Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

I just find it hard to believe that there is some vast untapped swell of Republican voters out there who are opposed to Trump and are just being missed by the polls.

65% of republican voters said they were planning to vote for someone other then Trump in the lastest poll on the RCP list (cbs/ny times).

Correct me if I'm wrong but dont you often say that you think there is huge opposition among democrats to Clinton?  Only 45% of democrats in that same poll didn't say they were planning to vote for Clinton (quite a few undecideds, unlike the republicans).

Occams razor is says to make the fewest and smallest assumptions.  It does not look to me like you are making the fewest and smallest assumptions.

I think that it's more huge mehposition towards Hilary. There's really no expectation or excitement, just dodging the bullet that the Republican field looks like

[PTTG??]

Hillary is the least objectionable Republican on the field today.

[Dorsidwarf]

Trump ban petition hits 435,000 signatories

wew lads

[Shadowlord]

Pro-Hillary SuperPAC PrioritiesUSA Action has released an ad which tries to tie all the republican presidential candidates to Trump by saying they're "all on the same page" with him, using short clips of candidates, one of which is of Marco Rubio saying "We're going to have to deport some people."

FactCheck.org is not amused:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/democratic-deportation-misinformation/

Numbers:

Donald J. Trump occupies his strongest position yet in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, yet nearly two-thirds of American voters say they are concerned or frightened about the prospect of a Trump presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News nationwide poll.

The poll was taken largely before his statement on Monday afternoon proposing to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the United States.

On the Democratic side, the poll found Hillary Clinton is maintaining her 20-point lead over Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The possibility of her winning the presidency in 2016 is only marginally more palatable to American voters than that of Mr. Trump.

...

Over all, 24 percent of voters expressed concern and 40 percent fear about what Mr. Trump would do if elected president, whereas 23 percent said they are concerned and 34 percent scared about the possibility of a Clinton presidency. Not surprisingly, voters were sharply divided along partisan lines.

While Republican voters were most likely to say they were excited (24 percent) or optimistic (41 percent), a full one-third of Republicans say they are concerned or scared about Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton’s base views her potential presidency more favorably than does Mr. Trump’s. Twenty-two percent of Democratic voters are excited and 54 percent are optimistic, while only 23 percent said they were concerned or scared.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Dec. 4-8 with 1,053 registered voters, including 431 Republican primary voters and 384 Democratic primary voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 6 percentage points each for Republican and Democratic primary voters.

(Emphasis mine)

[mainiac]

The biggest democratic lie since they claimed republicans wanted medicare to "whither on the vine". 

[smjjames]

Theres also really nobody on the Democrat side (other than Biden) that can match Hillary with both popularity and campaign juggernaut. Which is why everybody on the Democrat side kept waiting to see if Hillary would actually run or not because they'd just get steamrolled if they tried to beat Hillary.

The biggest democratic lie since they claimed republicans wanted medicare to "whither on the vine". 

More like the usual election year mud slinging.

[mainiac]

More like the usual election year mud slinging.

Yes the mudslinging of saying someone is in favor of wide-scale deportations because he said he was in favor of wide-scale deportations on national television to a question he probably expected to get.

Oh but why didn't Clinton talk about all the people Rubio didn't want to deport?  What a monster she is, not advocating for her political opponent.

[Shadowlord]

More like the usual election year mud slinging.

Yes the mudslinging of saying someone is in favor of wide-scale deportations because he said he was in favor of wide-scale deportations on national television to a question he probably expected to get.

Oh but why didn't Clinton talk about all the people Rubio didn't want to deport?  What a monster she is, not advocating for her political opponent.

Didn't RTFA or watch the ad, eh? (Clinton isn't in the ad, it's from a superpac supporting her)

Fox News interviewer, Nov. 12: Would you accept that idea [Trump’s “deportation force”] or would you denounce it?

Rubio: …We are going to have to deport some people; if you are not going to enforce your laws, what’s the point of having those laws? Criminals are going to be deported. People that haven’t been here very long are going to be deported. People overstaying visas are going to be deported. That’s how you enforce immigration laws.

The flip side of it is, I do not believe you can round up and deport 11 million people, especially people who have been here 15 years, have not otherwise violated the law, can pass background checks and so forth.

In fact, convicted criminals, terrorism threats and those who recently crossed the border are currently being targeted for deportation even under the Obama administration’s scaled-back enforcement policy. So Rubio is closer to being “on the same page” with Obama than with Trump on this issue.

[mainiac]

Didn't RTFA or watch the ad, eh? (Clinton isn't in the ad, it's from a superpac supporting her)

No, I read it, it's just I've read the same article so many times over the years that it tends to blur together in my memory three seconds after I've done reading it.

[RedKing]

I just find it hard to believe that there is some vast untapped swell of Republican voters out there who are opposed to Trump and are just being missed by the polls.

65% of republican voters said they were planning to vote for someone other then Trump in the lastest poll on the RCP list (cbs/ny times).

Correct me if I'm wrong but dont you often say that you think there is huge opposition among democrats to Clinton?  Only 45% of democrats in that same poll didn't say they were planning to vote for Clinton (quite a few undecideds, unlike the republicans).

Occams razor is says to make the fewest and smallest assumptions.  It does not look to me like you are making the fewest and smallest assumptions.

I'm correcting you -- you're wrong. I don't think there is huge opposition among democrats to Clinton, which is what's depressing. I think there's huge opposition to Clinton from EVERYONE ELSE.

And when I say "opposed to Trump" that doesn't mean "not voting for him", it means "repudiating his ideas". I think there are a lot of people who plan to vote for Cruz, Carson, etc. who are hearing this "All Muslims Out" thing and nodding in agreement. And maybe now they're more inclined to vote for Trump. And honestly, if his poll numbers keep climbing (he's back up around 35% in the last couple of polls), I wouldn't be surprised to see other candidates adopt the same stance to try and woo those voters back.

Trump keeps saying crazy, un-American shit and his numbers keep growing. Simplest explanation is that there are a growing number of people out there who like the kind of crazysauce he's peddling. Trump validates people's darkest natures. He's giving credence to the closet racists, the nativists, the wannabe fascists. He's making it socially acceptable to be a bigot again.

Didn't RTFA or watch the ad, eh? (Clinton isn't in the ad, it's from a superpac supporting her)

He's too upset that someone said something mean about Hillary-senpai.

[smjjames]

Even out of context truthful mudslinging is still mudslinging.

I think the cutoff date for polls for CNN is the 13th, so, there's a few more days worth of polls left. I don't expect Trumps poll numbers to suddenly collapse and even if he drops like 10%, he'd still be pretty much on top.

Also, Fiorina has been dropping like a rock nationally, though still seems to be doing well in NH.

[RedKing]

Even out of context truthful mudslinging is still mudslinging.

I think the cutoff date for polls for CNN is the 13th, so, there's a few more days worth of polls left. I don't expect Trumps poll numbers to suddenly collapse and even if he drops like 10%, he'd still be pretty much on top.

Also, Fiorina has been dropping like a rock nationally, though still seems to be doing well in NH.

If by "well" you mean 8th place.

She's doing better there (~5%) than her national numbers (~1%) but either way she's toast. She had her moment in the spotlight, started making shit up on par with Ben Carson, and then quickly faded into the background. At this point, it's becoming a bifurcated race. You have Trump and then you have a race to be the "anti-Trump" that will survive long enough for the establishment to rally behind. Right now, that's between Cruz, Carson and Rubio.

Cruz, I think, is trying to thread the needle and somehow be the alternative to Trump, but simultaneously not piss off the Trumpkins, so that he can win both camps. I think that's going to backfire spectacularly on him. He's going to come off as "Trump Lite", too extreme for the establishment, too establishment for the Trumpkins.

Carson has a serious image and credibility problem now. I think he keeps sinking.

Rubio seems the most likely to stay afloat and seem un-Trumpish enough to be a rallying point. He won't win over the Trumpkins in a million years (he's just another immigrant to them), but he might not need them if the rest of the party coalesces around him. The GOP's biggest dilemma is getting that cohesion. If they continue to pull apart into separate camps and candidates don't start dropping out fast, they'll dilute the anti-Trump vote in the primary states and Trump will get enough momentum going that he'll be seen as unbeatable. I think that at this point, barring a bunch of the other folks dropping out and lining up behind a single candidate, Trump takes Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. After that, there should be enough casualties in the field to start giving a sizable block of support to a counterweight option.

For the Democrats....I think Clinton will win Iowa, Sanders will win NH, and then Clinton will win everything else. Sanders *might* eke out a win in Colorado and among the expat votes (if he survives until early March), but that's purely a guess -- no polling out there for those races. He's doing better in the upper Midwest blue states like Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, but still lagging Clinton by 10-20 points. He's dead on arrival in the South, which I just don't get.

[RedKing]

No more so than the rest of the country. Especially considering that the Democratic Party in the South has a lot less white people than in other regions.

[mainiac]

Even out of context truthful mudslinging is still mudslinging.

mud·sling·ing
noun informal
the use of insults and accusations, especially unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent.

Is honestly telling people your opponents agenda damaging their reputation?

He's a self-proclaimed socialist. Do you really expect the South to not run screaming at the thought of electing that?

I would expect it to hurt him in the primary but this is a democratic primary even if it is the south.  I think the bigger issue is that minority voters tend to favor Clinton and democratic primaries in the south have a lot of those.

No more so than the rest of the country. Especially considering that the Democratic Party in the South has a lot less white people than in other regions.

Sanders hasn't made much inroads outside of white voters.

[RedKing]

Yeah, this is true. Which, again, I don't get. I mean, sure...there was the quip about Bill being America's first black President, but seriously?

Just looked at the crosstabs from a recent CBS poll in SC, and black voters broke for Clinton 82-14 over Sanders. There ya go, that's why he's DOA in the South. Bernie's just too honkey.

Though I can't think of a "less black" candidate than Hillary Clinton. I *can* imagine her trying to say or do something to pander to black voters that would be cringeworthy on par with Mitt Romney's rendition of "Who Let The Dogs Out?".