Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 May '16 11:55
    He's not very optimistic about the Donald's chances:

    Now, regarding realities: In 2012, 93 percent of self-described Republicans who voted did so for Mitt Romney. Trump probably cannot receive 80 percent of what probably will be, because of discouragement and revulsion, a smaller Republican turnout. Romney lost 73 percent of the Hispanic vote; Trump is viewed unfavorably by 82 percent of Hispanics and very unfavorably by 62 percent. Trump probably will receive significantly less than Romney’s ruinous 27 percent of this vote. And because of demographic trends and Trump’s motivating policies and insults, Hispanic turnout probably will be significantly larger than in 2012, as the white percentage of the electorate continues to shrink. Romney won just 37 percent of young voters (18-29); Trump is unlikely even to match this.

    Although Romney won 53 percent of married women, he received just 44 percent of the total female vote. Today, Trump trails Hillary Clinton among women by 19 points (35 percent to 54 percent), and most women probably do not yet know that he testifies to the excellence of his penis. (”My fingers are long and beautiful, as, has been well-documented, are various other parts of my body.&rdquo Or that his idea of masculinity is to boast about conquests of women “often seemingly very happily married” and that “I have been able to date (screw).” Or that he says “it doesn’t really matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

    In receiving, so far, the support of 4.7 percent of America’s eligible voters, Trump has won a mere plurality of votes in a party approved by only 33 percent of the electorate. This electorate had about 5 percent more Democrats than Republicans even before Trump further tarnished the GOP brand. So, Republicans need to carry independents by more than Romney’s five points. Even in states that have voted Republican since 2000, Trump is viewed unfavorably by 62 percent and strongly unfavorably by 52 percent.

    http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/05/05/who-follow-trump-off-cliff/83974026/

    Yikes. And this is from a Republican conservative.
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    07 May '16 12:26 / 1 edit
    Trump is having the same effect on conservatives that Obama did when he first ran. Obama inspired a lot of blacks who were normally indifferent or cynical about voting. Similarly, Trump has fired up many people in a way that's been unseen for decades.

    Most conservatives support Republicans mostly because they don't want a Democrat running things. With Trump, there's genuine like and excitement for him. His supporters are actually quite fanatical, and truly love Trump; that's unlike how it was with Romney, McCain, Bush, and Dole. I think there will be a higher conservative turnout this year, because of it. Any Republicans who hate Trump will still vote him, because they don't want three consecutive presidential terms with a Democratic president.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 May '16 12:30
    Originally posted by vivify
    Trump is having the same effect on conservatives that Obama did when he first ran. Obama inspired a lot of blacks who were normally indifferent or cynical about voting. Similarly, Trump has fired up many people in a way that's been unseen for decades.

    Most conservatives support Republicans mostly because they don't want a Democrat running things. With ...[text shortened]... e him, because they don't want three consecutive presidential terms with a Democratic president.
    Unlike you, Will actually has some evidence to support his position.
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    07 May '16 12:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Unlike you, Will actually has some evidence to support his position.
    You started the thread by saying Will is "not very optimistic about the Donald's chances". Want "evidence"? MANY pundits, experts, etc., have said expressed the exact same thought, including many Republicans. The doubted his chances when he first announced, they doubted him even more after his Mexican/rapist comments, and they continued to doubt him after he wanted to ban Muslims. Guess what? They were all dead wrong.
  5. Standard member vivify
    rain
    07 May '16 12:45 / 1 edit
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-will-i-hope-trump-runs-and-gets-shellacked-so-we-can-end-this-charade/

    “One dollar on Donald Trump in the hope that he will be tempted to run, be predictably shellacked, and we will be spared evermore this quadrennial charade of his.”---George Will.

    He was wrong back then (this link is from August, 2015), why should we believe he's right now?
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 May '16 12:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    You started the thread by saying Will is "not very optimistic about the Donald's chances". Want "evidence"? MANY pundits, experts, etc., have said expressed the exact same thought, including many Republicans. The doubted his chances when he first announced, they doubted him even more after his Mexican/rapist comments, and they continued to doubt him after he wanted to ban Muslims. Guess what? They were all dead wrong.
    Maybe you should actually read the article and the statistics he gives. That is "evidence".

    Here's another article with detailed data showing why Trump is likely to get crushed: http://www.salon.com/2016/05/05/donald_trump_will_not_be_president_history_polling_data_and_demographics_all_point_to_a_single_result_partner/
  7. Standard member vivify
    rain
    07 May '16 23:27
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Unlike you, Will actually has some evidence to support his position.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trump-touts-gop-turnout/

    Voter turnout for republican primaries have been the highest they've been since 1980, when Fact Check's source first started traking this. I'm correct in saying Trump has attracted more conservative voters than previous candidates.

    Any increase in Hispanic voters against Trump will likely be cancelled out, because of this.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 May '16 04:08
    Originally posted by vivify
    http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trump-touts-gop-turnout/

    Voter turnout for republican primaries have been the highest they've been since 1980, when Fact Check's source first started traking this. I'm correct in saying Trump has attracted more conservative voters than previous candidates.

    Any increase in Hispanic voters against Trump will likely be cancelled out, because of this.
    LMAO! One, the article is a month and a half old and Republican primary turnout has been sharply below Democratic turnout since then. In sum, Hillary has received almost two million more votes than Trump and Bernie only about a million less.

    Second, you apparently didn't even read your own link:

    There is no relationship we can discern between turnout for the primary and caucuses and how one does in the general election,” Burden told us in a phone interview.
    Burden’s conclusion was echoed in an analysis of primary voter turnout by FiveThirtyEight, posted under the self-explanatory headline, “Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election.” FiveThirtyEight noted that in the six elections in which both parties had competitive primaries, going back to 1976, the party that had the highest primary turnout won the popular vote in the general election three times and lost three times. The analysis also found that in four of five elections, the party with the larger raw increase in primary voter turnout from the previous election lost the popular vote in the general election. And in terms of percentage change, the party whose primary turnout improved the most won the popular vote in the general election only two out of five times.
    There are examples that back up Trump’s point, such as in 2008, when very high Democratic turnout preceded a Democratic victory in the November general election. But there are as many instances when the reverse happened. In 1988, for example, Democrats had a much higher primary turnout than Republicans, but the Republican, George H.W. Bush handily defeated the Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis, in the general election.
    In other words, Burden said, “There’s no relationship at all.”

    So there is no "this" that will be cancelled out by higher Hispanic turnout.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    08 May '16 04:42
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    LMAO! One, the article is a month and a half old and Republican primary turnout has been sharply below Democratic turnout since then. In sum, Hillary has received almost two million more votes than Trump and Bernie only about a million less.

    Second, you apparently didn't even read your own link:

    There is no relationship we can discern between turno ...[text shortened]... ionship at all.”

    So there is no "this" that will be cancelled out by higher Hispanic turnout.
    The bottom line is nothing will get done unless Democrats win both houses AND the presidency.
  10. Standard member vivify
    rain
    08 May '16 04:47 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    LMAO! One, the article is a month and a half old and Republican primary turnout has been sharply below Democratic turnout since then. In sum, Hillary has received almost two million more votes than Trump and Bernie only about a million less.

    Second, you apparently didn't even read your own link:

    There is no relationship we can discern between turno ...[text shortened]... ionship at all.”

    So there is no "this" that will be cancelled out by higher Hispanic turnout.
    You can't look at statistics alone. If you look at only statistics, you'd have a point. However, you can't ignore the context.

    As the link says, in 2008, a high turnout in the primaries was followed up by a victory for Democrats. What happened in 2008? People were excited by Obama in a way few presidential candidates could replicate. He was a (relatively) young black candidate, whose presence inspired blacks (and young Democrats of all races) who were normally apathetic to vote.

    Fast forward, we have Trump (a politically incorrect non-establishment type) who elicits the same type of excitement from the conservative base, just like Obama.

    Lastly, you can't say there's no correlation between Trump and the increase in voter turnout. The Republican debates resulted in CNN charging advertisers forty times the normal rate for debates. What do you attribute that to? Coincidence? Clearly, the excitement over the Republican primaries is due to Trump.

    And that's why the Hispanic vote may very well be cancelled out: the rise in conservative voters ready to back Trump, similar to what happened with Obama.
  11. Standard member vivify
    rain
    08 May '16 05:06
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    LMAO! One, the article is a month and a half old and Republican primary turnout has been sharply below Democratic turnout since then. In sum, Hillary has received almost two million more votes than Trump and Bernie only about a million less.
    Again, context (something you seem to have a problem with).

    Why would a primary that had a record turnout start to decline in the last month? Obviously, Trump has been slaughtering his opponents from the very beginning. Trump has always maintained a lead of at least twice the amount of delegates as his nearest rival. Most people would agree that the Republican race has long been over, even here on RHP. If the delegate count was even remotely close, it's quite likely that there would still be a high voter turnout like at the beginning.

    Meanwhile, Bernie vs. Hillary is much closer; unlike with the Republicans, more than one Democrat had realistic chances of winning the nomination. The New York primary (which was pretty much the deciding factor) was less than a month ago. So is it really a mystery why there's been a smaller Republican vs. Democratic turnout in the last month?
  12. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    08 May '16 05:51
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    He's not very optimistic about the Donald's chances:

    Now, regarding realities: In 2012, 93 percent of self-described Republicans who voted did so for Mitt Romney. Trump probably cannot receive 80 percent of what probably will be, because of discouragement and revulsion, a smaller Republican turnout. Romney lost 73 percent of the Hispanic vote; Trump i ...[text shortened]... 05/05/who-follow-trump-off-cliff/83974026/

    Yikes. And this is from a Republican conservative.
    Very true. "The Donald" has successfully alienated many voters, and in doing so, done some political damage, not only to himself, but the GOP in general. Well, as one of my favorite songwriters once said:

    "The more it changes, the more it stays the same, and the hand just rearranges the players in the game"

    They'll always be another election.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 May '16 06:18
    Originally posted by vivify
    You can't look at statistics alone. If you look at only statistics, you'd have a point. However, you can't ignore the context.

    As the link says, in 2008, a high turnout in the primaries was followed up by a victory for Democrats. What happened in 2008? People were excited by Obama in a way few presidential candidates could replicate. He was a (relativ ...[text shortened]... d out: the rise in conservative voters ready to back Trump, similar to what happened with Obama.
    Actually Trump does his worst among the conservative base:

    Exit polling in the primaries found Trump doing less well with people who are the most conservative.

    Across all states so far where exit polling data is available, Trump voters included 36 percent of those who are very conservative, 43 percent of those who are somewhat conservative and 41 percent of moderates.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/conservatives-worry-about-direction-of-party-under-trump/

    So your theory makes little sense. There is no group that doesn't already vote that Trump is likely to mobilize in a general election; he has no ethnic base nor does he poll particularly well among young voters. So the Obama comparison is apples and oranges; Obama never had anything like the massive unfavorable ratings that Trump has.

    There are also ten million less registered Republicans than registered Democrats and that figure has hardly changed during the primary campaign. As Will says, a Republican candidate has to win the independent vote big. But independents absolutely hate Trump.

    Romney lost by about 5 million votes. There aren't 5 million conservatives who both A) Sat on their hands and didn't vote for Romney but will B) Come out to vote for Trump. And every reasonable analysis suggest Trump is going to do worse in most growing demographic areas. The only silver lining for him is that Hillary is reasonably unpopular too among independents but at nowhere near the levels Trump is despised by them.

    Your reasoning is based on phantoms.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 May '16 06:29 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by vivify
    Again, context (something you seem to have a problem with).

    Why would a primary that had a record turnout start to decline in the last month? Obviously, Trump has been slaughtering his opponents from the very beginning. Trump has always maintained a lead of at least twice the amount of delegates as his nearest rival. Most people would agree that the R ...[text shortened]... really a mystery why there's been a smaller Republican vs. Democratic turnout in the last month?
    You obviously haven't followed the election very closely. Trump's nomination chances were still very much in the air until he swept the Northeast primaries on April 26; he had suffered a string of defeats in early April including a bad one in Wisconsin.

    Virtually every pundit I have read was saying the exact opposite of what you are claiming; Hillary has had the nomination firmly in her grasp since Super Tuesday while it was still questionable whether Trump could avoid a contested convention until Indiana. Thus, your arguments are counter to reality.
  15. Standard member vivify
    rain
    08 May '16 12:15
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Actually Trump does his worst among the conservative base:

    Exit polling in the primaries found Trump doing less well with people who are the most conservative.

    Across all states so far where exit polling data is available, Trump voters included 36 percent of those who are very conservative, 43 percent of those who are somewhat conservative and 41 p ...[text shortened]... ut at nowhere near the levels Trump is despised by them.

    Your reasoning is based on phantoms.
    Let's keep this simple:

    Why has Trump won by such wide margins in the primaries if he's so unpopular with conservatives? Why does Trump currently have double the delegates of his nearest rival? Why has Trump's poll numbers been constantly higher than anyone else in the Republican race?