Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Until you realize that Hillary Clinton will overcome the insurgent Sanders campaign to win the Democratic nomiation.

Yeah, I'm good with it. I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan, and I certainly didn't caucus for her, but if any of those clowns are the alternative, I feel OK with voting for her.

What happened to the last two years of "Clinton is an auto-win"?

 d-usa wrote:
What happened to the last two years of "Clinton is an auto-win"?

She's a formidable opponent indeed.

I'm surprised how high her negatives at this point though... as, I'd thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up by now.

Her high negative may be moot by the time the November elections come around though.

Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.

o.O

Hence, me changing my expectation a bit in that I think any "not-Trump" candidate would have at least a fighting chance against Hillary.

 whembly wrote:
Hence, me changing my expectation a bit in that I think any "not-Trump" candidate would have at least a fighting chance against Hillary.

This was a thing in 2012 as well if I recall. It was often pointed out how a generic Republican would likely beat Obama by the polls, and the polls indeed said thus, but the problem was "generic republican" wasn't running, and still isn't. The specific republicans, both then and now, showed a pretty poor matchup. I just checked the most accurate numbers and the only person that Hillary isn't predicted to beat in the general is Kasich - who thus far as in my opinion only been popular via obscurity.

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... I edited that like five times as I was confused.

Yeah, I posted that he was likely to take NY with 50%, then edited it after I went looking to see if that was the rule, then asked, and got your answer. And then stumbled across the answer while I was reading about something else today.

The rules for each state are inconsistent, but that's fine, just part of the charm of US politics. I just wish there were better resources on-line that gave clear descriptions of the rules for each state.

According to 528, Trump is going to be shy about ~100 delegates (with him doing really well in NY, CT and MD), so my dream of a contested convention is highly likely.

538 was saying he'd be within 100, and that was maybe enough to swing a few of the nominated delegates to squeak over to 1,237, but poor results in Wisconsin and Colorado have pushed him further back. If he really has reached a nationwide ceiling of about 40%, then he'll end up well short of that, Cruz will go to the convention with a string of good results, and that'll be that. Even a strong result in California won't stop that narrative.

What an amazing election it is when the Republican establishment is relieved at making Cruz their candidate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Gun rights and tax cuts.

Oh, and defense spending.

Military defence at 37%, 32% against. So that's true. Not exactly the kind of thing to build a national party around.

Tax cuts are an interesting one. First and foremost, you have to remember this isn't 1980 anymore. Taxes have come way down, and are no longer a major issue. In fact Gallup reports 1% of Americans putting it among their top priorities. The other element in this story is that while you'll get about 40% of Americans saying taxes are too high, if you focus on their own tax burden that number jumps to around 55%. So lowering taxes is a bit meh, but telling a specific person that they will pay less tax gets a healthy amount of interest. Unfortunately Republicans are committed to tax cuts for everyone and especially for the rich, and this means their traction on the issue goes way down. Polling on ending the Bush tax cuts on people over 250k came in 59 to 37 in favour of 'soaking the rich', but if you look at keeping all the tax cuts vs dropping them all, it was a decisive 85 to 15. So Republicans might claim overall support for tax cuts, but the only real vote base is for middle class tax cuts, and that's not the policies the Republicans are pursuing. And even then it's a minor base at best - seriously 1% of people rank this issue.

Gun rights are a bit misleading, because about 50% of voters at any given time are 'satisfied with current laws' which is kind of a good thing for Republicans, but also not really. Republicans only get to claim that 50% if we pretend that the issue is entirely Democrats pushing for new laws and Republicans fighting them. Instead we have to see that while Democrats are pushing for new laws, Republicans are also pushing for relaxing laws, or expanding things like concealed carry. About 5% of people believe gun laws should be more relaxed. But then when you drill down, it gets even weirder. 5% report wanting less gun laws, but laws that allow or expand concealed carry are generally pretty popular. And while the high watermark for 'more gun laws' is about 40%, on specific issues like background checks, Americans have polled in favour of that 91 to 8. So it actually seems like on actual policy the issue as simple as more or less gun laws, but about the right gun laws - keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people and making it easier for the right people. But all of that said, this issue is definitely a vote winner for Republicans because most people who want more gun laws, or even just reformed gun laws, or the status quo, don't rank this issue at all - it doesn't compete with the economy, security etc. But for that 5% who want less gun laws, it is generally a big issue and one that often drives their vote.

But overall, are you not seeing the problem there? You've got a slight advantage in defence, an issue that polls pretty low. Then you've got taxes, which barely ranks as an issue these days, and where Republicans lose terribly as soon as it goes to specifics. Then you've got guns, where the only real impact is Republicans picking up a fairly small number of single issue voters.

Looking at that, is Trump still a surprise to anyone?

 whembly wrote:
Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.

But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?


I would say probably not.

Interesting bit on 538, looking at past Republicans candidates and how quickly they won their primaries. There's been 7 primaries that didn't have a Republican incumbent, and Trump's is the weakest performance so far. And while the article doesn't make much of it, the most interesting thing to me is that the last three primaries have produced the three weakest primary wins.



It seems to lend a lot more to the notion that this isn't just a freak Trump thing. That it is getting harder for candidates to find a common ground that appeals to all parts of the Republican base, that maybe the fractures are real.

Or possibly its just that 2008 was a weird election, 2012 was a meh field, and 2016 is a meh field that's been trampled on by a crazy from out of nowhere. It's a small sample, so the amount of noise in there can be esaily read as a signal. But still, when you combine with the amazing bad favourable scores of Republican candidates among their own party, there is something of a story forming.

 whembly wrote:
I'm surprised how high her negatives at this point though... as, I'd thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up by now.

Don't just look at the national negative score though. That's figure has a massive chunk of Republicans who hate her rolled in to it. They don't really matter as they won't be voting for her anyway. Instead look at the numbers of Democrats who'd be happy with her as their candidate. Clinton polls around 55% net favourable. In contrast Cruz polls around 15% net favourable among Republicans, only slightly ahead of Trump.

So it seems that the full 9/11 report is going to be released, including the full 28 pages previously redacted.

http://news.groopspeak.com/report-president-obama-to-release-stunning-classified-info-embarrassing-bush-admin-over-911/


...is this likely to have any impact on the elections ?

One assumes that it's unlikely to do any favours for people who were involved in the Bush administration, might provide some more ammo for Trump too ?

 reds8n wrote:
...is this likely to have any impact on the elections ?

Probably not, now that Jeb! is Out! of the running.

9/11 is politically not useful so long as none of the principals are involved in the current election, and none really are.

 sebster wrote:
Military defence at 37%, 32% against. So that's true. Not exactly the kind of thing to build a national party around.

I'd argue it's one of the few things to build a national party around, but I'm a libertarian.

Scroll down, by the way. There's more info. The percentage of people who either want to increase or are satisfied with maintaining the current level of defense spending outnumbers the percentage who want to reduce it by quite a bit.

Gun rights are a bit misleading, because about 50% of voters at any given time are 'satisfied with current laws' which is kind of a good thing for Republicans, but also not really. Republicans only get to claim that 50% if we pretend that the issue is entirely Democrats pushing for new laws and Republicans fighting them. Instead we have to see that while Democrats are pushing for new laws, Republicans are also pushing for relaxing laws, or expanding things like concealed carry. About 5% of people believe gun laws should be more relaxed. But then when you drill down, it gets even weirder. 5% report wanting less gun laws, but laws that allow or expand concealed carry are generally pretty popular. And while the high watermark for 'more gun laws' is about 40%, on specific issues like background checks, Americans have polled in favour of that 91 to 8. So it actually seems like on actual policy the issue as simple as more or less gun laws, but about the right gun laws - keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people and making it easier for the right people. But all of that said, this issue is definitely a vote winner for Republicans because most people who want more gun laws, or even just reformed gun laws, or the status quo, don't rank this issue at all - it doesn't compete with the economy, security etc. But for that 5% who want less gun laws, it is generally a big issue and one that often drives their vote.

That whole paragraph ignores the issue that most voters have no idea what they're giving their opinion on when it comes to gun laws. You ask voters if background checks should be run for internet firearm purchases, and you get ridiculously high numbers - which Democrats would cast as support for their position. You inform voters that background checks are already required on internet purchases, and suddenly we're back in Republican Victoryville. Regardless, you're correct; the gun vote goes Republican, and Democrats have generally done poorly any time guns have been a serious issue in an election. That only tends to happen in state or local races.

General support for the Second Amendment remains extremely high, and support for the right to own a handgun or defend oneself with a firearm also remain what I'm sure many in Europe would term ludicrously high. Where things get murky is where Democrats deliberately introduced murkiness - "assault weapons" that fire a far more deadly version of .223 than non-assault weapons, etc.

But overall, are you not seeing the problem there?

From a presidential electability standpoint? Sure, there's a problem. The national voter base is more concerned with nonsense issues like who gets to pee where or whether or not Trump meant that all Mexicans are rapists. From a state/local electability standpoint? No, those are winning positions, which is why Republicans currently have a historic level of power in the US. From a personal standpoint? feth no, those are pretty much the only things I think we ought to be voting on, anyway.

Anyway. You asked for three issues that Republicans poll better than 30% on. Those were the three that popped immediately into my head. There are plenty more.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.

But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?


I would say probably not.

They may not vote for whoever ends up the Republican candidate but they might very well just not vote at all if the best they can get is Clinton. Using those gosh-darning rethuglicans as a boogeyman is not going to work when you don't offer anything. I wouldn't vote for a Republican but neither would I vote for someone who can't remotely be trusted to look after my interests. You can't rally people around the grand cause of getting nothing. The Democratic party will find that out the hard way. They already have no idea what do with the growing share of leftist voters and are more likely to abandon them in favour of right-wingers who aren't happy with seeing the GOP imploding and would be open to changing ships as long as they were offered the proper policies.

Clinton's given victory ran into the problem of materialism. Sanders has support above and beyond what people tought he would because the economic and social systems are heading ever closer to a breaking point. Someone who has spent several decades saying that things fething suck but we can fight to make them good instead is far more appealing than utterly disconnected US royalty with no principles other than saying whatever wins votes.

 Ouze wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
...is this likely to have any impact on the elections ?

Probably not, now that Jeb! is Out! of the running.

9/11 is politically not useful so long as none of the principals are involved in the current election, and none really are.

Depends on what's in the previously redacted pages. A lot of the stuff that hurts/embarasses Bush, being too close to KSA, over looking previous warning signs, aligning with or helping the wrong factions in the ME, etc. can also hit Bill Clinton. Bush43 had only been president for less than 9 months at the time and a lot of the issues date back to long before he was sworn in. In that sense it hurts the Bushes more as Bush41's policies impacted the Clinton administrations. Hillary could be damaged if the information makes Bill look bad too.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
...is this likely to have any impact on the elections ?

Probably not, now that Jeb! is Out! of the running.

9/11 is politically not useful so long as none of the principals are involved in the current election, and none really are.

Depends on what's in the previously redacted pages. A lot of the stuff that hurts/embarasses Bush, being too close to KSA, over looking previous warning signs, aligning with or helping the wrong factions in the ME, etc. can also hit Bill Clinton. Bush43 had only been president for less than 9 months at the time and a lot of the issues date back to long before he was sworn in. In that sense it hurts the Bushes more as Bush41's policies impacted the Clinton administrations. Hillary could be damaged if the information makes Bill look bad too.

That seems like a pretty hard reach, akin to arguing that George W. Bush might be hurt by new revelations about Iran-Contra.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.

But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?


I would say probably not.

From what I'm hearing... those who were "Feeling the Bern™" would stay home in a Most Corrupt Witch® vs Asshattery® election.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
...is this likely to have any impact on the elections ?

Probably not, now that Jeb! is Out! of the running.

9/11 is politically not useful so long as none of the principals are involved in the current election, and none really are.

Depends on what's in the previously redacted pages. A lot of the stuff that hurts/embarasses Bush, being too close to KSA, over looking previous warning signs, aligning with or helping the wrong factions in the ME, etc. can also hit Bill Clinton. Bush43 had only been president for less than 9 months at the time and a lot of the issues date back to long before he was sworn in. In that sense it hurts the Bushes more as Bush41's policies impacted the Clinton administrations. Hillary could be damaged if the information makes Bill look bad too.

That seems like a pretty hard reach, akin to arguing that George W. Bush might be hurt by new revelations about Iran-Contra.

Just look at how many Benghazi hearings we've had...

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.

But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?


I would say probably not.

From what I'm hearing... those who were "Feeling the Bern™" would stay home in a Most Corrupt Witch® vs Asshattery® election.

60 percent would vote for hrc

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.

But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?


I would say probably not.

From what I'm hearing... those who were "Feeling the Bern™" would stay home in a Most Corrupt Witch® vs Asshattery® election.

Not so fast. I support Bernie, but nothing would keep me from going to the polls to vote against either Trump or Cruz.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.

But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?


I would say probably not.

From what I'm hearing... those who were "Feeling the Bern™" would stay home in a Most Corrupt Witch® vs Asshattery® election.

Not so fast. I support Bernie, but nothing would keep me from going to the polls to vote against either Trump or Cruz.

In march, a poll was done showing that 33% of the Sanders voters won't vote for Clinton.
http://www.wsj.com/video/poll-33-of-sanders-supporters-wouldnt-vote-for-clinton/69C05055-85FE-4320-8D02-3EAC972CACD0.html

That's a big surprising chunk this early...

It's 25 now

 Ustrello wrote:
It's 25 now

I can see that bounce around till election season.

I just can't find that same poll for the Republicans... still hunting.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
It's 25 now

I can see that bounce around till election season.

I just can't find that same poll for the Republicans... still hunting.

I remember reading that 25 percent of Republicans won't vote for trump or Cruz. And trumps supporters probably won't vote for anyone but trump (or a large chunk at least) and a brokered convention would lead to a large portion of Republicans probably not voting at all. This race is the Democrats to lose pretty much

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
It's 25 now

I can see that bounce around till election season.

I just can't find that same poll for the Republicans... still hunting.

From looking around it seems to be that same sort of 1/4-1/3rd who would not vote for trump.

 whembly wrote:
In march, a poll was done showing that 33% of the Sanders voters won't vote for Clinton.
http://www.wsj.com/video/poll-33-of-sanders-supporters-wouldnt-vote-for-clinton/69C05055-85FE-4320-8D02-3EAC972CACD0.html

That's a big surprising chunk this early...

The same types of polls with similar results were being done with Obama vs. Hillary, if memory serves. They don't mean anything. People say that a lot, and then wind up voting once they've gone through eight more months of general campaigning.

Seaward wrote:

 whembly wrote:
In march, a poll was done showing that 33% of the Sanders voters won't vote for Clinton.
http://www.wsj.com/video/poll-33-of-sanders-supporters-wouldnt-vote-for-clinton/69C05055-85FE-4320-8D02-3EAC972CACD0.html

That's a big surprising chunk this early...

The same types of polls with similar results were being done with Obama vs. Hillary, if memory serves. They don't mean anything. People say that a lot, and then wind up voting once they've gone through eight more months of general campaigning.

I don't know... the thing is, this election season is full of surprises.

Right now, we shouldn't be surprised if Gen. Mattis ends up being the nominee.

 Ustrello wrote:
This race is the Democrats to lose pretty much

Depends on who they nominate, I think. Sanders polls great now, but he has Republican money actually helping him rather than attacking him. Once the attacks start - and most of them will be nothing more than just pulling old video of him saying truly radical leftist gak - I think his numbers are going to plummet. The dude is way, way, way to the left of what Americans are comfortable with, but he's doing a damn good job keeping the crazy tamped down for now.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.

But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?


I would say probably not.

From what I'm hearing... those who were "Feeling the Bern™" would stay home in a Most Corrupt Witch® vs Asshattery® election.

Not so fast. I support Bernie, but nothing would keep me from going to the polls to vote against either Trump or Cruz.

In march, a poll was done showing that 33% of the Sanders voters won't vote for Clinton.
http://www.wsj.com/video/poll-33-of-sanders-supporters-wouldnt-vote-for-clinton/69C05055-85FE-4320-8D02-3EAC972CACD0.html

That's a big surprising chunk this early...

I'm sure X% of people say that they wouldnt buy a shotgun if they can't buy a pistol. But if you tell them a maniac is coming to break into their home in a couple weeks, they'd buy the shotgun.

However if you told them the chance of a maniac breaking into their home was under 1 in 100 million, they might think they won't bother with the shotgun after all.

Let's get back to the realities of the primaries, not fantasy scenarios about opinion polling.

Trump mentioned some potential VP nominees as....

Gov. Scott Walker
Sen. Marco Rubio
Gov. John Kasick

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/04/12/trump-floats-shocking-list-of-possible-vp-picks-327974

“Yes. I like Marco Rubio. Yeah. I could,” he told Powers. “There are people I have in mind in terms of vice president. I just haven’t told anybody names … I do like Marco. I do like (John) Kasich … I like (Scott) Walker actually in a lot of ways. I hit him very hard … But I’ve always liked him. There are people I like, but I don’t think they like me because I have hit them hard

 Easy E wrote:
Trump mentioned some potential VP nominees as....

Gov. Scott Walker
Sen. Marco Rubio
Gov. John Kasick

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/04/12/trump-floats-shocking-list-of-possible-vp-picks-327974

“Yes. I like Marco Rubio. Yeah. I could,” he told Powers. “There are people I have in mind in terms of vice president. I just haven’t told anybody names … I do like Marco. I do like (John) Kasich … I like (Scott) Walker actually in a lot of ways. I hit him very hard … But I’ve always liked him. There are people I like, but I don’t think they like me because I have hit them hard

I guess Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher said they were too busy. Seriously, Kasich aside, he humiliated these people. No way they'd want to work for him unless they are devoid of pride.

Heh... whatever happened to Oprah as Trump's VP?