Political Roundtable Part IX

[I_Like_Dirt]

Yea, it's going to be a fight between who is more unpopular, and Trump is going to be the one on the short end of the stick.

I think there is an inherent danger in this line of thinking, because this isn't how things are going to work. Both candidates are going to be incredibly unpopular. The catch here is that Trump has a base of really loyal supporters who might not even normally vote who will show up for him, along with a contingent of voters who, should they vote, will grudgingly vote for him because they sure as hell aren't voting for Hillary.

Hillary, on the flipside, doesn't have that same group of diehard supporters and she isn't really going to attract any, and is going to be relying largely on a bunch of people who may or may not vote at all given their disdain for both candidates, to turn out to grudgingly vote for her. That isn't a recipe for major success in any election. She's going to have to figure out how to add a heavy dose of energy to her candidacy if she wants anything more than a nail-biter at best. I'm actually very curious to see how New York votes between Clinton and Trump.

[TGW]

Not only that, but this champion of nationalism has his clothing made in China and his properties built by hispanics. He is the epitome of a globalist.

This argument is so silly. Of course Trump has been a globalist in business. It is impossible to compete with other globalists if you hamstring yourself and only use much higher cost labor. He would promptly go out of business on principle.

Wanting a change in the rules so that Trump Inc. as well as his competitors must ALL be forced to hire higher-cost Americans is not inconsistent at all.

That's such a convenient excuse built in by Trump supporters.

If he were truly about making things in America, he would do it. He chose cheap slave labor over employing Americans. Despite what you think, that's a choice, not a necessity.

[nate33]

Yea, it's going to be a fight between who is more unpopular, and Trump is going to be the one on the short end of the stick.

I think there is an inherent danger in this line of thinking, because this isn't how things are going to work. Both candidates are going to be incredibly unpopular. The catch here is that Trump has a base of really loyal supporters who might not even normally vote who will show up for him, along with a contingent of voters who, should they vote, will grudgingly vote for him because they sure as hell aren't voting for Hillary.

Hillary, on the flipside, doesn't have that same group of diehard supporters and she isn't really going to attract any, and is going to be relying largely on a bunch of people who may or may not vote at all given their disdain for both candidates, to turn out to grudgingly vote for her. That isn't a recipe for major success in any election. She's going to have to figure out how to add a heavy dose of energy to her candidacy if she wants anything more than a nail-biter at best. I'm actually very curious to see how New York votes between Clinton and Trump.

The other advantage Trump has is in the nature of electoral college and winner-take-all aspect of the states. Hillary will surely destroy Trump in places like Maryland, Massachusetts and California, but winning a state by 75% doesn't help anymore than winning a state by 51%. Trump will do much worse than a typical Republican in flyover country like Nebraska and Oklahoma, but he'll still win them. Meanwhile, Trump has a real shot at winning states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida with small majorities.

[TGW]

Unless something changes drastically, Clinton is beating Trump in all of those states. It would be a miracle if Trump won any of those.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/313-trump-ahead-in-fl-il-kasich-up-in-oh-clinton-ahead-in-fl-il-and-oh/

[nate33]

Unless something changes drastically, Clinton is beating Trump in all of those states. It would be a miracle if Trump won any of those.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/313-trump-ahead-in-fl-il-kasich-up-in-oh-clinton-ahead-in-fl-il-and-oh/

General election polls during the primaries are meaningless. Trump was getting attacked from both the left (by Democrats) and the right (by Republicans) at the time. He'll surely get a bump as the right wing eventually comes to terms with Trump being their only option. And Clinton will drop once Trump attacks her.

But there's no point in arguing about it. We will see.

[TGW]

Unless something changes drastically, Clinton is beating Trump in all of those states. It would be a miracle if Trump won any of those.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/313-trump-ahead-in-fl-il-kasich-up-in-oh-clinton-ahead-in-fl-il-and-oh/

General election polls during the primaries are meaningless. Trump was getting attacked from both the left (by Democrats) and the right (by Republicans) at the time. He'll surely get a bump as the right wing eventually comes to terms with Trump being their only option. And Clinton will drop once Trump attacks her.

But there's no point in arguing about it. We will see.

You said Trump was the next president with absolutely no metrics to show why or how. So until something is shown except personal opinions, beliefs, or gut feelings, I'll go with Trump getting slaughtered in a general election. A bigger landslide than Obama vs. Romney.

[nate33]

Unless something changes drastically, Clinton is beating Trump in all of those states. It would be a miracle if Trump won any of those.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/313-trump-ahead-in-fl-il-kasich-up-in-oh-clinton-ahead-in-fl-il-and-oh/

General election polls during the primaries are meaningless. Trump was getting attacked from both the left (by Democrats) and the right (by Republicans) at the time. He'll surely get a bump as the right wing eventually comes to terms with Trump being their only option. And Clinton will drop once Trump attacks her.

But there's no point in arguing about it. We will see.

You said Trump was the next president with absolutely no metrics to show why or how. So until something is shown except personal opinions, beliefs, or gut feelings, I'll go with Trump getting slaughtered in a general election. A bigger landslide than Obama vs. Romney.

Fine. Whatever. You go with it.

[dckingsfan]

When Trump was confronted about where he got his information from on the "Mexican & Hispanic" rapists - he couldn't cite a source. He lied and he was being a demagogue flat out.

And yes, he said that the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and Hispanics... He lumped them together... don't try to rationalize what he said and what he meant. It wasn't something the media made up.

And no, there isn't a study that shows that Hispanics have a higher rate of violent crime.

Let's face it - he is a demagogue trying to use fear of outsiders to get votes.

[popper]

What concerns me more than the personalities and proclivities of the two front runners is the trend by many American voters and their leaders to accept, and even encourage, the tearing apart of the institutions and structures of government that are vital to safeguarding our constitutional republic. The separation of powers is under assault and the pledge to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” appears to have been subordinated to the concept of “the ends justify the means.”

Whether Clinton or Trump, the country will continue its downward spiral because the constraining institutions and laws that protect against wayward presidents have been either abandoned or ignored. Clinton and Trump are well aware of the public’s ignorance and acquiescence to unlawful conduct and will apply this knowledge in the exercise of power to the detriment of the country once elected. It’s human nature unfortunately.

[dckingsfan]

And of course - Trump never mentions that since 2009 there has been a net negative influx of Mexicans (and other Hispanics into the US). If fact, Asians now represent the only group in the U.S. that is growing because of immigration.

[I_Like_Dirt]

You said Trump was the next president with absolutely no metrics to show why or how. So until something is shown except personal opinions, beliefs, or gut feelings, I'll go with Trump getting slaughtered in a general election. A bigger landslide than Obama vs. Romney.

I get where you are coming from, and we will just have to see how things play out. I hope you're right, but I'd like to point out 2 things:

(1) Your message is exactly what all the Republican candidates were saying before Trump got moving.

(2) Hillary has a long history of looking amazing in polls before anyone is actually competing only to lose a lot of ground once the game is afoot and a lot of voters, for whatever reason, decide that they just don't like Hillary enough to vote for her. She was supposed to be the odds on favorite over Obama before the game got going, and while she will hold on to beat Bernie, she's been losing ground constantly over the campaign. I see no reason not to expect something similar to happen to her during a presidential campaign.

[DCZards]

It won't matter how personable Trump tries to become. His denigrating words and childish, narcissistic behavior--and the words of other Repubs who have condemned him at every turn--are out there, on the record and videotaped for voters to see and be reminded of. Hillary and the Dems will use that history against Trump and the Repubs--which Hillary's campaign has been doing in ads the last couple of days--and Trump won't be able to walk those things back. You can never unring the bell.

[tontoz]

Trumps biggest challenge won't be Hillary, it will be his past comments. The personal insults and blatant lies, which he probably could have won without, will definitely hurt him. Fortunately for him he is up against a weak candidate.

It certainly wont be dull.

[nate33]

And of course - Trump never mentions that since 2009 there has been a net negative influx of Mexicans (and other Hispanics into the US). If fact, Asians now represent the only group in the U.S. that is growing because of immigration.

First, I don't believe their estimates on illegal immigration when Mexico estimates that the number of illegal immigrants in America is roughly double what the U.S. estimate is. Secondly, even that Pew Research study which provides the data you are citing does not count anchor babies. The Pew study says that the number of Mexican immigrants has dropped from 12.8M in 2007 to 11.7M in 2015. But since we are also adding 400,000 anchor babies a year, the total number of Mexican immigrants would still be increasing from 12.8M to 14.9M.

[CobraCommander]

I'm not sleeping on Trump and honestly there a lot of people that like Trump more than Hillary. There are people that Loath Hillary-

A lot of the stuff Trump says reasonate in the middle of the country and the south. I hate to say it but the under-educated and less progressive (which is different than liberal) people gravitate to sound bites and bombastic statements. Trump better not win any of the coastal states and or Texas- because if he does Hillary might have some trouble.

[dckingsfan]

And of course - Trump never mentions that since 2009 there has been a net negative influx of Mexicans (and other Hispanics into the US). If fact, Asians now represent the only group in the U.S. that is growing because of immigration.

First, I don't believe their estimates on illegal immigration when Mexico estimates that the number of illegal immigrants in America is roughly double what the U.S. estimate is. Secondly, even that Pew Research study which provides the data you are citing does not count anchor babies. The Pew study says that the number of Mexican immigrants has dropped from 12.8M in 2007 to 11.7M in 2015. But since we are also adding 400,000 anchor babies a year, the total number of Mexican immigrants would still be increasing from 12.8M to 14.9M.

Well, rereading this and other posts, I don't like my tone in previous posts - sorry about that.

But back to the debate... even so, its a nit. There isn't an influx going on from Mexico. Hence the wall is a superfluous idea at its best. If I am Hillary, I beat that story line like a drum.

And from Pew:

"The sharp downward trend in net migration from Mexico began about five years ago and has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the unauthorized Mexican population. As of 2011, some 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S., down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Over the same period, the population of authorized immigrants from Mexico rose modestly, from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011."

And that leaves Trump talking about mass deportations...

[FAH1223]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/andrewperezdc/status/728369149211115520[/tweet]

[FAH1223]

And of course - Trump never mentions that since 2009 there has been a net negative influx of Mexicans (and other Hispanics into the US). If fact, Asians now represent the only group in the U.S. that is growing because of immigration.

First, I don't believe their estimates on illegal immigration when Mexico estimates that the number of illegal immigrants in America is roughly double what the U.S. estimate is. Secondly, even that Pew Research study which provides the data you are citing does not count anchor babies. The Pew study says that the number of Mexican immigrants has dropped from 12.8M in 2007 to 11.7M in 2015. But since we are also adding 400,000 anchor babies a year, the total number of Mexican immigrants would still be increasing from 12.8M to 14.9M.

Well, rereading this and other posts, I don't like my tone in previous posts - sorry about that.

But back to the debate... even so, its a nit. There isn't an influx going on from Mexico. Hence the wall is a superfluous idea at its best. If I am Hillary, I beat that story line like a drum.

And from Pew:

"The sharp downward trend in net migration from Mexico began about five years ago and has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the unauthorized Mexican population. As of 2011, some 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S., down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Over the same period, the population of authorized immigrants from Mexico rose modestly, from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011."

And that leaves Trump talking about mass deportations...

Obama has also been deporter-in-chief. Most ever for any POTUS admin.

[FAH1223]

Yea, it's going to be a fight between who is more unpopular, and Trump is going to be the one on the short end of the stick.

BTW I can't stand either candidate, so I have no dog in the race. But it's clear who is the more unpopular candidate. Just wait until the mainstream media starts ramping up the Trump is "a crazy non-insider" rhetoric like they did with Sanders. It will be game over. Hillary is the devil we know.

I think Sanders' performance despite overwhelming institutional and monetary support for Clinton is evidence that Trump will succeed, not fail. Sanders came real close. Trump will compete like Sanders, but he has more charisma. Also, the media gives him a big microphone because he gets ratings.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/728305900415533056[/tweet]

[TGW]

By the way, my apologies for my tone in this thread. Like popper, sometimes I get too emotional about this stuff.