Thanks for that

And today's captain obvious award goes to...

Trump is a nut job.

We know all this.

Meanwhile, the supposed "shoo-in" Clinton is now slightly behind Trump in the polling average:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...inton-5491.html

 

Various polls of swing states in the past week have also confirmed that the election is too close to call.

Edited May 22, 20169 yr by Danny

Hilary might as well just go home now, for Donald Trump has just secured the endorsement of the only person who matters. Yes, star of Trainspotting and host of "Touch The Truck", Dale Winton!

Meanwhile, the supposed "shoo-in" Clinton is now slightly behind Trump in the polling average:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...inton-5491.html

 

Various polls of swing states in the past week have also confirmed that the election is too close to call.

At this point in 2008, McCain was consistently leading Obama and Labour were consistently leading the Conservatives. When it comes down to it, Trump's fundamentals are infinitely worse than Hillary's.

At this point in 2008, McCain was consistently leading Obama and Labour were consistently leading the Conservatives. When it comes down to it, Trump's fundamentals are infinitely worse than Hillary's.

 

Surely the "Labour beating the Conservatives" analogy suggests if anything that Clinton is being overestimated by the polls? As we saw last year, "millennials" might tell pollsters that they'll vote for one candidate as the lesser evil, but they're just not going to show up at the polling stations on the day unless a canditate/party positively enthuses them to vote -- and there is no evidence so far that Clinton is capable of inspiring that kind of enthusiasm.

 

The bottom line is that, for all the misgivings Republican voters might have about Trump, they all almost universally detest Clinton even more (some of the reasons they detest her MIGHT be motivated by sexism, but their reasons being inappropriate doesn't make them any less of a political problem) and were always going to rally round Trump as soon as the primaries were over. Add into that that she has little appeal to the white working-class swing vote, and that planks of the Democrat core vote are not enthused by her, and the fundamentals were always pointing to a very tight contest.

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by Danny

Surely the "Labour beating the Conservatives" analogy suggests if anything that Clinton is being overestimated by the polls? As we saw last year, "millennials" might tell pollsters that they'll vote for one candidate as the lesser evil, but they're just not going to show up at the polling stations on the day unless a canditate/party positively enthuses them to vote -- and there is no evidence so far that Clinton is capable of inspiring that kind of enthusiasm.

 

Aside from her beating the candidate sold on that merit by several million votes?

 

In any case, it wasn't millennials not turning out that called last year's election wrong, as opposed to a systematic skewing across most age groups towards Labour.

 

The bottom line is that, for all the misgivings Republican voters might have about Trump, they all almost universally detest Clinton even more (some of the reasons they detest her MIGHT be motivated by sexism, but their reasons being inappropriate doesn't make them any less of a political problem) and were always going to rally round Trump as soon as the primaries were over. Add into that that she has little appeal to the white working-class swing vote, and that planks of the Democrat core vote are not enthused by her, and the fundamentals were always pointing to a very tight contest.

'Were' always going to rally around? They haven't in great number - or at least, that isn't the main reason the gap has narrowed. Clinton has fallen in the polls because a large chunk of independent Bernie supporters have started saying they're undecided. It comes down to how many of those you think in the end will legitimately think that Clinton and Trump are basically the same and not vote/vote for Jill Stein. If Bernie refuses to endorse Hillary (which looks like it could be a possibility at this point), there's a real chance that might happen - but it would go against everything he's said previously on the topic.

 

You have one candidate who is betting everything on turning out one of the most rapidly decreasing demographics - the white working class, particularly males - while being hugely repellent to minority voters (he's currently at 11% with Hispanics. Mitt was at 33%) and female voters. Hillary doesn't have an especially broad appeal either, but a majority of fear and loathing versus a majority of strong mistrust and dislike points one way. In a war of repellence, only one of them's winning demographics-wise.

Aside from her beating the candidate sold on that merit by several million votes?

 

In any case, it wasn't millennials not turning out that called last year's election wrong, as opposed to a systematic skewing across most age groups towards Labour.

 

I thought the consensus from the pollsters was that the polling failure was caused by people who were saying they were going to vote Labour, being too lazy to actually vote on the day (especially younger voters)?

 

"Millennials" are generally so uninterested in politics that it appears they need to actually like and feel passionate about a candidate to show up at the polling station -- it's just not enough to pitch yourself as "not as bad as the other guy" to a demographic who question the whole point of voting in the first place. Obama was able to make the young feel passionate, in a way that Ed Miliband and his timid politics was not able to, and (on the basis of the primaries) Clinton is not able to either.

 

 

You have one candidate who is betting everything on turning out one of the most rapidly decreasing demographics - the white working class, particularly males - while being hugely repellent to minority voters (he's currently at 11% with Hispanics. Mitt was at 33%) and female voters. Hillary doesn't have an especially broad appeal either, but a majority of fear and loathing versus a majority of strong mistrust and dislike points one way. In a war of repellence, only one of them's winning demographics-wise.

 

Yes, Trump probably will do worse than Romney with Latinos, although that won't do much good for Clinton in terms of swinging the election result, since most swing states don't have very high Latino populations.

 

Against that, Clinton has much less appeal than Obama had among the young, the white working-class, and the generally disinterested who vote on the basis of which politician they like the most personally or trust the most. It's also far from proven so far that Trump does especially badly with women (or atleast, with women in demographic groups who are otherwise favourable to him) -- in the latest polls, Clinton has done worse with men overall than Trump does with women overall.

Edited May 24, 20169 yr by Danny

I thought the consensus from the pollsters was that the polling failure was caused by people who were saying they were going to vote Labour, being too lazy to actually vote on the day (especially younger voters)?

Absolutely not! That was an initial theory put out in the first couple of the days after the election, but it only worked if the expectation for turnout was 82% (which would have been higher than any election since 1950), and got dismissed in the final report. The final conclusion of the investigation was that most pollsters' panels had ended up having unrepresentative samples in terms of age and geography, as well as containing too many 'avid' voters (which meant they didn't end up accurately representing people not too interested in politics, which is a systematic problem with polling I think - in an age of PPI calls and rejection rates going up, it's going to get more difficult for pollsters to combat that).

 

"Millennials" are generally so uninterested in politics that it appears they need to actually like and feel passionate about a candidate to show up at the polling station -- it's just not enough to pitch yourself as "not as bad as the other guy" to a demographic who question the whole point of voting in the first place. Obama was able to make the young feel passionate, in a way that Ed Miliband and his timid politics was not able to, and (on the basis of the primaries) Clinton is not able to either.

 

As I've said before, millennials are deeply overrated as a factor in elections. Not only is their turnout comparatively awful with other age groups even in elections where they *are* motivated to turn out (like for Obama in '08), with birth rates going down they pale in comparison population-wise. Bernie if anything is evidence of what happens when you get too excited about getting three quarters of the smallest cake when you only get a quarter of the biggest one.

 

It's not to say millennials don't matter at all. But the next election won't be won and lost on the basis of millennials.

 

Yes, Trump probably will do worse than Romney with Latinos, although that won't do much good for Clinton in terms of swinging the election result, since most swing states don't have very high Latino populations.

 

Against that, Clinton has much less appeal than Obama had among the young, the white working-class, and the generally disinterested who vote on the basis of which politician they like the most personally or trust the most. It's also far from proven so far that Trump does especially badly with women (or atleast, with women in demographic groups who are otherwise favourable to him) -- in the latest polls, Clinton has done worse with men overall than Trump does with women overall.

 

Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico (and even Arizona if he stays where he is now) are 31 pretty handy electoral votes to have if Trump comes anywhere near Ohio and Michigan.

 

She does worse with Obama on those, okay (there's an interesting conversation in there on the white working-class, who backed her in 08 and fled Obama in 12, as arguably that they haven't returned for her shows it may be down more to systemic realignment going on for the Democrats. Worth also noting that none of those types was really *enthusiastic* for Obama in 2012). But for the generally disinterested who vote on the basis of who they like or trust the most...well, she's not going up against Obama there, she's going up against an open racist.

 

I may be wrong on this and I need to check, but I also have a feeling from some of the maps I saw that Obama did worse with men overall than Romney did with women overall in 2012.

As I've said before, millennials are deeply overrated as a factor in elections. Not only is their turnout comparatively awful with other age groups even in elections where they *are* motivated to turn out (like for Obama in '08), with birth rates going down they pale in comparison population-wise. Bernie if anything is evidence of what happens when you get too excited about getting three quarters of the smallest cake when you only get a quarter of the biggest one.

 

Eh? Obama would have lost 2012 without the youth vote, without question. A high youth turnout obviously isn't enough to win on its own, but it's a necessary pre-requisite for the Democrats to have a chance, especially when they're fielding a candidate with as little appeal to swing voters as Clinton has.

 

Incidentally, I'm not saying Sanders would be unbeatable if he was the Democrat candidate either (I think there is a legit argument he would be less-bad than Clinton now, but he still wouldn't be perfect). I still maintain Joe Biden was the Democrats' best shot of winning the election. Shallow or not, likeability and trustworthiness matters, as does the sense that someone isn't at Richard Nixon levels when it comes to ethics. I think Biden would've made a FAR more effective foil to Trump in particular than Clinton will ("you can still get someone who understands your pain, who is vaguely like a humanbeing and can give an honest answer to a question, without going for the racist").

Edited May 25, 20169 yr by Danny

in terms of what is happening now in the Democratic elections: I've lost all respect for Saunders. He's lost, he can't win, and what he's doing is harming Clinton. The net effect of that is to give Trump a bigger chance of winning. So he needs to get a grip, and accept the reality, back Clinton (who it is said by the BBC is 95% the same policies as Saunders essentially) to stop Trump. If Trump gets in, he will be as much to blame as the 3rd party voters in 2000 which let Bush in. That turned out brilliantly well, didn't it?

Indeed, PRIDE is getting in the way of giving the best possible chance of having a HALF decent president come November.

Eh? Obama would have lost 2012 without the youth vote, without question. A high youth turnout obviously isn't enough to win on its own, but it's a necessary pre-requisite for the Democrats to have a chance, especially when they're fielding a candidate with as little appeal to swing voters as Clinton has.

 

Well yeah, he'd have lost without the youth vote, but I'm on about turnout of the youth vote here as opposed to the Democrats winning among those that do turn out. Putting down turnout by 5-10 points isn't as consequential as handing the youth vote to the Republicans.

 

In any case, I think Trump as potential president could be as strong a turnout driver (albeit a negative one) for the youth as Obama was as a positive one.

 

Incidentally, I'm not saying Sanders would be unbeatable if he was the Democrat candidate either (I think there is a legit argument he would be less-bad than Clinton now, but he still wouldn't be perfect). I still maintain Joe Biden was the Democrats' best shot of winning the election. Shallow or not, likeability and trustworthiness matters, as does the sense that someone isn't at Richard Nixon levels when it comes to ethics. I think Biden would've made a FAR more effective foil to Trump in particular than Clinton will ("you can still get someone who understands your pain, who is vaguely like a humanbeing and can give an honest answer to a question, without going for the racist").

Fewer weaknesses than Hillary in the sense that none of them stopped Reagan, but that whole authenticity thing would've been given a hell of a workout by the media had he run what with things like leaking his son's deathbed wish for him to be president.

 

Donald Trump's initial target state list is...creative.

 

Well yeah, he'd have lost without the youth vote, but I'm on about turnout of the youth vote here as opposed to the Democrats winning among those that do turn out. Putting down turnout by 5-10 points isn't as consequential as handing the youth vote to the Republicans.

 

In any case, I think Trump as potential president could be as strong a turnout driver (albeit a negative one) for the youth as Obama was as a positive one.

 

Again though, Ed Miliband shows that you can't rely on negative sentiment / fear to drive young voters to the polls. Hatred of Tories wasn't enough to drive them to the polls. Nor was hatred/disdain for Bush enough to get them to the polls in 2004, or at the mid-terms in 2010 and 2014.

 

Fear and "lesser of two evils" campaigning might work for older voters who see it as a duty to vote no matter how unpalatable they find all the choices, but for younger voters, you'll simply HAVE to give them something to enthusiastically vote FOR.

Edited May 29, 20169 yr by Danny

Again though, Ed Miliband shows that you can't rely on negative sentiment / fear to drive young voters to the polls. Hatred of Tories wasn't enough to drive them to the polls. Nor was hatred/disdain for Bush enough to get them to the polls in 2004, or at the mid-terms in 2010 and 2014.

 

Fear and "lesser of two evils" campaigning might work for older voters who see it as a duty to vote no matter how unpalatable they find all the choices, but for younger voters, you'll simply HAVE to give them something to enthusiastically vote FOR.

The US is much more established as a two-party system than we are, so I don't think comparisons with us hold quite so much - youth turnout wasn't so much the issue last year as them voting Green (or whoever) once they were there. Separately, mid-term turnout as a whole for all their favourable demographics is a big struggle for the Democrats, so I don't know if we can draw any youth-specific lessons there.

 

And by youth turnout standards, hatred and disdain for Bush *was* enough to get them to the polls in 2004 - 2004 saw a huge leap in youth turnout to 47% from 36% in 2000 (to compare, 2008: 49%, 2012: 41%). I don't think you can argue Bush 'didn't get them out' just on the basis that Kerry didn't win - if anything, given he lost with the biggest youth turnout since 1992, it shows the follies of relying too much on turning out the smallest age demographic rather than persuading ones higher up. And given turnout was only up two points four years after with the most inspiring candidate in modern political history, I think it shows negative reasons have the power to be at least roughly as motivating as positive ones.

 

I'm of the opinion that Trump will probably be perceived even more negatively by the youth vote than Dubya was (who for all his weaknesses wasn't an open racist, sexist, xenophobic liar etcetcetc). Probably not 2008 turnout levels but I think it'll be more than 45 percent. I agree that young voters may be *more* encouraged by having someone to positively vote for, but I think the difference between 2004 and 2008's turnout shows there are times and circumstances where the alternative is so bad that a lot of young voters will feel compelled to vote for the least worst option.

Before the Libertarian Party's Annual Convention:

 

Party Head: Okay guys, 2016 is going to be the breakthrough year for the Libertarian Party! With the presumptive nominees for the Democrats & the GOP being the most unpopular leaders in modern history, this is the best opportunity for a 3rd party candidate to break through. So tonight, all the Libertarians have to do is demonstrate that we're a sensible, respectable party that is free of cranks and people away with the fairies, so don't do anything that would make the party seem like a laughing stock. James, have you got that?

 

James (who had been listening to his headphones all this time: Sorry?

 

Party Head: Yeah, I think he understands.

 

At the convention itself:

 

 

*Party Head bangs head on wall*

Ha, at the guy who shouts 'is there an ophthalmologist in the house?'

Clinton has won both US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico over the weekend, leaving her with under 30 delegates to win the nomination (including super delegates).