Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 676
view profile
History
The 2016 Election - Polls and DebatesPage 28 of 32    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
“The unfavourables for both candidates are high. A lot of people will just stay home.”

Usually this favors Republicans (see: 2014, 2010 low turnout midterms), but Trump’s a wildcard like none we’ve ever seen before. He’s bringing a lot of insane independents into the Republican tent but at the same time alienating huge swaths of sane people, both in the Republican party and beyond. I don’t know if there’s any actual proof that his true independent followers voted Democratic in the last election – if most of them voted Republican anyway, then he’s definitely suffering a massive net loss from Romney’s totals. No amount of “first time voters” is going to overcome the GOP exodus that’s coming. Let’s not forget, the man only got 484,000 votes in Michigan last night; Clinton got 576,000 in a loss. So Clinton/Sanders combined had 1,117,000 votes, Trump/Cruz combined had 812,000 votes. If most of the Sanders supporters showed up in the general election (and those that do will vote for Clinton), Trump would need every single one of Cruz’s supporters to show up and vote for him, then nearly all of Kasich’s & Rubio’s supporters do the same, despite the fact that there is ample proof that most will do no such thing. This isn’t even taking into consideration the number of “sabotage Democrats” who probably saw Clinton’s 20 point lead and figured that primary wasn’t worth voting in and voted for Trump instead to help the Democratic nominee out and will definitely be voting Democratic (no matter who the candidate) in the general election. So that’s a lot for Trump to overcome to win just Michigan.

All that said... Obama and Romney each got more votes in Michigan’s general election (2 million plus each) than all the candidates in last night’s primary combined got. So there must be nearly 2.5 million votes worth of people that didn’t show up last night, despite the fact that Michigan has an open primary and independents voted in troves. What the hell are these people going to do on November 8? Trump’s following is so enthusiastic that it’s difficult to imagine many of them were sitting at home last night. The real scary thought for him is what if 484,000 is about all the votes he’s going to get in Michigan? Clinton wouldn’t even need Obama-level turnout to whip him seven ways from Sunday. (Obama beat Romney in Michigan by 10 points/450,000 people in 2012, btw.)

I’m sure a lot of this could be applied to many other states considering Michigan is about as “typical” as it gets. The electoral college could be a little crazier than usual, though. After all, both Clinton and Trump are most recently New Yorkers – is Trump really not going to carry his home state vs. a carpetbagger, just because his state is a bastion of liberalism? Does Clinton have a chance in her former home state of Arkansas because Trump is a “New York values” guy? Are some Deep South states in play because moderate Republicans are going to sit home because they don’t trust Trump but blacks’ and Hispanics’ love of Clinton will make their turnout as strong as it was in the Obama years? Obama won squeakers in North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Virginia on the basis of strong black, Hispanic and youth turnout – what happens when the youth part of that equation is less enthusiastic with the new candidate? Will Vermont be so mad that Bernie lost the nomination that they go Republican just to spite Clinton?

In the end, it’s difficult to imagine anyone besides Trump supporters are going to be playing games. Clinton doesn’t even really need to cut her own ads for the general election – she can just replay the “NeverTrump” ads. And his news conferences and debate performances. “They’re rapists... McCain’s not a hero... Megyn Kelly was bleeding... Look at my hands... let me show you how I’d handle North Korea.” It doesn’t take much effort to scare the sane members of the electorate into showing up at the polls for her just to prevent catastrophic insanity.

The funniest meme I’ve seen in recent memory said “No matter who wins this election, it will be historic,” then showed pictures of all the remaining candidates except Kasich (I guess assuming that he couldn’t win, plus if he did win, it would not be historic because he’s just another WASPy establishment white guy):

Clinton: First woman president
Sanders: First Jewish president
Rubio: First Latino president
Cruz: First Canadian president
Trump: Last president
 Llove2laughtoo
Joined: 1/11/2016
Msg: 677
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 11:33:30 AM

Msg: 699
He’s bringing a lot of insane independents into the Republican tent but at the same time alienating huge swaths of sane people, both in the Republican party and beyond. No amount of “first time voters” is going to overcome the GOP exodus that’s coming. Let’s not forget, the man only got 484,000 votes in Michigan last night; Clinton got 576,000 in a loss. So Clinton/Sanders combined had 1,117,000 votes, Trump/Cruz combined had 812,000 votes. So that’s a lot for Trump to overcome to win just Michigan.

The real scary thought for him is what if 484,000 is about all the votes he’s going to get in Michigan? Clinton wouldn’t even need Obama-level turnout to whip him seven ways from Sunday. (Obama beat Romney in Michigan by 10 points/450,000 people in 2012, btw.)


If this trend continues, and Trump is the nominee, he is going to be defeated by a landslide by either Clinton or Sanders.
 caballerosiempre
Joined: 12/5/2015
Msg: 678
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 11:54:08 AM
Trump tends to confound the Theory of Evolution.
Can it work in reverse, backslide over some generations?
 crook_catcher
Joined: 1/27/2016
Msg: 679
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 12:02:22 PM

Let’s not forget, the man only got 484,000 votes in Michigan last night; Clinton got 576,000 in a loss. So Clinton/Sanders combined had 1,117,000 votes, Trump/Cruz combined had 812,000 votes. So that’s a lot for Trump to overcome to win just Michigan


Really? You count the total democratic vote but only count two canidates votes on the republican side. Whereas the totals for both are Dems. 1,171,696 and Repubs 1,258,858 so I'm thinking your girl Hillary isn't a walk in. ymmv :)
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 680
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 12:10:21 PM

You count the total democratic vote but only count two canidates votes on the republican side. Whereas the totals for both are Dems. 1,171,696 and Repubs 1,258,858


How many of those Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio voters do you think will cross-over and vote for tRump? My guess is some but not as many as would normally be expected...there's some poll out there that says this-I saw it a few days ago....and how many tRump voters would cross over to Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich should the nominee be decided during a contested convention...I probably can count them on 2 fingers.

Conversely, Clinton democrats will cross-over in mass to Sanders should he be the democratic candidate and visa versa.

Total primary votes aren't a great indicator in which to gage who the eventual general election winner will be....especially this year.
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 681
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 12:30:36 PM

How many of those Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio voters do you think will cross-over and vote for tRump? My guess is some but not as many as would normally be expected...there's some poll out there that says this-I saw it a few days ago....and how many tRump voters would cross over to Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich should the nominee be decided during a contested convention...I probably can count them on 2 fingers.
Conversely, Clinton democrats will cross-over in mass to Sanders should he be the democratic candidate and visa versa.
Total primary votes aren't a great indicator in which to gage who the eventual general election winner will be....especially this year.


How many of those Sanders voters do you think will cross over and vote for Hillary ConLinton? My guess is some but not as many as would normally be expected...there's some poll out there that says this-I saw it a few days ago....and how many Sanders voters would cross over to ConLinton should the nominee be decided during a contested convention...I probably can count them on 2 fingers.
Conversely, Trump democrats will cross-over in mass to Cruz/Kasich should they be the Republican candidate and visa versa.
Total anecdotal stories about voters aren't a great indicator in which to gage who the eventual general election winner will be....especially this year.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 682
view profile
History
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 12:31:26 PM
"Really? You count the total democratic vote but only count two canidates votes on the republican side."

What BigBadNIrish said. All kinds of research out there strongly indicates that Sanders supporters are more likely to show up for Clinton than Rubio/Kasich supporters are for Trump -- most of them are "NeverTrump" people. I'm not saying they'll vote for Clinton -- many just won't vote for president at all because they can't in good conscience support Trump. I do think most Cruz voters will vote for Trump, though, because they have very similar personalities and positions. If anything, most Trump supporters are really Cruz supporters who don't think that Cruz is eligible for president because he was born in Canada or don't like ANY Hispanics/potential illegals.

In 2008 (ignoring 2012 since Obama wasn't being contested), there were 600,000 votes in the Democratic primary (Hillary won with 328,000 -- Obama boycotted the state but the vote for "uncommitted" was 238,000) and 869,000 voted in the Republican primary (Romney and McCain combined for about 600,000 votes). Basically, the Democrats and Republicans each had slightly less votes this year than Democrats and Republicans combined in 2008. However the point is: Republicans had more total votes in the primary by far in 2008, yet Obama won the state by 17 points, with 2.8 million votes (vs. the combined 600k in the primary) so I don't think it means much that Republicans had more primary voters this year -- I do think it means something that Trump and Trump-ish Cruz had less votes than Clinton/Sanders, especially since Trump is supposedly "bringing independents into the Republican tent" (while scaring many Rubio/Kasich supporters out of the tent).
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 683
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 12:37:22 PM
Hard contested primaries mean that you've got machines getting out the votes as well.

In 2008 there were three candidates with a real shot at the nomination on the Democratic side. Not only did that generate a lot more interest, it also meant that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all had operations on the ground getting their people out. So it meant record breaking numbers for the Democratic primaries.

Up to this point, you've got the same thing going on on the Republican side. It seems that it'll be only two soon though.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 684
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 12:48:29 PM
I hang around a lot of places where Democrats gather. As expected, both Bernie and Hill have huge phalanxes of fervid supporters. What I do NOT see, anywhere, at any level, is the fear that Hill will be indicted. The hope that she will is seen as another rePublican wet dream. The primary charge against her by those that don't like her is that she's too centrist--rePublican Light, if you will.

Elsewhere (non-political sites), like this, with only an occasional political thread, I see pleas from long-term rePublican voters for *someone*, *anyone*, to save their party from not only Trump, but from everyone they have an option to vote for. Getting a pretty strong sense that these voters are actually gonna stay home in November. Never seen anything like it.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 685
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 1:12:43 PM
Romney lost, but a lot of people voted for him. I just can't picture a Romney or McCain voter marking a "X" beside the name of either Trump or Cruz.
 caballerosiempre
Joined: 12/5/2015
Msg: 686
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 1:43:58 PM
Not sure any of these candidates can walk on water or be a Savior of their country like the Great Justin to the north..for sure none is as pretty or has such good perfectly coiffed & sculpted hair, likely the combined "selfie" count of all US candidates is less than Justin has amassed. Do any of them have a cover in Vogue magazine? Together with their gorgeous spouse? Similar percentge of "likes" on their Facebook pages?
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 687
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 2:07:44 PM
Current Delegates

Republican (2472)
1237 needed to win

Trump - 458 - 37% of needed
Cruz - 359 - 29%
Rubio - 151 - 12%
Kasich - 54 - 4%

Democrat - (4763)
2382 needed to win

Rodham Clinton - 1221 -Needs 3 More Super delegates (Comey, Lynch and Obama)
Sanders -571
FBI - 572
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 688
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 3:46:38 PM

How many of those Sanders voters do you think will cross over and vote for Hillary ConLinton? My guess is some but not as many as would normally be expected...there's some poll out there that says this-I saw it a few days ago....and how many Sanders voters would cross over to ConLinton should the nominee be decided during a contested convention...I probably can count them on 2 fingers.
Conversely, Trump democrats will cross-over in mass to Cruz/Kasich should they be the Republican candidate and visa versa.
Total anecdotal stories about voters aren't a great indicator in which to gage who the eventual general election winner will be....especially this year.


I must have really hurt your feelings last night. Now, like a child you write my post exactly as I wrote it only changing the republican with democrat. Really, grow-up.

I found the CNN poll article I was looking for...it doesn't directly say cross-over reluctance for tRump...but It says everything but.

Cruz and Rubio beat tRump with republican voters by 20% in all the following attributes: Honesty and trustworthy, Understands problems, Right experience, and Right personality. Positive ratings among republicns for tRump are driven downward by republican women.

Among republican voters, tRump is beat head to head by Cruz and Rubio.

60 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning women say they’d be dissatisfied with Trump as the nominee, including 45 percent “very” dissatisfied. Numbers among GOP men are far lower –- 35 percent would be dissatisfied with Trump, 20 percent very much so.

Trump has 44% of the currently assigned delegates with many closed primaries on tap. He better pull a rabbit out of his hat if he wants get the 51% he needs to avoid a contested convention.


Conversely, Clinton holds more than 50% of the pledged delegates (58%) which excludes super-delegates.
 aj17225
Joined: 1/20/2016
Msg: 689
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/9/2016 8:09:56 PM
The poster that hangs around democrats maybe should mix it up a little and see she is wrong when it comes to fervent supporting of republican nominees. No way will Hillary get anywhere after she is nominated, if, and this is a BIG IF(sorry, I didn't define the meaning of what "is" "is") if not indicted. And to the liberals doing the math on votes, maybe a refresher course in simple mathematics would help. My 4 yr old granddaughter can help you if need be.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 690
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/10/2016 3:15:43 AM
A new FOX poll has Kasich vaulting ahead of tRump in Ohio. Looks like the Rubio/Cruz strategy of don't vote for me or it's a vote for tRump is working for Kasich in Ohio. Has the GOP convinced voters a contested convention is better that a tRump nominee? We'll see.


Ohio Gov. John Kasich is locked in a tight battle in his home state with Donald Trump, according to a new Fox News poll out on Wednesday.

The survey found Kasich beating Trump for the first time in Ohio since polls started being conducted in August.

Kasich garnered 34% of support among likely Republican-primary voters in the state, while Trump garnered 29% of the vote. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz clocked in at 19% support, while Florida Sen. Marco Rubio registered 9%.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 691
view profile
History
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/10/2016 7:44:19 AM
“No way will Hillary get anywhere after she is nominated”

Were you one of those people like my best friend and Karl Rove who were declaring that there was no way Obama was getting re-elected in 2012 no matter what the polls said just because all your friends, a bunch of Tea Partiers and Fox News were mad as hell about him? My best friend (who again voted for Romney after voting for Obama in 2008) was so stunned that Wednesday morning – she just kept saying to me “How did this happen? I thought for sure Romney was going to win.” But I kept telling her leading up to the election that the polls in battleground states overwhelming pointed to an Obama win (even without Florida, which he won by the skin of his teeth) and she just wouldn’t believe me because everybody she hung around with besides me was so mad at Obama and the supposedly sputtering economy.

There has not been one legitimate national poll over the past few weeks that showed Trump beating Clinton. There have only been 5 out of 50+ since Trump entered the race that ever showed him beating her, most of them 2-3 points (margin of error) whereas she has beaten him by an average of about 7 points. Now it’s March – a lot can change between now and November (including that indictment, which would probably just lead to the Democrats picking another nominee that would get even more Democratic and independent support than Clinton). But the demographic shift that most believed propelled Obama to victories in 2008 and 2012 has shifted even further in the Democrats’ direction -- this country and most of the battleground states continue to get less white and more liberal. That is something no one sane is arguing with. Trump, the least popular Republican nominee in history, even within his own party, would somehow have to overcome demographic trends that even hammered McCain 8 years ago, who many Democrats liked (or used to like before the Tea Party took over his brain). What reason do you have to believe that’s possible? I mean, other than your friends hating Democrats.

And just look at this unprecedented list of Republicans who have declared they will not support Trump as their nominee under any circumstances:

http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/republicans-oppose-trump/
http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/republicans-romney-oppose-trump/
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/271578-22-republicans-who-wont-back-trump-as-nominee

“Oh, but those are famous establishment people” - -do you think the only “establishment” Republicans are the party leaders? You have to understand, most Republicans think of themselves as the more civilized beings, and as such they find Trump to be crass and offensive, not to mention untrustworthy considering his many stances over the years on the issues (that's something absolutely not true about Cruz). It is not simply the Republicans in power fretting over losing power. Many Republicans just legitimately do not like the man. Especially, as BBI pointed out, female Republicans and Republican-leaning independent females:

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/620887?unlock=VOE7PDVPFN5M5B5I&mref=homepage-free

Many also fear what will happen with Trump’s temperament when he’s negotiating with foreign countries – there really is a nuclear “button” and the president really does have access to it. This is the one area where most Americans trust Clinton far more than Trump. He would have to show an incredible reversal to assuage fears on such matters... and what would that say about his moral center if he could flipflop that fast? For many people, he’s just said too many audacious things to be able to take it all back when the general election comes about. And the scariest thing for Republicans is: what if he doesn't? What if he keeps saying immature, cruel, ridiculous things? Including to the female Democratic nominee in debates. Only other bullies get their jollies off such remarks -- just how big do you think the bully voting block is? I have many Republican friends, and most of them hate bullies as much as I do. If you're a hardcore Trump supporter, you have to ask yourself: why do I really like the current incarnation of this guy and what does that say about me? If you're a true conservative, then you should be all hot about Cruz, who is 100% legit (except for maybe the American thing). But Cruz is not much of a bully, so...

“Trump has 44% of the currently assigned delegates with many closed primaries on tap. He better pull a rabbit out of his hat if he wants get the 51% he needs to avoid a contested convention.”

Not necessarily. Winner-take-all really shakes things up. If Trump wins Florida, Illinois and Missouri on Tuesday (as the polls claim), that’s 220 new delegates; he’ll also get at least 40 for winning in proportional NC. So even if he loses Ohio, that would give him 718 delegates vs. 662 for the other guys, so he would leap up to 52% in one single day (or maybe 57% with Ohio). He would still have far less than 50% of the overall votes, but the winner-take-all situation would allow him to get more than 50% of the delegates. Now if Rubio and Kasich both drop out after Tuesday, he could run into some problems with the other winner-take-all states going mano-a-mano with Cruz, but I haven’t seen a lot of polling out of Arizona, Pennsylvania or California, so I don’t know if that situation is problematic for him or not. But so long as things go mostly Trump’s way on Tuesday and either Kasich or Rubio stays in the race, it’s looking pretty good for Trump to get to 1237 before the convention. Ironically, the best thing that could happen to him is for Kasich to win Ohio because Kasich will probably stay in the race, keeping it at least three way split, which will highly benefit Trump in winner-take-all states where his support ceiling is probably below 50%.
 Onyx49
Joined: 3/6/2016
Msg: 692
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/10/2016 11:46:14 AM
I think you meant Trump, his own party consider him a loose lip...mouthy bum, not to mention the rest of us.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 693
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/16/2016 8:42:00 AM
Are you taking wagers in when the republicans will cave on the Garland nomination?

If he is appointed, we are really doomed.
DC judge, clerked for Brennan and . . . well, nevermind.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 694
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/16/2016 8:47:29 AM
I don't think they can. They've made such hardline statements that they've backed themselves into a corner.

Apparently many Republicans up for reelection are already getting hammered on this issue.

Self interest might force them to change their tune. But there's only a few Republican Senators up for reelection, and vulnerable enough that this could bring them down. If it looks like the majority party in the Senate might change, then they'll hold hearings the next day. But I don't think that's likely.
 aj17225
Joined: 1/20/2016
Msg: 695
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/16/2016 8:53:04 AM
"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,"


^^^^^^^^ Can you guess who said that? Drum roll please!!!!!!!!..............................................Our own Vice President Joseph Biden.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 696
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/16/2016 8:56:16 AM
So.......

Did the Democrats block consideration of a Supreme Court nominee? And what did the current blockers have to say then?

Apparently Dee thinks that someone who clerked for an Eisenhower appointed Supreme and prosecuted the Unabomber is too radical.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 697
view profile
History
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/16/2016 11:11:36 AM
Despite the fact that Garland has had the support of numerous GOP Senators and it's going to look bad if they just sit on the nomination, I still think they won't make a move on it -- because it would also look bad to their constituents (particularly in true red states) if they renege.

However, I still think it's possible Garland gets seated. If Clinton wins the election and the Senate flips to Democrats, the Republicans would be fools not to use that lame duck two months to vote on Garland, because what's going to happen when Clinton gets in office with a Democratic Senate? She's going to appoint someone MUCH more liberal than Garland and that person is going to get confirmed, even if the Senate Democrats have to go nuclear to get it done. Better to have a moderate on the court than a liberal, right? The bigger question is, would Obama withdraw the nomination at that point and let Clinton fill it. I imagine he told Garland that he was being used as a political device and not to expect to actually be confirmed anyway.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 698
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/16/2016 11:15:11 AM
This was also a power play on Clinton by Obama. He is effectively sticking her with his choice if she wins.

She may have never selected him.
 Onyx49
Joined: 3/6/2016
Msg: 699
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/16/2016 12:14:19 PM
Well, Obama is smart...the guy picked is well liked and many of the current republican senators that backed him for the Court of Appeals, so turning their backs on him now makes them look....come on you can say it........
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 700
The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates
Posted: 3/16/2016 12:28:02 PM
Orin Hatch said he'd welcome a nomination of this guy just a couple of days ago:


Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered his own thoughts on who President Obama should nominate to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last week. “[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Hatch told the conservative news site Newsmax, before adding that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The 2016 Election - Polls and Debates