Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 20, 2017, 01:20:43 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1186
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The TRUMP inauguration thread on: January 20, 2017, 12:26:22 pm
Short speech. Very populist

I wish he would have said "us" instead of "you."

Oh, well, we now have a president that had a guest spot on The Jeffersons

Movin' on up ....
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The TRUMP inauguration thread on: January 20, 2017, 12:19:46 pm

Noticed it as well.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: December 27, 2016, 01:24:13 am


1. What enduring coalition was formed here? Trump deepened support among working class whites, a demographic that Republicans already had strong ties to and one that is declining in numbers as they age and people become more and more educated. Every year this group's electoral influence shrinks noticeably as college educated white influence increases (at least as a share of the white electorate)

We don't know what coalitions will be permanent or not. 

Quote
2. Trump bombed among the voters that will replace the aging boomers/silent generation people. In fact, he did 4% worse among the 30-44 group than Romney, which is something you'd expect as the more liberal Millennials and younger genx'ers age into that bracket - These voters are heavily Democratic and have shown little movement away from the Democratic Party as they have aged.

And, there is no guarantee that the current 30-44 will not turn to Trump.  For example, in 1984, Reagan won across all demographic groups, except African Americans.  He didn't will all in 1980.

Quote
3. Trump's victory was carried out in major part by peeling off rust belt states that the Democratic nominee was a terrible fit for and due to her brain trust's infinite wisdom, almost completely neglected. In addition to this, these states have been bleeding electoral votes and House seats for years now and are set to continue into the future. This is literally the opposite of an enduring coalition.

Ah, Wisconsin, yes.  Pennsylvania?  Hillary almost moved here.   

Quote
4. In all likelihood Trump is going to have a rough 4 years. He isn't even president yet and influence peddling, stock market tricks and crony capitalism is hanging over his transition like a dark cloud. This has great potential to be the most corrupt administration since Nixon, or perhaps further back. Of course various Trump supporters would dispute this, and I'm not really going to argue it simply because I feel like Trump himself and his transition's comings and goings speak for themselves.

When/if the Trump administration's unsavory activities spill into the limelight and his supporters get increasingly annoyed that he isn't fixing their very real problems, support for him will waver if a proper opposition is formed.

Way to early.

Quote

5. Trump is not going to help Republicans expand their minority outreach. He did better, but doing as good as some pre-Obama candidates is not an achievement. Republicans need to do a lot better to remain viable in a future where the minority share of the electorate continues to surge every 4 years. Any idea of a Republican 'realignment' has to include major inroads with minority voters. That did not happen.

Again, it may not involve any "minority" inroads.

Quote
6. People don't like Trump. They don't trust him and they don't even think he has the temperament, yet they voted for him anyway because his opponent was worse in their eyes. She was the personification of the corrupt establishment and wealthy elite, and there is a good argument in that Trump would have lost to someone like Biden, Warren and so on. This isn't a game-changer. This is a very awful person who got a very lucky break.

Again, we don't know what the future will hold. 


Quote

Plus, I'd also like to state that I think true realignments that occur in just one election are exceedingly rare and often made possible because of existing trends. Realignments in general take place over time and by the time they reach critical mass, usually result in some blowout elections and periods of sustained party dominance. Pretty much nothing suggests any sort of continued Republican dominance. The question now is when they are swept away, not if.

The one thing we didn't have this time was a blowout.  I see realignments taking place over 6 year period (1978-84; 1930-36).  We did have a precursor event in 2014, in the midterms.  We also have a shift in some states.  2018 may be the key.  If we were to see the Republicans hold or increase their numbers in the House and dramatically gain seats in the Senate, we might see a realignment.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: December 27, 2016, 01:05:02 am

I think that 2016 is certainly the beginning of a realignment ... towards the Democrats.

EDIT: Let me elaborate a bit. The Lincoln Industrial realignment had the North and industrial labor and business behind it, and they were growing. The New Dealers had the working class behind it, which was hugely behind FDR. Reagan had the growing suburban majority. What's the Trump realigning group?

1.  I'm talking about a realignment, but not necessarily a Republican one.  Looking at the original page, it would have been a Democratic one, long term.

2.  Trump seems to have populists, the white working class, and the old social conservatives.  There was not one single group in the famous "New Deal Coalition."

1. Are you of the opinion we're moving towards a Democratic realignment in the coming decade or undecided? Can't really tell from your posts.

2. Interestingly, the groups you list in the Trump coalition are all shrinking. No religion is the fastest growing religious group; white working class folks are shrinking (by educational status), and the populists...well. Any long term GOP populist groups would need Latinos within the GOP coalition. That's true, the New Deal coalition united urban immigrant whites (including the old Polish & Eastern European contingents), African Americans, and the South.

Actually, I am looking at signs to see if one is occurring.  I thought that, if they had been a Republican victory in 2008, we might have seen one 2012.

I am not certain that they are shirking, and least as a percentage of actual voters. 
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: December 26, 2016, 03:38:47 pm

I think that 2016 is certainly the beginning of a realignment ... towards the Democrats.

EDIT: Let me elaborate a bit. The Lincoln Industrial realignment had the North and industrial labor and business behind it, and they were growing. The New Dealers had the working class behind it, which was hugely behind FDR. Reagan had the growing suburban majority. What's the Trump realigning group?

1.  I'm talking about a realignment, but not necessarily a Republican one.  Looking at the original page, it would have been a Democratic one, long term.

2.  Trump seems to have populists, the white working class, and the old social conservatives.  There was not one single group in the famous "New Deal Coalition."
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: December 26, 2016, 01:39:08 pm
On the second point, there have been several presidents and major party nominees that have not held elective office. Taylor, Scott, McClellan, Hancock, Grant, and Eisenhower were generals; Parker and Hughes were judges.  Cass, Taft, and Hoover had been in the Cabinet.

Only Wendel Wilkie (R) and Donald Trump had never held elective office, was not a general, a judge, or held a cabinet post. 
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: December 26, 2016, 12:47:55 pm
A recent article on the possibility of a realignment:  http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/12/donald_trumps_win_was_unusual.html#incart_river_home

There are several indicators, but not an overwhelming number.

1.  The 2014 election was huge, especially in the House.  That can be an indicator, but there are numerous false examples.

2.  In terms of candidate selection, Trump is a rarity in never having held a political office.

3.  In terms of how the election was conducted, Trump's use of Twitter and social media in general would qualify. 

The next thing to look at will be the midterms.  If there is any gain in the House, that would be a clear indication of a realignment.  If the Democrats collapse in the Senate elections, that would be a firm indication.  A Republican gain of 1-2 seats, or a loss, would be a weak indication.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could Trump pull off this map if he makes ALL promises in 2020? on: November 12, 2016, 11:43:19 pm
I'd flip Virginia


This, but CT is a possibility. 
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: H. A. Goodman: Bernie to run again in 2020 on: November 12, 2016, 11:39:13 pm
I know this is crass but will he even be around by then?

This is a major concern of mine. In four years Bernie will be 79 (which is the US life expectancy). We need someone who represents a new generation and the new Democratic Party, not just one.

But if he does get the nomination, he'd better pick a good VP. It will be important.

This.

For some reason, both parties nominated olds.  I frankly questioned how likely it was that either candidate to survive this terms (and I liked Pence more than Kaine).

When my father was my age, he was roughly the same age as the incumbent President.  In this election, both candidates were old enough to be my parents (though Hillary would have been a teenage mother). 
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Do Dems have a losing platform or was Hillary just a bad Candidate? on: November 12, 2016, 11:29:40 pm
She was a bad candidate. Period:

1. No charisma
2. Not very likeable
3. Comes off as an opportunist
4. Seen as a huge liar. For whatever reason Trump seemed to get a pass (or more of a pass) on this despite lying far more than her, and far more shamelessly. But, you know, it is what it is.
5. Seen as corrupt
6. For so many people, seemed to embody almost everything they hated about politics, a problem which was magnified in an election built around populist anger / a repudiation of business as usual.


And (drum roll please)  last but not least:

7. She had 54819290056 problems/scandals/whatever! Whether or not you consider these "scandals" real or just blown out of proportion, people thought they were important and it contributed immensely to her character problems. She spent almost the entire election defending herself against one scandal after another!


You could say the same thing about Trump, except perhaps the first one.  Smiley

I would however add these two things:

8.  Moved too far to the left.  She was basically running against Bernie Sanders, still.  She need to pivot and never did.

9.  This might come into the charisma aspect, but Trump seemed human, and a bit spontaneous.  Flawed, but human. Clinton seemed  rehearsed, at times robotic. 

10.  Clinton looked incompetent.  Looking at her email situation, she was either lying or incompetent.  She chose incompetent.  Look at the state of foreign relations, she looked incompetent.  Clinton was a known quantity, but in looking at her record, it frankly was not a successful one as Secretary of State.  The seeds of her defeat were planted in the Arab Spring. 
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: How did we get this so wrong? on: November 12, 2016, 01:26:57 am
Where? 
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / How did we get this so wrong? on: November 11, 2016, 11:31:01 pm
How did nearly everybody fail to predict at somewhat strong Trump victory?

Seriously, everybody, the posters here, the pollsters, and apparently both campaigns.

In looking at PA and MI in particular, did anyone predict this?
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Process / Re: GOP Sets Out to Prevent Another Donald Trump in 2020 on: November 10, 2016, 12:12:31 pm
You could permit county committees to nominate candidates for delegates, then a regional committee could select from those members, and a state committee can elect from those.

It could be done in states where they don't have party registration. 
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Process / Re: Opinion of Electoral Vote Allocation by Congressional District on: November 10, 2016, 11:59:20 am
How is a presidential gerrymander different than a presidential gerrymander? 
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Process / Re: Does the US have a legitimate electoral system? on: November 10, 2016, 11:52:47 am
Lest we forget, we should that the winning candidate in 1992 and 1996 did not have a plurality of the popular vote, along with 2000 and 2016.  There were three presidential elections in a row where the majority of voters did not vote for the person elected. 
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Lackawana County and Luzerne County, PA on: November 10, 2016, 11:48:19 am
Hillary Clinton happened.

No.

Take a look at Cambria County (where I use to live).  I think Obama carried it in 2008 and lost it in 2012, but fairly closely. 

Trump broke 70% this year.

It has been Trump's appeal to working class and non-urban, non-suburban populations. 
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: November 09, 2016, 04:15:29 am
The deluge may be upon us (not that I'm thrilled about it).
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Home-stretch polling on: November 09, 2016, 04:10:13 am
If there is a 1980 style shift, it will go for Trump.

How many more elections until you stop jacking off to Reagan's 1980 win?

Until the next realignment.  I was talking about 1932 in 1980. 

lol Virginia is a safe D state and the First Lady of Arkansas is losing it by 20 points. there's been a realignment.

Can you say "realignment?"  Good, I knew you could. 
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PA: Trafalgar (R) - Trump + 1 on: November 09, 2016, 04:01:39 am
Did Sucksquehanna change its name to Trafalgar? 

Maybe Susquehanna should change its name to Trafalgar.  LOL. 
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Trump actually appoint a special prosecutor to imprison Clinton? on: November 09, 2016, 03:59:56 am
Obama will pardon her. 
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PA: Trafalgar (R) - Trump + 1 on: November 08, 2016, 06:13:19 pm
Did Sucksquehanna change its name to Trafalgar? 
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Home-stretch polling on: November 08, 2016, 06:11:02 pm
Ah, King, here is my map.

I am not using the map for percentages.  The lighter shades are my tossups, showing a guess of how each will go. 



I am assuming a slight trend to Trump, and looked as past elections.  I have it at:

Clinton:  269
Trump:  269


Where do you get the idea that I have Virginia even as a tossup?  I would be more stunned at Trump winning PA or MN than I would with him winning VA. 
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Home-stretch polling on: November 08, 2016, 05:57:00 pm
If there is a 1980 style shift, it will go for Trump.

How many more elections until you stop jacking off to Reagan's 1980 win?

Until the next realignment.  I was talking about 1932 in 1980. 
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Auto Alliance/ESA/Pulse Opinion: Trump +6 in FL, Clinton leads in NH/OH/PA/NC/NV on: November 08, 2016, 05:55:03 pm
Are they trying to win the award for worst pollster of the year? 
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IBD/TIPP Daily Tracking Poll thread FINAL - Trump + 1/ Trump + 2 on: November 08, 2016, 05:46:15 pm
I think they had Hillary up yesterday?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1186


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines