Presidential Race 2016

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

1940 had a lot of parallels to the optics of this race.

We had the Internet and a 24-hour news cycle in 1940?

We barely had color television. Oh wait, even that was a quarter of a century away…

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I think comparing this election to almost any other previous one is folly.

This election is unlike any other. People keep trying to use the past to predict stuff, but there's never been a race, AFAIK, like this one.

This ^.   In 2008 the Republicans helped out Obama by offering up a moderate conservative as a Presidential candidate in McCain and compounded the problem when McCain selected Sarah Palin as his Vice President.    

[Braivo]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I think comparing this election to almost any other previous one is folly.

This election is unlike any other. People keep trying to use the past to predict stuff, but there's never been a race, AFAIK, like this one.

Donald Trump has upended the entire process and destroyed every precedent so far. His wake is littered with every big name in politics and media, many much stronger than Hillary Clinton. He will wait for the right moment and make short work of her as well. She is already obsessed with talking about him and he hasn't even started attacking her. 

I have been right about Trump since August. He will win this election in a landslide unlike anything we've seen since Reagan. His strength and willingness to put America first will appeal to a vast majority of this nation. 

[Dave2512]

I'll take that bet. The only person in politics more scuzzy than Hillary is Trump. She isn't sweating Trump he's a dream come true for her.

[Braivo]

2 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

I'll take that bet. The only person in politics more scuzzy than Hillary is Trump. She isn't sweating Trump he's a dream come true for her.

Check out her Twitter timeline: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton

The stuff in this ad actually doesn't sound bad to large portion of this country. She just put his positions into her campaign and exposed all of her followers to his ideas. 

7 of the first 8 tweets are about Donald Trump, she is doing what the media did and giving massive amounts of free publicity. Some of these attack ads actually look like ads FOR him. None of this is hurting him, only helping. She is falling right into his trap. 

If he had such massive dirt the GOP would've uncovered it by now to prevent him from getting the nomination. He doesn't. Meanwhile, HRC is under investigation by the FBI. Watch, if she starts to drop in the polls the Obama admin will suddenly indict her so they can slide a new dem in there to run against Trump. 

[RandallT]

You guys are used to me yapping about federalism (if you even pay attention to my blathering), so here's one more idea from a different angle.

Do you think the growing polarization might have anything to do with the rising way we nationalize every damn issue? Why do we all have to agree on a subject at the national level and apply the same rule to everything. Doing so might only be leading to division and partisanship.

The whole idea at the start of the country was for things that have very broad consensus (hence the Senate) to pass at a national level (with fairly specific things included), and let the states decide much of how they want things to run like education, housing, etc- unless of course a Constitutional principle was violated. But those things could be challenged in court.

If you have voted for all of the things over the past decades to increase the federal government's influence over our lives, then you may regret a President Trump. He shows no shyness in using his powers to thump his foes. I hope we all get a good dose of constitutional arguments over the next 4 years.

If Hillary is elected, ho hum. Just tea partiers yapping about archaic ideas of the founders. And the long march to a stronger and more intrusive federal government continues, aided and abetted by a compliant media.

If Trump is elected, maybe the left (media included) will find common cause with those of us who believe in limited federal powers. Not likely, as this level of looking at things escapes most people.  But maybe. I can have hope.

[Chilli Dipper]

47 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

This ^.   In 2008 the Republicans helped out Obama by offering up a moderate conservative as a Presidential candidate in McCain and compounded the problem when McCain selected Sarah Palin as his Vice President.    

He also said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" when our banking system teetered on the edge of collapse. Then, he made a show out of suspending his campaign so he could fix the financial crisis right away, but not before spending a full day in New York speaking to news organizations.

[saevel25]

48 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

I'll take that bet. The only person in politics more scuzzy than Hillary is Trump. She isn't sweating Trump he's a dream come true for her.

I would take the bet that he claims Trump is going to demolish Hillary.

By definition a landslide is over 66% of the electoral votes. Given history doesn't mean much here. Yet, I would bet it will not be a landslide. Trump does not get more than 66% the Electoral Votes. At best I think he'll get high 50's if he really gains momentum.

One extreme case,

Scenario 3: Trump improves by 10% in each state's polling; Trump wins 305-233 by earning an additional 52 electoral votes in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire 

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/05/05/ny-times-upshot-electoral-map-looks-challenging-for-trump_289.html#.VyzpjqPD-DY

 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

By definition a landslide is over 66% of the electoral votes. Given history doesn't mean much here. Yet, I would bet it will not be a landslide. Trump does not get more than 66% the Electoral Votes. At best I think he'll get high 50's if he really gains momentum.

Where is this defined? Is it universally agreed to?

Seems to me even 60/40 could be viewed by many as a landslide given how close races tend to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide_victory doesn't mention anything about 66%.

[Braivo]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I would take the bet that he claims Trump is going to demolish Hillary.

By definition a landslide is over 66% of the electoral votes. Given history doesn't mean much here. Yet, I would bet it will not be a landslide. Trump does not get more than 66% the Electoral Votes. At best I think he'll get high 50's if he really gains momentum.

One extreme case,

Scenario 3: Trump improves by 10% in each state's polling; Trump wins 305-233 by earning an additional 52 electoral votes in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire 

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/05/05/ny-times-upshot-electoral-map-looks-challenging-for-trump_289.html#.VyzpjqPD-DY

 

I didn't know there was a literal definition of landslide. Man, nothing gets by you. You get my point. 

So are you betting for, or against, a large Trump victory?

[saevel25]

49 minutes ago, iacas said:

Where is this defined? Is it universally agreed to?

Seems to me even 60/40 could be viewed by many as a landslide given how close races tend to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide_victory doesn't mention anything about 66%.

No United States Presidental Election listed as a landslide on wiki has had less than 70% electoral votes for the winner. Defining something as a landslide is with hindsight. Maybe it should be 70% until it's labeled otherwise. I thought hedging down a bit was better. 

It might be more better to look at it in terms of popular vote as well.

51 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Sonare you betting for, or against, a large Trump victory?

Against. Ill max him out at 325. That's below what Obama beat McCain in 2008. 

 

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

No United States Presidental Election listed as a landslide on wiki has had less than 70% electoral votes for the winner. Defining something as a landslide is with hindsight. Maybe it should be 70% until it's labeled otherwise. I thought hedging down a bit was better. 

It might be more better to look at it in terms of popular vote as well.

Against. Ill max him out at 325. That's below what Obama beat McCain in 2008. 

 

If you look at the last election, it's going to be tough for Trump to get beyond 325.  He'd have to win the mid west states, Florida and Ohio to even get close.  

[Dave2512]

I just hope something gets done next term. If Hillary wins it's 4 years of political roadblocks. If Trump wins and doesn't work miracles his golden parachute is he inherited Obama's mess (if such a mess actually exists). Nothing about the primaries, specifically how divided the country is, suggests we are heading for easy street.

[Papa Steve 55]

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

 

I have been right about Trump since August. He will win this election in a landslide unlike anything we've seen since Reagan. His strength and willingness to put America first will appeal to a vast majority of this nation. 

I think your right about the landslide, but it will be more like Nixon/McGovern with the GOP on the short end.

[rkim291968]

Right now, polls have Clinton beating Trump by a large margin.   If there is going to be a landslide victory, it will be Clinton's.   What can Trump do to turn the tide?   Women have long memory, and Trump has 70% unfavorable rating from women.   Hispanics, blacks will not vote for Trump either.   Those are pretty large voting blocks.   

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

Right now, polls have Clinton beating Trump by a large margin.   If there is going to be a landslide victory, it will be Clinton's.   What can Trump do to turn the tide?   Women have long memory, and Trump has 70% unfavorable rating from women.   Hispanics, blacks will not vote for Trump either.   Those are pretty large voting blocks.   

A lot can change in 5 months, Hillary shouldn't be hiring any interior decorators for the White House just yet.  

[RandallT]

My "go to" site for modeling elections:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

In the scenario screenshotted, I simply tweaked the "Non-College Educate white vote" to vote more Republican than 2012, with slightly higher turnout. You can see the dot moved up and right a bit.

I tweaked the black turnout to go down slightly, and shift a hair to Republican. (Obama not on ballot)

I tweaked Hispanic turnout up higher. (Trump might increase turnout due to stance on immigration)

Those 3 tweaks were enough for a 50-48 popular vote win and a 306-232 electoral vote win.

Try your own at the site. Kinda cool. As you tweak settings, you can see which states move from Dem to Rep, get darker shades, etc.

[Chilli Dipper]

21 minutes ago, RandallT said:

My "go to" site for modeling elections:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

In the scenario screenshotted, I simply tweaked the "Non-College Educate white vote" to vote more Republican than 2012, with slightly higher turnout. You can see the dot moved up and right a bit.

I tweaked the black turnout to go down slightly, and shift a hair to Republican. (Obama not on ballot)

I tweaked Hispanic turnout up higher. (Trump might increase turnout due to stance on immigration)

Those 3 tweaks were enough for a 50-48 popular vote win and a 306-232 electoral vote win.

Try your own at the site. Kinda cool. As you tweak settings, you can see which states move from Dem to Rep, get darker shades, etc.

As hard as I rig the numbers, I see no path for @Braivo's predicted 66-percent Trump landslide. Perhaps he'd like to give it a shot and report back to us.