We could wonder why Trump has demolished all the Rep competitors for the nomination ... actually he's got numbers. Probably he's not a standard representative of the GOP, but we have to ponder his weight at communication level. And overall we have to keep in mind that the Republican electorate thought that all was lost in the perspective to face Hillary Clinton ... the potential first female President ever. Trump has introduced something unexpected and new in this electoral campaign and he has given to the GOP a realistic probability to compete [when not to win].
yea exactly. He got the non PC vote, but all of his other remarks keep on playing to that one group of people. And I think he may have dug himself too deep in that if he starts trying to expand his voting base no one else will take him seriously.
I predict that neither Trump or Clinton will reach 50% of the popular vote. That Johnson, Stein and other third party candidates will receive 10% of the vote. I also predict voter turnout will be closer to 45% than the normal 55%.
looks like "too close to call" is still in the lead, with clinton and trump neck and neck. i have to admit that, even though my prediction of an obama third term in the guise of the cankly one still stands, i too cast my ballot for "too close to call". i am, however, still hopeful. how anyone defends themselves against the witch, with her decades of experience in political dirty tricks, almost the whole of the mainstream media in her hip pocket and little or no conscience to hold her back, is beyond my estimation, but i can only conclude the donald is prepared for the coming onslaught of sheer nastiness that is about to descend on him and his loved ones. hillary is the worst of the democratic party incarnate and i certainly don't envy the challenger his coming battle. good luck to us all and may the odds be ever in your favor. there, how was that for a first take? i could put a little more emphasis on hillary's inhumanity, but i think what we've already got is pretty accurate. did you like that hunger games bit at the end? i suppose we can take that out in post if you think it was a little too over the top.
This is an interesting alternative. So you don't think that two so famous personages will be able to polarize the vote, leaving less room to the so called "independents" [I say "so called" since this time we cannot say that the Republican candidate is exactly an expression of the GOP, let's say that in this electoral campaign the impression is that the GOP will be an expression of Donald Trump].
The problem for Hillary is just this: she has a long political experience and this means that she has been involved in several not exactly "clean" matters. And I have to say that she hasn't managed to remain "clean" ... she has played her political roles in a quite Machiavellian way, showing to be a smart politician with a certain familiarity with power. Also politically, she has demonstrated to be quite cynical. An example for all. In 2003 she voted to give to President Bush the possibility to decide the usage of the force against Saddam in Iraq. Out of rhetoric games and tricks, this means that she wasn't against a military intervention. Now, in 2015 she has declared that it was a mistake "plain and simple" [http://uk.businessinsider.com/hilla...t-for-iraq-invasion-was-a-mistake-2015-5?r=US]. A mistake ... a so smart politician acts following political calculations. The mistake was in the political calculation which carried her to vote in favor, not in the vote itself ...
The political calculation is easy to guess: Hillary Clinton probably wondered something like "and what if President Bush obtains a full victory?". A full victory meant not only to defeat Iraqi's Army occupying the country, but it meant also to "win the peace", so that to be able to start a democratic process in Iraq like it happened in Germany, Italy and Japan after the end of WW II. I think she expected that: that is to say that after an easy military victory, the American and allied administrators would have been able to help Iraqis to build a solid democracy in a relatively brief time. We know what happened in reality ...
Probably an even greater landslide than that against Goldwater in 1964. I have bets down with certain people that Trump won't take even one state and may end up with 0 electorals Goldwater, you will remember, was actually a man of some charm if you ignored his politics. Trump doesn't even have that going. It's not just that he's pissed off, Hispanics, blacks, women, ,muslims, liberals, gays, the disabled and Amerinds, there's also the tact that he's just a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing LOUT, an old-fashioned boor of the first water. Not that many people are going to vote for somebody they feel they can't say they voted for in polite company.
I'm absolutely curious to find out the real electoral weight of Trump. We could keep the first election of President Obama as factor of comparison. Obama was potentially the first Afro American President [this gave a huge emotional charge to that election], Hillary Clinton is potentially the first female President [and this gives again a huge emotional charge to this election]. Obama gained more than 69,400,000 votes equal to the 52.9% McCain [the factor of comparison for Trump] collected more than 59,900,000 votes equal to the 45.7% That 45.7% is the number with which Trump has to confront his result. Regarding pure votes, I don't know if this election will see high numbers.
It’s not the famous factor, it is the dislike of both candidate’s factor. It also is following the will not vote column in the polls when the only choices are Trump and Clinton. When given four option with the addition of Johnson and Stein that will not vote column drops in half. Sure, independents can be broken down into three groups, Independents lean Republican, independents lean Democrat and pure or true independents with no leans. But there is a huge difference in their voting habits between for example the Republican base and those independent who lean Republican. At least historically, it deals with percentages. No need to get into detailed breakdowns by percentages of base, leans, pure, voting habits of base, leans and pures and who has the larger percentages. Unless you’re interested. But here is the thing. You should know that roughly 61% of all voters dislike Trump and Clinton’s dislike factor is at 56% of all voters. The question to be asked, is how many dislike both Clinton and Trump, that do not want to make the choice between them? The one’s who answer who they will vote for either by stating “Will not Vote,” or “Vote for third party candidate A or B or Other” even.’ Gallup had a very interesting article, they broke some of that down for us. Did you know 54% of all independents which compromise according to Gallup 40% of the electorate dislike both Trump and Clinton. Usually a person will not vote for someone they dislike, although in this election, a lot of that 54% will hold their nose and vote for one or the other. But a lot will stay home and a lot will vote for Johnson and or Stein or someone else because they can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump or Clinton. Also 24% of all Republicans dislike both Trump and Clinton while 20% of all Democrats dislike both Trump and Clinton. That is a whole bunch of dislike of both major party candidates. Enough I think to drive up the will not vote crowd and drive 10% of the electorate to third parties. If one does the math, it comes out to 38% of the electorate really dislike both major party candidates. That they do not want to choose between them. If you look at the approval rating, favorable rating of the two candidates, averaging them out, Trump stands at 32% and Clinton at 36% of all Americans. The record low for a presidential candidate favorable/approval rating belongs to G.H.W. Bush back in 1992 at 46% per Gallup. So my prediction is based on the fact that neither candidate is liked much outside of their avid supporters. And as I stated, usually one does not vote for someone they dislike.
An educated and interesting post ... but, from the perspective of a politician [I don't deny I'm a politician myself] with a deep interest in political science, are you implying that the incoming Presidential Election will see a "very minority" President? [We do know how US system works, so that it's not the majority of the potential electors to elect the President, but I'm going beyond this, you understand ...].
To the extent that a presidential election is a personal popularity contest, your points are valid. For some, especially those who harbour affection for neither, it may come down to which is more conversant with the art of statecraft, is more consistent in the philosophy espoused, is less erratic in positions adopted, provides stability and continuity in areas where radical changes are undesirable - or even dangerous - is more temperamentally stable and suited for the demands of the office (that classic "3 a.m. phone call crisis), and which advocates policies that reflect the values of more of the diverse American populace. Candidates dissemble, and transparency - whether it's the GOP nominee's hidden tax returns or the Democratic nominee's secret words to Goldman Sachs - can provide valuable insights into the person behind the projected facade. Detailed proposals and the practicality of getting them passed by Congress and their impact on the budget are essential considerations. Regardless of all the hoopla, the bravura, and the dazzle, it's essential that the citizen understands what he can realistically expect. It's a job. Opinions will differ, but hiring which candidate appears to have a better grasp of what needs to be and can be accomplished is what must be decided. Neither is going to deliver a great deal of what they promise, anyway. .
If we focus the attention on the "job" of the President, the Trump factor can have a certain weight [let's be neutral, scientific: there is a certain communication echo about Trump and jobs ... may be apprentices, you know ...]. This, to be again an analyst, had a decisive weight in the unexpected victory of Berlusconi in Italy in 1994, when the former Communists were absolutely sure to win. BUT ... on the other hand, US electorate has to evaluate the expertise of the candidates [I have to underline that American voters this time have to be rational], so that Hillary Clinton has got a lot of numbers about managing the administration. This is why, from the viewpoint of political science, this Presidential election is exceptional, precious and fantastic: will the US electors give trust to the businessman [implying that they can stand no more professional politicians] or will US electors give trust to the smartest politician of the last decades?
I understand, I think. I think if only around 45% of the eligible voters turn out, Clinton's and Trump's percentage of the vote will be higher than is the normal 55% of eligible voters turn out. Using today's RCP averages in a four candidate race, as all 4 names are on the ballot in November, not just two. It shows Clinton 41.2, Trump 38.3, Johnson 8.0 and Stein 3.8. That leaves roughly 8% of the electorate undecided. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html Using the 45% voter turnout model, I am assuming that a lot of the Johnson and Stein supporters stay home, plus some of the undecided's who say to heck with, they don't want either. Looking for a trend I went back to 1 June in the 4 candidate field, Clinton was at 41.0 then, Trump 38.0, Johnson 4.5 and Stein 2.5. Since then only Johnson and Stein has gained any significant votes which is amazing considering no advertising, no media, no nothing while Trump and Clinton remained stagnant with their names all over the airways. The dislike factor I think. I would say the low voter turnout model favors Trump as Libertarians tend to vote more for the Republican candidate on election day than their own candidate while the Green Party is more loyal to their candidate than the Democrats. On the other had a normal voter turn of around 55% favors Clinton. But in neither model do either Trump or Clinton get about 50%. But where Clinton has the huge advantage is in the electoral college. She will win that.
I understand that. This election is hard to call or forecast. It is unique in the annuals of past elections. Never before has our two major parties nominate two candidate with such low approval, favorable, being like by the electorate. I pointed out earlier that the record for low favorable rating was set by G.H.W. Bush in 1992 at 46%. Today, utilizing RCP averages, Clinton is at 38% and Trump at 34%. I wouldn't be surprise if by election day both are down in the 20's considering all the negative personal attacks to come. Yes, it is a job. Working with congress may be a lot harder for Trump than Clinton. Of course with Clinton the Republicans aren't going to give her a darn thing as the Democrats in congress aren't going to give Trump anything either. But Trump has made a lot of enemies in the Republican portion of congress who just may side with the Democrats denying him what he wants. Quite a few don't want to see a president Trump. To overcome some of this, usually a president relies on the American people to come to his or her side in these battles. But will they when so many Americans detest both candidates? Over half of all Americans do not want either to be the next president. How will that affect how they govern or will they be able to govern at all. Will Executive Orders be the norm instead of going through congress? If him or her gets in trouble, gets involved in something where either one needs the support of the American people, will the people come to support him or her? Or will they say to heck with it, I didn't want him or her as president anyway? I think the next four years regardless of who wins are going to be very rough.
Clinton is not a popular person, and the endless taxpayer-funded vendettas by Republicans in Congress have had the effect intended. She is not my ideal candidate, but when the alternative is a divisive, ego-driven huckster with no political experience who is endorsed by neo-nazis and white supremacists, one forms a preference. Obama would easily defeat either, but she would approximate his third term much, much closer than would the erratic reality tv entertainer. Despite all the sniveling about her, the worst thing she ever did was vote to surrender the power to contrive a war to Bush, and that poor judgement cost her the 2008 nomination. Meanwhile, Trump is on record as supporting that fiasco, and now lies about having done so.
So far the trend seems to reward Mrs Clinton. This [with the limit of the tiny statistical sample], considering the politically educated audience of a political forum, indicates that here the political experience and the shrewdness are appreciated. Now, we have to wait and see how the two contenders will run the final electoral campaign. I'm curious to see how Trump will try and talk to the sectors of electorate who could feel a certain mistrust for a personage like him ... [Clinton's electoral campaign is already written and predictable].
I'm amazed anybody thought it would work out like that. I could have told them as a child it wouldn't. Bush Sr knew. Bush Jr somehow did not.
Eh, you see ... when Bush Sr didn't attack Saddam after liberating Kuwait there were many observers who wondered why he was leaving the "job" unfinished. Actually he did his job [he liberated Kuwait]. I tend to agree that he knew that Iraq was a potential mess without a dictator at Baghdad ...
I cannot support a candidate publicly endorsed by neo-nazi and white supremacist organizations, regardless of how the various "theys" want me to think.
The fact is Trump and Clinton have very little appeal to the independents or the one who do not affiliate or identify with either political party. Gallup had a nice article on the dislike or unfavorable opinions of both candidates. Scroll down to table two and you can see all the breakdowns. 54% of all independents dislike or have an unfavorable view of both Trump and Clinton. http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polli...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication About the only ones who like these two are their avid supporters. Being a military man all my life, there is no way I would trust a person who puts at risk our classified national security information. There is no way that person should be CINC. Back during WWII they had a slogan, "Loose Lips sink Ships." She is the loose lips. The other, I'll use your words, Reality TV host, no way should he be CINC either. So it boils down to two no, no's. As you see in the Gallup article, quite a lot of people feel the same. I think that dislike of both candidate will lead to a very low voter turnout in November as a lot of those who detest both candidates will just stay home. I won't, I will vote third party so I can continue on to the down ballot offices. But I will be voting against both Trump and Clinton. It's been said the presidential election is a beauty contest. Well the two major parties have given us the most ugly two contestants in the history of presidential elections. I'll do my best to defeat both of them. If one of them wins, I don't give a dang which one. They both deserve to go down to defeat. I just feel sorry for this nation that our two major parties would force such a choice upon all of America. Shame on them.
After Bush, Sr. had restored Kuwait to the despotic al Sabah family, he and Scowcroft explained the adverse consequences of doing what Junior later attempted: The neocons who acquired the power to fulfill their stated intent, to topple Saddam and establish a permanent US military presence in the Gulf region exploited the unrelated matter of 9/11 and al Qaeda terrorism by a concerted campaign to conflate those disparate matters with Iraq and its leader. Ultimately, the junior Bush succeeded in proving Poppy Bush to have been prescient.
