US Elections - The white power-suit vs the white-power suit

[Shryke]

15 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Sanders would have been fine. Attacking someone for being a loonie is not a viable course of action when you are nominating Donald Trump. The bigger risk is that someone like Bloomberg would have jumped in, and split the anti-Trump vote. 

Please. When the guy for the Democrats is easily painted as every stereotype of radical old school commie-lefties, it's dead easy to portray him as a nut. That Donald Trump is in the race too would be irrelevant to alot of voters. And especially to the media.

[Castel]

21 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Sanders would have been a disaster I think. He doesn't have the temperament to hold back and he would have come off as a bit unhinged and given Trump an easier time of portraying him as a left-wing loonie. (which would almost certainly have been the narrative the GOP would be pushing against Sanders)

Nor could I see Sanders coordinating the Alicia Machado thing, or any of the attempts to drive a wedge between the GOP and Trump. It just doesn't seem like his style.

In the primaries as well he got some shit for his economic plans and blue-sky thinking- and that's with his opponent being relatively hands off. I think even people who resent Hillary would probably not doubt that she knows what she's aiming for and her feet are on the ground (or beneath it, in Hell, depending on your political leanings)

I think they'd get caught up in a shouting match of big ideas that appeal specifically to the segments of the base that they rode in on, but I don't know that the contrast would be as great as with Hillary.

[The Marquis de Leech]

13 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Please. When the guy for the Democrats is easily painted as every stereotype of radical old school commie-lefties, it's dead easy to portray him as a nut. That Donald Trump is in the race too would be irrelevant to alot of voters. And especially to the media.

My point is that anyone put off by Sanders (i.e. the stereotypical suburban economically centrist sorts) would more likely than not still hold their noses and vote for him because of who the alternative is. Saying that Sanders would be a disaster because the Republicans would have a line of attack ("he's a communist!") ignores Trump's existing line of attack vis-a-vis Hillary ("she's a corrupt Establishment hack!), and that we're in 2016, not 1972 - you've now got two generations of voters who think that calling someone a communist is something that only happens on black and white television.

To be honest, I think a Sanders vs Trump map would look broadly similar to the current one. Bernie does a bit worse in North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, but a bit better in Ohio, Iowa, and the Mountain West.

[drawkcabi]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gains-on-clinton-despite-furor-over-women-election-comments-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-AAjflec?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Quote

Donald Trump gained on Hillary Clinton among American voters this week, cutting her lead nearly in half despite a string of women accusing him of unwanted sexual advances and the furore over his disputed claims that the election process is rigged, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday

.Talk me down people, tell me this doesn't mean anything.

 

[Shryke]

46 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

My point is that anyone put off by Sanders (i.e. the stereotypical suburban economically centrist sorts) would more likely than not still hold their noses and vote for him because of who the alternative is. Saying that Sanders would be a disaster because the Republicans would have a line of attack ("he's a communist!") ignores Trump's existing line of attack vis-a-vis Hillary ("she's a corrupt Establishment hack!), and that we're in 2016, not 1972 - you've now got two generations of voters who think that calling someone a communist is something that only happens on black and white television.

To be honest, I think a Sanders vs Trump map would look broadly similar to the current one. Bernie does a bit worse in North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, but a bit better in Ohio, Iowa, and the Mountain West.

I said Sanders would be a disaster in the debate. Because nothing from the primary showed me he had the kind of control, the kind of team around him and the kind of organisation to pull off a trap like Alicia Machado. His style doesn't suit it and he doesn't respond that way in the debate format. He'd confront Trump directly and get into a shouting match or cede Trump the ground of being the "Oh you /eyeroll" one on stage.

This would be an issue as well because it would play into the exact kind of attack the GOP would use against Sanders. Because as a guy who doesn't mind calling himself a socialist and a guy who frankly looks a bit wild and is very loose and fiery in his rhetorical style, there's no question they wouldn't be trying to paint him as a crazy communist nut.

Basically Sanders v Trump looks alot more like the GOP primary debates with arguing and yelling on both sides and that's not a good thing.

 

As for the general election overall? I think the map would look overall, probably vaguely similar. Worse likely because I think Sanders is just not near as competent at running a campaign, as the primary demonstrated. He would also have issues with the above line of attack because he'd be alot less palatable to alot of voters. You'd be a fool to think this wouldn't be very effective on alot of voters. There's no way they'd be able to push the whole strategy of peeling off disgusted-with-Trump Republican voters with a guy like Sanders at the top of the ticket. He'd also run into problems with alot of the more pro-corporate/capitalist/pro-trade elements of the voter base that are around. His fiery populist anti-trade, anti-corporation message don't resonate with everyone.

At the same time he'd have less ingrained negatives with a bunch of people but I think that would be offset to some degree or other by the ease of portraying him (by the media and by the GOP) as a leftist radical.

That he'd be running against Trump wouldn't matter because we've already seen that Trump being a fucking crazy person has not hurt him near as much as it should have. You'd likely see alot of "Both parties put up crazy candidates!" false equivalencies going around too.

He'd still win imo because there's alot going for him, both specific to him and just as a general Democrat, but it would be a different race and I think probably a tougher one. And certainly the debates would not have been as decisive imo.

[Shryke]

50 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gains-on-clinton-despite-furor-over-women-election-comments-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-AAjflec?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

.Talk me down people, tell me this doesn't mean anything.

 

It's one poll and who knows what the crosstabs are (because I haven't bothered to look).

Don't get worked up till you start seeing a larger overall pattern.

Patterns will also likely be more accurate this close to the election too as alot of polling firms will be regressing to the mean as they try and look more competent.

[Impmk2]

58 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gains-on-clinton-despite-furor-over-women-election-comments-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-AAjflec?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

.Talk me down people, tell me this doesn't mean anything.

 

a) it's a national poll. State based polls give an overall better picture of what's going on. If you look at North Carolina, or Florida (must win Trump states) you really have a cherry pick polls to put Trump winning since the first debate, even Ohio previously going very strongly for Trump is looking achievable for Clinton. NH, Pen, and Colorado are even more solid - and if she wins just those 3 it becomes very, very hard for Trump to win.

Don't just look at one short set of a couple polls. There's quite a large degree of uncertainty inherent in any. The overall trend amongst pollsters has Clinton pretty steady since the first debate with no clear momentum towards Trump at this stage.

c) The effects of the last debate, and Trumps refusal to accept the election result haven't come into the polls yet. While that plays well with his republican base it plays badly with independants and dems.

[drawkcabi]

I know the media still would like to still make a horse race out of it as well. I just despise Trump so much, the slightest chance of him rebounding gets me anxious.

I got my absentee ballets yesterday, for me and my parents.

I need to fill out my dad's for him. I know he is going to tell me to put Trump. I'll try my best to talk him out of it but he's stubborn in his hatred for Democrats and his loyalty to the GOP. It would be so easy to put HRC but then I would be no better than the phantom voter frauds out of which the right keeps trying to make an issue.

If he insists I'll have to put Trump and I'll do it, even if it turns my stomach.

[Impmk2]

Also if I put my stats hat on - looking at that single set of numbers there's no way you can conclude a tighening race. Both polls are inside the 3 point margin of error and could easily be drawn from the same, unchanged population. Polling is not exact. 

But that doesn't make for a good news story. Just a somewhat intellectually dishonest, or naive one.

[Ordos]

Because, the election date is the latest possible date, is anyone expecting a November surprise? And while I'm talking about November, how much further downhill can this campaign get by November 7th? Can Drumpfs threats get any more blatant? Will there be anything that can sink the Clinton campaign coming from Russia and Wikileaks? Assange hates Clinton, but really, does he want to kiss Drumpf's shoes?

[mormont]

1 hour ago, drawkcabi said:

If he insists I'll have to put Trump and I'll do it, even if it turns my stomach.

You're doing the right thing, and in any case the worst case scenario is that your vote cancels his.

[Relic]

4 hours ago, drawkcabi said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gains-on-clinton-despite-furor-over-women-election-comments-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-AAjflec?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

.Talk me down people, tell me this doesn't mean anything.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-there-are-4-ways-this-election-can-end-and-3-involve-clinton-winning/

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Ordos said:

Assange hates Clinton, but really, does he want to kiss Drumpf's shoes?

He's been French-Kissing Trump for ages, and has lost all credibility in the process. Screw him.

[Fez]

6 hours ago, drawkcabi said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gains-on-clinton-despite-furor-over-women-election-comments-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-AAjflec?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

.Talk me down people, tell me this doesn't mean anything.

 

It doesn't mean anything. Every poll has ebbs and flows, and Ipsos/Reuters has been one of the more dramatic this election. In fact, Ipsos/Reuters has another national poll (one is the daily tracker, the other is a weekly poll; and I always get the two confused) that they released Oct. 20 that Clinton at +9 in the 4-way.

Look at the polling averages, not individual polls. Or be like me and just look at averages of the gold standard polls (NBC/WSJ, CBS/NYT, ABC/WAPO, Fox News, CNN) along with the established live caller university pollsters (Marist, Q-polls, Monmouth, and a few others).

And look at what the campaigns are doing, they have access to far more and better quality polling data than is what is publicly available (at least, Clinton does; the Republican nominee usually would to, but who knows with Trump? Also, Romney's campaign in 2012 used a false set of demographic assumptions).

[The Marquis de Leech]

48 minutes ago, Fez said:

And look at what the campaigns are doing, they have access to far more and better quality polling data than is what is publicly available (at least, Clinton does; the Republican nominee usually would to, but who knows with Trump? Also, Romney's campaign in 2012 used a false set of demographic assumptions).

The guy is putting money into Virginia. Seeing as there's no Senate race or useful down-ticket race that otherwise might encourage it, I really doubt Trump bothers with data.

Frankly, if I were running Trump's campaign I'd:

• Target Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, Florida, and Maine. The numbers have been kind here at least until recently, so there's at least someone out there that is potentially listening. Winning the first four, plus ME-2 gets Trump within striking distance of 270.
• Push into New Hampshire, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. All unlikely, but more likely than Virginia or Wisconsin, and you only need one of the three.
• All else can go hang at this point - if we're losing Arizona, Georgia, or Utah, we're losing the election.
• Piggyback off the ground-game of Republican Senate candidates. This requires mending fences, but it's too late to start new offices from scratch. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Oh, and a couple of other things I'd do.

• Get Donald talking trade, trade, trade.
• Get Hillary back into the spotlight wherever possible. The more they're talking about her, the less they're throwing stuff at Trump. Hillary isn't liked either, so let's capitalise on that.
• Get myself a stiff drink. I'll need it.

[Fez]

18 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The guy is putting money into Virginia. Seeing as there's no Senate race or useful down-ticket race that otherwise might encourage it, I really doubt Trump bothers with data.

Frankly, if I were running Trump's campaign I'd:

• Target Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, Florida, and Maine. The numbers have been kind here at least until recently, so there's at least someone out there that is potentially listening. Winning the first four, plus ME-2 gets Trump within striking distance of 270.
• Push into New Hampshire, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. All unlikely, but more likely than Virginia or Wisconsin, and you only need one of the three.
• All else can go hang at this point - if I'm losing Arizona, Georgia, or Utah, I'm losing the election.
• Piggyback off the ground-game of Republican Senate candidates. This requires mending fences, but it's too late to start new offices from scratch. 

I wonder if Virginia is more an RNC/campaign staffer decision than a Trump decision. Trump is falling so far behind in Virginia that the election here is starting to threaten the Republican gerrymander of congressional districts. Republicans have an 8-3 advantage right now. Democrats were supposed to only pick up VA-4, which got redrawn by the courts, but now Barbara Comstock looks like toast in VA-10 and the open seat in VA-5 is looking good as well.

Meanwhile, its not on anyways radar, but it wouldn't take much of a wave to sweep Scott Rigel out of VA-2 (although his district may have gotten safer after VA-4 was adjusted). And in a true wave, VA-1 and VA-10 could swing as well; although they would immediately be two of the most vulnerable seats in the country for 2018. I wouldn't count on those two switching, but Trump is doing so badly here, it could happen.

Point being, I think the money is being spent to try to save those congressional seats, with no expectation Trump will even get into a single-digit loss. Its a real shame the state legislature isn't up this year, Democrats would absolutely retake the senate and would at least make some ground in the house.

[Jaxom 1974]

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

I wonder if Virginia is more an RNC/campaign staffer decision than a Trump decision. Trump is falling so far behind in Virginia that the election here is starting to threaten the Republican gerrymander of congressional districts. Republicans have an 8-3 advantage right now. Democrats were supposed to only pick up VA-4, which got redrawn by the courts, but now Barbara Comstock looks like toast in VA-10 and the open seat in VA-5 is looking good as well.

Meanwhile, its not on anyways radar, but it wouldn't take much of a wave to sweep Scott Rigel out of VA-2 (although his district may have gotten safer after VA-4 was adjusted). And in a true wave, VA-1 and VA-10 could swing as well; although they would immediately be two of the most vulnerable seats in the country for 2018. I wouldn't count on those two switching, but Trump is doing so badly here, it could happen.

Point being, I think the money is being spent to try to save those congressional seats, with no expectation Trump will even get into a single-digit loss. Its a real shame the state legislature isn't up this year, Democrats would absolutely retake the senate and would at least make some ground in the house.

Thanks for the run down.  It's getting close and I really need to look up more about the down ballots in Virginia and find out what district I'm in...

[Maithanet]

7 hours ago, drawkcabi said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gains-on-clinton-despite-furor-over-women-election-comments-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-AAjflec?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

.Talk me down people, tell me this doesn't mean anything.

 

Ever since the first debate, Trumps numbers have been in freefall.  That more or less ended a week ago.  Since then national and state polls have been relatively steady, with most polls showing Clinton +7 or so, and a few outliers on each side.  If you are being really charitable to Trump you could say that stopping Clinton's "momentum" is a win, but really with this little time left he needs to do a  hell of a lot more than that.  

Plus, over a million people have already voted in Florida (eight million voted in 2012).  Clinton has a steady 3-4 point lead there.  There is virtually no scenario where Trump wins without Florida.  Things are going very well.  

I keep telling myself to relax.  Clinton is winning, and every day that goes by without huge movement towards Trump makes her victory that much more likely.  

[Fez]

41 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Thanks for the run down.  It's getting close and I really need to look up more about the down ballots in Virginia and find out what district I'm in...

Well, I can't tell you what local races you might have (I've got a county board race, school board race, and some bond issues), but there are two referendums to amend the Virginia constitution that no one has been talking about.

The first would add a right-to-work (aka union busting) clause to the state constitution. Virginia already has a bunch of right-to-work laws, so it wouldn't have much immediate effect. But it would make it that much harder to reverse those laws if Democrats ever retake the state legislature. So I recommend voting NO on that one.

The second would allow the state legislature to allow localities to exempt surviving spouses of public health or safety personnel killed in the line of duty from paying property taxes, so long as they remain at the residence that person lived at and do not remarry. Personally, I'm also voting NO on this one.

I'm all for giving lots of benefits to surviving spouses (and families) of people killed in the line of public duty, but I don't believe using the tax code is the right way to do it. Also, with the clause about not remarrying, it adds a weird incentive there of encouraging people to not try to move on with their lives. Whether or not to ever remarry about a spouse is killed is an intensively personal decision, and I don't think the state should be getting involved in it.