|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 23 2015 06:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:If Trump has an Achilles heel, it will be that he has no idea whatsover on how to actually run the ground game of the electoral process. That or he can't convert the remaining undecideds as well as Cruz et al. He's polling 7% lower than national numbers in Iowa and 5% lower than national numbers in New Hampshire according to the RCP averages. That's not a good thing (he loses ~20% of his national vote share in Iowa and ~14% of his vote share in NH). Luckily for him the only other guy who is competent at running a campaign doesn't care about NH and is hated almost as much by the establishment (Cruz). Rubio sucks at actually campaigning and while Christie and to a lesser extent Jeb are doing amazingly in NH relative to nationally all they're really doing is draining Rubio's chances there. Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 04:35 JW_DTLA wrote:
Rubio cannot possibly win due to simple math. Rubio voted for the Gang of 8 immigration bill (aka amnesty). 40% of the Republican base supports Trump (implies opposition to amnesty). That means Rubio is only competitive with at most 60% of the electorate. Rubio hasn't broken 12% in a year. How does he go from 12 to 50 when he is only playing for a little more than half the Republican field? There is no way he actually does that, even if every other establishment Republican drops out. Cruz and Rubio's gang of 8 vote will block any path Rubio has to a plurality share of the vote. Unfortunately that's not how people vote.
How does Rubio ever win over the anti-amnesty crowd? I think it is a solid assumption that Rubio never gets a single anti-amnesty Republcan vote. In a three way race between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio; Rubio has to run the table with every last pro-immigration Republican. Moreover, if the remainder of the establishment Republicans stay in the race until after South Carolina, then Rubio's potential voting pool is even more depleted.
|
On December 23 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:
Trump also has zero experience or staff devoted to getting his supporters to the polls to vote. Primaries are won and lost based on getting out the vote and Trump does not appear to be prepared for it in any way.
Well primaries and caucuses are different. Trump's lack of traditional GOTV structure could be a problem but the same people who will tell you he needs it have spent 10's of millions in commercials where Trump only bought some radio to help out some dj's giving him positive coverage. So not sure the "rules" apply to Trump, as we've seen practically none of the other rules have applied so far.
He could just buy up every channel all day and spam them with GOTV commercials and still come in under his planned spending up to this point.
He'd only need to do it for Iowa and then the rest of the dominoes will fall.
But of course Trump has no chance at a general, He's already losing to Sanders and has been for a while. Though I think his schlong comment was a float to start bringing up Bill's infidelity and all the other dirtiest of the dirty against Clinton. They weren't ready for someone so uncouth. So Trump going HAM on Hillary could depress democratic turnout enough for a low turnout victory for Trump.
No matter how this all sorts itself, I'm thinking turnout will be the story behind the story though.
|
Is the "anti-amnesty" position traditionally Republican? Didn't Reagan grant amnesty to five million people or something?
|
In some sense it's new. Conservatives always opposed it but Reagan went ahead and did it, with the idea in mind that it would never have to happen again. We've learned from that.
|
On December 23 2015 07:04 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 06:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:If Trump has an Achilles heel, it will be that he has no idea whatsover on how to actually run the ground game of the electoral process. That or he can't convert the remaining undecideds as well as Cruz et al. He's polling 7% lower than national numbers in Iowa and 5% lower than national numbers in New Hampshire according to the RCP averages. That's not a good thing (he loses ~20% of his national vote share in Iowa and ~14% of his vote share in NH). Luckily for him the only other guy who is competent at running a campaign doesn't care about NH and is hated almost as much by the establishment (Cruz). Rubio sucks at actually campaigning and while Christie and to a lesser extent Jeb are doing amazingly in NH relative to nationally all they're really doing is draining Rubio's chances there. On December 23 2015 04:35 JW_DTLA wrote:
Rubio cannot possibly win due to simple math. Rubio voted for the Gang of 8 immigration bill (aka amnesty). 40% of the Republican base supports Trump (implies opposition to amnesty). That means Rubio is only competitive with at most 60% of the electorate. Rubio hasn't broken 12% in a year. How does he go from 12 to 50 when he is only playing for a little more than half the Republican field? There is no way he actually does that, even if every other establishment Republican drops out. Cruz and Rubio's gang of 8 vote will block any path Rubio has to a plurality share of the vote. Unfortunately that's not how people vote. How does Rubio ever win over the anti-amnesty crowd? I think it is a solid assumption that Rubio never gets a single anti-amnesty Republcan vote. In a three way race between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio; Rubio has to run the table with every last pro-immigration Republican. Moreover, if the remainder of the establishment Republicans stay in the race until after South Carolina, then Rubio's potential voting pool is even more depleted.
People are multiple issue voters. The only conversation about immigration right now is bickering between Rubio and Cruz-I do not think it will be as high in the bases' minds as you think it will be. Indeed, that's why Rubio is so desperate to paint Cruz as being a flip-flopper on illegal immigration, to make the issue die. Otherwise the wall conversation and amnesty is dead in the water in the electorate's mind. I mean, hell, those same people would probably still vote for Bush Jr, Sr, and Reagan if they could trot out Reagan's corpse.
On December 23 2015 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:
Trump also has zero experience or staff devoted to getting his supporters to the polls to vote. Primaries are won and lost based on getting out the vote and Trump does not appear to be prepared for it in any way. Well primaries and caucuses are different. Trump's lack of traditional GOTV structure could be a problem but the same people who will tell you he needs it have spent 10's of millions in commercials where Trump only bought some radio to help out some dj's giving him positive coverage. So not sure the "rules" apply to Trump, as we've seen practically none of the other rules have applied so far. He could just buy up every channel all day and spam them with GOTV commercials and still come in under his planned spending up to this point. He'd only need to do it for Iowa and then the rest of the dominoes will fall. But of course Trump has no chance at a general, He's already losing to Sanders and has been for a while. Though I think his schlong comment was a float to start bringing up Bill's infidelity and all the other dirtiest of the dirty against Clinton. They weren't ready for someone so uncouth. So Trump going HAM on Hillary could depress democratic turnout enough for a low turnout victory for Trump. No matter how this all sorts itself, I'm thinking turnout will be the story behind the story though.
Trump isn't going to dip deep into his personal warchest for this unless he thinks he will actually turn a profit. He understands how money works and knows that he can extract far more bang for his buck by just prolonging a race and then losing. If he were planning a local media campaign he would have started already, and he wouldn't be so brutally underperforming his national numbers in Iowa/New Hampshire.
|
On December 23 2015 08:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Is the "anti-amnesty" position traditionally Republican? Didn't Reagan grant amnesty to five million people or something?
The Republican party is paid for by wealthy urban plutocrats who are fine with immigration. The Republican party is voted into office by white suburbanites who don't trust immigrants. The voting part of the Republican party can say whatever it wants, but the people who pay for the party actually get what they want. This is very eloquently explained in David Frum's newest piece.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/
|
On December 23 2015 05:07 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 02:30 Cowboy64 wrote:
I seriously doubt Rubio will be the nominee. He has almost no ground game, huge negatives, has not succeeded in hurting Cruz or getting rid of the four other "establishment" picks, and is actually behind in every state and way behind in the nationals.
I'm pretty sure we'll see a Trump/Cruz ticket, which would be nice even if it isn't my first choice. I do think that would be an almost unstoppable ticket though, so that is good. Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 09:49 Toadesstern wrote:On December 22 2015 09:17 Rassy wrote:
If trump is going to be nominated then I hope for America that Hillary wont be his opponent. Trump would do very well against Hillary.
Sanders is the voice of reason, wich would be a clear contradiction with trump and make it an easy choise at the election.
Clinton and trump will go head to head,they are similar people. And then clinton will mess up.
I am not the only liberal left wing guy that doesn't like Hilary for some unspecified reason,putting her against trump would be a mistake.
Well that's how I see it.
Republicans should have gone with Romney, lets be honest here. He looks way better then any of the existing candidates. Now it is another lost election unless they manage to pit trump against Hillary. from Reuters: Trump beats Republicans, not Clinton, in one-on-one matchups
Donald Trump would win a hypothetical head-to-head contest against either of his two closest Republican U.S. presidential rivals, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, but he would fall short of beating Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton if the election were held today, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Monday.
If the Republican primary featured a face-off between Trump and Cruz, a Texas senator, Trump would win the support of 41 percent of Republican and independent voters, the poll showed. Cruz would take 31 percent, while 28 percent said they would not vote in a Cruz-Trump contest.
If Rubio, a Florida senator, were pitted against Trump, the billionaire real-estate mogul would take 40 percent support of Republican and independent voters to Rubio's 34 percent, according to the poll. Twenty-seven percent said they would not vote. In this matchup, Trump's lead over Rubio is within the survey's credibility interval.
Cruz and Rubio currently sit in second and fourth place of all Republican candidates, respectively, in the run-up to the November 2016 presidential election, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Friday.
Despite months of leading the Republican polls, Trump would fall short in a general election competition held today against Clinton, the poll showed. In a one-on-one match-up, the former secretary of state would take 40 percent support of all voters to real estate mogul Trump's 29 percent.
Eight percent of respondents said they did not know which candidate they would support in a Clinton-Trump competition. Fourteen percent said they would not vote for either one, and another 9 percent said they would not vote at all.
The survey of 1,627 likely voters from all parties was conducted between Dec. 16 and Dec. 21, with a credibility interval of 2.8 to 3.7 percentage points. source Unstoppable? Probably, just not that way around lol That means Trump is on roughly 42% vs Clinton on about 58% if you exclude the people who aren't sure if they want to vote, said they won't vote at all or are still undecided.
After 2012, I have a hard time not trusting polls; but we are still a year out from the general. Let's wait until the primaries start before we start declaring winners in the general.
|
well yeah, polls so far ahead mean almost nothing but if things stay the way they are Trump would get dumpstered like noone else before. Which means your innitial statement was about trusting him that he can turn it around?
That's still possible for sure, especially if we take into account that not everyone is as interested into politics as the people posting in here. If Trump gets on the stage after getting the nomination and does a 180 on a couple things declaring that he only said weird stuff to get nominated he could probably get votes from the people that just didn't care that early in. I could easily see people not care about things that are happening right now or happened a couple months ago in the end as long as it doesn't carry through until after the nomination.
But that's just a wall-of-text for "well, idk. Everything's still open" 
On that note:
1) A small shift in the national vote is all it would take for Republicans to break through Democrats’ supposed “Blue Wall.” If all five of our groups were to shift just 3 percentage points toward the GOP in 2016, Republicans would “flip” Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and win 315 electoral votes — almost a mirror image of the 2012 outcome.
[...]
3) Sky-high African-American support and engagement is crucial for Democrats. Suppose African-American voters were to return to pre-Obama, 2004 levels of turnout and partisanship (turnout down from 66 percent to 60 percent and support for Democrats down from 93 percent to 88 percent). In that scenario, Democrats would lose Florida, and their overall margin of victory would be cut by more than half in Ohio and Virginia, giving them almost no room for error with other groups.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-demographics-will-shape-the-2016-election/
|
After 2012, we should all just trust Nate Silver, poll wizard.
|
I think Ted Cruz's big problem is going to be his billionaire backers. Trump will be able to call him out as a puppet without attacking his "conservative" credentials, and build off the notion that the president is a CEO and Trump is heads and shoulders a better business man than Cruz could ever dream of being.
Why vote for a politician who grovels at the feet of billionaires for cash, when you can vote for the guy who is their peer? I mean if you really want to enact a plan that the extremely wealthy would love, what's the point of having some politician like Cruz mooching in the middle of the deal?
|
It's amazing how many people here know what Trump thinks about his campaign and what he's going to do with his money.
Anyone who thinks Trump doesn't really want to be President isn't paying attention.
|
Trump very much wants to be president,its his life dream.
First time he mentioned it was in an intervieuw when he was like 30 years old.
In Iowa today, Clinton told her audience: "There is nothing they want more than to be able to claim that the United States is against Islam and against Muslims. And that then lights an even bigger fire for them to make their propaganda claims through social media in other ways. It also does something else. Our first line of defense in our country has to be Muslim Americans."
Are people realy that blind? Muslims don't need trump to hate America lol.
Does anyone know what derogative trump used to insult Clinton?
Its all over the web but the actual word you can never see, its bleeped out everywhere.
It must be a realy horrible thing from what it seems,or are they just blowing it up?
Also read this article that support for trump might be greater then polls show.
Voting trump is "not done" and despite being somewhat annomous, people still will be a bit reluctant to say they will vote for trump.
|
On December 23 2015 11:03 Rassy wrote:
Trump very much wants to be president,its his life dream.
First time he mentioned it was in an intervieuw when he was like 30 years old.
In Iowa today, Clinton told her audience: "There is nothing they want more than to be able to claim that the United States is against Islam and against Muslims. And that then lights an even bigger fire for them to make their propaganda claims through social media in other ways. It also does something else. Our first line of defense in our country has to be Muslim Americans."
Are people realy that blind? Muslims don't need trump to hate America lol.
Does anyone know what derogative trump used to insult Clinton?
Its all over the web but the actual word you can never see, its bleeped out everywhere.
It must be a realy horrible thing from what it seems,or are they just blowing it up?
Is this recent? Found an article from 50 minutes ago where he said "She was favored to win and she got schlonged" -- Talking about the debate. Seems like something people would over react to in order to make a story?
|
Trump literally said "she got schlonged?" Are these people trying to get the personalization of 4chan into the White House?
|
On December 23 2015 11:23 Nyxisto wrote:
Trump literally said "she got schlonged?" Are these people trying to get the personalization of 4chan into the White House?
it was in the speech he had in Michigan that someone quoted recently iirc? Heard him saying it but no idea what the exact phrasing was. CNN quotes it as:
"Even a race to Obama, she was gonna beat Obama. I don't know who would be worse, I don't know, how could it be worse? But she was going to beat -- she was favored to win -- and she got schlonged, she lost, I mean she lost,"
|
I really wonder how this would turn out if Trump became president.
"Hey Vladimir, comrade. Worry not! We will make Russia great again, I make the best deals!"
"What have I done to deserve this"
|
On December 23 2015 11:23 Nyxisto wrote:
Trump literally said "she got schlonged?" Are these people trying to get the personalization of 4chan into the White House?
I said it before, he is a youtube comment sections given form and running for our highest office.
|
I don't see the big deal with "schlonged".
|
you don't see the problem with the potential president talking about women like he's a teenager? This isn't the first time either. His "don't take her serious, she's on her period" comes to mind.
|
No I don't. Is "schlonged" specifically a female term? I don't know much about it. Seems equally applicable to Jeb or Clinton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
