Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Who's your money on?Follow

#1102 May 06 2016 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Post like yours.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1103 May 06 2016 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
I like posts.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1104 May 06 2016 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Is there even any point +1ing anymore?
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#1105 May 06 2016 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
No.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1106 May 06 2016 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Was there ever any point?
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#1107 May 06 2016 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
No.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1108 May 06 2016 at 10:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm sure one of the many admins will be all over granting you a custom 10k title once you reach it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1109 May 06 2016 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
yes, that totally still happens.
Smiley: frown

Edited, May 6th 2016 11:39am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#1110 May 06 2016 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Smiley: um
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1111 May 06 2016 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Jophiel wrote:
Charlie Cook is tracking the electoral college and is currently predicting an "easy" win for Clinton (over 270 without any tossup states) although that's subject to change, of course.

Un-linkable since you have to be a subscriber, but Political Wire did a combined map using the electoral projections of Charlie Cook (Cook Political Report), Larry Sabato (Sabato's Crystal Ball) and Stuart Rothenberg (Rothenberg-Gonzales Political Report) and gets a Clinton win of 310-191 with Ohio, N. Carolina and New Hampshire in the "Toss Up" column. Trump's terrible ratings with Hispanics puts states Colorado, Florida and Nevada into Democratic wins.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1112 May 06 2016 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Hey! A link! Thanks!! You're OK with me wanting to read it from the horses mouth rather than trust you, right?


/shrug. Sure. I honestly didn't think anyone was actually unclear about the GOP platform on Immigration, given that aside from some cosmetic changes over time, it's been pretty consistent for decades now (program names change, but the basic intent remains the same).


Quote:
Having perused that, I see quite a bit about the S.A.V.E. program...


There was one line mentioning it. Yes, it was in a paragraph of other restrictions (like E-verify and whatnot), but yeah, a large portion of the GOP platform does actually involve enforcing our existing laws in sane ways that avoid abuses and absurdities like handing out entitlement benefits to groups of people who, out of a desire not to have to deport them, we deliberately avoid doing any sort of checks on. Surely you can see how that can be abused (and not only/just by illegals). Anyone can walk up to a government cheese factory, and if they happen to be of the correct ethnicity, suggest that they are illegal and that's why they don't want to provide documentation, and the bleeding hearts will fall over themselves to put them in a special category which doesn't require documentation. That's... dumb. Even if you're a big fan of big government social programs, it's a terrifically dumb thing to do.

Quote:
...and nothing at all about streamlining the process of, y'know, actually masking it easier to get in in the first place. Got a link for that?


I'm not sure what you're asking for. What does "streamlining" mean in this context? We're not in favor of "look the other way", if that's what you're asking. But, there's a sentence in which implementation of a guest visa program is mentioned. Again, details are scarce, because this is a platform document, not a piece of legislation to be enacted, but it should be clear that what I've been saying all along about the GOP wanting to find ways to allow for the positive benefits of currently illegal workforce, while documenting said workforce and thus avoiding all the negatives.

I thought that was what you were specifically challenging me on. I said that a guest worker program to allow current undocumented aliens a legal means to work in this country as they are today was part of the GOP immigration platform. You questioned this and demanded a source. I provided one. So... you change the subject to something else? Again, no clue what you mean by streamline. Make it easier? Provide more visas (which a guest visa program would do)? I have no clue. That's more of an implementation detail and not something you'll see in a platform document.

Edited, May 6th 2016 6:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1113 May 06 2016 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
It's hilarious how pundits even now are disparaging Trump's chances in the General. Zero got that right after his entrance. Zero.

A few people have pointed out that, while pundits didn't believe he would make it, the polls showed Trump winning from the start and never wavered, People just didn't want to believe that the polls were accurate or always assumed that there'd be some major correction or realignment down the line.


Polling with a small plurality in a field of 17 candidates last summer isn't the same thing though. His polling numbers didn't exceed 50% until very recently. Most conservative pundits discounted Trumps ~20% polling numbers as an indication of eventual victory back then because they assumed the exact same thing that liberal pundits are assuming today: That his negatives are too high to allow that to build into a majority at any point in the future. They were wrong. Shockingly wrong.


Quote:
I started out that way and then changed to "My heart says he'll lose but my mind sees no rational evidence that he won't win". Guess my mind won that one.


The next step is to acknowledge that the same thing is going on right now. Only your heart is much more invested in a Democrat win over Trump in the general than some other GOP candidate over Trump in the primary, so you're likely weighting things differently. I'd be very concerned (heck. I *am* very concerned) that everyone looking at the numbers today and assuming he can't bridge that gap between him and Clinton in the next 6 months are making the exact same mistake as those who said he couldn't get over 35% support in the primaries (and I include myself in this list). The rejection of his chances wasn't because we didn't see that he was polling "highest" (again, among a large divided field so this doesn't apply directly to the general math), but that we assumed his support would peak at a number below 50% (which, um... does apply to the general math).


His biggest problem in the general will be the same problem he had in the primaries. That he honestly doesn't seem to understand that the process isn't just a popularity contest, and he has to win electoral votes (just like delegates), via a state by state process. Um... But that mishandling (and leaving a ton of delegates on the floor really) didn't seem to have hurt him (enough). We'll see what happens over the next 6 months though.


Quote:
People say this but... eh. There's no indication that Clinton is underestimating or complacent.


I don't know about that. I listened to some remarks she made this week, and she was doing the same thing the GOP candidates did. Just dismissing him out of hand. I'm sure part of the strategy is to make people believe she and her campaign just aren't worried at all, so I'm sure some of that is show, but she better be taking him a lot more seriously than she appeared to this week. She can't just toss the generic anti-GOP rhetoric at him and expect him to just cringe away like most GOP candidates do. While it's one of the facets of his political personality that I somewhat abhor, it's also something that the Dems don't really have any experience with. They're used to GOP candidates backing away from certain fights, and giving in to specific rhetoric routes. I don't think Trump will do that. He'll respond in kind, and likely in an offensive way. Which she wont be ready for. Well, she will. And she'll expect the public outrage to help her force an apology or something (usual tactic), but when it doesn't happen, and he doesn't apologize, and she's left standing in the wind looking like a whiner (just like Jeb did, and Rubio did, and Cruz did), she's going to realize that this wont be as easy as she thinks.

And the public will be viewing *her* as weak at that point. Which is hard to turn around. Just as Jeb, and Rubio, and Cruz realized. Too late.


Quote:
The DNC and various party arms will continue to press and, if the map is expanded, then they'll press further and hope to swing some additional states or down-ballot choices. I don't imagine many people are saying "Well, Trump is the nominee so I guess I can stay home instead of voting for Clinton". Clinton and the Democrats have every reason to go full steam ahead: she's going to want to sweep as much of the map as possible so she can claim a mandate going into her term.


Eh... I think (heck, I know) that Trump is drawing on a pool of voters that does not match the standard map. The DNC will have their work cut out for them, and will have to make adjustments. And ultimately, Trumps running a populist campaign. Something that the Democrats are not used to running against, and something that frankly, Clinton is ill equipped to stand up against. She doesn't exactly engender enthusiasm among the people. More of a rote machine response to established hot-button political language. Maybe that'll be enough, but I wouldn't count on it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1114 May 06 2016 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
A few people have pointed out that, while pundits didn't believe he would make it, the polls showed Trump winning from the start and never wavered, People just didn't want to believe that the polls were accurate or always assumed that there'd be some major correction or realignment down the line.
Polling with a small plurality in a field of 17 candidates last summer isn't the same thing though. His polling numbers didn't exceed 50% until very recently.

So what? As has been repeatedly said (and now proven), you don't need majority voter support to win the GOP nomination. The fact that Trump has been leading the field since he declared tells you all you need to know. Funny enough, where you DO need a majority (well, close to it) is in a two person general election race. So your argument is that the primary polling doesn't count because Trump didn't break 50% when all he needed was a mild plurality -- and he always had at least that -- but now that Trump does need to be close to 50%, it's all good that he's polling around 40%.
Quote:
I wrote:
I started out that way and then changed to "My heart says he'll lose but my mind sees no rational evidence that he won't win". Guess my mind won that one.
The next step is to acknowledge that the same thing is going on right now. Only your heart is much more invested in a Democrat win over Trump in the general than some other GOP candidate over Trump in the primary, so you're likely weighting things differently.

No, there is no actual evidence yet that Trump will win in the general election. You are doing literally what I described: ignoring the existing data and just going with what you bet is true. Saying "Yeah, but I bet he'll run this populist campaign and that'll change everything" while Clinton is +13 is no different than "Yeah, but he'll say something dumb and flame out" when Trump was +20.
Quote:
I don't know about that. I listened to some remarks she made this week, and she was doing the same thing the GOP candidates did. Just dismissing him out of hand.

Eh, no. The Clinton campaign has been planning for this since June 2015. In fact, they were planning for it back when the GOP candidates completely ignored Trump as someone they didn't have to worry about.

Edited, May 6th 2016 7:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1115 May 06 2016 at 7:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
A few people have pointed out that, while pundits didn't believe he would make it, the polls showed Trump winning from the start and never wavered, People just didn't want to believe that the polls were accurate or always assumed that there'd be some major correction or realignment down the line.
Polling with a small plurality in a field of 17 candidates last summer isn't the same thing though. His polling numbers didn't exceed 50% until very recently.

So what? As has been repeatedly said (and now proven), you don't need majority voter support to win the GOP nomination. The fact that Trump has been leading the field since he declared tells you all you need to know. Funny enough, where you DO need a majority (well, close to it) is in a two person general election race. So your argument is that the primary polling doesn't count because Trump didn't break 50% when all he needed was a mild plurality -- and he always had at least that -- but now that Trump does need to be close to 50%, it's all good that he's polling around 40%.


My point is that you're assuming that he wont get that number. Which is the same thing we said. I wasn't talking 50% even back then. I was certain he could not get over 35% support among GOP voters at any point in the primary. I was wrong.

You are certain he can't get over 50% support among general election voters. Consider that you may just be wrong. We did the same freaking thing that pundits are doing today. Dividing people up into traditional voting blocks, and then assessing how Trump will do with those blocks based on traditional assumed reactions to various positions, statements, etc. Heck. That's *exactly* what the guy who generated the election map you linked earlier did. Um... But what if he is wrong? What if Latino voters in this election care more about Trump fixing the economy, getting jobs back from China, stopping handouts to slackers, putting terrorists in the ME on notice, etc, etc, than they are about voting in lockstep with their illegal immigrant bothers? Maybe women voters will care more about those things than whether they think Trump supports or opposes Planned Parenthood?

You're assessing his electability based on assumptions about what each of these voting blocks care about most and what motivates them to support or oppose a given candidate. But those assumptions themselves are based on a standard view of the Dem candidate versus the GOP candidate. And that's just not the case with Trump. He's not running like a standard GOP candidate. The same rules and measuring stick doesn't work.

That's the lesson we conservatives just learned the hard way. We also kept assuming that he could not possibly have enough voter support based on the same kind of math folks are doing now. We made assumptions about how each region would break based on the traditional demographics of those regions, and the traditional voting patterns of those demographic. And we were wrong.

Do you get that the current GE math is based on many of the exact same assumptions?


Quote:
No, there is no actual evidence yet that Trump will win in the general election. You are doing literally what I described: ignoring the existing data and just going with what you bet is true. Saying "Yeah, but I bet he'll run this populist campaign and that'll change everything" while Clinton is +13 is no different than "Yeah, but he'll say something dumb and flame out" when Trump was +20.


Oh. No evidence. i guess we're all saved then!

Quote:
Quote:
I don't know about that. I listened to some remarks she made this week, and she was doing the same thing the GOP candidates did. Just dismissing him out of hand.

Eh, no. The Clinton campaign has been planning for this since June 2015. In fact, they were planning for it back when the GOP candidates completely ignored Trump as someone they didn't have to worry about.


Ok. You keep telling yourself that. Let's see what happens over the next few months. Cause I'm pretty sure the GOP candidates were just as confident that Trump would fail at some point, and they'd just move on past him. They also didn't take his chances seriously. I get that Clinton may have "planned" for Trump to win, but if all the talk of how easy she'll have it against Trump is any indication, she hasn't planned very well. She's been planning on him winning so she'll have an easy time of it. I think that's a terrible mistake.

I also think that by the time her campaign realizes this mistake, it'll be too late. I get that folks on the left have viewed the whole GOP primary thing more as spectators laughing at the GOP candidates fumbling around, and presumably just assume that "their candidate" wont have the same problems. I think that's incredibly foolish. Trump has an amazing ability to put other candidates on the defensive and make them look weak and foolish. And he does so in a way that doesn't allow for much recovery once it happens. He is completely unlike any candidate the Democrats have run against. He doesn't talk policy, or agenda, or platform. He just makes fun of your candidate, making them look stupid.

Expect him to make fun of Clinton's pantsuits, and her hairstyle, and being a female cuckold to her husband, and how she's bought and paid for (because he bought her!), etc, etc, etc. I honestly don't think she's prepared for this at all. She'll likely make the exact same mistake the GOP candidates did. She'll first take the high road and dismiss his statements as ugly personal stuff that has no room on the public stage. But he'll keep saying it, and the public instead of being outraged, will join him in laughing at her. And she'll complain about that and be called a whiner. And then she'll finally start attacking back, but it'll then be seen as weak and desperate. This is the pattern he used to win Joph. He's simply willing to get uglier than anyone else in the race. And right now, with the Washington establishment politicians (or anyone perceived as such) polling lower than herpes, it works. And Clinton is particularly vulnerable to this. Moreso than most of the GOP candidates were. And he hasn't even started on her yet.

I would love if the general voting public stops reacting to that populist rhetoric and votes based on substance, experience, and policy. But that's not what I'm seeing right now. I'm just not sure that the Dem well of fear mongering among various minority groups will be deep enough to counter it. We'll see though. Again, it wont be about policy positions, it'll be about the people. And that's a battle Trump thinks he can win. Because how the voters feel about immigration policy, or foreign policy, or economic policy, may just not matter next to how they feel about Clinton as a person versus Trump as a person. She's got the charisma of a chunk of charcoal. That's a problem. I've been watching Trump beat the stuffing out of politicians who were much much better politicians than he, and the whole time pundits would be shocked at how Trump won with this group or that group, and shouldn't have, etc.

He's not following the normal rules. Again, I'd love for that to mean he has no chance, but I have a feeling that's a bad assumption to make.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1116 May 06 2016 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ok, you have zero concept of how the GOP primary differs from the general election. That's cool.
Quote:
What if Latino voters in this election care more about Trump fixing the economy, getting jobs back from China, stopping handouts to slackers, putting terrorists in the ME on notice, etc, etc, than they are about voting in lockstep with their illegal immigrant bothers?

Then he wouldn't be polling at 12% among Latinos right now.
Quote:
Maybe women voters will care more about those things than whether they think Trump supports or opposes Planned Parenthood?

Then he wouldn't be polling at 30% with women voters right now.

Although you distilling Hispanic and women's policy issues into "voting lockstep with illegals" and "Planned Parenthood" certainly explains a lot about why the GOP is starting from an electoral hole.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1117 May 07 2016 at 1:16 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts
Sabato is an actual mage. His moustache alone carries more attuned and natural magicks than anyone here could ever hope. And he is Douglas Wilder's brother from another mother. Virginians know what's up with the sentences I just typed. Long live both. I don't know why they casted that British bloke as Dr. Strange. Just cast Sabato. What fools those Hollywood fat-cats are. Also should've casted Wilder as Ping-Li or whatever that Asian's name is who is Strange's butler and/or possible slave. Not sure even if Strange allows Ping-Li to live in that house. He might have to commute. In order to just bake some grits for Strange in the morning, or keep an eye on some magical font or something. Or sure, kick the **** out of invaders with his martial arts since he's asian. Ping-Li must be kind of fed up at this point, with good reason. May be blind already with how many eye-rolls I'm sure he's had to do from Strange's haughty orders. Mute due to sighing and destroying his own vocal cords. Patrick Swayze in Road House not even needed.

Also: Robert Downey Jr as Stark is overrated, and also the Sherlock Holmes series is awful. AWFUL. Akin to Depp in that pirate franchise. RDJr.'s best movies are Less than Zero and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Glad he got over his addiction but the Iron Man movies are not deserving of adulation. Heath Ledger as Joker is also overrated. His best movie is The Order.

So in short, I do trust Sabato. But there are still unknowns, such as Clinton being female, the largest %of electorates as independents ever, few if any party nominees like Trump, etc. Thanks for your EC focused replies and links.
#1118 May 07 2016 at 1:39 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts
gbaji wrote:
I don't know about that. I listened to some remarks she made this week, and she was doing the same thing the GOP candidates did. Just dismissing him out of hand. I'm sure part of the strategy is to make people believe she and her campaign just aren't worried at all, so I'm sure some of that is show, but she better be taking him a lot more seriously than she appeared to this week. She can't just toss the generic anti-GOP rhetoric at him and expect him to just cringe away like most GOP candidates do. While it's one of the facets of his political personality that I somewhat abhor, it's also something that the Dems don't really have any experience with. They're used to GOP candidates backing away from certain fights, and giving in to specific rhetoric routes. I don't think Trump will do that. He'll respond in kind, and likely in an offensive way. Which she wont be ready for. Well, she will. And she'll expect the public outrage to help her force an apology or something (usual tactic), but when it doesn't happen, and he doesn't apologize, and she's left standing in the wind looking like a whiner (just like Jeb did, and Rubio did, and Cruz did), she's going to realize that this wont be as easy as she thinks.


Agreed. That's the danger, and why the DNC and Clinton should be pulling out all stops to get voters out. And also should be staging mock debates against racist/******* stand-ins as opponents, and internet reaction studies, or whatever. Clinton's current team seems to have not prepared at all for Sanders, so it's not a great stretch to imagine they are equally incapable of what the next few months might bring. Neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign is a well-oiled machine. More like deer in headlights so far.

That said Jophiel's EC links are pretty encouraging, at least for Democrats. Trump will have to do a lot, or Clinton f*ck up bigtime (not a small possibility) in order to turn the EC to his favor.

Very few long-term conservatives on this site and you're the best (well, the best conservative Republican, most here are conservative Democrats), but who are you going to pull the lever for come November? Assuming zero things change from now to then?

Edited, May 7th 2016 3:42am by Palpitus1
#1119 May 07 2016 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Disagree that the Clinton campaign was unprepared for Sanders. You saw what real lack of preparation looked like in 2008 when the Clinton campaign playbook was all blank pages after the second week of February. And, of course, Clinton lost.

They put together a much better campaign this time around that played to her strengths and survived the long game despite being out-raised and out-spent by an insurgent candidacy. There's fifteen failed Republican campaigns that wish they had half of her campaign's planning.

Edited, May 7th 2016 9:11am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1120 May 09 2016 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
There's not much you can really prepare for in a two candidate cycle. A sizeable enough group is always going to vote for the "other person" just for the sake of being the other person.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1121 May 09 2016 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, Clinton had a better strategy this time around of targeting southern states for an early and sizable delegate and preparing for a long fight. In 2008, their plan was seemingly "Win Super Tuesday and we're done" (the campaign said that by midnight on ST, the race would be over) and then was caught flat-footed and underfunded when Obama shot past them. Clinton had to start loaning money to her own campaign, was racing to play catch-up in the delegate count, etc... stuff that never happened this time around.

In both races, Clinton has sort of blown off caucus states (except Iowa & Nevada, naturally) which cost her dearly in 2008 but she mitigated this time with 70/30 wins in earlier primary states.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1122 May 09 2016 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Certainly a better strategy, no argument there. Just that there's a large enough demographic on either side that's always going to cause tension for people barely paying attention.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1123 May 09 2016 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Win Super Tuesday and we're done"
Which one? There were like six of the fuckers this year. Smiley: tongue
#1124 May 09 2016 at 11:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Gbaji wrote:
putting terrorists in the ME on notice


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You've been there for a decade and a half, WTF are you notifying them about? It's like telling a grounded kid you're going to ground them.
#1125 May 10 2016 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Ok, you have zero concept of how the GOP primary differs from the general election. That's cool.


No. I'm the one who does. You're the one who assumes that the same rules apply, and the same people will be the only people voting and thus the only people who might swing in Trump's direction. Trump won the GOP primary because of people who don't normally vote in the GOP primary showed up and voted for a candidate who did not match the normal GOP agenda and methodology. In the general election, with fewer restrictions on who can vote, you'd be a fool to assume that there may not be many times more people who like Trump for president but were not able to vote for him in the primary. He's not a conservative. He's not a traditional Republican. I think you honestly don't get that. He's got the potential to tap into a very large number of people who could vote if they wanted to, but generally do not because they don't like the candidates either party has put up. So while Trump may lose a number of rank and file conservative voters, he may very well more than make up for it with that group. There's no way to know for sure, but I wouldn't just assume in either direction.

Quote:
Quote:
What if Latino voters in this election care more about Trump fixing the economy, getting jobs back from China, stopping handouts to slackers, putting terrorists in the ME on notice, etc, etc, than they are about voting in lockstep with their illegal immigrant bothers?

Then he wouldn't be polling at 12% among Latinos right now.
Quote:
Maybe women voters will care more about those things than whether they think Trump supports or opposes Planned Parenthood?

Then he wouldn't be polling at 30% with women voters right now.


Uh huh. Right now. You get that my statements were future tense, and your response is present tense? Maybe you'll turn out to be correct. But maybe you wont. Again, based on what I saw during the GOP primary, Trump isn't going to make this about policy. He'll make it about him vs Clinton. Maybe the stock identity politics of the left will win out, but I wouldn't assume so. He does not walk or talk like your standard Republican. Once more Latino and women voters actually see him themselves rather than just hearing 3rd hand via media sources, that number may change. Remember, most people don't participate or even pay that much attention during the primaries. So for many voters, all they've heard is "Trump is bad for latinos and women", but they haven't actually tuned into any debates, or watched any interviews themselves. That starts to change this summer.

I would be very very cautious just sitting on that identity narrative and assuming it'll carry Clinton through the election. Remember people scratching their heads wondering how Trump won in districts with high evangelical voters, or high minority voters, etc? Learn from that lesson. His appeal does not follow the standard demographics we've all learned to look at.

Quote:
Although you distilling Hispanic and women's policy issues into "voting lockstep with illegals" and "Planned Parenthood" certainly explains a lot about why the GOP is starting from an electoral hole.


It's not me doing this. That's how the Democrats grab those votes. It's not the GOP who defines illegal immigration as a Latino issue and makes sure to let every Latino in earshot know that anyone who opposes illegal immigration opposed (and even hates!) them. That's all your side doing that Joph. Similar deal with assuming that all women voters must care about reproductive rights and make that a deal breaker for them politically. Those are not associations that we on the right created.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1126 May 10 2016 at 6:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I bet finding a way to say "It's all the Democrats' fault! It's all them! Not us... we're great!" is a nice way to cheer yourself up when you lose a voting bloc by 70 points.

That's cool and all. I'd rather see you guys do that than win elections. It's just weird to watch.

Edited, May 10th 2016 7:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 197 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (197)