Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 12, 2016 2:01:25 GMT
All of the above is correct but it isn't just the DC suburbs. Trump's primary vote was also underwhelming further out in the exurbs, as well as suburban Richmond and Roanoke. I simply don't see a path to victory for him in Virginia. Combine that with a near certain loss in Latino heavy Florida as well as Nevada and Colorado and the game is already over. The rust belt strategy is a delusion. I could feasibly see him winning Ohio but not Pennsylvania or Michigan. Wisconsin would have been possible but no GOP candidate can win there without overwhelming numbers from the Milwaukee suburbs where antipathy towards Trump among Republicans is very high. Talk about Minnesota is simply ridiculous. The battle will not be to win but to keep states Arizona, Georgia, Missouri and North Carolina in the GOP column. And another thing. Clinton is going to be the much better resourced candidate. The Democratic donor class will unite behind her while much of the Republican donor class will not support Trump (Koch Brothers being the most significant) but will concentrate on Senate and House races. Trump has now revealed what everybody with a brain already knew, he won't self fund for the general election, in reality he probably isn't capable of doing so. Now proven wrong Undeniably. I never underestimated Trump's ability to bring new voters to the GOP in the rust belt but like almost everybody else I completely underestimated the willingness of suburban Republicans to hold their noses and vote for a candidate that they obviously disliked. As I have already said I think some very strong performances from GOP senate candidates helped but it certainly wasn't the whole story.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 12, 2016 2:11:19 GMT
Firstly I will readily confess that I underestimated the stupidity, incompetence and cowardice of the GOP in not dealing with Trump as they should have done. In the event of Trump being the nominee The Democrats will not make the same mistake. Secondly Trump is winning a the primary in a manner that dooms him to defeat in the general. Much of what he has said and done is absolutely toxic among voters whose support he would need to win a general election. He won't just lose, he will drag the GOP down to a massive defeat with him. So you not only underestimated the stupidity, incompetence and cowardice of the GOP but also the stupidity, incompetence and cowardice of the Democrats. Actually I think the Democrats did a pretty good job of attacking Trump but what I underestimated was just how toxic Hillary Clinton was as well. It took a truly awful candidate to convince so many people to hold their nose and vote for Trump but Clinton was that candidate.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 12, 2016 2:19:59 GMT
Here is another couple of thoughts. I wonder just how many Republicans inclined voters who didn't like Trump ended up voting for him on the assumption that Clinton was going to win and so they were free to cast a protest vote. Likewise how many Hillary sceptics on the left stayed at home because they thought she had got it in the bag?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 12, 2016 3:45:49 GMT
Here is another couple of thoughts. I wonder just how many Republicans inclined voters who didn't like Trump ended up voting for him on the assumption that Clinton was going to win and so they were free to cast a protest vote. Likewise how many Hillary sceptics on the left stayed at home because they thought she had got it in the bag? I was thinking the same thing. A lot of people's preferred result probably would have been for Trump to almost win but not quite in order to give the establishment a shock. Many voters in Wisconsin and Michigan won't have expected Trump to have had much chance of actually winning those states although the knew he could get closer than any GOP candidate has done for many years. Clinton's popular vote lead up to 650,000, and Trump is on 47.16% which is lower than Romney's 47.20% in 2012: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19PS. I've used Dave Wasserman's document but I've used the latest data from California and Washington which he hasn't updated yet.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,558
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 12, 2016 5:01:14 GMT
Most of us will already have realized, that Pennsylvania was - as had been expected for years - the TippingPoint-state, taking Trump above 270 seats:
320 + Minnesota 1.47% 310 + NewHampshire 0.37% 306 290 - Michigan 0.27% 280 - Wisconsin 0.93% 260 - Pennsylvania 1.24% 231 - Florida 1.27%
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 12, 2016 7:23:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 12, 2016 8:07:13 GMT
Traditionally reserved for minor gentry and graduates of Oxford University and the polytechnic Davıd Boothroyd went to, but I believe it has widened its use. I thought esquire was used for any members of the gentry that did not have a knighthood. How do you address Cambridge graduates? And why this "discrimination" between Oxford and Cambridge? (and what polytechnic are you talking about?) Ah, it's an occasionally-used joke amongst the students and alumni of each that Oxford is the Cowley Polytechnic and Cambridge is the North Fens Polytechnic or some such. There is also a Blackadder joke about one of them being inferior to Hull. So indeed esquire is also used for Cambridge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 8:48:17 GMT
I thought it was standard practice to sign legal documents with "esquire". Traditionally reserved for minor gentry and graduates of Oxford University and the polytechnic Davıd Boothroyd went to, but I believe it has widened its use. Not much more than a century ago, it would have been unheard of to address a working class man as "Mr". A social superior would have addressed him by his surname only, while among his peers he would have been called by his given name, given name plus surname, or "neighbour" or "friend" or similar. Women and girls, however, would often (though not invariably), have been called "Mrs" or "Miss" by social superiors, as greater courtesy was felt to be due to them on account of their sex, and because those distinctions reflected their marital status. "Esquire" would nowadays only be used, if at all, in a few very formal contexts. To most ears it sounds rather archaic and affected, and in my view should be allowed to quietly die. It sounds very odd indeed if people use "Esquire" or "Mr" in relation to themselves, rather than when addressing others.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 12, 2016 9:35:03 GMT
Yes, I find esquire tends only to be used jokingly these days.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 12, 2016 10:04:11 GMT
Well, he's already started to row back on Obamacare and prosecuting Clinton.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 11:33:08 GMT
Yes, I find esquire tends only to be used jokingly these days. American lawyers use it. Even female ones...
|
|
|
Post by dizz on Nov 12, 2016 12:15:23 GMT
Nate CohnVerified account @nate_Cohn .@nickgourevitch @logandobson at the moment, Clinton 63.4m, Trump 61.2m
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 12:27:40 GMT
I think this might have an impact on the Austrian Presidential election. 'Respectable' Austrians on the right might now think that if 'respectable' Republicans can vote for Trump that they're encourage in thinking they have a sort of 'social permission' to vote for Hofer if they want. Yes, I think it bodes well for Hofer. The one I'm really looking forward to, however, is France. The selfsame pundits and experts who declared Brexit and Trump impossible have long poured scorn on Le Pen's chances. Let's hope it's third time unlucky for them. France will certainly be interesting. "Brexit" and the election of Trump will undoubtedly have changed the context, but also the other likely candidates are so flawed, or weak, or seemingly captive to received thinking.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 23,993
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 12, 2016 12:43:30 GMT
Here is another couple of thoughts. I wonder just how many Republicans inclined voters who didn't like Trump ended up voting for him on the assumption that Clinton was going to win and so they were free to cast a protest vote. Likewise how many Hillary sceptics on the left stayed at home because they thought she had got it in the bag? I think it's fanciful and unrealistic to think that either of those things happened. People said the same sort of thing after the EU referendum. I have been pondering the thought of how much difference it would have made if Hillary hadn't had her health scare in September, and/or if her emails had never been an issue. To be honest, I think neither of those would have made the slightest difference.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,237
|
Post by maxque on Nov 12, 2016 12:51:12 GMT
Yes, I think it bodes well for Hofer. The one I'm really looking forward to, however, is France. The selfsame pundits and experts who declared Brexit and Trump impossible have long poured scorn on Le Pen's chances. Let's hope it's third time unlucky for them. France will certainly be interesting. "Brexit" and the election of Trump will undoubtedly have changed the context, but also the other likely candidates are so flawed, or weak, or seemingly captive to received thinking. France won't be interesting because the reason why people consider the FN cannot win is not polls, it's their failure to win any region in December 2015 elections. If they cannot get to 50% in their best regions, how can they reach 50% France-wide?
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 12, 2016 12:52:56 GMT
Yes, I think it bodes well for Hofer. The one I'm really looking forward to, however, is France. The selfsame pundits and experts who declared Brexit and Trump impossible have long poured scorn on Le Pen's chances. Let's hope it's third time unlucky for them. France will certainly be interesting. "Brexit" and the election of Trump will undoubtedly have changed the context, but also the other likely candidates are so flawed, or weak, or seemingly captive to received thinking. France all depends on who reaches the run off. If it is Le Pen v the PS candidate she could win. If it is Le Pen v the LR candidate it is very hard to see how she avoids a broad repeat of what happened in 2002, although it would be closer. That said she might have a chance against Sarkozy but any other likely LR candidate would surely maintain enough voters from the centre right and the left to secure victory.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 12, 2016 12:56:00 GMT
I'm not much of an honest broker here because my political outlook is effectively old-fashioned Gaullist. But the circumstances in France are very different. Taking on France's most popular politician, and the whole of the centre-right, is a very tall order. And as maxque points out, they tend not to get up to 50% even in many of their strongholds.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 12, 2016 13:01:18 GMT
Well, he's already started to row back on Obamacare and prosecuting Clinton. The idea of him prosecuting Clinton is absurd. Forget the campaign rhetoric, he has been friends with the Clinton's for years, Ivanka and Chelsea are friends, etc. It isn't going to happen. As for actually policy, honestly who knows what he will do. His campaign was largely an act and aside from his view of trade policy, which has been consistent for years, we have little idea where he really stands on most issues.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,237
|
Post by maxque on Nov 12, 2016 13:03:15 GMT
I'm not much of an honest broker here because my political outlook is effectively old-fashioned Gaullist. But the circumstances in France are very different. Taking on France's most popular politician, and the whole of the centre-right, is a very tall order. And as maxque points out, they tend not to get up to 50% even in many of their strongholds. Indeed. You voted for Brexit, you voted against the government. You voted for Trump, you voted against incumbent President party. In a LR-FN duel, there is no for the incumbent/against the incumbent, they are both the opposition. It's something to run against government, it's something if you have to fight against another opposition party instead (you lose the "you hate current government, vote for us" argument). EDIT: And FN starts lower than Republicans or Brexit did. They did 18% in 2012, 25% in European elections and 28% in Regional elections. That's progress, but still very far away from 50%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 13:15:40 GMT
France will certainly be interesting. "Brexit" and the election of Trump will undoubtedly have changed the context, but also the other likely candidates are so flawed, or weak, or seemingly captive to received thinking. France all depends on who reaches the run off. If it is Le Pen v the PS candidate she could win. If it is Le Pen v the LR candidate it is very hard to see how she avoids a broad repeat of what happened in 2002, although it would be closer. That said she might have a chance against Sarkozy but any other likely LR candidate would surely maintain enough voters from the centre right and the left to secure victory. That more or less reflects my own thinking. The cordon sanitaire around the FN is weakening, but still in existence. Her problem is that is difficult to see how, in present circumstances, the Left candidate could be runner-up.
|
|