How can she be 4% ahead in Georgia but only 5% ahead in Virginia? Doesn't sound right.
Say the true picture is Clinton+7 nationally, that would imply around something like GA -2, VA +9. Not inconsistent with these state polls given the sample size.
I'm still dubious Clinton can take Georgia tbh, although hopeful (since it'd give my Texas longshot bet a chance!).
Well a Louisiana poll showed her on 20% with white voters, if that is similar outside of Atlanta suburbs she has no chance.
Louisiana is quite different to GA, and both are different to the Rustbelt. LA is the Old South, while GA is the New South.
The South is not shedding jobs in steel and cars like the Rustbelt, and is doing well in the growing industries. It is not the fertile place for Trumpism that Ohio or Indiana are.
I think Trump will overperform in trans-Appalachia, but do worse than recent Republicans in the South.
I think that's right West Virginia to be safest trump state?
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics .
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
he is really down in the last 3 states you mentioned and isnt retaining the romney states.
According to the latest RCP Trump leads by 4 in Georgia and is down by 1.3 in Arizona and 2.1 in North Carolina of the marginal Romney states. So if he does better than the national poll average suggests ie a Clinton lead of 5.8%, which obviously he would need to to win or make it very close, he should retain all of them. Of the Midwest states which voted for Obama, Trump leads by 0.6% in Ohio and 3.7% in Iowa, Hillary leads by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 4.3% in Minnesota and 7% in Wisconsin. Hillary leads by 7.2% in Colorado and 8.5% in New Mexico and 8% in Virginia, though by a narrower 3.8% in Florida and 4.2% in Nevada. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics .
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
he is really down in the last 3 states you mentioned and isnt retaining the romney states.
According to the latest RCP Trump leads by 4 in Georgia and is down by 1.3 in Arizona and 2.1 in North Carolina of the marginal Romney states. So if he does better than the national poll average suggests ie a Clinton lead of 5.8%, which obviously he would need to to win or make it very close, he should retain all of them. Of the Midwest states which voted for Obama, Trump leads by 0.6% in Ohio and 3.7% in Iowa, Hillary leads by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 4.3% in Minnesota and 7% in Wisconsin. Hillary leads by 7.2% in Colorado and 8.5% in New Mexico and 8% in Virginia, though by a narrower 3.8% in Florida and 4.2% in Nevada. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
Nah Bush vs. Michelle. Dems in control for another 8 years.
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
1. The 2020 election isn't lost already. HRC is unpopular and she'll still be unpopular in 2020.
2. The GOP could do with effectively selecting its candidate asap rather than in 4 years' time. Although Sanders fought HRC, it was pretty certain for several years that she would be the candidate, which provided stability within the party. Therefore as a minimum requirement, the GOP needs a strong leadership to bang heads together, tell the likes of Cruz that he will not be supported, and sideline the Tea Partyers. The trick is to do this without pushing them out of the party...
3. The GOP needs to achieve some level of certainty that it can win most of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not easy, especially when you think of the dominance of urban centres such as Philadelphia, but they had made progress and Trump could've taken advantage of it, rather than getting sidetracked by sleaze.
How can she be 4% ahead in Georgia but only 5% ahead in Virginia? Doesn't sound right.
Say the true picture is Clinton+7 nationally, that would imply around something like GA -2, VA +9. Not inconsistent with these state polls given the sample size.
I'm still dubious Clinton can take Georgia tbh, although hopeful (since it'd give my Texas longshot bet a chance!).
Well a Louisiana poll showed her on 20% with white voters, if that is similar outside of Atlanta suburbs she has no chance.
Louisiana is quite different to GA, and both are different to the Rustbelt. LA is the Old South, while GA is the New South.
The South is not shedding jobs in steel and cars like the Rustbelt, and is doing well in the growing industries. It is not the fertile place for Trumpism that Ohio or Indiana are.
I think Trump will overperform in trans-Appalachia, but do worse than recent Republicans in the South.
Louisiana's interesting. Bill Clinton won it twice, but now it's no longer in contention. I agree with you, but it's better for a Republican to trade votes in the South for votes in the mid-West. If Trump finishes 4% behind like Romney, overall, I'm sure he'll gain Ohio, Iowa, and not be far off in Michigan and Wisconsin, but he could the still lose North Carolina.
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
Nah Bush vs. Michelle. Dems in control for another 8 years.
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
1. The 2020 election isn't lost already. HRC is unpopular and she'll still be unpopular in 2020.
2. The GOP could do with effectively selecting its candidate asap rather than in 4 years' time. Although Sanders fought HRC, it was pretty certain for several years that she would be the candidate, which provided stability within the party. Therefore as a minimum requirement, the GOP needs a strong leadership to bang heads together, tell the likes of Cruz that he will not be supported, and sideline the Tea Partyers. The trick is to do this without pushing them out of the party...
3. The GOP needs to achieve some level of certainty that it can win most of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not easy, especially when you think of the dominance of urban centres such as Philadelphia, but they had made progress and Trump could've taken advantage of it, rather than getting sidetracked by sleaze.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics .
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit
he is really down in the last 3 states you mentioned and isnt retaining the romney states.
According to the latest RCP Trump leads by 4 in Georgia and is down by 1.3 in Arizona and 2.1 in North Carolina of the marginal Romney states. So if he does better than the national poll average suggests ie a Clinton lead of 5.8%, which obviously he would need to to win or make it very close, he should retain all of them. Of the Midwest states which voted for Obama, Trump leads by 0.6% in Ohio and 3.7% in Iowa, Hillary leads by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 4.3% in Minnesota and 7% in Wisconsin. Hillary leads by 7.2% in Colorado and 8.5% in New Mexico and 8% in Virginia, though by a narrower 3.8% in Florida and 4.2% in Nevada. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
well ok. He cant win.
I wouldn't go that far, but the bell curve has two sides. There is probably something like a 15% chance of Trump winning, balanced by a similar probability of Hillary dancing on the grave of the Republican party.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics and the younger demographic of the former are trending Democrat.
A spike in WWC for Trump will add at most 1.5 points to Trump. Not nearly enough to outweigh the combined women, college educated white and Hispanic increase.
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could
Don't buy it myself. Trump is so utterly defeated. This will be a historic landslide. This is not Brexit. But I guess we'll know in two weeks.
Even on RCP's current poll average Trump is doing better than McCain did in 2008, so that is no historic landslide. In terms of the white working class in the US it could well be Brexit, white college graduates are as pro Hillary as they were pro Remain and African Americans have as little enthusiasm for Hillary as ethnic minorities did for the EU, they will vote for her, if they vote, out of the lesser of two evils rather than any enthusiasm. Two key differences may still make the difference though and if Hillary wins will be the decisive factors. First, the Hispanic vote in the US which will come out for her and does not really exist in the UK and second the libertarian vote will vote for Johnson rather than Trump, in the UK libertarians voted Leave.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics .
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit
he is really down in the last 3 states you mentioned and isnt retaining the romney states.
According to the latest RCP Trump leads by 4 in Georgia and is down by 1.3 in Arizona and 2.1 in North Carolina of the marginal Romney states. So if he does better than the national poll average suggests ie a Clinton lead of 5.8%, which obviously he would need to to win or make it very close, he should retain all of them. Of the Midwest states which voted for Obama, Trump leads by 0.6% in Ohio and 3.7% in Iowa, Hillary leads by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 4.3% in Minnesota and 7% in Wisconsin. Hillary leads by 7.2% in Colorado and 8.5% in New Mexico and 8% in Virginia, though by a narrower 3.8% in Florida and 4.2% in Nevada. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
well ok. He cant win.
I wouldn't go that far, but the bell curve has two sides. There is probably something like a 15% chance of Trump winning, balanced by a similar probability of Hillary dancing on the grave of the Republican party.
id probably say at the moment, the democrats have a 20% chance of winning both houses, 55% at winning congress
And your evidence is ........ Fraser Nelson and the Spectator god help us.
I know for a fact that Sturgeon has not asked to be within the Customs Union. She has made her red line the single market. If there was any suggestion that wee Fraser even knew the difference between the two then you could take himseriously.
The truth is he doesn't and no-one should. His real motivation is a growing sense of panic that May and crew are being outmanoeuvred by Sturgeon.
Hispanics certainly are going to build a wall for Donald Trump. It's a wall against his ambition to be President.
Does that mean almost double or 100x?
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
noooo. Its about WWC with no college degree vs women, hispanics, college educated whites, african american and the young.
Trumps one demo is outnumbered.
It is all relative to 2012, WWC more enthusiastic about Trump than Romney, women more enthusiastic for Hillary than Obama, men dislike Hillary more than Obama, Hispanics dislike Trump as much as Romney, college educated whites preferred Romney to Trump and may vote Hillary, African Americans and the young are much less enthusiastic about Hillary than Obama. It all depends on who turns out and where
True. But there is no Trump GOTV operation.
There is even if not an outstanding one but the white working class will be queuing up to vote for Trump almost as soon as polls open regardless
Late to the thread but can I just say that Zac forcing a bye election would be serious proof that Mrs May is every bit as lucky with her enemies as Cameron was.
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
You really are living in Trump La-La-Land ....
If Trump was competitive in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he'd be stuffing those states with Trump rallies, surrogates, field offices and cash .... and yet ....
All the substantive polling of Hispanic only voters show Trump polling around 15% compared to Romney's 27%.
Trump is opting for the narrow window of Romney 12 and FOP and he's tanking.
If WWC were so hugely enthused by Trump why are we not seeing the numbers in early voting. Where is the huge spike as they flock to the polls for Donald ?!?
Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
There is even if not an outstanding one but the white working class will be queuing up to vote for Trump almost as soon as polls open regardless
Like they're not doing at the moment you mean !!
You seem to think Trump motivates only the WWC .... nasty women and taco van drivers vote too.
You cannot prove anything about whether they are voting at not, the only way you can is once the exit polls come out and you get the socioeconomic breakdown of the electorate
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
Nah Bush vs. Michelle. Dems in control for another 8 years.
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
1. The 2020 election isn't lost already. HRC is unpopular and she'll still be unpopular in 2020.
2. The GOP could do with effectively selecting its candidate asap rather than in 4 years' time. Although Sanders fought HRC, it was pretty certain for several years that she would be the candidate, which provided stability within the party. Therefore as a minimum requirement, the GOP needs a strong leadership to bang heads together, tell the likes of Cruz that he will not be supported, and sideline the Tea Partyers. The trick is to do this without pushing them out of the party...
3. The GOP needs to achieve some level of certainty that it can win most of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not easy, especially when you think of the dominance of urban centres such as Philadelphia, but they had made progress and Trump could've taken advantage of it, rather than getting sidetracked by sleaze.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics .
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
he is really down in the last 3 states you mentioned and isnt retaining the romney states.
According to the latest RCP Trump leads by 4 in Georgia and is down by 1.3 in Arizona and 2.1 in North
well ok. He cant win.
The final EU ref poll average had Remain ahead by almost 1%, Leave won by 4%. RCP presently has Clinton ahead by almost 6%, apply the same poll error and she is ahead by just 1%, George W Bush won the presidency in 2000 despite losing the popular vote by almost 1%
And your evidence is ........ Fraser Nelson and the Spectator god help us.
I know for a fact that Sturgeon has not asked to be within the Customs Union. She has made her red line the single market. If there was any suggestion that wee Fraser even knew the difference between the two then you could take himseriously.
The truth is he doesn't and no-one should. His real motivation is a growing sense of panic that May and crew are being outmanoeuvred by Sturgeon.
Restaurant meetings with junior ministers are the way forward for foreign policy are they?
SNP have been, along with other parties, totally sidelined by Brexit and reaction to it.
There is even if not an outstanding one but the white working class will be queuing up to vote for Trump almost as soon as polls open regardless
Like they're not doing at the moment you mean !!
You seem to think Trump motivates only the WWC .... nasty women and taco van drivers vote too.
You cannot prove anything about whether they are voting at not, the only way you can is once the exit polls come out and you get the socioeconomic breakdown of the electorate
Incorrect. The early county returns and its demographics indicate where the votes are coming from. No indications presently that WWC heavy counties are "queueing up to vote for Trump."
Indeed first returns from North Carolina and the PPP poll issued today of actual voters show Clinton outpacing Obama.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics .
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
he is really down in the last 3 states you mentioned and isnt retaining the romney states.
According to the latest RCP Trump leads by 4 in Georgia and is down by 1.3 in Arizona and 2.1 in North
well ok. He cant win.
The final EU ref poll average had Remain ahead by almost 1%, Leave won by 4%. RCP presently has Clinton ahead by almost 6%, apply the same poll error and she is ahead by just 1%, George W Bush won the presidency in 2000 despite losing the popular vote by almost 1%
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics .
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
he is really down in the last 3 states you mentioned and isnt retaining the romney states.
According to the latest RCP Trump leads by 4 in Georgia and is down by 1.3 in Arizona and 2.1 in North
well ok. He cant win.
The final EU ref poll average had Remain ahead by almost 1%, Leave won by 4%. RCP presently has Clinton ahead by almost 6%, apply the same poll error and she is ahead by just 1%, George W Bush won the presidency in 2000 despite losing the popular vote by almost 1%
Straws being clutched.
We will see but if the same spike in wwc turnout is seen it will be on the mark
There is even if not an outstanding one but the white working class will be queuing up to vote for Trump almost as soon as polls open regardless
Like they're not doing at the moment you mean !!
You seem to think Trump motivates only the WWC .... nasty women and taco van drivers vote too.
You cannot prove anything about whether they are voting at not, the only way you can is once the exit polls come out and you get the socioeconomic breakdown of the electorate
Incorrect. The early county returns and its demographics indicate where the votes are coming from. No indications presently that WWC heavy counties are "queueing up to vote for Trump."
Indeed first returns from North Carolina and the PPP poll issued today of actual voters show Clinton outpacing Obama.
Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
The last poll in Minnesota was a month ago. It's not being polled because it's not a swing state.
Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....
There is even if not an outstanding one but the white working class will be queuing up to vote for Trump almost as soon as polls open regardless
Like they're not doing at the moment you mean !!
You seem to think Trump motivates only the WWC .... nasty women and taco van drivers vote too.
You cannot prove anything about whether they are voting at not, the only way you can is once the exit polls come out and you get the socioeconomic breakdown of the electorate
Incorrect. The early county returns and its demographics indicate where the votes are coming from. No indications presently that WWC heavy counties are "queueing up to vote for Trump."
Indeed first returns from North Carolina and the PPP poll issued today of actual voters show Clinton outpacing Obama.
You cannot prove anything until the exit polls come out and until all the voters have actually voted, in any case North Carolina has a higher percentage of white college graduates than the industrial Midwest so that does not really dispute the point
Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
The last poll in Minnesota was a month ago. It's not being polled because it's not a swing state.
Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....
Yeah right ....
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
There is even if not an outstanding one but the white working class will be queuing up to vote for Trump almost as soon as polls open regardless
Like they're not doing at the moment you mean !!
You seem to think Trump motivates only the WWC .... nasty women and taco van drivers vote too.
You cannot prove anything about whether they are voting at not, the only way you can is once the exit polls come out and you get the socioeconomic breakdown of the electorate
Incorrect. The early county returns and its demographics indicate where the votes are coming from. No indications presently that WWC heavy counties are "queueing up to vote for Trump."
Indeed first returns from North Carolina and the PPP poll issued today of actual voters show Clinton outpacing Obama.
But not in Florida.
the Dems are doing better than they did last time in florida. And they won florida despite being behind in esrly voting....
In Florida for example the Black early absentee vote is at 8% same as in 2012 and the white vote is down 4% points. also ingeordia AA make up HALF of the ballot requests so far.
I'm suprised everyone isn't 100% less enthusiastic tbh, doesn't mean they won't vote.
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
Nah Bush vs. Michelle. Dems in control for another 8 years.
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
It was MidWestern voters who picked Trump in the primaries
I think that you have a point with this one. I think that Clinton will win overall quite comfortably, but the Midwest offers some value for Trump in the states markets. Ohio and Iowa are toss-ups, but some of the others (Minnisota and Michigan in particular) have some value as Trump long shots. Worth a couple of quid each.
Trump's appeal in these Heartland states and Appalachia will be outweighed by losses across the rest.
Florida - I posted a link earlier to a report in "The Tampa Bay Times" Summary :
1. Early vote-by-mail returns - Roughly 406,000 Democrats have returned their ballots versus 421,000 Republican ballots, a less than one percent gap (compared to the five percent difference in 2012). This year Democrats outpaced Republicans in new voter registrations by 53,000 — 259,000 Democrats to 203,000 Republicans.
2.Since 2012 Democrats have added nearly 692,000 new voters compared to 593,000 Republicans, a Democratic advantage of nearly 100,000 new voters.
3.More diverse: In October 2012, Florida’s electorate was 67 percent white versus 64 percent in 2016 – a 3 percent drop. Similarly, in 2012 the electorate was 33 percent was comprised of non-white voters versus 36 percent non-white voters today.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics .
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
he is really down in the last 3 states you mentioned and isnt retaining the romney states.
According to the latest RCP Trump leads by 4 in Georgia and is down by 1.3 in Arizona and 2.1 in North
well ok. He cant win.
The final EU ref poll average had Remain ahead by almost 1%, Leave won by 4%. RCP presently has Clinton ahead by almost 6%, apply the same poll error and she is ahead by just 1%, George W Bush won the presidency in 2000 despite losing the popular vote by almost 1%
Straws being clutched.
We will see but if the same spike in wwc turnout is seen it will be on the mark
Brexit did not involve a series of local votes as state-based ECV voting does.
Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
The last poll in Minnesota was a month ago. It's not being polled because it's not a swing state.
Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....
Yeah right ....
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
I don't think that true. Leave won with older people, who do more postal votes.
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
1. The 2020 election isn't lost already. HRC is unpopular and she'll still be unpopular in 2020.
2. The GOP could do with effectively selecting its candidate asap rather than in 4 years' time. Although Sanders fought HRC, it was pretty certain for several years that she would be the candidate, which provided stability within the party. Therefore as a minimum requirement, the GOP needs a strong leadership to bang heads together, tell the likes of Cruz that he will not be supported, and sideline the Tea Partyers. The trick is to do this without pushing them out of the party...
3. The GOP needs to achieve some level of certainty that it can win most of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not easy, especially when you think of the dominance of urban centres such as Philadelphia, but they had made progress and Trump could've taken advantage of it, rather than getting sidetracked by sleaze.
It is interesting that Frank Luntz says his polls confirm what many on pb were telling the Trumpsters on here: that personal attacks on Hillary and going after Bill Clinton on sleaze were counter-productive.
What the GOP needs next time is a candidate who is a cross between Jeb Bush and Trump: sane as well as charismatic.
Late to the thread but can I just say that Zac forcing a bye election would be serious proof that Mrs May is every bit as lucky with her enemies as Cameron was.
If Zac did quit, would he:
(a) not stand again (b) stand as an Independent, with the Conservatives not contesting the seat (c) stand as an Independent, against an official Conservative candidate (d) stand as the Conservative candidate
?
I think in the case of (a) or (c), the LibDems would probably sneak it. In the case of (b), I think he'd probably be comfortably home. And in the case of (d), I think it's a very difficult call.
If you are less enthusiastic you are obviously less likely to vote, black turnout is likely to return to 2000 and 2004 levels as a percentage after the spikes of 2008 and 2012
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
BREXIT wasn't the UK general election and isn't the 2016 POTUS.
You are obsessed with the WWC as the silver bullet for Trump. You forget Trump has aimed a revolver at his head loaded with bullets from women, college educated whites, blacks and Hispanics.
Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
The last poll in Minnesota was a month ago. It's not being polled because it's not a swing state.
Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....
Yeah right ....
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
Brexit outperformed in early voting. Trump is underperforming.
Florida - I posted a link earlier to a report in "The Tampa Bay Times" Summary :
1. Early vote-by-mail returns - Roughly 406,000 Democrats have returned their ballots versus 421,000 Republican ballots, a less than one percent gap (compared to the five percent difference in 2012). This year Democrats outpaced Republicans in new voter registrations by 53,000 — 259,000 Democrats to 203,000 Republicans.
2.Since 2012 Democrats have added nearly 692,000 new voters compared to 593,000 Republicans, a Democratic advantage of nearly 100,000 new voters.
3.More diverse: In October 2012, Florida’s electorate was 67 percent white versus 64 percent in 2016 – a 3 percent drop. Similarly, in 2012 the electorate was 33 percent was comprised of non-white voters versus 36 percent non-white voters today.
As I have told you plenty of times party ID is largely meaningless in this election, more registered blue collar Democrats are likely to vote for Trump than registered Republicans for Hillary.
Florida is one of the most diverse states in the nation, it is not exactly a good example of a state filled with wwc voters. As I posted below in NC by contrast the white vote is up and the black vote down compared to 2012.
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
You really are living in Trump La-La-Land ....
If Trump was competitive in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he'd be stuffing those states with Trump rallies, surrogates, field offices and cash .... and yet ....
All the substantive polling of Hispanic only voters show Trump polling around 15% compared to Romney's 27%.
Trump is opting for the narrow window of Romney 12 and FOP and he's tanking.
If WWC were so hugely enthused by Trump why are we not seeing the numbers in early voting. Where is the huge spike as they flock to the polls for Donald ?!?
Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
If you are less enthusiastic you are obviously less likely to vote, black turnout is likely to return to 2000 and 2004 levels as a percentage after the spikes of 2008 and 2012
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
BREXIT wasn't the UK general election and isn't the 2016 POTUS.
You are obsessed with the WWC as the silver bullet for Trump. You forget Trump has aimed a revolver at his head loaded with bullets from women, college educated whites, blacks and Hispanics.
It is exactly the same trend though ie anti globalisation, anti mass immigration and the fact Trump rallies are packed with the WWC tells you that. I also seem to remember you banging the drum about how Remain would win throughout most of the lead-up to EU ref too. As I also said black turnout will likely be down on 2012, white college educated women and Hispanics will boost Hillary I grant you but again it depends on which voters turn out most
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
BREXIT wasn't the UK general election and isn't the 2016 POTUS.
You are obsessed with the WWC as the silver bullet for Trump. You forget Trump has aimed a revolver at his head loaded with bullets from women, college educated whites, blacks and Hispanics.
It is exactly the same trend though ie anti globalisation, anti mass immigration and the fact Trump rallies are packed with the WWC tells you that. As I also said black turnout will likely be down on 2012, white college educated women and Hispanics will boost Hillary I grant you but again it depends on which voters turn out most
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
BREXIT wasn't the UK general election and isn't the 2016 POTUS.
You are obsessed with the WWC as the silver bullet for Trump. You forget Trump has aimed a revolver at his head loaded with bullets from women, college educated whites, blacks and Hispanics.
It is exactly the same trend though ie anti globalisation, anti mass immigration and the fact Trump rallies are packed with the WWC tells you that. I also seem to remember you banging the drum about how Remain would win throughout most of the lead-up to EU ref too. As I also said black turnout will likely be down on 2012, white college educated women and Hispanics will boost Hillary I grant you but again it depends on which voters turn out most
Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
The last poll in Minnesota was a month ago. It's not being polled because it's not a swing state.
Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....
Yeah right ....
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
Brexit outperformed in early voting. Trump is underperforming.
How do you know? Also depends entirely where you look
Late to the thread but can I just say that Zac forcing a bye election would be serious proof that Mrs May is every bit as lucky with her enemies as Cameron was.
If Zac did quit, would he:
(a) not stand again (b) stand as an Independent, with the Conservatives not contesting the seat (c) stand as an Independent, against an official Conservative candidate (d) stand as the Conservative candidate
?
I think in the case of (a) or (c), the LibDems would probably sneak it. In the case of (b), I think he'd probably be comfortably home. And in the case of (d), I think it's a very difficult call.
Tricky for May. Surely she couldn't let Zac stand again as a Conservative and surely she'd have to field a Conservative candidate. So c) looks most likely unless Zac fancies retiring to the Lords.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics .
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in
he is really down in the last 3 states you mentioned and isnt retaining the romney states.
According to the latest RCP Trump leads by 4 in Georgia and is down by 1.3 in Arizona and 2.1 in North
well ok. He cant win.
The final EU ref poll average had Remain ahead by almost 1%, Leave won by 4%. RCP presently has Clinton ahead by almost 6%, apply the same poll error and she is ahead by just 1%, George W Bush won the presidency in 2000 despite losing the popular vote by almost 1%
Straws being clutched.
We will see but if the same spike in wwc turnout is seen it will be on the mark
Brexit did not involve a series of local votes as state-based ECV voting does.
It did in the sense the results were determined local authority by local authority
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
Nah Bush vs. Michelle. Dems in control for another 8 years.
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
1. The 2020 election isn't lost already. HRC is unpopular and she'll still be unpopular in 2020.
2. The GOP could do with effectively selecting its candidate asap rather than in 4 years' time. Although Sanders fought HRC, it was pretty certain for several years that she would be the candidate, which provided stability within the party. Therefore as a minimum requirement, the GOP needs a strong leadership to bang heads together, tell the likes of Cruz that he will not be supported, and sideline the Tea Partyers. The trick is to do this without pushing them out of the party...
3. The GOP needs to achieve some level of certainty that it can win most of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not easy, especially when you think of the dominance of urban centres such as Philadelphia, but they had made progress and Trump could've taken advantage of it, rather than getting sidetracked by sleaze.
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
Nah Bush vs. Michelle. Dems in control for another 8 years.
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
It was MidWestern voters who picked Trump in the primaries
I think that you have a point with this one. I think that Clinton will win overall quite comfortably, but the Midwest offers some value for Trump in the states markets. Ohio and Iowa are toss-ups, but some of the others (Minnisota and Michigan in particular) have some value as Trump long shots. Worth a couple of quid each.
Trump's appeal in these Heartland states and Appalachia will be outweighed by losses across the rest.
We will see on the overall picture but I agree Trump's strongest region is the industrial Midwest and rustbelt
And your evidence is ........ Fraser Nelson and the Spectator god help us.
I know for a fact that Sturgeon has not asked to be within the Customs Union. She has made her red line the single market. If there was any suggestion that wee Fraser even knew the difference between the two then you could take himseriously.
The truth is he doesn't and no-one should. His real motivation is a growing sense of panic that May and crew are being outmanoeuvred by Sturgeon.
Restaurant meetings with junior ministers are the way forward for foreign policy are they?
SNP have been, along with other parties, totally sidelined by Brexit and reaction to it.
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
BREXIT wasn't the UK general election and isn't the 2016 POTUS.
You are obsessed with the WWC as the silver bullet for Trump. You forget Trump has aimed a revolver at his head loaded with bullets from women, college educated whites, blacks and Hispanics.
It is exactly the same trend though ie anti globalisation, anti mass immigration and the fact Trump rallies are packed with the WWC tells you that. As I also said black turnout will likely be down on 2012, white college educated women and Hispanics will boost Hillary I grant you but again it depends on which voters turn out most
Late to the thread but can I just say that Zac forcing a bye election would be serious proof that Mrs May is every bit as lucky with her enemies as Cameron was.
If Zac did quit, would he:
(a) not stand again (b) stand as an Independent, with the Conservatives not contesting the seat (c) stand as an Independent, against an official Conservative candidate (d) stand as the Conservative candidate
?
I think in the case of (a) or (c), the LibDems would probably sneak it. In the case of (b), I think he'd probably be comfortably home. And in the case of (d), I think it's a very difficult call.
Tricky for May. Surely she couldn't let Zac stand again as a Conservative and surely she'd have to field a Conservative candidate. So c) looks most likely unless Zac fancies retiring to the Lords.
I don't see why she couldn't let him be the Tory, if he said "elect me to oppose Heathrow [from the back benches]"
Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
The last poll in Minnesota was a month ago. It's not being polled because it's not a swing state.
Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....
Yeah right ....
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
I don't think that true. Leave won with older people, who do more postal votes.
Most of the wwc are not elderly and even in the US polling shows Trump leads with the old, albeit not by quite as much as Leave did
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
1. The 2020 election isn't lost already. HRC is unpopular and she'll still be unpopular in 2020.
2. The GOP could do with effectively selecting its candidate asap rather than in 4 years' time. Although Sanders fought HRC, it was pretty certain for several years that she would be the candidate, which provided stability within the party. Therefore as a minimum requirement, the GOP needs a strong leadership to bang heads together, tell the likes of Cruz that he will not be supported, and sideline the Tea Partyers. The trick is to do this without pushing them out of the party...
3. The GOP needs to achieve some level of certainty that it can win most of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not easy, especially when you think of the dominance of urban centres such as Philadelphia, but they had made progress and Trump could've taken advantage of it, rather than getting sidetracked by sleaze.
It is interesting that Frank Luntz says his polls confirm what many on pb were telling the Trumpsters on here: that personal attacks on Hillary and going after Bill Clinton on sleaze were counter-productive.
What the GOP needs next time is a candidate who is a cross between Jeb Bush and Trump: sane as well as charismatic.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
Trump has spent the last few months proving categorically that he is not a politician. Really at times it is unclear whether he actually wanted to win.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
I think you are going a little too far the other way now, I certainly don't think Trump would ever have got to 400 EVs. Certainly he could have been more focused in his campaign and Hillary is the favourite now but I still believe it will be closer than the polls suggest and of course part of the reason he motivated the wwc was precisely because he alienated Hispanics by advocating tougher border control
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
he did start off calling all mexicans rapists. His personality and policies are why he is losing and losing badly at the moment
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
BREXIT wasn't the UK general election and isn't the 2016 POTUS.
You are obsessed with the WWC as the silver bullet for Trump. You forget Trump has aimed a revolver at his head loaded with bullets from women, college educated whites, blacks and Hispanics.
It is exactly the same trend though ie anti globalisation, anti mass immigration and the fact Trump rallies are packed with the WWC tells you that. As I also said black turnout will likely be down on 2012, white college educated women and Hispanics will boost Hillary I grant you but again it depends on which voters turn out most
Yes and Leave overturned a narrow Remain lead to win by 4%, as I say a similar swing in the US would make it almost neck and neck. That based on the present RCP poll lead for Hillary of 5.8%, not polls from 3 months ago
Late to the thread but can I just say that Zac forcing a bye election would be serious proof that Mrs May is every bit as lucky with her enemies as Cameron was.
If Zac did quit, would he:
(a) not stand again (b) stand as an Independent, with the Conservatives not contesting the seat (c) stand as an Independent, against an official Conservative candidate (d) stand as the Conservative candidate
?
I think in the case of (a) or (c), the LibDems would probably sneak it. In the case of (b), I think he'd probably be comfortably home. And in the case of (d), I think it's a very difficult call.
Tricky for May. Surely she couldn't let Zac stand again as a Conservative and surely she'd have to field a Conservative candidate. So c) looks most likely unless Zac fancies retiring to the Lords.
I think she'll let Zac stand as an Independent. It's just a hunch, but I think that's the best way to square the circle.
Unless.
Zac is pissed off at having been let down in the Mayorals, and sees there's no chance of Ministerial office, and thinks f*ck it, I'm going to do something else. In which case, it's (a) and a fairly comfortable LibDem gain.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
I think you are going a little too far the other way now, I certainly don't think Trump would ever have got to 400 EVs. Certainly he could have been more focused in his campaign and Hillary is the favourite now but I still believe it will be closer than the polls suggest and of course part of the reason he motivated the wwc was precisely because he alienated Hispanics by advocating tougher border control
A lot of Hispanics support tougher border controls. What they don't support is being called rapists.
- If Con don't field a candidate then Zac surely wins easily
- If Con do field a candidate then May risks a Lib Dem win
There is no chance of Con winning against Zac so much better not to field a candidate.
LD win increases risk of losing boundary changes. DUP will vote against boundary changes so starting point is majority of 16. If Con lose two or three by-elections pre Oct 2018 then only 5 to 6 rebels needed to kill it.
Conclusion: Must avoid LD win - so don't put up a candidate - let Zac win as an Independent.
If you are less enthusiastic you are obviously less likely to vote, black turnout is likely to return to 2000 and 2004 levels as a percentage after the spikes of 2008 and 2012
There have been massive reductions in the amount of polling places available to black neighbourhoods in NC.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
I think you are going a little too far the other way now, I certainly don't think Trump would ever have got to 400 EVs. Certainly he could have been more focused in his campaign and Hillary is the favourite now but I still believe it will be closer than the polls suggest and of course part of the reason he motivated the wwc was precisely because he alienated Hispanics by advocating tougher border control
A lot of Hispanics support tougher border controls. What they don't support is being called rapists.
Very few Hispanics support tougher border controls and deportations, large numbers of WWC voters do. I don't disagree Trump could have been more thoughtful in his language
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different
BREXIT wasn't the UK general election and isn't the 2016 POTUS.
You are obsessed with the WWC as the silver bullet for Trump. You forget Trump has aimed a revolver at his head loaded with bullets from women, college educated whites, blacks and Hispanics.
It is exactly the same trend though ie anti globalisation, anti mass immigration and the fact Trump rallies are packed with the WWC tells you that. I also seem to remember you banging the drum about how Remain would win throughout most of the lead-up to EU ref too. As I also said black turnout will likely be down on 2012, white college educated women and Hispanics will boost Hillary I grant you but again it depends on which voters turn out most
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
The problem is that the alternatives in the primaries were pretty uninspiring.
Trumps biggest mistake (and Hillary's biggest success) was keeping the emphasis on personality. Trump defending his groping, just kept it in the news and makes him look unpresidential. He should have worked on some real policies with which to expose the Clinton/Obama camp, and explained how they would be paid for. He needed to explain what "Make America Great Again" means rather than be an empty slogan.
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
You really are living in Trump La-La-Land ....
If Trump was competitive in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he'd be stuffing those states with Trump rallies, surrogates, field offices and cash .... and yet ....
All the substantive polling of Hispanic only voters show Trump polling around 15% compared to Romney's 27%.
Trump is opting for the narrow window of Romney 12 and FOP and he's tanking.
If WWC were so hugely enthused by Trump why are we not seeing the numbers in early voting. Where is the huge spike as they flock to the polls for Donald ?!?
Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
- If Con don't field a candidate then Zac surely wins easily
- If Con do field a candidate then May risks a Lib Dem win
There is no chance of Con winning against Zac so much better not to field a candidate.
LD win increases risk of losing boundary changes. DUP will vote against boundary changes so starting point is majority of 16. If Con lose two or three by-elections pre Oct 2018 then only 5 to 6 rebels needed to kill it.
Conclusion: Must avoid LD win - so don't put up a candidate - let Zac win as an Independent.
There are apparently several Tory MPs in the NorthWest who oppose the Boundary changes. A senior Tory has stated that it is 60:40 against the proposals being approved.
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
1. The 2020 election isn't lost already. HRC is unpopular and she'll still be unpopular in 2020.
2. The GOP could do with effectively selecting its candidate asap rather than in 4 years' time. Although Sanders fought HRC, it was pretty certain for several years that she would be the candidate, which provided stability within the party. Therefore as a minimum requirement, the GOP needs a strong leadership to bang heads together, tell the likes of Cruz that he will not be supported, and sideline the Tea Partyers. The trick is to do this without pushing them out of the party...
3. The GOP needs to achieve some level of certainty that it can win most of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not easy, especially when you think of the dominance of urban centres such as Philadelphia, but they had made progress and Trump could've taken advantage of it, rather than getting sidetracked by sleaze.
It is interesting that Frank Luntz says his polls confirm what many on pb were telling the Trumpsters on here: that personal attacks on Hillary and going after Bill Clinton on sleaze were counter-productive.
What the GOP needs next time is a candidate who is a cross between Jeb Bush and Trump: sane as well as charismatic.
If Trump loses Cruz will most likely be GOP candidate in 2020, ie most of Trump's policies with a Hispanic face on. Come 2024 they may then find a winner in George P Bush ie the moderate, sane policies of his father combined with charisma and a Hispanic heritage
- If Con don't field a candidate then Zac surely wins easily
- If Con do field a candidate then May risks a Lib Dem win
There is no chance of Con winning against Zac so much better not to field a candidate.
LD win increases risk of losing boundary changes. DUP will vote against boundary changes so starting point is majority of 16. If Con lose two or three by-elections pre Oct 2018 then only 5 to 6 rebels needed to kill it.
Conclusion: Must avoid LD win - so don't put up a candidate - let Zac win as an Independent.
I think that's the most likely outcome too. But it also means that Zac has to be happy basically being a backbench MP into perpetuity. He can't be offered Ministerial office in the medium term, because that would play incredibly badly in the constituency (as in, it would look like Independence was a completely cynical tactic.) And do the Conservatives stand against him in 2020?
Late to the thread but can I just say that Zac forcing a bye election would be serious proof that Mrs May is every bit as lucky with her enemies as Cameron was.
If Zac did quit, would he:
(a) not stand again (b) stand as an Independent, with the Conservatives not contesting the seat (c) stand as an Independent, against an official Conservative candidate (d) stand as the Conservative candidate
?
I think in the case of (a) or (c), the LibDems would probably sneak it. In the case of (b), I think he'd probably be comfortably home. And in the case of (d), I think it's a very difficult call.
Tricky for May. Surely she couldn't let Zac stand again as a Conservative and surely she'd have to field a Conservative candidate. So c) looks most likely unless Zac fancies retiring to the Lords.
I think she'll let Zac stand as an Independent. It's just a hunch, but I think that's the best way to square the circle.
Unless.
Zac is pissed off at having been let down in the Mayorals, and sees there's no chance of Ministerial office, and thinks f*ck it, I'm going to do something else. In which case, it's (a) and a fairly comfortable LibDem gain.
I think the latter.
Plus voters do not like pointless by-elections to massage the egos of narcisstic politicians. No Con candidate would be a field day for the LDs and possibly the kippers, if they have a sane leader.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
You are stretching a point, to the point of breaking it.
He had a decent chance, but it is still a challenge to win for any GOP candidate in the face of demographic change and a popular Democratic incumbent.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
I think you are going a little too far the other way now, I certainly don't think Trump would ever have got to 400 EVs. Certainly he could have been more focused in his campaign and Hillary is the favourite now but I still believe it will be closer than the polls suggest and of course part of the reason he motivated the wwc was precisely because he alienated Hispanics by advocating tougher border control
A lot of Hispanics support tougher border controls. What they don't support is being called rapists.
Very few Hispanics support tougher border controls and deportations, large numbers of WWC voters do. I don't disagree Trump could have been more thoughtful in his language
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
1. The 2020 election isn't lost already. HRC is unpopular and she'll still be unpopular in 2020.
2. The GOP could do with effectively selecting its candidate asap rather than in 4 years' time. Although Sanders fought HRC, it was pretty certain for several years that she would be the candidate, which provided stability within the party. Therefore as a minimum requirement, the GOP needs a strong leadership to bang heads together, tell the likes of Cruz that he will not be supported, and sideline the Tea Partyers. The trick is to do this without pushing them out of the party...
3. The GOP needs to achieve some level of certainty that it can win most of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not easy, especially when you think of the dominance of urban centres such as Philadelphia, but they had made progress and Trump could've taken advantage of it, rather than getting sidetracked by sleaze.
It is interesting that Frank Luntz says his polls confirm what many on pb were telling the Trumpsters on here: that personal attacks on Hillary and going after Bill Clinton on sleaze were counter-productive.
What the GOP needs next time is a candidate who is a cross between Jeb Bush and Trump: sane as well as charismatic.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
You are stretching a point, to the point of breaking it.
He had a decent chance, but it is still a challenge to win for any GOP candidate in the face of demographic change and a popular Democratic incumbent.
Hillary Clinton is not a popular Democratic incumbent.
Late to the thread but can I just say that Zac forcing a bye election would be serious proof that Mrs May is every bit as lucky with her enemies as Cameron was.
If Zac did quit, would he:
(a) not stand again (b) stand as an Independent, with the Conservatives not contesting the seat (c) stand as an Independent, against an official Conservative candidate (d) stand as the Conservative candidate
?
I think in the case of (a) or (c), the LibDems would probably sneak it. In the case of (b), I think he'd probably be comfortably home. And in the case of (d), I think it's a very difficult call.
Tricky for May. Surely she couldn't let Zac stand again as a Conservative and surely she'd have to field a Conservative candidate. So c) looks most likely unless Zac fancies retiring to the Lords.
I think she'll let Zac stand as an Independent. It's just a hunch, but I think that's the best way to square the circle.
Unless.
Zac is pissed off at having been let down in the Mayorals, and sees there's no chance of Ministerial office, and thinks f*ck it, I'm going to do something else. In which case, it's (a) and a fairly comfortable LibDem gain.
I think the latter.
Plus voters do not like pointless by-elections to massage the egos of narcisstic politicians. No Con candidate would be a field day for the LDs and possibly the kippers, if they have a sane leader.
Not one whose horse gets attacked by gay donkeys ?
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
You are stretching a point, to the point of breaking it.
He had a decent chance, but it is still a challenge to win for any GOP candidate in the face of demographic change and a popular Democratic incumbent.
Hillary Clinton is not a popular Democratic incumbent.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
You are stretching a point, to the point of breaking it.
He had a decent chance, but it is still a challenge to win for any GOP candidate in the face of demographic change and a popular Democratic incumbent.
Trump won the Republican nomination by being Trump, but those who vote in the Republican primaries are not typical of the electorate. Some thought he was being clever and there were signs, I think he himself said that he had to be quite extreme to see off Cruz and the others. He didn't see that he needed to change tack once he had the nomination wrapped up. Maybe he just couldn't change.
Late to the thread but can I just say that Zac forcing a bye election would be serious proof that Mrs May is every bit as lucky with her enemies as Cameron was.
If Zac did quit, would he:
(a) not stand again (b) stand as an Independent, with the Conservatives not contesting the seat (c) stand as an Independent, against an official Conservative candidate (d) stand as the Conservative candidate
?
I think in the case of (a) or (c), the LibDems would probably sneak it. In the case of (b), I think he'd probably be comfortably home. And in the case of (d), I think it's a very difficult call.
Tricky for May. Surely she couldn't let Zac stand again as a Conservative and surely she'd have to field a Conservative candidate. So c) looks most likely unless Zac fancies retiring to the Lords.
I think she'll let Zac stand as an Independent. It's just a hunch, but I think that's the best way to square the circle.
Unless.
Zac is pissed off at having been let down in the Mayorals, and sees there's no chance of Ministerial office, and thinks f*ck it, I'm going to do something else. In which case, it's (a) and a fairly comfortable LibDem gain.
I think the latter.
Plus voters do not like pointless by-elections to massage the egos of narcisstic politicians. No Con candidate would be a field day for the LDs and possibly the kippers, if they have a sane leader.
Not one whose horse gets attacked by gay donkeys ?
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
I think you are going a little too far the other way now, I certainly don't think Trump would ever have got to 400 EVs. Certainly he could have been more focused in his campaign and Hillary is the favourite now but I still believe it will be closer than the polls suggest and of course part of the reason he motivated the wwc was precisely because he alienated Hispanics by advocating tougher border control
A lot of Hispanics support tougher border controls. What they don't support is being called rapists.
Very few Hispanics support tougher border controls and deportations, large numbers of WWC voters do. I don't disagree Trump could have been more thoughtful in his language
That poll has the US population backing border control over a path to citizenship by 41% to 23%, Hispanic voters prioritise a path to citizenship over border control by 46% to 38%
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
I think you are going a little too far the other way now, I certainly don't think Trump would ever have got to 400 EVs. Certainly he could have been more focused in his campaign and Hillary is the favourite now but I still believe it will be closer than the polls suggest and of course part of the reason he motivated the wwc was precisely because he alienated Hispanics by advocating tougher border control
A lot of Hispanics support tougher border controls. What they don't support is being called rapists.
Very few Hispanics support tougher border controls and deportations, large numbers of WWC voters do. I don't disagree Trump could have been more thoughtful in his language
That poll has the US population backing border control over a path to citizenship by 41% to 23%, Hispanic voters prioritise a path to citizenship over border control by 46% to 38%
Can anyone point to a shred of evidence that the Trumpster has any chance at all? I ask as a man who is on Trump at 6.5. I feel certain to lose my money.
Late to the thread but can I just say that Zac forcing a bye election would be serious proof that Mrs May is every bit as lucky with her enemies as Cameron was.
If Zac did quit, would he:
(a) not stand again (b) stand as an Independent, with the Conservatives not contesting the seat (c) stand as an Independent, against an official Conservative candidate (d) stand as the Conservative candidate
?
I think in the case of (a) or (c), the LibDems would probably sneak it. In the case of (b), I think he'd probably be comfortably home. And in the case of (d), I think it's a very difficult call.
Tricky for May. Surely she couldn't let Zac stand again as a Conservative and surely she'd have to field a Conservative candidate. So c) looks most likely unless Zac fancies retiring to the Lords.
I think she'll let Zac stand as an Independent. It's just a hunch, but I think that's the best way to square the circle.
Unless.
Zac is pissed off at having been let down in the Mayorals, and sees there's no chance of Ministerial office, and thinks f*ck it, I'm going to do something else. In which case, it's (a) and a fairly comfortable LibDem gain.
Did the party machine let him down, then? I gained the impression he was very laid-back and fought a distinctly lack-lustre campaign.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
he did start off calling all mexicans rapists. His personality and policies are why he is losing and losing badly at the moment
And is why he got the nomination in the first place.
The GOP plan is certainly to sweep the Midwest but it needed teamwork, and selecting Trump as candidate provided none of that. As far as the future's concerned:
1. The 2020 election isn't lost already. HRC is unpopular and she'll still be unpopular in 2020.
2. The GOP could do with effectively selecting its candidate asap rather than in 4 years' time. Although Sanders fought HRC, it was pretty certain for several years that she would be the candidate, which provided stability within the party. Therefore as a minimum requirement, the GOP needs a strong leadership to bang heads together, tell the likes of Cruz that he will not be supported, and sideline the Tea Partyers. The trick is to do this without pushing them out of the party...
3. The GOP needs to achieve some level of certainty that it can win most of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not easy, especially when you think of the dominance of urban centres such as Philadelphia, but they had made progress and Trump could've taken advantage of it, rather than getting sidetracked by sleaze.
It is interesting that Frank Luntz says his polls confirm what many on pb were telling the Trumpsters on here: that personal attacks on Hillary and going after Bill Clinton on sleaze were counter-productive.
What the GOP needs next time is a candidate who is a cross between Jeb Bush and Trump: sane as well as charismatic.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
I think you are going a little too far the other way now, I certainly don't think Trump would ever have got to 400 EVs. Certainly he could have been more focused in his campaign and Hillary is the favourite now but I still believe it will be closer than the polls suggest and of course part of the reason he motivated the wwc was precisely because he alienated Hispanics by advocating tougher border control
A lot of Hispanics support tougher border controls. What they don't support is being called rapists.
Very few Hispanics support tougher border controls and deportations, large numbers of WWC voters do. I don't disagree Trump could have been more thoughtful in his language
That poll has the US population backing border control over a path to citizenship by 41% to 23%, Hispanic voters prioritise a path to citizenship over border control by 46% to 38%
Comments
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
1. The 2020 election isn't lost already. HRC is unpopular and she'll still be unpopular in 2020.
2. The GOP could do with effectively selecting its candidate asap rather than in 4 years' time. Although Sanders fought HRC, it was pretty certain for several years that she would be the candidate, which provided stability within the party. Therefore as a minimum requirement, the GOP needs a strong leadership to bang heads together, tell the likes of Cruz that he will not be supported, and sideline the Tea Partyers. The trick is to do this without pushing them out of the party...
3. The GOP needs to achieve some level of certainty that it can win most of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Not easy, especially when you think of the dominance of urban centres such as Philadelphia, but they had made progress and Trump could've taken advantage of it, rather than getting sidetracked by sleaze.
(Luntz has a point when he says "this should've been a slam-dunk for the GOP" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6BTo9Sh064 )
Two key differences may still make the difference though and if Hillary wins will be the decisive factors. First, the Hispanic vote in the US which will come out for her and does not really exist in the UK and second the libertarian vote will vote for Johnson rather than Trump, in the UK libertarians voted Leave.
And your evidence is ........ Fraser Nelson and the Spectator god help us.
I know for a fact that Sturgeon has not asked to be within the Customs Union. She has made her red line the single market. If there was any suggestion that wee Fraser even knew the difference between the two then you could take himseriously.
The truth is he doesn't and no-one should. His real motivation is a growing sense of panic that May and crew are being outmanoeuvred by Sturgeon.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
You seem to think Trump motivates only the WWC .... nasty women and taco van drivers vote too.
SNP have been, along with other parties, totally sidelined by Brexit and reaction to it.
The Tory party is the only party in town.
Indeed first returns from North Carolina and the PPP poll issued today of actual voters show Clinton outpacing Obama.
Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....
Yeah right ....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-interest-in-election-falls-1476702003
Patrick Ruffini
@PatrickRuffini
Dem paid staff = 5,138
GOP paid staff = 1,409
This was supposed to change after 2012. Guess not. #ThanksDonald
I'm suprised everyone isn't 100% less enthusiastic tbh, doesn't mean they won't vote.
Trump's appeal in these Heartland states and Appalachia will be outweighed by losses across the rest.
Florida - I posted a link earlier to a report in "The Tampa Bay Times" Summary :
1. Early vote-by-mail returns - Roughly 406,000 Democrats have returned their ballots versus 421,000 Republican ballots, a less than one percent gap (compared to the five percent difference in 2012).
This year Democrats outpaced Republicans in new voter registrations by 53,000 — 259,000 Democrats to 203,000 Republicans.
2.Since 2012 Democrats have added nearly 692,000 new voters compared to 593,000 Republicans, a Democratic advantage of nearly 100,000 new voters.
3.More diverse: In October 2012, Florida’s electorate was 67 percent white versus 64 percent in 2016 – a 3 percent drop. Similarly, in 2012 the electorate was 33 percent was comprised of non-white voters versus 36 percent non-white voters today.
What the GOP needs next time is a candidate who is a cross between Jeb Bush and Trump: sane as well as charismatic.
(a) not stand again
(b) stand as an Independent, with the Conservatives not contesting the seat
(c) stand as an Independent, against an official Conservative candidate
(d) stand as the Conservative candidate
?
I think in the case of (a) or (c), the LibDems would probably sneak it. In the case of (b), I think he'd probably be comfortably home. And in the case of (d), I think it's a very difficult call.
https://twitter.com/floridaguy267/status/789938732812079104
If you are less enthusiastic you are obviously less likely to vote, black turnout is likely to return to 2000 and 2004 levels as a percentage after the spikes of 2008 and 2012
You are obsessed with the WWC as the silver bullet for Trump. You forget Trump has aimed a revolver at his head loaded with bullets from women, college educated whites, blacks and Hispanics.
Florida is one of the most diverse states in the nation, it is not exactly a good example of a state filled with wwc voters. As I posted below in NC by contrast the white vote is up and the black vote down compared to 2012.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
I thought that about Labour once.
He appeals - as HYUFD correctly points out - to the WWC, which if fused with the the traditional Republican base, creates an unstoppable political force. And he was facing Hillary Clinton, possibly the least popular Democratic nominee possible.
This should have been a Republican walkover.
But Trump has f*cked it up. He's managed to alienate traditional Republicans, and women, and Hispanics, and and and and...
A businessman should have done a great job putting an organisation in place to translate support into votes. But he's not. From all that we hear, the registration and GOTV efforts of the Republicans are woeful.
And his total refusal to go to debate camp cost him dearly. He thought he could wing it against an uninspiring Clinton. But the Clinton campaign was ruthless, and Donald has more skeletons in his cupboard than I have socks (and I have a lot of socks).
Donald Trump should have won 400 EVs. He's going to go down to a monumental loss.
Unless.
Zac is pissed off at having been let down in the Mayorals, and sees there's no chance of Ministerial office, and thinks f*ck it, I'm going to do something else. In which case, it's (a) and a fairly comfortable LibDem gain.
- If Con don't field a candidate then Zac surely wins easily
- If Con do field a candidate then May risks a Lib Dem win
There is no chance of Con winning against Zac so much better not to field a candidate.
LD win increases risk of losing boundary changes. DUP will vote against boundary changes so starting point is majority of 16. If Con lose two or three by-elections pre Oct 2018 then only 5 to 6 rebels needed to kill it.
Conclusion: Must avoid LD win - so don't put up a candidate - let Zac win as an Independent.
Trumps biggest mistake (and Hillary's biggest success) was keeping the emphasis on personality. Trump defending his groping, just kept it in the news and makes him look unpresidential. He should have worked on some real policies with which to expose the Clinton/Obama camp, and explained how they would be paid for. He needed to explain what "Make America Great Again" means rather than be an empty slogan.
Roger Pielke Jr. @RogerPielkeJr
Stern Review (on clim chg) came out 10 yrs ago
Predicted weather disasters wld be >0.6% GDP in 2016
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378007000404 …
Only off by 400%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
It's a real minefield.
Plus voters do not like pointless by-elections to massage the egos of narcisstic politicians. No Con candidate would be a field day for the LDs and possibly the kippers, if they have a sane leader.
He had a decent chance, but it is still a challenge to win for any GOP candidate in the face of demographic change and a popular Democratic incumbent.
same as last week
Some thought he was being clever and there were signs, I think he himself said that he had to be quite extreme to see off Cruz and the others. He didn't see that he needed to change tack once he had the nomination wrapped up. Maybe he just couldn't change.
https://twitter.com/abrams_doug/status/789825076078059521?s=09
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/26551/7326
https://twitter.com/h_alexander/status/790641823995879424