I do think that he would be a disaster, but he'll be doing most of the damage to the down ticket races. Anyone in a tight race will be absolutely fucked on every single level. They aren't afraid of a general election blow out so much as they are the damage he'd do the their control of Congress. Tying Trump to most of those Congressmen running will be easy as pie/
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
I do think that he would be a disaster, but he'll be doing most of the damage to the down ticket races. Anyone in a tight race will be absolutely fucked on every single level. They aren't afraid of a general election blow out so much as they are the damage he'd do the their control of Congress. Tying Trump to most of those Congressmen running will be easy as pie/
he is certainly losing the states that Obama lost within ten. The rest have been stubbornly red since Bill last won some of them in 96 & Carter in 76 or Johnson in 64. I can't see even in a 61-38 landslide Louisiana or South Carolina going blue but I can't rule it out.
I could believe it if the country was not as polarizing as it is now.
Manmademan
Member
here's the deal with Trump. His favorability is absolutely abysmal outside of the republican party. This poll is from November 30th, but there's no reason to think the results have changed much.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-favorability-stable-divisions-groups-poll/story?id=35497575
Among Republicans, Trump's favorability is 69-29. This is actually surprising, given how polarizing he is.
among everyone else? different story.
Among independents, Trump is seriously underwater at 35-62. Among women? 33-64. Blacks? 25-73. Hispanics? 19-80. ALL Adults? 38-59.
And these numbers have been more or less stable since August. This is disaster territory. Favorability doesn't necessarily translate to votes, but when THIS much of america can't stand you, you're not winning more than 40% of the vote. it simply isn't possible.
Trump is the perfect example of a candidate that is perfectly positioned to win a republican primary but is too far right to actually win a general election. Usually these candidates (Huckabee, Santorum) are kept in check by regional appeal, and moderates in northern and western states voting for people who aren't as toxic but for some reason Trump's appeal is consistent among ALL republican demographics, and not just say, evangelicals concentrated in the south.
Trump will not be defeated in Georgia, Arizona, Montana, or Texas. He's definitely not losing GA and TX.
I expect some wishful-thanking graphs showing these states becoming blue in 40 years
Besides, Rubio will be the nominee. These points are all for nothing.
Georgia has a Cook PVI of R+6. Obama won 45% of the vote there without campaigning in 2012. Arizona and Montana have a Cook PVI of R+7. If the election is an 8 point spread, then yes, Trump would likely lose those states.
That's the whole point of Cook PVIs.
Manmademan
Member
Trump will not be defeated in Georgia, Arizona, Montana, or Texas. He's definitely not losing GA and TX.
I expect some wishful-thanking graphs showing these states becoming blue in 40 years
Besides, Rubio will be the nominee. These points are all for nothing.
you want to put an avatar bet on that one, chief?
you're my new favorite poster
FloydtheFathead
Member
Trump will not be defeated in Georgia, Arizona, Montana, or Texas. He's definitely not losing GA and TX.
I expect some wishful-thanking graphs showing these states becoming blue in 40 years
Besides, Rubio will be the nominee. These points are all for nothing.
*insert underpants gnome gif*
Tarkus
Member
Cook PVI factors in the last 2 presidential races, correct? Hillary doesn't appeal to GA's dem population in more ways than one. Atlanta is the black Mecca and Obama was the first black nominee. I don't think the Cook PVI is valid in GA this time around. A lot of people that voted for Obama might not even show up to vote.
Sure. Even though I was saying that a bit jokingly. I'm down for a bet.
HanShotFirst
Member
Keep in mind, Nunn and Carter both got about 45% of the vote as well in 2014 so 45% is the likely floor for dems in Georgia
Manmademan
Member
Re: the first point...this is silly. Hillary has extremely high favorables among the black community. On top of that Obama will absolutely be campaigning on Hillary's behalf if the state is competitive. As will Bill Clinton who black people love. I'd even go so far as to say Michelle might even be drafted in to making appearances if high turnout makes a difference here.
Black voters just "not showing up" is fantasy, especially with Black Lives Matter being as energized as it is. Romney based his campaign around this very assertion in 2012, and it backfired spectacularly.
That being said I'm down for an avatar bet. Name your terms, I won't be losing that one lol.
Roland_Gunner
Member
If HRC actually got 61% of the vote then the country wouldn't be that polarized. Thats more than Reagan got in 84 and right in line with LBJ - Goldwater. Obama won in 08 by 7 nationally and only lost SC by 9 so at 60% nationally Hillary should win it fairly easily. LA is more of a streach.
Tarkus
Member
Peanut president Jimmy Carter's grandson got 45% of the vote against a governor who hadn't done shit with a 40% approval rating. He was more competitve than a Democrat would typically have been in GA.
Michelle Nunn, daughter of GA's beloved Sam Nunn lost to an absolute snake businessman who
was crushed in the ads. Perdue should've lost. He came off looking like (is) total scum by the time of election day. The Republican numbers are too strong and stubborn in GA.
I won't gloat next November for being right about this. 😛
I doubt I'll win, but I'll wear the avatar in shame for 3 months. I'll have to come up with an avatar for you. The one I have is pretty absurd.
Or alternatively, Nunn did better than Obama did in one of the worst years for Democrats. If Nunn and Carter had competed with 2012 demographics, both would have come significantly closer to winning their contested seats. If you then factor in Trump's poor favorables and the increasingly blue-er lean of Georgia, yes, it's quite possible that he could lose Georgia.
I don't think Trump will be the nominee, so I think this is moot, but this is not some sort of liberal fantasy. If nothing changes, Georgia is -- at least -- a competitive swing state by 2024. Trump would just push that process further along like Obama did with Virginia and North Carolina in 2008.
RastaMentality
Banned
How does this change for Cruz? He'd be better off than Trump in the general right? A floor of like 40% makes sense.
I think Cruz has a higher floor but a lower ceiling than Trump does, if that makes sense.
PD and I abandoned him. The mainstream media gave up on him. Even Nate Silver is starting to shift to Cruz.
Cruz is the closest thing you guys have to a establishment candidate the party is willing to vote for.
The Rubio dream is dead.
HanShotFirst
Member
It was also a midterm. They would have done even better in a presidential election year. Georgia is also trending towards democrats. I don't think Clinton will win Georgia but she will get at least 47% to 48% against Trump. At the very least Georgia will probably be competitive in 2016.
Roland_Gunner
Member
40% is Mondale in '84 territory. We can speculate about Trump getting down to those numbers because he has the potential to be a uniquely terrible candidate in the general election. Assuming no serious third party challengers, it would be a shock for Cruz to get less than 45%
Tarkus
Member
It certainly looks that way right now. I'm just stanning a bit. Believe me, I've been a little depressed the past two weeks.
Rubio's campaign knows they have no chance in Iowa, that's why he's been nonexistent there. He's been in NH for the past week, so hopefully he's stepping it up. If he's not at least 2nd there, then it's over for him. I'll then wear the most awful avatar Manmademan can come up with.
PS, I'll not vote if Cruz is the candidate.
how in the world do you survive on GAF? you are a Republican right? or libertarian?
Damn. Cruz can't be that bad. Is he even that different from Marco?
I think Cruz would get McCain numbers, fwiw.
BLM's goal is racial justice, not electing Democrats. I wouldn't put them so easily into the (D) column. There's a lot of justified anger against the Democratic party there.
Tarkus
Member
Moderate Republican, with Log Cabin values.
Most of my posts are joke posts except for in community threads. I never argue that much because it's pointless in this environment tbh. I avoid most political threads 😛 In this thread, people make good points and it's a great source for news. A lot different from the drivel in most political threads.
Manmademan
Member
Cruz is basically trump with more nuanced language and a more punchable face.
Excellent politician but an absolutely despicable human being.
I feel like I would have given Cruz a shot during my libertarian phase.
Tarkus
Member
Exactly. I fucking hate Cruz. I want to punch him every time I see him and choke him every time I hear him. He's a lying scumbag who loves to hear himself talk. Filibustering Tea Party shitbag.
Da fuck?
I'm dying lmao.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It's especially crazy when it has me siding with the Rubio fanboy over the Hillary fanboy.
Just as a reminder, Cruz was the guy who got elected in-part because of his rambling about Agenda 21 and its evil goal of forcing people into hobbit homes. (Also the primary runoff opponent who lost to him was literally Dewhurst, which is amusing)
re: Cook PVI, Georgia, Clinton at 61% etc.
Georgia is the type of state that can vote for a Democrat in a 10%+ blowout. That would be unlikely to happen in a normal situation, but Trump isn't normal, and I think Clinton can beat him by 10% nationally. So I think she can carry Georgia. But it would just be a symbolic win and she would have little to no coattails. As in, her victory in Georgia would have little effect on the downballot, where Republicans will still dominate. Compared to a state like North Carolina or Virginia, where Clinton winning would have coattails and would help Democrats downballot.
Also it would be very interesting to see where Clinton ends up campaigning if she were winning nationally by 10%. She'd probably end up campaigning for competitive Senate and House races, like in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Missouri... North Carolina?
As for Cook PVI, it's a neat unit of measurement, but it's dangerous to apply a uniform swing and say "according to the Cook PVI, if the Democratic candidate wins nationally by x%, they will win this state". Like according to Cook PVI, Kentucky is more Republican than South Carolina. But this is because South Carolina has a much larger African-American population, and Kentucky is blue collar, white working class, coal miners. But Clinton has more appeal to white voters in Kentucky than she does in South Carolina, so I would say she has a higher chance of carrying Kentucky than she would South Carolina, even though it it is more Republican according to Cook PVI.
Georgia is the type of state that can vote for a Democrat in a 10%+ blowout. That would be unlikely to happen in a normal situation, but Trump isn't normal, and I think Clinton can beat him by 10% nationally. So I think she can carry Georgia. But it would just be a symbolic win and she would have little to no coattails. As in, her victory in Georgia would have little effect on the downballot, where Republicans will still dominate. Compared to a state like North Carolina or Virginia, where Clinton winning would have coattails and would help Democrats downballot.
Also it would be very interesting to see where Clinton ends up campaigning if she were winning nationally by 10%. She'd probably end up campaigning for competitive Senate and House races, like in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Missouri... North Carolina?
As for Cook PVI, it's a neat unit of measurement, but it's dangerous to apply a uniform swing and say "according to the Cook PVI, if the Democratic candidate wins nationally by x%, they will win this state". Like according to Cook PVI, Kentucky is more Republican than South Carolina. But this is because South Carolina has a much larger African-American population, and Kentucky is blue collar, white working class, coal miners. But Clinton has more appeal to white voters in Kentucky than she does in South Carolina, so I would say she has a higher chance of carrying Kentucky than she would South Carolina, even though it it is more Republican according to Cook PVI.
Hobbit Homes? That sounds awesome, where do I sign up?
That's why it's funny!
Retromelon
Member
Please, hexa. Im still trying to digest the idea that holmes thinks hillary might sweep georgia. Just laying in the darkness giggling and geting aaron flashbacks when he would always point out how the dems might hold the senate
Jack Remington
Banned
Earlier I said Republicans have about a 20% shot at the WH in 2016. It could actually be lower. Here's the reasoning.
First, Rubio and Kasich are the only candidates with any chance at victory in a general election. Trump, Carson, Cruz, Christie, and Bush would lose hard. Their odds in the GE are roughly 0%.
At best, either Rubio or Kasich would start at 50-50 in the general. The Democrats' structural EC advantage probably pushes that down to 45% or so, but let's stick with 50%.
Kasich has a roughly 0% chance at the nomination. Being charitable to Rubio, let's give him 40%.
40% chance at the nomination x 50% chance in the general if nominated = 20% chance of a GOP victory through Rubio. Since Kasich can't get the nomination, and since all other GOP nomination outcomes have a combined expected value of 0% in the GE, their chances of taking the White House are exactly the same as Rubio's. 20%. Which is still probably a bit charitable.
First, Rubio and Kasich are the only candidates with any chance at victory in a general election. Trump, Carson, Cruz, Christie, and Bush would lose hard. Their odds in the GE are roughly 0%.
At best, either Rubio or Kasich would start at 50-50 in the general. The Democrats' structural EC advantage probably pushes that down to 45% or so, but let's stick with 50%.
Kasich has a roughly 0% chance at the nomination. Being charitable to Rubio, let's give him 40%.
40% chance at the nomination x 50% chance in the general if nominated = 20% chance of a GOP victory through Rubio. Since Kasich can't get the nomination, and since all other GOP nomination outcomes have a combined expected value of 0% in the GE, their chances of taking the White House are exactly the same as Rubio's. 20%. Which is still probably a bit charitable.
Rubio is an establishment candidate with almost no enthusiasm behind him. He's also paper thin. He will get destroyed outside of the solid Republican states. 20% is indeed generous, but it's basically generous for any Republican candidate. They're all seriously flawed outside of their bubbles.
Third Strike
Member
Although I think Trump as a very low chance of winning the general election, I do think the race will be tighter than what some people are expecting. In the end, I think most Republicans voters will begrudgingly fall in line to vote for Trump. Too bad mostly all moderates will gravitate towards Hillary, and I do think the Democrats will end up with 52+ seats in the Senate, and maybe 200+ seats in the House.
So true.
Manmademan
Member
'You know, they say all men are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Marco Rubio, and you can see that statement is not true! See, normally if you go one-on-one with another senator, you got a 50-50 chance of winnin'. But I'm a genetic freak, and I'm not normal, so you got a 25% at best at beatin' me! And then you add Ted Cruz to the mix? Your chances of winnin' drasticly go down. See the three-way, in the New Hampshire Primary, you got a 33 1/3 chance of wiinnin'. But I, I got a 66 2/3 chance of winning, cause Marco Rubio KNOWS he can't beat me, and he's not even gonna try! So, Marco Rubio, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25 percent chance, and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winnin' at New Hampshire! But then you take my 75 perchance chance at winnin', if we was to go one-on-one, and to add 66 2/3 chance percents, I got a 141 2/3 chance of winnin the GOP Primary!'
I think you're overestimating Rubio's chances, but underestimating Trump et al. Their chances are slim, but not 0%.
Still, 20% overall feels about right.
Manmademan
Member
Trump's odds of winning the general are about as high as Martin Omalley winning the democratic primary. I mean hypothetically it could happen if everyone else got ebola and died tomorrow, but there's no realistic path there.
I'm probably on the pessimistic side of the spectrum here in PoliGAF (about margin - not outcome). I could see Trump getting 45%, and suspect that there are a lot of voters out there who are comfortable overlooking/rationalizing his more controversial/vile comments. It also doesn't help that he'd have an pretty polarizing opponent motivating voters from his own party.
Sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious, but chance of winning =/= percentage of the vote of course. If Trump is guaranteed to end in the neighborhood of 45%, then his chances truly are 0.
Yup, of course.
Chances of winning? I like the 10-20% range too. He'd need help from Hillary, or help from an external event.
If he wins nomination, the general is going to be a vote tally that reveals a lot about what's acceptable to voters. Scary/exciting/fascinating.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked