US Presidential Election 2016 official thread

Original post by Aj12

The Republican primaries brought out record turn outs of 10 to 14%. Overall this primary season did not exceed records set in 2008. Sanders and Trump certainly brought in huge numbers of disenfranchised voters.... There is no evidence Trump is going to achieve anything like mobilising 45% of the American electorate. To do so requires a get out the vote operation that so far he seems to have little interest in creating. The more you look at the fundamentals of trumps campaign the less likely a victory for him seems.

Posted from TSR Mobile

He does not need to bring in all of the 45%. Hillary is not charismatic, is the most establishment politician on the Democratic side and has terrible PR of her own to overcome. Trump is a maverick with nothing to lose and he is much better at playing to the room. More to the point, the Democratic base is much more divided than the Republican one.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5985

Aj12

18

Original post by Midlander

He does not need to bring in all of the 45%. Hillary is not charismatic, is the most establishment politician on the Democratic side and has terrible PR of her own to overcome. Trump is a maverick with nothing to lose and he is much better at playing to the room. More to the point, the Democratic base is much more divided than the Republican one.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Which is all well and good, but so far there is no evidence that Trump or Sanders have caused a substantial rise in voter turnout. Obama managed it in 2008 because he built an impressive get out the vote machine, Trump is doing no such thing, Clinton is. Expanding the base requires more than simply yelling about the evils of free trade and calling your opponent corrupt. I'd also strongly contest that the Republican base is less divided than the Democrats, given that the runner up in the primaries refused to endorse Trump.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5986

Original post by Midlander

He does not need to bring in all of the 45%. Hillary is not charismatic, is the most establishment politician on the Democratic side and has terrible PR of her own to overcome. Trump is a maverick with nothing to lose and he is much better at playing to the room. More to the point, the Democratic base is much more divided than the Republican one.

Posted from TSR Mobile

There are going to be three key demographic questions in the election:

1/ To what extent will poor, black and Hispanic voters turn out?

2/ To what extent will older white voters turn out?

3/ How will women split?

Number 1 obviously is a key Clinton concern - she must mobilise that vote in large numbers as a minimum. Unfortunately, those groups have a history of not voting, even in crucial elections for them. They did increase somewhat for Obama, but will they turn out for Clinton? There must be doubt about that. To make matters worse, key states like Florida and Texas, full of Hispanic voters, actively gerrymander against them, using their Republican-controlled state machinery to pass numerous arbitrary restrictions that block many poorer voters from using the polls. This was decisive in some past elections.

Two is the Trump core activity - he must win big amongst the demographic he has played to, particularly in the rustbelt states and in Florida and California.

Three is the crucial question. Trump is doing better amongst women than pundits thought he would, but there's everything to play for and it will be the big area where Hillary focuses her campaigning. We can expect a lot of announcements about what her Presidency will do for women.

Reply 5987

ChaoticButterfly

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders

Huh.. Guess the Bernie supporters were right.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 5988

Yellow 03

15

Original post by Fullofsurprises

There are going to be three key demographic questions in the election:

1/ To what extent will poor, black and Hispanic voters turn out?

2/ To what extent will older white voters turn out?

3/ How will women split?

Number 1 obviously is a key Clinton concern - she must mobilise that vote in large numbers as a minimum. Unfortunately, those groups have a history of not voting, even in crucial elections for them. They did increase somewhat for Obama, but will they turn out for Clinton? There must be doubt about that. To make matters worse, key states like Florida and Texas, full of Hispanic voters, actively gerrymander against them, using their Republican-controlled state machinery to pass numerous arbitrary restrictions that block many poorer voters from using the polls. This was decisive in some past elections.

Two is the Trump core activity - he must win big amongst the demographic he has played to, particularly in the rustbelt states and in Florida and California.

Three is the crucial question. Trump is doing better amongst women than pundits thought he would, but there's everything to play for and it will be the big area where Hillary focuses her campaigning. We can expect a lot of announcements about what her Presidency will do for women.

I suspect another important question is how will Sanders' supporters react to the latest Wikileaks about Sanders and the DNC. It is likely that this may have an even bigger cost to Hillary in terms of democratic electorate votes than the FBI investigation into her private server.

Reply 5989

Original post by Yellow 03

I suspect another important question is how will Sanders' supporters react to the latest Wikileaks about Sanders and the DNC. It is likely that this may have an even bigger cost to Hillary in terms of democratic electorate votes than the FBI investigation into her private server.

What, when they show that Trump is hand in glove with Putin? You realise that Trump was funded by Russian mobsters and that he's declared Putin to be a great guy?

Reply 5990

Trump shows what he really thinks of blue collar rustbelt workers. "You make too much money."
http://www.eclectablog.com/2015/08/donald-trump-to-detroit-autoworkers-you-make-too-much-money.html

Trump has a solution to the big auto firms moving to Mexico - move their jobs internally to cheaper areas and close down Detroit.

He just can't help leaking what he really thinks about stuff. :rolleyes:

Reply 5991

username1230881

18

Trump has had a sizeable poll boost after the RNC convention which is scaring me. The Democrats should be in a really, really good position to win - the electoral college seems to favour them, and the opposition is a (terrifying) mess... yet it's entirely possible that Trump can actually win this thing. I'm not too concerned about what the next president would actually do (though I despise Trump's threat to ban Muslims from entering the US), but I'm very concerned about the Supreme Court - the next president will fill several positions that'll change the nature of the court for decades. If Trump chooses the nominees, it'll only be a matter of time before Roe, Windsor, Obergefell, Sebelius and many more are overturned.

Reply 5992

Yellow 03

15

Original post by Fullofsurprises

What, when they show that Trump is hand in glove with Putin? You realise that Trump was funded by Russian mobsters and that he's declared Putin to be a great guy?

Yes, I realise that. My point is that nothing seems to stick to Trump so far, no revelation, no behaviour and no scandal no matter how extreme, whereas people zero in on every single detail of anything negative related to Clinton. I do think the latest development between Sanders and the DNC is a real risk.

Reply 5993

troubadour.

Original post by Fullofsurprises

You realise that Trump was funded by Russian mobsters

I wonder if you're ever going to provide a source for these semi-coherent accusations of mafia links. It's not even circulating in the pro-Clinton parts of the media, which would suggest that you/other deranged Clinton hacks, er, made it up.

Inb4 this gets ignored 'cause asking for evidence is 'low-grade point-scoring.' :rolleyes:

Reply 5994

Original post by Yellow 03

Yes, I realise that. My point is that nothing seems to stick to Trump so far, no revelation, no behaviour and no scandal no matter how extreme, whereas people zero in on every single detail of anything negative related to Clinton. I do think the latest development between Sanders and the DNC is a real risk.

They only do because the media directs it that way. The Russian email hack is a big media story and there is clearly dislike in many of the main media for Clinton (because she's marginally less right wing?), so the attack dogs will be permanently baying for her blood.

It's laughable that Traitor Trump isn't the story, given his ongoing love-in with Moscow.

Reply 5995

Original post by Hydeman

I wonder if you're ever going to provide a source for these semi-coherent accusations of mafia links. It's not even circulating in the pro-Clinton parts of the media, which would suggest that you/other deranged Clinton hacks, er, made it up.

Inb4 this gets ignored 'cause asking for evidence is 'low-grade point-scoring.' :rolleyes:

Well CNN is banging on about Trump's pro-Russian stance today, so there seems to be a little more than just rumour.

The best article on it I've read so far is here.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html

The evidence is strong that Trump has deep interests in the Russian regime and its survival.

Reply 5996

Yellow 03

15

Original post by Fullofsurprises

It's laughable that Traitor Trump isn't the story, given his ongoing love-in with Moscow.

I agree.

Reply 5997

Joep95

At least 1 Obama is voting for trump
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-obama-idUSKCN10518K?campaign_id=A100&campaign_type=Email

Reply 5998

troubadour.

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Well CNN is banging on about Trump's pro-Russian stance today, so there seems to be a little more than just rumour.

The best article on it I've read so far is here.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html

The evidence is strong that Trump has deep interests in the Russian regime and its survival.

Except I didn't dispute the part of your post that claimed he is supportive of Putin - I asked you to evidence your claim about his connections to/funding arrangements with Russian mobsters and mafia, a claim you've made several times now. The only mention of this in the article you've linked is cursory (he sold some real estate to a mobster once) and predates his presidential campaign.

What amuses me is that you have to stoop to the level of Trump supporters - going to absurd lengths to exonerate your candidate ('cut her some slack, she's in her 70s [she's 68]') and demonise their opponent - just to feel like you're doing your bit to avert a Trump Presidency. There's enough to criticise about Trump without inventing charges and applying grossly unfair standards of judgement to different candidates. Partisan hackery on a student forum with very few voters eligible to vote in the election is of no benefit to your candidate, so you may as well stop doing it.

Reply 5999

Midlander