The Nightman Cometh wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Right, Mitt Romney lost PA by 7 points but Trump can win it.

I believe that Trump will do better in PA than Romney did.

Based on what? Trump has worse favorability ratings and lacks the support of a large section of his party, including the fundraising wing.

If you were trying to design a candidate from scratch who appeals to as few working class whites as possible and is himself still a white male, you'd be hard pressed to do better than Romney.

Trump has many of the same warts - businessman with blood on his hands and all - but he was never a true hedge-fund hatchet man the way Romney was, for one thing, and he talks like a "regular joe," for another. Trump will do very well among working class whites, will outrun Romney in Delco, and probably all throughout the "T," by bringing more Dem voters over and by adding voters nobody else would get.

Is it enough to win in PA? Eh, you guys are probably right, probably not. Demi have such a large starting advantage in PA and there probably aren't enough people for Trump to pick up to make up the difference.

But, as someone said after the last election, PA is like two states in one - one that behaves like a Northeastern state (Philadelphia and its environs), and one that behaves like Appalachia. I could easily see Ohio in play, so I have to think Trump will run better than Romney did in those places that feel like they are Ohio but are actually in PA, without losing much over what Romney got out of the Philly suburbs. Country club Republicans are a vanishing breed.

Just because you feel something does not mean it is true.

CalvinBall wrote:Just because you feel something does not mean it is true.

Touchee, and I repeat that I won't predict a PA victory for Trump. But I would not underestimate how popular Trump is or will become among working class whites, who make up huge percentages of the vote in a few key places - Michigan and Ohio leap to mind.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Basically whatever Trump gets will include a historically low minority vote. That's going to be insane. I really don't know how to project what his floor will be.

I agree.

I guess my concern is that minority vote is not evenly distributed. We saw how distribution can skew things in the House elections in 2012 I think. Republicans are always going to "outperform" their raw vote totals in any state-by-state process for the same reason. In 2012 1M more people voted for Democrats in the House than Republicans - but Republicans still easily retained control of the House.

Similarly, yeah, I could see Hillary winning liberal-isa and minority-heavy states by ridiculous margins. But she was probably going to win those states anyway. It doesn't help her to win NY 70-30 instead of 58-42. A lot of these Appalachian states are whiter than average, and there is no doubt Trump is bringing white working class voters into the process, and flipping some white working class voters from D to R.

Let's put it this way: again, if the only concern is getting a nominally "R" guy into the White House, and i'm an R, I see two guys who will do nothing to expand your base - Kasich and Cruz, the latter of whom will arguably cost you votes - versus a guy who can actually grow something in your party, albeit, yes, at the cost of what little minority vote you've got.

mozartpc27 wrote:I guess my concern is that minority vote is not evenly distributed. We saw how distribution can skew things in the House elections in 2012 I think. Republicans are always going to "outperform" their raw vote totals in any state-by-state process for the same reason.

Except the last two cycles we've underperformed in the electoral college vs. national vote, so probably not always

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I guess my concern is that minority vote is not evenly distributed. We saw how distribution can skew things in the House elections in 2012 I think. Republicans are always going to "outperform" their raw vote totals in any state-by-state process for the same reason.

Except the last two cycles we've underperformed in the electoral college vs. national vote, so probably not always

I think that depends on how you look at it. In 2012, Mitt Romney had 47.2% of the popular vote. And, he won 47% of the available states (24/51, when you include DC). So, not overperfomlng, granted - but the game is 51 state elections, not a national election. Republicans only need to find a candidate who can help them win two more state elections by narrow margins, even if that candidate is even more deeply unpopular than previous entrants in states previously lost. You can afford to get blown out of the water in California, Oregon, Washington, and New York if doing so buys you Florida, Ohio, and Michigan by the slimmest of margins.

Hard, but Trump at least makes it seem plausible. Kasich and Cruz would just be repeats of 2008 & 2012 for you guys, with hardly any really new blood brought in.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, as I have no dog in the race.

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I guess my concern is that minority vote is not evenly distributed. We saw how distribution can skew things in the House elections in 2012 I think. Republicans are always going to "outperform" their raw vote totals in any state-by-state process for the same reason.

Except the last two cycles we've underperformed in the electoral college vs. national vote, so probably not always

I think that depends on how you look at it. In 2012, Mitt Romney had 47.2% of the popular vote. And, he won 47% of the available states (24/51, when you include DC). So, not overperfomlng, granted - but the game is 51 state elections, not a national election. Republicans only need to find a candidate who can help them win two more state elections by narrow margins, even if that candidate is even more deeply unpopular than previous entrants in states previously lost. You can afford to get blown out of the water in California, Oregon, Washington, and New York if doing so buys you Florida, Ohio, and Michigan by the slimmest of margins.

Hard, but Trump at least makes it seem plausible. Kasich and Cruz would just be repeats of 2008 & 2012 for you guys, with hardly any really new blood brought in.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, as I have no dog in the race.

Re: Kasich and Cruz, don't underestimate how much less popular Dawg is than Obama. They could both win.

As for the electoral college, in 2008 Colorado was the state that put Obama over the top. He won it by 8.95%, won nationally by 7.26%, so if things swung uniformly, McCain could've won by 1.68% and lost the electoral college.

In 2012, Colorado was the state that put Obama over the top (PA was close). He won it by 5.36%, won nationally by 3.86%, so if things swung uniformally, Romney could've won by 1.49% and lost the electoral college.

So that's what I mean by underperforming the electoral college the last two cycles.

Big moment tonight. Kasich is finally narrowly ahead of Rubio in votes won in the 2016 primary. He's still behind him in delegates. Rubio dropped out a month and a half ago.

Kasich is well positioned to make sure the not-Trump vote remains divided so any chance at denying Donald 1237 is destroyed. But he isn't sure why anyone wants him to drop out. And drsmooth agrees!

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:as I posted on FB I couldn't bring myself to vote for Joe Sestak. His name is too close to sleestak and sleestaks are the zombies of the humanoid lizard world. I don't want a senator that could potentially eat my face off.

the exit poller looked at me funny when I told him this

A sorta friend from high school looked like a sleestak. It REALLY pissed him off when people pointed it out. He was a decent guy, but then he started hanging with these racist assholes he worked with at UPS (a hotbed of racism, at least in state college). Then he moved to South Carolina and got his MBA and moved to Tennessee and went full redneck. Now he sends me facebook posts about how Bernie supporters just want free stuff and various other stupid nonsense.

So yeh, zombies of the humanoid lizard world sounds about right.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:hey now, Democrats love war and banking, too

Dems are a bit less stupid (ok, more than a bit) about war, but I agree with this.

Does anyone really think Hillary will push for a large increase in the minimum wage with her Walmart connections? Nope. It will be closer to 10 than 15.

so hillary will be the nominee. There goes any chance of stealing the Senate.

I mean, it was over after New York.

Still think think the voters made a big mistake by not voting for the massively likable dude who would push the country to the left, but that's voting.

moz I think you forget that a big reason why angry white guys are so angry is that their voting power in a presidential election gets lowered with each election cycle as demographics change in this country

The GOP needs to appeal to minority voters to win the presidency, particularly the hispanic vote (current estimates are at least 35% needed to win) and well...calling Mexicans rapists and criminals has put that goal into the ground for this election if Trump gets the nomination. There simply isn't enough new angry white guys coming into the fold (especially when you've angered women, muslims, gays, Mexicans, blacks, and their supporters enough to vote against Trump) to overcome the changing voter demographics.

Put it this way- while I don't put much stock at all in general election polls this early. Clinton actually beats Trump in UTAH

UTAH, maybe the only redder state is Wyoming or Alaska

and while I think Utah probably still will go red in Novemember, it's amazing that such a red state produced such a result in a poll no matter what time period that poll was taken

Monkeyboy wrote:so hillary will be the nominee. There goes any chance of stealing the Senate.

I think the senate goes to at least 50/50 and gains made for blue seats in congress but there's too much of a gap to overcome it

there's no chance utah goes blue

SK790 wrote:there's no chance utah goes blue

and I said that but the poll shows how much Trump divides the party enough to be a huge loser this november

It more likely shows how bad polls are this far out, but I'm not an expert.

As much good work as Trump has done over the past two weeks, a loss in Indiana would mostly undo it.

Nate Silver

In pointing out how he's bringing out new Republican voters Trump ignores one, dare I say, huge unintended consequence which he has not seen in the primaries: He's also going to energize a ton of anti-Trump voters.

I suppose there have been worse times in American history - but the Trump candidacy is a distinct new low in my lifetime. It's worse than electing a pro wrestler to be governor.