kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,820
|
Post by kadee79 on Oct 12, 2016 8:35:08 GMT -5
I am rural, white, female, only high school formal education, blue collar business person, lower to middle management in retail...over the years. Which group do I fit in ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/huh.gif)
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 12, 2016 9:18:31 GMT -5
One thing has certainly been proven by now: There is nowhere near enough room in the Republican brand for the Trump brand to fit inside it. And in that conflict, Donald cares NOTHING about the Republican brand.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Oct 12, 2016 9:27:04 GMT -5
I am rural, white, female, only high school formal education, blue collar business person, lower to middle management in retail...over the years. Which group do I fit in ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/huh.gif) What is important to you? What do you think the role of gov't should be?
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Oct 12, 2016 9:28:49 GMT -5
I don't know if the party is coming apart at the seams, but Mr. Trump sure appears to be. Those seams weren't strong to begin with, but they are ripping like crazy. What his actions and reactions show to me is that he does not have the temperment to hold such a office. It's true that he is worth a lot of money and if he is the reason for that...success and all..kudos to him on that but I also wonder , because of his wealth and also feel much power..he does not run into many who vocally criticize him..say "no" to his demands. In the job he is campaigning for he would be running into world leaders who because of their position in their own country and areas who would be saying no and unless he is constantly threatening these with our nations military[ which would get old very quickly]..he will not be able to cope.. Underlying all of that the man is basically a "sleeze" and I don't want a "sleeze" representing me as my world leader...
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Oct 12, 2016 9:32:21 GMT -5
I don't know if the party is coming apart at the seams, but Mr. Trump sure appears to be. Those seams weren't strong to begin with, but they are ripping like crazy. What his actions and reactions show to me is that he does not have the tempermint to hold such a office. It's true that he is worth a lot of noney and if he is the reason for that...success and all..kudos to him on that but I also wonder , because of his wealth and also feel much power..he does not run into many who vocally criticize him..say "no" to his demands. In the job he is campaigning for he would be running into world leaders who because of their position in their own country and areas who would be saying no and unless he is constantly threatning these with our nations military..he will not be able to cope.. Underlying all of that the man is basically a "sleeze" and I don't want a "sleeze" representing me as my world leader... In addition, he is used to winning in tne courts because he has a team of lawyers and can outspend on legal expenses. I don't know whether he realizes that his lawyers can't get the presidency for him. I expect him to go even more ape shit crazy when he loses and encourage his supporters to get violent.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 10:11:43 GMT -5
Personally, I think the long term effects of Trump himself will be small. Nixon resigned in 1974 and the republicans easily won in 1980.
I think the bigger problem with the GOP is their overall image, of which Trump plays a role. The GOP has got to shed their image as a cultural club and start broadening their appeal. Trump hasn't helped them do that.
If anything, I think their overall image problem is what really will hurt them in the long run. it probably won't mean much to you, but Nate Silver shares your opinion.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 10:12:56 GMT -5
I am rural, white, female, only high school formal education, blue collar business person, lower to middle management in retail...over the years. Which group do I fit in ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/huh.gif) It is difficult to quantify, isn't it? Yet that is what political strategists have to try to do. You would most likely be a Trump supporter, as would I, given our rural bc business background. However you are female, well read, and those work against Trump, as do my education, least as far as the demographics go. Of course on an individual level, o analysis like this works anyway, but the predominance of white rural males are in Trump's demo. Keep in mind too- predominance is 50+ %. the most crucial divider is gender. there is a 20% difference between men and women vis a vis Trump. if all women stayed home, Trump would win with over 400 EV.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Oct 12, 2016 10:16:52 GMT -5
It is difficult to quantify, isn't it? Yet that is what political strategists have to try to do. You would most likely be a Trump supporter, as would I, given our rural bc business background. However you are female, well read, and those work against Trump, as do my education, least as far as the demographics go. Of course on an individual level, o analysis like this works anyway, but the predominance of white rural males are in Trump's demo. Keep in mind too- predominance is 50+ %. the most crucial divider is gender. there is a 20% difference between men and women vis a vis Trump. if all women stayed home, Trump would win with over 400 EV. This article from fivethirtyeight sums it up nicely. There's a couple of really dramatic illustrations: ![](http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-womenvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1) ![](http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-menvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 10:19:53 GMT -5
the most crucial divider is gender. there is a 20% difference between men and women vis a vis Trump. if all women stayed home, Trump would win with over 400 EV. This article from fivethirtyeight sums it up nicely. There's a couple of really dramatic illustrations: ![](http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-womenvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1) ![](http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-menvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1) yeah, except i got it backwards. HC would win with over 400 EV if only WOMEN voted. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/shucks2.png) edit: i think it would be a good moment to note how seriously crazy the projections of some of the "white wave" people are. they were saying that Trump will win 49 states if their lauded "white wave" took place. i can't imagine it producing bigger results than the bottom map- which is about how much HC is projected to win by TODAY (without any wave whatsoever). in other words, even if you assume that nonsense is right, Trump would get an average sort of victory and lose all of the deep blue states.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 12, 2016 10:28:59 GMT -5
But who are, and how strong a force are, the Trumpettes? We know they are drawn from several demographics, many of them hard to quantify, or gauge real unity. - Rural white working class people, especially male, with high school educations or less. This is a hard to define and quantify group, but it is certainly out there. - Blue collar type small business people* and trades people, typically anti-regulation and tax, reflexively small government. - Many conservative groups and people, who would describe themselves as very conservative and politically active. - Some wealthy people, "one percenters", who are giving financial and other support to Trump. - Some religious groups and organizations, for whom Roe v Wade is presumably a big motivator. - Racists, bigots, misogynists and ultra-nationalists- the true "deplorables", who are probably partially drawn from most of the above groups. - Others? And who are the Republicans who are disillusioned, and tend NOT to support Trump, and in fact despise him? - Rural artisans and professionals, especially female. - People with college education and above. - Moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives. - Some wealthy people, one percenters, who vigorously oppose Trump. - Others? Will these two groups of demographics (and whom am I forgetting from each?) remain opposed after the election? Is there enough of a kernel of difference between them to really fracture the party, or will it come back together? I guess one thing that I look for is a unifying force- such as talk radio- to pull the disparate groups together. *I am a blue collar type business person, btw, in the interest of disclosure, as are many of my acquaintances. If the GOP can run a charismatic, very qualified, very down to earth, practical, fiscally conservative candidate in 4 years and stick to the message of getting our financial house in order, shoring up SSI, improving the infrastructure, and encouraging business and staying miles away from any of the socially conservative stuff, I think (s)he would draw from your second GOP group above, as well as pull over a chunk of the Trumpettes plus a bunch of moderate Dems. After 12 years of Dems at the helm, I think a fiscally conservative message would play well. If the GOP could find a Hispanic/black/female candidate to put forward, so much the better.
The Trumpette part of the GOP will feel like they aren't being represented, but they won't vote for the dems. They'll vote for their own Trumpette candidate, or they'll not vote at all.
That's how the GOP reverts to it's grand old roots. the Trumpettes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 10:34:36 GMT -5
But who are, and how strong a force are, the Trumpettes? We know they are drawn from several demographics, many of them hard to quantify, or gauge real unity. - Rural white working class people, especially male, with high school educations or less. This is a hard to define and quantify group, but it is certainly out there. - Blue collar type small business people* and trades people, typically anti-regulation and tax, reflexively small government. - Many conservative groups and people, who would describe themselves as very conservative and politically active. - Some wealthy people, "one percenters", who are giving financial and other support to Trump. - Some religious groups and organizations, for whom Roe v Wade is presumably a big motivator. - Racists, bigots, misogynists and ultra-nationalists- the true "deplorables", who are probably partially drawn from most of the above groups. - Others? And who are the Republicans who are disillusioned, and tend NOT to support Trump, and in fact despise him? - Rural artisans and professionals, especially female. - People with college education and above. - Moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives. - Some wealthy people, one percenters, who vigorously oppose Trump. - Others? Will these two groups of demographics (and whom am I forgetting from each?) remain opposed after the election? Is there enough of a kernel of difference between them to really fracture the party, or will it come back together? I guess one thing that I look for is a unifying force- such as talk radio- to pull the disparate groups together. *I am a blue collar type business person, btw, in the interest of disclosure, as are many of my acquaintances. If the GOP can run a charismatic, very qualified, very down to earth, practical, fiscally conservative candidate in 4 years and stick to the message of getting our financial house in order, shoring up SSI, improving the infrastructure, and encouraging business and staying miles away from any of the socially conservative stuff, I think (s)he would draw from your second GOP group above, as well as pull over a chunk of the Trumpettes plus a bunch of moderate Dems. After 12 years of Dems at the helm, I think a fiscally conservative message would play well. If the GOP could find a Hispanic/black/female candidate to put forward, so much the better.
The Trumpette part of the GOP will feel like they aren't being represented, but they won't vote for the dems. They'll vote for their own Trumpette candidate, or they'll not vote at all.
That's how the GOP reverts to it's grand old roots. the Trumpettes.
here is the thing, happy. that IF is extremely doubtful. in four years, the deplorables are still going to be around. and there is a 100% chance that Trump will be acting like a yard blower for that dumpster fire. i don't know how, after courting these idiots since Nixon, the GOP can suddenly get rid of them. but if you have some idea of how that happens, you let me know. the ONLY way it happens, imo, would be for the GOP to jettison primaries. that is entirely within their purview, but i would again, rate the chances of that at 0%. therefore, with the deplorables out there, someone like Trump is going to win the primary, and the GOP is going to get clobbered again in (4) years. this is a good time for GOP voters to reflect on the wisdom of how they run primaries. having (17) candidates, half of whom have basically no qualifications, running for the highest office on Earth, is no way to run a primary. edit: part of the responsibility for this lies with those running against him. the failure to take him seriously, and bring out what we know now IN THE PRIMARY, belongs to the GOP. but as oc pointed out, there is this tendency to put people out there that "can win" (even though the polling says they can't), rather than people that are actually qualified and sensible, and that is a fatal error.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 12, 2016 10:43:42 GMT -5
If the GOP can run a charismatic, very qualified, very down to earth, practical, fiscally conservative candidate in 4 years and stick to the message of getting our financial house in order, shoring up SSI, improving the infrastructure, and encouraging business and staying miles away from any of the socially conservative stuff, I think (s)he would draw from your second GOP group above, as well as pull over a chunk of the Trumpettes plus a bunch of moderate Dems. After 12 years of Dems at the helm, I think a fiscally conservative message would play well. If the GOP could find a Hispanic/black/female candidate to put forward, so much the better.
The Trumpette part of the GOP will feel like they aren't being represented, but they won't vote for the dems. They'll vote for their own Trumpette candidate, or they'll not vote at all.
That's how the GOP reverts to it's grand old roots. the Trumpettes.
here is the thing, happy. that IF is extremely doubtful. in four years, the deplorables are still going to be around. and there is a 100% chance that Trump will be acting like a yard blower for that dumpster fire. i don't know how, after courting these idiots since Nixon, the GOP can suddenly get rid of them. but if you have some idea of how that happens, you let me know. the ONLY way it happens, imo, would be for the GOP to jettison primaries. that is entirely within their purview, but i would again, rate the chances of that at 0%. therefore, with the deplorables out there, someone like Trump is going to win the primary, and the GOP is going to get clobbered again in (4) years. this is a good time for GOP voters to reflect on the wisdom of how they run primaries. having (17) candidates, half of whom have basically no qualifications, running for the highest office on Earth, is no way to run a primary. edit: part of the responsibility for this lies with those running against him. the failure to take him seriously, and bring out what we know now IN THE PRIMARY, belongs to the GOP. but as oc pointed out, there is this tendency to put people out there that "can win" (even though the polling says they can't), rather than people that are actually qualified and sensible, and that is a fatal error. In my mind, if the moderate GOPers pick a solid candidate prior to the start of the primaries and then they all rally around a few good candidates, they squeeze out the Trump style candidates. IMHO, the GOP shot themselves in the foot when they had such a giant field of candidates at the start of primary season.
I know that requires some back room deals and negotiations, which are not ideal in a democracy, but you're right, unless the GOP can re evaluate how they do their primaries, another Trump can slide in, because the less radical candidates split the rest of the vote between them.
I don't know, maybe the GOP can come up with some kind of 'pre-primary' run off and then limit the number of candidates it elevates to the 'real' primary to the top four candidates? Maybe some electronic voting poll of registered GOP voters to narrow the field?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 10:50:31 GMT -5
here is the thing, happy. that IF is extremely doubtful. in four years, the deplorables are still going to be around. and there is a 100% chance that Trump will be acting like a yard blower for that dumpster fire. i don't know how, after courting these idiots since Nixon, the GOP can suddenly get rid of them. but if you have some idea of how that happens, you let me know. the ONLY way it happens, imo, would be for the GOP to jettison primaries. that is entirely within their purview, but i would again, rate the chances of that at 0%. therefore, with the deplorables out there, someone like Trump is going to win the primary, and the GOP is going to get clobbered again in (4) years. this is a good time for GOP voters to reflect on the wisdom of how they run primaries. having (17) candidates, half of whom have basically no qualifications, running for the highest office on Earth, is no way to run a primary. edit: part of the responsibility for this lies with those running against him. the failure to take him seriously, and bring out what we know now IN THE PRIMARY, belongs to the GOP. but as oc pointed out, there is this tendency to put people out there that "can win" (even though the polling says they can't), rather than people that are actually qualified and sensible, and that is a fatal error. In my mind, if the moderate GOPers pick a solid candidate prior to the start of the primaries and then they all rally around a few good candidates, they squeeze out the Trump style candidates. IMHO, the GOP shot themselves in the foot when they had such a giant field of candidates at the start of primary season.
I know that requires some back room deals and negotiations, which are not ideal in a democracy, but you're right, unless the GOP can re evaluate how they do their primaries, another Trump can slide in, because the less radical candidates split the rest of the vote between them.
I don't know, maybe the GOP can come up with some kind of 'pre-primary' run off and then limit the number of candidates it elevates to the 'real' primary to the top four candidates? Maybe some electronic voting poll of registered GOP voters to narrow the field?
the GOP absolutely CAN limit the number of contenders in the primary. i don't know how they do that, but it is THEIR party, and they can do whatever they like, including CHOOSING THE CANDIDATE TO RUN. they have chosen to have an open process, like the Democrats, and it is producing some really awful results. they need to think long and hard about how to stop that. Romney was not a good choice, imo. but he was infinitely better than President Trump.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Oct 12, 2016 10:51:53 GMT -5
If the GOP can run a charismatic, very qualified, very down to earth, practical, fiscally conservative candidate in 4 years and stick to the message of getting our financial house in order, shoring up SSI, improving the infrastructure, and encouraging business and staying miles away from any of the socially conservative stuff
I could vote GOP if they ran someone like that.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 12, 2016 10:52:24 GMT -5
This article from fivethirtyeight sums it up nicely. There's a couple of really dramatic illustrations: ![](http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-womenvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1) ![](http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-menvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1) yeah, except i got it backwards. HC would win with over 400 EV if only WOMEN voted. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/shucks2.png) edit: i think it would be a good moment to note how seriously crazy the projections of some of the "white wave" people are. they were saying that Trump will win 49 states if their lauded "white wave" took place. i can't imagine it producing bigger results than the bottom map- which is about how much HC is projected to win by TODAY (without any wave whatsoever). in other words, even if you assume that nonsense is right, Trump would get an average sort of victory and lose all of the deep blue states. I don't know how to post images, but if you go to this guardian article and scroll down, you'll see the meme that best reflects this data - p.u.s.s.y grabs back.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/10/donald-trump--grabs-back-meme-women-twitter
I think when history reflects on this election, the unanimous opinion will be that Trump screwed the pooch when he pissed off a good chunk of 51% of the electorate. (They might also assume we were all snorting bath salts or continually drunk on moonshine, too - this election is not bringing out our best side.)
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Oct 12, 2016 10:53:42 GMT -5
here is the thing, happy. that IF is extremely doubtful. in four years, the deplorables are still going to be around. and there is a 100% chance that Trump will be acting like a yard blower for that dumpster fire. i don't know how, after courting these idiots since Nixon, the GOP can suddenly get rid of them. but if you have some idea of how that happens, you let me know. the ONLY way it happens, imo, would be for the GOP to jettison primaries. that is entirely within their purview, but i would again, rate the chances of that at 0%. therefore, with the deplorables out there, someone like Trump is going to win the primary, and the GOP is going to get clobbered again in (4) years. this is a good time for GOP voters to reflect on the wisdom of how they run primaries. having (17) candidates, half of whom have basically no qualifications, running for the highest office on Earth, is no way to run a primary. edit: part of the responsibility for this lies with those running against him. the failure to take him seriously, and bring out what we know now IN THE PRIMARY, belongs to the GOP. but as oc pointed out, there is this tendency to put people out there that "can win" (even though the polling says they can't), rather than people that are actually qualified and sensible, and that is a fatal error. In my mind, if the moderate GOPers pick a solid candidate prior to the start of the primaries and then they all rally around a few good candidates, they squeeze out the Trump style candidates. IMHO, the GOP shot themselves in the foot when they had such a giant field of candidates at the start of primary season.
I know that requires some back room deals and negotiations, which are not ideal in a democracy, but you're right, unless the GOP can re evaluate how they do their primaries, another Trump can slide in, because the less radical candidates split the rest of the vote between them.
I don't know, maybe the GOP can come up with some kind of 'pre-primary' run off and then limit the number of candidates it elevates to the 'real' primary to the top four candidates? Maybe some electronic voting poll of registered GOP voters to narrow the field?
I forget where I saw it, but I heard something the other day along the lines of "the Republicans will have super delegates by the next election"
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,142
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Oct 12, 2016 11:02:23 GMT -5
In my mind, if the moderate GOPers pick a solid candidate prior to the start of the primaries and then they all rally around a few good candidates, they squeeze out the Trump style candidates. IMHO, the GOP shot themselves in the foot when they had such a giant field of candidates at the start of primary season.
I know that requires some back room deals and negotiations, which are not ideal in a democracy, but you're right, unless the GOP can re evaluate how they do their primaries, another Trump can slide in, because the less radical candidates split the rest of the vote between them.
I don't know, maybe the GOP can come up with some kind of 'pre-primary' run off and then limit the number of candidates it elevates to the 'real' primary to the top four candidates? Maybe some electronic voting poll of registered GOP voters to narrow the field?
the GOP absolutely CAN limit the number of contenders in the primary. i don't know how they do that, but it is THEIR party, and they can do whatever they like, including CHOOSING THE CANDIDATE TO RUN. they have chosen to have an open process, like the Democrats, and it is producing some really awful results. they need to think long and hard about how to stop that. Romney was not a good choice, imo. but he was infinitely better than President Trump. From what I've observed the difficult part is getting someone who can win the primary and the general election. To win the primary - they need to be extremely conservative on social issues - but that will not go over well in the general election. And it seems that the primary has gotten more dogmatic about these issues the past few cycles. Could Jeb! have won against Hilliary?
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Oct 12, 2016 11:06:44 GMT -5
the GOP absolutely CAN limit the number of contenders in the primary. i don't know how they do that, but it is THEIR party, and they can do whatever they like, including CHOOSING THE CANDIDATE TO RUN. they have chosen to have an open process, like the Democrats, and it is producing some really awful results. they need to think long and hard about how to stop that. Romney was not a good choice, imo. but he was infinitely better than President Trump. From what I've observed the difficult part is getting someone who can win the primary and the general election. To win the primary - they need to be extremely conservative on social issues - but that will not go over well in the general election. And it seems that the primary has gotten more dogmatic about these issues the past few cycles. Could Jeb! have won against Hilliary? Their problem IS their socially conservative base. I don't think Jeb coukd have won against Hill but it would have been a tougher fight for her. He certainly would not have factured his party they way Donald has.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 11:10:56 GMT -5
the GOP absolutely CAN limit the number of contenders in the primary. i don't know how they do that, but it is THEIR party, and they can do whatever they like, including CHOOSING THE CANDIDATE TO RUN. they have chosen to have an open process, like the Democrats, and it is producing some really awful results. they need to think long and hard about how to stop that. Romney was not a good choice, imo. but he was infinitely better than President Trump. From what I've observed the difficult part is getting someone who can win the primary and the general election. To win the primary - they need to be extremely conservative on social issues - but that will not go over well in the general election. And it seems that the primary has gotten more dogmatic about these issues the past few cycles. Could Jeb! have won against Hillary? i don't think so. i think Jeb! underestimated how badly another BUSH would fare against another CLINTON. but i think that Rubio or Kasich could have beat her.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,814
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 12, 2016 11:13:39 GMT -5
yeah, except i got it backwards. HC would win with over 400 EV if only WOMEN voted. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/shucks2.png) edit: i think it would be a good moment to note how seriously crazy the projections of some of the "white wave" people are. they were saying that Trump will win 49 states if their lauded "white wave" took place. i can't imagine it producing bigger results than the bottom map- which is about how much HC is projected to win by TODAY (without any wave whatsoever). in other words, even if you assume that nonsense is right, Trump would get an average sort of victory and lose all of the deep blue states. I don't know how to post images, but if you go to this guardian article and scroll down, you'll see the meme that best reflects this data - p.u.s.s.y grabs back.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/10/donald-trump-cat-grabs-back-meme-women-twitter
I think when history reflects on this election, the unanimous opinion will be that Trump screwed the pooch when he pissed off a good chunk of 51% of the electorate. (They might also assume we were all snorting bath salts or continually drunk on moonshine, too - this election is not bringing out our best side.)
LOL! To anyone trying to open happyhoix' link: when you open the link, The Guardian website states the story cannot be found. To fix that problem, replace 'cat' in the URL with 'p*ssy'. Our board's auto correct replaced p*ssy with cat.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,814
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 12, 2016 11:20:33 GMT -5
the most crucial divider is gender. there is a 20% difference between men and women vis a vis Trump. if all women stayed home, Trump would win with over 400 EV. This article from fivethirtyeight sums it up nicely. There's a couple of really dramatic illustrations: ![](http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-womenvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1) ![](http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-menvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1) Curse that 19th amendment. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/sarcasm.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 11:23:09 GMT -5
This article from fivethirtyeight sums it up nicely. There's a couple of really dramatic illustrations: ![](http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-womenvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1) ![](http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-menvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1) Curse that 19th amendment. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/sarcasm.png) actually- THINK about that. think about how different this country has become because women vote in it. it is a really good exercise.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Oct 12, 2016 11:44:26 GMT -5
From what I've observed the difficult part is getting someone who can win the primary and the general election. To win the primary - they need to be extremely conservative on social issues - but that will not go over well in the general election. And it seems that the primary has gotten more dogmatic about these issues the past few cycles. Could Jeb! have won against Hillary? i don't think so. i think Jeb! underestimated how badly another BUSH would fare against another CLINTON. but i think that Rubio or Kasich could have beat her. Kasich was the only one in the primary bunch that I could have honestly considered voting for. Wonder if 2020 brings us a Kasich/Rubio ticket? I still see Rubio as being too young and inexperienced.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,820
|
Post by kadee79 on Oct 12, 2016 12:34:06 GMT -5
I am rural, white, female, only high school formal education, blue collar business person, lower to middle management in retail...over the years. Which group do I fit in ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/huh.gif) It is difficult to quantify, isn't it? Yet that is what political strategists have to try to do. You would most likely be a Trump supporter, as would I, given our rural bc business background. However you are female, well read, and those work against Trump, as do my education, least as far as the demographics go. Of course on an individual level, o analysis like this works anyway, but the predominance of white rural males are in Trump's demo. Keep in mind too- predominance is 50+ %. I left one thing out on purpose which might have turned your initial "supposed to be". I was a very good UNION member for many years, one of nine VPs of my local & my brother was also both an international rep and our local president for many years. Does now knowing that put me into a different demographic? And yes, I read...a lot, can't stand most of the 'stuff' on tv either.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Oct 12, 2016 12:44:41 GMT -5
i don't think so. i think Jeb! underestimated how badly another BUSH would fare against another CLINTON. but i think that Rubio or Kasich could have beat her. Kasich was the only one in the primary bunch that I could have honestly considered voting for. Wonder if 2020 brings us a Kasich/Rubio ticket? I still see Rubio as being too young and inexperienced. Kasich was the only one I think could have given Hillary a tough run. I could not vote for him because of his position on womens' rights. But, in the debates, he came across as the only adult on the stage.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,820
|
Post by kadee79 on Oct 12, 2016 12:46:40 GMT -5
I am rural, white, female, only high school formal education, blue collar business person, lower to middle management in retail...over the years. Which group do I fit in ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/huh.gif) What is important to you? What do you think the role of gov't should be? What's important to me ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/huh.gif) Oh boy, lots of things! Getting the government out of our bedrooms & vaginas is close to the top & I'm well past child bearing age. However, I was an unwed mother back in the 60's prior to Roe/Wade and I still had an opportunity to have an abortion at a hospital with a duly licensed physician...if I wanted to pay for it. So I made my choice and kept my baby. Foreign relations and all that encompasses is important. Trade is important. Taxes & who gets theirs raised is important....cause like it or not, it is going to cost all of us to fix this nation and ALL including corporations should pay their fair share with NO loop holes. Immigration needs fixed, again...if you remember it was "supposed" to have been fixed back with Reagan when he gave amnesty to so many. Another of my top ones is environmental protections. If we don't take care of it now, it won't take care of us much longer and we will alienate the human race through all the pollution....air, water & soil! Is that enough for now or do I need to list more? As an aside, I own guns, quite a few, however, I do think we need stricter laws that are nation wide (not left to each state) on the purchases of them & ammo...and comprehensive background checks prior to allowing the purchases also. I've had to do that in my state, everyone should. Some states require training prior to issuing licenses, I've never had to do that & have been licensed in 3 different states over the years. I had to jump through more hoops to get a contractor's license than I did to get a gun license.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,820
|
Post by kadee79 on Oct 12, 2016 12:50:39 GMT -5
i don't think so. i think Jeb! underestimated how badly another BUSH would fare against another CLINTON. but i think that Rubio or Kasich could have beat her. Kasich was the only one in the primary bunch that I could have honestly considered voting for. Wonder if 2020 brings us a Kasich/Rubio ticket? I still see Rubio as being too young and inexperienced. I have to declare a party in our primaries. In order to have any say in our local disputed offices, I have to declare for GOP. I voted for Kasich in the primary cause I just couldn't see any other viable candidate in that GOP group. And Kasich has done a lot of things that I totally disagree with (in his state). Gerrymandering needs to go away...one way or another....from both sides! Forgot to add, I can't stomach Rubio under any conditions. Remember he didn't like his job in the Senate, until it might have been taken from him.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,943
|
Post by haapai on Oct 12, 2016 13:06:56 GMT -5
No, I don't think the GOP has come apart at the seams. That won't happen unless they lose control over the Senate for long enough.
If they lose control over the Senate in 2016 and don't recover it in 2018, they may be in really big trouble. It's all about SCOTUS and who gets to choose the nominees and who can block them. If the possibility of overturning Roe disappears, so do a lot of pro-life voters.
Man, have they been treating those voters like dirt by asking them to vote for Trump!
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,820
|
Post by kadee79 on Oct 12, 2016 13:07:04 GMT -5
From what I've observed the difficult part is getting someone who can win the primary and the general election. To win the primary - they need to be extremely conservative on social issues - but that will not go over well in the general election. And it seems that the primary has gotten more dogmatic about these issues the past few cycles. Could Jeb! have won against Hilliary? That's were the "etch-a-sketch" comes in...erase & start over for the general election....how did that work? No, I can't see Jeb having won, not following GW's history! And since his son George came out & backed Trump, I think that really put a nail in that coffin!
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Oct 12, 2016 13:17:33 GMT -5
No, I don't think the GOP has come apart at the seams. That won't happen unless they lose control over the Senate for long enough. If they lose control over the Senate in 2016 and don't recover it in 2018, they may be in really big trouble. It's all about SCOTUS and who gets to choose the nominees and who can block them. If the possibility of overturning Roe disappears, so do a lot of pro-life voters. Man, have they been treating those voters like dirt by asking them to vote for Trump! That's an interesting point. Assume HRC wins the WH and the Dems take the Senate in 2016 (as current polls suggest. The current empty slot on the SC gets filled right away, thus guaranteed at least one more moderate. Then Ruth Bader Ginsberg retires and is replaced by someone with similar views. All before 2018..... What do the anti choice folks do then? And what effect will that have on the GOP?
|
|