Election 2016

[deaddmwalking]

If there were a terrorist attack, it could help or hurt the current administration. 9/11 happened while Bush was president and there were at least as many people that didn't want to 'change horses midstream' as there were people that felt it was his dereliction of duty that led to the attacks. Since we don't have an incumbent president running for reelection, I'd consider 'changing' more likely.

Regarding the polls of Clinton versus Trump, national numbers don't matter at all. There are certain states that Clinton is going to win and there are certain states that Trump is going to win. It doesn't matter if Clinton has 20 million 'extra votes' in states she was going to win anyway. But 5000 votes in Ohio could swing the election. If the Latino and Black voter participation dropped to 35%, that'd be enough to swing the election to the Republican candidate all else being equal.

This is a fun tool to look at how demographics could affect the election:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -election/

I certainly hope the Democrats beat Trump, both for the presidential election and the down ticket races. But voter turn out will be important. Small changes in turnout can swing the 'close states'.

[Mechalich]

If there were a terrorist attack, it could help or hurt the current administration. 9/11 happened while Bush was president and there were at least as many people that didn't want to 'change horses midstream' as there were people that felt it was his dereliction of duty that led to the attacks. Since we don't have an incumbent president running for reelection, I'd consider 'changing' more likely.

Back in 2001, democrats were initially very hesitant to blame Bush for anything and simply wanted to rally the country. In the current cycle, at every point in Obama's presidency that there's been a terrorist attack or even a hint of one - like the 'underwear bomber' - the Republicans have brought out the long knives and gone after Obama.

A major terrorist incident would motivate Republican turnout - the right wing media has spread a terrible burden of fear over a huge portion of the base and such an incident would draw out all sorts of disaffected conservatives to vote Trump. It's the kind of thing that would erase Trump's other disadvantages and turn the election into a referendum on Obama. The republicans might not win that election, but they have a much better chance of winning that than winning with Trump on his own terms.

[angelfromanotherpin]

In the current cycle, at every point in Obama's presidency that there's been a terrorist attack or even a hint of one - like the 'underwear bomber' - a day that ends in 'y' the Republicans have brought out the long knives and gone after Obama.

In lieu of any actual problems, Republicans have shown their willingness to make shit up out of whole cloth and go bugfuck nuts about that instead. Fuck, the entire Romney campaign was based on being opposed to things that hadn't happened and never did.

[Prak]

Also see the Republican rhetoric against Hillary.

[phlapjackage]

and that particular spark could explode at any time. It's not very likely, but it could happen.

An asteroid could crash into the Earth at any time! It's not very likely, but it could happen.
...
Giant monsters could crawl up from deep-sea trenches and attack the world, and we could build giant robots to fight for the very survival of the human race, at any time! It's not very likely, but it could happen.
...
Maybe these discussions don't need to include unlikely events, I'm sure everyone is aware that Hillary will probably win the nomination UNLESS A GIANT FISSURE TO HELL OPENS IN TOWN at any time! It's not very likely, but it could happen...

[Mechalich]

Well, its a risk mitigation problem of margins and percentages. You probably need an event that swings 10% of the votes towards the Republicans to insure Trump a victory. Such an event has, maybe, as 5% chance of happening. So Trump has maybe a 5% chance of becoming President.

Now I wouldn't normally worry very much about something that has a 5% chance of happening, but I assign a 100% chance of a Trump Presidency causing irreparable damage to the United States, so I'd like to get that 5% lower if at all possible.

[Eikre]

You probably need an event that swings 10% of the votes towards the Republicans to insure Trump a victory.

Nah, Lloyd's of London will let you take out a policy on anything.

[Prak]

But do they offer Trump Presidency Coverage?

[virgil]

Ugh...people posting and harping about this link
http://www.dailynews24-7.com/us-electio ... e-sanders/

[Username17]

Ugh...people posting and harping about this link
http://www.dailynews24-7.com/us-electio ... e-sanders/

Daily News 24-7 dot com came into being in late March of this year and has been running news of almost nothing but Terrorism and anti-Hillary editorials ever since. I assume it's Koch-sponsored ratfucking, because there's a lot of stuff about how you should support Sanders instead of Hillary, there isn't a lot about why you should support Sanders' policies in the future. I mean, when you have an article called "How Obama and Hillary tried to run the world" and a bunch of articles trying to get people to vote for Sanders third party, you're obviously not a legit leftist.

People who link to this article as if it was anything other than Karl Rove's sock puppets are hoodwinked fools. And the Koch brothers are laughing at them.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

I know this principle is already known here, but this highlights the differences between the rules of the Democratic and Republican primary rules. Here's an interesting look at what the delegate totals would look like under the other rules:

Clinton's delegate lead would triple under GOP rules

Donald Trump would be easy to stop under Democratic rules

[RobbyPants]

Holy balls, Cruz dropped out

[Mechalich]

With Cruz gone, it's pretty much certain that Trump hits 1237 and seizes the nomination on the first ballot. He can get the remaining two hundred he needs just from California and New Jersey. Besides, without Cruz in the race, no one else will even be on the first ballot unless the RNC changes the rules in a significant way due to the 8 state rule.

The Republican party is going to nominate Donald Trump for the Presidency. Come November tens of millions of Americans are going to vote for him. Crazy.

[Mask_De_H]

This may be the year when we finally come face to face with ourselves; finally just lay back and say it — that we are really just a nation of 220 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns, and no qualms at all about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.

Cruz couldn't stoop low enough to become a nominee, I guess. The ads for this election are going to be downright ugly.

[Username17]

Rinse Penis even put in writing that Donald Trump is going to be the nominee. Interestingly, Trump and Sanders won Indiana by about the same percentages. But for Trump it was a knockout blow to Cruz as he got all the delegates, and for Sanders it was a crushing defeat because Hillary got almost half the delegates. Hillary and Trump are very close to the magic number because they have won in most of the states and most of the states have voted already. To keep the front runners from passing the finish lines, challengers need to hold them to very few delegates in the remaining contests. Hillary getting more than 46 percent in a proportional contest was just as much that not happening as Trump getting 53 percent in a winner take all contest.

Of course, now that Cruz has actually dropped out, you're going to see a lot more Republicans pretending Donald Trump isn't a grossly unqualified and loathsome fascist. Cruz said that venereal disease was Trump's personal Vietnam, but he is still going to endorse him.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Rinse Penis

Wait, who?

Cruz said that venereal disease was Trump's personal Vietnam

What was the context for this?

I've been out of the loop with the intricacies of US stuff, what with the Australian situation being "a refugee literally set fire to herself because that was a better alternative to living in the concentration camp for asylum seekers, and our Minister for Being a Terrible Person said she did it as an attention-seeking stunt at the behest of advocacy groups, one of which replying to say that if they had the power to make people set themselves on fire, Dutton would very much be the first to know." So it's nice to get back to childish name-calling in the Republicans.

Also there are unofficial Trump Against Humanity cards so you can make small hands great again.

[Josh_Kablack]

Rinse Penis

Wait, who?

Frank was taking a cheap shot at the RNC chairman

This guy has a funny name, but really you should make fun of him for his policy positions and beliefs

Cruz said that venereal disease was Trump's personal Vietnam

What was the context for this?

An actual Trump quote from the late 90s
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... etnam.html

[DSMatticus]

Of course, now that Cruz has actually dropped out, you're going to see a lot more Republicans pretending Donald Trump isn't a grossly unqualified and loathsome fascist. Cruz said that venereal disease was Trump's personal Vietnam, but he is still going to endorse him.

I honestly don't know about that. There's a good argument that the correct strategic choice here is to leave Trump to fend for himself against Hillary and try to rebuild their coalition. Trump doesn't really have a lot in common with the interests of the Republican leadership, and Trump's voters are already a subset of the existing Republican coalition - coming out swinging on his behalf is going to make it harder to expand their base, not easier, and that's something they desperately need to do. If they go Trump, they're basically all-in on him winning and then also all-in on him not fucking them over. If they disown him, then they can spend the next eight years pretending to go soul-searching or whatever the fuck.

There are probably a lot of people sweating that exact decision right now. I guess we'll get to find out what they do.

[Username17]

The hope is they divide on that issue. If some of them rally around Trump, some try to salvage downticket races by promoting ticket splitting, and some try to organize a third party run, they could lose this election in an explosive manner. We're hoping to turn this into their 2010, but if their strategies are as feckless and counter productive as they are looking right now, we could see the House turn blue and give Hillary a senate shaped rubber stamp to put supreme court justices on the bench. It could be very very good.

The negative possibility is that Sanders continues attacking Clinton through the convention and the Republicans put together a united strategy before Cleveland, and we end up with President Trump presiding over a red congress and signing whatever insanity they send to his desk while he insults foreign leaders and puts Americans into concentration camps.

But for now, we get to watch the recriminations and loggerheads among Republican strategists and laugh.

-Username17

[Mechalich]

I think a divide is inevitable. The question is how large of a divide and how much compensation. There are absolutely certain traditional Republican constituencies that despise Trump and will vote for him in greatly reduced numbers compared to a generic nominee. Those groups include: corporate class republicans like the National Review/WSJ reader base; Mormons and certain other religious groups that absolutely put social issues first; and probably conservative minority sub-groups like Cuban Americans who find his racist rhetoric repellent. What percentage of traditional republican voters that amounts to, and which states they reside in, matters a lot. If Cuban Americans deserting Trump in Florida is enough to swing the state, that's potentially the whole election right there.

I think Trump is almost certain to pick up disaffected white voters in some areas though. The question is how many and again in which states. His ability to channel white anger is meaningless in solidly red states but matters a lot in Ohio and Iowa. Kasich's home stand in Ohio makes speculating on Trump's potential support in that incredibly critical state difficult.

The negative possibility is that Sanders continues attacking Clinton through the convention and the Republicans put together a united strategy before Cleveland, and we end up with President Trump presiding over a red congress and signing whatever insanity they send to his desk while he insults foreign leaders and puts Americans into concentration camps.

I hope and believe that, come June 8, when the primaries are done Sanders will bow out. Fighting to the convention when he's all but guaranteed to lose on the first ballot would have a catastrophic effect on any influence he hopes to wield over a potential Clinton administration in addition to making a Trump presidency far more likely. I'm also certain Clinton will make Bernie a very generous offer along those lines. She knows how essential the youthful coalition is in key midwestern states and Colorado.

[RobbyPants]

I don't know much about Gary Johnson other than that he's running as a libertarian. Any time I hear people complain about having to vote for either Clinton or Trump, if they say a third name, it's always his.

Now, I don't see him having any chance of winning, but could this race get an unusually high turnout for a 3rd party candidate (even outside of the notion of the GOP running another candidate for down ballot votes)?

[RobbyPants]

Less than 24 hours later, Kasich is out, too.

[Josh_Kablack]

Kasich's home stand in Ohio makes speculating on Trump's potential support in that incredibly critical state difficult.

Not true. It merely makes speculation even less accurate than usual.

Ohio holds a (semi) open primary, and the buzz from the few Ohio primary voters I've personally talked to is that a lot of Kasich's votes came from people crossing party lines in the name of nevertrumpism.

A few minutes of googling turns up some wishy-washy backup, but no hard evidence for such a claim:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... iliat.html

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... t-him.html

[Ancient History]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ever-trump

The thing about Trump is that he is his own wedge issue in this election. You are either for or against Trump. You can make an anti-Trump or pro-Trump ad that consists solely of clips of Trump, and the only way you can tell the difference is whether you are personally for or against Trump. I think we've hit the Poe's Law Singularity, where anything you say about Trump can be for or against Trump depending solely on your opinion on Trump.

[Grek]

Think Sanders will finally drop out?