Soooo... Republican debate
- Thread starter gr8indoorsman
- Start date
If Cruz becomes a serious consideration, I'm sure some will bring it up... but it's not an issue like qaz said.
Let's be honest, no individual president is going to send the country down the toilet. Hillary, Cruz, Trump, whomever, unless they have a majority in both houses to go along with it... then there might be trouble. I think it's likely the status quo remains in 2016, or possibly the Ds regain the Senate, but in any event I don't see an all red or all blue government which means things will remain a morass... which was kind of the intent. Change was supposed to be hard unless it was obvious that the majority of the country wanted it (by electing representatives and executives as such).
Let's be honest, no individual president is going to send the country down the toilet. Hillary, Cruz, Trump, whomever, unless they have a majority in both houses to go along with it... then there might be trouble. I think it's likely the status quo remains in 2016, or possibly the Ds regain the Senate, but in any event I don't see an all red or all blue government which means things will remain a morass... which was kind of the intent. Change was supposed to be hard unless it was obvious that the majority of the country wanted it (by electing representatives and executives as such).
Republicans will keep the House. Redistricting will make it almost impossible for them to lose, even in a wave election for Democrats.
I'd give the Dems a 70 percent chance of winning back the Senate. The Republicans are fighting on more bad ground this time around than the Dems were last time around. I think even a Republican Presidential victory could still also result in a Dem narrow retaking of the Senate...the matchups are just that bad for the Republicans.
I'd give similar percentages for the WH. Hillary is the likely nominee. I certainly believe she will crush the female vote, and that's half or over half of the electorate, and she will roll up the AA vote and win 60% or more of the Hispanic vote. I don't see how you overcome that demographic advantage. The only caveat I see is that she really is not a very good campaigner. She's prone to gaffes, and she projects hyper competence but sub-poor likeability. A Tracy Flick if you will. So she could lose it, but I do believe it's hers to lose.
Regardless, that's divided government for sure.
So polls are no doubt coming out that will tell us whether Trump was helped or hurt by this debate. I don't think he does much worse in follow-on debates (or much better)...so what do people think if it turns out his numbers are either not hurt, or improved following this debate?
If that happened, I'd have to start coming off the zero chance position.
If that happened, I'd have to start coming off the zero chance position.
Yeah overall it's not changing. I think Hillary isn't terribly likeable, and that's her weakness, but unless the Republicans roll out Rubio, Carson, or a competent woman, you're right about the demographics. I doubt most AAs will identify with Carson. I do think Rubio could help some with the hispanic vote, but I think Cruz is too crazy-right to help with that. We'll see. Chances are its middle-aged white guy against Hillary and I think you're right on where that will go (unless Hillary really screws up somehow).
Can't agree on Carson. He only attracts conservatives, that's it. He isn't going to attract moderates or hardly any Democrats willing to vote Republican. She'd crush him. I'm not buying Rubio either.
I think the republican with the best chance of beating her is Jeb! I don't think he does, but running against her neutralizes the dynasty aspect somewhat for him, he could theoretically win Florida and Virginia and Ohio, and he'll probably outspend her. Fiorina has no shot at beating her.
Now, as I've said, there's always the chance she implodes. I doubt that happens, but she's not the best campaigner, so I won't say it's not possible. I don't know what happens if Sanders runs. I think that significantly increases the chances of a Republican victory, but then again, if Sanders can actually beat Hillary, then that suggests to me an excitement level that makes him not someone to count out (but I don't see it happening).
Those GOP puppets as you put it are polling pretty well vs Clinton right now. throw Bush in there too.
-Hillary for whatever reasons is really struggling lately. At one time she had a comfortable lead vs Republicans, she still does vs Trump. But with Bush, Rubio, and Walker it is pretty close. And more importantly in swing states she has shown to be behind. I think she crushes the female vote with Trump as an opponent.
-As usual the Dem will get the AA vote. What I am not so certain of is will Hillary Clinton get them to come out in numbers that Obama saw. I think that same thought process can be applied to women and Hispanics as well. A few percent dip would be disastrous for her chances. Hillary Clinton will poll well with all three of those demographics, but I am not sure(I actually do not think they will) show up in numbers close to what Obama saw. She will need that. She will also need the youth vote to come out which Obama was able to get. She will need that to "crush" the female vote. Hillary just does not have the it factor. Unfortunately(at least IMO), right now the person with the it factor is Trump.
-I think a Bush/Rubio ticket, if it happens, against Clinton at worst is a toss up. They have shown to poll well with Hispanics in FL, NC, VA-it would all come down to OH at that point.
At BEST it's a toss-up. No, they won't poll well with Hispanics so long as their position on immigration is the current extreme republican position. No, Hillary is not going to fail to bring out women, who are a larger demographic than AAs and they will come out to vote for her...and if you think she won't bring out most of the volume of AA's that Obama did, you don't understand her history and position in the AA community...nor do you understand AAs if you think the only reason they came out in great numbers was because :Obama:. The youth is always a flaky demographic so I won't predict Obama numbers, but young women certainly will come out to vote for the first female President.
The only person who can lose the election for Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton.
If you are still calling yourself a republican after this fiasco, you are officially the fringe of society.
Maybe you are bleeding from the wrong hole.
-As for Bush/Rubio, I would not call their stance on immigration extreme Republican. They both seem to support being allowed to stay, evantually earning residency, and securing the border. While not amnesty, it is fairly mainstream.
If that is the ticket or part of the ticket, there have been polls that state up to 40% of Hispanics would be swayed by a politician that speaks their language. Republicans do not need to win-just improve the 30% or so Romney got. Not out of the question.
-As for the youth, as you state they are a flaky demographic. Issue is she needs them in a huge manner. One because they are usually pretty liberal, and females tend to move to the right as they are older. The young female vote is where she needs a huge turnout.
-I agree that Clinton more than anyone can cost her the election. And with all of the games with the State Department not releasing records despite being ordered to by a federal judge, now some of the employees/lawyers stating they will delete electronic records/not turn them over-she seems to be intent on doing so. Might not cost her the hard left/left vote, but she is hurting her chances with indies and slight right. This type of crap is why people are attracted to Trump.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...ertifies-email-handover-but-aides-212074.html.
-I think I understand the AA demographic pretty well. Hopefully you noticed in our exchange that I said I do not think they come out in the numbers that they came out with for Obama, and in your post you say "bring out most of the volume of AA's that Obama did". That is basically what I said, and I think even a slight drop off, or only"most" of the turnout, she loses a few states IMO.
No she doesn't lose a few states if she comes close to the volume that Obama did. Which states does she lose? AA's are very excited about her candidacy. No one is going to get Obama level numbers, but you seem to propose that somehow that's required for any future Dem candidate. She will make up in other areas the small amount of volume she loses in the AA area, and her niche group is LARGER in that it's women, who nowadays make up over half the voting population in most elections.
No, 40 percent isn't going to cut it for Hispanics for republicans. You can't lose 60 percent of the Hispanic vote, and the vast majority of the AA vote and a majority of the female vote and win a presidential election. White males are not going to be enough anymore...you'll need more.
Youth vote in presidential elections, they don't vote in off-cycle elections. You can't match the electricity of Obama in 08, but you don't have to.
Please state your evidence that "females tend to move to the right as they are older." There's actually a lot more evidence out there that what you are as a young adult is more or less what you are as an old person. People do not start liberal young and then become conservative in any great numbers (or the reverse). Political persuasion is a lot like religious preferences, they tend to stick throughout your life for most people.
And yes, just like Romney, whomever the Republican candidate is will have to stake out a position that does not allow folks to stay, lest they lose their base. They can try and wrap it in as pretty a bow as they'd like, but they aren't going to convince most Hispanics that even if they personally believe in something more moderate, that the party they will be running absolutely does not.
Florida was decided by 70,000 votes in 2012, VA was decided by about 120,000 votes, Ohio 105,000, Colorado by 13,000. Those might seem like big numbers to you-but really they are not.
African Americans do not come out in as large as numbers, the Republican ticket puts a slight dent in the Hispanic vote(certain tickets definitely do that, especially in specific states), build on the success they had with women from 10-14, and those states are easily flipped. Right now Clinton is also losing in polls in MN and NH. WI-regardless if Walker is the candidate or not it is a state she would have to invest heavily in to keep. So yes, that is why I am giving Republicans a better chance than you. Add to that all the games Hilary is playing with the courts in regards to State Dept and emails and that chance increases(as long as Trump bows out).
It is just not the electricity of Obama in 08 she could not recapture. 08 IMO, is irrelevant. That was a perfect storm brewing with two wars going on, historical candidate, new politician, great campaigner, poor Republican candidate, and the credit crisis. Clinton is none of those besides historical and I am not sure voters are going the historical candidate route again.
Move to the right was probably a bad way to put it for female voters as they get older. But as women get older, many get married, and married couples in general, tend to vote Republican. Married couples are a strong demographic for Republicans. Google it-but that is common knowledge in sociology. just do not think the female vote is a slam dunk for Clinton.
Today, I actually got a call from pollsters in regard to immigration. I am not for deportation, but in this poll that is what I had to choose. Why? Because I am for securing the border first, and the securing the border was tied in with the deportation option. Upon researching it, that is the way many of these polls are conducted. So my point is not all conservatives are for actual deportation. Not sure it is the issue to overcome that you are making it out to be. An issue yes-but not insurmountable. When I get a minute I might look into this a bit more to see what actual numbers are. I have to say I am not sure I even know anyone that is for deportation unless one is a criminal(violent/felon/drugs).
Tell you what name your price for a bet that Clinton loses Minnesota... Not a remote chance of that happening and only the slightest she loses Wisconsin.
She won't lose because of emails.
Only way she loses is if she performs poorly in debates or has a series of gaffes.
Talking about polls in August 2015 is basically to entertain yourself, nothing more.
I would say yes, it is slightly for entertainment. Not going to disagree. I would also say I am pointing it out largely to show that Clinton is not the shoe in to 1) Get nomination especially if Biden runs 2) Going to walk away with election if she is candidate(minus running vs Trump). It hurts her chances if she has to spend significant time or resources shoring up MN and/or WI in a general election.Her polling equally or behind in those staes is a sign of weakness or vulnerability.
You can discard/ignore these emails all one wants. But when employees are deleting emails/getting lawyered up/not releasing information when given court orders to release information, it looks poor. When one sends a promise to release information to a person known to be on vacation so it gets lost for awhile, it looks bad. She just had her weakest numbers yet released today. This could very well be one of the gaffes you mention. And I do not think it is beyond reality that she debates or campaigns poorly.
First off, at this point in the previous Presidential election - Rudy Giuliani and Clinton were the strongest polling (not even close) candidates for each party. Obviously neither got the nomination. However, I'm sure you can find other election years where the candidate leading at this point did get the nomination.
Secondly, most voters are not "tuned-in" to a Presidential race right now. If this was August 2016, then yes Clinton should be worried. People tend to get over things pretty quickly - especially from primary season. Remember how all of these candidates "shift" more to the middle once the primary is over? They can essentially morph their positions to be more mainstream because people are dumb enough to forget.
I mostly agree...although it's not a completely invalid data point, particularly if someone has a very large lead, or a consistent lead in most polls over everyone.
I tend to look at demographics more than anything else. Is this a presidential year? An off-cycle election? Will the minority vote turn out? Single women? I think all those demos lined up for the republicans in 2014, thus the blowout. They will line up all for the democrats in 2016.
She almost assuredly is a shoe-in to get the nomination. No one is ever a shoe-in to win a GE. However, she'd have to screw up pretty badly to overcome her demographic advantages in every area except white males.
I don't think I'd make these statements.
1. I don't think she's a "shoe-in" at this point. This time in 2008, she had a "shoe-in" type of lead in the polls as well. Is there an "Obama" out there? I don't know. I think where you see these issues with her right now impact her more with the primary than the general election - if the bad news continues into the end of the year, it will really open doors for other candidates. I don't believe a year from now, these issues will be that big of a deal for her unless something major happens. If she gets on track soon, I don't think she'll have a problem in the primary. But she's had a lot of trouble getting on track and staying there this election cycle, as well as the 2008 cycle.
2. There are definitely pro-Democratic shifts in the electorate and electoral college map. However, they are definitely not all "there" yet. Bush beat Gore by 6 points in Virginia in 2000. Obama won by 6 points in 2008 and then 3 points in 2012. However, there's a lot of factors at play. Is Virginia becoming more blue? Sure. But Virginia has hardly become a reliably blue state. You also cannot discount that Obama benefited from black turnout. There's nothing wrong with that - Hilary would benefit from a bump in women I'm sure, Bush benefited from Evangelicals, etc.
North Carolina is also another example - a state Obama won in 2008 and lost by 3 points in 2012. But in 2000? Gore lost by 13 points. North Carolina is becoming more "blue" - but it's not quite there yet.
So just because many demographics favor Hilary, they aren't just going to do the trick themselves. Demographics only matter to a certain extent. And they aren't resounding enough just yet to make things a solid victory for someone because of them. In a state like Virginia, as the northern part of the state continues to grow rapidly, it will eventually become more of a decently solid blue state. But it's not there yet.
1. I think she is a shoe-in. Sanders has plateued. He can scarf up the white liberal vote, but he can't get hardly any of the minority vote, and that's almost half of all primary voters. Put another way I see no way she doesn't win in the primary:
1. the AA vote, by a lot.
2. the female vote, by a lot.
3. the hispanic vote, by a fair amount.
If you have those three demos in the Dem Primary, how do you lose? She didn't have 1 or 3 against Obama. Bernie is not going to pull a majority in either of those, and Biden certainly isn't.
I could see her losing some states, particularly Iowa and NH (but probably not both) since those have no minorities in any number and they are in Bernie's wheelhouse, but after that, a string of states she can't lose.
I've conceeded she's a horrible campaigner (although again, she actually won the primary popular vote against Obama so she's not THAT horrible), but Bernie is no Obama, and she almost beat him.
2. Women are more numerous than AAs. So the demo she gets a bump in is larger than the demo she gets a drop in. AAs have a long history with the Clintons. Bill will be out there stumping for her. Obama will be out there stumping for her. The events of the last year and policing and minorities will also drive AA turnout higher than folks think it will. This is the first post-Ferguson et al national election.
I think demographics actually will do the trick this time around. The dems already start with an advantage. If you just add up all the "blue" states you get to 209. I'm not even including light blue states like NM or NV, and I'm not including PA, OH, CO, VA, NC, or FL.
Add in NM and NV and PA. I think they've gone blue enough now that they likely will in 2016. That gets you to 240.
Let's say the Republicans get NC and VA and one of OH and FL, but lose CO and one of OH and FL.
That's not a Dem rout, that's assuming a pretty favorable Republican map:
That's 269. Throw in the 1 vote that Dems sometimes pull from Neb and that's 270.
As you note, VA is more blue, NC is more blue, but FL and OH and PA are too. Those states used to bounce back and forth. But now PA has gone blue the last four presidential elections. OH and FL the last two.
Put another way: Take all four close races last time (5 points or less): NC, FL, OH, and VA. Put all four in the red column this time. That only gets the republican to 266 electoral votes.
They'd have to sweep that table AND get one other state that the republicans lost by more than 5% points last time.
Add in the demographic advantages, the increased Hispanic turnout and female turnout driven by her campaign and by the immigration issue (and the just plain increase in the number of Hispanics eligible to vote).
The Republicans would have to overcome all of that to win. I won't call it a shoe-in, but it's a real thin needle.
I just kinda have to laugh at someone who is so far left but views himself as center opining that various conservative tickets are "extreme Republican". Of course you see it that way when you don't even approach the right on a single issue! In order to be centrist, you have to actually hold views from both sides.
Are you talking to me? When have I EVER said I was a "centrist?"
As usual you make up shit about me that isn't remotely accurate based on some sort of caricature of a "liberal" in your eyes. I'm a firmly left of center person. I am not "so far left" nor am I a "centrist."
And I didn't say "various conservative tickets are extreme republican" I said "No, they won't poll well with Hispanics so long as their position on immigration is the current extreme republican position."
See the difference? I was talking about a single issue, the position of a few candidates to that issue. It's tiring watching you just read every tenth word I type and then throw in the rest based on what you think the average librul thinks.
You've called yourself center left several times. I think you're Bernie Sanders left.
center left is not centrist. I just said I was solidly left of center. It's the same thing, and it's not centrist, and considering I'm supporting Hillary and not Sanders, once again you don't know wtf you are talking about.
Guess I misinterpreted what you meant by center left. Center right to me would mean I am conservative with some liberal values - this is me, as my feelings on several social issues are liberal.
To you, center left means solidly left, but not progressive left.
I got it. No need for the WTF are you talking about. Just a misinterpretation. I'm glad we agree that there is nothing right about you. (See what I did there?)
Far left, center left or left of center, center, center right or right of center, far right is how I see it. Obama and Hillary are left of center...Bernie is far left. Jeb is right of center. Cruz, e.g., is far right.
Not a perfect scale. Someone like Rand Paul/libertarians meet somewhere between far right and far left for example, but it is good enough for the vast majority of folks in our two party system for me.
The WTF is because it would be nice if we went a week without you ignoring what I write and substituting what you think I wrote. The extemist republicans being a prime example.
Or maybe it could just be a misinterpretation of what you wrote and not "ignoring" it? Whatever.
There are VERY few people who are truly "center".
And most of the people who are - are conflicting on social issues. But most of those people are still not waffling on both sides. For example, one of my good friends is pretty "modern" in their stance on gay marriage, abortion, etc. - but they've never voted for a Democrat. So what does that matter if they're "center" or not?
We're also in a political climate where you're villified if you don't tow the party line - of which I'd say Republicans are a bit more cut-throat. Gun control is a great example of that one.
I think you are linking center with partisanship. There are folks on both sides of the partisan line who are also in the center. Whether you call them conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans.
Why you are partisan doesn't always link up with why you are one party or another. It could be your family has always been ____ so you are as well. Or it could be one singular issue that drives you one way or another (say abortion or unions) but otherwise you fit in the center. Of course, that doesn't mean you are smack dab in the center on every single issue, it just means collectively you fall there.
I don't think hardly anyone on this board would qualify based on what I've seen typed, but it's possible. I think it only seems to have gone away because, as you say, partisanship is a much stronger thing in the current environment and you have to, as Colbert would say, pick a side, we're at war.
