Presidential Race 2016

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

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.

I still don't agree that 66% is the minimum for a landslide.

@Braivo what's your definition?

[Chilli Dipper]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

I still don't agree that 66% is the minimum for a landslide.

Considering the most lopsided presidential election in modern times ended 61-38 (Johnson-Goldwater, 1964), he must think the only landslide in American presidential history was when James Monroe ran unopposed in 1820. FUN FACT: even as the incumbent in a single-party election, Monroe's vote share topped out at 80 percent nationwide.

[Gunther]

A landslide would be anything over 10 points, so 55-45 could be considered such.  Hasn't happened since '84 so it's rare in a presidential election.  I don't really seeing it happening this time either but I do believe Trump will get the victory by picking off FL, MI, PA, and OH, plus NV, or at least 4 of those.

Work to do, both candidates are renown for saying dumb shit but I think Trump recovers better because his base is much, much more ardent than Clinton's.  We'll see...

[saevel25]

12 hours ago, RandallT said:

My "go to" site for modeling elections:

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

The fun one is move the Hispanic to 98% of Hispanics vote for Trump. Then move the voter turn out for Hispanics to 60% and Texas switches to Blue.

12 hours ago, iacas said:

I still don't agree that 66% is the minimum for a landslide.

I wonder if it has more to do with Popular Vote. Obama won his election over McCain 365 to 173, but he only won the popular vote by 7%. That election was never considered a landslide victory.

I found this, 

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Electoral-College/a/How-Much-Is-A-Landslide.htm

Quote

Defining a Landslide

One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent.

There are variations of the 15-point landslide definition. The online political-news source Politico has defined a landslide election as being on in which the winning candidate beats his opponent by at least 10 percentage points, for example. And the well known political blogger Nate Silver, of The New York Times, has defined a landslide district as being one in which a presidential vote margin deviated by at least 20 percentage points from the national result. Political scientists Hill and Kathleen Thompson Hill and say a landslide occurs when on candidate is able to win 60 percent of the popular vote.

Electoral College Landslide

Of course, the United States does not elect its presidents by popular vote. It instead uses the Electoral College system. There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs in a presidential race, so how many would a candidate have to win to achieve a landslide?

Again, there is no legal or constitutional definition of a landslide in a presidential election. But political journalists have offered their own suggested guidelines for determining a landslide victory over the years. One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes.

Maybe it's a combination of both. You can have a close popular vote and still get a pretty high electoral vote. 

 

 

[saevel25]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/05/07/gary-johnson-gop-trump-alternative.cnn

Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson polls at 11%!!! 

Of course both parties try their hardest to keep third party candidates out of the polls and out of consideration. I'm glad to see a third party candidate finally polling at a decent percentage. 

 

[Golfingdad]

24 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/05/07/gary-johnson-gop-trump-alternative.cnn

Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson polls at 11%!!! 

Of course both parties try their hardest to keep third party candidates out of the polls and out of consideration. I'm glad to see a third party candidate finally polling at a decent percentage. 

Seems like this would be a good year for a third party candidate to make some noise.  If there was ever a year where a large swath of the middle didn't like either candidate, I think it's this year.  Not to mention large swaths on the extremes too.

P.S. Man, you guys spent a lot of energy debating the definition of "landslide." :P

[Braivo]

On 5/7/2016 at 11:25 PM, iacas said:

I still don't agree that 66% is the minimum for a landslide.

@Braivo what's your definition?

When I used the word landslide I never had an exact number in mind, never even crossed my mind that there might be an official definition for what constitutes one. I think it qualifies under the "you know it when you see it" type of definition. 

I predict Trump's victory will be clear and decisive. He will far exceed his current polling numbers and win states no one will predict he can win. I'm not going to pick a number because if Trump comes in 1% under @saevel25 will come back with "see, it wasn't a landslide!" 

 

[saevel25]

10 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I predict Trump's victory will be clear and decisive. He will far exceed his current polling numbers and win states no one will predict he can win. I'm not going to pick a number because if Trump comes in 1% under @saevel25 will come back with "see, it wasn't a landslide!" 

Since "landslide" is arbitrary, though a few political historians think it's 70%, I wouldn't really care otherwise. If Trump gets above 60% I would say it's a landslide due the circumstances of this election. 

The major questions will be. 

1. Will he overcome the loss of GOP votes if the party splits? He's already said he doesn't need the GOP. Yet the GE is a entirely different animal. Obama steam rolled Romney because Romney didn't spend enough money early and didn't optimize the ground game at the local level. The GOP has that network in place and ready to use. It would be a big mistake to not use it out of spite.  
2. Will he be able to win over moderate votes, or will they just stay home and not vote due to the overall unfavorable rating both candidates have?  The question is, why vote at all if these are the two candidates you are giving us? 
3. Can he swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota if he doesn't turn a state like New York to his side? 
4. Will the Latino vote doom him in a states like Arizona or Texas? If the Latino turnout gets to a record proportion then Texas could go Blue. 
5. If Gary Johnson gets steam as a 3rd party option, will that hurt Trump more than Hillary because those who vote for Libertarian are mostly former conservative aligned people who went independent? 

 

 

[Chilli Dipper]

42 minutes ago, Braivo said:

When I used the word landslide I never had an exact number in mind, never even crossed my mind that there might be an official definition for what constitutes one. I think it qualifies under the "you know it when you see it" type of definition. 

I predict Trump's victory will be clear and decisive. He will far exceed his current polling numbers and win states no one will predict he can win. I'm not going to pick a number because if Trump comes in 1% under @saevel25 will come back with "see, it wasn't a landslide!" 

 

Trump won the GOP nomination despite underperforming in relation to his poll numbers in most states prior to the New York primary. If he hasn't shown the ability to exceed polling expectations with Republican primary voters until his opponents had no path to the nomination, how can he expect to exceed them in the general?

Note that the current RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Clinton leading by 6.5 percentage points.

[Patch]

3 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Trump won the GOP nomination despite underperforming in relation to his poll numbers in most states prior to the New York primary. If he hasn't shown the ability to exceed polling expectations with Republican primary voters until his opponents had no path to the nomination, how can he expect to exceed them in the general?

Note that the current RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Clinton leading by 6.5 percentage points.

Polls don't mean squat, and are biased towards the group that pays to have them done....in their favor.  Clinton may win via the electoral vote, and with the help of the GOP elete, but polls have been historically wrong in this election cycle. 

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Trump won the GOP nomination despite underperforming in relation to his poll numbers in most states prior to the New York primary. If he hasn't shown the ability to exceed polling expectations with Republican primary voters until his opponents had no path to the nomination, how can he expect to exceed them in the general.

Hard to say. It depends on who is answering those polls and also the voter turn out for the opposition to Trump. 

Example, you have 100,000 possible voters. Trump is projected to get 48%, Cruz 28%, Kasich 26%. 

Trump: 48,000
Cruz: 28,000
Kasich: 26,000
 

Let's say that 6,000 of the possible voters for Kasich didn't show up. Now the percentages are, 

Trump: 51%
Cruz: 29%
Kasich: 21%

Let's say that Cruz lost 8000 voters in addition to Kasich's 6000

Trump: 56%
Cruz: 23%
Kasich: 23%

End result is Trump wins by +33 versus the +20 he was projected to. It might have been likely that the voters for Kasich and Cruz were seeing a losing battle and didn't vote. That is an impossibility in the General Election because the GE voting is not spread out over months. The likelihood of people not voting because they know the outcome is extremely low. 

Assuming Trump will exceed his values in the GE might not be a good thing. The primaries do not reflect the GE. 

 

[newtogolf]

Trump seems to be moving left with a few of his viewpoints which was the worst fear of many in the GOP.  

In his last few speeches and interviews he's moved from being against a higher minimum wage and raising taxes on the wealthy to willing to compromise on the minimum wage and raising taxes on the wealthy.   None of these are deal breakers for me but they may be the start of a pattern where he moves left on issues like gun control and illegal aliens as well.  

He also isn't making much of an effort in unifying the GOP, given his recent attacks of the Bush clan, Graham and Romney.  While he has a right to be upset that Jeb and Graham are going against the pledge they all took to support the GOP nominee, attacking them isn't going to help him win votes.  

At some point the personal attacks on GOP members and Hillary have to stop and he has to start to discuss his platform and the real issues the country faces.   

[Braivo]

10 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Since "landslide" is arbitrary, though a few political historians think it's 70%, I wouldn't really care otherwise. If Trump gets above 60% I would say it's a landslide due the circumstances of this election. 

So, not 66%? 

Anything in the high 50s or above is a landslide IMO, that is a 15-20 point margin of victory. Substantial. A popular vote that high would likely net an electoral college vote of 70-80% or more. 

10 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Trump won the GOP nomination despite underperforming in relation to his poll numbers in most states prior to the New York primary. If he hasn't shown the ability to exceed polling expectations with Republican primary voters until his opponents had no path to the nomination, how can he expect to exceed them in the general?

Note that the current RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Clinton leading by 6.5 percentage points.

He has exceeded every single expectation set forth so far. The only thing he "underperformed" were biased media polls done at the last minute to try to stump him before each primary. He did all of this despite having over 60,000 attack ads run against him. 

27 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Trump seems to be moving left with a few of his viewpoints which was the worst fear of many in the GOP.  

He doesn't need the GOP, they have done nothing to support his run thus far. His opponents, funded by the GOP elite, spent $628m against him and he still got the nomination while spending under $50m. 

Those voting for him know that his policy positions are liberal. This isn't a surprise to anyone. He stood on stage, at a GOP debate, and said he supported Planned Parenthood. This is what makes his appeal vast. He combines the liberal social positions that the majority of this nation support with a strong frame of putting America first, a combination unheard of in modern politics that the vast center of the political spectrum has craved. 

[saevel25]

47 minutes ago, Braivo said:

So, not 66%?

Anything in the high 50s or above is a landslide IMO, that is a 15-20 point margin of victory. Substantial. A popular vote that high would likely net an electoral college vote of 70-80% or more.

I wasn't talking 70% popular vote, I was talking winning 70% of the Electoral College vote.

Look at 2008, Obama won 365 Electoral Votes (67%). He only won 52.9% of the Popular Vote. That is what happens when you have Winner Take All for all but two of the states when it comes to allocating Electoral Votes.

Regan won 97% of the electoral votes in 1984 but only got 58.8% of the Popular Vote. It just depends on the states you win.

 

47 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He stood on stage, at a GOP debate, and said he supported Planned Parenthood.

If he supports Planned Parenthood then there is probably a good percentage of people who will not vote for him or Hillary. My Uncle will not vote for anybody who supports Planned Parenthood. For some people voting for a person who does it tantamount to supporting murder.

47 minutes ago, Braivo said:

 He combines the liberal social positions that the majority of this nation support with a strong frame of putting America first, a combination unheard of in modern politics that the vast center of the political spectrum has craved.

Now he's backing off his conservative economic stances. He's not set on maintain a low minimum wage. He's not set on keeping the top tax bracket at 25%.

It's a bit interesting that he's claimed these conservative issues only to back off them as soon as he won the GOP primary. I think it would have done his campaign a better service if he actually campaigned on being more of a compromiser. To me this reeks of pandering to the more conservative voters, acting just like an established politician, and start switching your views as soon as you know you have it wrapped up.

 

 

 

 

 

[newtogolf]

22 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Now he's backing off his conservative economic stances. He's not set on maintain a low minimum wage. He's not set on keeping the top tax bracket at 25%.

It's a bit interesting that he's claimed these conservative issues only to back off them as soon as he won the GOP primary. I think it would have done his campaign a better service if he actually campaigned on being more of a compromiser. To me this reeks of pandering to the more conservative voters, acting just like an established politician, and start switching your views as soon as you know you have it wrapped up.

Policy bait and switch was the biggest risk imo of him getting the nomination and his recent actions seem to indicate that it was a real concern.  Many will view these "compromises" on minimum wage and taxing the rich as a move in the right direction but this has the potential of alienating the core GOP and spawning a third party candidate to ensure he doesn't win.  

[rehmwa]

12 hours ago, saevel25 said:

5.  because those who vote for Libertarian are mostly former conservative aligned people who went independent?

Which is funny and result of the brain washing that the left (and right evangelicals) do.  There really should be even more appeal to those on the left as the Libertarian platform should appeal even more to the social liberty types of the left (it fits their vision without the intrusive bullying that they imagine is needed but just causes more harm long term).

Left and Right wing - more government intrusion (just depends on the areas they want to focus on intruding) - this is neither good nor evil, just the net effect is more socialization of the populace

Libertarian - less intrusion (spend less, interfere less)

I'm hoping that any 3rd party will get a TON of traction from both sides - and not just because Hillary and Donald are horrific people, but because people will finally do a bit of research and realize that the Dem and Rep philosophies really don't fit the majority of how the people really think.  Of course, I'm biased to Libertarian, but there are other alternatives too.  And although Gary J is a bit mique toast for me, he says 'mostly' the right stuff - it would be nice to see someone more Ron Paul-ish step up....

[Chilli Dipper]

30 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Policy bait and switch was the biggest risk imo of him getting the nomination and his recent actions seem to indicate that it was a real concern.  Many will view these "compromises" on minimum wage and taxing the rich as a move in the right direction but this has the potential of alienating the core GOP and spawning a third party candidate to ensure he doesn't win.  

That's part of the reason why my position on this race is "Trump can't win, but Hillary can definitely lose," at least until some other dynamic is injected into the campaign. It's hard to see where Trump can win on the basis of policy, because he's staked so much of his platform on positions that are both extremist and ideologically inconsistent. Recanting on increasing the minimum wage will help him with working-class whites, but not with small-business owners. Raising taxes on the highest brackets may be met with indifference by corporate-type Republicans, but Club for Growth-type conservatives will be furious. Playing fast and loose with the national debt plays well with those who see the consequences as starving the government beast, but horribly with those who see the consequences as disastrous to their bottom line. Ambivalence on abortion issues doesn't endanger his support with economic conservatives, but it may be enough to keep a lot of social conservatives at home on Election Day.

The only thing that may keep the Republican coalition together is the idea of stopping "that bitch Hillary" from reaching the White House. The jury's out on whether that alone will be enough to turn the tables.

[Braivo]

22 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I wasn't talking 70% popular vote, I was talking winning 70% of the Electoral College vote.

Look at 2008, Obama won 365 Electoral Votes (67%). He only won 52.9% of the Popular Vote. That is what happens when you have Winner Take All for all but two of the states when it comes to allocating Electoral Votes.

Regan won 97% of the electoral votes in 1984 but only got 58.8% of the Popular Vote. It just depends on the states you win.

 

If he supports Planned Parenthood then there is probably a good percentage of people who will not vote for him or Hillary. My Uncle will not vote for anybody who supports Planned Parenthood. For some people voting for a person who does it tantamount to supporting murder.

Now he's backing off his conservative economic stances. He's not set on maintain a low minimum wage. He's not set on keeping the top tax bracket at 25%.

It's a bit interesting that he's claimed these conservative issues only to back off them as soon as he won the GOP primary. I think it would have done his campaign a better service if he actually campaigned on being more of a compromiser. To me this reeks of pandering to the more conservative voters, acting just like an established politician, and start switching your views as soon as you know you have it wrapped up.

He is pro-life, but he supports the continuation of planned parenthood as a vehicle for women's health issues. 

Every Presidential candidate for either party moves toward the middle immediately following the nomination, every single one. This is nothing new and not unexpected. 

The only issue that will lose him support if he wavers is immigration. If he softens his stance on The Wall or Muslim immigration his base will erode quickly. 

3 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

That's part of the reason why my position on this race is "Trump can't win, but Hillary can definitely lose," at least until some other dynamic is injected into the campaign. It's hard to see where Trump can win on the basis of policy, because he's staked so much of his platform on positions that are both extremist and ideologically inconsistent. Recanting on increasing the minimum wage will help him with working-class whites, but not with small-business owners. Raising taxes on the highest brackets may be met with indifference by corporate-type Republicans, but Club for Growth-type conservatives will be furious. Playing fast and loose with the national debt plays well with those who see the consequences as starving the government beast, but horribly with those who see the consequences as disastrous to their bottom line. Ambivalence on abortion issues doesn't endanger his support with economic conservatives, but it may be enough to keep a lot of social conservatives at home on Election Day.

The only thing that may keep the Republican coalition together is the idea of stopping "that bitch Hillary" from reaching the White House. The jury's out on whether that alone will be enough to turn the tables.

Club for Growth has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to stop Trump. He could pander to them and still not get their support, he knows this. His better play is reach left and get moderate, working class Dems to support him, which is exactly what he is doing. He is basically telling Club for Growth and the Paul Ryans of the world to shove off. He will win big without their support, in fact, these are the type of people he hopes to lay waste to in this cycle. 

When time comes to cast a ballot, even the most traditional conservatives will be unable to vote for Hillary, there is simply too much at stake with Supreme Court nominations hanging in the balance. They will hold their breath and vote for Trump, but by that point he will have won over the big majority of the working class public, which tends to sit just left of center.