POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[Ben E Lou]

Ah...found it. The post-mortem.

RNC Completes 'Autopsy' on 2012 Loss, Calls for Inclusion but No Policy Change - ABC News

A few choice tidbits from what the party leaders thought back then...

The report, called the "Growth and Opportunity Project," lays out an extensive plan the RNC believes will lead the party to victory with an extensive outreach to women, African-American, Asian, Hispanic and gay voters.

And then their voters gave them Donald Trump.

"If Hispanic Americans hear the GOP doesn't want them in the U.S.A.," Fonelledas said, "they won't pay attention to our next sentence. It doesn't matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy. If Hispanics think we don't want them here, they will close their ears to our policies."

And then their voters told them to build that wall.

The theme of inclusion continued with Glenn McColl, a national committeeman from South Carolina who insisted the party seems to some as "intolerant and unaccepting of differing points of view."

And then their voters gave hearty approval to the candidate who kicks anyone with an opposing view out of his rallies.

In short, the GOP leadership had a plan in place to do just what Dutch is mentioning, but the voters said "HELL NO" to that plan.

[stevew]

Love that the unskewed polls are back.

[miked]

All of that leads me to believe that the GOP are completely out of touch with their base. It's like they've built a monster they can't control.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Hispanic vote...

Dubya 2000: 35%
Dubya 2004: 44%
McCain 2008: 31%
Romney 2012: 27%

Thanks for the numbers Ben, didn't think it was that bad for Romney, but with the right candidate this time around, I think those numbers would have improved for R's.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

And then their voters told them to build that wall.

Yep - see Stage 12 in the Vox article (which links to the Growth and Opportunity Project plan).

"12) Republican elites try to back immigration reform — but get backlash from their voters"

So they came up with a plan. The party would change its tone on immigration, adopting more tolerant rhetoric, and it would also embrace immigration reform. In the Senate in 2013, old hands like John McCain and rising stars like Marco Rubio collaborated with Democrats on a bill that would give unauthorized immigrants a path to legal status.

The final Senate roll call vote was 68-32 — with all 32 no votes, plus 14 yes votes, coming from Republicans. But a huge backlash from the Republican Party’s predominantly white base, which views the bill as "amnesty" for people who broke the rules, ensued. As a result, the bill died in the House of Representatives, never even being brought for a vote.

The whole situation exacerbated GOP voters’ mistrust of their own party’s leaders, which had already been growing. It also helped cripple the presidential prospects of both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who were closely identified with immigration reform. And it paved the way for Trump to launch his presidential candidacy on a platform of outright hostility toward unauthorized immigrants.

But you know, they were all RINOs anyway.

[mckerney]

The report, called the "Growth and Opportunity Project," lays out an extensive plan the RNC believes will lead the party to victory with an extensive outreach to women, African-American, Asian, Hispanic and gay voters.

I don't know if Trump has done anything to directly upset Asian-American's yet other than maybe being anti-immigration in general. But with Trump being much more friendly. But even with Trump being much more friendly towards gay rights than the GOP in general the party manage to put forward their least LGBT friendly platform in history. Just a bang up job of outreach through and through.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Don't have any numbers in front of me right now Dutch, but the Republicans actually had an opening with Hispanics. Many come from conservative evangelical backgrounds and moves there could have won them this election. But Donald "Build a wall, all Mexicans are rapists" Trump quickly stopped that from happening.

Which is why so many Republicans are on board with "Dump Trump". He is overtly catering to the folks that would have his vote anyway. But that leaves out a lot of the center-right...the pseudo-cons if that pleases some(!).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Which is why so many Republicans are on board with "Dump Trump". He is overtly catering to the folks that would have his vote anyway. But that leaves out a lot of the center-right...the pseudo-cons if that pleases some(!).

I think the problem is that if the party at the national (i.e. highly visible) level makes a tack towards inclusiveness (better for the long term), the working class whites are going to make them pay for it in the short term. This is why the post-mortem's recommendations were not implemented: there's no tolerance to essentially give up an election or two (and the Senate or even the House) while you expand the size of your tent.

[cuervo72]

Yes yes - if they tack that way they may get primaried, so they can't do it.

The Political Process Isn’t Rigged — It Has Much Bigger Problems | FiveThirtyEight

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by miked

All of that leads me to believe that the GOP are completely out of touch with their base. It's like they've built a monster they can't control.

I don't think they're necessarily "out of touch" with their base. I think they are well aware of the base. The problem is that the GOP Leadership and the voters have different goals. The leadership wants to win elections. The voters want their preferred ideology to be represented in the general election, even if that would mean losing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Hispanic vote...

Dubya 2000: 35%
Dubya 2004: 44%
McCain 2008: 31%
Romney 2012: 27%

Bush got 70% of the Muslim vote in 2000 (80% of non-African American Muslims). The Muslim population used be a reliable voting bloc for the party too.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think the problem is that if the party at the national (i.e. highly visible) level makes a tack towards inclusiveness (better for the long term), the working class whites are going to make them pay for it in the short term. This is why the post-mortem's recommendations were not implemented: there's no tolerance to essentially give up an election or two (and the Senate or even the House) while you expand the size of your tent.

Giving up an election or three while diminishing the size of the tent also doesn't seem like a good plan.

[flere-imsaho]

Here are the polls from last week (i.e. convention bounce for Clinton) - all numbers are Clinton's lead (national):

+5
+1
+5
+8
+5
+9
+6

Here are the polls from this week - all numbers also Clinton's lead (national):

+3
+4
+15
+10
+9

[flere-imsaho]

538:

There’s no longer any doubt that the party conventions have shifted the presidential election substantially toward Hillary Clinton. She received a larger bounce from her convention than Donald Trump got from his, but Trump has continued to poll so poorly in state and national surveys over the past two days that his problems may be getting worse.

The recent Fox News, Marist College and NBC News/Wall Street Journal national polls show Trump trailing Clinton by 9 to 14 percentage points, margins that would make for the largest general election blowout since 1984 if they held.

For the record, I'm sufficiently giddy with excitement as a Democratic partisan that I've lost all sense of objectivity and have abandoned my usual "cautiously optimistic but Democrats will figure out how to fuck it up" mindset.

So, uh, ignore me more than usual?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

538:



For the record, I'm sufficiently giddy with excitement as a Democratic partisan that I've lost all sense of objectivity and have abandoned my usual "cautiously optimistic but Democrats will figure out how to fuck it up" mindset.

So, uh, ignore me more than usual?

Anecdotally, the "Supreme Court" argument among conservatives who can't stand Trump but intended to vote for him anyway may be starting to erode as well. I am already hearing some chatter that basically goes "I was going to vote for him just to have a chance to put conservatives in the Supreme Court, but with the lack of self-control he is showing lately, controlling the Court won't matter if he has a temper tantrum and starts a nuclear war."

If HRC somehow manages to lose this one to Trump, she will be the biggest choke artist in history.

[larrymcg421]

This is a problem the party was facing whether or not Trump was going to be the nominee. Just take a look at these numbers for white voters...

Bush 60, Dukakis 40
Romney 59, Obama 39

The difference? In 1988, white voters made up 85% of the electorate. In 2012, they made up 72%. That number will be even lower this year.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If HRC somehow manages to lose this one to Trump, she will be the biggest choke artist in history.

I still think a big terrorist attack in Sept. or Oct. changes everything.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If HRC somehow manages to lose this one to Trump, she will be the biggest choke artist in history.

Just like in sports, I never get too confident, even with a big lead, because I've watched my teams collapse too many times. That being said, watching Trump and his followers self-destruct has been a joy.

[Kodos]

We have a guy in our town whose lawn is littered with Trump signs, All Lives Matter signs, Blue Lives Matter signs... I want to add one that says Lawn Mowing Matters.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I still think a big terrorist attack in Sept. or Oct. changes everything.

At the rate he's going, such an event could push people even further away from Trump:

Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.

In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.

These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.

Former Director of the CIA Michael Morrell.

[cartman]

There was a guy in our neighborhood who complained to the HOA about campaign signs going missing from his yard. He told them if he caught someone removing them that he would, quote, "shoot to kill", that he was "not kidding", and "heavily armed".

The county sheriff also lives in the neighborhood, and the guy got a talking to about appropriate levels of response. In the end, it turned out that he just wasn't anchoring them enough and they were getting blown away.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I still think a big terrorist attack in Sept. or Oct. changes everything.

I honestly think it hurts him more.

I think his best hope is to only talk about the economy and hope some crap happens with it over the next few months.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah, flere. That's precisely the thinking that may be starting to filter to even Rubio and Cruz supporters. Personally, I've been firmly in the third party camp since the day Trump secured the nomination. I've never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate, and because of abortion, it's extremely unlikely that I ever will. That being said, particularly after last week, if I were forced to choose between Trump and HRC only, I would have to pick HRC, because I think it's more likely that his temper and lack of self-control would cause the death of more people than the possible lives of the unborn that his Supreme Court nominations might save some day IF that day were ever to come.

In short, I couldn't vote to give the nuclear codes to this man.

Furthermore, let's not forget that little discussion that I bumped in the Republican thread. It's not a zero-sum situation between now and a hypothetical September/October terrorist attack. He has a solid month or two between now and then to say and do more stupid stuff. Seriously, what's more likely--that he will start acting "Presidential" during that time, or that as he continues to trail HRC, he'll display even more behavior that will cause people to view him as truly dangerous? And there's a fair chance that he'd say or tweet something incredibly stupid in the aftermath of said attack that would remind people of why his response impulses cannot be trusted.

By September/October, I'm thinking that it will take an attack that was proven to be directly linked to a terrorist group hacking HRC's personal email server at that point.

[Thomkal]

I think if WikiLinks comes out with more Clinton emails, like they have threatened, I think that could get her in trouble with voters. Just depends how many days until the election at that point to see if she can recover from it enough.

[RainMaker]

I think if WikiLeaks had anything of value they'd post it. Assange is a blowhard who boasts inconsequential leaks on a regular basis.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Yeah, flere. That's precisely the thinking that may be starting to filter to even Rubio and Cruz supporters.

Furthermore, let's not forget that little discussion that I bumped in the Republican thread.

Yep. In addition, when I posted there that I didn't think a Trump nomination was a potential disaster for the GOP, but a Trump Presidency certainly was, it was in part due to my supposition that if you get 4 years of a Trump Presidency you get a GOP that's re-branded as a Trump Party. One would presume that's a party that would tend to struggle, nationwide. Of course that's a chicken-and-egg thing because in such a scenario the Trump Party has already won at least one nationwide election.

I figured an actual Trump Presidency would entail a highly-laissez-faire POTUS who more-or-less rubberstamped stuff coming out of Ryan's House. Hence (at the time) the GOP leadership was OK to consider this as an outcome because it was good for them.

What we've learned is that that's probably not what a Trump Presidency looks like. Instead of it being a Jesse Ventura-like aberration it's something that completely re-brands the party (as it's doing now, even with just the nomination).

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think if WikiLeaks had anything of value they'd post it. Assange is a blowhard who boasts inconsequential leaks on a regular basis.

He held on to those emails from the DNC and Schultz until the day of the convention. It's cost at least four people from the DNC to lose their jobs so far, and nearly disrupted the whole convention. He could be waiting to say the first debate to maximise the chaos.

[cuervo72]

Do possible leaks have diminishing returns though? The first one did raise a little bit of a stir. The one with audio clips barely seemed to register. At what point does the public go "ah, this fucking guy again?"

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

He held on to those emails from the DNC and Schultz until the day of the convention. It's cost at least four people from the DNC to lose their jobs so far, and nearly disrupted the whole convention. He could be waiting to say the first debate to maximise the chaos.

At least two that are dead now as well.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Do possible leaks have diminishing returns though? The first one did raise a little bit of a stir. The one with audio clips barely seemed to register. At what point does the public go "ah, this fucking guy again?"

I think it depends on what's in them.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by rowech

At least two that are dead now as well.

I had not heard that, how horrible.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I had not heard that, how horrible.

I have yet to see it on a major news site but the man who served the DNC with court papers died three days ago and was supposedly found on his bathroom floor.

[RainMaker]

This ad is pretty good.

What is Donald Trump's connection to Vladimir Putin? | The Briefing - YouTube

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Do possible leaks have diminishing returns though? The first one did raise a little bit of a stir. The one with audio clips barely seemed to register. At what point does the public go "ah, this fucking guy again?"

Didn't the new leaks come out right when Donald Trump decided it would be a good idea to get into a pissing match with the parents of a dead soldier, which kinda pushed the whole audio thing below the fold?

I heard one talking head on one of the major news networks quip that if DJT had just gone on vacation without Twitter or ability to talk to the news channels right when the DNC began, he might still be leading now. I'm not so sure he's wrong.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Didn't the new leaks come out right when Donald Trump decided it would be a good idea to get into a pissing match with the parents of a dead soldier, which kinda pushed the whole audio thing below the fold?

I heard one talking head on one of the major news networks quip that if DJT had just gone on vacation without Twitter or ability to talk to the news channels right when the DNC began, he might still be leading now. I'm not so sure he's wrong.

I'd rather him be completely honest and transparent. And if his honesty is this kind of theatrics, were better off knowing about it now. Winning is only important if winning means something good.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

"Did you like Bernie Sanders, but didn't find enough anti-science bullshit? Vote Jill Stein, who asks the tough questions on vaccinations and GMOs"

Jill Stein Didn’t Want You Dumb Old Bernie Voters Anyway

He also said France deserved the terrorist attack. He has this crazy blog that he is deleting the crazy stuff from the last couple days.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'd rather him be completely honest and transparent. And if his honesty is this kind of theatrics, were better off knowing about it now. Winning is only important if winning means something good.

I don't understand the purpose of this reply, unless maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say there. It was a comment on just how poorly he has done himself. From *his* perspective, *he* would have been better off had he just kept his mouth shut entirely for two weeks.

[Ben E Lou]

On another note, new poll with voters under 30...

Clinton: 41%
Johnson: 23%
Stein: 16%
Teh Donald: 9%

A new poll has Trump in fourth — behind Gary Johnson AND Jill Stein — with young people - The Washington Post

[mckerney]

KKK leader David Duke polls better with black voters than Donald Trump - Business Insider

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by mckerney

KKK leader David Duke polls better with black voters than Donald Trump - Business Insider

Wait! Are you trying to tell me teh Donald ain't exactly popular with the bruthas???

[panerd]

Some good ones this weekend from Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson: Trump watching Olympics to see how high Mexican pole vaulters go | TheHill

Gary Johnson Zings Donald Trump: Unlike You, I Won't Deport Melania

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Some good ones this weekend from Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson: Trump watching Olympics to see how high Mexican pole vaulters go | TheHill

Hilarious, but he might want to stick to watching the high jump.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Hilarious, but he might want to stick to watching the high jump.

Johnson's entire career has been centered around watching the high, whether they jump, lie down, or eat snacks.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

Johnson's entire career has been centered around watching the high, whether they jump, lie down, or eat snacks.

LOL. I actually meant Trump, since the high jumpers would be able to clear just about any wall that he'd come close to building. The real question is if it would be consider treason for me to teach potential immigrants the Fosbury Flop.

[QuikSand]

At seemingly every point in this election, we have been tempted to say things like "well, we used to think THAT, but NOW... clearly, we know THIS..."

So, right now we seem to have a "feel" for this general election. After the conventions and some seemingly self-destructive Trump behavior. But we should listen to ourselves...

"Well, back when there were 110 days to go in the election, we thought it was shaping up as close, but NOW that it's 96 days to go, we KNOW this thing is basically over."

Stop it.

There is plenty of time for not just one or two events or cycles that potentially shape the election -- but five or six. We're right to consider a terrorist event of some magnitude... but news events are simply far less predictable than that. The next thing could be a 600-point drop in the Dow Jones, or another LGBT issue flare-up, or something from Wikileaks, or some oddball TV commercial spot, or something that someone from the Cabinet says, or ... who the hell knows what?

This is basically a truly complex system. Right now, we can make projections based on what we have in hand -- and that's fine and plenty entertaining. But the list of things that could change the landscape materially is a really long one.

[Dutch]

If this were Trump vs Duke, I'd agree with ya. But this one's over.

It probably ended when Rubio got knocked out. The only plausible battles were between Clinton/Bush and Clinton/Rubio and I don't believe for a second anybody was going to get motivated for Bush. But it didn't matter when, Trump decimated Bush and Christie decimated Rubio with party in-fighting at the personality level.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If this were Trump vs Duke, I'd agree with ya. But this one's over.

As long as the Democratic party is in charge of one of the candidates, it's never over.

[SirFozzie]

Meh. I'm pretty optimistic, but there could be something that changes the basis of the election. I don't see what it is, but I now it could happen.

Actually, now that I think about it, one thing that could happen is that between "Trump Foot In Mouth Fatigue", and good poll numbers now, the D's get complacent and try to "expand the map", using resources elsewhere, and then some unknown event happens and creates a swing back to trump. I mean, we have ninety some odd days left, and what can Trump do that would top the recent insanity (Trump, please don't take that as a challenge)

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It probably ended when Rubio got knocked out. The only plausible battles were between Clinton/Bush and Clinton/Rubio and I don't believe for a second anybody was going to get motivated for Bush. But it didn't matter when, Trump decimated Bush and Christie decimated Rubio with party in-fighting at the personality level.

I still think the GOP should have had a bracket.

[Edward64]

Chuckled at the below ... Hillary is alot of things but mentally unfit doesn't quite describe her but Trump on the other hand ...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/06/politi...short-circuit/

Donald Trump pumped up his attacks on Hillary Clinton's character Saturday night by suggesting that the former secretary of state is not mentally fit to be president.

"She took a short-circuit in the brain. She's got problems," Trump said, seizing on Clinton's explanation that she "short-circuited" a recent answer about her truthfulness in discussing her email server.

"Honestly, I don't think she's all there," he added.

The attacks flowed from the Republican nominee as he once again tore into Clinton as "unstable," "unbalanced" and "totally unhinged."

Trump's stepped-up attacks on Clinton come as he has been falling in a slew of recent battleground states and national polls and as top Republicans have fretted about Trump repeatedly knocking himself off message by engaging in controversies rather than focusing on Clinton.