Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

I'd say Trump could at least get 20% of the Hispanic vote. Can't see him matching Romney at 27%.

He could get 10% of the black vote. It would be very interesting to see someone run an anti-immigration campaign focusing on immigration hurting low wage workers - ie many black people. Could be a potent, destructive argument that could be effective. IIRC Harvard just released a study showing black employment could be hurt by increased immigration.

 

[Diablos]

Romney got 7% so another 3% isn't impossible I would imagine.

But 25%? 1 out of every 4 black voters breaking for the GOP? Really?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Romney got 7% so another 3% isn't impossible I would imagine.

But 25%? 1 out of every 4 black voters breaking for the GOP? Really?

To their credit, most mainstream media paid little to no attention to the poll so far because I'm sure they thought it was really unlikely.

 

[Coriolanus]

He could get 10% of the black vote. It would be very interesting to see someone run an anti-immigration campaign focusing on immigration hurting low wage workers - ie many black people. Could be a potent, destructive argument that could be effective. IIRC Harvard just released a study showing black employment could be hurt by increased immigration.

The idea that Trump, running on Hatorade, could pull any significant part of the black vote away from Hills is beyond absurd, especially when we see Sanders running on The Near-Ultimate Platform To Help Black People and barely managing to tear some small number away from her.

It's irrelevant.

Would also be grotesquely depressing if it happened.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I'd say Trump could at least get 20% of the Hispanic vote. Can't see him matching Romney at 27%.

He could get 10% of the black vote. It would be very interesting to see someone run an anti-immigration campaign focusing on immigration hurting low wage workers - ie many black people. Could be a potent, destructive argument that could be effective. IIRC Harvard just released a study showing black employment could be hurt by increased immigration.

I think Trump is pretty well understood to be running an openly racist campaign. He's not winning black or hispanic (or Asian) voters by any margin above Romney. His campaign banks almost entirely on galvanizing the white vote overwhelmingly. Not to mention, the black lives matter movement is a thing now and that does no favors for republican candidates.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I think Trump is pretty well understood to be running an openly racist campaign. He's not winning black or hispanic (or Asian) voters by any margin above Romney. His campaign banks almost entirely on galvanizing the white vote overwhelmingly. Not to mention, the black lives matter movement is a thing now and that does no favors for republican candidates.

Especially since Trump has been beating his chest about returning control to the police and dealing with gangs.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

If the newest PPP poll is to be believed. Trump has narrowed his disadvantage by getting exactly 27% of hispanics, 13% of african americans, and a whopping 52% of white voters.

13% might be a bit high but that 6% Romney got was historically bad. They generally average close to 10%. The only thing surprising with hispanics is that a slight number of those who seem to dislike him would still vote for him.

 

[danm999]

So apparently the SurveyUSA poll that had Trump leading Clinton by 5 oversampled men by 20 points, and most of the responses were from landlines (<40% from mobile) and seniors dominated the poll.
On the other hand it has 25% of African Americans backing Trump (!!!)

No need to Diablos I assume.

So people are already unskewing the polls huh.

Might make Karl Rove's meltdown in 2012 look mild when the GOP bubble pops this time around.

 

[Aaron Strife]

So people are already unskewing the polls huh.

Might make Karl Rove's meltdown in 2012 look mild when the GOP bubble pops this time around.

The difference between GOP unskewerers and the Democratic "unskewerers" is 1) GOP unskewing isn't based in any logical sense ("minorities will decrease in turnout while whites will increase! I can't explain why just trust me on this!") and 2) GOP unskewing tends to take a poll result like "Well it says Obama is leading by 5, but actually if you unskew it he's leading by 10!" Whereas Democrats skeptical of a poll tend to just disregard it entirely. A bad poll is bad for a reason, you can't get a good result just by rejiggering the demographics.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Politico has an article on the 76 Democratic primary:

17 Democrats Ran for President in 1976. Can Today’s GOP Learn Anything From What Happened?

Gov Brown was kinda hot back then.

 

[danm999]

The difference between GOP unskewerers and the Democratic "unskewerers" is 1) GOP unskewing isn't based in any logical sense ("minorities will decrease in turnout while whites will increase! I can't explain why just trust me on this!") and 2) GOP unskewing tends to take a poll result like "Well it says Obama is leading by 5, but actually if you unskew it he's leading by 10!" Whereas Democrats skeptical of a poll tend to just disregard it entirely. A bad poll is bad for a reason, you can't get a good result just by rejiggering the demographics.

Oh I wasn't accusing diablos of doing that, I'm saying that if Trump supporters are going to use polls that badly conducted then when the bubble pops on Election Night 2016 it may be very entertaining indeed.

 

[And_Gignac]

>10% of Hispanics or African Americans voting for Trump over Hillary would honestly shock me in 2016.

Sadly, you underestimate the prejudices some Hispanic Americans have against illegal immigrants.

Gov Brown was kinda hot back then.

lol, I noticed that too.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Oh I wasn't accusing diablos of doing that, I'm saying that if Trump supporters are going to use polls that badly conducted then when the bubble pops on Election Night 2016 it may be very entertaining indeed.

They still believe Romney won it. It was voter fraud.

 

[ivysaur12]

Sadly, you underestimate the prejudices some Hispanic Americans have against illegal immigrants.

If Trump is the nominee, expect historic low support from Hispanic voters. Count on it.

I'd say Trump could at least get 20% of the Hispanic vote. Can't see him matching Romney at 27%.

He could get 10% of the black vote. It would be very interesting to see someone run an anti-immigration campaign focusing on immigration hurting low wage workers - ie many black people. Could be a potent, destructive argument that could be effective. IIRC Harvard just released a study showing black employment could be hurt by increased immigration.

See, this is a good troll.

 

[RastaMentality]

A Trump candidacy would be the easiest HRC advertising job ever. They could start getting creative even.

 

[And_Gignac]

If Trump is the nominee, expect historic low support from Hispanic voters. Count on it.

Thats what I hope, too. (Both the historic lows and Trump being the nominee, hehe). Last time a Bush ran for the presidency he got (allegedly) 44% of the hispanic vote. Of course, the GOP wasnt as hostile towards immigrants as it is now, but a spanish-speaking latinized Bush would still be harder to defeat.

And I wasnt trolling Ivy, stop antagonizing me pls.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

A Trump candidacy would be the easiest HRC advertising job ever. They could start getting creative even.

Logically this makes perfect sense but we've had a run of the some really strange polling lately so I'm not as sure as I was a month ago.

I've always believed that you put anyone with an R or a D next to their name and they will get 45% of the vote. That's just the reality we have right now but Trump is more competitive in a few of these polls than someone with his rhetoric should be.

 

[ivysaur12]

Thats what I hope, too. (Both the historic lows and Trump being the nominee, hehe). Last time a Bush ran for the presidency he got (allegedly) 44% of the hispanic vote. Of course, the GOP wasnt as hostile towards immigrants as it is now, but a spanish-speaking latinized Bush would still be harder to defeat.

And I wasnt trolling Ivy, stop antagonizing me pls.

I'm not antagonizing. This isn't PopGAF where every time you reply to someone, it's a bitchy gotcha.

 

[RastaMentality]

Logically this makes perfect sense but we've had a run of the some really strange polling lately so I'm not as sure as I was a month ago.

I've always believed that you put anyone with an R or a D next to their name and they will get 45% of the vote. That's just the reality we have right now but Trump is more competitive in a few of these polls than someone with his rhetoric should be.

But I mean the arsenal of quotes available. You could even play some of the crazy stuff people haven't really heard. Maybe even have a Twitter read from the demographics he's offended for a commercial.

The only Trump stuff the public really knows is the birther fiasco and some, I assume, are good people so there's a lot to work with.

 

[adamsappel]

Gov Brown was kinda hot back then.

He used to date Linda Rondstadt.

 

[Wilsongt]

HuffPost trying to Onion now.

In an administration embattled by harsh criticism from both sides of the political divide, Barack Obama today set off a new wave of hostility and derisive feeling by uttering a sentence containing the word the.

"I have never heard anything so blatantly socialist in my life," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "Just blurting out the word the as if we are all supposed to foot the bill for that with our taxes."

And, from his own party, similar skepticism and unrest. "I want to back my president," declared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, "But when a man makes promises to his constituency about creating policy to advance the middle class and then tries to dodge the issue by throwing the definite article out there....well, it's unconscionable."

Reaction from the general public has been equally troubling.

"It's great that Bernie Sanders is out there pushing the progressive agenda right now," observed one prominent Midwestern businessman. "Because the Barack Obama who uses the word the in a sentence is not the Barack Obama I voted for in 2008."

"This is the right time for the Republican party to strike at the heart of what's wrong with the country and take America back as well as reclaim America," intoned a Republican small business owner in Massachusetts. "When Obama opens his mouth and the first thing you hear is the, then you know the flagrant abuse of all this country stands for has gone full bore."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-napoli/obama-sparks-outrage-with_b_8097610.html

 

[Polari]

Krugman backs Trump for the GOP nom

Trump is Right on Economics

...

And here&#8217;s what&#8217;s interesting: all indications are that Mr. Bush&#8217;s attacks on Mr. Trump are falling flat, because the Republican base doesn&#8217;t actually share the Republican establishment&#8217;s economic delusions.

The thing is, we didn&#8217;t really know that until Mr. Trump came along. The influence of big-money donors meant that nobody could make a serious play for the G.O.P. nomination without pledging allegiance to supply-side doctrine, and this allowed the establishment to imagine that ordinary voters shared its antipopulist creed. Indeed, Mr. Bush&#8217;s hapless attempt at a takedown suggests that his political team still doesn&#8217;t get it, and thinks that pointing out The Donald&#8217;s heresies will be enough to doom his campaign.

But Mr. Trump, who is self-financing, didn&#8217;t need to genuflect to the big money, and it turns out that the base doesn&#8217;t mind his heresies. This is a real revelation, which may have a lasting impact on our politics.

Again, I&#8217;m not making a case for Mr. Trump. There are lots of other politicians out there who also refuse to buy into right-wing economic nonsense, but who do so without proposing to scour the countryside in search of immigrants to deport, or to rip up our international economic agreements and start a trade war. The point, however, is that none of these reasonable politicians is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/paul-krugman-trump-is-right-on-economics.html?ref=opinion

Well, sort of.

 

[Cheebo]

So apparently the SurveyUSA poll that had Trump leading Clinton by 5 oversampled men by 20 points, and most of the responses were from landlines (<40% from mobile) and seniors dominated the poll.
On the other hand it has 25% of African Americans backing Trump (!!!)

No need to Diablos I assume.

Don't do this. Don't do this unskewing bullshit we mocked Republicans for doing when polls had them behind. Live and die by the averages. If the average of all recent polls have Trump ahead of Hillary then Trump it ahead of Hillary, period (which is not the case currently).

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Don't do this. Don't do this unskewing bullshit we mocked Republicans for doing when polls had them behind. Live and die by the averages. If the average of all recent polls have Trump ahead of Hillary then Trump it ahead of Hillary, period (which is not the case currently).

Hard to understand why because some guy decided to make a website about unskewed polls there's now a prohibition on analyzing, you know, actual numbers.

Seems a bit backwards no? Nate Silver pointed out "flaws" or inconsistencies in polls all the time. Let's be real here, if the Democratic party has lost 1 in 4 black voters, then they've collapsed because they're not gaining back white voters to replace them.

 

[Diablos]

Don't do this. Don't do this unskewing bullshit we mocked Republicans for doing when polls had them behind. Live and die by the averages. If the average of all recent polls have Trump ahead of Hillary then Trump it ahead of Hillary, period (which is not the case currently).

A poll that's mostly landline (and senior citizen) driven with a 20 point gender gap *and* has African Americans at up to 25% support for Trump just cannot be right.

 

[BertramCooper]

Krugman backs Trump for the GOP nom

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/paul-krugman-trump-is-right-on-economics.html?ref=opinion

Well, sort of.

Krugman is clearly reading my GAF posts.

A sizable portion of the GOP base doesn't care about the supply-side bullshit the party has been spewing for the past three decades. This should be disconcerting for the party leadership.

 

[RDreamer]

Krugman is clearly reading my GAF posts.

A sizable portion of the GOP base doesn't care about the supply-side bullshit the party has been spewing for the past three decades. This should be disconcerting for the party leadership.

I'd argue there's a pretty sizable portion of the Democratic side that doesn't really care about more liberal economic policies. They're in it largely for social issues. It seems to me especially the younger generation is pretty easily swayed by conservative arguments, they just can't make the leap because they have friends who are gay or they aren't really turned by awful abortion rhetoric.

 

[Cheebo]

A poll that's mostly landline (and senior citizen) driven with a 20 point gender gap *and* has African Americans at up to 25% support for Trump just cannot be right.

EVERY poll will have some demographic details that look a little wack, even the ones you like. It is the nature of how these sample sizes are, the more you break it down the smaller the sub-sample is and the greater the margin of error gets for each sub-sample. It's why you should focus on the average. Breaking down polls to that degree to find what looks amiss will always have something odd in it. "Good" polls or otherwise.

If we get a few more polls with Trump ahead of Hillary, regardless what it shows when breaking down the demographics then Trump is ahead of Hillary as of September 2015 plain and simple (which is not the case as of right now). Always go with the average.

 

[BertramCooper]

I'd argue there's a pretty sizable portion of the Democratic side that doesn't really care about more liberal economic policies. They're in it largely for social issues. It seems to me especially the younger generation is pretty easily swayed by conservative arguments, they just can't make the leap because they have friends who are gay or they aren't really turned by awful abortion rhetoric.

Agreed, but I think the GOP has more to lose on this stuff because they've made Art Laffer's snake oil bullshit such a central part of their identity. I mean, pretty much every Republican officeholder is in lockstep on this stuff.

For better or worse, the Democratic Party doesn't seem to be nearly as unified on any single economic ethos as the GOP has been on supply-side.

 

[Hopfrog]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-military-service-213392

Donald Trump did not serve in the military, but according to a report, the Republican presidential candidate and multibillionaire business tycoon said in a forthcoming book that he still "always felt that I was in the military" because he attended a military boarding school and "dealt with those people."

Here is an interesting new strategy on the question of military service - apparently "dealing with those people" in military school is enough to "feel" like you were in the military.

Interesting considering his previous remarks about veterans.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'd argue there's a pretty sizable portion of the Democratic side that doesn't really care about more liberal economic policies. They're in it largely for social issues. It seems to me especially the younger generation is pretty easily swayed by conservative arguments, they just can't make the leap because they have friends who are gay or they aren't really turned by awful abortion rhetoric.

This is what terrifies me. Its why I hate all the OMG a republican said something stupid about gays. Because it just reinforces this.

When they start to lose this Dems are in trouble at least with a lot of affluent whites which help carry states like Virginia, Colorado, Iowa.

I know so many that are "economically conservative, socially liberal." Look at threads on employment cases, budgets, teachers unions, pension crisis, poverty, etc. So many echo GOP talking points with a kinder face. Minorities are going to tend to stay democratic (they're actual liberal and support liberal policy) but more and more whites once the culture war is dead will drift into the arms of the party who tells them they're money is theirs, someone who dares no touch or regulate their beloved Uber/airbnb/other "sharing" service, who isn't going to prevent them from gentrifying without a fight, etc.

The saving grace is that its going to be really hard to divorce themselves from the worst of their party

 

[dramatis]

Trump's the final form of Sarah Palin, who claimed she had foreign policy experience because she could see Russia from her house. Obviously dealing with those people means you have experience in the military.

 

[Retromelon]

I'm not antagonizing. This isn't PopGAF where every time you reply to someone, it's a bitchy gotcha.

I could imagine neoxchaos saying something mean to erasure and then follow it with some gif of hillary flipping her hair

 

[The Technomancer]

Krugman is clearly reading my GAF posts.

A sizable portion of the GOP base doesn't care about the supply-side bullshit the party has been spewing for the past three decades. This should be disconcerting for the party leadership.

Yeah this is one of those things that feels obvious in hindsight

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Trump's the final form of Sarah Palin, who claimed she had foreign policy experience because she could see Russia from her house. Obviously dealing with those people means you have experience in the military.

What she said was very stupid, but the above was actually said by Tina Fey, not Sarah Pain.

 

[ivysaur12]

When pushed on her lack of foreign policy credentials, Palin said she had foreign policy experience due to Alaska's proximity to Russia.

Tina ran with it and made it "I can see Russia from my house."

The first is very stupid, but the second is what got remembered.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

When pushed on her lack of foreign policy credentials, Palin said she had foreign policy experience due to Alaska's proximity to Russia.

Tina ran with it and made it "I can see Russia from my house."

The first is very stupid, but the second is what got remembered.

Exactly.

FWIW, on the day or so that she was announce, here on Gaf I made a joke that she might claim foreign policy experience due to proximity to Russia. I meant it as a joke! And it happened!

 

[ivysaur12]

Peters, Wyden, and Blumenthal are for the Iran deal.

Manchin is against.

Cantwell (really?) is the only ?

That's 41.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

In a speech slamming President Obama's Iran deal -- which Congress is debating this week -- former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that only the threat of military action could prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program.

"As soon as President Obama went on Israeli TV and effectively ruled out the option of force, the Iranians knew that they had won," Cheney said, speaking Tuesday at the American Enterprise Institute.

Instead, Cheney said, the U.S. should have insisted that Iran halt its enrichment processes, halt its ballistics program, agree to anytime-anywhere inspections, and provide an accounting of its nuclear program.

"If Iran chooses not to do so, they must understand the U.S. stands ready to take military action to ensure they do not acquire a nuclear weapon," Cheney said, receiving applause from the audience. He went on to outline previous circumstances when the U.S. and its allies used force to attack a country's nuclear weapons program.

"In each of these cases, it was either military action or the threat of military action to convince these rogue regimes to abandon their weapons programs," Cheney said. "Iran will not be convinced to abandon its programs peacefully unless it knows it faces a military action if it refuses to do so."

Dick, you miserable, worthless piece of shit, thank you so much for your words the last two weeks.

 

[HylianTom]

A lone protestor awaits David Vitter for candidate qualifying..

 

[Fenderputty]

Krugman is clearly reading my GAF posts.

A sizable portion of the GOP base doesn't care about the supply-side bullshit the party has been spewing for the past three decades. This should be disconcerting for the party leadership.

I'd argue there's a pretty sizable portion of the Democratic side that doesn't really care about more liberal economic policies. They're in it largely for social issues. It seems to me especially the younger generation is pretty easily swayed by conservative arguments, they just can't make the leap because they have friends who are gay or they aren't really turned by awful abortion rhetoric.

whynotboth.jpg

Social issues are easier for someone to claim one is clearly right while the other is clearly not. Economic issues aren't so easy to take such a stance on.

Most people, when they think of conservative vs liberal economics, don't think supply side vs demand economics. They think "balanced budget conservative" vs "spend money we don't have liberal" and that's about as nuanced as it gets.

 

[dramatis]

What she said was very stupid, but the above was actually said by Tina Fey, not Sarah Pain.

Seems like I was mistaken, sorry about that.


I just randomly watched a clip from 99 Homes (upcoming movie in which Zod from Superman forecloses ex-Spiderman's house). "America was built by bailing out winners." Michael Shannon makes for a pretty compelling speaker, he should run for office.

Man, it's depressing listening to him in that clip.

 

[j_k_redtail]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-military-service-213392



Here is an interesting new strategy on the question of military service - apparently "dealing with those people" in military school is enough to "feel" like you were in the military.

Interesting considering his previous remarks about veterans.

Is this a joke?

 

[RustyNails]

Dick, you miserable, worthless piece of shit, thank you so much for your words the last two weeks.

Can we exchange Dick Cheney for the 4 Americans imprisoned in Iran?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Scientists praise Iran deal a tremendous amount:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/s...ssion-in-nuclear-deal.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

But to see them as equal is to ignore a crucial difference: Of the 15,000 or so nuclear warheads on the planet, atomic experts say, more than 95 percent rely on plutonium to ignite their firestorms.

As a fuel for weapons, plutonium packs a far greater punch than uranium, and in bulk can be easier and cheaper to produce. Which is why some nuclear experts voice incomprehension at what they see as a lopsided focus on uranium in evaluations of the deal reached with Iran — under which Tehran would forsake the production of plutonium

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Scientists praise Iran deal a tremendous amount:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/s...ssion-in-nuclear-deal.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

Scientists. Wrong on global warming, wrong on Iran

 

[Crisco]

So I'm going to this forum at the University of Utah today hosted by Arthur C. Brooks, President of AEI. My wife is taking a US History course and they get extra credit for attending, so she got me onto the invitee list as well. Any questions y'all would like me to ask him if I get the chance?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

So I'm going to this forum at the University of Utah today hosted by Arthur C. Brooks, President of AEI. My wife is taking a US History course and they get extra credit for attending, so she got me onto the invitee list as well. Any questions y'all would like me to ask him if I get the chance?

Hmm, I would be there too but my climate change lobby is meeting at that time and I'm on a diet so I want to avoid the free pizza.

 

[Coriolanus]

Can we exchange Dick Cheney for the 4 Americans imprisoned in Iran?

Given how much play the image of Cheney being shot in the head as soon as the switch is made would get, better not to even entertain such thoughts.

Ironically, would be a far more humane end than the one that a man who openly defends torture deserves.

So I'm going to this forum at the University of Utah today hosted by Arthur C. Brooks, President of AEI. My wife is taking a US History course and they get extra credit for attending, so she got me onto the invitee list as well. Any questions y'all would like me to ask him if I get the chance?

Had to wiki the guy. Saw this.

He is a self-described independent.

Then read the rest of the profile.

God damn, my comment about independents was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.

 

[AntoneM]

So I'm going to this forum at the University of Utah today hosted by Arthur C. Brooks, President of AEI. My wife is taking a US History course and they get extra credit for attending, so she got me onto the invitee list as well. Any questions y'all would like me to ask him if I get the chance?

Ask him how the ACA, as an embodiment of big government, can be bad for America if it allows people more freedom to leave their job to pursue free enterprise which is supposed to increase happiness.