Elections Clinton vs. Trump Polls thread, v2

[Deleted member 429137]

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.

He tried to destroy the lives of five young black men who were innocent of a crime.

 

[Lead]

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?

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?

This is where I don't understand your reasoning. You explain a criticism of the party and then make a statement after about the white nationalism as if it supports it. It doesn't.

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.

If we are going to place Trump as the new face of the party, I'm not really willing to argue on that. I mentioned early I think the party has about three main factions now (moderate, tea party/Cruz's group/ Trump/alt right). One group doesn't support Trump, the other doesn't support Trump but likely carries the bad policy tenets you alluded to and the last supports and carries the bad policies. I am not trying to support either two later groups mentioned on policy.

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 the GOP is ever considering a return to the gold standard or real change with the Fed. It's a stupid campaign move that lingers with the primary and disappears shortly after usually because those candidates don't get nominated. If I were to judge the 2012 crowd as a whole while not considering this was a year against a very formidable incumbent, yes, I would've been very worried about the things said then. The fact then was that there may have been 1-3 legitimate candidates in that field however. I never though Ron Paul, Bachman, Cain, etc had an chance of eligibility and it proved true even in the primary. At that time, the moderate faction still controlled the party to get Romney the nod. Votes were really split between the Non-Romney groups because they consistently surged one candidate at a time and it never was able to compete with Romney's consistent support.

And again, I'm not supporting Pence or any of the Trump campaign. Pence was seen as a long shot if he had entered the race and he jumped on for VP because of the danger he had for reelection in IN.

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 explained 2012 but I can't really speak for 2016 as the tide did turn for a fringe un-electable. There is hopes this could be a short term protest vote or possibly the climax of the build up we saw in 2012 to now. I wouldn't get my hopes up but one could hope that with a major landslide these people wouldn't double down on stupid, right? .....

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).

This is something I agree with. The party campaign and governs entirely differently. So a person who wants even a moderate sized government, fiscally sound budgets, and focus on long term investment policies is left little options. It's pretty bad when the left is looking like a place where those are more feasible at this point.

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).

I have to disagree on trade. It was a big issue and Hillary had to pivot to being against TPP in order to try to neutralize some of Bernie's support. Yes, Bernie had a ton of far left policies but doesn't it concern you she had to pivot on that issue specifically? Obviously I never thought she actually did switch but it shows the calculated decision she needed to make looking at the current environment of the voting public.

And I'm not ignoring this being an even larger issue with the GOP. Rubio actually took down a portion of his website for his Florida re-election launch mentioning that he is pro free trade. He wasn't the most centrist of the field this year but for where he's positioned himself, I think that is very concerning he seems pressured to back off on that as well.

My point is the pressure is definitely widespread (with Bernie's support and a number of the popular GOP candidates) and we were lucky to at least get one candidate with none of these types of policies in the GE.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

lmao Trump actually retweeted this

an RV poll

from June

of Evangelicals

and only white Evangelicals

 

[Lead]

lmao Trump actually retweeted this

an RV poll

from June

of Evangelicals

and only white Evangelicals

This is getting really really sad

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is where I don't understand your reasoning. You explain a criticism of the party and then make a statement after about the white nationalism as if it supports it. It doesn't.

Those are separate comments. Point is that the GOP's *policy* agenda gives little reason for 99% of the population to support them. So if you had a separate "alt-right" party, why wouldn't they crush a GOP that was offering that policy agenda without a compelling reason for people to support it?

If we are going to place Trump as the new face of the party, I'm not really willing to argue on that. I mentioned early I think the party has about three main factions now (moderate, tea party/Cruz's group/ Trump/alt right). One group doesn't support Trump, the other doesn't support Trump but likely carries the bad policy tenets you alluded to and the last supports and carries the bad policies. I am not trying to support either two later groups mentioned on policy.

There's a reason Trump won. What you call the "moderate" faction (which is not moderate at all except temperamentally if you're referring to Bush/Rubio/Kasich types) got utterly crushed. No one is buying it. Pretty much everyone agrees that W. was a disaster so why would anyone want more of that?

I don't think the GOP is ever considering a return to the gold standard or real change with the Fed.

Why not? They talk constantly about it. I think the lesson of Trump is, "take what these people say seriously." The base no longer trusts the mainstream media or academics. Other than the fact that there's another party, what's supposed to stop them from taking that kind of quackery seriously now?

This is something I agree with. The party campaign and governs entirely differently. So a person who wants even a moderate sized government, fiscally sound budgets, and focus on long term investment policies is left little options. It's pretty bad when the left is looking like a place where those are more feasible at this point.

That's been the case for a long time now. The left is more fiscally sound because people who actually want the gov't to do things worry about the effect of deficits on the stability of programs, while people who only want lower top-end taxes don't care if there are deficits (just puts pressure on future spending cuts).

I have to disagree on trade. It was a big issue and Hillary had to pivot to being against TPP in order to try to neutralize some of Bernie's support. Yes, Bernie had a ton of far left policies but doesn't it concern you she had to pivot on that issue specifically? Obviously I never thought she actually did switch but it shows the calculated decision she needed to make looking at the current environment of the voting public.

I don't agree, but I don't know how to resolve it without more work than I'm willing to put in. I've pointed out before that the TPP has a big plurality support (big majority of people with an opinion), and that's true among Democrats, too.

 

[Irenaeus]

Trump's slight catching up from last week seems to stick, suggesting a 5-6 point race right now. Is whatever Conway's doing to keep him on message working, or is it more of Clinton's convention bump having subsided rather more slowly than usual? Or does this mean that the Clinton strategy of shutting up and hoping Trump says more controversial stuff only works up to a certain point?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the polls reflecting the Alt Right exchanges and the more active Clinton posture coming out.

 

[Fawlty]

Trump's slight catching up from last week seems to stick, suggesting a 5-6 point race right now. Is whatever Conway's doing to keep him on message working, or is it more of Clinton's convention bump having subsided rather more slowly than usual? Or does this mean that the Clinton strategy of shutting up and hoping Trump says more controversial stuff only works up to a certain point?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the polls reflecting the Alt Right exchanges and the more active Clinton posture coming out.

There's really nothing interesting in these national poll numbers from what I can see (some states are quite interesting though). She got a bigger bounce than expected and it has settled a little as predicted, with no major recent shakeup. I think it's safe to call these numbers her post-convention baseline. I don't know if that's the right term to use, but what I mean is that the polls have caught up to the news.

 

[Irenaeus]

There's really nothing interesting in these national poll numbers from what I can see (some states are quite interesting though). She got a bigger bounce than expected and it has settled a little as predicted, with no major recent shakeup. I think it's safe to call these numbers her post-convention baseline. I don't know if that's the right term to use, but what I mean is that the polls have caught up to the news.

I kind of agree, especially about the States polls vs national polls, so to a certain extent this is me trying to talk about changes in margins rather than fundamental differences. That said, given how long her convention bounce seemed to stay strong, just the fact that her post-convention baseline is five to six points and not seven to eight has some significance. Especially given the large number of undecided and third party votes. Clinton is still heavy favourite of course (80%-ish?), but there are a lot of states in play this year, even if most of them have a strong lean.

 

[VivaRevolution]

lmao Trump actually retweeted this

an RV poll

from June

of Evangelicals

and only white Evangelicals

I am curious what the difference is between this, and the media saying bernie couldn't win because 70% of the black vote supported clinton.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I am curious what the difference is between this, and the media saying bernie couldn't win because 70% of the black vote supported clinton.

Really? You really don't understand the difference? I mean I'm happy to explain it to you but, really?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Really? You really don't understand the difference? I mean I'm happy to explain it to you but, really?

Meaningful difference, but yes, yes I would, because I don't see it.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

I am curious what the difference is between this, and the media saying bernie couldn't win because 70% of the black vote supported clinton.

Performing well with black voters in a democratic primary is indicative of the strength of a candidate. A republican performing well with white evangelicals in the GE is indicative of...absolutely nothing.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Performing well with black voters in a democratic primary is indicative of the strength of a candidate. A republican performing well with white evangelicals in the GE is indicative of...absolutely nothing.

Interesting, because I'm pretty sure white people are still the majority in this country, so how it that not showing the strength of a GE candidate?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Meaningful difference, but yes, yes I would, because I don't see it.

African-Americans make up an important and necessary voting demographic in democratic primaries. Evangelicals are not a particularly important voting demographic for democrats to capture in a general election.

Bernie's poor standing with minorities was a problem in the primary. Hillary's poor standing with evangelicals is not a problem in the general.

If Trump were getting 70% of African American or 70% of unmarried women, Hillary would have a problem. Trump having 70% of evangelicals? Irrelevant.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Well I guess a "how do primaries work?" thread might be necessary given who is being responded to.

 

[VivaRevolution]

African-Americans make up an important and necessary voting demographic in democratic primaries. Evangelicals are not a particularly important voting demographic for democrats to capture in a general election.

Bernie's poor standing with minorities was a problem in the primary. Hillary's poor standing with evangelicals is not a problem in the general.

If Trump were getting 70% of African American or 70% of unmarried women, Hillary would have a problem. Trump having 70% of evangelicals? Irrelevant.

But the issue people had wasn't with citing Evangelicals, it was with citing white voters.

Why is it OK to cite black support, but not white support?

 

[UpaLoompa]

But the issue people had wasn't with citing Evangelicals, it was with citing white voters.

Why is it OK to cite black support, but not white support?

You're not understanding what the criticism was. The criticism was that it is an irrelevant demographic. You inferred that the problem was in regards to race but that wasn't implied. Hell, racial demographics have been key in all discussions of polling.

The question I have is whether this is an honest misunderstanding on your part or if you were being dishonest (since you've admitted to lying to further your position you're hard to take serious).

 

[UpaLoompa]

Here: The numbers Trump retweeted aren't different than those of the 2008 or 2012 election.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/home/elections-2014-exit-polls-white-evangelical-vote

 

[Irenaeus]

But the issue people had wasn't with citing Evangelicals, it was with citing white voters.

Why is it OK to cite black support, but not white support?

Yeah, you're misunderstanding this. It's completely ok to cite white evangelical support, it's just not very braggable for a republican candidate, to put it mildly.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Yeah, you're misunderstanding this. It's completely ok to cite white evangelical support, it's just not very braggable for a republican candidate, to put it mildly.

The problem is that he's said elsewhere that he has no problem lying if it furthers his agenda. That makes it tough to tell if he was generally mistaken or if he's just being a tool.