I am not surprised that radical leftists can be nasty as anyone. I am sick and tired of watching neo-con and radical leftists taking turns to destroy this country. The radicals from both sides are disgusting but leftist are more so than rights because they had louder voice in recent years. They tolerate nothing and they are offended by anything. Ppl feel suffocated by the political correctness. Mojoman is right, Donald Trump is fighting a bigger fight. But I doubt he will win. Things can be very nasty if both sides don't tone it down soon. Once a while ppl will try to get it all out. My question is if it is worth it.
It's almost as if the Republican Party wanted to engineer a high-turnout election. They know who tends to win those, right? For all of the nativist base Trump can bring to bear, he's also activating a nation that will be majority-minority in a generation. There is no situation where the high "turnout" he draws from usual low-engagement political groups doesn't have the same effect on the minorities and other groups he denigrates. And it'll be so much better when that nativist base that is fueling his rise gets shorn like toxic waste by the GOP itself, which I think will happen the longer he remains relevant. Chicago shows there is a general electorate that will hold Trump accountable for his words. And if the electoral map is any indicator, it'll mean a Democrat dynasty for decades if the GOP splits asunder this cycle. A Democrat executive, and a Democrat judiciary right off the bat that'll start really undoing the damage Reaganism has done to America. Go Trump go!
Predicting the outcome of the November election is dependent on the outcome of the primaries. So, for the time being, I will ignore this kind of analysis. The only stat that matters now is GOP voters > DNC voters
Some would if the alternative was Donald Trump. Some just wouldn't vote at all. Kasich and Rubio voters would very likely do the same. I'm sure some Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz voters would hold their noses and vote Trump, but not enough of them to make it even close. Trump gets crushed in a national election and as a result the Republicans lose the house and possibly the senate meaning they also lose the Supreme court for a generation. A Trump nomination effectively destroys the Republican party and pushes the country hard to the left. If you support Trump, that's what you support.
this is the kind of analysis that gives you A+++ marks in Fundamentals of Basketball but F- in anything else. Under your model, Kerry wins 2004, and Romney wins 2012 by a factor of 2.
There are maybe 3 leftist in Congress, there are no leftist gerrymandered districts, there are no leftist PAC's buying elections, there hadn't been a leftist President since FDR, no leftist have occupied anything other than Wall Street, no leftist have perpetrated terrorist acts in the US. Leftist are by nature, unorganized and unfunded, Air America couldn't even stay on the air because corporations would not sponsor them. Leftist are not saying they are persecuted by the War on Religion, The War on Christmas, The War of Political Correctness. You my friend are delusional.
Please check RCP head-to-head ratings Cruz-Clinton vs Trump-Clinton. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html Go Trump go!
2016 is closer to 2008, due to the overall volume of turnout and the fact that there is NO incumbent. 2004? 2012? http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...t-in-this-years-primaries-rivals-2008-record/
As an independent I can tell you that this type of boogieman nonsense is exactly why the GOP is waking up with bedbugs. I've met some stupid people who call themselves liberals and some stupid people that call themselves conservatives. Out of the two, the ones that identify themselves right off the bat are the ones that use words like "libtard." We need honorable candidates like John McCain in this country. I still remember a lady (at one of his rallies) calling Obama an arab/bad muslim man that she can't trust and him shutting her down immediately. "He is a good man and citizen who I happen to disagree with on some fundamental issues." You don't see that type of honor anymore.
so what you're saying is that Michael Dukakis should've won more than 10 + DC states. or that Trump would win in 2008. guess that's the only thing that would matter. Did you teach Ted Cruz to use 18-year frames or did he teach you? LOL
The reason they are coming out to vote in the primary is different though. That's just a fundamental point you have to understand or you are going to draw the wrong conclusions. Democrats don't support Trump in the primary because they think he's good or because they'd support him in the national election, they are voting for him in the primary because he's a complete and total joke that will ensure their politicians have an easy path to the white house. Not only will those moderates or Democrats not support Trump in the national election, 60-70% of the Republican party won't support Trump in the national election.
Yeah, but there has never been an orange-skinned president in the White House. seriously though, this is your criticism of polls so many months before the election? you could try harder. The current state of affairs shows that the more popular Donald Trump gets in the Republican Primary, the less popular he gets in the general. What do you project Latino turnout to be in this election? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...graphics-of-2016-look-brutal-for-republicans/ Which Dem states is Trump going to flip? PA? MI? OH? He could flip all three and still lose, this despite accounting for NC being even more latino than the last cycle. Like I say: Go Trump go!
Like I said, the November election is dependent on not just the outcome but the manner in which the outcome of each primary is decided. I don't care about the latino/hispanic/whatever-you-want-to-call-it turnout. What matters here is that Trump is bringing out Democrats and bringing out record numbers to the GOP primaries.
you don't care about the Latino turnout because it's one piece of evidence you can't reconcile. Trump could command more than Reagan did with white working-class people--and still significantly lose the election. Yeah---guess what, the 1980s called, s**t has changed. The November election isn't just dependent on the outcome (??? do you also walk around and say Rockets victories are dependent on wins), it's dependent on the electorate and the electoral map. An electorate that is shifting to be majority-minority, and an electoral map that favors Democrats in the first place. As for your random predictive modeling, you're overfitting to a sample of one--and how do you explain the 1988 election? I'm actually curious. High turnout, no incumbent, significant difference in vote share for Dems over GOP--are you just this blatant about being flawed in your thinking. are you the dude who runs all those climate change denial threads? I mean, *******, no wonder. See, it's people like you we need highlighted in the general election. "We don't care about the minority vote share." Go Trump go! Go full Trump! Do it!
btw, this was debunked: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...alute-explains-why-she-made-the-gesture/?_r=0 This is what happens when you don't wait for the facts to settle. More biased, flawed presumptions. Somebody should keep a running tab on the number of distortions of reality employed in this thread, not that it would make a damn difference.
You bring opinions. I bring data. Republicans control the HoR. Republicans control the Senate. Republicans have 31 governors. Data don't lie. Could you please explain the significance of this "majority-minority" strawman-of-a-point? We'll call 1988 an outlier.
