2016 US Presidential Election Pt. III

[Oregoropa]

In our celebrity-obsessed culture Trump stands the most to gain in picking up non-traditional GOP voters. In a head to head matchup with Hillary in a poll about a month ago he drew 25% support of African-Americans, which is unheard of for a GOP candidate. The Teamsters are withholding their support for Clinton, because they are intrigued by Trump's economic plans. More jobs means more union membership.

[Mrs. Garrison]

It's going to take someone like a TRUMP! to break through because the demographics just aren't there for the GOP otherwise.

I had two coworkers who were African-American and both of them voted for Bush in 04 and then for Obama in 08 & 12. While both of them have since moved on, one retired and one is in a different department, i spoke with them about the last election and came to the conclusion that both were:

against same sex marriage
against the ACA
Support drug testing welfare recipients
against abortion
against amnesty

While that is a small sample you could draw your own conclusion as to why they chose to vote for Obama. Both of them were very religious and didn't mind telling me that being gay "was a sin" in their explanation as to why they were against same sex marriage.

When i asked them why the voted for Bush in 04, they said they "didn't really have a choice" and went with the guy "who mostly reflected our values".

I'm not sure who that "guy" or person would be today, however, thinking to the African-American community as a whole, many that i run across seem to be religious and more conservative in their values than their voting demographic would indicate.

Back to TRUMP!, since he is a celebrity and rides around in a chauffeur driven Rolls Royce or flown around in helicopters, private jets, even a blinged-out airliner, he has casino's everywhere, golf courses, hotels, etc. There is in fact a celebrity obsessed culture in which fame & money = power, and bling is king.

I can see where people who would not traditionally vote for the GOP might be seriously looking at TRUMP! because he is part bully & part boss, he is certainly not weak or does not falter, as some might perceive the current occupant in the WH. If one thing is consistent people do want change.

[deep]

Trump won't do any worse than (self-deport) Romney with Latinos.
Without Romney's 47% statement the election would have been close.
Trump will get more blue collar voters than Romney. Trump is the GOP's best bet.

[Oregoropa]

Something with Carson I just learned which may have a negative effect on him is the fact that he is a Seventh-Day Adventist denomination of Christianity. Its one of those fringe sects similar to Mormonism in that it was founded in America in 1863 and has certain tenets that don't jive with Evangelicals. They observe Saturday as the Sabbath instead of Sunday and have practices that have no root in the Bible. Trump was recently asked in an interview about Carson being SDA and Trump said he didn't know much about the faith. Many evangelicals stayed home because they viewed Romney's Mormonism as a cult. I think mainstream evangelicals don't take as harsh a view towards SDA, but I suspect it will put a dent in Carson.

[martha]

Plus, Carson's nuts.

[Irvine511]

So it sounds like Carson is going to win Iowa.

[anitram]

Certainly looks like it. Though I think he'll crash and burn in the bigger states.

Imagine him up against Hillary. She'd eat him alive.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

In a head to head matchup with Hillary in a poll about a month ago he drew 25% support of African-Americans,

I question this number; another Heritage Foundation poll?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[deep]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

So it sounds like Carson is going to win Iowa.

Iowa and NH are short news cycle stories. One just needs to be in the top tier

[Irvine511]

Lots of crazy people have won Iowa. I expect 2016 to be no different.

[ntalwar]

Originally Posted by deep

Trump won't do any worse than (self-deport) Romney with Latinos.
Without Romney's 47% statement the election would have been close.
Trump will get more blue collar voters than Romney. Trump is the GOP's best bet.

Trump's favorable rating among Hispanics is only 11%.

AP-GfK Poll: Trump Seen Favorably by 11% of Hispanics

[BigMacPhisto]

Also, that election was never close prior to Romney's 47% remarks. If you were following along, you'd know that Obama's chances of winning never really slipped below 90% with the exception of the first debate where it dropped to like 82 or something on FiveThirtyEight. He led electorally the entire time and in basically all of the nationwide polls by a healthy margin and the end result was that the polling had been favoring Romney by an extra 1% across the board throughout the entire campaign cycle.

Romney had no chance just like the next Republican nominee has no chance. There is now a built in set of demographics that ensures that the Democrats can't lose the Presidency anymore and they're gaining about a 2.5 million voter advantage every four years currently. So Hillary begins with an extra bit of padding in the form of 5 million more expected Democratic voters than what Obama had in 2008. As Trump would say, that's huuuuuuge.

On top of it, Republicans act like Trump's remarks about Latinos or Carson's remarks about rape and abortion won't hurt them much in the general election when in fact it disqualifies them completely. Senators in red states, for example, with massive polling leads lost in 2012 by making statements saying they were against abortion no matter the circumstances. That would automatically make Carson a big loser if he's the nominee. If anything, the party's establishment would do more to try and stop him than they would Trump because of those remarks.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Lots of crazy people have won Iowa. I expect 2016 to be no different.

Carson's looking about right. Iowa is very insular and evangelical, so not paying attention to the national scene and going for the person that best represents their faith makes it seem like Carson has this in the bag. I mean, come on, the guy friggin' sleep walks through the debates, answering questions like a timid mouse and his poll numbers continue to rise. He's got the crazy and Christian down pat and that special weapon, letting Republicans say they aren't racist because they voted for a black guy, being his ace up his sleeve.

And some recent polling had Republicans actually saying by a wide majority that he's the guy that can best beat the Democrats next November. Seriously. Many of his supporters have already made comments thinking that because he's black, he'll be able to ring a lot of black votes. I see him doing worse with blacks than Romney, actually. Between Sanders' civil rights career, Black Lives Matter support and racial justice platform and Hillary's black-by-proxy by working for the black President, I wouldn't be shocked if the percentages were the same among black voters. Yes, turnout will drop with the group because there isn't a black Democrat on the ballot, but otherwise, there's no way Carson makes in roads with "his own" community.

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by deep

Iowa and NH are short news cycle stories. One just needs to be in the top tier

That is true but with that said...

2012 Romney (NH) (basically tied with Santorum, Iowa)
2008 McCain (NH) Huckabee (Iowa, McCain was 4th)
2004 Bush (incumbent, unopposed in Iowa + NH)
2000 Bush (Iowa) McCain (NH) - Bush was 2nd
1996 Dole (Iowa) (Buchanan won NH, Dole was 2nd)
1992 Bush (incumbent but was opposed in Iowa + NH)

That's 5 of 6 in NH. With the statistical tie in 2012, that's also 5 of 6 in Iowa.

In New Hampshire, Nixon won 68, 72, Ford in 76, Reagan in 80, 84 and Bush in 1988. In other words, that's 11 of 12 in New Hampshire, with the one exception being a second place finish by Bush in 2000. Clearly New Hampshire matters quite a bit. Iowa is a bit more screwy and can probably be largely ignored (beyond eliminating a bunch of low and mid-tier folks) but still it matters some just in terms of the numbers.

Granted, this 'system' is predicated on establishment funding. So it will be interesting to see where the money goes in this anti-establishment cycle. Trump doesn't apply to that in any event but he might win both or either and will likely finish no lower than 2nd anyway. In other words, he's gonna keep spending his own money regardless.

So yeah, the winner of either is not always the GOP nominee, clearly, but if you can't finish 1st or 2nd in either one, you're basically done. McCain finished 4th in Iowa in 2008 but won NH. Buchanan won NH in 1996 but Dole was 2nd. So basically after Iowa + NH, we will have a maximum of 4 credible GOP candidates, the 1st, 2nd place finishers in both, unless someone is 3rd in either and very surprising in SC (but surely no later than Nevada).

I'd say this comfortably...we will be down to 5 legitimate GOP candidates max by Feb 11th. And maybe just 4 (2 establishment vs 2 anti-establishment). Though, with the split in the party, I'd say 5 might be a better number. Especially considering one candidate doesn't need the money.

Iowa and New Hampshire will give us the 2 establishment candidates, that much I think is easy to predict. I count Cruz as establishment because he's a Senator and aside from baiting rhetoric, is enough of a 'company guy'.

[LuckyNumber7]

Ted Cruz is not a serious contender for president of the United States.

[Mrs. Garrison]

fuck ted cruz

[Oregoropa]

If everybody is so sure of what can and cannot happen in the election, why not make a little scratch.

www.predictit.org

It's basically a future's market with penny stocks. I put some 10 bucks in and bought some shares. Makes it even more fun to watch.

And you can bet against candidates too. So now you can say fuck Ted Cruz and make money.

[LuckyNumber7]

Gambling without the Vegas lights.

[martha]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Gambling without the Vegas lights.

But plenty of weird old men.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Carson's looking about right. Iowa is very insular and evangelical, so not paying attention to the national scene and going for the person that best represents their faith makes it seem like Carson has this in the bag.

Yep. I'm not surprised he'd poll well here, either. Trump's appeal among Iowans surprised me, 'cause he seems kind of...blustery...for our area, but Carson's just the sort of guy I can see conservatives in my state going for. Sort of like how I wasn't surprised that Huckabee has had good support here in the past.

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

He's got the crazy and Christian down pat and that special weapon, letting Republicans say they aren't racist because they voted for a black guy, being his ace up his sleeve.

Bingo. I get that feeling with any of the "minority" people the GOP has been putting out there in recent years-Fiorina, Cruz, Rubio are the same way. "See, we don't have a problem with women/Latinos, we've got them in our presidential race!"

(But of course, if any of them ever did dare to not follow the party line on an issue, then they'd be "betraying" the party.)