Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2016, 06:52:27 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 526
126  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USA Today/Suffolk National Poll: Clinton +11 on: April 25, 2016, 07:39:31 pm
Looks about right.  I think she ends up winning Ike style against Trump and by somewhere between Obama 2008 and Obama 2012 against Cruz.

If Trump somehow wins in the end, will people ever take those early general election polls seriously?

People should have learned by now never to take early general election polls seriously.

Isn't it hilarious how every Democrat says "These Kasich vs. Clinton numbers are junk because <insert mental gymnastics here>" but is convinced that the Trump vs. Clinton numbers MUST be right. I think it has to do with the fact that they really hate Trump - they want him to get humiliated so badly that they aren't able to distinguish reality from wishful thinking anymore. I mean, I'm not willing to rule out a Clinton landslide (say, 380 EV or so) either if Trump is the nominee, but it's very unlikely to happen. Most Republicans will come home for him in the end and assuming he's no Democratic plant, his worst case scenario is the 2012 map - NC - AZ.

I am a Democrat, and I consider Donald Trump to be the most obnoxious candidate for President who has had a chance to win any electoral votes since George Wallace in 1968. Dubya had his faults, but he was likable enough even if he was utterly shallow.  Those Kasich-Clinton numbers mean something, namely that a reasonable Republican who says nothing stupid would win in 2016. That's what happens after eight years of one President: people want something very different.

Donald Trump scares me for his belligerency.  Every President can be expected to do something aggressive on occasion. But this said, Donald Trump seems ready to beat someone up at every turn. He has said bigoted things and not backed down from them when told of the human consequences.

After eight years of one President, people want something different in style, and after eight years of a cautious President who respects precedent and legal nicety more than  emotion and popular sentiment, who prefers nuance to bellicose confrontation, Donald Trump offers much the opposite. When such leads from one good President to another good President with largely a change of style, as from Eisenhower to Kennedy, we are fine. Obama to Trump would be like Eisenhower to... I doubt that you want to see what I think.

Yes, the projections of Kasich winning over both Clinton and Sanders says something: that in 2020 the incumbent Democrat who does defeat Donald Trump will almost certainly face a challenger much more competent than Donald Trump. Failure as President means defeat. Maybe the Republicans have their equivalent of Bill Clinton who can defeat a President who is basically more of the same that we will still associate with Barack Obama.

Sometimes, polling maps simply show elections that simply do not happen. We saw this with a bunch of matchups that I no longer show. Rubio? Walker? Bush? Huckabee? Carson? Fiorina? Do you care now?

I showed much the same in 2012. Example: Sarah Palin was going to lose about 440-100 in the Electoral College.   

Four years from now the political climate can go from this:



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.   

to something like this:

Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich

 

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.   

Could Hillary Clinton be as ineffective at meeting the political realities of 2017-2020 as Jimmy Carter between 1977 and 1980? Maybe. Just maybe. 
127  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USA Today/Suffolk National Poll: Clinton +11 on: April 25, 2016, 07:00:31 pm
2008. Obama 52.86% of the popular vote and 364 electoral votes. McCain 45.60%/173.



60% saturation, 10% or greater margin of victory

40% saturation, 5-9.99% margin of victory

20% saturation, 4.99% or lesser margin of victory

This was weird. Obama was winning some states by Reagan-like margins and losing some by Mondale-style margins. That's polarization, folks!

The most likely state that she will lose that Obama won in 2008 is Indiana. 2008 in Indiana was a freak, the result of a severe downswing in the economy, some of the highest gasoline prices ever, and a credit crunch that made a mess of the RV industry, something important in Indiana. Workers in the RV are politically conservative, but they don't like getting the shaft from politicians of the Right.  A recent poll shows her losing to Trump there.

Going from 53% to 56% of the popular vote will not be an even swing. Obama maxed out in a bunch of states. Hillary Clinton will gain more in Missouri than in Michigan.

Translating these polls to an electoral result will be tricky. I wouldn't try it:


Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.  

No, I do not believe some of the anomalies. I can hardly imagine Hillary Clinton doing better in Georgia than in Michigan or Wisconsin. I can't imagine her being really close in Kentucky (that poll is from 2015). Neither can I believe that she is behind in Nevada, unless Trump gets popularity for being involved in the casino business. Utah? I saw one tie and one near-tie in which she has a slight lead.

I do not trust any poll from Texas -- that's Texas, with so many regional divides and no good analogue in any other part of America. Mississippi is intriguing.  I see few polls from the Mountain and Deep South, and if Hillary Clinton isn't getting clobbered 80-20 in the white vote, then she could win something in the Deep South.    

If she makes gains among white Southerners and Mormons, then on November 8 a lot of Republicans will be seeking something other than political news.


128  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: AZ-Behavior Research Center: Clinton +7 on: April 25, 2016, 05:25:57 pm
Note that in this poll, Kasich is doing insignificantly better than Cruz.
129  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 25, 2016, 04:05:48 pm
Pennsylvania: Marist, Wall Street Jounal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-look-set-to-build-on-lead-in-pennsylvania-primary-poll-shows-1461502801

Arizona, Rocky Mountain Poll. See above for Hillary Clinton.

North Carolina, PPP, Also see above on Hillary Clinton. 


Bernie Sanders vs. Ted Cruz




Bernie Sanders vs. John Kasich




Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.

130  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: AZ-Behavior Research Center: Clinton +7 on: April 25, 2016, 03:53:26 pm
I don't write off Kasich yet. I have use for his polling numbers.


Senator Bernie Sanders beats all of the GOP contenders by: 54% to 33%
over Trump, 48 % to 34% over Cruz and by 47% to 33% over Kasich.
Democrat Hillary Clinton also bests Trump by a narrower 42% to 35% but then loses in Arizona to Ted Cruz by 43% to 38% and trails John Kasich by 44% to 32%
131  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 25, 2016, 03:49:48 pm
Arizona. Rocky Mountain Poll, which you can hold suspect as it projected Obama to win Arizona at one point in 2012.  

Basically, Donald Trump is the worst match by the GOP in Arizona since... Thomas E. Dewey, who lost to Truman almost 54-44. Dole actually got a higher percentage of the popular vote in Arizona in 1996 than did Dewey in 1948 -- having to compete with Ross Perot for votes.


Senator Bernie Sanders beats all of the GOP contenders by: 54% to 33%
over Trump, 48 % to 34% over Cruz and by 47% to 33% over Kasich.

Democrat Hillary Clinton also bests Trump by a narrower 42% to 35% but then loses in Arizona to Ted Cruz by 43% to 38% and trails John Kasich by 44% to 32%

http://www.brcpolls.com/16/RMP%202016-II-04.pdf

North Carolina, PPP

Quote
(T)he Presidential race looks like it will once again be a toss up in the Tar Heel state. Hillary Clinton ties Donald Trump at 44% head to head, and leads Ted Cruz 45/40. This continues a trend we've been finding a lot lately of Cruz being even more unpopular than Trump. Cruz has a -35 net favorability spread in North Carolina (24/59) which makes Trump's -25 (33/58) look good in comparison. The Republican who would be strongest in the state is John Kasich who leads Clinton 46/39 and Sanders 43/41 but that seems relatively immaterial at this point. Sanders would lead Cruz 46/38 and Trump 46/43.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/04/north-carolina-senate-race-remains-close.html


Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich





Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.










132  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: AZ-Behavior Research Center: Clinton +7 on: April 25, 2016, 03:46:11 pm
Just look at the recent polls of Utah. The difference between the electorates of Arizona and New Mexico are

(1) that New Mexico is more Hispanic, and
(2) Arizona has a huge Mormon population.

A key to conservative successes in Arizona is the Mormon vote. Mormons are typically the most enthusiastic supporters of conservative policies and candidates in the American West. But know well: this time Donald Trump has offended Mormon sensibilities through his prior business dealings. Gambling and booze, both distinctly non-Mormon. Ted Cruz does not do that, and he would get about as much support from Mormons as someone Republican neither Mormon nor from Arizona -- like George W. Bush. (Mitt Romney is a Mormon and John McCain is a Senator from Arizona. Cut Mormon support for a conservative politician by a quarter to a third, and the state suddenly becomes more amenable to a liberal.

With the Hispanic population, which in Arizona is heavily Mexican-American  and the second-largest group of Hispanics are people half Mexican and half Anglo, Donald Trump's call for mass deportation will hit hostile ears. Citizen or not, Mexican-Americans often recognize that someone that they know fairly well is an illegal alien. That could be their daughter's boyfriend.

There never has been much enmity between white Anglo populations and Mexican-Americans. The proposed deportations involve breaking up families, clearly an offense to many conservatives.

Donald Trump will cut the enthusiasm of Mormon conservatives and will get Mexican-Americans more active in the political process. Such is a double-whammy to the GOP in Arizona. Donald Trump could get Arizona to vote almost like New Mexico, which is now almost as Democratic as Massachusetts.

Note: Cruz does OK in Arizona.     

133  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will the Cruzich Collusion help or hurt Trump? on: April 25, 2016, 01:17:27 pm
Is strategic voting really a thing?  Let's say I'm a moderate Indiana Republican who wants to see Kasich nominated.  Do I strategically vote Cruz?  Because if I'm a Kasich supporter I probably see Cruz as a lunatic.

More than likely I stay home, or I switch parties and vote Hillary so there's someone who can defeat Trump in the general.

The ultimate strategic voting is as such: if your Party's nominee should prove a disastrous choice, someone who would bring about a depression or a military/diplomatic debacle or offend most of your sensibilities, then vote for the candidate of the other party. Three things can go right:

1. You may have elected a President who solves some problems.

OK, without Watergate and the other dirty-tricks stuff, Nixon was an adequate President. I doubt that a majority of Democrats who voted for Nixon over McGovern long had regrets about voting for Nixon.

Many liberals may despise Ronald Reagan, but for all his offenses to liberal sensibilities, he at least presided over the end of the disconcerting inflation of the 1970s. America started to get some respect in the world that it had lost in recent years. He did right about Grenada... and he did right with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Now let's get to Barack Obama. After the abject failure that we had as President before him, 'more of the same' or even 'much of the same' would have been bad for us. He took foreign policy back to the Bush foreign policy -- that of the elder Bush, whose foreign policy has been adequate enough for imitation by Bill Clinton. I didn't expect him to work so well with the military and with intelligence agencies as he did, but Osama bin Laden didn't expect that either.  Putting an end to the most dangerous meltdown of the American economy since that of 1929-1932 may not fully be his doing, but he certainly didn't get in the way of anything necessary to stop the collapse.

All the stuff about him not loving America? He knows its faults. He worked with those faults. Dislike his culture? Does that matter?

I see Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan having much the same skill sets; the difference is that about 5% of the American people will not vote for a black man unless he is a stooge for right-wing interests. A white male doing what Barack Obama did as President would have likely won something like a 45-state landslide re-election.

2. We get a mediocre, one-term President, and we get a better choice from your Party the next time.

The election of Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford in 1976 may have been a blessing in disguise for Republicans. I can imagine Ronald Reagan losing to Ted Kennedy in 1980 due to partisan fatigue over the Ford Administration.  Dukakis losing to the elder Bush in 1988? Maybe Clinton was better than Dukakis ever would have been.  I have never heard anyone criticize the elder Bush for a mistaken approach to the collapse of Communism or to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Panama? Become ferociously anti-American and get involved in the trafficking of drugs as a military strongman, and you might reasonably expect to be overthrown and sent to a federal prison. Those were the three most critical tests of the  Presidency of the elder Bush, and he did them so well that all but one subsequent President has followed the playbook. The one who didn't follow that playbook (paradoxically his son) got America into a disaster. 

3. The President elected at the time gets enmeshed in a disaster of war, foreign policy, or the overall economy that, even if not his fault, was inevitable anyway.

Maybe your Party would be better off if the calamity happens on the watch of the President in the other Party. Think of the 1929 Stock Market Crash and ensuing events.  We will never know. Few Americans realized in the early 1960s that the Communist insurgency was certain to win because the government of South Vietnam offended a large part of the populace for reasons other than economics.   Nobody had a clue that one of America's biggest allies going into the late 1970s (Iran) would become a political tinderbox. 

Would Al Smith been more effective than Herbert Hoover in dealing with the economic meltdown? Maybe not. Would Barry Goldwater have handled the Vietnam buildup any differently? Probably with even more vigor, betting heavier in a bad 'game'. Would you as a partisan Republican prefer that Jimmy Carter got caught in stagflation and the consequences of the collapse of the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran?

Having the better President now is the best for all of us. Getting a better President four years later might be better than wasting time with one that you think OK this time but that 55% of voters reject the next time. 

Kasich 2020 might be possible if Hillary Clinton wins and proves mediocre or simply unlucky. Kasich 2020 will be impossible if President Trump or President Cruz proves a disaster.     
134  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Today (April 25) is the midpoint between Iowa and the Convention on: April 25, 2016, 12:21:54 pm
And tomorrow night we will likely have some certainty of who wins the conventions. I would now guess that both Clinton and Trump have reduced their chances of losing the nominations of their Parties to actuarial risk -- basically, beware of stray lightning bolts.
135  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton or Sanders/Trump/a conservative independent on: April 25, 2016, 12:18:46 pm
I'm locking this thread because I have begun to cover this in the statewide polling for the general election of 2016.
136  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WMUR/UNH-NH: Clinton, Sanders lead Trump, Cruz by a lot on: April 25, 2016, 12:10:30 pm
Pennsylvania was much closer at this time in 2012 and 2008 (if one ignores Kasich).
137  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will the Cruzich Collusion help or hurt Trump? on: April 25, 2016, 08:46:02 am
Third alternative -- too little, too late.
138  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WMUR/UNH-NH: Clinton, Sanders lead Trump, Cruz by a lot on: April 24, 2016, 05:41:44 pm
Kasich: 50
Clinton: 36

Totally safe D!


Jesy Christ       99
Clinton              1

Hillary is clearly unelectable.

Not to mention that Kasich would lose NH by a bigger margin than Romney. I mean, Democrats are running a white woman this time and not a black male. Good ol' Granite State voters are going to like that.

John Kasich has become a practical stand-in for "Generic Republican", who has gone deep into hibernation already.

Why would Kasich lose when he leads Hillary by 14?
139  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PA-NBC/WSJ/Marist: Clinton leads Cruz by 11 and Trump by 15 on: April 24, 2016, 05:40:28 pm
Are you telling me FOX News lied to us?

FoX News uses objective pollsters. My experience with them is that they are literally fair and balanced with polling, if not with about anything else politically charged. 
140  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 24, 2016, 09:06:53 am


http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-look-set-to-build-on-lead-in-pennsylvania-primary-poll-shows-1461502801


Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich





Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.









141  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PA-NBC/WSJ/Marist: Clinton leads Cruz by 11 and Trump by 15 on: April 24, 2016, 08:58:04 am
2008/2012 in Pennsylvania again.
142  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Is NH still a swing state? on: April 24, 2016, 08:02:50 am
TNvolunteer, how about you actually give us some proof as to why you think that New Hampshire is a Democratic state?
It doesn't vote for Republicans anymore. Next question?
That's...that's stupid.

Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada haven't voted Republican in eight years. Are they solid Democratic states too?

Pennsylvania and Michigan haven't voted Republican since 1988. Wisconsin hasn't since 1984. Minnesota hasn't voted Republican since 1972. Are they all solidly Democratic?

New Hampshire last voted Republican in 2000, and very narrowly voted Democratic in 2004, when the Democratic nominee was a New Englander. Sure, it hasn't voted Republican in the last three presidential elections, but two of those were Democratic victories.

Nobody is saying that New Hampshire is a Republican state (like it was in the 1980s), but it sure as heck isn't a Democratic one.


Here is Eisenhower vs. Obama again:


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Eisenhower twice, Clinton once
yellow -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
red-- Stevenson twice, Clinton twice
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

Eisenhower and Obama will eventually seem like very similar Presidents. Except for not winning the Plains states in which ranching is a big part of agriculture (contrast dairy farming to ranching; dairies are factory-like in organization and workers therein are on their own; ranchers must supply such basic needs as housing to ranch hands) Obama and Eisenhower won basically the same states even if they were from different Parties. 

Thus one could ask this question in 1960:

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Texas, and Rhode Island  haven't voted Republican in eight years. Are they solid Republican states too?

Of course not. It is remarkable that Eisenhower won those states -- twice. Texas was very much a Democratic state in statewide elections, and it would go for Humphrey in 1968. Massachusetts would be the two states to be the lone holdouts in 49-state Republican landslides. Rhode Island was one of two states outside the South (the other was Massachusetts) to vote against Herbert Hoover in 1928. States that vote 'wrong' in electoral blowouts are obviously very partisan if something else isn't going on, like a protest vote.

   
143  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Pres. Hillary Clinton vs. Tom Cotton (2020) on: April 24, 2016, 07:19:59 am
Tom Cotton is very far to the right; Gardner will have a tough time defending his Senate seat unless he has a sure chance at the Vice-Presidency. 2020 is likely to be a very rough year for Senate Republicans. Even with partisan fatigue, Americans will not want the harsh economic discipline of the gold standard, the elimination of Medicare and Social Security, and a combination of the elimination of the minimum wage and the substitution of a federal sales tax for the federal income tax. Cotton picks Joni Ernst to swing Iowa and that proves a blunder. She was going to lose her Senate seat. Her talk about castrating hogs makes her a one-trick pony. (Pardon the marginal mixed metaphor).

But even with a recession, Democrats do win Iowa, New Hampshire, and Virginia for the bare win of a nail-biter of an election. I'm tempted to believe that Hillary Clinton has selected the other Senator from Minnesota to be VP.  



277: Clinton/Klobuchar(50.5%)
261: Cotton/Ernst(47.4%)
Others: 2.1%

This assumes that Tom Cotton does not try to use wars for profit as an appeal, in which case he gets derision as "Tom Cottonmouth", an allusion to a venomous snake common in Arkansas.
144  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: 49-state sweep. Holdout? on: April 24, 2016, 07:02:01 am
Republican: Idaho -- barring a large Hispanic influx. It was LBJ's weakest win in 1964 while the states that went for Goldwater went so as either Goldwater's home state (Arizona) or statewide protest votes against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Should Nebraska keep its system of voting by electoral districts, NE-03 (central and western Nebraska) stays R.

Miscegenation will ultimately do the current Republican Party in in the Deep South.

Democratic:  I like to make allusions to FDR. His 48-state landslide in 1936 was really bigger than the 49-state landslides of Nixon and Reagan... and I can imagine a Republican incumbent to say

"As goes Rhode Island... so goes Vermont".
145  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 23, 2016, 07:40:14 pm
^You colored IN blue on the Clinton vs. Kasich map, not on the Clinton vs. Trump map.

Thank you. Noted and corrected.
146  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 23, 2016, 06:37:34 pm
INDIANA, which rarely gets polled. WTHR-TV (NBC-13, Indianapolis), Howey Politics
Conducted April 18-21, MoE +/- 4.3%

Trump 47%
Clinton 39%

Cruz 53%
Clinton 36%

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/poll-indiana-trump-hillary-clinton-222316

Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich





Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.









147  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IN - WTHR/Howey Politics: Trump and Cruz lead Clinton on: April 23, 2016, 06:32:19 pm
GOP should win IN somewhere around 53-45% (third party candidates may get 1-2%).

McCain lost it in '08 simply because the economy really collapsed at the wrong time, late in that campaign and many abandoned his shape.

Also, he had to gamble at other states he needed to win and could not waste time in IN.  He had to assume he would win there, which of course didn't happen

A Republican nominee really needs to win the state almost 60-40 show evidence of an impending win nationwide. A 53-48 split of the Indiana vote means that the Democrat is winning Ohio about 51-48. A Republican nominee who loses Ohio is not going to be elected President.
 
I can't imagine Hillary Clinton making many appearances in Indiana unless it is to help Indiana Democrats. 
148  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IN - WTHR/Howey Politics: Trump and Cruz lead Clinton on: April 23, 2016, 06:23:18 pm
The Obama win of Indiana in 2008 increasingly looks like a fluke.  That year the Republicans got hit by a triple-whammy upon the RV industry: high gasoline prices, an overall recession, and a credit crunch at the same time. Once those were gone Indiana could go back to voting Republican as the swing constituency of relatively-conservative people who work in the RV industry (heavily Mennonites who disapprove of big government) went back to voting R in almost all elections.  Obama was going to lose those voters one way or the other -- either through failure of economic stewardship or by taking away their disdain for Republicans with successful stewardship of the American economy.

President Obama still won nationwide while losing Indiana by about 10%. Indiana is about E+12.  if you ignore 2008. But Ohio is about R+2, so if the Republican nominee is winning Indiana by about 10% he is losing Ohio by about 2% and is losing nationwide.     
149  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: 2024, 2028: States Electoral Votes on: April 23, 2016, 10:09:26 am
I'd expect Indiana to lose one. Such growth as Greater Indianapolis has is being outmatched by population losses elsewhere.
150  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Presidential FAILURE, 2017-2020 on: April 23, 2016, 10:05:21 am

So what do  the current matchups of Kasich vs. Clinton really mean?

If the Democratic nominee in 2016 becomes a failure as President, then we might see an analogy to 1980 or a partisan inverse of 1932, when the failed President loses to a challenger who makes a largely-positive campaign with care to avoid saying troublesome things except what everyone knows about the troubled incumbent President.


A landslide in electoral votes like those of 1932 and 1980 is practically impossible because the incumbent President will still win California and New York, which together combine for 84 electoral votes, which is more than Hoover got with six states and 59 electoral votes, let alone the six states and DC that got Jimmy Carter 49 electoral votes. But let me guess what a 44-state landslide for a Republican looks like in 2000 if one concedes four other states and the District of Columbia.  


The Clinton-Kasich map shows Hillary Clinton winning California, Maryland, and New York. She would win the District of Columbia.  So that is 72 electoral votes there. Others not on the map:

Hawaii  (4)
Massachusetts (11)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)

That's 92 electoral votes. Maybe 107 if you are ready to concede Minnesota (least swingy state) and New Mexico (demographics) or 112 if you concede Illinois, and 127 if all three such states. But either way one has an ugly map for the Democratic President.  Twelve years is plenty of time for partisan exhaustion with the Presidency to emerge; it may not have done so with Barack Obama. The current President usually makes the opponent closest to his antithesis in style the most likely successor. A cautious, measured approach to most issues and more respect for precedent and formality instead of to the Wave of the Day may be looking better.


...Now what if the incumbent President is Ted Cruz, and he gets us into a bad scrape of foreign policy and we know it (the really messed-up situation with Dubya didn't look bad until after the 2004 Presidential election) or the economy goes into a steep downturn as in 1929?

He likely wins his own state (Texas), which is almost enough to avert a Carter 1980-style loss due to the 38 electoral votes of Texas. Carter's biggest electoral prize in 1980 was his own state of Georgia, which then had 12 electoral votes. So what would be the five other states most likely to vote to continue his failed Presidency?

Oklahoma (7)
Alabama (9)
Utah (6)
Wyoming (3)
Idaho (4)

OK, concede Mississippi (eight) due to racial polarization and assume that Nebraska does not split its electoral votes and allows Cruz to win the Third Congressional District (1). But figure that Vladimir Putin is demanding an election similar to the one in Crimea in nature and management that has the possibility of Alaska getting a two-day independence in which the State legislature renames itself a Duma, mandates the teaching of Russian* in all schools,  and requests a return to Russia which Vladimir Putin 'grudgingly' grants.  

*Don't get me wrong. American youth could get much benefit from learning Russian in school as exposure to the richness of Russian culture. Russian politics are abominable.    
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 526


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines