The bad news for Trump starts
For all the Trump supporters who say he will beat Hillary in the General election: a reality check. Trump has a long climb ahead. The fact that he starts out this far behind a serially corrupt person is bad news indeed.
Then again, we all might just stay home on voting day after seeing all that on both sides...
Which demographic is Trump beating Hillary in? Latinos? No way. Blacks? Still no. Women? Trump is the only candidate women despise more than Hillary - which is saying a lot. Add to that the fact that Donald Trump already has 100% name recognition, which means that people have already formed their opinions about him - opinions which are really difficult to overcome.
Now we'll see as things really start up after the Primaries conclude with the conventions, but at this stage in the game and considering how truly weak Hillary is as a candidate, this is not the news either Trump or the RNC want to see.
I still hear, nowadays in Texas, a lot of "I may not like him/her, but at least I know what they'll do/be" sentiment expressed. I suspect that is one of the many driving forces behind Trump's success to-date.
It doesn't hurt him either when he says things like "I don't know, we'll have look into that". But you don't see the other candidates saying those types of things - likely ou of far of being viewed as not ready. But, IMO, it is just like interviewing a candidate for a technical job - we actually prefer people who are willing to admit they don't know something.
Now there is the argument that he'll be able to attract Democrats and put states like Pennsylvania into play. That same line was used with McCain and Romney and they both failed. I'm not buying it with Trump any more than I did then. I might get proved wrong, but history tells me it's a long shot.
As to Trump being willing to admit he doesn't know anything, he's put his foot into his mouth too many times on policy issues to give much credibility to that statement. Even Trump's own advisers and insiders have admitted that Trump doesn't go looking for ideas from others. Half of the appeal I hear from Trump fans is that "he isn't afraid to speak his mind" - hardly the modus operandi of someone who values the opinions of others. After examining the bankruptcy judgments against Trump, I also find it interesting that the most common thread in all of them was that Trump himself had to be divested of any leadership role in the company for the judge to approve restructuring. That is hardly the mark of someone who is willing to accept ideas from others.
As for women, I'll bet there are thousands who will tell their friends, and the pollsters, that they hate Trump, but mark the box next to his name in the privacy of the voting booth. (No way to tell if I'm right about this, of course.)
Just remember to "ignore the popular vote behind the curtain".
People in general don't seem to like either of them. Can't blame them of it either. Why do you think those trying to say Trump will get shellacked by Hillary talk about this negatives being worse than hers? Because her positives aren't that great either.
I am not a Republican. I am not a Populist. I think Donald Trump is an ass and a potential tyrant. His Hooverism/Smoot-Hawley attitude scares me. In other words, he gives Hillary a run for her money in terms of danger/disaster as a president.
AND - he is pulling back the curtain on the stupidity of politics and the electorate. There will be some great documentaries about the useful idiots who made this election possible, sanders, hillary, trump, priebus - the whole spectacle will be revealed.
Don't look at the man behind the curtain.
Let the feathers fly and the cock fight begin.
Meanwhile - let us each tend to his/her own flock and be prepared to carve out our various gulch's - such that we can support one another on principle and out of mutual respect.
Like many citizens, I've wondered and tried so hard to understand why
Trump has such a remarkable following. (It's obvious why he shouldn't!)
Then a friend sent me this raccoon story. It makes no difference about
your political leanings, this is just a good explanation of WHY... (Or
it's as good as any I can come up with).
Please, don't reply with political rants from your side of the fence.
This is not a message to support either party. It just helps understand
how on earth Trump can remain so "popular." You have to admit, it's not
easy to understand.
OK. To begin, a Republican writes a letter. Read on, even if you are a
Democrat.
Dear Representative,
From the time I was able to vote I voted Republican. I am 70+ and have
a great deal of respect and influence with hundreds of senior
ballplayers who also network with thousands of others around the country.
I received your questionnaire and request for money to help support the
Republican nominee for the office of the President. Rest assured, I
strongly agree with every question as I have since Obama was elected.
Unfortunately, an important question that was missing was, "What have
the Republicans and their Party done for the American people lately?"
While you seem never to have listened to us in the past Forty Years, we
gave you a majority in the house and senate two years ago and you have
done nothing with the power we provided you. And Now, you want more of
our money?
You should be concerned about our votes not our money. You are the
"establishment" and it's apparent all you really want to do is to save
your jobs and line your pockets. . . Well, guess what? It's not going to
happen. You can shake in your boots when I tell you our support is for
TRUMP and he hasn't asked for a dime.
You might think we are fools because you feel Trump is on a self
destruct course but you look outside DC and listen to the masses. Few,
if any, have achieved what he has, especially in a state of New York.
If you really want to know how the majority of people feel, and this
applies to both democrats and republicans, read below, it says it all.
Sincerely,
Here comes the part about the raccoons:
You've been on vacation for two weeks, you come home, and your basement
is infested with raccoons. Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean raccoons have
overtaken your basement. You want them gone immediately. You call the
city, the county and 4 different exterminators. Nobody can handle the
job . . . But then you hear of one guy and this one guy guarantees to
get rid of them. So you hire him. You don't care if the guy smells, you
don't care if he cusses and swears, you don't care if he's an alcoholic,
you don't care how many times he's been married, you don't care if he
voted for Obama, you don't care if he has plumber's crack, you simply
want those raccoons gone! You want your problem fixed! He's the guy.
He's the best. Period
Back to Trump
Here's why we want Trump. Yes he's a bit of an ass, yes he's an
egomaniac, but we don't care. The country is a mess because its
politicians suck. The Republican Party is two-faced & gutless, and
illegal aliens are everywhere. We want it all fixed! We don't care that
Trump is crude, we don't care that he insults people, we don't care that
he had been friendly with Hillary, we don't care that he has changed
positions, we don't care that he's been married 3 times, we don't care
that he fights with Megyn Kelly and Rosie O'Donnell, we don't care that
he doesn't know the name of some Muslim terrorist.
This country is bankrupt and appears weak. Our enemies are making fun of
us, we are being invaded by illegal aliens, we are becoming a nation of
victims where every Tom, Ricardo and Hasid is a special group with
special rights to a point where we don't even recognize the country we
were born and raised in. "AND WE JUST WANT IT FIXED" and Trump is the
only guy who seems to understand what the people want.
We're sick of our politicians, sick of the Republican Party, sick of the
Democrat Party and sick of illegal aliens. We just want this thing
fixed. Trump may not be a saint, but he doesn't have lobbyist's money
holding him, he doesn't have political correctness restraining him, all
you know is that he has been very successful, a good negotiator. He has
built a lot of things. He's also not a politician, not a cowardly
politically correct politician. And he not only says he can fix it, he
says he will fix it and we believe him.
And we believe him because he is too much of an egotist to be proven
wrong or looked at and called a liar. Also we don't care if the guy has
bad hair.
We just want those raccoons gone, out of our house, NOW.
You are welcome to pass this on. I feel this is why hundreds of
thousands of people that haven't voted in 25 years are registering to
vote this year. The raccoons have got to go.
Hopefully, Trump is not a raccoon himself as some believe he is.
We may not get to find out.
What I really can't fathom is all the support for the cackling crook.
I don't want to see Hillary become President, but I don't see how Trump is going to be much better.
Still there are other choices. NOTA is one to ensure there is no majority much less a landslide or a mandate and demonstrate a complete lack of confidence or trust. Gary Johnson is another one if the purpose is getting that party up over 10% but without a coalition that's unlikely. Of course the real battle ground is in the 110,000 precincts.
"Why change Dicks in the middle of a screw?
Vote for Nixon in '72!"
Still makes me laugh.
He may have changed his tune, I'll give him that, but he's going to have to do more than simply talk about it.
I'd like to reflect on that statement for a moment.
How many D's crossed party lines to vote for him?
How many of those D's do you believe will remain loyal to him in the general election?
In my opinion, the Democrats took full advantage of the open primaries to skew the Republican vote -- and it has paid huge dividends to the Democratic party's chances of winning in November.
While I do not buy the theory that Trump is a Democrat mole, I do not believe for a moment that Trump is a tried and true Republican. His rhetoric far out-stretches his past. (E.g., his donations and contact with the Clintons just weeks before announcing his candidacy - source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...
What sort of things would Trump have had to converse with Bill just prior to announcing his run for presidency? Certainly Bill & Hillary would have known that Hillary was already going to be the Democrat nominee, all Trump had to do was garner some favors in the open primaries to secure the Republican nomination. For the millions Trump's donated in the past, this should have been an easy transaction to conclude.
All over the open primaries, you had countless democrats crossing over to vote for Donald. And, they ended up sounding precisely like the two Ted Cruz confronted in Indiana. And, that is precisely how Trump dispatched Ted in Indiana.
Those two were indeed "fired up". But, they could not argue a single principle except to spew out political slur after political slur at Ted. They epitomize(d) the typical Trump supporter.
The Clintons know darn well they can out-do Trump in general election. Just as they've taken care of the Bernie, so too can they dispose of any challenge from the Trumpster in the general election.
As things stand - Hillary Clinton will be our next president. Yes, she has fewer votes - at the moment - because a majority of those votes were going to prop up the Trumpster in the Republican Open Primaries. The Clintons know what they are doing.
All I can realistically say or do is to URGE anyone considering voting Democrat to stay away from the polls in November.
First, notice that the focus is on "favorables" - as opposed to "If the election were today, for whom would you vote?". This is a common tactic for avoiding the answers in those polls - of which Trump has gained and begun to outpace Hillary in. You always have to get the questions asked in a poll to make any sense of it.
The second major hole is failing to account for the failure of polls to predict Trump's victory margin. Given the stigma associated with being a Trump supporter, right or wrong, there is reason to believe many won't "admit to being a supporter" in a poll, but in the privacy of the voting booth they pull the lever for Trump. This is one of the explanations which actually makes sense as to why Trump has been doing much better than expected in votes vs. polls.
If this effect exists outside of the GOP, and there is good reason to expect that if it exists inside it also exists outside, then the Trump v. Clinton polls are likewise inaccurate in the same manner. But how much off would they have to be?
Between 5 and 10%. If you look at the work done by the NY Times on what it would take at the general level, 5% means Clinton would likely win by 15 electoral votes. 10% means Trump by 35. So I estimate that depending on how it played out at the state level, Trump only has to be under-represented in current matchup polling by about 7%. He has consistently beaten that fairly easily of late.
Remember, this isn't about the popular vote - it is about the electoral college. When you look at the electoral map over the last several years you learn some interesting things. In a sense the deck is already stacked in Clinton's favor. If she ran as a Republican she'd be in the same starting-behind position as Trump.
This race will definitely be one for the swing states unless Trump can flip a major state or two. I doubt he can do that, but he may be able to get key swing states. The margin is much closer than many think, or would like it to be.
Trump has proven to be one who does not follow the patterns we expect. He consistently beats polls, and so much "analysis" is based on these numbers. It stands to reason that placing a lot of weight on something which can't seem to accurately gauge support for one candidate will result in said predictions not being very accurate.
I am often reminded of Helen Chenoweth. She was widely unpopular due to her statements, often off the wall and almost always off the cuff. Yet she kept getting elected. I as astounded by this and did my own polling back then. So many people who didn't like her, or her positions, still voted for her - even from the Democrats. Why? They knew what they were getting and didn't hide what she thought.
At some level this is refreshing and thus appealing to a public so used to what are now common political traits of doublespeak and wavering. It allows people to have some hope that things can be different - that if we elect people like that enough, even if we disagree with them, "someone" will get the message we want people who are who they say they are.
That brings us into something few are realizing about Trump v. Clinton. Clinton is literally running a "with the candidate" race. Trump is running a "candidate with me" race. By that I mean Clinton's motto is actually "I'm with her", but Trump has his supporters thinking he is with them. This is a crucial difference.
This style of campaign is what Reagan, William Clinton, Bush the 2nd, and Obama ran. There is a significant psychological pull to believing someone is "with you" rather than you being "with them". During Obama's first race I noted and commented frequently that he was running an effective tabula rasa. He avoided saying much beyond vague emotions and let people assign to him what they wanted. In this way he made people feel he was with them.
Trump is largely doing the same thing. He keeps his statements and positions as general platitudes such as "Make America Great Again". This exposes another key differentiator between the two styles of campaign: "with me" is emotional whereas "With him/her" is not. Humans tend very strongly to make emotional decisions over rational ones.
The more he can play to the emotions of the voters, which Hillary has and will struggle with, the more likely the is to effect that small ~7% increase over existing poll - assuming he doesn't already have that made up. A lot can happen between now and November, and Hillary doesn't have the easiest paths either. There are several wild cards that can throw her campaign into a tail spin regardless of Trump.
She may have to speak with investigators in a criminal investigation over her email shenanigans, or even face indictment. Her husband may rise to Trump's baiting and say things that torpedo his wife's campaign. She herself can start saying things that lower her chances - you know getting off the reservation as it were.
And to put any stock in any poll one should be able to see the questions asked. We are to believe that Trump loses to Hillary on immigration? Really? I would definitely want to see the question. And then who is doing the "interpreting" of the results?
1) Eminent domain. Trump ardently supports being able to take money from private individuals on behalf of the government to give to cronies who have friends in high places.
2) Government-run healthcare. On the one hand Trump claims he wants to repeal Obamacare, but on the other he says that everyone should be taken care of.
3) Taxes. On the one side Trump says he wants to do away with some taxes, but he supports higher taxes on the rich.
As for him being a Christian, I might actually consider him one if he had any idea what Christ taught. He doesn't. American-born? That's kind of a requirement, but what I want is an American patriot - someone who has read and reveres the Constitution. Donald clearly has no concept of the reason for separation of powers and I doubt he could name the contents of any Amendment past the First - which he wants to do away with so he can sue or incarcerate people who disagree with him. And I love the fact that he's a businessman, but that doesn't qualify one to be President.
To the Democrats, this is 1964 all over again. "Vote for Trump and the sky will fall in!" To them, November is not a Clinton election but a Clinton coronation.
Both candidates are, of course, supreme egoists (or egotists, if you prefer). However, one is "owned" by others, and the other is "owned" by himself; one is a collectivist and the other an individualist.
In alligators
It's difficult to remember
Your initial objective
Was to drain the swamp.
DOL
A couple more factors that play in:
1) Likeability. Hillary's numbers are a net negative, but Trump's are even worse.
2) Name recognition: Both Hillary and Trump have 100% name recognition. That means that they have no opportunity to make a fresh impression, but must work hard to overcome the negativity attached to their names.
3) The Republican candidate pretty much starts in a huge hole with respect to the Electoral College.
And that's before we even get to demographics...
Trump's best chance is going to be if Hillary gets formally indicted. Barring that...
i cannot prove anything, but i would be willing to bet a deal has been cut between HillaryBeast and ObamaScary...she will not be indicted...Obama wants to serve as a Supreme Court Justice...
with a $20 trillion debt and a $200 trillion entitlement debt, neither one is going to reverse the slide to bankruptcy...
i just try to stay under their radar and prepare for what is coming...
Trump has two outcomes, both ok for him. He wins the election or he loses and goes back to his mansions, private jet, great lifestyle. Where is the downside to him?
And his ground game is anything but organized. He's been relying solely on his name-recognition factor and large-audience speeches - he hasn't spent near the time in personal venues most other candidates do. Now one can say that since he is the presumptive nominee at this point that what he did worked, and that may be true, but what it tells me is that the man is too lazy to secure a win in the General election.
The same way being anti-Obamacare makes one a "anti-black". That is the mindset of the modern left. They are so stuck on their sense of self-importance and correctness that to even consider the possibility that someone disagrees them for valid reasons would cause their worldview to implode. Thus they drop to cries of racism, sexism, whatever-seem-to-demonize-opponentsism to avoid the cognitive dissonance and require application of brain cells to the discussion.
The other problem I see is the same problem I had with McCain - the focus that it is support of the party rather than support of principles. I will freely admit that I am a values voter, and when I look at the values of Donald Trump, they don't match up to mine. Trump is 90% of Hillary Clinton - which means only 10% of me. And that is the sentiment of a lot of members of the Republican Party who have been pointing out Trump's progressive values from the beginning.
Is the election already decided? Of course not. There are still six months of endless TV ads and the possibility of a Federal indictment of Hillary still to play out. No conclusion is forged in iron at this point, but the fact that he starts this far down right off the bat is not good for a campaign that really hasn't put hardly any effort into actually campaigning.
I'd say it isn't too bad for a campaign that hasn't really started yet, and has the electoral difference you mentioned which would apply to any non-D candidate. It would be far worse of a position had he spent a lot of time and money actually campaigning.
You also have to look at the two major ways Trump has to affect public sentiment: PSA's (public service announcements also known as advertisements) and debates. PSA's typically focus on the negative in one's opponent and contrasting it to one's own stance. His policies on many items there are identical, so his list of potential PSA's leaves little room to work with. And we saw in the debates that Trump fared poorly - and couldn't leave the jibes at the debate. Marco Rubio's jabs hit home hard and Trump was still talking about rebuttals to them for weeks, making him look thin-skinned and self-conscious - not Presidential and confident. Hillary is a seasoned debater and she'll have moderators willing to cover for her, so Trump is really going to have to outperform if he's going to beat her there.
There is a third way to change peoples' opinions, and that is to actually go out and meet them, but Trump so far has shown little willingness to engage in "press-the-flesh" campaigning. Fortunately, neither has Hillary, so while he won't necessarily receive criticism for not doing it, he's not going to win any converts either.
He's got an uphill battle. Time will tell if he's able to climb that hill despite all the boulders that are going to start rolling down on top of him.
Emotional decisions are the bane of a good debate because there is nothing the intellectual debator can say. If people are being driven by emotion, logic isn't the winning strategy. The Libertarian Party had decades of experience with trying the intellectual campaign - the "with the candidate" style. Whether it is fear, Hope and Change, or a shining city on the hill, emotional campaigns are hard to derail with logic.
By my count of the elections since 1984 only one non-emotional based campaign won. But in that one neither side was running an emotionally driven one. In every emotional vs intellectual campaign contest since 1984 the emotional one has always won. Reagan. Clinton. GWB. Obama. Note that each of them were double term POTUSes.
Of course that doesn't guarantee the candidate running an emotionally bass campaign will win, but it is pretty good indicator that as a basic campaign structure it is a more often successful one - If only because those who run intellectual campaigns don't know how to run successfully against an emotional one.
I liken it to talking to vegans and vegetarians about diet. If they think not eating meat or animal products is healthier, they can be educated in the falseness of that conclusion and a discussion might be productive. But if they say it is more ethical or more human there is no value in discussing it - they got there based on emotional reasons and only emotional ones could dissuade them from their folly.
Hillary knows how to debate someone on intellectual grounds. That doesn't mean she knows how to do the same with an emotionally driven one. Maybe she does, but I've never seen it and have doubts she does. The only time we see her play to emotion is when she talks about being the first woman POTUS. Even then she manages to turn it into being with her rather than actually about women in the Oval Office.
What I focus on however isn't party or persona, but values. And as I look through the values Trump espouses, I see little difference from Hillary Clinton. I am a #NeverHillary voter and I am a #NeverTrump voter because I see one as 100% Progressive/Evil and the other 90% Progressive/Evil. I'm not going to vote for Trump simply because he's only a smidgen less evil than Hillary.
People tend to outgrow them as they grow up.