politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is analysis might well disprove the theory of shy Trumper

SystemSystem Posts: 11,006
edited October 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is analysis might well disprove the theory of shy Trumpers

Also Trump didn't over-perform his polls in the primary. If anything the opposite happened. pic.twitter.com/UFVO6BvRLe

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    edited October 2016
    First.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,244
    ED THROUGH!!
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,285
    Obviously I should have posted a trigger warning for Trump fans.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    Trumping in public is always a source of shame, surely.
  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    now this is a goal...

    https://twitter.com/BilouFCB/status/790242009483243520
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,398
    Shy Trumpers almost certainly exist, but no way can there be enough of them to overturn the kind of deficits he has in the polls.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,222
    Yes
  • Options
    NorvilleRogersIIINorvilleRogersIII Posts: 39
    Are Shy Trumpers the same as Phantom Raspberry Blowers?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    edited October 2016
    Trump outperformed his polling in Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania though which are key swing states. If he wins those states and Ohio and Iowa which he often leads he wins if he holds all the Romney states bar North Carolina. If the white working class turn out in greater numbers than expected in 2016 compared to 2012 and minority turnout is lower he could win. African Americans for instance are 18% less enthusiastic about the 2016 election than the 2012 election and 28% less enthusiastic than compared to the 2008 election
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-interest-in-election-falls-1476702003
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,578
    The answer is blowing in the wind...
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    I'm not sure that the dynamics of a primary are the same as the the general though.

    The primaries were about blowing a raspberry at the establishment - but in the polling booth many would have had doubts. Socially it was a "safe" thing to do to support Trump: and arguably harder to justify supporting Bush for example.

    With the media coverage of Trump's issues over the last weeks and months I can see much more social shame about being a backer. What would be interesting is analysis of the last few weeks - where has the Trump support been going: to Hillary, to undecided or to non-voting? The answer would be very instructive. I suspect it will be going to undecided - and, if so, it (or a proportion) may come back on the day.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    A handy guide to where Trump's mediocre ground game outweighed shy Trumpers and vice versa. New England is generally a place where backing Donald Trump is social death. The Bible Belt, not so much.

    Worth considering in state betting too.
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    ToryJim said:

    Shy Trumpers almost certainly exist, but no way can there be enough of them to overturn the kind of deficits he has in the polls.

    Hes 5-1. Brexit was 6-1 on referendum day.

    I dont think the bookies are yet convinced its all over.

    I certainly want more than 5-1 though before I take a punt.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    now this is a goal...

    https://twitter.com/BilouFCB/status/790242009483243520

    Liquid football.
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    AlastairMeeks said:

    A handy guide to where Trump's mediocre ground game outweighed shy Trumpers and vice versa. New England is generally a place where backing Donald Trump is social death. The Bible Belt, not so much.

    Worth considering in state betting too.

    Trump is doing 1% better than Romney in the northeast but Clinton is doing 9% better than Obama in the south.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,936
    FPT:
    tyson said:

    Slightly off thread...but this is a Sunday afternoon and all.....how many posters here are currently nursing colds? I've got terrible man flu, diabolical worse than anyone else I'm sure...but everyone else I know, my wife, her folks, my friends I have spoken to today, the barman...even my dog is sneezing.

    Is the whole world gripped by a cold?

    All the Leavers I know are tickety-boo...

    :)
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    tyson said:

    Slightly off thread...but this is a Sunday afternoon and all.....how many posters here are currently nursing colds? I've got terrible man flu, diabolical worse than anyone else I'm sure...but everyone else I know, my wife, her folks, my friends I have spoken to today, the barman...even my dog is sneezing.

    Is the whole world gripped by a cold?

    All the Leavers I know are tickety-boo...

    :)
    Fighting fit here....
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,129
    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    tyson said:

    Slightly off thread...but this is a Sunday afternoon and all.....how many posters here are currently nursing colds? I've got terrible man flu, diabolical worse than anyone else I'm sure...but everyone else I know, my wife, her folks, my friends I have spoken to today, the barman...even my dog is sneezing.

    Is the whole world gripped by a cold?

    All the Leavers I know are tickety-boo...

    :)
    I've got a bit of a sniffle but it is not second thoughts, honest.
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    MarqueeMark said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    tyson said:

    Slightly off thread...but this is a Sunday afternoon and all.....how many posters here are currently nursing colds? I've got terrible man flu, diabolical worse than anyone else I'm sure...but everyone else I know, my wife, her folks, my friends I have spoken to today, the barman...even my dog is sneezing.

    Is the whole world gripped by a cold?

    All the Leavers I know are tickety-boo...
    :)
    Fighting fit here....
    Had my annual flu jab and feeling fine.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/790262564320120832
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/80135/emily-thornberry-not-acceptable-keep-paying-eu
    Vs
    Hilary Benn, Ms Thornberry’s predecessor in the Shadow Cabinet post and now the chairman of the Brexit Committee, stressed the importance of a transitional deal when he spoke to the Andrew Marr Show ea
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,129
    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Some of his agenda is not sane.

    But I agree this is a really disappointing POTUS. Both of the candidates are crap, incoherent and will almost certainly be poor Presidents. Hilary, probably slightly less so but we will have 4 years of Special Prosecutors, Congressional Inquiries, lying and equivocation. Not really what the country needs and not particularly helpful to us.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,224
    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.

    It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.

    It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    Malmesbury said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.

    It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.

    It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
    The wall stuff is all a key part of Trump's platform and it motivated his base. Had Sanders got just 0.3% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus there and added to his NH win would almost certainly have become nominee and we would now be in the closing stages of a Trump v Sanders race
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    edited October 2016
    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.

    The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
    We shall see but Trump's platform includes deporting illegals, building a wall with Mexico, starting a trade war with China and imposing tariffs on their imports, banning all Muslim immigration (OK maybe he has now dropped that one), tearing up the TPP and maybe withdrawing from NAFTA. Not even Reagan went that far. Unlike Reagan he also seems to want to let Russia do what it likes, whereas Reagan preferred negotiation through strength
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    Bizarre moment - Coronation Street on the TV sets in the gym at my hotel in Vancouver, complete with sub-titles.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,129
    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.

    The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
    We shall see but Trump's platform includes deporting illegals, building a wall with Mexico, starting a trade war with China and imposing tariffs on their imports, banning all Muslim immigration (OK maybe he has now dropped that one), tearing up the TPP and maybe withdrawing from NAFTA. Not even Reagan went that far. Unlike Reagan he also seems to want to let Russia do what it likes, whereas Reagan preferred negotiation through strength
    I think he wants to negotiate with Russia - whilst Clinton wants to tell them the USA nuclear response time. Slight difference.

    (USA citizens have always been relatively insular)
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    Turnout could be crucial - whether real or virtual.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.
  • Options
    initforthemoneyinitforthemoney Posts: 736
    SeanT said:



    The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.

    The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.

    Would he have been able to get away with more if he delivered his lines Brian Blessed style?

    'NASTY WOMAN!'
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,129
    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.
    Only if they think its close.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    edited October 2016
    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited October 2016
    FPT

    AlistairAlistair Posts: 5,568
    7:39PM
    Moses_ said:
    » show previous quotes
    Wait one. That's not a win then.

    If it was 52.9% that would be considered a very narrow win and not representative because half have voted elsewhere. Well that's the strange logic of Remainers on PB .

    (Yes I know it's not a half but doesn't stop that "half quote" being used over and over by Remainers)

    ------------------

    Trump won't be getting 47% of vote.

    ------------------

    Totally irrelevant.

    Everyone else will of course so we have a glorious situation where in the UK 52.9% is regarded a narrow win and not the will of the people but in USA 53% ( according to your call) is a resounding win and certainly the will of the people.

    FFS and you wonder why Remainers are not taken seriously.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    What odds do you want on Turnout below 50%?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    So what do PBers make of this?:
    https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/788315565022732288
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    initforthemoney said:

    SeanT said:



    The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.

    The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.

    Would he have been able to get away with more if he delivered his lines Brian Blessed style?

    'NASTY WOMAN!'
    Trump has a mountain to climb!
    Lucky Fellow!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    nunu said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.
    As I posted earlier, Trump is winning 15% of Democrats while Hillary is getting just 11% of Republicans according to Rasmussen
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.
    Ford v Carter is surely the comparator (if there is one), and that garnered 53.6%.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.

    The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
    He was losing before the tape came out as Clinton rallied after the first debate and then increased her lead again after the second. People underestimate Clinton too much.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    edited October 2016
    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    Yes and apart from college educated white women which voters are really motivated to go out and vote for Hillary on a cold November evening? African Americans? No, they much preferred Obama. Liberals and the young? No they much preferred Sanders

    Trump's blue collar base however will be at the polls to vote for him come hell or high water
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MikeK said:

    So what do PBers make of this?:
    https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/788315565022732288

    That's some seriously unskewed polls.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.

    The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
    We shall see but Trump's platform includes deporting illegals, building a wall with Mexico, starting a trade war with China and imposing tariffs on their imports, banning all Muslim immigration (OK maybe he has now dropped that one), tearing up the TPP and maybe withdrawing from NAFTA. Not even Reagan went that far. Unlike Reagan he also seems to want to let Russia do what it likes, whereas Reagan preferred negotiation through strength
    I wasn't comparing him to Reagan in terms of POLICIES, just saying a politician with Reagan's charm could sell 80% of Trump's manifesto, and win. And win very easily - against Hillary.

    It is hard to really be charming while advocating mass deportations and a trade war, you need bombast and anger if that is the message you are communicating
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Alistair said:

    MikeK said:

    So what do PBers make of this?:
    https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/788315565022732288

    That's some seriously unskewed polls.
    With all six grey states blue, t's not actually a million miles off Trump's route to the White House, but it's 2-3 points outside current polling.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.

    The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
    We shall see but Trump's platform includes deporting illegals, building a wall with Mexico, starting a trade war with China and imposing tariffs on their imports, banning all Muslim immigration (OK maybe he has now dropped that one), tearing up the TPP and maybe withdrawing from NAFTA. Not even Reagan went that far. Unlike Reagan he also seems to want to let Russia do what it likes, whereas Reagan preferred negotiation through strength
    I think he wants to negotiate with Russia - whilst Clinton wants to tell them the USA nuclear response time. Slight difference.

    (USA citizens have always been relatively insular)
    I wouldn't go that far but there is little secret who Putin who is rooting for
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    nunu said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.
    yeah absolutely. Most polls have republicans losing this demo, esp the women. And why would they vote for the moronic Johnson???
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,097
    HYUFD said:

    Trump outperformed his polling in Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania though which are key swing states. If he wins those states and Ohio and Iowa which he often leads he wins if he holds all the Romney states bar North Carolina. If the white working class turn out in greater numbers than expected in 2016 compared to 2012 and minority turnout is lower he could win. African Americans for instance are 18% less enthusiastic about the 2016 election than the 2012 election and 28% less enthusiastic than compared to the 2008 election
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-interest-in-election-falls-1476702003

    The only way you can get Trump to a majority is by applying those corrections where they're favourable to him, and ignoring them where they're unfavourable. For example, that 8.5-point deficit in Iowa means that with the correction applied, Clinton would win it by a mile, even though it's close without the correction.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    This is rather good on the absurdity of the current PC gender war

    https://youtu.be/Ptg19PmIbIk
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:


    Trump's blue collar base however will be at the polls to vote for him come hell or high water

    Who are Trump's Blue Collar base? Trump primary voters were not Blue Collar workers

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    DavidL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.
    Only if they think its close.
    Indeed the Hillary ramping by the likes of our own dear 619 giving the impression that it is all over bar the shouting could actually be a disastrous own goal.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,222
    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.
    Alastair yhm
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    On topic: incidentally, as someone who stayed up for most of the Republican primaries - and pored over the rest - Trump outperformed the polls when it mattered most. Florida got rid of Rubio, Indiana doomed Cruz, Pennsylvania created the rust-belt message.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    HYUFD said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    Yes and apart from college educated white women which voters are really motivated to go out and vote for Hillary on a cold November evening? African Americans? No, they much preferred Obama. Liberals and the young? No they much preferred Sanders

    Trump's blue collar base however will be at the polls to vote for him come hell or high water
    you know college educated white women are one of the most important demographics in US elections right? You have no chance without them.

    Also, liberals, the young, hispanics and AA's will def vote to keep Trump out of the white house
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    SouthamObserver said:

    Bizarre moment - Coronation Street on the TV sets in the gym at my hotel in Vancouver, complete with sub-titles.

    Large proportion of hotel guests in Vancouver are Chinese. I wonder what the Manchurians would make of Mancunian...Goodness knows I struggle.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,129
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    DavidL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.
    Only if they think its close.
    Indeed the Hillary ramping by the likes of our own dear 619 giving the impression that it is all over bar the shouting could actually be a disastrous own goal.
    Except almost none of us has a vote. Which makes you wonder what the point is really.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.

    It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.

    It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
    The wall stuff is all a key part of Trump's platform and it motivated his base. Had Sanders got just 0.3% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus there and added to his NH win would almost certainly have become nominee and we would now be in the closing stages of a Trump v Sanders race
    Clinton won by 4 million votes. Wasnt particularly close
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,129
    Alistair said:

    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    What odds do you want on Turnout below 50%?
    Nah, not playing. Too hard to read from this side of the pond. 54.9% last time. That would be a very big drop.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Looking at the Rassmusen page giving the edited highlights of the demographics of their latest poll they make the extraordinary claim that Mitt Romney earned 17% of the black vote in 2012?

    This goes against everything I've read. Does anyone have any source to this fantastical claim?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,224
    edited October 2016
    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.

    It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.

    It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
    The wall stuff is all a key part of Trump's platform and it motivated his base. Had Sanders got just 0.3% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus there and added to his NH win would almost certainly have become nominee and we would now be in the closing stages of a Trump v Sanders race
    The wall stuff is a key part of Trump's idiocy, yes. But a populist of the right could appeal to the base in many other ways.

    Trump vs Bernie would be interesting to imagine - I keep thinking that Trump would fail to lay a glove on Bernie.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,097
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Alistair said:

    MikeK said:

    So what do PBers make of this?:
    https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/788315565022732288

    That's some seriously unskewed polls.
    With all six grey states blue, t's not actually a million miles off Trump's route to the White House, but it's 2-3 points outside current polling.
    It's daft to show states like Florida and North Carolina, where Clinton has a lead in the polls, as definite red states, not even toss-ups.
  • Options
    mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    AlastairMeeks said:

    A handy guide to where Trump's mediocre ground game outweighed shy Trumpers and vice versa. New England is generally a place where backing Donald Trump is social death. The Bible Belt, not so much.

    Worth considering in state betting too.

    Perhaps. I was slightly surprised by the number of Trump signs/stickers in, of all places, Cape Cod last week. Worth remembering that Mass. has a Republican governor - generalisations are just that.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,129
    On the plus car it is someone other than Lewis's car that has caught fire to help Nico this time.

    So far.
  • Options
    NoEasyDayNoEasyDay Posts: 454
    SeanT said:

    OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?

    I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.

    Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.

    In bad taste i know but has anyone seen odds/a market in Clinton not lasting the full term due to dementia/ill health/no 24 bus etc. Assuming she wins.
  • Options
    TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    DavidL said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    DavidL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.
    Only if they think its close.
    Indeed the Hillary ramping by the likes of our own dear 619 giving the impression that it is all over bar the shouting could actually be a disastrous own goal.
    Except almost none of us has a vote. Which makes you wonder what the point is really.
    Yeah, whilst it's undoubtedly true that the role of POTUS is important on a global scale, I do find it hard to understand why some PBers are so enthusiastic about either of the candidates.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    edited October 2016
    HYUFD said:

    nunu said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.
    As I posted earlier, Trump is winning 15% of Democrats while Hillary is getting just 11% of Republicans according to Rasmussen
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    OK but 1) its Ras no other pollster is showing this, in fact most polls I've seen show over 90% of dems backing her whereas he struggles to get 85% of Republicans. And she is winning educated white women (i.e suburban women) easily.

    2) there are more Dems

    3) in North Carolina in the early vote white urban turnout is UP 2% for dems but white urban turnout is down 4% for Republicans which is particularly bad for them since the local party is 94% white. This suggests so far at least suburban Repubs are not voting for DT.

    4) Bernie voters are mainly young and he is often fourth place with them.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    SeanT said:

    OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?

    I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.

    Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.

    She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.
    Ford v Carter is surely the comparator (if there is one), and that garnered 53.6%.
    Neither Ford nor Carter were as loathed as Trump and Hillary are, the nearest comparison is 1968 albeit with Humphrey not running leaving the race as Nixon v Wallace
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    SeanT said:

    nunu said:

    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.

    The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
    He was losing before the tape came out as Clinton rallied after the first debate and then increased her lead again after the second. People underestimate Clinton too much.
    She's facing the worst Republican candidate I can remember in my lifetime. No, we're not underestimating her. She's terrible, he's even worse, and by a distance.
    Hmmm your right I think, she's the luckiest person in the world.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Trump outperformed his polling in Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania though which are key swing states. If he wins those states and Ohio and Iowa which he often leads he wins if he holds all the Romney states bar North Carolina. If the white working class turn out in greater numbers than expected in 2016 compared to 2012 and minority turnout is lower he could win. African Americans for instance are 18% less enthusiastic about the 2016 election than the 2012 election and 28% less enthusiastic than compared to the 2008 election
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-interest-in-election-falls-1476702003

    The only way you can get Trump to a majority is by applying those corrections where they're favourable to him, and ignoring them where they're unfavourable. For example, that 8.5-point deficit in Iowa means that with the correction applied, Clinton would win it by a mile, even though it's close without the correction.
    Of course it requires everything to go right for him but Trump has a 3.7% lead in Iowa according to RCP
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Super interesting article on the LA Times poll.

    Due to their extreme generosity with the underlying data it is eay to apply your own weightings. Once you apply "standard" weightings to it it basiclly follows the RCP polling average almost perfectly.

    http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/19/the-virtues-of-the-l-a-times-poll/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:


    Trump's blue collar base however will be at the polls to vote for him come hell or high water

    Who are Trump's Blue Collar base? Trump primary voters were not Blue Collar workers

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
    Compared to Kasich, Bush, Rubio and even Cruz voters Trump voters were less well off and of course primary voters tend to be richer on average than general election voters anyway. Democratic primary voters tend to be less well off than GOP ones mainly because of the below average median income of African American voters who participate in them
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited October 2016
    SeanT said:

    OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?

    I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.

    Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.

    Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).

    A real votewinner.

    And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    edited October 2016
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    SeanT said:

    OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?

    I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.

    Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.

    Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).

    A real votewinner.

    And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
    That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Alistair said:

    MikeK said:

    So what do PBers make of this?:
    https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/788315565022732288

    That's some seriously unskewed polls.
    Michigan is safe for her.
  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is analysis might well disprove the theory of shy Trumper

    You might want to rewrite the header, unless you actually want people to think you're a French spy who doesn't quite have fluency
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    Yes and apart from college educated white women which voters are really motivated to go out and vote for Hillary on a cold November evening? African Americans? No, they much preferred Obama. Liberals and the young? No they much preferred Sanders

    Trump's blue collar base however will be at the polls to vote for him come hell or high water
    you know college educated white women are one of the most important demographics in US elections right? You have no chance without them.

    Also, liberals, the young, hispanics and AA's will def vote to keep Trump out of the white house
    Wrong, if you get enough of the white working class out to vote for you or African Americans to vote for you can win without them (Obama lost white college educated women for instance to Romney).

    The young are 16% less interested in the 2016 election than 2012 and almost 30% less interested than 2008, African Americans are 18% less interested than 2012 and 28% less interested than 2008

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-interest-in-election-falls-1476702003
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    nunu said:

    Alistair said:

    MikeK said:

    So what do PBers make of this?:
    https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/788315565022732288

    That's some seriously unskewed polls.
    Michigan is safe for her.
    Yeah, and Trump isn't on course to win any of the grey states.
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    DavidL said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    DavidL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.
    Only if they think its close.
    Indeed the Hillary ramping by the likes of our own dear 619 giving the impression that it is all over bar the shouting could actually be a disastrous own goal.
    Except almost none of us has a vote. Which makes you wonder what the point is really.
    I dont know, some sort of emotional desire to see Hillary win I suppose. Sure is tedious though.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    On topic- I do wonder about these numbers. A lot can happen in the last three weeks of campaigning.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    DavidL said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    DavidL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:

    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.

    It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
    Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for Brexit
    The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.
    I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.
    The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.
    Only if they think its close.
    Indeed the Hillary ramping by the likes of our own dear 619 giving the impression that it is all over bar the shouting could actually be a disastrous own goal.
    Except almost none of us has a vote. Which makes you wonder what the point is really.
    I dont know, some sort of emotional desire to see Hillary win I suppose. Sure is tedious though.
    You don't feel the burning desire to correct someone who is wrong on the internet? :D
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    edited October 2016
    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.

    It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.

    It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
    The wall stuff is all a key part of Trump's platform and it motivated his base. Had Sanders got just 0.3% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus there and added to his NH win would almost certainly have become nominee and we would now be in the closing stages of a Trump v Sanders race
    Clinton won by 4 million votes. Wasnt particularly close
    Only because she won Iowa by 0.2%, had she lost Iowa she would likely have been toast as Sanders comfortably won New Hampshire and no candidate has won both those states and failed to be nominee
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    nunu said:

    SeanT said:

    nunu said:

    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.

    The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
    He was losing before the tape came out as Clinton rallied after the first debate and then increased her lead again after the second. People underestimate Clinton too much.
    She's facing the worst Republican candidate I can remember in my lifetime. No, we're not underestimating her. She's terrible, he's even worse, and by a distance.
    Hmmm your right I think, she's the luckiest person in the world.

    Hmmm - Theresa May gives her a run for her money.

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    Malmesbury said:

    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.

    The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.

    Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
    Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.

    It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.

    It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
    The wall stuff is all a key part of Trump's platform and it motivated his base. Had Sanders got just 0.3% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus there and added to his NH win would almost certainly have become nominee and we would now be in the closing stages of a Trump v Sanders race
    The wall stuff is a key part of Trump's idiocy, yes. But a populist of the right could appeal to the base in many other ways.

    Trump vs Bernie would be interesting to imagine - I keep thinking that Trump would fail to lay a glove on Bernie.
    That race certainly would have been high turnout
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    nunu said:

    HYUFD said:

    nunu said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Alistair said:

    At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.

    Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.

    Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).

    We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
    Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of Republicans
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    Well, If RAS says it...
    There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
    Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.
    As I posted earlier, Trump is winning 15% of Democrats while Hillary is getting just 11% of Republicans according to Rasmussen
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
    OK but 1) its Ras no other pollster is showing this, in fact most polls I've seen show over 90% of dems backing her whereas he struggles to get 85% of Republicans. And she is winning educated white women (i.e suburban women) easily.

    2) there are more Dems

    3) in North Carolina in the early vote white urban turnout is UP 2% for dems but white urban turnout is down 4% for Republicans which is particularly bad for them since the local party is 94% white. This suggests so far at least suburban Repubs are not voting for DT.

    4) Bernie voters are mainly young and he is often fourth place with them.
    Yes but the same trend is seen in the polls where Trump is close or leading, if he wins more of those Dems than Romney he has a real chance. It is rural and blue collar small town whites who are Trump's core supporters, not urban whites. Trump does not need to win younger voters, just benefit from their failure to come out to vote for Hillary
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,286
    Any views on why Nuttall is clear odds on favourite for UKIP leader?

    I would have thought Suzanne Evans would be similar odds to him? She was a day or two ago when I last checked.

    Is it because people think Evans and Kassam will split a similar vote allowing Nuttall to win under FPTP?
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    nunu said:

    SeanT said:

    OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?

    I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.

    Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.

    She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.
    I dont think even Corbyn has dared suggest that the offspringnof families with a household income of £80,000 should be exempt from University fees.

    Anyone voting for her on those grounds is likely in for disappointment.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    MikeL said:

    Any views on why Nuttall is clear odds on favourite for UKIP leader?

    I would have thought Suzanne Evans would be similar odds to him? She was a day or two ago when I last checked.

    Is it because people think Evans and Kassam will split a similar vote allowing Nuttall to win under FPTP?

    I'll vote for Nuttall over Evans. I quite like her, but I think he'd better.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    SeanT said:

    OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?

    I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.

    Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.

    Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).

    A real votewinner.

    And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
    So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920
    MikeK said:

    So what do PBers make of this?:
    https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/788315565022732288

    If it's Trump +1.8% (Florida), he puts it in the Trump column.
    If it's Clinton +2.0% (Pennsylvania), he puts it in the to close to call column.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,222
    tlg86 said:

    MikeL said:

    Any views on why Nuttall is clear odds on favourite for UKIP leader?

    I would have thought Suzanne Evans would be similar odds to him? She was a day or two ago when I last checked.

    Is it because people think Evans and Kassam will split a similar vote allowing Nuttall to win under FPTP?

    I'll vote for Nuttall over Evans. I quite like her, but I think he'd better.
    UKIP is Farage and Banks's plaything - or so they treat it - and neither of them want Evans. Therefore, despite her very solid performances on the media, she is probably doomed since without Farage or money the party itself is doomed (insofar as it isn't already so).
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    nunu said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    SeanT said:

    OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?

    I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.

    Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.

    Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).

    A real votewinner.

    And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
    So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
    Killing a baby to save an adult? Surely it should be the other way around!
This discussion has been closed.