I am trying to decide if I am more depressed over Purdue B-Ball or Trump
- Thread starter brenmer
- Start date
The Republican elitists better get their heads out it their you know what or well have another socialist Bernie in the office. LBJ was a hard core Socialist that started the great, give people what they want not what earn, Society. That philosophy, if doubled down on, will ruin this once great country.
The Republican talking heads keep preaching Trump isn't electable. Well what I see is a man, Trump, geting record turn out for the primaries. Maybe the problem is Trump is getting a lot of Democratic support also.
1. LBJ as a socialist may be the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted on this board, and that's saying a lot.
2. Go back and look at past presidential elections, see which said had the better primary turnout, how that correlated to who actually ended up winning, and then let me know your findings. There is no correlation, much less causation, between who has the higher primary turnout and who ends up winning the GE. It can be higher or lower, in fact, higher more often than not DIDN'T translate to a GE victory.
This may be true. In all fairness looking back, for example, to March 1980 when Ronald Reagan was losing by 20+ points in the polls to his Republican challengers and to Jimmy Carter. The Republican establishment at first fought Reagan and tried to promote other candidates. He came on like a freight train and won in a landslide.
Trump is actually doing better than Reagan was at this same timeframe in 1980, at least in terms of polls.
Trump is no Reagan. Not remotely. I'm no Reagan fan but Reagan didn't promote violence, he wasn't a racist (amnesty came under him), and while I disagreed with most of his policies and thought his idea of tax cuts and trickle down was in fact "voodoo economics" he was intellectually light-years ahead of Trump.
Ignoring all that, again, there is no correlation between primary turnout and GE results. The second highest Dem turnout of all time was IIRC 2004. We didn't end up with President Kerry. Primary turnouts happen because of competitive primaries. In 08, it was a highly competitive primary for the Dems. In 16 it's mostly competitive albeit Trump has consolidated enough thus far with an expanded field to end up with the most delegates.
But guess which candidate in either party has the highest number of people actually voting for him/her right now?
This is a useless point, because Shillary didn't have to run in a field of 17 candidates. Even now, she only has to beat Sanders, while Trump still has Cruz and Kasich.
When you look at the raw numbers, Dem turnout is way down this cycle and Republican turnout is way up compared to 2012. Thousands of registered Democrats have redeclared as Republicans in this cycle, especially in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and recently blue states like Massachusetts.
This may not be a good thing. Some of them are doing so to vote for Trump because they think he's easily defeated in the GE. Others are doing so to vote against Trump because they are fighting his nomination. Still others are likely voting Republican because they actually feel that way. The point is, this is probably not indicative of a whole bunch of Democrats who all of a sudden prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
Both Democratic candidates poll ahead of Donald Trump in general election polls in many states, including Ohio, Florida, California, Pennsylvania, Utah, New York... etc. etc. for a reason.
lol OK SD, when Trump doesn't win in November be sure to circle back around to this idea that Dem turnout will drop and Rep turnout will rise in the GE.
gr8,
I think to a small degree you are right, that there are a small % who redeclared as (R) in order mess up his election bid. From the accounts I've read, the much greater majority are not doing this, they are sincerely liking his message and are sick of the establishment, including the Clintons.
Again, in 1980 Jimmy Carter was way ahead of Reagan at this point in the cycle (over 20% lead), and how did that turn out?
What makes you so sure? Democrat enthusiasm for Hillary is LOW. All the energy is for Sanders. Do you think the college kids will turn out big for her? They hate her as much as they hate Trump, maybe more.
The Obama voters are going to fade in this cycle - you cannot assume that she will get the turnout Obama did.
Shillary has a bad habit of underestimating her opponents. It's happened twice now already - 2008 vs. Obama and in this cycle vs. Sanders. There is no good reason why Sanders should be doing as well as he is against Shillary, except that maybe she's a low energy, low charisma, pathological liar. Trump hasn't even starting going hard against her - just wait until he does. She's got one hell of a lot of baggage, and it will become an increasingly large albatross around her neck.
Dem enthusiasm is not LOW. The kids are for Sanders, sure. Kids are one of the lowest performing groups in elections. Recent polling shows Hillary winning millennials 52% to 17% over Trump, she will win Hispanics by insane margins, AA's have plenty of enthusiasm for her, and women will vote for her more than Trump.
He'll win the white male vote...which isn't enough anymore. Like I said, see you Nov, be sure to remember this post then.
Your evidence of this is anecdotal. At best the argument is weak, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny against polls. I don't see parallels between Reagan and Trump. Reagan was an established, knowledgeable and practiced governor when he ran for President, and Carter was a failed incumbent who went through 34 contested primaries despite being the incumbent.
Trump is... Trump. Hillary is not struggling to win the nomination.
I guess we'll see what happens in November, but, anecdotally, I am one of many of my friends who has never previously voted for a Democratic Presidential nominee who is preparing to do precisely that if Trump is the Republican nominee.
He's going to get trounced because he won't win independents and he won't even unify his own party.
OK, explain why Republican turnout is up 70% while Democrat turnout is down 35% vs. 2012 in the primaries and caucuses. Democrats are not enthusiastic about Shillary. She has about as much charisma and energy as an old milk cow put out to pasture. (That's not much.)
President Kerry didn't benefit from much higher primary turnout (second highest in Dem history after 08).
Bush didn't either, he had much higher turnout in his primary but Gore won the popular vote, it was only the vagaries of the electoral college that led to him losing.
Or shorter: six competitive primaries on both sides in the modern era, half of the GE victories went to the party with more turnout, half of the GE victories went to the party with less turnout.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/
Percent change in turnout doesn't make a difference either.
Over Donald Trump? Yep. I will. Trump lies daily, changes his positions with the wind, and doesn't have the first friggin' clue about anything involving a foreign country. I don't even think he really understands what he can and can't do as President.
He's talked about judges "signing bills" for cripes sake.
He's like that Harry Caray sketch from SNL where he is a science show host.
"What's your favorite planet? Mine's the Sun."
It is a good indicator of voter enthusiasm. As I've said multiple times, Dems in general are not enthusiastic about their pathological liar of a candidate, who also happens to bark like a dog on occasion.
Well, to be honest, if you did not start your last sentence off with 'Trump', I would not be sure if you were talking about Trump or Clinton.
