't matter)

Also when there are two awful corrupt choices, you go with the one more likely to be checked by separation of powers. That's Trump.The media (outside Fox) hates him, the government leviathan hates him. Congress is powerless to check either. 

Whereas no citizen is more above the law and immune to checks than Hillary. She they will enable, as we've already seen. 

But Trump's mental instability is a major concern. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

40 minutes ago, Mexal said:

David Fahrenthold is having a blast looking to the Trump Foundation. The newest...

Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

 

This has to be fraud, right? 

[Guy Kilmore]

6 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Not struggling, but I feel the same way. History is not a steady March towards enlightenment or equality, there are dozens of examples of progressive societies collapsing and or regressing, most never to be seen again. Trump represents cultural regression, and anyone who supports such a thing is less than human to me.

I agree with your feelings, but I do take one big exception.  The drives that people have in supporting cultural regression are all TOO human.  It is important that we recognize it as such, so that we may respond to it an informed manner and not become a casualty of that regression. 

In short, when we see others as inhuman we begin to respond in inhuman ways.

[Mexal]

25 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

This has to be fraud, right? 

I wish I knew. I mean, it violates laws but I'm unsure if it's truly fraud or just a fine.

From the same article...

Quote

In 2010, a man named Martin Greenberg hit a hole-in-one on the 13th hole while playing in a charity tournament at Trump’s course in Westchester County, N.Y.

Greenberg won a $1 million prize. Briefly.

Later, Greenberg was told that he had won nothing. The prize’s rules required that the shot had to go 150 yards. But Trump’s course had allegedly made the hole too short.

Greenberg sued.

Eventually, court papers show, Trump’s golf course signed off on a settlement that required it to make a donation of Martin Greenberg’s choosing. Then, on the day that the parties informed the court they had settled their case, a $158,000 donation was sent to the Martin Greenberg Foundation.

That money came from the Trump Foundation, according to the tax filings of both Trump’s and Greenberg’s foundations.

 

[SerPaladin]

1 hour ago, Seli said:

I can't understand people who claim that the Democratic party and  the GOP -science denialism, wilfully blind for evidence, big on legalizing morality and all- are equally awful. I can't even get what worldview ends up in a position like that. 

I'm not going to debate these particular cases, but I can cite recent science denying on the right with Global Warming, and on the left with GMOs. Both sides have cases where they willfully deny evidence in front of their noses. The left tends to have rose-colored glasses about many of their government proposals, economically, while the right tends to go with storm-cloud-gray.

You don't get it because you probably agree with one of the sides, and that is "reality" to you. For you, Awful Unreality is the other guy. I'm a skeptic. Both sides are deluded to degrees, victims of their own marketing.

[The guy from the Vale]

54 minutes ago, Commodore said:

I loathe Trump but the binary nature of the outcomes is making me rethink my third party vote (I'm in Missouri so it probably won't matter)

Also when there are two awful corrupt choices, you go with the one more likely to be checked by separation of powers. That's Trump.The media (outside Fox) hates him, the government leviathan hates him. Congress is powerless to check either. 

Whereas no citizen is more above the law and immune to checks than Hillary. She they will enable, as we've already seen. 

But Trump's mental instability is a major concern. 

I'm pretty sure the House will stay in Republican hands no matter what, with all that gerrymandering... so I'd rather think the "checked" option would turn out to be Clinton. Trump might well get his hands on the presidency with a Republican House and Senate, which means his power will be far more unchecked.

 

Also, if Matt Lauer (sp?) is any guide, it's Trump who doesn't get the necessary scrutiny from the media. So, all this taken together, your logic should lead you to a Clinton vote, if anything.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Notone said:

Nobody is saying that. But it seems to me that the Clinton voters are more staunch (or tribal if you like) Democrats, while the people who did not vote for her in the primaries appear to be somewhat less comitted to the Democratic Party. In a way she is in that respect somewhat of the exact opposite to Trump. Different fractions of the GOP did and do not like him, but they appear to vote for him (in sufficiently large numbers at least) nevertheless because of the GOP label, Supreme Court appointment(s). While Trump voting base... I will switch to Mormont here.

 

I think you might be mistaken on that one, and you might be in for a rude awakening. Yes, I also think quite a bit of Trump supporters fit into the category of disaffected and disengaged voters, who may or more likely may not have voted in past General Elections. But to assume they will not turn out on this election day to stick it to the Washington Elites as some sort of protest, well, I would not want to bet my house on it. Remember he had to win the GOP primaries somehow. And the turnout numbers for him in the GOP primaries were indeed HUGE. Or simply let me ask you this, how many of the Brexit voters would you put into the disaffected and/or disengaged voter category? 

What's interesting is that you're critiquing Shryke for doing the same thing you do in your response to me: that is, assuming primary voters are typical of general election voters.

I'd note, again, that I'm not suggesting that all or even most Trump voters are disengaged. I'm suggesting that a significant percentage of those expressing support for Trump in national opinion polls are voters who tend to be disengaged, which I understand to be a fact: the only question at issue is whether these previously disengaged voters will in fact turn out. I've noted that previously disengaged voters are less likely to do so, again, as I understand it, a fact. It may not prove true this time, of course. But simply saying that these people are enthusiastic about Trump - which appears to be an assertion based on anecdotal evidence - isn't enough evidence for me to conclude that this election will definitely be an exception to the rule. It might be. It might not.

As for Brexit, if you do the analysis you'll see that the vast majority of people who voted for Brexit were regular, engaged voters. A better example is the Scottish independence referendum. Lots of first-time voters there. But in both cases, there was a huge GOTV effort, so neither is comparable to the Trump campaign anyway.

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

True. I do think Biden would be doing better than her though. The two big hits on Biden are his gaffes, which pale in comparison to Trump's, and the plagiarism issue, which I don't think holds much juice anymore. There's also the question of whether he could generate the same black turnout that Clinton looks likely to, but the whole "I'm Obama's VP" thing could probably help with that.

I think it's hard to know in advance what people will fixate on as some kind of problem. I would never have imagined that coming down with pneumonia would be viewed as a betrayal of the public trust--do candidates have to disclose every aspect of their health?--but the media went bananas when Clinton got sick. So I imagine that Joe Biden might have had a "scandal" because he forgot to check with CNN before switching to a different brand of tooth floss.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, mormont said:

What's interesting is that you're critiquing Shryke for doing the same thing you do in your response to me: that is, assuming primary voters are typical of general election voters.

I'd note, again, that I'm not suggesting that all or even most Trump voters are disengaged. I'm suggesting that a significant percentage of those expressing support for Trump in national opinion polls are voters who tend to be disengaged, which I understand to be a fact: the only question at issue is whether these previously disengaged voters will in fact turn out. I've noted that previously disengaged voters are less likely to do so, again, as I understand it, a fact. It may not prove true this time, of course. But simply saying that these people are enthusiastic about Trump - which appears to be an assertion based on anecdotal evidence - isn't enough evidence for me to conclude that this election will definitely be an exception to the rule. It might be. It might not.

As for Brexit, if you do the analysis you'll see that the vast majority of people who voted for Brexit were regular, engaged voters. A better example is the Scottish independence referendum. Lots of first-time voters there. But in both cases, there was a huge GOTV effort, so neither is comparable to the Trump campaign anyway.

I must admit, I did not follow the post mortem of the Brexit as carefully as I should have. And I simply sticked with the the initial analysis based on which areas voted more in favour of leaving. 

Anyhow, my point with Trump and the primaries was this, I think he managed to draw a lot of voters into the primaries, who were not typically voting in primaries (if voting at all for quite some time). So I think you misunderstood/misinterpreted what I wanted to say. 

I think those disengaged voters could infact turn out in big numbers on election day. So that we might see a higher overall turn out in this General Election cycle. And given that the Presidential elections in the last 40 years or so, had a turn out below 60%, I think there's a lot of room to grow. Of course, there's also quite a bit of room for the Democrats, particularly with the Latino vote this cycle. 

If you view Trump as a protest vote (anti-establishment or whatever you want to call it), then they really don't need to be enthusiatic about him. Anger at the status quo will do. The partisan GOP voters, could vote for him, based on the Supreme Court. That's the justification those "establishment Republican" use, to defend a conservative majority there. I think that alone might be enough to hold their nose and cast their vote for him. No love/enthusiasm needed.

So I would really not place any bet on those disengaged voters not casting a protest vote for Trump against Washington, and simply staying at home.

[Jace, Extat]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Should anyone be described as "less than human"?  That seems like a bad place to go.

 

54 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I agree with your feelings, but I do take one big exception.  The drives that people have in supporting cultural regression are all TOO human.  It is important that we recognize it as such, so that we may respond to it an informed manner and not become a casualty of that regression. 

In short, when we see others as inhuman we begin to respond in inhuman ways.

At this point my reaction to them is no different than if I see a spider. I want to squash it or have it as far away from me as possible, though I really want to have someone else take care of it for me. Someone big and loud, a strongman of sorts, who won't be afraid to tell me I'm right to dislike the spider.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

 

At this point my reaction to them is no different than if I see a spider. I want to squash it or have it as far away from me as possible, though I really want to have someone else take care of it for me. Someone big and loud, a strongman of sorts, who won't be afraid to tell me I'm right to dislike the spider.

People who prompt that reaction are still human.  I've been arguing with my Trumpinista friends for a while now.  It is frustrating.

[DireWolfSpirit]

8 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Gallup's done a series of polls on the subject since 1937, and as of 2015 the percentage of Americans who won't vote for a woman is 8% (roughly the same number who won't for a Catholic, a black, a Hispanic, or a Jew). 97% of Democrats are happy voting for a woman, as are 91% of Republicans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

Of course, in this day and age, it might be more difficult to find people who will admit to not voting for someone based off their demographic, but it is noteworthy that Americans will still admit to steering clear of Muslims and Atheists (socialist shouldn't have been listed with the others, because socialism is a political stance, not a demographic).

I look forward to the day that we can elect a nontheist to the Presidency. It's an under represented  segment of the population currently. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jamie-raskin-atheist-congress_us_5720eb95e4b01a5ebde42002

I have a fear of elected officials putting religious beliefs ahead of civil liberties or using belief in "the End Times" or (Messianic belief they are working for a God) guiding decisions on war and peace. After Bush2 i'm no longer comfortable with an evangelical making those decisions, especially the type politician that believes he/she is having conversations with a God. That is a terrifying situation in the nuclear age.

I keep hoping a reasonable man/woman of science will step forward and lead us into this new century of possibilities. A nice agnostic like Neal DeGrasse Tyson maybe? I think it would do wonders for industrial expansion and jobs. A new Space Age full speed ahead.

But alas......it sure as hell wont be this year!

edit to add: ^^^ Hell doesnt exist, but if it did, you'd have to consider whether a Trump vs Clinton Presidential race, is some special form of it?