Jump to content


The General Election


Recommended Posts

 

Ben Carson was eminently ignorable. That guy only looks like a decent candidate when compared with Trump.

I agree with that once the debates started. I thought he was an impressive person getting in and he wasn't a politician.

 

 

Carson is a good guy. He certainly is much better spoken and intelligent than Trump. But he's about as qualified as the Donald. And when he got off the rails, he got off the rails HARD...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_reaXWxdu-o

 

Kasich and possibly Rubio were the only ones I could've voted for. But even then, looking at case studies in small government like Kansas and Wisconsin don't give me the warm and fuzzies. Rubio obviously wasn't ready, but Katich was pretty qualified. He did trash Ohio's public school system and implement some really far right abortion policies in his state I don't agree with.

Link to comment

I wish Ben Carson would have been better in the debates and then once they started, it seemed like he was just ignored. However, I think he was a pretty level headed guy going in that I think would have held the office well.

I also was interested in hearing more from Kasich.

 

However, once the debates started, everything just centered around the childish blowhard in the middle of the room instead of issues.

 

I am so frustrated right now with Republicans that the entire election cycle has totally blown my mind. I'm getting to the point where I honestly am going to have a hard time ever voting for a Republican candidate if they keep going through the nomination process like this.

 

Well I think the GOP had too many candidate to begin with, and it's frustrating for me that they had so many top candidates that would have been the nominee in any other year. I really think the Democratic primary was a joke as well, with the DNC trying to help Hillary get nominated. The only plausible Democrat worth listening to was Jim Webb, and he dropped out early as a result of the Democratic primary voters no longer identifying with the moderate wing of their party.

Link to comment

 

I wish Ben Carson would have been better in the debates and then once they started, it seemed like he was just ignored. However, I think he was a pretty level headed guy going in that I think would have held the office well.

I also was interested in hearing more from Kasich.

 

However, once the debates started, everything just centered around the childish blowhard in the middle of the room instead of issues.

 

I am so frustrated right now with Republicans that the entire election cycle has totally blown my mind. I'm getting to the point where I honestly am going to have a hard time ever voting for a Republican candidate if they keep going through the nomination process like this.

 

Well I think the GOP had too many candidate to begin with, and it's frustrating for me that they had so many top candidates that would have been the nominee in any other year. I really think the Democratic primary was a joke as well, with the DNC trying to help Hillary get nominated. The only plausible Democrat worth listening to was Jim Webb, and he dropped out early as a result of the Democratic primary voters no longer identifying with the moderate wing of their party.

 

 

Populist times we're living in, my friend. People seem drawn to the ideologically extreme. I'd say the same phenomenon derailed Kasich and Jeb! in their primary.

Link to comment

Jim Webb won't rule out voting for Trump, but can't vote for Hillary -- of course he is the only acceptable 'Democrat' to your eyes.

 

I would say his lackluster campaign was responsible for his failed presidential bid. Perhaps he could have won as a Republican, but I doubt it. Celebrity status and national cache go an (unfortunately) long way, and he didn't have that.

 

It also seems that he really had a fairly light, or at best unextraordinary resume in public service, at least as far as candidates for the highest office in the land go. Not as light as Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, or Carly Fiorina. For that, I have no explanation. Actually -- maybe the explanation is obvious.

Link to comment

Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump?

And interesting read - covers a lot of ground.

The recently released tracking and weekly national polls, conducted by firms such as Ipsos, Morning Consult, SurveyMonkey and YouGov, continue to show Democrat Hillary Clinton ahead of Republican Donald Trump (with the exception of the Republican-leaning Rasmussen Reports). A new Pew Research Center poll also has Clinton ahead of Trump 45 percent to 36 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 11 percent.

******

Right now, pollsters that include Johnson and, less frequently, Stein are showing Clinton with a slightly smaller lead than pollsters that test only Trump and Clinton.

******

Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

*****

An average of YouGov surveys over the past two weeks indicates that Sanders primary voters who say they will vote for a third-party candidate are, by about a 3-to-1 ratio, more likely to choose Clinton than Trump when the third-party candidates aren’t an option. A full-throated Sanders endorsement could push many of these voters into the Clinton column, even with third-party candidates on the ballot. Their shift would make Clinton’s margin over Trump in the national polls about the same with third-party candidates as without.

 

LINK

Link to comment

Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump?

 

And interesting read - covers a lot of ground.

 

The recently released tracking and weekly national polls, conducted by firms such as Ipsos, Morning Consult, SurveyMonkey and YouGov, continue to show Democrat Hillary Clinton ahead of Republican Donald Trump (with the exception of the Republican-leaning Rasmussen Reports). A new Pew Research Center poll also has Clinton ahead of Trump 45 percent to 36 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 11 percent.

 

******

 

Right now, pollsters that include Johnson and, less frequently, Stein are showing Clinton with a slightly smaller lead than pollsters that test only Trump and Clinton.

 

******

 

Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

 

*****

 

An average of YouGov surveys over the past two weeks indicates that Sanders primary voters who say they will vote for a third-party candidate are, by about a 3-to-1 ratio, more likely to choose Clinton than Trump when the third-party candidates aren’t an option. A full-throated Sanders endorsement could push many of these voters into the Clinton column, even with third-party candidates on the ballot. Their shift would make Clinton’s margin over Trump in the national polls about the same with third-party candidates as without.

 

LINK

I'm not surprised at this. Right now, most Trump followers are full steam ahead with blinders and ear plugs on. Since the primaries are over, a number of Repub voters jumped on the band wagon just because he has an R beside his name and it's all about how evil Hillary is.

 

Then, there are the Clinton/Democrats that are going to vote for her because she is the Democrat nominee. These people tend to still believe everything Repub is destroying anything good in the world and only supporting those evil corporations.

 

Then there are the middle people who either don't like both or just haven't decided. Mostly, they don't like what they see from either side. But, I think the majority of these people are much less comfortable with a blowhard egomaniac in Trump than a dishonest and corrupted life long politician in Clinton. So, they may tend to lean towards Clinton if only given those choices.

 

However, these are also the people who are more likely to have an open mind to a third option. So, if you throw someone like Johnson in, some of those will go to him instead of Clinton.

Link to comment

FiveThirtyEight ranks Rasmussen with a means-reverted bias of +2.0 towards Repubs. By far the highest bias of any major poll. So a +2 Rasmussen for Trump is essentially tied anyway, before margin of error.

 

BRB, while it's fair to be cynical about the choices, not all of this falls on people with their misconceptions about D's or R's. We're in an ever-increasingly partisan environment, certainly the most so in my lifetime. Here's a handy chart showing the shift over the last couple decades (hit animate button).

 

Regardless of the result of the election, gridlock in Washington may be a greater threat to any meaningful change moreso than whichever polarizing option wins.

Link to comment

FiveThirtyEight ranks Rasmussen with a means-reverted bias of +2.0 towards Repubs. By far the highest bias of any major poll. So a +2 Rasmussen for Trump is essentially tied anyway, before margin of error.

 

BRB, while it's fair to be cynical about the choices, not all of this falls on people with their misconceptions about D's or R's. We're in an ever-increasingly partisan environment, certainly the most so in my lifetime. Here's a handy chart showing the shift over the last couple decades (hit animate button).

 

Regardless of the result of the election, gridlock in Washington may be a greater threat to any meaningful change moreso than whichever polarizing option wins.

I'm failing to see your point. You say it shouldn't fall on the people who have misconceptions about Ds and Rs. Your first link has the following quote.

 

For the first time in surveys dating to 1992, majorities in both parties express not just unfavorable but very unfavorable views of the other party. And today, sizable shares of both Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feelings of not just frustration, but fear and anger.

 

 

If it doesn't fall on them, then who does it fall on?

 

My personal opinion is that the politicians keep getting more and more divisive because the public rewards them for it by voting for the one that is the most divisive (From the side they align with)...which is spurned on by these people consuming more and more partisan political media.....which also keeps getting rewarded by making more and more money from people getting angrier and angrier after watching their crap and so they keep watching it more. It's a vicious circle. We are in an era where a significant part of the population is drawn to the media outlet that provides them with the most outlandish negative view of the other side.

 

However, I haven't been able to find updated data but as of the beginning of the primary season, independents were the majority of Americans over and above both parties.

 

For the life of me, I can't understand why a third party candidate hasn't emerged stronger in this environment. The only reason I have been able to come up with is because everyone has the attitude of....Well, only an R or D has a chance.

 

That's a BS way of thinking about where we are at.

Link to comment
For the first time in surveys dating to 1992, majorities in both parties express not just unfavorable but very unfavorable views of the other party. And today, sizable shares of both Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feelings of not just frustration, but fear and anger.

 

 

 

I want to go back to this quote from the article because I think this is profoundly significant.

 

I personally believe this is a direct result of media that people consume. But, the media keeps getting rewarded by making more and more profits from putting out the most outlandish claims about the other side.

 

This entire issue isn't going to get better till there is a revolt against this type of media.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...