Elections Clinton vs. Trump Polls thread, v2

[AnGrYcRoW]

And also white males with a college degree. Saying "those who are college educated" is intentionally leaving out that it's because women are the reason for. This is also not a normal race, since it's being run by the 2 candidates with highest unfavorability ratings.

Wow white males are going to vote republican. ....shocking development

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wow white males are going to vote republican. ....shocking development

What's interesting is that Trump is doing *worse* with white males than Republicans usually do, while also turning off everyone else in his effort to increase his share among that group. I think that's how you can tell that promoting white nationalism as a political strategy is tapped out (to say nothing of its other demerits). A big loss with that strategy could be what it takes to cause the GOP to finally change course.

 

[aitkenmike]

What's interesting is that Trump is doing *worse* with white males than Republicans usually do, while also turning off everyone else in his effort to increase his share among that group. I think that's how you can tell that promoting white nationalism as a political strategy is tapped out (to say nothing of its other demerits). A big loss with that strategy could be what it takes to cause the GOP to finally change course.

I don't think so, I think you would find a lot of the strongest Trump advocates would come out and say he wasn't white nationalist enough. They will point to the flip flops, the past democrat donations etc.. and say he was never really one of us, and also that they actually never really supported him. They will just double down for next time.

 

[Lead]

I don't think so, I think you would find a lot of the strongest Trump advocates would come out and say he wasn't white nationalist enough. They will point to the flip flops, the past democrat donations etc.. and say he was never really one of us, and also that they actually never really supported him. They will just double down for next time.

As awful as it sounds, it would be nice if there was just a third party white supremacist so the party could divide these people out. You could lose a state or so in the south but the benefit of being able to move to the middle and not try to deal with this crowd would be beneficial in the long run.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As awful as it sounds, it would be nice if there was just a third party white supremacist so the party could divide these people out. You could lose a state or so in the south but the benefit of being able to move to the middle and not try to deal with this crowd would be beneficial in the long run.

That "third party" would get 80%-plus of the GOP vote, though. Why would anyone vote for upward redistribution, cronyism, and opposition to pro-growth economic policies without the identity issues? I guess feeling that Republicans are better on national security? But that's hard to sustain given the results.

I don't think so, I think you would find a lot of the strongest Trump advocates would come out and say he wasn't white nationalist enough. They will point to the flip flops, the past democrat donations etc.. and say he was never really one of us, and also that they actually never really supported him. They will just double down for next time.

We'll see, I guess. How many GOP nominees are accepted as "one of us"? Not Bush anymore (he committed the unpardonable sin of being unpopular when he left office). Not McCain. Not Romney.

 

[Lead]

That "third party" would get 80%-plus of the GOP vote, though. Why would anyone vote for upward redistribution, cronyism, and opposition to pro-growth economic policies without the identity issues? I guess feeling that Republicans are better on national security? But that's hard to sustain given the results.

We've been over this before. I think you misrepresent the proportions of this group and the primary should dismiss that idea. Why could Trump only stay steady around 40% while two Hispanics and a moderate Republican took the other portion of the vote? Not to mention Carson. 80% is just over the top.

Also, are you trying to say cronyism and opposition to pro-growth economic polices is exclusive to the GOP? I think this primary shouldn't made it far more clear that this exists on both sides and the economic matters have driven a large split in both parties. It's just fortunate the democrats were able to overcome it for the general.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We've been over this before. I think you misrepresent the proportions of this group and the primary should dismiss that idea. Why could Trump only stay steady around 40% while two Hispanics and a moderate Republican took the other portion of the vote? Not to mention Carson. 80% is just over the top.

All coalitions have a mix, and different overlapping groups in them. I'd expect the Trump + Cruz voters to go along with the third party you described. And as odd as it may seem, at least a decent portion of the Carson ones (there's always a role for a black guy who basically accepts the right-wing characterization of other blacks).

Also, are you trying to say cronyism and opposition to pro-growth economic polices is exclusive to the GOP?

I'm saying that if you take the identity stuff away, that and tax cuts for the rich is what you're left with. And by opposition to pro-growth economic policies, I'm referring specifically to expansionary monetary and fiscal policy in downturns, and increased infrastructure spending at other times (not aware of any other plausible pro-growth economic policy--are you?). Political opposition to that is exclusively on the right these days (used to be that that stuff had bipartisan support).

I think this primary shouldn't made it far more clear that this exists on both sides and the economic matters have driven a large split in both parties. It's just fortunate the democrats were able to overcome it for the general.

Parties are always coalitions of people who don't agree on everything and are at odds at times. On the Democratic side, it was a normal election in that regard, though the battle was to the left of where it normally is (that is, you often have a further left candidate against a more-centrist one, but both the left guy and the centrist candidate were to the left of where the people who occupy those roles normally is).

 

[Tekk]

Could someone explain Drumpf's logic in this tweet.

 

[Fawlty]

Could someone explain Drumpf's logic in this tweet.

I followed it as far as the logic that a liberal conspiracy of mental disease has created the Chicago superpredator warzone. I'm struggling to make the where's my african american connection though.

 

[steelcity77]

so now trump wants to help get rid of and lower black crime = gets ridiculed .. dems can't be taken seriously

 

[Lead]

All coalitions have a mix, and different overlapping groups in them. I'd expect the Trump + Cruz voters to go along with the third party you described. And as odd as it may seem, at least a decent portion of the Carson ones (there's always a role for a black guy who basically accepts the right-wing characterization of other blacks).

This still doesn't explain why 60% of the vote would go to hispanic/black/moderate GOP candidates. I did once think that Cruz was in the same camp as trump and this was why he played soft with Trump early in the primary. However, its clear theres even a divide between Cruz's tea party camp and Trump's followers. Like you said, theres overlap so both those groups wanted to fight the establishment but may have had different values/stances behind what they wanted after the establishment was overtaken. I'm not really going to try to analyze those voters though as I really don't understand most of their motives but I think it's clear there is a divide. With Rubio and Kasich's follower even moreso

I'm saying that if you take the identity stuff away, that and tax cuts for the rich is what you're left with. And by opposition to pro-growth economic policies, I'm referring specifically to expansionary monetary and fiscal policy in downturns, and increased infrastructure spending at other times (not aware of any other plausible pro-growth economic policy--are you?). Political opposition to that is exclusively on the right these days (used to be that that stuff had bipartisan support).

I was talking about trade but yes, 2008 possibly could mark the time where the party went into full crisis mode. I wouldn't say Bernie is a more left version of Clinton simple because of his view on trade policy. With monetary policies, I don't think that really matter much for electing the legislator and president. I really doubt a GOP candidate wouldn't have appointed to the Fed anyone too different from Yellen or Bernanke. I really don't understand how the GOP has fallen away from a message about infrastructure over the years and have repeatedly mentioned they need to return to that message with their campaigning if they want to reform the party.

Parties are always coalitions of people who don't agree on everything and are at odds at times. On the Democratic side, it was a normal election in that regard, though the battle was to the left of where it normally is (that is, you often have a further left candidate against a more-centrist one, but both the left guy and the centrist candidate were to the left of where the people who occupy those roles normally is).

Though I think it was fairly close to the situation you just mentioned, I think Bernie went overboard on trade and that's become a clear issue causing divide in both parties when it use to be a bipartisan issue.

 

[Lead]

so now trump wants to help get rid of and lower black crime = gets ridiculed .. dems can't be taken seriously

Are you in Pittsburgh?

 

[steelcity77]

Are you in Pittsburgh?

nope south florida

 

[Fawlty]

so now trump wants to help get rid of and lower black crime = gets ridiculed .. dems can't be taken seriously

African Americans will vote for Trump because a basketball player's cousin got shot, and Trump has observed that places like Chicago are dangerous? He's being ridiculed because he's a goddamn ignoramus who can't form coherent thoughts. Do you guys have some kind of secret decoder ring? There's no way his comment made sense to you.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Could someone explain Drumpf's logic in this tweet.

"African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!"

Is that some kind of command or something? I guess he's giving the black community orders thru Twitter now.

 

[Sycho Sid]

African Americans will vote for Trump because a basketball player's cousin got shot, and Trump has observed that places like Chicago are dangerous? He's being ridiculed because he's a goddamn ignoramus who can't form coherent thoughts. Do you guys have some kind of secret decoder ring? There's no way his comment made sense to you.

They drink a lot of ovaltine!

 

[spin]

so now trump wants to help get rid of and lower black crime = gets ridiculed .. dems can't be taken seriously

He's had a money, influence, and a voice to call for and/or support legislation that would help the black community before running for, and without being president. He's done nothing of note.

Neither has Clinton, nor I.

So it's really disingenuous for either to claim a real interest in getting rid of violence in black neighborhoods, and even ridiculous to claim voting for them is specifically is THE ANSWER.

And this is not an isolated incident posters here have spoken out over.

Many of us on all sides dont like the politicizing of tragedy.

 

[Hans Gruber]

so now trump wants to help get rid of and lower black crime = gets ridiculed .. dems can't be taken seriously

Yep. I am having libs tell me how things aren't so bad in the black community now ...even though they use to say the opposite a few weeks ago before Trump started pointing out that liberal policies have been failing the black community. Which is it?

 

[Sycho Sid]

Strange how when liberals talk about minority issues, it is pandering. But when Trump does it, it is point out the truth.

Am I doing this random shit right Hans?

 

[Jack V Savage]

This still doesn't explain why 60% of the vote would go to hispanic/black/moderate GOP candidates.

I don't agree with the presumption that a light-skinned Hispanic candidate who is pushing the identity-politics buttons couldn't get those votes (talking about Cruz, not Rubio, here). Plus Trump had many gaping liabilities. What if there were an alt-right candidate who actually followed policy and had experience and gave evidence of competence?

I was talking about trade but yes, 2008 possibly could mark the time where the party went into full crisis mode.

True, trade is another area where the GOP now (?) seems to oppose pro-growth policies. And most Americans aren't with them on that. So, again, where are the votes going to come from if they ditch the white nationalism? Did you see the WSJ's piece on Council of Economic Advisers going back eight presidents? Not a single one endorsed Trump (some refused to comment), and his economic policy is actually standard GOP stuff these days. Pluralities of Republican voters disagree with many basic tenets of their economic policy.

I wouldn't say Bernie is a more left version of Clinton simple because of his view on trade policy. With monetary policies, I don't think that really matter much for electing the legislator and president. I really doubt a GOP candidate wouldn't have appointed to the Fed anyone too different from Yellen or Bernanke.

Bernanke is a conservative Republican who was appointed initially by a Republican, but no one in today's GOP would appoint someone as sane and evidence-driven as he was. Perry was hinting at literal violence against him in 2012. Cruz (one of the few candidates who even mentioned the hugely important issue of monetary policy) was talking about wanting to go back to a gold standard, which no actual economist would back. Trump has made contradictory statements (calling for higher rates and calling Yellen a "low-rate person" which he said he likes), but Pence has also made pro-gold-standard statements.

I don't think you're appreciating how totally nutso the GOP has become since 2008. I get that to people who aren't following this stuff closely, it sounds like a partisan statement, and the media isn't properly reporting on the story, but it's the truth.

I really don't understand how the GOP has fallen away from a message about infrastructure over the years and have repeatedly mentioned they need to return to that message with their campaigning if they want to reform the party.

As recently as 2012, the GOP platform called for increased infrastructure spending, but in practice, they have fought against it. Even the limited bill that got through in December last year (way short of what is actually needed for maintenance) that mostly got bipartisan support after a bigger bill was killed by the GOP was voted against by the GOP presidential candidates who were in the Senate (that is, Cruz, Rubio, and Paul).

Though I think it was fairly close to the situation you just mentioned, I think Bernie went overboard on trade and that's become a clear issue causing divide in both parties when it use to be a bipartisan issue.

I don't think trade was really an issue in the election. Bernie was running to bring single payer back up, and put free college and the ridiculous MW increase on the table. Most Democrats now support free trade (that was surprising and welcome to me, as that had always been an issue I disagreed with the left about).