|
Squizzle posted:All right, I've been playing with RCP's demographics and turnout 2016 calculator, and I'm pretty sure reality has stumped Trump for the general. I'm phoneposting, and all these pictures are screenshots from my phone that I've tried to crop and resize so they won't look too hilariously huge on a normal computer. Sorry if they still look weird. Hey thanks for the excellent post. So is the tl;dr basically "this election is up to whether whites vote Trump or let Hillary win?"
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:50 |
|
|
Squizzle posted:
She won't, though. There's a reason Obama beat her last cycle, and it wasn't just the minority vote. I mean yeah statistically she's still the odds-on favorite to win but it's by no means a given that she'll match Obama's share of anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
What happened in the last 24 hours that this thread is over 1k posts? All I saw was the Sessions endorsement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
User posted:I don't actually disagree with you, once you make the mental leap that the USA sets all of its own accounting rules, and all payments happen on a computer system. The liability will be placed on Mexico's side of the ledger and some offsetting asset will be created somewhere, and yeah there will probably be politicking to give Mexican politicians something compelling to tell their citizens. look, man, when i said it's possible, i meant via some fuckery with nafta and imposing tariffs or the like. there is absolutely no chance of us simply adding to mexican sovereign debt owed to the united states in the way you've described. this is so far outside the realm of the possible that i'm surprised you even considered it as an option. the number one reason is that one major reason we are trusted as the world's reserve currency and so much foreign investment is in US t-bills is that we have never unilaterally monkeyed around with our balance of assets and debts like that. if we did the global aftershocks would be massive, it would make the great recession look like the roaring 20s. there's no way we'd walk away from that as the world's reserve currency. i was thinking in terms of countervailing tariffs being laid against US goods until we came to our senses, but if we really just went in and tinkered with the balance sheet the result would be the complete thermonuclear annihilation of the US economy as we experienced a kind of, i guess you'd call it flight-from-quality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:I'm not a Trump supporter, but I have a hard time believing that he couldn't just browbeat Mexico into paying for the wall and no one except Mexico would really care all that much. What about the rest of Latin America / the Caribbean? There's a lot of trade at risk and a lot of resources the US would like to get their hands on, and I'd imagine our "yeah well gently caress you, neighborino" tough guy stance wouldn't sit well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:
Why do you think white support for Trump declines as turnout increases? If anything it'd be the other way around -- a lot of politically disaffected poor whites are being rallied by Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:What happened in the last 24 hours that this thread is over 1k posts? All I saw was the Sessions endorsement. Rubio's put some new material in his standup set.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:What happened in the last 24 hours that this thread is over 1k posts? All I saw was the Sessions endorsement. Rubio hit Trump on the fingers thing and Rubio made some ill-advised hints at his long-ago night in the park in Florida. Also Joementum surrendered to Trump. Anyway: Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE posted:Mr. Trump’s relentless focus is on dividing Americans, and on tearing down rather than building back up this glorious nation. Much like President Obama, he displays essentially no understanding of the fact that, in the American system, we have a constitutional system of checks and balances, with three separate but co-equal branches of government. And the task of public officials is to be public “servants.” The law is king, and the people are boss. But have you noticed how Mr. Trump uses the word “Reign” – like he thinks he’s running for King? It’s creepy, actually. Nebraskans are not looking for a king. We yearn instead for the recovery of a Constitutional Republic. This is not an easy statement to walk back. Worth remembering that Senator Dr. Ben Sasse, Ph.D. (History, Yale), has pretensions of being the intellectual head of the Republican Senate caucus and probably despises Trump in more ways than one. It'll be interesting if he keeps up the third-party chatter when the general starts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:All right, I've been playing with RCP's demographics and turnout 2016 calculator, and I'm pretty sure reality has stumped Trump for the general. I'm phoneposting, and all these pictures are screenshots from my phone that I've tried to crop and resize so they won't look too hilariously huge on a normal computer. Sorry if they still look weird. If the race is that close, I would expect Iowa to be very close, or likely flipping to Trump. I'm kind of confused about the maps that show R's winning all of the swing states but D's somewhat comfortably winning Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What's amazing about that part of the equation is that you know it would begin the second Trump was elected anyway, unless he immediately started walking his rhetoric back. I've got no idea how much that would help or hurt his election chances in the general, given him being there in the first place is already totally nuts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Why do you think white support for Trump declines as turnout increases? If anything it'd be the other way around -- a lot of politically disaffected poor whites are being rallied by Trump. I'm not certain this accounts for all of it, but it's important to keep in mind that the white share of the vote is less now than it was in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:What happened in the last 24 hours that this thread is over 1k posts? All I saw was the Sessions endorsement. drowning our denial in shitposts
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:You're going to hear increasing rumbles from the rest of the world the moment Trump officially becomes the GOP nominee. I'm hoping basically every country in the world will sit down with Obama and say, "Okay, dude, not all of us like you and you don't like all of us, but let's hash some poo poo out to make sure this clown doesn't win."
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm not certain this accounts for all of it, but it's important to keep in mind that the white share of the vote is less now than it was in 2008. Well his charts have specifically the white support for Trump going from 59% to 56% to 54% as turnout increases from whites.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
if you are a nation that, like most nations on earth, engages in extensive trade and both holds some debt of most of your trade partners and has some of your debt held by them, and one of your trade partners unilaterally decides that one of its other partners owes it hundreds of millions of dollars more, you move all of your money out of that country as fast as loving possible, because what if they decide tomorrow that they don't owe you anything? or you owe them twice as much? you can't possibly trust them to maintain their balance sheet since they've already shown that they're willing to break it when they feel like it, and they're so much larger than you that you can't possibly counteract them with your own foreign debt holdings. you are also capable of political cooperation with similar countries. and now here's another major country with a huge economy, offering to pick up some of your debt and offering you a safe place to rest your investment income. pictured: xi jinping's office five minutes after the us announcement that we made mexico pay for the wall: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Nobody cares bitch. TRUMP
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Well his charts have specifically the white support for Trump going from 59% to 56% to 54% as turnout increases from whites. That's a good question; I don't have an answer for that one, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Why do you think white support for Trump declines as turnout increases? If anything it'd be the other way around -- a lot of politically disaffected poor whites are being rallied by Trump. I should have said this in the post, but I was setting white support for Trump to the highest I could, out to a reasonable number of decimal places, with Hillary still winning. I wanted to see how poorly the Democratic candidate could afford do among white voters, if the "Trump changes everything for the GOP among minorities, while also driving white enthusiasm!" rhetoric was true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm hoping basically every country in the world will sit down with Obama and say, "Okay, dude, not all of us like you and you don't like all of us, but let's hash some poo poo out to make sure this clown doesn't win."
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:U.N.: "gently caress it, we're moving back to Geneva". "The Swiss are less racist. Do you hear me, America? The Swiss are less racist than you."
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Prof. Lurker posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY6ikbLJbGg How have you not seen their videos before? The political ones get posted in D&D all the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Kings Of Calabria posted:Much like the desert is a wall, the Rio Grande is a moat for a pretty significant part of the border. I just don't get why people (not you) don't understand that border crossing is a feat and the challenge of a new wall wouldn't make a huge difference in the numbers. It's a prop. In 2000 the Rio Grande failed to reach the coast. I crossed in in 2002 by foot pretty easily in west texas. It still has problems where it gets really low and slow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:U.N.: "gently caress it, we're moving back to Geneva". We'll melt the steel of the UN headquarters for the foundation of the wall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:We'll melt the steel of the UN headquarters for the foundation of the wall. It'll get half-built, then abandoned, melted down again, and turned into a giant statue of Der Trumpenfuhrer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
I live right next to the Rio, way up north mind you but still, and it's a pretty shallow river along huge swathes of its length. It's ankle high in a lot of spots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Now that this primary is winding down, what amazes me compared to 2008, at least, and maybe to a certain extent 2012 as well, is how finished a lot of these candidates seem to be. Jeb will almost certainly never again pursue office. He'll be reluctant to even show his face in public again. Cruz's entire existence seems superfluous now that he's taken on his party directly and failed. Rubio might not be completely done, but he certainly has embarrassed himself far too seriously to make a credible run in 2020. This entire primary has just been a meat grinder of prominent Republicans. All their up-and-coming talent is tainted now. Compare to 2008, where Romney and Huckabee escaped with plenty of dignity. Romney had no problem jumping back into the fray in 2012 and seeming like he belonged. Huckabee took some time on the pundit/grifter circuit, but his 3rd place finish (or maybe he ended 2nd in delegates because he stuck around so long) didn't really seem to hurt his image. His brand was made more valuable by his run. I sure do not see that in this cycle. Walker got out early enough that his humiliation was relatively modest. He came off looking like a lightweight. Not the end of the world. But everyone who stuck around to fight ended up in rough shape. It's exciting to see the wheels coming off the Republican party like this. I hope they have no one they can even pretend is electable in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Just having fun playing around with the RCP calculator: it seems that all else being equal to 2012, the Democratic candidate would have to win 63% of the white vote in order to complete a 538–0 sweep and be unanimously elected president. Wyoming is the last holdout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:She won't, though. There's a reason Obama beat her last cycle, and it wasn't just the minority vote. Not being black probably does earn her at least half a point higher share of the white vote than he got.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Not being black probably does earn her at least half a point higher share of the white vote than he got. Assuming that she brings white voters back, yes. I wonder how many will be eager to jump back on board. I also wonder what she loses in terms of national pv by virtue of being a woman?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Not being black probably does earn her at least half a point higher share of the white vote than he got. Statistically, Obama lost about 5% of the white vote overall due to race, from the studies that have been done on that. The question is what percentage Hillary's going to lose due to misogyny / personal dislike of Hillary. There are a LOT of people who Just Don't Like Her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
I actually think Bush has a recent shot at the nomination in 2020. Clinton would have won in this scenario, so he can play the I Told You So card, and four years is enough time to burnish his resume, find better staff and coach to hide the dorkiness, which won't be nearly as bad absent Trump. Rubio will be governing Florida and waiting until 2024. Kasich might make a go of it, Cruz too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:look, man, when i said it's possible, i meant via some fuckery with nafta and imposing tariffs or the like. there is absolutely no chance of us simply adding to mexican sovereign debt owed to the united states in the way you've described. this is so far outside the realm of the possible that i'm surprised you even considered it as an option. the number one reason is that one major reason we are trusted as the world's reserve currency and so much foreign investment is in US t-bills is that we have never unilaterally monkeyed around with our balance of assets and debts like that. if we did the global aftershocks would be massive, it would make the great recession look like the roaring 20s. there's no way we'd walk away from that as the world's reserve currency. i was thinking in terms of countervailing tariffs being laid against US goods until we came to our senses, but if we really just went in and tinkered with the balance sheet the result would be the complete thermonuclear annihilation of the US economy as we experienced a kind of, i guess you'd call it flight-from-quality. We already did this. It was called a bank bailout and it was like 7 trillion dollars. No one will even notice a billion here or there over 10 years. Flight from quality requires an alternative. What are you going to flee to? No matter what horse poo poo our central bankers pull, the USD is still the standard because it's a better option than the alternatives. You're thinking about this intelligently though, that's good. Realize what's operative isn't "reserve currency status" which is operationally meaningless nonsense brought to you by the same people who explain things with "animal spirits" but rather being the sovereign currency of a country whose economic output is about a quarter of the global total and has an above average track record for political stability. User fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Squizzle. I think you are underestimating how many democrats, especially the younger generations, are going to sit this one out if Hillary is the nominee. Look at the turnouts for each parties respective primaries. Elections are all about motivation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Would Paul Ryan run in 2020?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:Iirc TPP overrides some NAFTA stuff and expands it generally so you'd have to get rid of that too. TPP won't pass even if Hillary gets elected
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
The United States spending on its own account is a bit different to summarily stealing from Mexico for extremely obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Not at all. That's why I know Trump is really insecure and doesn't actually have a very good sense of humor about himself. Majorian, you come across as a bit of a weiner, you know. Its almost like you don't even want to make America great again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Base Camp Blanket posted:It's exciting to see the wheels coming off the Republican party like this. I hope they have no one they can even pretend is electable in 2020. It's very exciting and we've all known this day would come ever since someone ran babby's first demographics projection stats but Jesus Christ this better result in the best-case scenario (we get an actual center-right party and an actual center-left party) and not the worst-case scenario (the GOP gets replaced with something smaller but much, much worse) or one of the more plausible scenarios (the GOP continue to ruthlessly obstruct absolutely everything in a rage thanks to gerrymandering; the Dems get even lazier and basically start to replace the GOP). This situation seems unprecedented so it's difficult to see what's going to happen is all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Base Camp Blanket posted:Now that this primary is winding down, what amazes me compared to 2008, at least, and maybe to a certain extent 2012 as well, is how finished a lot of these candidates seem to be. Jeb will almost certainly never again pursue office. He'll be reluctant to even show his face in public again. Cruz's entire existence seems superfluous now that he's taken on his party directly and failed. Rubio might not be completely done, but he certainly has embarrassed himself far too seriously to make a credible run in 2020. This entire primary has just been a meat grinder of prominent Republicans. All their up-and-coming talent is tainted now. They won't need to run anybody else when Trump is incumbent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:50 |
|
|
L-Boned posted:Squizzle. I think you are underestimating how many democrats, especially the younger generations, are going to sit this one out if Hillary is the nominee. Look at the turnouts for each parties respective primaries. Elections are all about motivation. College students don't vote anyway and the Bernouts will get over it by the time November and the Spectre of Il Douche roll around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:32
|
|