Presidential Race 2016

[pumaAttack]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

I for one don't want anyone, including Muslims entering the country if they cannot be properly vetted.  

Yes, I am SURE you want the same level of vetting for every Canadian and Englishman entering the country...

 

[Dave2512]

As willy-nilly as Trump's policy positions are it's surprising anyone supports him. Voting republican isn't a religion and this guy is extremely unconventional. Even if he wasn't saying crazy things he would still be flawed.

[Chilli Dipper]

24 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Tsarnaev was born in Kyrgyzstan. As a child, he emigrated with his family to Russia and then, when he was eight years old, to the United States under political asylum.

Not a big number, but not zero either.  Many of the refugees that came over in the past were easier to do background checks on than the Syrians coming over today who have no history or documentation.  

  

Nothing can make us completely safe from the threat of terrorism; a process that has produced 12 people suspected of terrorist activity out of 745,000 (that's 0.001 percent) is literally as safe as it's going to get, and adding the Tsarnaev brothers to that total does not not make a significant change to the overall math. The current administration is trying to accept 10,000 refugees from Syria out of 11 million displaced persons; that's 0.009 percent.

Weeding out that thousandth of a percent is not worth categorically denying entry into this country a group consisting of over one billion people. Let that be the intelligence community's job.

[rehmwa]

20 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Yes, I am SURE you want the same level of vetting for every Canadian and Englishman entering the country...

I'm in another forum frequently where certain types of posts come out.  Veiled statements that other is lying.  Posts that assume the other poster fits some cliched stereotype or caricature of the opposing party or demographic.....

It does nothing but derail good conversation and create posters that just hack at each other.  That forum is toxic this year.  I have to be careful to not let that environment drift over here when I'm posting (and I've failed a few times) - because these are different people here.  We certainly do have a selection of the more 'committed' types that seem to think the others fit into some pre-conceived bucket, but it's better here in that it's more civil and we seem to try to not accuse each other of lying, or making up assumptions about them just because we disagree on subjective crap like politics.

Not that I'm saying anything in particular here

[14ledo81]

7 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I'm in another forum frequently where certain types of posts come out.  Veiled statements that other is lying.  Posts that assume the other poster fits some cliched stereotype or caricature of the opposing party or demographic.....

It does nothing but derail good conversation and create posters that just hack at each other.  That forum is toxic this year.  I have to be careful to not let that environment drift over here when I'm posting (and I've failed a few times) - because these are different people here.  We certainly do have a selection of the more 'committed' types that seem to think the others fit into some pre-conceived bucket, but it's better here in that it's more civil and we seem to try to not accuse each other of lying, or making up assumptions about them just because we disagree on subjective crap like politics.

Not that I'm saying anything in particular here

I would also add, it makes Erik lock the thread......

Civil debate/arguing works so much better anyway.

[rehmwa]

2 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

I would also add, it makes Erik lock the thread......

Civil debate/arguing works so much better anyway.

I actually like the people in this forum (at least much as one can for a bunch of anonymous/faceless people I'll never meet that like to swear at golf balls and be out in the sun).  I'd hate for an election to mess with that.

[Golfingdad]

17 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I actually like the people in this forum (at least much as one can for a bunch of anonymous/faceless people I'll never meet that like to swear at golf balls and be out in the sun).  I'd hate for an election to mess with that.

It doesn't have to be this way, you know.  Without spending too much time doing the math, I'd guesstimate that I've met at least 25-30 people solely through thesandtrap.com.

Newport Cup 2017 is right around the corner ...

[newtogolf]

2 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

Yes, I am SURE you want the same level of vetting for every Canadian and Englishman entering the country...

 

If they are planning on staying here, like the Syrian refugees are, yes I do.  Terrorists come in all colors and nationalities, it's foolish and naive to think anything different.  

[Strandly]

I'll probably end up voting for Trump simply because career politicians are a cancer on this country.

[boogielicious]

14 hours ago, newtogolf said:

If they are planning on staying here, like the Syrian refugees are, yes I do.  Terrorists come in all colors and nationalities, it's foolish and naive to think anything different.  

Some are like Timothy McVeigh to unfortunately. Let's not forget about him and Terry Nichols. 

[Braivo]

The first head to head polls are out since Trump became the presumed nominee. It's a dead heat in the swing states of FL, OH, and PA, much closer than any of those Trump naysayers were predicting. With 5 months until election day I'd say this is quite positive for Trump. Also, you can see that Trump would rather run against Clinton than Sanders. 

 

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

Some are like Timothy McVeigh to unfortunately. Let's not forget about him and Terry Nichols. 

Believe me, I haven't.  Unfortunately, terrorists already in the country (especially citizens) are the worst of them all and hardest to detect.  

Just because there are some mice in the barn doesn't mean that you leave the door open so more mice can come in.  

[saevel25]

From the Quinnipiac Poll,

"This election may be good for divorce lawyers. The gender gap is massive and currently benefits Trump," Brown added. "In Pennsylvania, Clinton’s 19-point lead among women matches Trump’s 21-point margin among men. In Ohio, she is up 7 points among women but down 15 points with men. In Florida she is up 13 points among women but down 13 points among men."

"Trump would do a better job handling the economy, voters say. He also would do a better job handling terrorism, voters in Florida and Ohio say. Pennsylvania voters are divided.

"By wide margins, voters in all three states say Clinton is more intelligent than Trump and by smaller margins, voters in all three states say she has higher moral standards."

It's a battle of the sexes when it comes to this election in the battle ground states.

It's interesting that the percentages for pretty much all the questions were basically the same across all three states. It just goes to show you how general perception controls opinions in these polls. You'd think that one state might have a totally different perception of the candidates, but most of the answers were with in 3-5% from each other across all three states.

I put this together,

Combining reasonably latest polling with states who historically vote democrat no matter who the candidate over the pas 12 elections.

I highlighted the polling on party affiliation color weighting significant leads being double digit.

 

[Gunther]

I love Trump's latest tweet (sorry, can't imbed):  "It is only the people who were not asked to be VP that say they wouldn't accept it."

Don't underestimate his Twitter presence as a factor in his success.  I mean, it's chiefly immigration that has him where he is but he's reaching millions with social media and imo, does it so much more effectively than Hill.  I think it's the personalization from Trump that Hill's tweets lack.

[Braivo]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

From the Quinnipiac Poll,

"This election may be good for divorce lawyers. The gender gap is massive and currently benefits Trump," Brown added. "In Pennsylvania, Clinton’s 19-point lead among women matches Trump’s 21-point margin among men. In Ohio, she is up 7 points among women but down 15 points with men. In Florida she is up 13 points among women but down 13 points among men."

"Trump would do a better job handling the economy, voters say. He also would do a better job handling terrorism, voters in Florida and Ohio say. Pennsylvania voters are divided.

"By wide margins, voters in all three states say Clinton is more intelligent than Trump and by smaller margins, voters in all three states say she has higher moral standards."

It's a battle of the sexes when it comes to this election in the battle ground states.

It's interesting that the percentages for pretty much all the questions were basically the same across all three states. It just goes to show you how general perception controls opinions in these polls. You'd think that one state might have a totally different perception of the candidates, but most of the answers were with in 3-5% from each other across all three states.

I put this together,

Combining reasonably latest polling with states who historically vote democrat no matter who the candidate over the pas 12 elections.

I highlighted the polling on party affiliation color weighting significant leads being double digit.

 

Fantastic analysis. I will be interested to see when more head to head polls come out once the nominees are set. 

Clearly Trump's key to winning is to win over women voters. Up to this point, most of them have a poor perception of him based on media soundbites they've heard. I am curious to see how that changes once they see more of him, especially head to head with Hillary in debates. 

The economy and terrorism will loom large as well. 

3 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I love Trump's latest tweet (sorry, can't imbed):  "It is only the people who were not asked to be VP that say they wouldn't accept it."

Don't underestimate his Twitter presence as a factor in his success.  I mean, it's chiefly immigration that has him where he is but he's reaching millions with social media and imo, does it so much more effectively than Hill.  I think it's the personalization from Trump that Hill's tweets lack.

I thought the same when I saw this tweet as well. 

He is personable and writes his own tweets. HRC has her staff do it and they are canned and robotic. This goes a long way to relating to voters. Also, he speaks truth, like he did here. 

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Clearly Trump's key to winning is to win over women voters. Up to this point, most of them have a poor perception of him based on media soundbites they've heard.

He's been digging his own grave with women voters. If you don't want the poor perception then don't go bashing people like Megyn Kelly. People empathize with demographics associated with them. If you go after someone like Megyn Kelly, who is popular among women conservatives, they will empathize with her over Trump.

I get it, he doesn't like political correctness. That might appeal to more white men than it does women.

32 minutes ago, Braivo said:

The economy and terrorism will loom large as well.

Terrorism isn't as important as you think. For GOP it's more-so, but less-so for Democrats.

GOP: 22%
Democrats: 10%

I suspect Independents are in-between.

Even immigration isn't overly important in the states like Ohio where only 7% of GOP thought that immigration was an issue.

The primary issue is the economy/jobs, which Trump has an edge in that Quinnipiac poll over Hillary. I think he needs to push that more over building this wall fiasco.

 

[Chilli Dipper]

I think women voters are ultimately going to lead to Trump's downfall.

The Republican National Convention is going to expose a lot of rifts in its platform that were already simmering between the establishment and insurgent wings of the party, even before Donald Trump emerged as the presidential front-runner. Trump's best strategy for uniting the party behind him is probably by avoiding policy, and launching vicious personal attacks on Hillary: when they can't agree on the issues, most conservatives can agree on how much they hate her. Those attacks will pay dividends to a certain point, but not if they become primarily based on Clinton's gender.

Conservatives call Hillary Clinton an evil bitch amongst themselves when they feel no need to be civil; Trump has used that word toward women he has publicly feuded with in the past. Does Trump have the self-restraint to not start explicitly calling Hillary a bitch on the campaign trail, or to not repeat it when some insignificant conservative blogger or minor Republican surrogate says it somewhere? I doubt it. If and when that word becomes part of the election narrative, he can forget about catching up in the women's vote, and there's no way to recover from that.

[Braivo]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

He's been digging his own grave with women voters. If you don't want the poor perception then don't go bashing people like Megyn Kelly. People empathize with demographics associated with them. If you go after someone like Megyn Kelly, who is popular among women conservatives, they will empathize with her over Trump.

His interview with her next week should go a long way to helping with that. He goes after men and women equally, he doesn't discriminate. See his latest Joe Scarborough tussle. 

He will win the women voters over before November, at least enough to win handily.