By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - US Presidential Election - Monitoring Swing States

JWeinCom on 11 August 2016
Machiavellian said:
JWeinCom said:
Drumpf won the primaries (which to be fair I thought was utterly impossible) for a couple of key factors. First off, primaries skew towards more passionate voters on one side or the other. After the primaries, when the more moderate folks start paying attention, being extreme becomes less viable. Secondly, Drumpf was in a field with about ten candidates. That meant the traditional republican vote was split five or six ways, and the "outsider" vote was really between Drumpf and Carson... and Carson wasn't ever a strong candidate. Granted, Drumpf did continue winning even when it was him and Cruz, but at that point the momentum was hard to combat. Drumpf's schtick is that he is a winner, and the early results fed into that.

Drumpf's rhetoric ignited early voters, but it's the thing that's going to turn moderates around. It's especially problematic in states where he'll need spanish, muslim, or female votes. Drumpf is actually polling in fourth place among blacks...

We're dealing with the two of the most disliked candidates in the history of politics. If the focus is on Drumpf, he loses. If the focus is on Hillary, she loses. And the Clinton campaign has been doing a great job of keeping the election focused on him. Not that they need to work hard on that, because Drumpf can't seem to get out of his own way by shutting the fuck up. The recent emails regarding the Clinton foundation (which I think were kind of overblown anyway) could have really hurt Hillary, but that's lost in the shuffle when Drumpf is suggesting second amendment people (aka people with guns) could "do something" about Hillary or saying that Obama is the founder of ISIS. A measured response could have kept the heat on Hillary, but things like this make the story about him. It seems his ego wants it that way. All Hillary really has to do is stick to policy points, and rebuke Drumpf whenever he says something stupid.

It seems unlikely that anything Drumpf does at this point will gain him significant support. Unless something truly damning about Hillary comes out, it seems the election is hers... which is a bittersweet reality.

I believe Drumpf plan which has worked pretty well for him during the Republican Primaries is to stay in the news and spend as little money as possible.  The problem with the national stage is that if his money is not that strong, Clinton will just kill him with public ads everywhere.  Money plays a really big role during the main event and being able to pretty much flood key states over your opponent is big.  I totally agree that if Drumpf really wanted to win, he only needed to have more measured responses to Clinton instead of trying to blow everything up in bombastic proportions. 

 

I still wonder if Drumpf really does want to win.  It’s one thing to go through the republican party and win but it’s totally something else to actually be President.  It seems like the President Job is something everyone wants but also something that seems to age you about 20 years once you are finished.

Kasich said that Donald Trump asked him to be his Vice President, and said he could be in charge of domestic affairs and foreign affairs.  Which is kind of all the affairs.

I think he wants to be president.  He just doesn't want to... be president.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 11 August 2016
JWeinCom said:

Kasich said that Donald Trump asked him to be his Vice President, and said he could be in charge of domestic affairs and foreign affairs.  Which is kind of all the affairs.

I think he wants to be president.  He just doesn't want to... be president.

Yeah, I remember articles talking about that.  I do believe Trump would love to have the title of President but at age 70, really do not want to deal with the job especially if he is going to get as much flack from his own party let alone the Dems.  No one boast about either concenived or preceived achievements better than Trump.  I would love to find the article a while ago where he stated he would like to destroy the Republican party.  I am still looking for this source but this was a long time ago and I wonder if this was his plan all along.



JWeinCom on 11 August 2016
Machiavellian said:
JWeinCom said:

Kasich said that Donald Drumpf asked him to be his Vice President, and said he could be in charge of domestic affairs and foreign affairs.  Which is kind of all the affairs.

I think he wants to be president.  He just doesn't want to... be president.

Yeah, I remember articles talking about that.  I do believe Drumpf would love to have the title of President but at age 70, really do not want to deal with the job especially if he is going to get as much flack from his own party let alone the Dems.  No one boast about either concenived or preceived achievements better than Drumpf.  I would love to find the article a while ago where he stated he would like to destroy the Republican party.  I am still looking for this source but this was a long time ago and I wonder if this was his plan all along.

His actions clearly show he doesn't want to be president.  If he did, he would probably take time to learn things like which side Scotland was on in the Brexit issue or that Russia has invaded the Ukraine, or what the nuclear triad is.



JWeinCom on 11 August 2016

I think he legitimately wants to win. He just doesn't want to actually do the job. He wants to be the King of England.



Nymeria on 12 August 2016
Shadow1980 said:

Virginia and N. Carolina going for Obama in 2008 was honestly the biggest surprise to me (Indiana flipping blue was out of left field, too). Since the era of Nixon it seemed that the Southeast (sans Florida) was an increasingly safe haven for Republicans. Virginia hadn't voted Democratic since 1964, and in that same span NC only went Democratic once, with Carter picking it up in in '76. In fact, Carter and Clinton were the only Democrats since the passage of the Civil Rights Act to have performed well in the South, and probably only because they were Southerners themselves (and also perhaps because of Perot in Clinton's case). The shift in voting in those two states from 2004 to 2008 was massive, and for Virginia to remain Democratic and NC to still end up very close showed that, unlike Indiana, 2008 wasn't a fluke for them. I'm assuming Northern liberals have been migrating down the eastern seaboard, hence why Virginia is looking increasingly safe, NC could flip blue again, and Georgia could be in play.

If the Southwest and easternmost Southeast continues to move increasingly Democratic due to demographic shifts and the GOP fails to add any new states to its column, the Democrats could essentially have the White House on lockdown with well over 270 guaranteed EC votes. I fully expect the Electoral College to be abolished in the next 30-40 years as it becomes obvious how broken and unrepresentative it is.

Maps have shifted, looking back to the 70s and 80s seems incredible for a candidate to win nearly eveery state the way Nixon and Raegan managed.  The 2000-2012 era has been defined by the more rigid split of red and blue states.  We could be witnessing another shift though if a blowout were to occur.  For a single political party (in present case the Democrats) to potentially hold the White House for four consecutive terms (2008-2024) either establishes a new normal or possibly a party reinvention by the one out of power.  Many people in 1988 thought Republicans would control the White House for a long time, so hard to say much beyond immediate data.

On your last point the question I'd ask is who would abolish it and on what basis?  2000 was the biggest test for the Electoral college when the popular vote did not mirror its winner and it survived.  I don't mean to be cynical, but every four years people complain about primiaries and the numerous issues they have and yet Iowa is still somehow first and many states are meaningless that occur on the back end.



Around the Network
Veknoid_Outcast on 12 August 2016
JWeinCom said:
I think he legitimately wants to win. He just doesn't want to actually do the job. He wants to be the King of England.

Totally agree. He loves winning and loves the attention. But in no way does he want to stay up until two in the morning reading security briefings and have the weight of the world on his shoulders.

The Kasich invitation says it all. Domestic and foreign policy? That's everything. Well, unless Trump wants to colonize space.



JWeinCom on 12 August 2016
Miguel_Zorro said:

The problem Trump has at this point is that states like Georgia are not supposed to be swing states.

 


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

 

I dunno about that.  Clinton carried Georgia in 92, and 96 was really close.  Bush crushed it both times he ran, but it was a lot closer for Obama's elections.



Soundwave on 12 August 2016

New relevant poll from NBCNews: 

Clinton widening the gap in key battlegrounds

 

 

 

 

Those margins in North Carolina and Virginia are big. If those hold, Ohio/Florida even don't matter, though Clinton is up in Florida too. 

Also Clinton is releasing her taxes today, going to hammer Trump on refusing to do so. My guess is revealing his taxes would reveal his net worth is not what he has boasted it to be, that's why he's afraid of releasing them. 



Soundwave on 12 August 2016
Bandorr said:
Slight increase for trump.
Some increase for Hillary, and a little for trump.
Increase for Hillary, and decrease for trump.
Increase for Hillary, and decrease for trump.

So trump did better in Florida, and did worse in the other three.

The problem is he needs at least 3 of those states in all likelyhood. 



PwerlvlAmy on 12 August 2016

ill prob vote hillary. go with the devil i know vs the devil i dont

kinda bad that were in that situation lol



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick