jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

Polar Bear Phan wrote:I'd be interested in seeing a hypothetical Obama vs. Trump poll, because I suspect Obama would be ahead by more than Hillary--and probably noticeably more. So, yeah, I'm on jerseyhoya's side here.

Hillary is up by 10% in some polls. She's not going to win by 10 and neither would have Obama. The country is too divided. On a really good year, a Democrat might win North Carolina and Virginia. Maybe even one red state like Indiana. But that's probably it.

This is stupid and wrong on multiple levels.

No it's not.

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

Polar Bear Phan wrote:I'd be interested in seeing a hypothetical Obama vs. Trump poll, because I suspect Obama would be ahead by more than Hillary--and probably noticeably more. So, yeah, I'm on jerseyhoya's side here.

Hillary is up by 10% in some polls. She's not going to win by 10 and neither would have Obama. The country is too divided. On a really good year, a Democrat might win North Carolina and Virginia. Maybe even one red state like Indiana. But that's probably it.

This is stupid and wrong on multiple levels.

No it's not.

Do you think the same thing the other way? That if the republicans nominated someone other than trump, the result would be the same? Basically it doesn't matter who either side nominates?

MoBettle wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

Polar Bear Phan wrote:I'd be interested in seeing a hypothetical Obama vs. Trump poll, because I suspect Obama would be ahead by more than Hillary--and probably noticeably more. So, yeah, I'm on jerseyhoya's side here.

Hillary is up by 10% in some polls. She's not going to win by 10 and neither would have Obama. The country is too divided. On a really good year, a Democrat might win North Carolina and Virginia. Maybe even one red state like Indiana. But that's probably it.

This is stupid and wrong on multiple levels.

No it's not.

Do you think the same thing the other way? That if the republicans nominated someone other than trump, the result would be the same? Basically it doesn't matter who either side nominates?

I do. Although, I can see more moderate Democrats voting for the Republican nominee if the Dems nominated a Donald Trump. But then again, I have a feeling the Democrats would've nominated someone else at their convention if that was the case.

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

Polar Bear Phan wrote:I'd be interested in seeing a hypothetical Obama vs. Trump poll, because I suspect Obama would be ahead by more than Hillary--and probably noticeably more. So, yeah, I'm on jerseyhoya's side here.

Hillary is up by 10% in some polls. She's not going to win by 10 and neither would have Obama. The country is too divided. On a really good year, a Democrat might win North Carolina and Virginia. Maybe even one red state like Indiana. But that's probably it.

This is stupid and wrong on multiple levels.

No it's not.

I mean, it is. If she's up by 10% in some polls, it shows she could realistically win by 10%+, and Obama, who is a lot more popular than she is, would likely win by more than whatever her margin is. I think the same is true for Biden, though he's less tested.

Hillary seems pretty likely to outperform her national number in Virginia, so weird to include that as an example of a place a Democrat might win in a good year. Seems more likely to win red states like Georgia and Arizona than Indiana.

Lot of levels of stupid and wrong.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

Polar Bear Phan wrote:I'd be interested in seeing a hypothetical Obama vs. Trump poll, because I suspect Obama would be ahead by more than Hillary--and probably noticeably more. So, yeah, I'm on jerseyhoya's side here.

Hillary is up by 10% in some polls. She's not going to win by 10 and neither would have Obama. The country is too divided. On a really good year, a Democrat might win North Carolina and Virginia. Maybe even one red state like Indiana. But that's probably it.

This is stupid and wrong on multiple levels.

No it's not.

I mean, it is. If she's up by 10% in some polls, it shows she could realistically win by 10%+, and Obama, who is a lot more popular than she is, would likely win by more than whatever her margin is. I think the same is true for Biden, though he's less tested.

Hillary seems pretty likely to outperform her national number in Virginia, so weird to include that as an example of a place a Democrat might win in a good year. Seems more likely to win red states like Georgia and Arizona than Indiana.

Lot of levels of stupid and wrong.

If she wins by 10%, I'll admit I was wrong. But I just don't see it. The only way it happens is if Republicans stay home and don't vote, which I can't see. But the electoral map will still not change much. I think Trump gets at least 190 electoral votes.

And I included Indiana because Obama won it in 2004. I don't believe a Democrat has won Georgia or Arizona in decades.

Having HIllary is a blown opportunity given the candidate on the other side. Dems could have run away with it and possibly changed a generation of voters. If there's a change now, it will totally be due to Trump. She's competent in spades, but not a very good politician and has 2 decades of baggage -- mostly manufactured baggage, but baggage nonetheless.

That said, go Hillary. Cool that we may have our first woman Prez. Hope she/we doesn't/don't blow it.

Not to overdo Nate Silver here, but you're dramatically underestimating the uncertainty in everything that's involved here. If the race right now is at about 6%, which is where I'd guess if the election was held today, we're more likely to see a double digit Hillary win than a Trump win. And the better polls are the ones showing the larger margins.

And Clinton won both Georgia and Arizona.

jerseyhoya wrote:Not to overdo Nate Silver here, but you're dramatically underestimating the uncertainty in everything that's involved here. If the race right now is at about 6%, which is where I'd guess if the election was held today, we're more likely to see a double digit Hillary win than a Trump win. And the better polls are the ones showing the larger margins.

And Clinton won both Georgia and Arizona.

Well, I hope you're right. Trump needs to lose badly.

Monkeyboy wrote:Having HIllary is a blown opportunity given the candidate on the other side. Dems could have run away with it and possibly changed a generation of voters. If there's a change now, it will totally be due to Trump. She's competent in spades, but not a very good politician and has 2 decades of baggage -- mostly manufactured baggage, but baggage nonetheless.

That said, go Hillary. Cool that we may have our first woman Prez. Hope she/we doesn't/don't blow it.

Though as a counterargument on the 'blown opportunity' narrative, would guess Biden would be doing a bit better, but probably nothing earth shattering. Doubt any other realistic Dems would be. The lost opportunity is pretty much entirely on my side of the aisle. Incredibly winnable race against a ridiculously defeatable opponent and we nominated an orange fascist. Oops.

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

Polar Bear Phan wrote:I'd be interested in seeing a hypothetical Obama vs. Trump poll, because I suspect Obama would be ahead by more than Hillary--and probably noticeably more. So, yeah, I'm on jerseyhoya's side here.

Hillary is up by 10% in some polls. She's not going to win by 10 and neither would have Obama. The country is too divided. On a really good year, a Democrat might win North Carolina and Virginia. Maybe even one red state like Indiana. But that's probably it.

This is stupid and wrong on multiple levels.

No it's not.

I mean, it is. If she's up by 10% in some polls, it shows she could realistically win by 10%+, and Obama, who is a lot more popular than she is, would likely win by more than whatever her margin is. I think the same is true for Biden, though he's less tested.

Hillary seems pretty likely to outperform her national number in Virginia, so weird to include that as an example of a place a Democrat might win in a good year. Seems more likely to win red states like Georgia and Arizona than Indiana.

Lot of levels of stupid and wrong.

If she wins by 10%, I'll admit I was wrong. But I just don't see it. The only way it happens is if Republicans stay home and don't vote, which I can't see. But the electoral map will still not change much. I think Trump gets at least 190 electoral votes.

Well if she doesn't win by 10% it's partially because she's super unpopular. A more popular democrat like 2008 Obama might win by 10%. Because he won by 7+% against John McCain, who was significantly more popular than donald trump. More people liking you causes more people to vote for you.

jerseyhoya wrote:Not to overdo Nate Silver here, but you're dramatically underestimating the uncertainty in everything that's involved here. If the race right now is at about 6%, which is where I'd guess if the election was held today, we're more likely to see a double digit Hillary win than a Trump win. And the better polls are the ones showing the larger margins.

And Clinton won both Georgia and Arizona.

And to blatantly steal from Nate Silver, the amount of people currently saying that they are either undecided or voting 3rd party is consistently 15-20% in the polls, which is MUCH bigger than at comparable times in other races. So, contrary to what some may think, there are still lots of votes that can still break to either candidate. Hillary being up 5% but only having 42% of the vote is different than being up 5% and having 52% of the vote.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Having HIllary is a blown opportunity given the candidate on the other side. Dems could have run away with it and possibly changed a generation of voters. If there's a change now, it will totally be due to Trump. She's competent in spades, but not a very good politician and has 2 decades of baggage -- mostly manufactured baggage, but baggage nonetheless.

That said, go Hillary. Cool that we may have our first woman Prez. Hope she/we doesn't/don't blow it.

Though as a counterargument on the 'blown opportunity' narrative, would guess Biden would be doing a bit better, but probably nothing earth shattering. Doubt any other realistic Dems would be. The lost opportunity is pretty much entirely on my side of the aisle. Incredibly winnable race against a ridiculously defeatable opponent and we nominated an orange fascist. Oops.

I agree with this mostly, but guys 2-5 from the GOP would have had a tough time against her. I guess Kasich would have done well. I think Rubio, Cruz, and Carson would have lost. The GOP nomination process was a clown show this time around.

I also think a relatively unknown dem would be killing trump by this point, assuming they didn't shit the bed. Of course, getting a relatively unknown dem to win the nomination was impossible against Clinton.

Doesn't matter anyway. The Russians are going to steal the election for Trump. Or at least disrupt things so he can scream foul.

I think hillary will outperform her pills because gotv efforts will matter and a lot of repu locals are demoralized and will stay home. I don't think the ordinary voter really cares all that much about house and Senate elections.

MoBettle wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

Polar Bear Phan wrote:I'd be interested in seeing a hypothetical Obama vs. Trump poll, because I suspect Obama would be ahead by more than Hillary--and probably noticeably more. So, yeah, I'm on jerseyhoya's side here.

Hillary is up by 10% in some polls. She's not going to win by 10 and neither would have Obama. The country is too divided. On a really good year, a Democrat might win North Carolina and Virginia. Maybe even one red state like Indiana. But that's probably it.

This is stupid and wrong on multiple levels.

No it's not.

I mean, it is. If she's up by 10% in some polls, it shows she could realistically win by 10%+, and Obama, who is a lot more popular than she is, would likely win by more than whatever her margin is. I think the same is true for Biden, though he's less tested.

Hillary seems pretty likely to outperform her national number in Virginia, so weird to include that as an example of a place a Democrat might win in a good year. Seems more likely to win red states like Georgia and Arizona than Indiana.

Lot of levels of stupid and wrong.

If she wins by 10%, I'll admit I was wrong. But I just don't see it. The only way it happens is if Republicans stay home and don't vote, which I can't see. But the electoral map will still not change much. I think Trump gets at least 190 electoral votes.

Well if she doesn't win by 10% it's partially because she's super unpopular. A more popular democrat like 2008 Obama might win by 10%. Because he won by 7+% against John McCain, who was significantly more popular than donald trump. More people liking you causes more people to vote for you.

If there were someone who was willing to run, they'd have run. It's impossible to argue against a hypothetical and some mythical 'more popular Democrat'. they either didn't run, don't exist or, the most likely, they were a popular 2nd term President who is constitutionally barred from running.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think hillary will outperform her pills because gotv efforts will matter and a lot of repu locals are demoralized and will stay home. I don't think the ordinary voter really cares all that much about house and Senate elections.

i bet she outperforms her pills! Release the records, amirite?!

So all the worry about down ballot races seems to be being blunted by two things:

1) There are not many competitive race, which is reasonable

2) There is a strong desire to keep the presidential power in check, which sounds hopeful if not desperate.

Everything I find seems extremely stilted one way or another (i.e., lobbying my opinion). Is there something that is more realistic that I should review?

pacino wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

Polar Bear Phan wrote:I'd be interested in seeing a hypothetical Obama vs. Trump poll, because I suspect Obama would be ahead by more than Hillary--and probably noticeably more. So, yeah, I'm on jerseyhoya's side here.

Hillary is up by 10% in some polls. She's not going to win by 10 and neither would have Obama. The country is too divided. On a really good year, a Democrat might win North Carolina and Virginia. Maybe even one red state like Indiana. But that's probably it.

This is stupid and wrong on multiple levels.

No it's not.

I mean, it is. If she's up by 10% in some polls, it shows she could realistically win by 10%+, and Obama, who is a lot more popular than she is, would likely win by more than whatever her margin is. I think the same is true for Biden, though he's less tested.

Hillary seems pretty likely to outperform her national number in Virginia, so weird to include that as an example of a place a Democrat might win in a good year. Seems more likely to win red states like Georgia and Arizona than Indiana.

Lot of levels of stupid and wrong.

If she wins by 10%, I'll admit I was wrong. But I just don't see it. The only way it happens is if Republicans stay home and don't vote, which I can't see. But the electoral map will still not change much. I think Trump gets at least 190 electoral votes.

Well if she doesn't win by 10% it's partially because she's super unpopular. A more popular democrat like 2008 Obama might win by 10%. Because he won by 7+% against John McCain, who was significantly more popular than donald trump. More people liking you causes more people to vote for you.

If there were someone who was willing to run, they'd have run. It's impossible to argue against a hypothetical and some mythical 'more popular Democrat'. they either didn't run, don't exist or, the most likely, they were a popular 2nd term President who is constitutionally barred from running.

Well, she cleared the democratic field because of her popularity among democrats, not her strength as a general election candidate. Either way I'm not sure what the democrats having a weak field this year has to do with it. It's not like it's impossible for them to come up with someone people like, they did it last time. Hillary is the exception here. Luckily for her/democrats she's running against a crazy person.

thephan wrote:2) There is a strong desire to keep the presidential power in check, which sounds hopeful if not desperate.

this is way overstated on why people vote the way they do

let's put aside really red and really blue districts like cities and rural areas

the real battleground is the suburbs

I suspect in those areas you have 40-45% that are republican in some manner, from leaning red to being staunchly red and 40-45% for the dems in the same manner. Both probably vote straight ticket unless there is an aberration of sorts or both candidates are very similar (being moderate)

That leaves the 10-20% of "independent/undecideds" and let's face it, most of these folks don't pay much attention to politics, let alone decide that having a split house and presidency is a good thing. They vote on things like personality, trustworthiness, familiarity, some hot button issue that affects them more that is probably tied to pork moreso than platform, or for the dumbest reasons that make your head scratch (like the last name is higher alphabetically).

to sum up, the direction the country is headed is often decided by people who don't pay much attention