TRUMP 2016

[wiggin]

Not sure that counts as a 'massacre'; more a reversion to the mean. Most of those races that are going to flip were competitive anyways. I see no pathway for a 60-seat D majority, and that's all that really matters once you get to 50. As you noted the House is locked up tight until 2020 given the plethora of safe seats. So maybe - maybe we'll see a few more Senate seats shift, which could mean the difference between a small R majority and small D majority. But otherwise I think the turnout etc effects are going to be subdued just because there's not that much that can shift.

I haven't looked in any level of detail on the state level, though - it's possible that some state legislatures may become competitive based on turnout and halo phenomena. Also haven't looked at governorships, where I wouldn't be surprised if Dems picked up a few.

On the turnout angle, though, I think it's not always clear what will happen. There are a lot of people I've talked to who believe in 'anyone but Hillary' - and even if they loathe Trump, will actually vote for him to keep someone they see as duplicitous and untrustworthy out of office. Furthermore, I don't know how good turnout will be in the progressive wing of the Dem party - the rift there is real and even if most of Sanders' camp won't consider voting for Trump, they might just stay home. I still think your broad analysis is correct, but the magnitude of the effect might not be as big as you anticipate.

I'm interested to see who Clinton and Trump pick as running mates. Trump I have no way of predicting, but I wouldn't be surprised in Clinton picked someone like Warren - a woman who comes from the progressive wing of the party and has some national name recognition. Alternatively, a mainstream Dem from an important state (somewhere in the Midwest?). I'm sure Trump will tack towards his version of 'presidential' and try to get a reasonable-sounding VP choice, but I really haven't a clue who that would be.

[Lewkowski]

All bets are off with a Trump nomination (which the better markets put at 75%). Republicans aren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton, but a large number simply won't turn up to vote. Without a presidential candidate to vote for, turnout is usually down ~20%. If we assume that 20% of Republicans who hate Trump (about 35%) don't vote in November, then would suggest Republicans would lose 7% of their voters. Thanks to gerrymandering, this is unlikely to cost Republicans more than 10-15 seats in the House (to see how ridiculous gerrymandering is, look at the number of elections decided by <5% in 2015: 25 out of 435). In the Senate, there's a totally different picture. With 7 Democrats and 21 Republicans running for reelection, I can envision a complete massacre. The Republicans will lose anything from 5 to 8 seats, which means a bare Democratic majority at the very minimum.

Sigh... you might be right. Everything that could go wrong in this primary has.

[Steely Glint]

Hillary vs Trump. Gonna set a new record for negative campaigning. Both sides are clearly preparing to unleash lovingly prepared and intricately crafted campaigns of attack ads on each other.

[Ominous Gamer]

Between her email, her whining during the primary, and all the underhanded bullshit that was thrown at Bernie... Trump is going to have a field day.

[Steely Glint]

I'm not sure Trump is in any position to accused anyone of whining. Not that that will stop him.

[Ominous Gamer]

The fuck is wrong with people.

Trump has the most popular votes in Republican HISTORY.
Just let that sink in.


Yeah, this one is dragging on, but he is also running against multiple other people thus splitting votes.

[Lewkowski]

Trump has the most popular votes in Republican HISTORY.
Just let that sink in.


Yeah, this one is dragging on, but he is also running against multiple other people thus splitting votes.

And more people exist.

[Ominous Gamer]

Which is why I mentioned how he is still running against two other people, not a common occurrence this late in the process. march voter turnout was comparable to 2008.

[wiggin]

Trump has the most popular votes in Republican HISTORY.
Just let that sink in.


Yeah, this one is dragging on, but he is also running against multiple other people thus splitting votes.

That statistic is highly irrelevant for a number of reasons that I won't belabor here. Regardless, the total number of votes we're talking about is miniscule - when all is said and done, Trump will have had some 11ish million votes in his favor, out of a total GOP primary electorate of the high 20 millions. The total pool of registered voters is in the ballpark of 150 million (with probably another 70ish million eligible but unregistered voters), of which about 125ish million vote in a presidential election. So less than 10% of a typical presidential electorate has cast a ballot in favor of Trump, less than 20% of a typical GOP electorate, and less than 50% of the high conservative and politically engaged GOP primary electorate. A lot of people have been suggesting there is a ceiling to Trump's support, and I think that they're right - even if we don't know exactly where that ceiling is. His rhetoric is too divisive to attract more than a (granted, substantial) minority of overall voters.

The raw numbers simply don't concern me. I strongly suspect that his overall vote numbers in the general will be quite anemic, and a lot of those votes will be more to do with e.g. protest or reflexive voting for the conservative option rather than any actual support for his nutso campaign. I have enough faith in the American electorate that when given a choice between a flawed but fundamentally decent candidate and an absolutely horrendous one, they'll make the right choice. A Trump/Sanders race would have been far trickier IMO.

[Steely Glint]

The question in my mind about Trump is how calculating he actually is. Is he, as it appears at first glance, just saying the first thing that comes into his head and, by sheer co-incidence, managing to tap into an undercurrent of racial resentment existing within the GOP-base (and which the GOP has spent the last several decades tacitly encouraging), or is this a conscious, deliberate strategy on his part? Because that effects the extent to which he's going to be able to do a pivot to the center during the general.

[Loki]

He's been saying most of this stuff since the '80s.

[LittleFuzzy]

The question in my mind about Trump is how calculating he actually is. Is he, as it appears at first glance, just saying the first thing that comes into his head and, by sheer co-incidence, managing to tap into an undercurrent of racial resentment existing within the GOP-base (and which the GOP has spent the last several decades tacitly encouraging), or is this a conscious, deliberate strategy on his part? Because that effects the extent to which he's going to be able to do a pivot to the center during the general.

A bit of both.

[Lewkowski]

He's been saying most of this stuff since the '80s.

Like his abortion views?

[Loki]

He's not really speaking about his abortion views. But things like being cheating in trade, obsession with China, glorifying dictators are all from the '80s. Also, 60% of Trump supporters are pro-choice.

[Lewkowski]

He's not really speaking about his abortion views. But things like being cheating in trade, obsession with China, glorifying dictators are all from the '80s. Also, 60% of Trump supporters are pro-choice.

I'm bring it up as an example of his obvious pandering. The guy clearly isn't a conservative when it comes to being pro-life and is lying his ass off to get elected.

[GGT]

Trump won every county, and every congressional district in PA. That's astonishing. There were reports that several thousand people changed their voter registration, so they could vote in the 'other' primary. Pretty sure there were more Democrats voting for Trump than Republicans voting for Clinton....

Yes, the GOP is fractured and its future looks bleak. But it's been going that way since Bush/Cheney, and McCain picking Sarah Palin as his running mate didn't help.

[Loki]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...isemitic-abuse

In case anyone wasn't aware that Trump has the American anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying white supremacist market cornered.

[GGT]

Also: Lewk, I don't see your reply for why Cruz is a better choice than Trump. What gives?

[GGT]

...

In case anyone wasn't aware that Trump has the American anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying white supremacist market cornered.

As if they haven't been voting for the Republican platform for years, anyway? The main difference now is that Trump has made them feel more comfortable saying their shit out loud, and not hiding their hate speech because it's "politically incorrect".

[Spenni]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...isemitic-abuse

In case anyone wasn't aware that Trump has the American anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying white supremacist market cornered.

And as writer she got taken woodshed on CNN, Fox news etc. The piece itself was kind of a hatchet job for no reason..

[Loki]

It's a factual, well-sourced piece. Sure, it's not about the politics, but it was written in GQ...

[Aimless]

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/1152625...uz-republicans

Jackass

[GGT]

He's right, though. The Republican Party has moved so far to the right than even Saint Reagan wouldn't recognize it.

[Being]

Clinton will never get my vote. So I guess Trump it is then....stupid ass republicans can eat shit and swallow my vote for Trump and choke.

[Loki]

OG, is there any quick way to check if there's a concerted campaign against that reporter (Julia Ioffe) by some reddit group or Stormfront?

[Ominous Gamer]

OG, is there any quick way to check if there's a concerted campaign against that reporter (Julia Ioffe) by some reddit group or Stormfront?

If the group is private not really. I haven't seen anything come across the front page of reddit or seen /r/shitredditsays bitch about any pitchforking

search results for the article linked above: https://www.reddit.com/submit?url=ht...isemitic-abuse
The only result for the original article: https://www.reddit.com/r/DumpTrump/c..._donald_trump/

[Lewkowski]

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/1152625...uz-republicans

Jackass

"This is the core of Mann and Ornstein's critique, too. They were not simply arguing that the Republican Party has become more conservative, though it clearly has. They were arguing that it had become tactically extreme in ways that were grinding the normal workings of government to a halt. "Rank-and-file GOP voters endorse the strategy that the party’s elites have adopted," they wrote, "eschewing compromise to solve problems and insisting on principle, even if it leads to gridlock.""

This is where the rubber meets the road. The House is under NO obligation to continue to pass budgets or continuing resolutions in order to keep the government afloat. If you come to Washington saying you will CUT government spending and then continue to allow government spending at previous levels than you are complicit with the liberals who keep shoving more and more government down the people's throats. The House could absolutely prevent government spending but they won't because their chicken shits afraid that the consequences of standing firm will outweigh the benefits of doing so.

Now to be fair, the media will of course lampoon the Republicans for 'shutting down the government' and there will be political costs associated with it but the Trump candidacy has made it clear the Republican base is absolutely furious with the establishment for not grinding the government to a stand still for weeks and even months to do what they promised. It would be one thing if they were honest in their campaigns "We'll try to stop government spending but not if it means government shutdown because we're scared of that." It is one of the reasons why Ted Cruz is so celebrated among the conservative base and so hated by the establishment.

[Loki]

If the group is private not really. I haven't seen anything come across the front page of reddit or seen /r/shitredditsays bitch about any pitchforking

search results for the article linked above: https://www.reddit.com/submit?url=ht...isemitic-abuse
The only result for the original article: https://www.reddit.com/r/DumpTrump/c..._donald_trump/

Thanks for checking. I just find it hard to believe that dozens of Holocaust-denying white supremacists would instantly go after her after one Trump piece. But who knows.

[Lewkowski]

I swear I'm living in bizzaro world.


“I love it. He sent out a tweet. Mike. Iron Mike,” Trump said. “You know, all the tough guys endorse me. I like that, OK?”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-g...#ixzz47Ht7I8IL
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook





I mean really? Trump is bragging about a rapist and ear biter endorsing him? This is a serious candidate for the Republican party nomination? /boggle

[Aimless]

I swear I'm living in bizzaro world.

“I love it. He sent out a tweet. Mike. Iron Mike,” Trump said. “You know, all the tough guys endorse me. I like that, OK?”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-g...#ixzz47Ht7I8IL
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook





I mean really? Trump is bragging about a rapist and ear biter endorsing him? This is a serious candidate for the Republican party nomination? /boggle

You should check out the discussion under that tweet. It clearly demonstrates why he's a serious candidate for the Republican party.