U.S Elections, The Ides of March; Et tu Ohio?

[lokisnow]

Trump can certainly win in the general election because 95-98% of republican voters will vote for him if he is the nominee. He's not going to stop any republicans from voting, particularly with Clinton opposite him on the ballot.  Were it Klobochar or Warren or Biden opposite Trump on the ballot, I think Trump would only get about 90% of republican voters because many would stay home rather than vote for or against Trump, but Clinton guarantees very few republican defections and high republican turnout to vote against her and for Trump.

As for democrat defections, were it Cruz or Rubio or Christie I would be worried that there would be substantial democrat defections to those candidates, weakening the democrat position. Many people take the ignorant "it's the other party's turn" approach to the presidency and are willing to swing back and forth for that one office on whom they vote for. And more traditional candidates would benefit from those style voters breaking for the republican. But, since Trump is outrageous and outside the normal bounds of presidential candidates, I think very few of these voters will make that choice this election, opting to make the GHWBush in 88 choice of sticking with what's working. 

Additionally, even if the "it's the other party's turn" voters do break for Donald Trump, Trump is drives such impressive turnout amongst non-whites that I anticipate record breaking numbers in the general election, moreso than the numbers that bouyed Obama in 2008, and probably in percentages greater than what Obama enjoyed. Donald Trump is perceived as so dangerous, that Clinton may get a higher percentage of the black vote AND a higher black turnout percentage than Obama got in either year.

Let me put it in simpler terms. Whites that don't like Trump consider it a joke and say, "I'll move to Canada! (haha! not really, no biggie if he wins)".

 

Non whites that don't like Trump consider it a life and death vote and say, "I am legitimately terrified for the safety of my family."

 

And that's going to drive turnout. The terror of Fascism Trump inspires in the peoples he will crush under his jackboots.

 

And that will probably mean Trump does not win the general election.

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, Shryke said:

And, of course, there's the fact that at the end of the day Trump isn't actually winning even a huge chunk of the support of his own party. He's benefited alot from a split opposition.

This is one of the reasons I think a Trump candidacy would be a disaster. He has yet to crack 50% of Republican support, so that means he can only reliable marshal a plurality of Republicans who actually vote in primaries. No mandate, there.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

This is one of the reasons I think a Trump candidacy would be a disaster. He has yet to crack 50% of Republican support, so that means he can only reliable marshal a plurality of Republicans who actually vote in primaries. No mandate, there.

See, I really don't think that follows. Do you see a Cruz supporter voting for Hilary? Not bothering to show up to oppose Hillary? I don't think it's smart to apply that logic to the general.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

As for democrat defections, were it Cruz or Rubio or Christie I would be worried that there would be substantial democrat defections to those candidates, weakening the democrat position. Many people take the ignorant "it's the other party's turn" approach to the presidency and are willing to swing back and forth for that one office on whom they vote for. And more traditional candidates would benefit from those style voters breaking for the republican. But, since Trump is outrageous and outside the normal bounds of presidential candidates, I think very few of these voters will make that choice this election, opting to make the GHWBush in 88 choice of sticking with what's working. 

No likely Democratic voter would flip for Cruz. Not one. Okay maybe a few would, but it's crazy to think he could pull more than a couple votes away.

Trump actually has the best chance to flip supporters, but again, it would probably be small. Anyone upset with the establishment/status quo has a clear alternative, regardless of how repugnant they may find Trump.

[Shryke]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That more or less encapsulates my fear. You have to throw out the rulebook with this guy. He stands out in front of his people and tells very provable lies. His little infomercial the other night with all "his" products is a great example. HE OWNS NONE OF THOSE COMPANIES! Trump steaks is defunct. You can't fucking buy one. And it just doesn't matter to his supporters. It's fucking crazy, cult of personality type shit, and I'm not sure how you attack it. 

 Couple that with a lack of enthusiasm among the base for Hillary, and I can see the possibility (regardless of how remote it might be) that he can squeak out a win. It's probably an irrational fear, but this whole election has been extremely irrational.

 

Except the base likes Clinton. And the GOP base doesn't like Trump.

Like, let's be clear on a few things here:

Both Clinton and Sanders are broadly popular with their own party. Both their supporters like the other candidate. Like in 2008, it's extremely likely once the fervour dies down and people calm the fuck down, they will turn out for the democratic party nominee regardless of who they supported in the primary.

On the flip side, Trump is not broadly popular with his own party. And really unpopular outside his party. He does not have cross-party appeal no matter how many times people say it must be so. Having a core of crazy loyal supporters and having everyone else hate your guts can win you a primary but it can't win you a general.

[S John]

Just now, Shryke said:

Except the base likes Clinton. And the GOP base doesn't like Trump.

Like, let's be clear on a few things here:

Both Clinton and Sanders are broadly popular with their own party. Both their supporters like the other candidate. Like in 2008, it's extremely likely once the fervour dies down and people calm the fuck down, they will turn out for the democratic party nominee regardless of who they supported in the primary.

On the flip side, Trump is not broadly popular with his own party. And really unpopular outside his party. He does not have cross-party appeal no matter how many times people say it must be so. Having a core of crazy loyal supporters and having everyone else hate your guts can win you a primary but it can't win you a general.

Clinton is also very unpopular outside her party.  

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

We'd have to rely on the Mormons. Trump is apparently very unpopular with them, and lost or is polling behind in all the high percentage Mormon states.

It'd be hilarious if Utah went Democrat.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

We'd have to rely on the Mormons. Trump is apparently very unpopular with them, and lost or is polling behind in all the high percentage Mormon states.

It'd be hilarious if Utah went Democrat.

I'm rubbing my magic underwear as we speak.

[lokisnow]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No likely Democratic voter would flip for Cruz. Not one. Okay maybe a few would, but it's crazy to think he could pull more than a couple votes away.

Trump actually has the best chance to flip supporters, but again, it would probably be small. Anyone upset with the establishment/status quo has a clear alternative, regardless of how repugnant they may find Trump.

Yes they would because Cruz becomes a "moderate" or a "reasonable choice" if he becomes the nominee instead of Trump. The media will absolutely drive this narrative 110% and outside of democrat bubble punditry, you won't hear anyone within the mainstream media or election coverage suggesting Cruz is anything but a reasonable choice. That means, since most people don't pay attention until september or october, that the vast majority of voters are going to be relieved it is not Donald Trump, and by process of elimination believe Cruz is a "reasonable choice" and moderate compared to Trump's extreme positions. Considering the consternation that democrats have raised over Trump, they will be unable to tarnish Cruz with the extreme brush as well, because people will just think its the boy who cried wolf. 

Ergo, Cruz will enjoy quite a few democrat defections because they will believe him to be a reasonable republican in contrast to Trump.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 hours ago, Shryke said:

Except the base likes Clinton. And the GOP base doesn't like Trump.

Like, let's be clear on a few things here:

Both Clinton and Sanders are broadly popular with their own party. Both their supporters like the other candidate. Like in 2008, it's extremely likely once the fervour dies down and people calm the fuck down, they will turn out for the democratic party nominee regardless of who they supported in the primary.

On the flip side, Trump is not broadly popular with his own party. And really unpopular outside his party. He does not have cross-party appeal no matter how many times people say it must be so. Having a core of crazy loyal supporters and having everyone else hate your guts can win you a primary but it can't win you a general.

Again, I pray to Dog you are right. Let's remember that this country elected Dubya TWICE. No one is going broke overestimating the stupidity of the American voter. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Except the base likes Clinton. And the GOP base doesn't like Trump.

Like, let's be clear on a few things here:

Both Clinton and Sanders are broadly popular with their own party. Both their supporters like the other candidate. Like in 2008, it's extremely likely once the fervour dies down and people calm the fuck down, they will turn out for the democratic party nominee regardless of who they supported in the primary.

On the flip side, Trump is not broadly popular with his own party. And really unpopular outside his party. He does not have cross-party appeal no matter how many times people say it must be so. Having a core of crazy loyal supporters and having everyone else hate your guts can win you a primary but it can't win you a general.

Just to play devil's advocate.....

The power of Clinton hate will get most Republicans to the polls. I just can't see a large number of Republicans staying home or voting third party.

It's disingenuous to exclude the fact that Clinton is also unpopular outside of her own party. Not as unpopular as Trump, but still not well received by an overwhelming majority of non-Democrats.

If Trump didn't have some cross over appeal, how do we wind up with this weird voting block that's only for Trump or Sanders? There is also a sizable chunk of blue collar workers who might be persuaded to ditch HRC for Trump. He could possibly win some rust belt states that Dems traditionally do well in.

..........

Look, I think Clinton beats Trump 9/10 times in the general, but it would be a mistake to think it's already in the bag.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Yes they would because Cruz becomes a "moderate" or a "reasonable choice" if he becomes the nominee instead of Trump. The media will absolutely drive this narrative 110% and outside of democrat bubble punditry, you won't hear anyone within the mainstream media or election coverage suggesting Cruz is anything but a reasonable choice. That means, since most people don't pay attention until september or october, that the vast majority of voters are going to be relieved it is not Donald Trump, and by process of elimination believe Cruz is a "reasonable choice" and moderate compared to Trump's extreme positions. Considering the consternation that democrats have raised over Trump, they will be unable to tarnish Cruz with the extreme brush as well, because people will just think its the boy who cried wolf. 

Ergo, Cruz will enjoy quite a few democrat defections because they will believe him to be a reasonable republican in contrast to Trump.

The sticky icky in CA is too strong for you man. Put it down or give it to our Texas Otter.

Nobody in their right mind would ever call Cruz a moderate. Nobody!

[Shryke]

20 minutes ago, S John said:

Clinton is also very unpopular outside her party.  

Trump isn't even popular inside his own party.

And the negative attacks on Trump are just starting.

[Shryke]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Just to play devil's advocate.....

The power of Clinton hate will get most Republicans to the polls. I just can't see a large number of Republicans staying home or voting third party.

It's disingenuous to exclude the fact that Clinton is also unpopular outside of her own party. Not as unpopular as Trump, but still not well received by an overwhelming majority of non-Democrats.

If Trump didn't have some cross over appeal, how do we wind up with this weird voting block that's only for Trump or Sanders? There is also a sizable chunk of blue collar workers who might be persuaded to ditch HRC for Trump. He could possibly win some rust belt states that Dems traditionally do well in.

..........

Look, I think Clinton beats Trump 9/10 times in the general, but it would be a mistake to think it's already in the bag.

Where is this voting block exactly? I've seen no evidence of it. Just alot of internet gripping. But there was alot of "Clinton or McCain" gripping in 2008 and that went nowhere.

There's no evidence Trump has real cross-over appeal. He energizes authoritarians and white people and turns off the not-"white men"s in droves.

[Ice Queen]

22 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

We'd have to rely on the Mormons. Trump is apparently very unpopular with them, and lost or is polling behind in all the high percentage Mormon states.

It'd be hilarious if Utah went Democrat.

Speaking of Utah, it's too bad Jon Huntsman isn't running. 

[Kalbear]

Quote

This race is not about the independants, it is about turning out your base.  And whoever runs against You-Know-Who is going to turn out most of the Democratic base, meanwhile Trumps supposed base is going to sit at home.

Maybe. I really think that any lessons we've had about prior elections really just don't count, here. Probably the best election to look at is 1964. In that, we had a reasonably unpopular president who hadn't been elected (LBJ) going up against Goldwater. It has a lot of very good similarities to this election: the republican base going for Goldwater but his being unable to get more than about 35-40% of the total vote, Goldwater being loathed by a big chunk of his own party (and George Romney coming out and actively repudiating him), LBJ having some struggles internally against a young populist (Robert Kennedy), Goldwater making a lot of gaffes about wanting to flush the liberal eastern coast to sea or bombing the Kremlin, and a message in the election that said this:

Quote

The Johnson campaign's greatest concern may have been voter complacency leading to low turnout in key states. To counter this, all of Johnson's broadcast ads concluded with the line: "Vote for President Johnson on November 3. The stakes are too high for you to stay home." The Democratic campaign used two other slogans, "All the way with LBJ" and "LBJ for the USA".

The end result was the most lopsided popular vote in US history with 61% of the vote going to LBJ. It also ushered in a ton of senators and house reps for democrats. 

Now, I'm not saying that this is what is going to happen now. Times are different, parties are more polarized, people are filled a lot more about hate and demonizing the opponent. But that appears to have a fairly lowish cap. While Trump is winning - and now, winning big, his delegates are not the same thing as his vote. He still has yet to win a majority of Republicans, period. He still is running in the 35-40% range, as he has done basically since the campaign started. Despite people dropping out left and right this percentage hasn't appreciably increased across states. The Republican party is running attack ads against him - and spent more on attack ads against him than the entire Democratic party candidates did on ads, period. As people have noted, there is no major indicator that the people who are voting for Trump in the primary represent new voters. 

Clinton doesn't have super popular support. She isn't beloved by a great many people like Obama was, and it's reasonable to expect that she would get somewhat similar numbers to, say, Gore or Kerry - if she were running against someone else. As Trump has shown, however, one big motivator is going to be fear. There are going to be a whole lot of people who are going to be terrified of Trump winning the presidency. There are not nearly as many people, at least so far, who are more terrified of Clinton winning and would choose Trump as a lesser evil. And demographics are continuing to favor Democrat candidates, and will continue to do so. 

THAT ALL SAID - there's just nothing to use to predict this election. Party ideology has never been tested like this for the Republicans, not for 50 years (since Goldwater, basically). Polling is likely going to be flawed because there are going to be a whole lot of people who won't want to admit what candidate they're voting for. Party lines are going to not be as predictive because Trump does have a fair amount of crossover appeal - to people like Altherion who continue to believe that Trump wouldn't be that bad and will justify however it takes not voting for a woman, to others like the city councilman in Ohio who was a lifelong democrat but is terrified of ISIS. We've not seen violence at primaries in 40 years, not since Nixon. We've not seen the effects of social media like this ever. There's a lot of firsts. 

I think that if I were a betting man, I'd bet on Clinton winning. I'd also bet on the Republicans seizing on this newfound base and winning big in 2020, the same way that Nixon and Reagan rode the coattails of Goldwater without some of the worst rhetoric in 1966 (California Governor), 1968, 1972 and 1980, and I would bet that Clinton wouldn't win a second term unless the US ended up doing super awesome for some reason. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Maybe. I really think that any lessons we've had about prior elections really just don't count, here. Probably the best election to look at is 1964. In that, we had a reasonably unpopular president who hadn't been elected (LBJ) going up against Goldwater. It has a lot of very good similarities to this election: the republican base going for Goldwater but his being unable to get more than about 35-40% of the total vote, Goldwater being loathed by a big chunk of his own party (and George Romney coming out and actively repudiating him), LBJ having some struggles internally against a young populist (Robert Kennedy), Goldwater making a lot of gaffes about wanting to flush the liberal eastern coast to sea or bombing the Kremlin, and a message in the election that said this:

The end result was the most lopsided popular vote in US history with 61% of the vote going to LBJ. It also ushered in a ton of senators and house reps for democrats. 

Now, I'm not saying that this is what is going to happen now. Times are different, parties are more polarized, people are filled a lot more about hate and demonizing the opponent. But that appears to have a fairly lowish cap. While Trump is winning - and now, winning big, his delegates are not the same thing as his vote. He still has yet to win a majority of Republicans, period. He still is running in the 35-40% range, as he has done basically since the campaign started. Despite people dropping out left and right this percentage hasn't appreciably increased across states. The Republican party is running attack ads against him - and spent more on attack ads against him than the entire Democratic party candidates did on ads, period. As people have noted, there is no major indicator that the people who are voting for Trump in the primary represent new voters. 

Clinton doesn't have super popular support. She isn't beloved by a great many people like Obama was, and it's reasonable to expect that she would get somewhat similar numbers to, say, Gore or Kerry - if she were running against someone else. As Trump has shown, however, one big motivator is going to be fear. There are going to be a whole lot of people who are going to be terrified of Trump winning the presidency. There are not nearly as many people, at least so far, who are more terrified of Clinton winning and would choose Trump as a lesser evil. And demographics are continuing to favor Democrat candidates, and will continue to do so. 

THAT ALL SAID - there's just nothing to use to predict this election. Party ideology has never been tested like this for the Republicans, not for 50 years (since Goldwater, basically). Polling is likely going to be flawed because there are going to be a whole lot of people who won't want to admit what candidate they're voting for. Party lines are going to not be as predictive because Trump does have a fair amount of crossover appeal - to people like Altherion who continue to believe that Trump wouldn't be that bad and will justify however it takes not voting for a woman, to others like the city councilman in Ohio who was a lifelong democrat but is terrified of ISIS. We've not seen violence at primaries in 40 years, not since Nixon. We've not seen the effects of social media like this ever. There's a lot of firsts. 

I think that if I were a betting man, I'd bet on Clinton winning. I'd also bet on the Republicans seizing on this newfound base and winning big in 1968, the same way that Nixon and Reagan rode the coattails of Goldwater without some of the worst rhetoric, and I would bet that Clinton wouldn't win a second term unless the US ended up doing super awesome for some reason. 

While I agree with you mostly, I think it's unfair for you to accuse Altherion of sexism in this, despite how little his pro-Trump arguments make sense to me.

[TrackerNeil]

37 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

See, I really don't think that follows. Do you see a Cruz supporter voting for Hilary? Not bothering to show up to oppose Hillary? I don't think it's smart to apply that logic to the general.

What I think is that Donald Trump will divide his own party in a way that Ted Cruz will not. I imagine that most Republicans would grit their teeth and support him despite their misgivings, but I expect that some will not, and even if that is only a percentage point or two, that could make the difference in Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, etc. It's not hard to imagine Clinton winning every single swing state and leaving Trump with 200 EC votes or fewer.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Where is this voting block exactly? I've seen no evidence of it. Just alot of internet gripping. But there was alot of "Clinton or McCain" gripping in 2008 and that went nowhere.

There's no evidence Trump has real cross-over appeal. He energizes authoritarians and white people and turns off the not-"white men"s in droves.

You described the block in your own post. Working class white men that still vote Democrat, but have incrementally felt the party is no longer representing them. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

While I agree with you mostly, I think it's unfair for you to accuse Altherion of sexism in this, despite how little his pro-Trump arguments make sense to me.

I don't see why it's not fair. Trump has significantly more Wall Street ties (including doing awesome things like taking his private businesses public, using the funds earned to buy his personal debt and then sending the business to bankruptcy after buying himself out). The question Simon raised should be applied to Trump too, here - why is it that his wall street ties are acceptable but Clinton's are not? 

Trump has stated repeatedly that he would want to commit war crimes and go tough after ISIS. Why is that acceptable but Clinton's foreign policy record is not?

It might not be sexism. It might not be because he thinks that as a woman, Clinton is unqualified. It is, however, very difficult to envision any kind of logical argument that indicates that Trump is less corporate (given that he owns multiple corporations), less adventurous (given that he admires Putin, endorses torture and has stated repeatedly that the US should directly fight ISIS), and less part of the establishment (he by his own worth is a multibillionaire) compare to Clinton. I get the argument that Clinton is establishment. Where I lose the narrative is when it's stated 'and Trump isn't'.