Go here to see the toss-ups tossed back in. There are 8 of them. I'm most interested in my home state, Wisconsin, where there have been very few polls, but the trend lines have been converging.
I've mentally adjusted to what I think will be the outcome today: Hillary wins, but the GOP keeps both houses of Congress. But I can also imagine something surprising happening. There's that idea of the "hidden Trump voters." There don't need to be too many to upset the prediction that Hillary will win, but what a kick in the head it will be if there's a decisive victory for Trump. And a Trump victory with the GOP holding both houses of Congress will make this a shocking change election. I'm picturing the GOP Congress as a brake on the power of the President, not an accelerator.
Here's a NYT article from yesterday: "Are There Really Hidden Trump Voters?" How do you go about answering that question? (Other than waiting for the election results.) The article is by 2 professors — Peter K. Enns and Jonathon P. Schuldt — who teach a public opinion course at Cornell and had students design survey questions that could smoke out hidden Trump supporters. Go to the link and read about the 3 questions why they think the answers showed that there are hidden Trump supporters. (I'd have to copy the whole column to explain the question, the answers, and the interpretation.) The professors also think these hidden Trumpers will not come out and vote.
I guess you could be secretly, at heart, a Trumper, but unwilling to admit it even to yourself. To go to the poll and mark a ballot, you have to at least show yourself what you think. That can be hard to do.
Posts
157 comments:
I'm picturing the GOP Congress as a brake on the power of the President, not an accelerator.
On many issues the GOP Congress is a brake on the power of the President Trump
Yes, the GOP will retain both houses of Congress. That's the good news. The bad news is that they will be the same useless pussies we have in there now.
I'm predicting Hillary by a few points, GOP losing the Senate and keeping the House. While it's possible there are a lot of hidden Trump voters, I just haven't seen anything convincing to suggest that there are except just the speculation that "we don't know until it's over". Not being willing to speak to pollsters can be as much a trait of Clinton leaners (especially those who don't speak English as a first language) as for Trump leaners, and why assume the Trump voters are more ashamed of admitting they support Trump than Clinton voters admit they vote Clinton? The "shame" factor can go either way.
The "size of rallies" thing is nonsense. Ask President McGovern.
As for "oversampling" that was the same charge from 2012 and debunked then. But it is possible that pollsters are making a universal mistake with their calculations, in gauging turnout--just we don't have any way of knowing now what direction that mistake is (or by how much).
So we'll see!
A little off topic but I wanted to add this somewhere. The Dems claim to be attracting "educated white voters" while Trump repels them. I feel it is fair to say that the commenters on this blog have demonstrated that they are educated and, I would guess, for the most part white. Over the course of the campaign a number of Trump opposers have shifted to reluctantly supporting Trump. Will we see the same thing elsewhere? As Ann says: we'll know only when the final results are in. One thing about educated voters is that it is not hard for them to see the criminal flaws of Clinton. Whether this translates into votes is anybody's guess.
Anyway I will be casting my ballot for Trump today as will my wife who intensely dislikes Clinton. I DO hope that the R's hold control of the Congress.
Dems will take the Senate.
"Yes, the GOP will retain both houses of Congress. That's the good news. The bad news is that they will be the same useless pussies we have in there now."
That wouldn't be the worse case scenario though so its good that we keep both houses of Congress.
The concluding line: And so on Election Day, don’t be surprised if most hidden Trump supporters remain hidden. seems to be wishful thinking.
If you think that you can "smoke out" hidden Trump voters with clever questions, then you're doing it wrong.
The real hidden Trump voter, if they exist, will opt out of the survey.
"Dems will take the Senate."
They won't unless they steal it.
If there are hidden Trump voters not detected by the polls, wouldn't that also undermine the accuracy of the exit polls that the networks use to call the results in each state long before all ballots are counted?
I agree with Althouse's predictions. Divided government stands, and that's probably the best reasonably possible outcome under these horrible circumstances.
The "hidden Trump voters" theory is interesting, but there seems to be basically no evidence of it, and a lot against it. Most significantly, this was not an issue in the primary, where Trump almost never outperformed polling. There's little reason to assume that anything has changed in the past 6 months.
What do you think Althouse? ie come out of your frickin' closet and give a damn opinion! I think Ayotte is toast. And Blunt, Burr, Bayh too close to call.
From steynonline and the "Live free or Die" state early on:
"But hang on a minute, there's no electoral college of municipalities, is there? It's the statewide total that counts. So what's that add up to so far?
Trump 32
Clinton 25
Johnson 4
Sanders 3
Romney 1
I think that's what they call outperforming the polls. If he can keep this up all day, he's home and dry."
It's not the hidden Trump voters that will determine the winner. It's the non-existent, dead, and ineligible Hillary voters that will make the difference.
Here's a fun one that's public this cycle:
...Though VoteCastr didn’t know who I voted for, it can make an educated guess by combining its extensive pre-Election Day polling with microtargeting models that take into consideration those things it does know about me: my age, race, and party registration...
So they're matching the name on the early voting ballot with the Google (or equivalent) micro data profile for that individual. Creepy.
Reading between the lines, I'd say Ann will vote/voted for Hillary then Ron Johnson to keep her in check.
"From steynonline and the "Live free or Die" state early on:
"But hang on a minute, there's no electoral college of municipalities, is there? It's the statewide total that counts. So what's that add up to so far?
Trump 32
Clinton 25
Johnson 4
Sanders 3
Romney 1"
This reminds me of Althouse foolishness (4) years ago:
Romney trouncing Obama in Ohio.
Voted in Baltimore. Seemed like low turnout; nothing like 2008, for instance, where there were black people out the door and down the block.
If blacks don't come out to vote, I think that helps Trump.
I do not know if the hidden trump voters will come out, I certainly hope they do.
But the survey does not take into account the cost of anyone supporting trump in academia, government, workplace and many, many other places of business.
Like putting a trump bumper sticker on your car, being outed in those situations can cause real damage to your career. It's disgusting but the democrats have effectively and violently suppressed freedom of speech and association.
I can only hope there are still enough folks with stout hearts willing to take down the corrupt political parties we have now.
Lyssa: " but there seems to be basically no evidence of it,"
The Stock Markets are down. Wall street is currently reacting to anecdotal evidence that a massive unpredicted surge in voting is evidence that these voters are turning out for Trump. Evidence? maybe. A lot of traders live in New York and have friends in the Media who are getting early exit poll information. By noon we may see the results reflected there if it is a surge to Trump.
This special revolt of the pro-USA Nationalists has seen many GOP Congress people who squelched and threw shadow upon Trump at every opportunity. And it could end poorly for several political careers who chose selling him out to their Global Money Flow Masters. Too bad, so sad.
It's that damn Trump again. He has lead the hell out of a pro-American revolt. He is our Nigel Farage.
So in the face of a 24/7/365 culture war against Mr. Trump, in which people dressed as Nazis claim that Trump is a fascist, in which every lever of persuasion that Madison Avenue and Hollywood can gin up have portrayed Trump as a disaster afflicting the planet and most threatening the USA; in the face of all that, the candidates are dead even no one can call the outcome yet.
He's proved a lot of things already if the Left was hip to self-reflection.
Lordy, the anger among middle class voters is intense. Their lives have been ruined by Obama and his elitists, and those voters refuse to allow an "Obama third term."
Many of these individuals are not political addicts like me and other Althousians, so they keep their opinions to themselves: they are Secret Trump supporters, and they will be voting...and it will be big for Trump.
IBD-TPP has called its final, Trump two points over Hillary; LA Times Daybreak poll final has Trump five points over Hillary among registered voters.
What fascinates me is the "hidden" issues in the election that predict A trump victory.
The government reports 4.9% unemployment rate, but it's really over 10%; the government simply takes people who are permanently unemployed out of the statistics.
Obamacare premiums recently hit the struggling middle class with higher premiums and reduced choices, higher decuctibles, and poorer coverage plans. Progressives present Obamacare as a promise,a dream fulfilled, but it was mostly lies and is a failure.
The media are so in the tank for the Progressive agenda and Hillary that it will never recover its credibility, and the influence it can muster in the closing hours of the campaign is gone. No one will stay home because MSM outlets broadcast the contest is over. Trump supporters will vote, if only to express the anger rising from the aspirations ruined by an elite that deplores them.
... in the face of all that, the candidates are dead even no one can call the outcome yet.
Related, what I found interesting is Simply assuming 2012 four years ago would have resulted in an Electoral College prediction within 7-9 votes of ALL of the forecasters.
I don't know much about it, but Johnson seems like a dick.
Just sayin'
As LakeLevel alludes to above the stock markets are a real-time reaction to news inputs (and they have a LOT of data pumping into those trading rooms!). I find it very interesting that Wall Street withheld monetary support from Trump and loaded up Hillary six ways from Sunday, and yet the reaction is opposite from what one would traditionally expect of the bankers and traders. Trump is promising a tax cut and Hillary a taz increase, and still, they are pulling for Her.
What gives?
Cronyism is rearing it's ugly head, that's what. Wall Street shows it wants the same old corruption to continue and sees Trump as the unknown, willing to upset the apple cart. Maybe as Steven Hayward thinks, the stock movement is based on international trade that fears the uncertainty of Trump's position, or maybe it's made up of the people who have been riding the money wave on Democrat corruption and want it to continue, while everything other than the stock market shows signs of continued recession.
More fault lines revealed...
Except not fake numbers this time
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-wins-early-vote-tiny-hampshire-town-43377289
Donald Trump is off to a very early lead in the 2016 presidential election, winning over the voters of three New Hampshire precincts by a 32-25 margin over Hillary Clinton.
"Voted in Baltimore."
MD's not a swing state. Hillary's ground game er GOTV is concentrated in swing states ie PA/NH/CO/NV/FL/OH/NC and Trump's ground game?
Oh, he doesn't have one.
Mike,
Shiloh linked to thread where your "wisdom" was prominent. Maybe this time around circumspections is called for.
Carry on.
Lyssa, although I she that shy Trump voters won't make the difference, I think thereason is difference in the groups citing in the primary vs. the general election. People opposing Trump in the primary that will ultimately vote for him (or more accurately,against HRC) may choose to keep that under Theriot hats in "polite society). Not ebbing to master,though.
In either case, I expect an R congress to keep the brakes on the President.
PBandJ Obbudsman said...
I don't know much about it, but Johnson seems like a dick.
Just sayin.
You're right, you don't know much about it.
Effing phone.
I'm afraid newly energized Trump voters don't know or care about downticket races. Sort of like 2008. One gal asked me, "do I have to vote for these others too??" and I gladly told her no. Hell no.
"Over the course of the campaign a number of Trump opposers have shifted to reluctantly supporting Trump."
Maybe. I just don't. It bothers me so much that another Rep. candidate would probably be 10 points ahead of Clinton.
Personally, I preferred all of the Republican primary candidates over Clinton. The problem is that Trump and Cruz were at the bottom of my preference list among the Republican tribe. I have lost interest. Only my loathing of the Clinton machine gives me any reason to vote.
Trump, doing for the Republican party what he did for the USFL.
Prof. Althouse,
I suggest that the question is not "are there hidden Trump voters?" There are always hidden voters. The question is are there enough hidden voters in any election to effect the outcome?
In Pennsylvania, I suspect that there will be numerous cross-over Democrats voting for Trump especially in SW PA and in Lackawanna and Luzerne counties around Scranton. Those areas are coal-country. If one reads several of Salena Zito's recent opeds, one might think that every Dem outside of Philadelphia is voting for Trump. That is not the case, of course, but again, the question is in what numbers will these unannounced Trump supporters appear?
Why the stock market support for Hillary? Simple, I think: 1) Social issues and 2) Fascism. For whatever reason, lots and lots of rich people are far left socially. Why, I have no idea, because one would think that the values Democrats reject: hard work, honesty and integrity, charity, providing a good service for others--all of which helps rich people become rich; all are Republican values.
But apparently the idea of sodomy is too attractive.
But more important is fascism. Hillary is a fascist. Her party is the party of fascism. I'm not talking Nazism; but Mussolini style "Mix government and business to where you cannot tell the difference." This is demonstrably true with the media; can anyone tell where, say, NBC News ends and the Democrat party begins? Or the Obama administration?
Business people, under Hillary, have the chance to gain political power that has never been given to the business community in America. Note, that is only large corporate types.
So, there you go: Rich big companies see a chance to gain political power; which is a good business decision. Thus, Vote for Hillary!
Those higher corporate taxes are a small price to pay to be able to write the regulations governing your competitors, after all.
--Vance
I can't believe so many of you believe he actually has a chance. I was just thinking that this is the third election in a row where my desired outcome will not happen. Of course, I've known that since June...
I will say this though: a surprising Trump win will result in a bit of schuadenfreude for our Coastal Media Elite. And I can't wait to hear about rigged elections then, oh, it will be non-stop. But that's just me looking for a best case scenario. Trump is toast and the republican party is dead.
I find it very interesting that Wall Street withheld monetary support from Trump and loaded up Hillary six ways from Sunday, and yet the reaction is opposite from what one would traditionally expect of the bankers and traders. Trump is promising a tax cut and Hillary a taz increase, and still, they are pulling for Her.
What gives?
Explanations I heard on conference call yesterday: Predictable Hillary vs unpredictable Trump. Hillary is banker friendly. Short covering.
Also of note was big money clients counting cash getting ready to buy into falling markets on a Trump surprise. (While not predictive, the reaction was interesting).
A person who doesn't vote is, by definition, not a "hidden Trump VOTER".
I guess I will read the article since you flagged it, but I will have to wait for an hour or two to let the cognitive dissonance abate.
MikeR said...
Voted in Baltimore. Seemed like low turnout; nothing like 2008,
Also low in royal blue Montgomery County. MD isn't competitive, but then it wasn't in 2008 or 2012 either.
I am a well educated hidden Trump voter working in a very liberal field. I told everyone I was voting for Gary Johnson because I am a libertarian and despise the Clinton Crime Family. I am a libertarian, but mostly an anti-socialist who prefers smaller government and less taxes.
I do not know that Trump will lower taxes and get rid of some of our corrupt government bureaucrats. Hillary will certainly expand them. Trump worries me, but Hillary terrifies me. The MSM will never hold her accountable, just like Obama. I find that the DNC-MSM relationship is a threat to democracy.
The GOP will definitely keep the House. They will come out with fewer seats than they went in with, but that's partly explained by the fact that after the 2012 election they tied for the most seats they've ever held.
I think -- I hope! - Ayotte will keep her seat. The only two recent polls that showed her behind Hassan were conducted by universities and not true polling organizations.
Rubio seems safe. There's been no poll showing him behind Murphy since last summer.
I think that the GOP will win at least three out of Nevada, Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. If I'm right then the Republican party will have swapped Nevada for Wisconsin and Illinois. But I could be wrong. The GOP could win all five and Wisconsin, too, or they could lose all five and Wisconsin, too. It's that kind of year.
I'll make one more prediction -- if smarmy Tim Kaine loses today then this time two years hence he'll be out of politics (and no doubt into a lucrative career as a lobbyist).
I guess you could be secretly, at heart, a Trumper, but unwilling to admit it even to yourself. To go to the poll and mark a ballot, you have to at least show yourself what you think. That can be hard to do.
This has to be a women's dilemma.
A little off topic but I wanted to add this somewhere. The Dems claim to be attracting "educated white voters" while Trump repels them.
Although recent polls indicate Trump is leading there for the first time.
IBD-TPP has called its final, Trump two points over Hillary; LA Times Daybreak poll final has Trump five points over Hillary among registered voters.
But the same LA Times has an electoral prediction of Hillary in a landslide.
What Unknown said at 9:41. Or sum him up, the system is rigged for the highest bidder. He must be one of them secret Trump voters.
"So they're matching the name on the early voting ballot with the Google (or equivalent) micro data profile for that individual"
-- The ballot box is supposed to be secret; this is straight up something that should be fixed.
I'm picturing the GOP Congress as a brake on the power of the President, not an accelerator.
Luckily if Trump wins Republicans will be his brake.
Oops. I see that I'm both calling for the Nevada senate seat to go Republican in the face of Harry Reid's machine and hedging my bets saying the GOP might win it, more or less in the same sentence. Yes, I think Heck will win. No, I'm not at all sure.
"but there seems to be basically no evidence of it,"
"The Stock Markets are down. Wall street is currently reacting to anecdotal evidence that a massive unpredicted surge in voting is evidence that these voters are turning out for Trump. Evidence? maybe. A lot of traders live in New York and have friends in the Media who are getting early exit poll information. By noon we may see the results reflected there if it is a surge to Trump."
The stock market has already predicted a Trump victory.
I am predicting a decisive Clinton win, with the Senate coming with her as a bonus prize. At least Harry Reid is retiring.
I am an educated white voter. I will vote for Trump. So sue me.
I belong to an email group of ageing conservative activists (we were “youth” in the Reagan years) and this little tidbit arrived from one of the members:
"There is a consulting firm in Atlanta called ____________[I chose to omit name]. They claim they had an excellent track record in the GOP primaries. They ask a very interesting question: how do you think your neighbor will vote? When they ask that question Trump's numbers go up about 4-5 points. They say that reflects the hidden Trump vote. They have Trump up 2 in PA not counting the hidden Trump vote. We shall see."
I think Hillary wins, but I think the Senate will be stronger GOP than the map shows. She doesn't have the coattails to carry the Dems and a huge percentage of folks voting for her dislike her intensely - they'll vote a counterweight if possible.
why assume the Trump voters are more ashamed of admitting they support Trump than Clinton voters admit they vote Clinton?
Trump voters want to avoid vandalism and abuse. It's not "shame."
My son is a fireman. I don't think he and his wife know a Hillary voter except two of his siblings.
We were in Laguna Beach Saturday morning to do some photos of the kids. On the corner where we were walking to the beach was the Democratic Club of Laguna with all the usual signs. His 14 year old daughter ran in and shouted "Trump 2016 !" and ran out.
We did not call 911 for the heart attacks.
I think Trump pissed off WAY too many hispanics to have a shot.
The stock market reaction has everything to do with predictability. Hillary, they assume, will be predictable, and govern like Bill did, and appoint advisers like his and Obama's. Even if they don't like what she'll do, they can plan around it.
Trump, no one really knows. Even his fans seem to differ as to what they think he'll do. And investors don't like that.
I think in the Senate we're looking at GOP losing WI, IL, PA, and probably IN and NH as well. MO is a long shot, FL will stay Rubio, and NV will stay Dem. Enough for a slim majority for Schumer to get rid of the filibuster and ram through some nominees.
But unless we're misreading a wave, the GOP holds the House.
Other fun heaadlines..
Whistling Past the Graveyard...In Rochester, N.Y., a Pilgrimage to Susan B. Anthony's Grave
Bad Weather Could Suppress Voter Turnout in CA...Polls are open on the West Coast. In Los Angeles, a local newscaster wanted Angelenos heading to the polls that "its chilly out there." (It's 64 degrees at 7 a.m.; expected to hit 90 this afternoon).
Maybe. I just don't. It bothers me so much that another Rep. candidate would probably be 10 points ahead of Clinton.
What happens to this statement when Trump outperforms Romney?
The Dems claim to be attracting "educated white voters" while Trump repels them.
Yeah, I keep hearing this. Whom are they trying to convince? Certainly not all the educated white voters I know who are voting for Trump.
I'd you strongly dislike both Hillary and Trump, you have to vote GOP Congress. I think, or hope, that most people see that.
And if you like Trump and dislike the GOP, I would hope you see that he isn't assured of victory and you have to vote GOP to protect against a Hillary win.
So the only people left are the actual Hillary supporters, who don't seem enthusiastic at all, and people who vote for Congress on local interests, not concerned with the balance of power.
I'm on the way to the polling place to vote for Trump. Just decided about 30 minutes ago, after thinking for most of election season that I was going to abstain from POTUS voting. In the end I've become convinced that both major party candidates are terrible but only one is evil.
May God help us all.
What happens to this statement when Trump outperforms Romney?
Romney and Trump are running against very different candidates. I think Romney would have won in a landslide against HRC (and I think I saw a poll that asked about that hypothetical and showed him with a 20 point lead. ) Really it's apples to oranges though and I don't think we can know how different match ups would have played out.
MikeR.
"Voted in Baltimore. Seemed like low turnout; nothing like 2008, for instance, where there were black people out the door and down the block.
"If blacks don't come out to vote, I think that helps Trump."
I'm in a majority-black city, blue enclave in red state, and turnout is through the roof.
I agree with you that low black turnout helps Trump. I'd much rather see high black turnout, with a markedly less lopsided split than usual, one that shocks the hell out of the pollsters and the experts. I don't want that for his sake, but for theirs. These Soviet-"election"-level majorities that black voters give the Democrats are not good for them, not good for Democrats, and not good for this country.
If Trump actually pulled 20% of black voters, as some optimists on his side think he will, that would have a profound impact, mostly for the good. It would challenge both Democrats and Republicans in ways that make it, as Milton Friedman put it, "politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing."
Sorry, I meant to write 10 point lead in the hypothetical poll.
I'm picturing the GOP Congress as a brake on the power of the President, not an accelerator.
Zero reasoning or support for this assertion.
The republicans in congress will do more to stop trump than they will to stop Hillary because they get paid by the same people as Hillary.
I am not sure if Trump will win, but my bet is that he out-polls Romney. Two reasons: 1. Hillary does not inspire the hero-worship that Obama did and will not pull-in as many minority voters (I don't think added hispanic will make up for lost black voters). 2. Romney had an image as a corporate business man and while the working class is migrating to the Republican party, Mitt was not the man they could rally behind. Trump, as a reality show host and real estate developer is the sort of person that blue collar types can identify with.
Here is my bold (actually more hope than analysis) prediction: Trump 303 EV, keeps Senate and House.
I am still voting Johnson due to residence in MA.
Blogger C Stanley said...
What happens to this statement when Trump outperforms Romney?
Romney and Trump are running against very different candidates. I think Romney would have won in a landslide against HRC (and I think I saw a poll that asked about that hypothetical and showed him with a 20 point lead. ) Really it's apples to oranges though and I don't think we can know how different match ups would have played out.
Assertion by projection of your own paradigm. Classic and weak reasoning.
Trump got 4 million more votes in the primary than Romney. 14 million to 10 million. And all of those new voters are most likely voting for all the down ballots too.
Trump will outperform Romney. Clinton will underperform Obama among legal voters. There is going to be a massive and unmitigated flood of voters who think voting makes you a citizen.
"What happens to this statement when Trump outperforms Romney?"
Trump may get more votes than Romney but will have a lot more votes against him than Romney. Turnout would be high for this election only because so many voters were repelled into voting.
If Hillary was on the ballot in 2012, Romney would be running for re-election this year. Bank it!
"Trump got 4 million more votes in the primary than Romney. 14 million to 10 million. And all of those new voters are most likely voting for all the down ballots too."
And Trump had far more votes against him in the primaries than Romney did. By your reasoning, Jimmy Carter is more popular than George Washington because he got more votes even in 1980 than Washington ever did.
But I understand your predicament. Accepting that you supported a fraud who is losing a winnable race would wreck your worldview. Better build those blocks of denial instead.
Blogger Brando said...
Trump may get more votes than Romney but will have a lot more votes against him than Romney. Turnout would be high for this election only because so many voters were repelled into voting.
If Hillary was on the ballot in 2012, Romney would be running for re-election this year. Bank it!
The biggest issue in 2012 was Obamacare. You fuckwits nominated the one republican who passed and implemented it as governor. I try to be polite but there is nothing more out of touch and willfully stupid than a Romney supporter.
The only candidate who might have outperformed Trump this year is Romney. And the only reason for that is that the Democrat media wouldn't have a chance to smear him believably enough. Romney is a known commodity to the voters; the Democrats threw all the "roof riding dog" allegations against him last time. So Romney would be basically immune to the slurs and lies of the media.
But only him. And if he had been running for the first time this year, he wouldn't have fared any better than Trump either. Cruz, Walker, -- everyone else would have been crucified by the media. Sure, not "He grabbed Pussy!" but something.
So I'm not sure where any other candidate would have done better than Trump, save Romney. And Jeb came to Utah in early 2015 and threatened Romney somehow, so we can blame Jeb for Romney not running.
--Vance
I'm picturing the GOP Congress as a brake on the power of the President, not an accelerator.
Congress couldn't accelerate a train full of shit down a steep track.
"The biggest issue in 2012 was Obamacare. You fuckwits nominated the one republican who passed and implemented it as governor. I try to be polite but there is nothing more out of touch and willfully stupid than a Romney supporter."
As you're trying to be polite, I'll return the favor. I'll also note that despite Romney's background with Obamacare (interesting that this is so fatal, but Trump's recent leftist past including supporting immigration reform as recently as 2012, is not, so I'll take your "Romneycare" dig with the grain of salt it barely deserves), he still pulled closer than any losing GOP candidate since 1964. While "close doesn't count" he deserves credit for doing as well as he did against a very skilled politician who had incumbency advantages. If you think Hillary would have beaten him in 2012 you're more out of touch than any Romney supporter.
C Stanley said...
God bless you, C-Stan! Yes, fight evil!
We can do this!
dbp, please, put your money where your mouth is, vote for Trump even if it doesn't matter. See what happens. If you vote for a third party, Hillary won't feel a thing. You guys elected Scott Brown PRECISELY to avoid national RomneyCare and now you got it, ObamaCare in brand new flavor, Butt Brickle! If you try you can make it happen!
And even if you lose, you still fought evil.
I'm not so sure Jeb! would have lost this year. His "low energy" may not excite many Republicans, but Hillary on the ticket sure would--and it's hard to picture many people being scared about Jeb! the way Hillary could scare them about Trump.
If Hillary was on the ballot in 2012, Romney would be running for re-election this year. Bank it!
You are assuming facts not in evidence (I can watch TV, too).
The 2008 election was decided by two things.
One was the economic crisis which was successfully pinned on Bush even though the causes were Democrat policies.
The second was the hope that electing a black president would heal the racial divide.
Both were delusions.
The 2012 election was winnable but Romney blew it. One reason was his failure to denounce Obamacare. He had too much of a sense of ownership of the Mass plan which had been altered by the Democrat legislature and Deval Patrick.
He could have said, "That is not what I signed."
He was too polite to respond to Candy Crowley,
Trump fights even though he is often crude.
And Trump had far more votes against him in the primaries than Romney did.
It is called expanding the base. There are millions more republicans now because of trump. Trump will get more votes than Romney because he outperforms Romney among Black voters, Hispanics.
I would have loved to see a different republican actually listen to the republican voters. But they all chased the donor money instead.
"You are assuming facts not in evidence (I can watch TV, too)."
Well, that's the hypothetical--obviously we cannot know for sure what would have happened. But watching how Hillary runs and squanders advantages and blows leads, compared with Obama who is simply better than her at that, I find it hard to believe she would have beaten Romney who came close in 2012.
And Romney certainly did denounce Obamacare. His problem was Team Obama could hit him back for it by saying they got the idea from Romneycare. But it's not like he stayed off the issue entirely. Plus, keep in mind that Obamacare was not as unpopular as it is now--it wasn't yet implemented and Obama fans still thought it was going to be good.
As for Trump fighting--yeah, I heard that all season, and if "fighting" means Twitter rants against celebrities ranging from Rhonda Rousey to Beyoncé, or saying "no, you're the puppet" or "wrong" during the debate, then bring back the "wimps". At least they don't keep swiping at non-targets and giving themselves self-inflicted wounds. Trump is a spastic nut, not a "fighter".
Blogger Brando said...
I'm not so sure Jeb! would have lost this year. His "low energy" may not excite many Republicans, but Hillary on the ticket sure would--and it's hard to picture many people being scared about Jeb! the way Hillary could scare them about Trump.
If the republicans ran anyone like Jeb or Rubio or any of the other open borders candidates we would be talking about a new party and the Whig party right now.
Hey PB&J thanks for the tip. I skip Shiloh usually and wouldn't have noticed that. By "wisdom" you mean where I quoted Michael Barone and urged everyone to watch Ohio and two other states as a bellweather? All true. Mr. Barone's in fact is wiser than most commenters here. And I did watch the results with all those things in mind and the expectation that the "awesome software" Romney described on Hugh Hewitt's radio show would drive their "ground game" forward.
It didn't. The software was a spectacular failure (in contrast to Obama's GOTV targeting which was precise and productive because he was motivating his people to vote more than the historic rate. It worked.) Romney ate shit and died. And Obama overperformed the polls by 4%. The opposite of the 2010 and 2014 results where Re[publican voters overperformed the polls by 5%.
So your snide aside at my wisdom notwithstanding, I didn't make any predictions. I quoted experts and cited links. Then like now the Leftists had rhetoric alone. But we'll know soon enough who is correct about today's vote and whether the models are wrong in a 2012 way or a 2014 way.
I am/was a hidden Trump voter...I was set to vote for 3rd party, but James Comeys second letter forced my hand...as I am sure it has forced others...Hillary is getting away with things that NOBODY else ever would (except Obama)...so I have to vote against her...
"It is called expanding the base. There are millions more republicans now because of trump. Trump will get more votes than Romney because he outperforms Romney among Black voters, Hispanics."
I doubt it, but that remains to be seen. If the polls missed it and those new voters swamp the election today, I'll happily admit to being wrong.
"I would have loved to see a different republican actually listen to the republican voters."
I would have too. The problems still remain.
Today's question? YES we will.
You fuckwits nominated the one republican who passed and implemented it as governor
As governor, Romney had little control over legislation. Any veto would easily be subject to override by the heavily Democratic legislature. He was allowed to make meaningful constructive changes to the bill if he agreed to sign.
The bill was expensive and MA has natural advantages for such a plan that other states do not. But it definitely wasn't Obamacare and Romney's input helped to build something that would have been sustainable instead of the tragedy that is Obamacare.
No way would Romney or Jeb have pulled traditionally Democratic votes over to the GOP. Trump is doing just that. If the GOP, in it's short-sightedness, fails to both appreciate and appropriate this move, then they are doomed. And well they should be.
As governor, Romney had little control over legislation. Any veto would easily be subject to override by the heavily Democratic legislature. He was allowed to make meaningful constructive changes to the bill if he agreed to sign.
This sounds familiar. Kinda like all the other republicans who don't listen to the republican voters. There are always excuses.
We have realized that the progressives are not good people you work with. We, the peons, actually have to live with the bills republicans "work with" the democrats on. They are destroying the family as a foundation for society and weaponizing the bureaucracy against us. The republicans are still passing their budgets and working with them. The IRS should be defunded by now. Obamacare should be defunded by now. The executive branch should be defunded by now.
"I think -- I hope! - Ayotte will keep her seat. The only two recent polls that showed her behind Hassan were conducted by universities and not true polling organizations."
***********
I hope she wins, but I'm disgusted to see her campaign ads talking about how she worked to stop the "campus rape crisis".
Bullshit. Pure unalloyed bullshit pandering.
"I skip Shiloh usually"
But not always, so it's good to know I'm not wasting my time here.
And yes, skipping over the usual suspects is a real time saver!
I was out on a walk with my kids this morning listening to an election podcast. I felt like pouring a 40 on the curb for Scott Walker. He doesn't have a college degree. How that fact could have helped with the working class vote that Trump has captured, without the incendiary statements that turn off everyone else.
What a year...
This is the Democrats strongest of the three Senate cylcles, if they don't win it here, they are not going to win it for a while.
I didn't make any predictions. I quoted experts and cited links.
There's your problem.
I skip Shiloh usually and wouldn't have noticed that.
This is more reliable:
killfile
Use it from the title page - not the posting page.
Thanks Rick.
Achilles said...
This sounds familiar. Kinda like all the other republicans who don't listen to the republican voters. There are always excuses.
Must be nice to be spoiled by that kind of political purity. Romney's gambit is what counts as a major Republican victory in Massachusetts.
There are millions of Trump voters who will hide it from friends and family. The question is, are they hiding it from pollsters? We'll find out tonight.
"Must be nice to be spoiled by that kind of political purity. Romney's gambit is what counts as a major Republican victory in Massachusetts."
Romney must never be forgiven for cutting compromises while serving as a governor. Trump, though, gets a complete pass for every inconsistency and lie he serves up on a daily basis. You forgot the Trump Rules.
"There are millions of Trump voters who will hide it from friends and family."
Why do you think this is true? I mean sure, if they really were hiding it they wouldn't be coming out in the open about it, but then it could just as easily be the case that the number of "shy Trump" voters is no bigger than "shy Clinton" voters.
Also I don't get why they would lie to pollsters (live on in online polls). If you lie to them and your own side then thinks your state is out of reach, it can be just as bad for you as it would be good by giving the other side a false sense of confidence.
Anyway, they'd have to be more shy now than they were in the primaries when the polls fairly accurately got Trump's vote share.
Romney must never be forgiven for cutting compromises while serving as a governor.
I forgave him that.
However I can't forgive him for rolling over in 2012 or for his actions this year.
Why would anyone answer an exit pollster? If someone asked me about my vote I'd probably tell them it was none of their fucking business. Or something to that effect.
"Why would anyone answer an exit pollster? If someone asked me about my vote I'd probably tell them it was none of their fucking business. Or something to that effect."
I've never been polled, but my guess is when on the spot people probably like the idea that their opinion on something political is being tallied and that they have some bit of influence. For the exit poll, they want the numbers to give their fellow supporters comfort.
Ann Althouse said...I guess you could be secretly, at heart, a Trumper, but unwilling to admit it even to yourself.
Depends on what "a Trumper" means. For most definitions (some form of "Trump supporter/Trump true believer") that sentence is silly & wrong. If you mean something like "someone who might reluctantly vote for Trump given the options" I guess you could be correct. Sort of a strange thought either way, I guess.
What darkness lurks inside the hearts of men? Trump & the voting booth know!
Brando,
Anyway, they'd have to be more shy now than they were in the primaries when the polls fairly accurately got Trump's vote share.
What don't you get? Trump pulling Ds would not show in R primaries!
I guess we'll see now. Let me tell you, if he pulls this off, you have much crow to eat. I think Buwaya has recipes for crow. -- Someone on here did, perhaps an Indian person.
Brando opines: but my guess is when on the spot people probably like the idea that their opinion on something political is being tallied and that they have some bit of influence.
IMO, more progs than cons want to be polled. I've dealt with telephone pollsters and, except for once, told them I don't participate in polls. The one time I participated, the questions went on and on--questions about income, religious beliefs, etc. They didn't stop at my choice of candidates. They wanted all the demographics. I avoid census questions, too.
shiloh said...
"I skip Shiloh usually"
"But not always, so it's good to know I'm not wasting my time here.
And yes, skipping over the usual suspects is a real time saver!"
I hope, for your sake, that you're good looking.
"What don't you get? Trump pulling Ds would not show in R primaries!"
But the issue is why those Ds (for the general) are more shy than the Rs (from the primaries). Keeping in mind that we didn't see a "shyness" difference in the "open primary" states vs. closed primary states, do we have any evidence that a large number of these "shy Ds" for the general exist? That is, Democrats (or Independents, or anyone else that would not have been involved in the GOP primaries) who will vote for Trump but never indicated this in any measurable way?
Like I said, it's always possible, but it sounds to me more like the wishful thinking that got a lot of people shocked in 2012 when it turned out Romney wasn't really secretly ahead.
I can't wait for Brando to post a link with a primary ballot that included the choice of "Against Trump".
"IMO, more progs than cons want to be polled. I've dealt with telephone pollsters and, except for once, told them I don't participate in polls. The one time I participated, the questions went on and on--questions about income, religious beliefs, etc. They didn't stop at my choice of candidates. They wanted all the demographics. I avoid census questions, too."
Could be--I figure the pollsters have to factor in all sorts of estimates based on non-response rate to get a read on what the whole represents. Usually, they're close--within or near their margin of error--and their major fails are rare enough that everyone still counts on them. We just never know when the next big fail will be, so we hope it's one in our favor.
I suppose if no one trusts exit polls today, we could wait a few days (or weeks?) for the official state counts to come in.
"I can't wait for Brando to post a link with a primary ballot that included the choice of "Against Trump"."
That's fair--yes, votes for other candidates don't necessarily mean "anti-Trump". But my point was that compared with previous GOP primaries, this one had many candidates and went on far longer, far more contested in more states, so of course there were far more votes period. To say "Trump got more than Romney!", well, I'm sure Bush in '88 got more primary votes (which was in contested primaries) than Reagan in '84 (when it wasn't) but that's not a fair comparison.
Here's a NYT article from yesterday: "Are There Really Hidden Trump Voters?" How do you go about answering that question? (Other than waiting for the election results.)
Well, the small NH places voted last night, and gave Trump a 32 - 25 victory over Clinton. This is the first time I can recall a Republican winning that vote. I've yet to be able to get anyone to give historical comparisons there.
"I've mentally adjusted to what I think will be the outcome today: Hillary wins, but the GOP keeps both houses of Congress."
Well, Sam Wang says the Democrats will be 51 - 49 in control of the Senate, so Republican control is a good bet.
40% more primary votes for Trump versus Romney is significant and noteworthy -- I don't care how you slice it.
Brando said...
Romney must never be forgiven for cutting compromises while serving as a governor. Trump, though, gets a complete pass for every inconsistency and lie he serves up on a daily basis. You forgot the Trump Rules.
If you had any honesty on this subject you would realize it works against you.
Romney refused to make obamacare an issue. Romneycare was polling in the 30's then. He refused to make benghazi an issue. He refused to attack obama in any real way despite having gone scorched earth against Newt in the primaries. Romney never stood up for the working Americans. His campaign was funded by wealthy donors. He was not authentic. he had no connection to real people. He clearly didn't understand what drove the republican voters.
Romney alienated the Paul supporters at the convention. He alienated the base when he attacked Newt viciously and personally and alienated the TEA party. You people keep holding Romney up as some super smart awesome politician. Romney was a fucking idiot. He was a terrible candidate and he would lose this year against the same democrat turnout machine they had in 2012.
"By "wisdom" you mean where I quoted Michael Barone and urged everyone to watch Ohio and two other states as a bellweather?"
I really liked your speculation what we'd be doin' today, i.e. reelecting Mitt.
Brando, I largely agree with all of your points, except I would point out that people like Nate Silver are more concerned about systemic polling errors this cycle. He was pretty confident in 2012 that Obama would win and is hedging this time around.
And we would be much better off if that was correct. Go Trump!
Toss up map for senate.
Starts at 46.
Is Blunt in MO a bad candidate? Trump is going to carry MO by double digits. +1 R
Rubio Florida. +1 R
IA is going to go strongly to Trump/Pence. +1 R
Is Burr unpopular or a bad candidate? If not +1 R.
That leaves Nevada(open), Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Hamshire to pick up 1 more. If you spread add 4-8 million new voters in the republican party will that make up for all of the illegals that will vote? Black voter turnout is going to be way down this year too.
I don't think there is much to worry about for Republicans here.
Achilles, you're right. The working class never warmed up to Romney. They thought he was fake in 2012. Unrelatable. That was the fault of the Romney campaign. But Trump is doing the exact same thing with other parts of the population! Just because you find your guy sincere doesn't mean anyone else does!
You people keep holding Romney up as some super smart awesome politician. Romney was a fucking idiot. He was a terrible candidate and he would lose this year against the same democrat turnout machine they had in 2012.
But that is the point. Never again, until they find another completely magical black-man-raised-by-a-white-family who also just happened to be President of the Harvard Law Review and who lucked into a U.S. Senate seat, will the Dems see that kind of turnout machine. Maybe when Kanye West runs for president.
Any decent Republican should have been able to win this election. Turnout, I predict, is going to be surprisingly bad for African-Americans this year. Nothing like 2008-12.
Chuck---you still don't get it. The same crossover vote that elected Reagan could elect Trump but probably would not have elected Jeb Bush.
Chuck,
Did you decide a black % for over-under?
How's Michigan looking? You're an election lawyer, do you have any work?
Having read the article, I think what they did was clever, and actually designed to answer the question, rather than to give them the answer they wanted.
By tomorrow we'll know wether those people really did stay home.
"Romney refused to make obamacare an issue. Romneycare was polling in the 30's then. He refused to make benghazi an issue. He refused to attack obama in any real way despite having gone scorched earth against Newt in the primaries. Romney never stood up for the working Americans. His campaign was funded by wealthy donors. He was not authentic. he had no connection to real people. He clearly didn't understand what drove the republican voters.
Romney alienated the Paul supporters at the convention. He alienated the base when he attacked Newt viciously and personally and alienated the TEA party. You people keep holding Romney up as some super smart awesome politician. Romney was a fucking idiot. He was a terrible candidate and he would lose this year against the same democrat turnout machine they had in 2012."
I wonder if you realize every single thing you say up there applies even more so to Trump, who alienated even larger chunks of his party, is far less authentic than Romney, and his "attacks" on Hillary have been feeble spastic flailings and not the rapier thrusts you Trumpists assured us we'd see.
And while I defend Romney against this charge that "he lost a winnable election" it is not because I think he was a political genius--he wasn't--but because 2012 was going to be a tougher year for any Republican, certainly compared to 2016.
But amazingly, it is as though the GOP voters decided "Romney didn't work, he was too plutocratic, had little electoral experience, alienated his base, used to be too liberal" and that the perfect solution was to find a guy who embodied all those traits far more, plus brought a lot more ridiculous baggage to the campaign. If this trend continues, I'm afraid of what they're going to nominate in 2020. Maybe a gold plated middle finger or something.
"Brando, I largely agree with all of your points, except I would point out that people like Nate Silver are more concerned about systemic polling errors this cycle."
Yeah, another reason this year could be different is that for better or worse, Trump is trying a very different strategy than Republicans in the past (in terms of voters he's appealing to). It's possible that this upends polling calculations, in a way no one can predict.
The "hidden Trump voters" theory is interesting, but there seems to be basically no evidence of it, and a lot against it. Most significantly, this was not an issue in the primary, where Trump almost never outperformed polling. There's little reason to assume that anything has changed in the past 6 months.
Except that the primaries are long over, and the choices are Trump and Clinton. I think that drastically changes the equation. Also, I think there will be a lot of blue collar white voters in places like Ohio, PA, Michigan and maybe even Wisconsin who profess to be Democrats but will secretly vote Trump. The immigration and jobs-leaving-USA issues hit these folks the hardest. I also think Trump will take more African American voters than either Romney or McCain did, especially since those same issues affect them, as well as Clinton being white.
Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I don't think these polls are trustworthy this time around.
Chuck,
"Any decent Republican should have been able to win this election."
No. Any decent Republican would have been given the Mitt Romney treatment (wow, this guy is the scariest extremist ever!) and it would have worked even better than it did for him.
I wonder if you realize every single thing you say up there applies even more so to Trump, who alienated even larger chunks of his party, is far less authentic than Romney, and his "attacks" on Hillary have been feeble spastic flailings and not the rapier thrusts you Trumpists assured us we'd see.
People Romney Alienated: Paul supporters. Black voters. Hispanic Voters. Working Class voters. TEA party voters. Trump will outperform Romney in every one of these demographics. Anyone who thought Romneycare was a bad idea. People who liked having a border. We will pick up millions of voters here.
People Trump Alienated: Neocons. WASPs. Fans of Open Borders. People who talk on TV and write articles in media. Trump lost a couple thousand voters there.
There aren't very many of those. They will be happier in the democrat party.
When Trump beats 20% of the black vote, will you Romney fans still claim Jeb! or Rubio would have done better? You know Whites without college degrees used to be a DEMOCRAT voting block right? Right?
Trump added millions of voters to the republican party. Jeb! or Rubio would have meant a 3rd party. You people are delusional.
People Trump Alienated: Neocons. WASPs. Fans of Open Borders. People who talk on TV and write articles in media. Trump lost a couple thousand voters there.
There aren't very many of those. They will be happier in the democrat party.
See, now this is where I'm leaning as well. The people in these groups are just the loud minority. Most people in this country are AGAINST open borders. Most are NOT fans of sending soldiers into these unwinnable wars. And because a pundit has a pulpit, it doesn't mean they represent large interests.
The NeverTrumpers are in addition to the above groups. Let's see if they're just vocal or are they a force that can send Hillary to the White House. That's the only wild card that I can see...
Bad Lieutenant said...
Chuck,
Did you decide a black % for over-under?
How's Michigan looking? You're an election lawyer, do you have any work?
I am not working any polls today as a Michigan Republican Party credentialed challenger. First time in 14 years.
"Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I don't think these polls are trustworthy this time around."
You could be right, we just don't know right now. I guess for me it's hard to imagine a shy Trump voter but then, a truly shy one wouldn't give you any indication s/he is a Trump voter. They might seem like a Clinton voter.
"When Trump beats 20% of the black vote, will you Romney fans still claim Jeb! or Rubio would have done better?"
Ok Achilles, if Trump takes more than 20% of the black vote, becoming the first Republican to do so since 1960, then yes I will admit Jeb! or Rubio could not have done better. I don't gamble, but if you really think that's going to happen I'm sure you can find someone willing to give you good odds against that happening.
"People Trump Alienated: Neocons. WASPs. Fans of Open Borders. People who talk on TV and write articles in media. Trump lost a couple thousand voters there."
Yes, but you left out white women, educated white men, an even bigger proportion of Hispanics than Romney lost...yeah, the Republicans never needed them anyway!
And before you crow about white working class voters, that category has been steadily drifting towards the GOP for decades--Romney beat Obama with them. Trump will likely do even better, but he's doing so at the expense of losing groups the GOP traditionally did well with, or at least (e.g., Hispanics) less bad with.
We can argue our theories all day, but we'll have final numbers soon enough. Either Trump's gamble will have paid off, or it wouldn't have. But don't kid yourself into thinking the GOP couldn't have won this year without him.
You forgot married women, Achilles....
Oh and about the black vote %; my bet with Fabi is that he thinks Trump will get better than 15%. And I say no. The bet is for a bottle of something nice to drink.
My personal guess, aside from the Fabi bet, is that Trump will do about 2 points better than Romney (5%) and that we will see Trump get something like 7-9% of the black vote. But that the total black vote will be down, significantly, from the two Obama elections.
"You forgot married women, Achilles...."
Birches, I wouldn't bother. Achilles thinks Trump is going to do better than 20% of the black vote. He probably assumes Trump is going to get 70% of the female vote.
How do they know how blacks vote, anyway?? Just by neighborhood? None of the blacks I know live in the inner city or in ghettos.
My only prediction is for Johnson to beat Feingold in WI for US Senate. Hopefully Trump supporters in outlying areas of the state do not intentionally hurt Johnson just because he is the incumbent R. That would be stupid on a galactic scale. I was pretty sure the bitch had this sewn up as of last night. God I hope I am wrong.
I guess for me it's hard to imagine a shy Trump voter but then, a truly shy one wouldn't give you any indication s/he is a Trump voter. They might seem like a Clinton voter.
I'd guess the word "shy" isn't really fitting here. "Hidden" fits it better. Imagine yourself an auto worker. Ford is moving production to places like Mexico, and you see your fellow workers losing their jobs. Your union (UAW) tells you to vote Democrat, and even schedules meetings on why you shouldn't vote for Trump.
These are the type of people who are the "hidden" voters. The ones the Dems have completely abandoned. Trump will get more of these votes than McCain and Romney combined.
Birches said...
You forgot married women, Achilles....
Oh yeah. I forgot. Married women like the rapist and his enabler better. Gender gap! Women hate Trump!
Oh wait...
Trump polling better among women than Romney.
mockturtle said...
How do they know how blacks vote, anyway?? Just by neighborhood? None of the blacks I know live in the inner city or in ghettos.
Polling. Gallup has done it every election since the 1980's.
"I find that the DNC-MSM relationship is a threat to democracy."
Definitely.
Brando said...
Birches, I wouldn't bother. Achilles thinks Trump is going to do better than 20% of the black vote. He probably assumes Trump is going to get 70% of the female vote.
You know how someone is losing an argument? Petulant juvenile projection and whining. You have posted no polls or supporting information. All you do is bitch and whine and moan.
Romney was terrible. He attacked Trump, a person who endorsed Mitt, viciously and personally. Mitt attacked fellow republicans in the 2012 primary more personally and forcefully than Obama because he is more like Obama than other republicans. He passed Romneycare before Obama did. Mitt tried to get Hillary elected and is still supporting McMuffin and trying to pull Utah from Trump. We no longer want his type in the republican party.
"I'd guess the word "shy" isn't really fitting here. "Hidden" fits it better. Imagine yourself an auto worker. Ford is moving production to places like Mexico, and you see your fellow workers losing their jobs. Your union (UAW) tells you to vote Democrat, and even schedules meetings on why you shouldn't vote for Trump."
It would have to be someone who felt some kind of pressure to support Clinton, but chose Trump anyway--maybe in a union where most members were openly talking about how great Clinton is, but then I can't picture those workers feeling that way about Clinton. Maybe they'd keep quiet when the union rep comes by so they don't get a harangue, but then in privacy I figure they'd have no problem telling a pollster what they think.
More likely someone whose family is staunch liberals, maybe their wife is, and they even on the surface figure they are too (or maybe even conservative, but "nice" conservative--not that nasty Trump type) and so when the pollster calls they don't want to admit supporting Trump in front of the family, or maybe even don't want to say it out loud to themselves. But in their dark recesses of the mind, when they cast their vote...
Surely some people fit that bill. How many, though--that's what we're going to see. I hope I'm not too drunk when the returns come in...
"You know how someone is losing an argument? Petulant juvenile projection and whining."
If that was what I was doing you'd be trying to elect me president.
Clinton is destroying Trump with the woman vote. You keep comparing him to Romney who was running in a different year under different circumstances against a different opponent who was much better than the one Trump luckily has.
Look, I can't predict today any more than you can. The polls right now aren't good for Trump, and his best bet is they're wrong in some big way. But it seems all you're doing is trying to lay the ground so you don't have to admit later that you backed a disaster.
Hey, maybe he'll pull an upset and then you won't have to admit squat. You can spend the next four years painting his betrayals as great things, or whatever delusional people have to do. But if he loses, don't worry. It's not like you have to answer to anyone then, either. Just yourself.
Why do you think this is true? I mean sure, if they really were hiding it they wouldn't be coming out in the open about it, but then it could just as easily be the case that the number of "shy Trump" voters is no bigger than "shy Clinton" voters.
Trump voters do get attacked WAY more than Clinton voters.
How often do people HERE blast Trump voters? It's hardly rare. They don't do the same to Clinton voters. Clinton? Yeah. Her voters? Nope. I've not seen it.
Romney refused to make obamacare an issue. Romneycare was polling in the 30's then. He refused to make benghazi an issue. He refused to attack obama in any real way despite having gone scorched earth against Newt in the primaries. Romney never stood up for the working Americans. His campaign was funded by wealthy donors. He was not authentic. he had no connection to real people. He clearly didn't understand what drove the republican voters.
That's a big problem because Romney's BIGGEST plus was that he can fix up fuck-ups. He is the king of fixing disasters. And he didn't run on that. He managed to fix the SLC Olympics (and, as we've seen since, that isn't that easy). He made Staples a viable entity. No small feats.
Why not say "Obamacare is a disaster. As President, I'm going to replace it. If I can't replace it, I'm going to fix it in such a way that nobody will think of Obama when they discuss it in the future"
320Busdriver said...
My only prediction is for Johnson to beat Feingold in WI for US Senate. Hopefully Trump supporters in outlying areas of the state do not intentionally hurt Johnson just because he is the incumbent R. That would be stupid on a galactic scale. I was pretty sure the bitch had this sewn up as of last night. God I hope I am wrong.
11/8/16, 2:29 PM
This is another form of the hidden voter. The one so propagandized that he thinks, "What can I do?"
You. Are. Not. Alone.
If everybody who thinks Hillary is inevitable, doesn't take counsel of their fears, but gets up on his or her hind legs and does something about it, = votes for Trump,
THAT WOMAN is going home.
And that's a big sacrifice for New York to make so you get out there and vote!
Chuck said...
Polling. Gallup has done it every election since the 1980's.
2
3
Black voters are getting screwed by democrats. The GOPe ignores them and gives them no options because the GOPe is a false flag operation. Trump gave them something to vote for other than poverty and food stamps.
That is because Trump is a better candidate than Romney is.
"How often do people HERE blast Trump voters? It's hardly rare. They don't do the same to Clinton voters. Clinton? Yeah. Her voters? Nope. I've not seen it."
How many open Clinton voters do we even have on this site? By my unscientific count, I only recall maybe one or two. There's probably at least a dozen regular commenters who are supporting Trump, either happily or reluctantly, and a few who are "none of the above".
Fear of physical attack I understand, but again we're talking about answering pollsters so it would only really apply in the scenario I suggested above--differences in the same family. I don't imagine anyone but the most paranoid would think telling a pollster you're going to vote Trump will get you attacked.
"Why not say "Obamacare is a disaster. As President, I'm going to replace it. If I can't replace it, I'm going to fix it in such a way that nobody will think of Obama when they discuss it in the future""
In fairness, that was Romney's pitch--that his background with Romneycare made him uniquely capable of replacing Obamacare or fixing its flaws. His messaging wasn't very good.
Anyway, good chatting but I gotta vote and watch returns. Check back with you all in a couple weeks!
Brando said...
"You know how someone is losing an argument? Petulant juvenile projection and whining."
If that was what I was doing you'd be trying to elect me president.
Pathetic. Petulant.
Clinton is destroying Trump with the woman vote. You keep comparing him to Romney who was running in a different year under different circumstances against a different opponent who was much better than the one Trump luckily has.
You keep saying this. Repetition is not an argument. Women are getting a chance to vote for the first Woman president and Trump still does as well as Romney did. Do you not remember 2012? Obama was not popular. Women were pissed that Hillary was shunted to the side. Obamacare was universally hated. The TEA party had just handed the House and Senate over to Republicans in a Historic wave election. If there was any enthusiasm for the republican Mitt would have won. 2010 and 2014 were huge wins for republicans. What was the problem in 2012? The GOPe tanked the election on purpose by nominating Mitt.
Look, I can't predict today any more than you can. The polls right now aren't good for Trump, and his best bet is they're wrong in some big way. But it seems all you're doing is trying to lay the ground so you don't have to admit later that you backed a disaster.
You wont admit Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush were disasters. Even when we won with Bush's we got screwed. Budgets still grew. Debt still exploded. Bureaucracy got bigger every year. You are being disingenuous with this garbage.
Hey, maybe he'll pull an upset and then you won't have to admit squat. You can spend the next four years painting his betrayals as great things, or whatever delusional people have to do. But if he loses, don't worry. It's not like you have to answer to anyone then, either. Just yourself.
If he loses we will remember that millions of illegal immigrant voters are being herded to the polls. We will remember the voting machines are being tampered with. We will remember than Hillary had a 10 to 1 fundraising advantage mostly from Wall Street and wealthy oligarchs. We will remember an unprecedented level of media/DNC collusion and manipulation. We will remember being attacked and harassed at our rallies. We will remember the DOJ clearly subverting the rule of law. We will remember the IRS harassing and attacking conservatives. We will remember Mitt Romney's betrayal and support of 3rd and 4th party candidates.
We will answer to ourselves. We will also remember the cowards and lickspittles. Mitt didn't have anywhere near the headwinds Trump is facing.
From Achilles' link, just above:
"Trump is supported by 32 percent of likely black North Carolina voters, according to the poll. There is a margin of error of plus or minus 11.5 percent for Trump’s numbers with black voters. The most support a GOP presidential candidate has received from the black community in the last three decades is former President Gerald Ford’s 17 percent in 1976.
Trump has repeatedly said throughout the election that he will do very well with black voters. Most polls, however, show him polling below 10 percent among African-Americans."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/04/shock-poll-trump-at-over-30-percent-with-black-vote-in-north-carolina/#ixzz4PSFJXJXR
"The poll" in that case was something calling itself the Trafalgar Associates Poll. With an 11.5% margin of error.
Well Chuck, 11 and a half from 32 is still a big number.
Do you not remember 2012? Obama was not popular. Women were pissed that Hillary was shunted to the side. Obamacare was universally hated.
This is bordering on fantasy. And who should the Republican party have nominated in 2012? Romney wasn't my choice in the primaries either, but he was loads better than Rick Santorum or Newt.
We'll have to see what the exit polls say, but I don't think there is any chance that Trump matches Romney with women or makes up for it with black men.
Achilles, you're already setting yourself up for a loss with that 3:25 post. I hope you wake up happy tomorrow, but if you don't, don't blame the entire world. Blame your guy for being an undisciplined blowhard who didn't convince enough people to vote for him.
Birches, did you vote for him?
The Never Trumpers love to pre-call their Told You So arguments. Get the chips to the middle of the table, Never Trumpers.
President Hillary appreciated your efforts.
If blacks don't come out to vote, I think that helps Trump.
Blacks don't have to come out in MD. They do have to come out in NC, PA, MI, FL and OH, though.
Bad Lieutenant said...
Well Chuck, 11 and a half from 32 is still a big number.
...Or maybe a sign that it is all casual bullshit.
In which Hillary supporter Chuck admits his innumeracy.
What gives?
The market doesn't like uncertainty. Trump is about as uncertain as it gets.
nyt uses professors to find "hidden trump voters." that sounds about right... and wrong.
Birkel said...
In which Hillary supporter Chuck admits his innumeracy.
I voted for the Republican nominee. Do you understand that? Do you care? Finally, your miserable, mendacious, trolling of me can come to an end. I voted for Trump. Not by placing my mark next to his name, but by voting a straight Republican ticket (still allowed in Michigan).
Chuck:
I will loathe you long after this election. Your smugness deserves continued mockery. I wish you all the success you deserve.
I've mentioned before that I am NeverTrump. I voted for the pothead.
When in 2012 Obama, much to my surprise, won his second term, I made a $100 bet with my wife that Hillary would be the next president. I did so in the fully cynical assumption that the US was absolutely beyond redemption, in the hands of corrupt government and corrupt business and corrupt culture.
It is with great pleasure that today I have to go to the bank and get a nice crisp $100 bill to pay my wife her winnings.
Maybe, if I am humble enough about it, she will use it to take us both out to eat somewhere nice.
Post a Comment