He's not shooting himself in the foot because if he could he would of done 40 times already. He is the true Teflon Don. Let's say the field gets down to 4, who are they going to rally around to knock him out?
I previously said it would help him in the primaries and hurt him in the general. It will hurt him with independent voters (few though they might be) and moderate Republicans. And it will lock down what was already a vast Hispanic vote for the Democratic candidate and might even spur turn out.
Long term (meaning past the primaries) Ramos won this by a mile
He could have said: "I will answer a question from you right after I finish with this reporter," rather than "Sit down. Sit down. Sit down. You weren't called. Go back to Univision."
And then he could have told Ramos: "OK now it is your turn to ask one question. If you have more than that, we will have to set up a separate interview when it fits my schedule."
The problem with that, of course, is that he has been ducking Ramos since he made his first smarmy Mexican Immigrant comment. But he would certainly have been within his rights to limit his response to a single question, and he could have kept control of the situation by saying that Ramos would be next.
Trump just can't help being a bully. An experienced politician would have certainly handled it differently.
RE: The fight between Trump and FOX is starting to get really interesting Â
As I always suspected but had insufficient proof, Trump's temperament problems will be what ultimately do him in.
He needed to go back at Megyn Kelly and restart the war with FOX? Really? I have a lot of difficulty figuring out what he thinks he gets out of this.
Quote:
"Donald Trump's surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing," Fox News chairman Roger Ailes said Tuesday afternoon.
He added, "Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should."
Trump almost instantly responded -- not with an apology but with a fresh shot at Kelly. And during a news conference Tuesday evening he dismissed Kelly.
Thoughts as to what his motivation for this behavior might be? What does he think he is getting out of this? Link - ( New Window )
Please. I wouldn't be surprised if Ailes and Trump got together and cooked up the whole thing. Trump beholden to no one, not a creature of Fox News, an independent voice blah blah blah. Where's Fox going to go if Trump is the nominee? Hilary?
Indeed, they are growing, up 7 percentage points of the population since 2006. Lots of people lean one way or the other, but contempt for both sides has helped rock-solid affiliation decline.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Indeed, they are growing, up 7 percentage points of the population since 2006. Lots of people lean one way or the other, but contempt for both sides has helped rock-solid affiliation decline.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Doesnt that top chart show that the increase in self-reported independents in the last decade has come almost exclusively from the ranks of the GOP? Blue line is effectively flat. It's also why I wouldnt pay a lot of attention to arguments like the Republicans are winning independents, since a big chunk if the I group is just disaffected R's (many of whom are at least as far right as the GOP).
As for the state issue, I'm definitely more willing to consider crossing the aisle in local elections. E.g. I voted for Lhota in the last NYC mayoral race. It's a lot harder for me to give a vote to a national level GOPer since that is likely a vote for the national GOP agenda. But I think a bigger issue at the state level is that the big elections tend not to be during presidential years. We have two electorates in this country -- prez election year (dem demograpgic advantage) and off year (GOP advantage in lower turnout elections).
Indeed, they are growing, up 7 percentage points of the population since 2006. Lots of people lean one way or the other, but contempt for both sides has helped rock-solid affiliation decline.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Exactly why having a "fight" with Fox News isn't a bad thing for him. Trump has been in the public eye for 30 years and has thousands of interviews and appearances under his belt, some hostile. Headhunter has been trying to tell you guys not to underestimate Trump.
Indeed, they are growing, up 7 percentage points of the population since 2006. Lots of people lean one way or the other, but contempt for both sides has helped rock-solid affiliation decline.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Doesnt that top chart show that the increase in self-reported independents in the last decade has come almost exclusively from the ranks of the GOP? Blue line is effectively flat. It's also why I wouldnt pay a lot of attention to arguments like the Republicans are winning independents, since a big chunk if the I group is just disaffected R's (many of whom are at least as far right as the GOP).
As for the state issue, I'm definitely more willing to consider crossing the aisle in local elections. E.g. I voted for Lhota in the last NYC mayoral race. It's a lot harder for me to give a vote to a national level GOPer since that is likely a vote for the national GOP agenda. But I think a bigger issue at the state level is that the big elections tend not to be during presidential years. We have two electorates in this country -- prez election year (dem demograpgic advantage) and off year (GOP advantage in lower turnout elections).
Looks like a move of disaffected Democrats to Independent affiliation post-2008 as well.
The other reason for Republicans doing better at the state and local level is the fact that relatively few of these jurisdictions can run a deficit on any sort of sustained basis. Yes, they can play games with public employee benefits (and both parties certainly have) but you generally have to pay for what you're proposing.
Obviously to early to mean much, but Biden does substantially better against the Republican field than Hillary, and among those targetted, only Rubio is about even with Sanders. Rubio seems surprisingly strong overall.
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 45, Trump 41 Clinton +4
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 42, Bush 40 Clinton +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 44, Rubio 43 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac
Biden 48, Trump 40 Biden +8
General Election: Bush vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 45, Bush 39 Biden +6
General Election: Rubio vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 44, Rubio 41 Biden +3
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 44, Trump 41 Sanders +3
General Election: Bush vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Bush 39, Sanders 43 Sanders +4
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 41, Sanders 40 Rubio +1
Biden isn't my preferred candidate in a perfect world Â
But Warren isn't entering and Bernie probably isn't electable. Those on the right who just laugh at the mere mention of Biden and have created this caricature of "crazy uncle joe" can underestimate him at their own risk though. He could be president. It's not likely but it is possible.
The other reason for Republicans doing better at the state and local level is the fact that relatively few of these jurisdictions can run a deficit on any sort of sustained basis. Yes, they can play games with public employee benefits (and both parties certainly have) but you generally have to pay for what you're proposing.
ummm no.. the only reason Republicans are doing better at state and local levels is that have Gobs and Gobs more money - also they smartly have concentrated on state and local level while democrats political apparatus is DC centric .
in 2005 howard dean as head of DNC started 50 state strategy which was to send money and support to every state and challenge republicans everywhere.. and it worked!! with Democrats taking back congress in 2006 .
But when Obama won 2008 and by proxy Rahm took over the DNC the first thing he did was dismantle 50 state strategy saying it was a waste of money.
Meanwhile Republicans actually adopted some of the ideas of Demcrats 50 state strategy (especially the social media parts) and low and behold they are not dominating at local and state level.
stupid democrats and their DC media consultants suck!
The notion that age in and of itself would exclude Biden is pretty silly. Bernie and Hillary would both have a tough time playing that card. Bernie is even older and Hillary will be pushing 70 herself. The top democrat enters the general with a demographic edge that's tough to beat. Whoever the democratic candidate is is going to be old, and they're going to still be favored
Giant Fan, there are so many other things going on. Â
I work in state and local finance, so I know a little about this stuff.
Yes, the Republican strategy helps, but I could give you about a dozen other reasons. I will give you four that come quickly to mind.
1) The Democratic turnout problem in off-year elections, when Republicans make massive gains.
2) The shape of districts, with Democratic voters over-represented in urban districts and under-representated in the larger number of suburban and rural districts.
3) The increased Gerrymandering after the last census and the 2010 Republican rout.
4) Perhaps most importantly, anti-tax sentiment at the state and local level which puts the Democrats, who are usually aligned with the civil service unions, behind the eight ball. Massive pension problems nationwide are just going to make this worse, as judge after judge makes it difficult or impossible for governments--and the taxpayers they represent--to cut back on overpromising for pensions done over decades that are coming home to roost now. Need a new bridge? A new school? Sorry, the pensions come first.
The latter is compounded, of course, by publicity over the unconscionable level of pensions for a relatively few retirees, especially cops, firemen and elected officials. In Yonkers, the gap between the average police and fire pension and that of other government workers is $97,237 to $35,605. And the police and firemen can legally double dip. Think that pisses off a few voters?
The notion that age in and of itself would exclude Biden is pretty silly. Bernie and Hillary would both have a tough time playing that card. Bernie is even older and Hillary will be pushing 70 herself. The top democrat enters the general with a demographic edge that's tough to beat. Whoever the democratic candidate is is going to be old, and they're going to still be favored
With that said, I don't think the democrats have a strong political athlete this cycle. As Chuck Todd mentioned, the country typically doesn't go backwards in generations when electing a president which is what we'd do coming off of Obama. I wish the left had a younger more inspiring candidate.
this bunch of Republican candidates has flaws that far exceed those of, say, Biden. The link tracks 144 national polls. Yeah, he's old. Yeah, he bumbles sometimes. But he would start with the Democratic numerical advantage in the graph I posted above, and on social issues, there is little doubt that the country has moved left, while the Republican base has moved right. This will be a big problem, even before you get to the flawed candidates who can't even attract their own base.
Right now, Trump and Carson together are getting 35.7% of "votes." What does that say about the attractiveness of mainstream candidates? Link - ( New Window )
Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
between demographics and elections. By Real Clear Politics reporters/analysts.
Quote:
So we’ve developed a tool, embedded below, that allows you to simulate the outcome of the 2016 elections, both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College
between demographics and elections. By Real Clear Politics reporters/analysts.
Quote:
So we’ve developed a tool, embedded below, that allows you to simulate the outcome of the 2016 elections, both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College
Link - ( New Window )
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
In 2008 and 2012, Obama LOST the overall Male vote. Women delivered the White House to him. That's more important than Black, Hispanic, Asian.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Unless Hillary self-destructs, it's gonna be a fucking rout. If Obama could kick Romney's ass the way he did, imagine what a white woman can do. And I don't give a shit about how she's vilified by the media and by 'Clinton Rules' - it isn't even going to come close to the crap Obama got.
This e-mail thing simply doesn't have the teeth to take her down, barring any new revelations. Neither does Benghazi. If the Community Organizing, America-Hating, Gun Stealing, Secret Muslim with a fake Birth Certificate could overcome it, I'm pretty sure Hillary will be just fine.
And again - I'm not a Hillary supporter. Just calling it how I see it.
RE: Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
between demographics and elections. By Real Clear Politics reporters/analysts.
Quote:
So we’ve developed a tool, embedded below, that allows you to simulate the outcome of the 2016 elections, both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College
Link - ( New Window )
That's a GREAT link. What I found most interesting is that I plugged in a number of scenarios where Jeb Bush won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college vs. Hillary. Others, with a slightly higher white % for Bush but lower white turnout reversed the results in the electoral college. I think these results would hold true for Kasich and Rubio, at a minimum among Republican candidates, as well.
As far as Trump-Clinton was concerned I bumped BOTH the % of Hispanic votes for Clinton and the % turnout and got a Clinton electoral vote landslide. Kept the white vote for Trump at 60% but increased the % turnout. Didn't matter. Armageddon in the Electoral College
RE: RE: Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
I know. That's the "Most Sexist" thing Buford ever heard, but it's going to be a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
How would the media react if it was the other way around? Â
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Trumps misogynism for instance, has an impact... Â
...so do nice comments like this one today, from Alex Jones - free propaganda for Democrats: " “Hey Hillary, you got bodyguards. Are their guns bad too? Why can’t I have a gun to protect myself, you bitch?”"
RE: RE: RE: RE: Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
I know. That's the "Most Sexist" thing Buford ever heard, but it's going to be a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.
I guess you missed this from earlier this month:
Quote:
In June, 44 percent of white women had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, edging out the 43 percent who didn’t. By July, those numbers shifted: Only 34 percent of white women saw her in a positive light, compared to 53 percent who had a negative impression of her, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Obama didn't have any baggage in 08 and in 12 the media ran duck and cover for him. I don't think Hillary gets that if she even gets to the nomination. McCain and Romney were terrible in the sense that they did not get the base out. Romney was better than McCain, which is why his performance was that much more disappointing.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Obama had worse in 2008? Surely you jest. The only way Obama would have had the equivalent baggage is if he had written Rev. Wright's sermons himself. He wasn't getting media coverage because he was a curiosity good for ratings, he got it because he was the media's Messiah! 2012 wasn't as stratospheric (see ACA rollout) but they sure nailed Romney on the 47% comment as well as his take (accurate as it turned out though the media refuses to acknowledge it) on Putin and Russia.
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
As said above, you couldn't be more wrong about 2008. And are you suggesting the birth certificate kerfluffle was serious baggage? The media destroyed anyone who suggested it had merit and he sat back, chuckled and knew he just got another 5000 votes (exactly what he should have done, by the way).
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
McCain got destroyed by the September meltdown and the Palin meltdown. Right candidate, bad timing. Romney got stereotyped and mocked even when he was right. And you think Obama dealt with insanity.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
They actually have a number of candidates as strong, it's just that they're dealing with a media phenomenon that's sucking all the oxygen out of the room. The reaction and lack of fallout with respect to Trump's comments about McCain's time as a POW suggests strongly he would be doing no better this time around.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Too early to say it won't be close. Let's see where the server leads
Well the opp research has lost one thing on Trump Â
Obama didn't have any baggage in 08 and in 12 the media ran duck and cover for him. I don't think Hillary gets that if she even gets to the nomination. McCain and Romney were terrible in the sense that they did not get the base out. Romney was better than McCain, which is why his performance was that much more disappointing.
Obama didn't have any baggage in 08' and 12'?!
Yeah, we're on the same planet, different worlds, big time.
For starters - PALLED AROUND WITH TERRORISTS!
REVEREND WRIGHT!!!
- FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- SECRET MUSLIM
- COMMUNIST FATHER!
- APOLOGIST!
- BOWS TO FOREIGN KINGS
- AP SCANDAL
- FAST AND FURIOUS!!!
- SOLYNDRA
– DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!
– BENGHAZI
– IRS SCANDAL
– NSA SCANDAL
– DOJ TARGETING CONSERVATIVES SCANDAL
– DOJ GOING AFTER REPORTERS & THE FREE PRESS SCANDAL
– VA SCANDAL
- SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! MARXIST! FASCIST! DICTATOR!
Add to that the fearmongering over Obamacare.
They got the base out. In SPADES. Fear Factor to the nth degree.
The problem is, the base isn't there any more. More and more die off each year.
...secret Muslim, Communist Father, Marxist labels - this crap was all there from the beginning.
No, he didn't have Benghazi or e-mail - but he DID have the albatross of 'NO EXPERIENCE' hanging around his neck.
His advantage in 08' was that it wasn't clear that he would be the Candidate for most of the campaign season - right wing was gunning for Hillary - Obama slipped under the radar.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
Which issues around in 2008 didn't deserve scorn and derision?
Lack of experience. Totally legit.
The birther and most of the other stuff was BS, although I thought he could be legitimately questioned about whether he agreed with the teachings of Rev. Wright.
The point is that the media, outside of the Rev. Wright story didn't take the stories and run with them. They mocked them. So the thought that Obama was under relentless broad based attack on them in 2008 is simply not the case.
but he DID have the albatross of 'NO EXPERIENCE' hanging around his neck.
What you refer to as an albatross is what most of the world would call a totally legitimate issue when it was applied to a Senator who had served less than 1 term.
RE: RE: Reverand Wright, Pals around with Terrorists... Â
but he DID have the albatross of 'NO EXPERIENCE' hanging around his neck.
What you refer to as an albatross is what most of the world would call a totally legitimate issue when it was applied to a Senator who had served less than 1 term.
It IS a totally legitimate issue.
It was a negative.
Just as a e-mail scandal is a negative. I'd venture to say that Obama's inexperience was a bigger negative factor in 08' then Hillary's e-mail scandal will be in 16'.
Time will tell.
Easy to predict doom when the scandals are hot. Is e-mail really going to stay hot for a full year?
Lack of experience = negative but not a fundamental character flaw
email scandal = potentially illegal scandal representative of a fundamental character flaw
BIG difference.
Ultimately they may not find enough (or may choose to not find enough) to bring charges against Hilary but you're kidding if you don't think this is hurting the basic perception of her a trust worthy individual.
RE: RE: RE: Reverand Wright, Pals around with Terrorists... Â
Lack of experience = negative but not a fundamental character flaw
email scandal = potentially illegal scandal representative of a fundamental character flaw
BIG difference.
Ultimately they may not find enough (or may choose to not find enough) to bring charges against Hilary but you're kidding if you don't think this is hurting the basic perception of her a trust worthy individual.
Wait a minute.
After 25 years of Clinton Bashing - THIS is what's going to make people finally not trust her?
OK.
Look - it's an ugly little scandal. Transparency dodging in it's worst form. Same as other Administrations and elected officials have been burned many times with.
If it really does come down to some sort of indictment, that's another story.
But if it doesn't? As Clinton scandals go? BOOOOO-RING!
Come on! Vince Foster, man! Connected to the DEATHS of Eighty-Something people! THAT is a Clinton Scandal. A SMELLY CIGAR is a Clinton Scandal.
E-mail. Please.
This is Hillary Clinton. She's like the friggin Terminator.
Given her opposition? The walking Biden gaffe machine or the Stammering Spitting Socialist on one side - the other side trying to outdo one another in outrageous comments.
Donald Trump. Seriously. THAT is how bad the Republican field is this year.
Marco Rubio would be dangerous if not for that pesky one issue - really, I think he's the most potent Republican candidate since Reagan.
Long term (meaning past the primaries) Ramos won this by a mile
And then he could have told Ramos: "OK now it is your turn to ask one question. If you have more than that, we will have to set up a separate interview when it fits my schedule."
The problem with that, of course, is that he has been ducking Ramos since he made his first smarmy Mexican Immigrant comment. But he would certainly have been within his rights to limit his response to a single question, and he could have kept control of the situation by saying that Ramos would be next.
Trump just can't help being a bully. An experienced politician would have certainly handled it differently.
He needed to go back at Megyn Kelly and restart the war with FOX? Really? I have a lot of difficulty figuring out what he thinks he gets out of this.
Quote:
"Donald Trump's surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing," Fox News chairman Roger Ailes said Tuesday afternoon.
He added, "Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should."
Trump almost instantly responded -- not with an apology but with a fresh shot at Kelly. And during a news conference Tuesday evening he dismissed Kelly.
Thoughts as to what his motivation for this behavior might be? What does he think he is getting out of this? Link - ( New Window )
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
or
3 wrongs don't make a right.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Doesnt that top chart show that the increase in self-reported independents in the last decade has come almost exclusively from the ranks of the GOP? Blue line is effectively flat. It's also why I wouldnt pay a lot of attention to arguments like the Republicans are winning independents, since a big chunk if the I group is just disaffected R's (many of whom are at least as far right as the GOP).
As for the state issue, I'm definitely more willing to consider crossing the aisle in local elections. E.g. I voted for Lhota in the last NYC mayoral race. It's a lot harder for me to give a vote to a national level GOPer since that is likely a vote for the national GOP agenda. But I think a bigger issue at the state level is that the big elections tend not to be during presidential years. We have two electorates in this country -- prez election year (dem demograpgic advantage) and off year (GOP advantage in lower turnout elections).
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Quote:
Indeed, they are growing, up 7 percentage points of the population since 2006. Lots of people lean one way or the other, but contempt for both sides has helped rock-solid affiliation decline.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Doesnt that top chart show that the increase in self-reported independents in the last decade has come almost exclusively from the ranks of the GOP? Blue line is effectively flat. It's also why I wouldnt pay a lot of attention to arguments like the Republicans are winning independents, since a big chunk if the I group is just disaffected R's (many of whom are at least as far right as the GOP).
As for the state issue, I'm definitely more willing to consider crossing the aisle in local elections. E.g. I voted for Lhota in the last NYC mayoral race. It's a lot harder for me to give a vote to a national level GOPer since that is likely a vote for the national GOP agenda. But I think a bigger issue at the state level is that the big elections tend not to be during presidential years. We have two electorates in this country -- prez election year (dem demograpgic advantage) and off year (GOP advantage in lower turnout elections).
Looks like a move of disaffected Democrats to Independent affiliation post-2008 as well.
The other reason for Republicans doing better at the state and local level is the fact that relatively few of these jurisdictions can run a deficit on any sort of sustained basis. Yes, they can play games with public employee benefits (and both parties certainly have) but you generally have to pay for what you're proposing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/enough-is-enough.html?_r=0
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 45, Trump 41 Clinton +4
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 42, Bush 40 Clinton +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 44, Rubio 43 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac
Biden 48, Trump 40 Biden +8
General Election: Bush vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 45, Bush 39 Biden +6
General Election: Rubio vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 44, Rubio 41 Biden +3
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 44, Trump 41 Sanders +3
General Election: Bush vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Bush 39, Sanders 43 Sanders +4
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 41, Sanders 40 Rubio +1
ummm no.. the only reason Republicans are doing better at state and local levels is that have Gobs and Gobs more money - also they smartly have concentrated on state and local level while democrats political apparatus is DC centric .
in 2005 howard dean as head of DNC started 50 state strategy which was to send money and support to every state and challenge republicans everywhere.. and it worked!! with Democrats taking back congress in 2006 .
But when Obama won 2008 and by proxy Rahm took over the DNC the first thing he did was dismantle 50 state strategy saying it was a waste of money.
Meanwhile Republicans actually adopted some of the ideas of Demcrats 50 state strategy (especially the social media parts) and low and behold they are not dominating at local and state level.
stupid democrats and their DC media consultants suck!
If he is elected, he will be 74 when he starts....
Next
Yes, the Republican strategy helps, but I could give you about a dozen other reasons. I will give you four that come quickly to mind.
1) The Democratic turnout problem in off-year elections, when Republicans make massive gains.
2) The shape of districts, with Democratic voters over-represented in urban districts and under-representated in the larger number of suburban and rural districts.
3) The increased Gerrymandering after the last census and the 2010 Republican rout.
4) Perhaps most importantly, anti-tax sentiment at the state and local level which puts the Democrats, who are usually aligned with the civil service unions, behind the eight ball. Massive pension problems nationwide are just going to make this worse, as judge after judge makes it difficult or impossible for governments--and the taxpayers they represent--to cut back on overpromising for pensions done over decades that are coming home to roost now. Need a new bridge? A new school? Sorry, the pensions come first.
The latter is compounded, of course, by publicity over the unconscionable level of pensions for a relatively few retirees, especially cops, firemen and elected officials. In Yonkers, the gap between the average police and fire pension and that of other government workers is $97,237 to $35,605. And the police and firemen can legally double dip. Think that pisses off a few voters?
link - ( New Window )
With that said, I don't think the democrats have a strong political athlete this cycle. As Chuck Todd mentioned, the country typically doesn't go backwards in generations when electing a president which is what we'd do coming off of Obama. I wish the left had a younger more inspiring candidate.
Right now, Trump and Carson together are getting 35.7% of "votes." What does that say about the attractiveness of mainstream candidates?
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
So we’ve developed a tool, embedded below, that allows you to simulate the outcome of the 2016 elections, both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College
Link - ( New Window )
Women.
In 2008 and 2012, Obama LOST the overall Male vote. Women delivered the White House to him. That's more important than Black, Hispanic, Asian.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Unless Hillary self-destructs, it's gonna be a fucking rout. If Obama could kick Romney's ass the way he did, imagine what a white woman can do. And I don't give a shit about how she's vilified by the media and by 'Clinton Rules' - it isn't even going to come close to the crap Obama got.
This e-mail thing simply doesn't have the teeth to take her down, barring any new revelations. Neither does Benghazi. If the Community Organizing, America-Hating, Gun Stealing, Secret Muslim with a fake Birth Certificate could overcome it, I'm pretty sure Hillary will be just fine.
And again - I'm not a Hillary supporter. Just calling it how I see it.
Quote:
So we’ve developed a tool, embedded below, that allows you to simulate the outcome of the 2016 elections, both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College
Link - ( New Window )
That's a GREAT link. What I found most interesting is that I plugged in a number of scenarios where Jeb Bush won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college vs. Hillary. Others, with a slightly higher white % for Bush but lower white turnout reversed the results in the electoral college. I think these results would hold true for Kasich and Rubio, at a minimum among Republican candidates, as well.
As far as Trump-Clinton was concerned I bumped BOTH the % of Hispanic votes for Clinton and the % turnout and got a Clinton electoral vote landslide. Kept the white vote for Trump at 60% but increased the % turnout. Didn't matter. Armageddon in the Electoral College
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
Quote:
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
I know. That's the "Most Sexist" thing Buford ever heard, but it's going to be a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
1. Sanders 28%
2. O'Malley 12%
3. Clinton 7%
Wouldn't the media be all over this and saying what a disaster she is and how she's not electable?
So why is Bush presumed to be the front runner still?
1. Sanders 28%
2. O'Malley 12%
3. Clinton 7%
Wouldn't the media be all over this and saying what a disaster she is and how she's not electable?
So why is Bush presumed to be the front runner still?
$$$$$$$$$$$
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Quote:
In comment 12438361 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
I know. That's the "Most Sexist" thing Buford ever heard, but it's going to be a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.
I guess you missed this from earlier this month:
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12438405 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Obama didn't have any baggage in 08 and in 12 the media ran duck and cover for him. I don't think Hillary gets that if she even gets to the nomination. McCain and Romney were terrible in the sense that they did not get the base out. Romney was better than McCain, which is why his performance was that much more disappointing.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Obama had worse in 2008? Surely you jest. The only way Obama would have had the equivalent baggage is if he had written Rev. Wright's sermons himself. He wasn't getting media coverage because he was a curiosity good for ratings, he got it because he was the media's Messiah! 2012 wasn't as stratospheric (see ACA rollout) but they sure nailed Romney on the 47% comment as well as his take (accurate as it turned out though the media refuses to acknowledge it) on Putin and Russia.
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
As said above, you couldn't be more wrong about 2008. And are you suggesting the birth certificate kerfluffle was serious baggage? The media destroyed anyone who suggested it had merit and he sat back, chuckled and knew he just got another 5000 votes (exactly what he should have done, by the way).
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
McCain got destroyed by the September meltdown and the Palin meltdown. Right candidate, bad timing. Romney got stereotyped and mocked even when he was right. And you think Obama dealt with insanity.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
They actually have a number of candidates as strong, it's just that they're dealing with a media phenomenon that's sucking all the oxygen out of the room. The reaction and lack of fallout with respect to Trump's comments about McCain's time as a POW suggests strongly he would be doing no better this time around.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Too early to say it won't be close. Let's see where the server leads
Link - ( New Window )
Obama didn't have any baggage in 08 and in 12 the media ran duck and cover for him. I don't think Hillary gets that if she even gets to the nomination. McCain and Romney were terrible in the sense that they did not get the base out. Romney was better than McCain, which is why his performance was that much more disappointing.
Yeah, we're on the same planet, different worlds, big time.
For starters - PALLED AROUND WITH TERRORISTS!
REVEREND WRIGHT!!!
- FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- SECRET MUSLIM
- COMMUNIST FATHER!
- APOLOGIST!
- BOWS TO FOREIGN KINGS
- AP SCANDAL
- FAST AND FURIOUS!!!
- SOLYNDRA
– DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!
– BENGHAZI
– IRS SCANDAL
– NSA SCANDAL
– DOJ TARGETING CONSERVATIVES SCANDAL
– DOJ GOING AFTER REPORTERS & THE FREE PRESS SCANDAL
– VA SCANDAL
- SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! MARXIST! FASCIST! DICTATOR!
Add to that the fearmongering over Obamacare.
They got the base out. In SPADES. Fear Factor to the nth degree.
The problem is, the base isn't there any more. More and more die off each year.
- APOLOGIST!
- BOWS TO FOREIGN KINGS
- AP SCANDAL
- FAST AND FURIOUS!!!
- SOLYNDRA
– DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!
– BENGHAZI
– IRS SCANDAL
– NSA SCANDAL
– DOJ TARGETING CONSERVATIVES SCANDAL
– DOJ GOING AFTER REPORTERS & THE FREE PRESS SCANDAL
– VA SCANDAL
- SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! MARXIST! FASCIST! DICTATOR!
How many of these were around in 2008? Answer: NONE
And those issues that were around were met with scorn and derision by the media.
2008? You're delusional.
No, he didn't have Benghazi or e-mail - but he DID have the albatross of 'NO EXPERIENCE' hanging around his neck.
His advantage in 08' was that it wasn't clear that he would be the Candidate for most of the campaign season - right wing was gunning for Hillary - Obama slipped under the radar.
Quote:
- APOLOGIST!
- BOWS TO FOREIGN KINGS
- AP SCANDAL
- FAST AND FURIOUS!!!
- SOLYNDRA
– DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!
– BENGHAZI
– IRS SCANDAL
– NSA SCANDAL
– DOJ TARGETING CONSERVATIVES SCANDAL
– DOJ GOING AFTER REPORTERS & THE FREE PRESS SCANDAL
– VA SCANDAL
- SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! MARXIST! FASCIST! DICTATOR!
How many of these were around in 2008? Answer: NONE
And those issues that were around were met with scorn and derision by the media.
2008? You're delusional.
Which issues around in 2008 didn't deserve scorn and derision?
Lack of experience. Totally legit.
The birther and most of the other stuff was BS, although I thought he could be legitimately questioned about whether he agreed with the teachings of Rev. Wright.
The point is that the media, outside of the Rev. Wright story didn't take the stories and run with them. They mocked them. So the thought that Obama was under relentless broad based attack on them in 2008 is simply not the case.
What you refer to as an albatross is what most of the world would call a totally legitimate issue when it was applied to a Senator who had served less than 1 term.
Quote:
but he DID have the albatross of 'NO EXPERIENCE' hanging around his neck.
What you refer to as an albatross is what most of the world would call a totally legitimate issue when it was applied to a Senator who had served less than 1 term.
It was a negative.
Just as a e-mail scandal is a negative. I'd venture to say that Obama's inexperience was a bigger negative factor in 08' then Hillary's e-mail scandal will be in 16'.
Time will tell.
Easy to predict doom when the scandals are hot. Is e-mail really going to stay hot for a full year?
I just don't think it has teeth.
email scandal = potentially illegal scandal representative of a fundamental character flaw
BIG difference.
Ultimately they may not find enough (or may choose to not find enough) to bring charges against Hilary but you're kidding if you don't think this is hurting the basic perception of her a trust worthy individual.
Easy to predict doom when the scandals are hot. Is e-mail really going to stay hot for a full year?
That's up to the FBI
email scandal = potentially illegal scandal representative of a fundamental character flaw
BIG difference.
Ultimately they may not find enough (or may choose to not find enough) to bring charges against Hilary but you're kidding if you don't think this is hurting the basic perception of her a trust worthy individual.
After 25 years of Clinton Bashing - THIS is what's going to make people finally not trust her?
OK.
Look - it's an ugly little scandal. Transparency dodging in it's worst form. Same as other Administrations and elected officials have been burned many times with.
If it really does come down to some sort of indictment, that's another story.
But if it doesn't? As Clinton scandals go? BOOOOO-RING!
Come on! Vince Foster, man! Connected to the DEATHS of Eighty-Something people! THAT is a Clinton Scandal. A SMELLY CIGAR is a Clinton Scandal.
E-mail. Please.
This is Hillary Clinton. She's like the friggin Terminator.
Given her opposition? The walking Biden gaffe machine or the Stammering Spitting Socialist on one side - the other side trying to outdo one another in outrageous comments.
Donald Trump. Seriously. THAT is how bad the Republican field is this year.
Marco Rubio would be dangerous if not for that pesky one issue - really, I think he's the most potent Republican candidate since Reagan.