IGX

Trump will be the next president of the US.

I'm worried the only thing Trump's going to do is send Hillary to the WH for the next four years.

Andy, do you like him as much as Palin and Bachmann?

I know he's your type, but keep in mind, dumb, crazy and vengeful is a far better look on women than it is on men. And even then, just for a flirt, not a serious commitment.

Hillary will be riding him like a cowboy and Trump will be bleeding from his "wherever" by the time this is over.

Wanna put some $$$ on that Andy? I've got $5 says you're wrong.

Demographics (white people matter less every four years) and public perception are a motherfucker that makes it difficult to see ANY Republican win a national election in the near future, much less the Dongald.

Hillary is likely to break the 350EV mark.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -election/

Trump is losing ground with college educated whites - take that to 50/50. The Latino vote will go to 80-85% for Hillary. Assume the turnout for black Americans drops to the mid-50s and declines a couple of points back toward Trump. Hill Dawg wins 358-180.

The realities of a national election are that Republicans since 1960 have depended on ever-higher percentages of the white male vote (and the white vote in general) to remain competitive - unfortunately there's a point where you can't win more of the white male vote and whites as a whole are a declining electoral force.

seeahill wrote:Wanna put some $$$ on that Andy? I've got $5 says you're wrong.

If I'm wrong, it will be the very first time since FDR.
My my Tim, you're such a big bettin' mother fucker!! When did you get so wreckless???

milosz wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -election/

Trump is losing ground with college educated whites - take that to 50/50. The Latino vote will go to 80-85% for Hillary. Assume the turnout for black Americans drops to the mid-50s and declines a couple of points back toward Trump. Hill Dawg wins 358-180.

The realities of a national election are that Republicans since 1960 have depended on ever-higher percentages of the white male vote (and the white vote in general) to remain competitive - unfortunately there's a point where you can't win more of the white male vote and whites as a whole are a declining electoral force.

Your analysis has nothing to do with anything except your babbling pseudo intellect.

Thud wrote:Andy, do you like him as much as Palin and Bachmann?

I know he's your type, but keep in mind, dumb, crazy and vengeful is a far better look on women than it is on men. And even then, just for a flirt, not a serious commitment.

Hillary will be riding him like a cowboy and Trump will be bleeding from his "wherever" by the time this is over.

You know my type?? Is that why I predicted Obama both times??

Andy82 wrote:

Thud wrote:Andy, do you like him as much as Palin and Bachmann?

I know he's your type, but keep in mind, dumb, crazy and vengeful is a far better look on women than it is on men. And even then, just for a flirt, not a serious commitment.

Hillary will be riding him like a cowboy and Trump will be bleeding from his "wherever" by the time this is over.

You know my type?? Is that why I predicted Obama both times??

No. I'm assuming it was because of one of two reasons:

1. You hoped the forces of the universe would work like reverse psychology, so that if even YOU predicted an Obama victory, Jesus/Allah would take pity on your misery and cede you his opponent.

2. Your prediction came late enough in the election cycle that everyone but Carl Rove knew Obama would win.

milosz wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -election/

Trump is losing ground with college educated whites - take that to 50/50. The Latino vote will go to 80-85% for Hillary. Assume the turnout for black Americans drops to the mid-50s and declines a couple of points back toward Trump. Hill Dawg wins 358-180.

The realities of a national election are that Republicans since 1960 have depended on ever-higher percentages of the white male vote (and the white vote in general) to remain competitive - unfortunately there's a point where you can't win more of the white male vote and whites as a whole are a declining electoral force.

Good thing Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act passed! Good move for America!

Thud wrote:

Andy82 wrote:

Thud wrote:Andy, do you like him as much as Palin and Bachmann?

I know he's your type, but keep in mind, dumb, crazy and vengeful is a far better look on women than it is on men. And even then, just for a flirt, not a serious commitment.

Hillary will be riding him like a cowboy and Trump will be bleeding from his "wherever" by the time this is over.

You know my type?? Is that why I predicted Obama both times??

No. I'm assuming it was because of one of two reasons:

1. You hoped the forces of the universe would work like reverse psychology, so that if even YOU predicted an Obama victory, Jesus/Allah would take pity on your misery and cede you his opponent.

2. Your prediction came late enough in the election cycle that everyone but Carl Rove knew Obama would win.

Bullshit, Karl Rove, predicted Romney would surprise everyone as late as one to two weeks before election. I've tuned out his babbling ever since.

There are a total of two sources worth paying attention to on election odds - 538 and Sam Wang/the Princeton Election Consortium, given their track records. The era of gut feelings and hunches is over, thank God.

Rove was still arguing that Romney could win on election night, the video of Fox News people explaining their Ohio call to him is a classic.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQLV7nqD3CA[/youtube]

milosz wrote:There are a total of two sources worth paying attention to on election odds - 538 and Sam Wang/the Princeton Election Consortium, given their track records. The era of gut feelings and hunches is over, thank God.

Rove was still arguing that Romney could win on election night, the video of Fox News people explaining their Ohio call to him is a classic.

The sources you cite rely pretty heavily on polls, and don't necessarily account for creative campaigns.

'Unlikely' voters put W over in 2004, and 'unlikely' voters put Trump over in the Republican primaries. Both were targeted by the respective campaigns, and the two groups (pro-life voters that don't usually vote and working class voters that don't usually vote in primaries) are not necessarily the same. Neither group felt the love for Romney, but Rove thinking that Romney was running a stronger outreach to pro-life voters than he was is not unreasonable. I also doubt that Hillary's internal polling in 2008 predicted Obama's strength with non traditional Dem voters.

Like Trump or hate him, I think we can both agree that his campaign is not playing by normal rules.

DikTracy6000 wrote:

Thud wrote:

Andy82 wrote:

Thud wrote:Andy, do you like him as much as Palin and Bachmann?

I know he's your type, but keep in mind, dumb, crazy and vengeful is a far better look on women than it is on men. And even then, just for a flirt, not a serious commitment.

Hillary will be riding him like a cowboy and Trump will be bleeding from his "wherever" by the time this is over.

You know my type?? Is that why I predicted Obama both times??

No. I'm assuming it was because of one of two reasons:

1. You hoped the forces of the universe would work like reverse psychology, so that if even YOU predicted an Obama victory, Jesus/Allah would take pity on your misery and cede you his opponent.

2. Your prediction came late enough in the election cycle that everyone but Carl Rove knew Obama would win.

Bullshit, Karl Rove, predicted Romney would surprise everyone as late as one to two weeks before election. I've tuned out his babbling ever since.

What's the disagreement ("Bullshit")? I said everyone but Rove knew.

I notice you didn't take the bet, Andy.

Turdacious wrote:The sources you cite rely pretty heavily on polls, and don't necessarily account for creative campaigns.

this sounds like magical thinking.

yeah, those two sites aggregate polls and do statistical huggery buggery then run multiple scenarios and -- bingo--they give you a reasonble prediction.

what does a "creative campaign" even mean? and what does it have to do with this? are you suggesting pumpkin donnie's twitter-fu will attract hordes of voters somehow not recognized by poll makers? he's gonna sneak a spitball past nate silver for a called third strike?

Turdacious wrote:The sources you cite rely pretty heavily on polls, and don't necessarily account for creative campaigns.

What does that even mean? The argument about poll data is that it under-represents non-traditional groups - youth, minorities, people without landlines, etc. - which data aggregation ala PEC/538 offset with historical polling data, trends and demographic info. They can be confused by large spreads of candidates (ie GOP nomination this year) but even then 538 has talked about their biggest errors being a reliance on political instincts, the a GOP kingmaker or three would step in and do away with Trump.

Will they always hit with 95% accuracy? Of course not - but as of now they're the only numbers with any real weight of meaning to them.

What is a 'creative campaign' that won't show in poll numbers?

'Unlikely' voters put W over in 2004, and 'unlikely' voters put Trump over in the Republican primaries.

W was put over the top by being a wartime President before that war completely shit the bed, running against an opponent who couldn't even claim to be anti-war (given his vote to invade) for those who were growing opposed and also having a different anti-war issue on his record so he still appeared to be a pussy in the eyes of people who are obsessed with 'strength.'

Trump was put over by standard Republican demographics - middle-class whites. The notion that he's drawing out heretofore undiscovered working class whites is simply wrong. His support wasn't grounded in disaffected, non-voting whites, it was grounded in the casual Tea Party member. A white guy, 50+, good income, feeling left out by changes in society, still not sure where Obama was born, etc..

Like Trump or hate him, I think we can both agree that his campaign is not playing by normal rules.

In the sense of complete and total incompetence? Agreed. The campaign tell-alls will be absolutely epic - Fear and Loathing meets Primary Colors meets Game Change with a little bit of Nero thrown in for a headliner.
In the sense of the Democratic ground game post-2004? Not even a little.

seeahill wrote:I notice you didn't take the bet, Andy.

You're so stupid.

milosz wrote: What is a 'creative campaign' that won't show in poll numbers?

'Unlikely' voters put W over in 2004, and 'unlikely' voters put Trump over in the Republican primaries.

W was put over the top by being a wartime President before that war completely shit the bed, running against an opponent who couldn't even claim to be anti-war (given his vote to invade) for those who were growing opposed and also having a different anti-war issue on his record so he still appeared to be a pussy in the eyes of people who are obsessed with 'strength.'

Trump was put over by standard Republican demographics - middle-class whites. The notion that he's drawing out heretofore undiscovered working class whites is simply wrong. His support wasn't grounded in disaffected, non-voting whites, it was grounded in the casual Tea Party member. A white guy, 50+, good income, feeling left out by changes in society, still not sure where Obama was born, etc..

Re W in 2004:
http://www.pewforum.org/2005/02/03/reli ... -analysis/
http://www.beliefnet.com/news/politics/ ... right.aspx

Re Trump: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tr ... 538twitter

I have no idea what the first link is supposed to prove about your argument regarding 'unlikely' voters - religious people voted as much as ever in 2004, Bush happened to capture more of two groups (Latinos and Catholics).

The second... also tries to drive home the same point (though they're statistically suspect given that Bush's swing was ~3% nationwide, which would account for more than the cited voters).

The third... yeah, Trump better talk about winning 'unlikely' voters because he's going to be fucked when it comes to likely voters. Unfortunately, look at the demographics of unlikely voters and have the lowest turnout in most elections (hint: they aren't pale) and their attitude toward Trump (hint: not positive).

Even if you want to say that "unlikely" means "non-college educated whites" (the only pro-Trump constituency at this point), he's not doing better in polling among them than Mitt Romney did in 2012.

Of course, all of these hammer home the issue with Trump - Latino voters are driving the impotence of the contemporary GOP, turning Florida, eventually turning Texas purple if not blue sometime around 2024-2028 (after which the GOP as constituted will find it absolutely impossible to win a national election)

As noted, the Latino vote has been at minimum 60-40 D/R for about the history of modern politics, trending better with Bush's "I can speak Spanish y'all" 'compassionate conservatism' appealing to Catholics (who believe in social justice, natch), much worse in 2008 and 2012 - now the party has fully embraced the nativist turn since 2008 and it's going to fuck them for a very long time if they can't swing back. If they swing back and abandon border walls and whining about illegal immigrants, though, they lose ground among their base (either through shifting parties - because they can't see a difference or simply not turning out). Assuming anyone could make it through the primaries without assuaging that base obsessed with brown people, which appears to be impossible.

The United States is going to be the first 'first world' nation-state where the dominant socio-ethnic tribe has been replaced or heavily diminished in political power. The GOP's future depends on responding to that - and we know that political allegiances filter down over generations. The black vote will remain absurdly Democratic for our lifetimes because of decisions made in 1964 and 1968. Y'all better hope that doesn't happen with the Latino vote because of Trump and the Tea Party.

In the short term, Hillary's going to win 350EV, Trump's coattails are going to give the Dems+VP 51 votes in the Senate and Hillary will nominate three Supreme Court Justices.

The unlikely voters in W's case in 2004 accounted for his high numbers (W won by getting more total votes than any Republican previously had)-- Rove's assumption that Romney could continue this success among Hispanics in Ohio and other similar states was not unreasonable (even though it turned out to be untrue). IMHO, Hispanics (especially ones in rural areas) tend to be poorly represented in polls (relative to their potential impact). Also, I didn't suggest that Trump's primary success will lead to general election success.

Make Andy great again