2016 Presidential Race

[DocIllinois]

Saw this posted on another website. May be worth watching Hannity tonight just for shits and giggles.

A Hillary insider known as "mr fix it" will be on Hannity tonight ( if he is still alive) to reveal his true identity.
He is supposed to expose her for murder,drugs,affairs ,ya ya ya.This should be good!

The highest credibility, accuracy, accountability, and journalistic rigour source I could find that was covering this subject:

Hillary’s Mr. Fix It Unmasked! Clinton Operative Gives TV Tell-All

The truth is out there, you just have to look until someone... anyone confirms it!

 

[Devildoc]

How was Monica and her infamous blue dress exposed? Drudge? Then the National Enquirer? Sometimes even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.

 

[Bypass]

This is going to be such a bombshell!

"Mr. Fix It", real name Doug Stamper, is going to come forward and tell the world how he set up sex parties, was on a $4000 a month cash retainer, and did some of the most underhanded dealings ever. Mr. Stamper has access to the Clinton's like no other!!!!

So it is true then? I wasn't sure about it but was going to watch Hannity tonight just to see.

 

[Brill]

How was Monica and her infamous blue dress exposed? Sometimes even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.

No, he wasn't blind but trying to "rock the vote" by showing how hip he was.

 

[AWP]

Both parties should be mortified by this election. Both offered candidates who could be beaten by a Fat Head decal on some 12 YO's wall. Instead, the Dems tossed out Hillary and all of her baggage (who probably could have lost a month ago), but the Reps doubled-down on their failure thanks to Trump and the 100-200 bags o' shyte who shuffled ot destruction in the primaries. Trump will take a double digit beating all around here in a few weeks, but if he'd 1) kept his damn mouth shut overall and 2) when he opened it addressed policy and a better handling of the "Grab 'em" video The Clinton camp could start writing her concession speech instead of her victory speech.

Trump had a pair of King's and asked for another card while Clinton had 12 and stayed. She should have lost this election, but the Reps have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Right now rank-and-file Reps should hate their party almost as much as the Clintons. They should consider there's a fair chance 18-20 YO voters in 2024 will remember nothing but Dem presidents. This election has larger consequences than the next 4 years and that never should have happened.

 

[nobodythank you]

Both parties should be mortified by this election. Both offered candidates who could be beaten by a Fat Head decal on some 12 YO's wall. Instead, the Dems tossed out Hillary and all of her baggage (who probably could have lost a month ago), but the Reps doubled-down on their failure thanks to Trump and the 100-200 bags o' shyte who shuffled ot destruction in the primaries. Trump will take a double digit beating all around here in a few weeks, but if he'd 1) kept his damn mouth shut overall and 2) when he opened it addressed policy and a better handling of the "Grab 'em" video The Clinton camp could start writing her concession speech instead of her victory speech.

Trump had a pair of King's and asked for another card while Clinton had 12 and stayed. She should have lost this election, but the Reps have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Right now rank-and-file Reps should hate their party almost as much as the Clintons. They should consider there's a fair chance 18-20 YO voters in 2024 will remember nothing but Dem presidents. This election has larger consequences than the next 4 years and that never should have happened.

Win or lose, Trump is exactly what the Republican party needed and deserved. The party will either change or die.

 

[TLDR20]

Win or lose, Trump is exactly what the Republican party needed and deserved. The party will either change or die.

So does it change to appease an aging base, or attempt to garner the support of the people who will be voting for the next 60 years.... Serious question. Changing to appeal to those that are the main demographic in Trump's base will not yield long term ROI.

 

[nobodythank you]

So does it change to appease an aging base, or attempt to garner the support of the people who will be voting for the next 60 years.... Serious question. Changing to appeal to those that are the main demographic in Trump's base will not yield long term ROI.

Good question. It must force the religious zealots to rethink what is important to them. I have a sneaking suspicion that Trump`s base is going to be larger and more diverse than you think. Most importantly, the party is going to have to move out of the dark ages (socially) and learn to accept people and learn to compromise. I truly believe the silent majority is much larger than the hardliners on each side of the spectrum. Unfortunately, it is not likely to happen until that middle group stops letting others do the work for them and start taking an active role in the governing process. The mentality of "I don't have time for political bullshit" must come at an end. Hope that helps to clarify.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I honestly think this is gonna be close. High voter turnout means a push, low voter turnout might be Hillary. But as someone said on the book today, where are the Hillary signs?

 

[Bypass]

That guy on Hannity was a joke. About as shifty as you can get.

 

[Grunt]

...High voter turnout means a push...

This morning was opening day for early voting in my AO. The line was around the building 30 minutes prior to the doors opening. That was impressive because I haven't seen it that way in a long time. If nothing else, there is certainly an interest in this election.

 

[nobodythank you]

Voted. As noted before, early voter turn out looks good. Our early voting started yesterday, but I wasn't able to get there until today. Very strong turn out in my area with a steady flow of people. Although it wasn't packed, it was certainly busy. Additionally, things were very calm and quiet at the polling place. Gives one hope...

 

[Salt USMC]

Irrespective of the candidates, I'm hearing from a lot of people that turnout for early voting is big. It's really heartening to hear that so many people are participating in the process this year, even if the candidates aren't the greatest. More people voting, and participating in the democratic process, is always a positive.

 

[Il Duce]

Good question. It must force the religious zealots to rethink what is important to them. I have a sneaking suspicion that Trump`s base is going to be larger and more diverse than you think. Most importantly, the party is going to have to move out of the dark ages (socially) and learn to accept people and learn to compromise. I truly believe the silent majority is much larger than the hardliners on each side of the spectrum. Unfortunately, it is not likely to happen until that middle group stops letting others do the work for them and start taking an active role in the governing process. The mentality of "I don't have time for political bullshit" must come at an end. Hope that helps to clarify.

One thing I feel like I've really learned/confirmed with the past several election cycle is committed ideological folks do not change their opinions - their influence in party politics waxes and wanes. I don't think you're going to get massive conversions of thought inside the ideological camps of the Republican (or Democratic) parties. I think what you'll see on the Republican side is a shift in how influential those voting blocks are in candidate selection, positions, and party platform.

I think the Republican party has been dominated by two powerful blocks - the religious right and the chamber of commerce/business elite. However, there are major voting blocks that have moved Republican who are blue-collar white working-class and essentially white/male identity blocks. All have significant overlaps in their opinions - but also divergences. For example the religious right is vehemently opposed to abortion, is socially conservative, but has significant swathes that do not identify with much of the low-tax, low-regulation, trickle-down economics of the business elite. The white working-class can be socially conservative on a majority of issues (LGBT rights, diversity, BLM) but does not care about abortion and tends to hold almost opposite economic views of the business elite. The business elite gives zero shits about abortion, social conservatism, is pretty liberal on a lot of social issues on actual policy, but is extremely committed to the general Goldwater/Reagan economic policies - with a hefty dose of corporate welfare thrown in.

Interestingly most of the conservative intellectuals are straight out of the business elite - but talk radio and right-wing media is religious right and/or white working-class. It has set up some interesting conflicts in right-wing media covered very well by the NYTs, the Atlantic, and the New Yorker. There is an argument out there Trump and his campaign have set him up to launch a media empire much less beholden to the conservative intellectual and religious conservative class (like Fox News and talk radio) and much more aligned with the white working class and white identity elements of the electorate.

To me what will be interesting is how the Republican party splits (if at all) to cater to these overlapping but increasingly disparate groups. Religious conservatives and white identity voters are not going to vote Democrat, though white identity is vulnerable to third party and no party. Significant chunks of the business elite and white working class are vulnerable to defection though if the Democratic party pursues policy or a communications strategy that's different. However, I think that's incredibly difficult given the strength of what's called the 'progressive' wing of the party but is really the strongly populist economically liberal wing led by SEN Sanders and SEN Warren. I think those make peeling off a portion of the business elite very difficult.

I think too, the business elite is increasingly finding their money is better spent focusing at the state-level and pushing really hard on libertarian issues - i.e. the Koch brothers and their organizations. However, those moves have ended up ushering in politicians who, though sympathetic to the business elite, are ideologically drawn from the religious right.

All-in-all though I wonder how much the political parties can really re-shape a national message/strategy and how much they're just along for the ride. I think citizens united, legislative reforms on pork, and a more diverse media environment have really hamstrung the tools the party has to bring members in line and pursue a unified strategy.

Just my opinion on all.

 

[Il Duce]

I honestly think this is gonna be close. High voter turnout means a push, low voter turnout might be Hillary. But as someone said on the book today, where are the Hillary signs?

If Trump wins or this thing is close it will be the greatest polling failure of the modern era. I think the question is does HRC win with similar margins to President Obama or is it a landslide. The fate of the Senate and the margin in Congress will be the results of the answer - the Presidential election is done.

 

[Devildoc]

One thing I feel like I've really learned/confirmed with the past several election cycle is committed ideological folks do not change their opinions - their influence in party politics waxes and wanes. I don't think you're going to get massive conversions of thought inside the ideological camps of the Republican (or Democratic) parties. I think what you'll see on the Republican side is a shift in how influential those voting blocks are in candidate selection, positions, and party platform.

I think the Republican party has been dominated by two powerful blocks - the religious right and the chamber of commerce/business elite. However, there are major voting blocks that have moved Republican who are blue-collar white working-class and essentially white/male identity blocks. All have significant overlaps in their opinions - but also divergences. For example the religious right is vehemently opposed to abortion, is socially conservative, but has significant swathes that do not identify with much of the low-tax, low-regulation, trickle-down economics of the business elite. The white working-class can be socially conservative on a majority of issues (LGBT rights, diversity, BLM) but does not care about abortion and tends to hold almost opposite economic views of the business elite. The business elite gives zero shits about abortion, social conservatism, is pretty liberal on a lot of social issues on actual policy, but is extremely committed to the general Goldwater/Reagan economic policies - with a hefty dose of corporate welfare thrown in.

Interestingly most of the conservative intellectuals are straight out of the business elite - but talk radio and right-wing media is religious right and/or white working-class. It has set up some interesting conflicts in right-wing media covered very well by the NYTs, the Atlantic, and the New Yorker. There is an argument out there Trump and his campaign have set him up to launch a media empire much less beholden to the conservative intellectual and religious conservative class (like Fox News and talk radio) and much more aligned with the white working class and white identity elements of the electorate.

To me what will be interesting is how the Republican party splits (if at all) to cater to these overlapping but increasingly disparate groups. Religious conservatives and white identity voters are not going to vote Democrat, though white identity is vulnerable to third party and no party. Significant chunks of the business elite and white working class are vulnerable to defection though if the Democratic party pursues policy or a communications strategy that's different. However, I think that's incredibly difficult given the strength of what's called the 'progressive' wing of the party but is really the strongly populist economically liberal wing led by SEN Sanders and SEN Warren. I think those make peeling off a portion of the business elite very difficult.

I think too, the business elite is increasingly finding their money is better spent focusing at the state-level and pushing really hard on libertarian issues - i.e. the Koch brothers and their organizations. However, those moves have ended up ushering in politicians who, though sympathetic to the business elite, are ideologically drawn from the religious right.

All-in-all though I wonder how much the political parties can really re-shape a national message/strategy and how much they're just along for the ride. I think citizens united, legislative reforms on pork, and a more diverse media environment have really hamstrung the tools the party has to bring members in line and pursue a unified strategy.

Just my opinion on all.

Great post. My first degree was poli sci. I recall something, I think it was called the "90% rule": 90% of people have 90% of their socio-political values set by the time they are 22. Some people can have radical rebirths, switch political genders so to speak, but it's quite rare. Most people can have some views and positions swayed with good argument and facts, but given that most political positions are born from values convictions most positions get locked in.

I think you DO get massive shifts within parties, but they happen over decades, not election cycles. What if you told me your candidate was big defense, moderate taxation with tax reform, pro-CIA, supported federal money for parochial schools? Well, that was JFK. In some definitions he would have been called a Republican.

Most of the political parties' foundational truths, though, remain (in theory if not fact): The GOP will always be big business, small government, big defense, yadda yadda yadda. The DNC has their pet platforms, too. But each party has fringe elements within the party and each fringe element will duke it out for power a la 2016 primary process with 16 candidates ranging from libertarian-bent to kooky-soft liberal. Of course, there will be offshoot parties...the Tea Party, the Green Party, but we all see how well they do in the big elections.

I agree that it has gone from the GOP as the master and the man the servant to the other way around; it seems that the more powerful politicians shape the party's message. The GOP seems to be the sponsor, the moneybags for the candidate. Now at the local and state level I don't think it's quite so extreme.

 

[Salt USMC]

If Trump wins or this thing is close it will be the greatest polling failure of the modern era. I think the question is does HRC win with similar margins to President Obama or is it a landslide. The fate of the Senate and the margin in Congress will be the results of the answer - the Presidential election is done.

Agreed. They were talking about this on the FiveThirtyEight podcast last night. The general idea is that the electoral college greatly amplifies polling gaps in traditional races. At this point in the 2012 campaign, Obama had something like a 2-3 point polling advantage, and ended up with +126 EVs over Romney. In 2008, he was at 3-4 points ahead of McCain, and came out with +192 advantage. 2000 was probably the closest squeaker we've had in recent times, with bush polling with less than a 1 point advantage (it was something like 0.7pts if I recall), and won with a mere +5 EVs. If you remember the 1984 landslide, Reagan was polling 9 points ahead of Walter Mondale, and won by over 500 EVs.

At present, Clinton enjoys about a 6.1 point average advantage according to FiveThirtyEight, and 5 point advantage according to RealClearPolitics. Additionally, Trump is not currently have an advantage in any of the polls that both sites use to calculate their averages, including the LA Times and Rasmussen polls that have had Trump in a consistent lead since the start of the year.

I'm not posting this to gloat or anything, but as @Il Duce pointed out, all this data points to an inevitable Clinton victory, and the only question is how big of a victory it will be. As well, it remains to be seen how this will affect senate races.
If Trump manages to win somehow, the entire polling industry will need to take a very hard look at their models, and Nate Silver will probably jump off of a bridge.

 

[Single Malt]

I honestly think this is gonna be close. High voter turnout means a push, low voter turnout might be Hillary. But as someone said on the book today, where are the Hillary signs?

All the polling suggests otherwise, in fact the below article explains that even with all the adjustments done to polling data to count for the untapped voter base that Trump may bring out to vote, it won't be close and even less likely for him to win. It was rather surprising to me, I thought the predictions weren't doing little correction for the "Trump factor" but it turns out that they did in fact turned it up to 11 to count for that and Trump not even close.

 

[Single Malt]

Here is the article:
Election Update: Why Our Model Is More Bullish Than Others On Trump

P.S. These guys have quickly become the standard and the front runners in the statistics and predictions game. Their record from the previous elections and primaries is outstanding.

 

[Devildoc]

Agreed. They were talking about this on the FiveThirtyEight podcast last night. The general idea is that the electoral college greatly amplifies polling gaps in traditional races. At this point in the 2012 campaign, Obama had something like a 2-3 point polling advantage, and ended up with +126 EVs over Romney. In 2008, he was at 3-4 points ahead of McCain, and came out with +192 advantage. 2000 was probably the closest squeaker we've had in recent times, with bush polling with less than a 1 point advantage (it was something like 0.7pts if I recall), and won with a mere +5 EVs. If you remember the 1984 landslide, Reagan was polling 9 points ahead of Walter Mondale, and won by over 500 EVs.

At present, Clinton enjoys about a 6.1 point average advantage according to FiveThirtyEight, and 5 point advantage according to RealClearPolitics. Additionally, Trump is not currently have an advantage in any of the polls that both sites use to calculate their averages, including the LA Times and Rasmussen polls that have had Trump in a consistent lead since the start of the year.

I'm not posting this to gloat or anything, but as @Il Duce pointed out, all this data points to an inevitable Clinton victory, and the only question is how big of a victory it will be. As well, it remains to be seen how this will affect senate races.
If Trump manages to win somehow, the entire polling industry will need to take a very hard look at their models, and Nate Silver will probably jump off of a bridge.

FiveThirtyEight (which I like very much), RCP, Gallup....none of those polls matter. The LA Times poll? Doesn't matter. Rasmussen? Doesn't matter. The only polls that matter are Florida, NC, Pennsylvania, and a couple others.

I do think HRC is going to win. But this election feels so different from the last couple. Obama-Romney, there was NONE of this last minute swell that Trump is getting.