|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 22, 2016 23:40:22 GMT
ted across the political spectrum. Reagan picked his main rival George HW Bush as running mate. To be fair, the scuttlebutt current at the moment suggests that Trump would have liked to have Kasich on board, and would have been prepared to give him considerable actual power as a result. Of course Reagan and Bush had criticised each other's political plans but not personally. It's not like Reagan had called Bush 'disgusting' and insulted his table manners. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,796 
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Jul 22, 2016 23:59:25 GMT
Reagan picked his main rival George HW Bush as running mate. To be fair, the scuttlebutt current at the moment suggests that Trump would have liked to have Kasich on board, and would have been prepared to give him considerable actual power as a result. Why would any decent Republican want to associate himself with the Trump campaign? Bear in mind that Kasich was considered the most right-wing Republican congressman during the Reagan era. Now he comes over as a moderate with considerable appeal to Democrats. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2016 0:47:34 GMT
Total collapse of Trump support looking likely, not a great fan of the US electorate, elitist on my part perhaps, but even they realise when it is time to call it a day.
|
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Aug 7, 2016 3:32:14 GMT
If his campaign does not already implode before them the debates should see off Trump. His ignorance on issues and total lack of policy with the exception of building a border wall will see to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 7, 2016 10:11:28 GMT
Apart from Mike Pence, is there any senior Republican currently out there enthusiastically endorsing Trump?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,946
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 7, 2016 10:14:11 GMT
Given what has happened so far this year, I still can't completely write The Donald off......
|
|
msc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 910
|
Post by msc on Aug 7, 2016 10:52:22 GMT
It reminds me strongly of the 2002 French election. Chirac wasn't that popular, but once it came down to a straight choice between him and Le Pen, Chirac won in a landslide, because the electorate would rather deal with the person they dislike than the person they are afraid of. It wont be to the same margin (even Goldwater got 38% of the popular vote) but, short of a massive dose of self-destruction from Clinton, I'd expect her to win reasonably comfortably.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,796
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Aug 7, 2016 11:50:34 GMT
It reminds me strongly of the 2002 French election. Chirac wasn't that popular, but once it came down to a straight choice between him and Le Pen, Chirac won in a landslide, because the electorate would rather deal with the person they dislike than the person they are afraid of. It wont be to the same margin (even Goldwater got 38% of the popular vote) but, short of a massive dose of self-destruction from Clinton, I'd expect her to win reasonably comfortably. I recall the French Socialist politicians holding their nose while voting for Chirac in the run off. The US is far too polorised to get the sort of margin that LBJ did against Goldwater. Having said that, Bazza was a far better candidate than Trump. |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Aug 7, 2016 14:58:54 GMT
Given what has happened so far this year, I still can't completely write The Donald off...... I still think Clinton will win, but there is still a long way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 7, 2016 15:09:57 GMT
I don't know and have no way of knowing. But then many of you with your assertive certainty about Florida, Arizona and Ohio don't know either. How can you? This is not typical and normal Red v. Blue stuff. This is akin to Brexit and I just have a vague smell of 'change'. I have a visceral loathing of Clinton that would have me out pounding the pavement for Trump, in order to see her fail. Don't overlook that vote. Don't overlook the WWC backlash from Dem to Trump. Don't overlook the NRA and pro-Police lobby....the anti-Moslem lobby...the anti-Immigrant lobby...the Law n' Order lobby...the hate-Obama sector, the hate-Latino sector......And a possible difference in TO between those fired up by Trump over those less fired up for Hilary (if that is a possible position to hold?). I can see a possibility that far more rednecks will change to Trump from Dem than smooth well educated Rep will go to Dem. So I very gingerly call this as a possible for Trump. I have a horrible feeling that there is substance to your hypothesis Carlton. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 7, 2016 15:45:22 GMT
I don't know and have no way of knowing. But then many of you with your assertive certainty about Florida, Arizona and Ohio don't know either. How can you? This is not typical and normal Red v. Blue stuff. This is akin to Brexit and I just have a vague smell of 'change'. I have a visceral loathing of Clinton that would have me out pounding the pavement for Trump, in order to see her fail. Don't overlook that vote. Don't overlook the WWC backlash from Dem to Trump. Don't overlook the NRA and pro-Police lobby....the anti-Moslem lobby...the anti-Immigrant lobby...the Law n' Order lobby...the hate-Obama sector, the hate-Latino sector......And a possible difference in TO between those fired up by Trump over those less fired up for Hilary (if that is a possible position to hold?). I can see a possibility that far more rednecks will change to Trump from Dem than smooth well educated Rep will go to Dem. So I very gingerly call this as a possible for Trump. I have a horrible feeling that there is substance to your hypothesis Carlton. His analysis is not without substance is but is incomplete. Trump's awfully low support from Latinos, and increased Latino turnout, are going to doom him in a number of states. That Arizona is even considered vulnerable is a terrible sign for any GOP nominee. His only real hope is the "rust belt strategy" but even that looks doomed to fail as Trump gains in the poorer parts of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin will likely be off set by losses in the wealthier suburbs, Trump's poor numbers among suburban women really should be a huge concern to his campaign. Essentially the electorate that carlton43 sees giving Trump victory simply isn't large enough to overcome those that Trump has alienated. Just look at the electoral college map. There are 18 states (+ DC) that have voted Democrat for at least 6 presidential elections in a row and they provide 242 electoral votes. New Mexico is now safely Democratic and adds another 5 while Virginia was looking good for Clinton and with Kaine on the ballot now looks safe so that gives you 260. Added to that Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire are looking very good for Clinton and that gives you 279. Even if Trump wins Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Iowa (none of which look at all easy for him) he falls short. He has to break the blue wall (the 18 states that have voted Democrat the last 6 times) and that is going to be very difficult. Pennsylvania is just about possible but he is still reliant on winning Florida unless he also takes Michigan and Wisconsin. And this is without mentioning that in Ohio, a state that he has to win, he is engaged in a bitter feud with the popular GOP governor who controls much of the state party machinery. Kasich is diverting every resource he can to help Rob Portman win the Senate race while not lifting a finger to help Trump. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,937
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 7, 2016 15:53:44 GMT
I have a horrible feeling that there is substance to your hypothesis Carlton. His analysis is not without substance is but is incomplete. Trump's awfully low support from Latinos, and increased Latino turnout, are going to doom him in a number of states. That Arizona is even considered vulnerable is a terrible sign for any GOP nominee. His only real hope is the "rust belt strategy" but even that looks doomed to fail as Trump gains in the poorer parts of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin will likely be off set by losses in the wealthier suburbs, Trump's poor numbers among suburban women really should be a huge concern to his campaign. Essentially the electorate that carlton43 sees giving Trump victory simply isn't large enough to overcome those that Trump has alienated. Just look at the electoral college map. There are 18 states (+ DC) that have voted Democrat for at least 6 presidential elections in a row and they provide 242 electoral votes. New Mexico is now safely Democratic and adds another 5 while Virginia was looking good for Clinton and with Kaine on the ballot now looks safe so that gives you 260. Added to that Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire are looking very good for Clinton and that gives you 279. Even if Trump wins Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Iowa (none of which look at all easy for him) he falls short. He has to break the blue wall (the 18 states that have voted Democrat the last 6 times) and that is going to be very difficult. Pennsylvania is just about possible but he is still reliant on winning Florida unless he also takes Michigan and Wisconsin. And this is without mentioning that in Ohio, a state that he has to win, he is engaged in a bitter feud with the popular GOP governor who controls much of the state party machinery. Kasich is diverting every resource he can to help Rob Portman win the Senate race while not lifting a finger to help Trump. Unlike me you are suffused with bottom, background and lashings of knowledge about the subject. And I genuinely respect that in you. Yet you have told us he would never cut it in the primaries. But he did. he could never mix it with the big beasts and the serious candidates. But he did. That he would fail to get the GOP nomination. But he did. That he would be laughed off the pitch and lag miles behind Hilary in all the OPs. But he hasn't. Received wisdom does not seem to be the aid it once was either side of the pond. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 7, 2016 16:10:16 GMT
His analysis is not without substance is but is incomplete. Trump's awfully low support from Latinos, and increased Latino turnout, are going to doom him in a number of states. That Arizona is even considered vulnerable is a terrible sign for any GOP nominee. His only real hope is the "rust belt strategy" but even that looks doomed to fail as Trump gains in the poorer parts of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin will likely be off set by losses in the wealthier suburbs, Trump's poor numbers among suburban women really should be a huge concern to his campaign. Essentially the electorate that carlton43 sees giving Trump victory simply isn't large enough to overcome those that Trump has alienated. Just look at the electoral college map. There are 18 states (+ DC) that have voted Democrat for at least 6 presidential elections in a row and they provide 242 electoral votes. New Mexico is now safely Democratic and adds another 5 while Virginia was looking good for Clinton and with Kaine on the ballot now looks safe so that gives you 260. Added to that Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire are looking very good for Clinton and that gives you 279. Even if Trump wins Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Iowa (none of which look at all easy for him) he falls short. He has to break the blue wall (the 18 states that have voted Democrat the last 6 times) and that is going to be very difficult. Pennsylvania is just about possible but he is still reliant on winning Florida unless he also takes Michigan and Wisconsin. And this is without mentioning that in Ohio, a state that he has to win, he is engaged in a bitter feud with the popular GOP governor who controls much of the state party machinery. Kasich is diverting every resource he can to help Rob Portman win the Senate race while not lifting a finger to help Trump. Unlike me you are suffused with bottom, background and lashings of knowledge about the subject. And I genuinely respect that in you. Yet you have told us he would never cut it in the primaries. But he did. he could never mix it with the big beasts and the serious candidates. But he did. That he would fail to get the GOP nomination. But he did. That he would be laughed off the pitch and lag miles behind Hilary in all the OPs. But he hasn't. Received wisdom does not seem to be the aid it once was either side of the pond. I have acknowledged my false assumptions about the GOP primary but gaining a plurality of GOP primary votes and winning a general election are two different things. Trump won the primary in a manner that has ensured his general election defeat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 11:11:28 GMT
America always was "multi-ethnic"  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 17:56:52 GMT
From the recent Monmouth poll:
"Among white women with a college degree, though, Trump is actually trailing Clinton by 30 points (27% to 57%). Romney narrowly won this group by 6 points in 2012 (52% to 46%)."
If that is anywhere near accurate Trump can not win.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 8, 2016 18:07:15 GMT
From the recent Monmouth poll: "Among white women with a college degree, though, Trump is actually trailing Clinton by 30 points (27% to 57%). Romney narrowly won this group by 6 points in 2012 (52% to 46%)." If that is anywhere near accurate Trump can not win. With numbers like that he won't come close to winning any of the states that Romney lost. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,796
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Aug 8, 2016 19:32:21 GMT
The other factor is creeping demographic change. On current polling information Trump would win if the electorate was as it was in 1980 when Reagan was first elected. The fall in the number of white non Hispanic men without college degrees is hurting the Republicans because they seem obsessed with chasing declining Demographs in the Rust Belt. George W Bush bucked the trends because he courted and did very well with the Latino community. Not only is Trump not looking for support in the expanding demographic groups but he appears to be going out of his way to insult them. An article in 538 pointed out that the demographic change is most marked in key swing states such as Florida and Nevada. The same trends could bring Georgia into play fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-uphill-fight-the-states-where-the-white-population-has-declined-the-most/ |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,937
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 8, 2016 21:26:17 GMT
From the recent Monmouth poll: "Among white women with a college degree, though, Trump is actually trailing Clinton by 30 points (27% to 57%). Romney narrowly won this group by 6 points in 2012 (52% to 46%)." Other polls have Clinton's lead with this group as smaller but still substantial. The reason being of course that white women with a college degree are the group most likely to tend towards the characteristic of universalist ideology. A large portion of them are put off by Trump's non-Universalist 'America First' ideas. This would also be the group within the white population most likely to support policies like amnesty. That would imply that the answer for Republicans wanting to consolidate the white vote more would seem be to support amnesty in order to get these voters. However the problem with amnesty is that it would vastly increase the number of Mexican Americans on the voting rolls and these will vote vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Its a bind for the Republicans with no obvious route for escape. Win the election against the odds and deport them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 21:27:28 GMT
On why the female vote is decisive: 53% of registered voters are women and they turn out to vote at rates 10% higher than men. Historically the GOP was "the party of women", but they haven't won the female vote since 1988 and the 20% gender gap in 2012 was the highest ever. Romney lost the female vote by 12 points, but won the male by 8. In recent decades the most decisive factor among female voters has been marital status. Romney lost single women by 20 points, but won married women by 6 points. This time it looks like education will rival marital status as the decisive factor among women. Well-educated married women in the suburbs will go for Clinton in unprecedented numbers, at the same time single women will constitute a record 23% of the electorate and this is a group the GOP will likely lose at least 70/30 (2008 was 70 to 29 and Trump wont do better than McCain). With an electorate that is only 69% white, and Hispanics likely to vote in significantly higher numbers than the 48% that turned out last time Trump needs to narrow the gender gap, but instead he looks destined to increase it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 9, 2016 6:40:47 GMT
If Trump thinks "America First" is a good slogan, he needs a severe history lesson.
|
|
