The 2016 General Election Thread

[Libertarian01]

Well this is going to be an interesting two (2) monthes!!!

All the money Hillary has made; all the press dodging she has done (day 280 as of 9 Sept 16); all the gaffs Trump has made...

And yet as of today Trump is only two (2) points behind Clinton in a four (4) way race! Link: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

In a two (2) way race Hillary fares marginally better at 2.7% over Trump. Link: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

(Note: These are the averages of many polls over the last ten (10) days.)

Florida? Tied.

Ohio? Tied.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lly-seeing-signs-of-life-in-key-swing-states/

As Trump rises in the polls, Christie's looking good and the GOP's looking bad | Mulshine | NJ.com

It would appear that, as usual, polls from a month ago don't amount to a hill of beans. Of course, these polls fall somewhat into the same category, except that they demonstrate a trend that is moving. That trend is that Hillary Clintons campaign has peaked and starting to fall off while Trumps campaign that was down in the dirt is picking up steam and may well pass Clinton in the coming weeks.

I am no Trump fan. I agree with some of the issues and ideas he has raised. However, I am extremely anti-Hillary. Her in power will be a disaster. This is what bothers me the most about the entrenched republican quislings that are coming out in support of Hillary. I do hope they all get primaryed the next time their number is up.

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

Good news for Trump, with a caveat: new Florida poll has him +4 (MOE 3.5) over HRC. That certainly bodes well for taking FL.

The caveat is that in July he was +5 in the same poll. Oops.

But, the poll itself was weighted toward Dems, 43-39% (with 18% independents). So, at least in FL, he's winning the independents.

ETA:

Of course, the problem is that other states that are generally considered Republican locks are battleground this cycle. Nothing's certain, but the general look of the EC is that HRC still has the advantage.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

From Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight

Clinton's win probability fell by 4-5% at betting markets today on pneumonia/"overheating" news. A strong reaction, as these things go. But less than half of the decline was to Trump. Instead, Kaine/Biden/Sanders gained ground. Gamblers speculating Clinton could drop out. That speculation is probably silly, but it illustrates a potential limitation for Trump. If there's nothing more to the story then it probably devolves in a few days to a big partisan food-fight. Trump and/or media could overreach, motivating Clinton supporters.

Trump is older than Clinton, not in obviously great shape, and even less transparent. Not in a great position to press the health issue. Clinton has the bigger base. She might not mind a big partisan fight. Polling suggests some of her recent slide is due to enthusiasm gap. But on the remote chance Clinton has SERIOUS problems, as fewer swamps allege, she could drop out, which probably doesn't help Trump.

Trump benefits if there are recurring problems, more serious than disclosed so far. But can't be so serious they force Clinton to quit. It's all a bit unpredictable. Certainly ways it could turn out badly for Clinton. But also not obvious how it motivates votes for Trump

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, the health thing is tricky - and just another factor that cannot reliably be controlled for.

Truly uncharted territory this cycle.

 

[dusty88]

Apparently Trump is finally smart enough to be polite and keep his lip zipped. I'm guessing his advisors pounded that into him.

 

[nate77]

Apparently Trump is finally smart enough to be polite and keep his lip zipped. I'm guessing his advisors pounded that into him.

I think the campaign found someone who could reign him in a bit. Roger Ailes has a bit of free time on his hands these days.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

via Josh Jordan:

One reason I've said since the primaries that Trump has no chance to beat Hillary is that hes never tried to run a campaign to actually win. Everyone keeps citing likely voter polls that show Trump within striking distance, but forget those #s assume you get ALL your voters out.

Hillary has spent the last 8 years planning to get every single voter out that she can through spending tons of $$ on the ground game.

In North Carolina, Hillary has 31 offices to get voters out. Donald Trump has ZERO. It is unforgivable that Trump isn't even trying here.

In Ohio, Hillary has 36 field offices to get out the vote. Trump has 16. This is a must win state, and Hillary has over doubled his number.

In Pennsylvania, which has become a must win for Trump, Hillary has 36 field offices. Trump has TWO. Trump isn't even preparing to GOTV.

In Florida, Hillary has 34 field offices. Trump has ONE. Tell me more about how he's actually trying to create an organization that can win.

Hillary leads Trump in Iowa offices 24-9, Colorado 18-8, Virginia 29-18, New Hampshire 17-1. She is preparing to squeeze every single vote. One HUGE lesson from 2012 is that enthusiasm is great, but any candidate can overcome that with money and a vast get out the vote operation. Hillary is going to have weeks of early voting to use those offices to get people to the polls that might not otherwise vote. A huge deal.

This is why it's obvious to some that he doesn't intend to win.

 

[nate77]

via Josh Jordan:



This is why it's obvious to some that he doesn't intend to win.

Looks like the nevertrumpers, and big political money system are getting nervous.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Looks like the nevertrumpers, and big political money system are getting nervous.

Come on. Drop the divisive, lazy lines and form an independent thought on the subject.

What is your opinion on why Trump has no ground game?

 

[jamil]

Come on. Drop the divisive, lazy lines and form an independent thought on the subject.

What is your opinion on why Trump has no ground game?

He doesn't need one. He's Trump. Since when have gods ever needed a ground game? Sheesh.

 

[nate77]

Come on. Drop the divisive, lazy lines and form an independent thought on the subject.

What is your opinion on why Trump has no ground game?

He won the nomination with no ground game, and a shoe string budget, why can't do the same in the general against a half dead criminal candidate like Hillary Clinton?

In my opinion, less money spent during the election leads to less favors owed after the election.

The big money political machine is literally quaking in it's boots at the pospect of Trump winning with only grassroots money; with little to no establishment, or special interest money needed.

 

[nate77]

I really don't see why anyone would cheerlead for billion dollar elections, well unless you work in political consulting, or advertising.

 

[jamil]

He won the nomination with no ground game, and a shoe string budget, why can't do the same in the general against a half dead criminal candidate like Hillary Clinton?

In my opinion, less money spent during the election leads to less favors owed after the election.

The big money political machine is literally quaking in it's boots at the pospect of Trump winning with only grassroots money; with little to no establishment, or special interest money needed.

because the voter base is different. Only ~29% of registered voters voted in any primary. Republicans broke a record for turnout, but even so, only a little over 1/4th of all registered voters voted in the primaries for any candidate. And even though Republicans broke a record for their turnout, Democrats still outnumbered them.

If Trump relies only on Hillary's scandals and unlikability, he will probably lose, because he has similar problems with voters. He needs a ground game. He needs a network of people actively prodding people to get out and vote for him. That's what Hillary has. She has lists of people who could vote for her and a network of organizers out there prodding them to vote. She also has all the major news outlets out there covering for her scandals and other issues.

Simply believing Trump will overcome that just because he's Trump is not rational. He was loosing big in the polls when he was running the kind of campaign he ran in the primaries. He has increased his numbers since changing campaign leadership and moving away from "standard Trump". No doubt they want him to build a ground game, but with his financials, and the late stage, that's probably not possible.

I'm going to back off from saying that he doesn't want to win. He could want to win, but just doesn't have a clue how to. If he had a clue how to win, he should be up 10 to 15 points against a horrible person like Hillary. There's no way a candidate with all the problems Hillary has should be even contending, unless she's running against an even weaker candidate.

 

[jamil]

I really don't see why anyone would cheerlead for billion dollar elections, well unless you work in political consulting, or advertising.

I wouldn't "cheerlead" for it, but that's just the reality of elections. If you want to win, that's just the reality. Trump's opponent is running that kind of campaign against him, and she has the advantage of a widely friendly press.

 

[dusty88]

I really don't see why anyone would cheerlead for billion dollar elections, well unless you work in political consulting, or advertising.

I'm not seeing how it's preferred to have a candidate who has name recognition for being a reality TV star.

Do you think he would have gotten anywhere in the debates if he weren't? Even far wealthier guys aren't household names.

It's possibly better than getting big money from corporations that want favors, but it's not a way to get us a quality president either.

And those who say it won't win the election are probably right,. HRC may kill it for herself though.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

He won the nomination with no ground game, and a shoe string budget, why can't do the same in the general against a half dead criminal candidate like Hillary Clinton?

In my opinion, less money spent during the election leads to less favors owed after the election.

The big money political machine is literally quaking in it's boots at the pospect of Trump winning with only grassroots money; with little to no establishment, or special interest money needed.

Because Primaries are completely different beasts than Elections. Clinton has all the money and influence ready to vote for her in November. You cannot win without getting out the vote.

The big money political machine is sitting comfortably behind Clinton, watching Trump do nothing to win. Trump isn't grassroots, and he is getting establishment backing.

So when you see the massive differences between Clinton's GOTV and Trump's.... why does that make it OK to blame INGO members in Indiana for his potential loss? (This question is less directed at you, and more at other people here)

His loss will be 100% of his own doing. Whether it's intentional or not is up to each person to decide.

 

[foszoe]

Come on. Drop the divisive, lazy lines and form an independent thought on the subject.

What is your opinion on why Trump has no ground game?

How does one judge a ground game? Seriously. I hear ground game talk but if choose not to take some one else's word for it , how?

If INGO is correct, he don't need one in Indiana. Assuming no need for one in other locked in states, how many states is a ground game needed? 3-6 top battlegrounds?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

How does one judge a ground game? Seriously. I hear ground game talk but if choose not to take some one else's word for it , how?

If INGO is correct, he don't need one in Indiana. Assuming no need for one in other locked in states, how many states is a ground game needed? 3-6 top battlegrounds?

It would be a waste to invest a lot in a place like Indiana.

It's the crucial states that he has to have in order to win that she is trouncing him in. Giving a sales pitch isn't enough to move voters. A candidate can't realistically sit back and think "enthusiasm" is going to turn people out and beat a behemoth like Clinton.

 

[T.Lex]

How does one judge a ground game? Seriously. I hear ground game talk but if choose not to take some one else's word for it , how?

If INGO is correct, he don't need one in Indiana. Assuming no need for one in other locked in states, how many states is a ground game needed? 3-6 top battlegrounds?

At this point, every state that's within 1% of the MOE.

(In a traditional race, a candidate would need a ground game to do well in the primary - that's where the foundation of a general election ground game is formed. HRC and Bernie both had strong ground games here in Indiana. Trump didn't need it.) (And still doesn't.)

Some candidates may have a wider net than that, to maybe make the other side spend resources they could use elsewhere.

The states that immediately come to mind are the usual ones: OH, PA, FL, VA, NC, SC, GA. This year, it might be worth building something in Iowa and Arizona, too.

The enthusiasm is tricky. The more enthusiastic one side is, let's say Trump supporters, the easier it is for HRC to generate enthusiasm on her side. "We got spirit, yes we do, we got spirit, how 'bout you" kinda thing.

Along these same lines, Trump is in IA, PA, OH, NH (?), and TX. Oh yeah, this year, he probably needs a ground game in Texas, as it could be competitive. Pence is in PA.

 

[T.Lex]

Couple new VA polls out show HRC with >MOE lead (6 or 8%). That makes FL and OH even more important. If he can keep the SE states, and AZ, that starts looking like a plausible path to victory for Trump.