2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

zelezo vlk

Well-known member
Messages
18,014
Reaction score
5,055
See the "METAPHORICAL WALL"

I actually want this wall now. But not at the border to Mexico, I want it at the border to California. Think about it, do you REALLY want people like ACamp crossing willy nilly moving to SC to steal your grits and snapper?

We could even get them to pay for it with that #Calexit movement.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Are you not the one who keeps harping on about how Trump only won due to a diluted primary for Republicans? At the time of the primaries, Sanders polled ahead of ALL Republicans in the primary head to head. His favorables were extremely high compared to all other candidates from both parties and he had the lowest unfavorables IIRC as well.

The DNC had to literally sandbag him to keep him from winning. They restricted his access to Democrat voter rolls. They had sham primaries in Nevada and other states. Then after they had to quiet him down once it was obvious what they were doing, they gave him a little more say in the part'ys platform which they never intended to honor with HRC. Dont make the false equivalency that Trump navigated a tough primary while Bernie could not. They were too vastly different things. Even after the election surveys and post FBI email email sham.... show that many people would voted for Sanders over Trump head to head.
I'm not comparing Trump's primary run to Bernie's primary run because their opponents were vastly different. I'm comparing Trump's general election run to Bernie's primary run because they were both one-on-one races against Hillary Rodham Clinton. You're kind of proving my point. If Bernie's favorables were so high, why couldn't he defeat Hillary? Spare me the shit about "sandbagging." He lost 15.8M to 12.0M. That's 57-43, i.e. not fucking close at all. There's no chance Debbie Wassermann-Schultz' corruption was worth 4 million votes.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I actually want this wall now. But not at the border to Mexico, I want it at the border to California. Think about it, do you REALLY want people like ACamp crossing willy nilly moving to SC to steal your grits and snapper?

We could even get them to pay for it with that #Calexit movement.

The Notre Dame - USC/Stanford games? Will both teams need visas? What about Cal recruits - green cards?
 
Last edited:

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,496
Dawg, the Bernie left is fucking insane. Trump's policies are incoherent and all over the board, so he was able to be all things to all people. Bernie would have been utterly incapable of expanding beyond his #Occupy base.

You're missing the point.

It's not about which policies actually go into effect. It's not about what you deem to be "fucking insane" or perfectly logical to others. Bernie was a huge success on the trail. Saying otherwise is being ignorant beyond belief, which I know you're not because you followed this election closely, so what is it?

There was a claim that Bernie was successful and would've given Trump a run for him money in the general and you've moved the argument to Bernie is insane, which has nothing to do with the former statement of facts.
 

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
Dawg, the Bernie left is fucking insane. Trump's policies are incoherent and all over the board, so he was able to be all things to all people. Bernie would have been utterly incapable of expanding beyond his #Occupy base.

And the occupy crowd is mainly young people...who never show up when it counts. Even when Obama was elected.

Also, I would've been interested to see just how much depth we would've gotten from Uncle Bernie about his policies (we didn't get squat from Trumper)

Bernie's plan is a trainwreck. He got as far as he did, because like Trump, he got people excited about his over-the-top policies (which, like Trump, probably wouldn't get anywhere close to what he wants)
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,496
I'm not comparing Trump's primary run to Bernie's primary run because their opponents were vastly different. I'm comparing Trump's general election run to Bernie's primary run because they were both one-on-one races against Hillary Rodham Clinton. You're kind of proving my point. If Bernie's favorables were so high, why couldn't he defeat Hillary? Spare me the shit about "sandbagging." He lost 15.8M to 12.0M. That's 57-43, i.e. not fucking close at all. There's no chance Debbie Wassermann-Schultz' corruption was worth 4 million votes.

You're smarter than this so I think you're just purposefully being difficult.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
There’s No Escape Now « EPIC FAIL .COM : #1 Source for Epic Fail and Fail Pictures, Fail Videos, and Fail Stories

26.jpg



Hopefully one of these works
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
You're missing the point.

It's not about which policies actually go into effect. It's not about what you deem to be "fucking insane" or perfectly logical to others. Bernie was a huge success on the trail. Saying otherwise is being ignorant beyond belief, which I know you're not because you followed this election closely, so what is it?

There was a claim that Bernie was successful and would've given Trump a run for him money in the general and you've moved the argument to Bernie is insane, which has nothing to do with the former statement of facts.
What I'm saying is that Bernie's success in the primary came from the far left of the Democrat Party, which would not have translated to the general election. Trump's success in the primary was not (consistently) on the right-wing of the Republican primary. He was right-wing on immigration, left-wing on trade, and centrist on social issues. That meant his appeal, such as it was, was more malleable to a General Election audience than Bernie's would have been.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Widely successful campaign? Dude, he didn't even beat Clinton. Of course there was collusion, but it's not like he's some rock star that was crushing.

His policies are exactly what took him down. Everyone loves ol uncle Bernie at Thanksgiving, until he starts drinking and talking about policy.

Bernie is a likable guy, just like Obama. Obama didn't win because of policy, he won because he was very charismatic and the first black POTUS. I mean, it is what it is.

Not following your logic there. Regardless, our argument was about whether the Rust Belt voters who put Trump in the White House would have preferred Bernie instead. Seeing as many of them are union members who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, I think the answer is pretty obviously "yes", they would have voted for Bernie over Trump, which likely would have propelled the DNC to victory. There's no evidence that they support the sort of economic policies you and wizards do.

I disagree. Many of the economic liberals voted for Trump on the basis that the Democrats in the person of Hillary Clinton would have been worse. The election was not economic liberalism versus economic populism because many of the economic liberals stuck with Trump because politics is a team sport and Trump was wearing the red jersey. Trump's win doesn't represent the victory of some new populist ideology, it represents the victory of a cult of personality over ideology in any form.

How convenient! That explanation just happens to exculpate your preferred policies from blame for the current populist backlash. Trump was an anomaly, back to business as usual. Pray tell, how does Paul Ryan plan to help the people who just handed the GOP full control of the government? Because they aren't going to be satisfied with HSAs and privatized SS. If the GOP refuses to learn anything from this cycle, the next populist backlash is going to be even more extreme.

#NeverTrump wasn't impotent because it wasn't about accomplishing a stated political goal. Shapiro, Goldberg, Beck, et. al. never said "we're trying to get Trump to lose the election," they just couldn't support him for personal, principled reasons.

Bullsh!t. Every movement has a goal, and the goal of #NeverTrump was to prove that the GOP couldn't elect a candidate that the intelligentsia withheld its support from. And it utterly failed, thereby revealing just how little popular influence they have nowadays.

I believe you and I withheld our vote from Trump on similar grounds.

I withheld my vote for mostly moral reasons, not because he dared to question neoliberal economic orthodoxy.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,620
Reaction score
20,108
This, exactly. There was that great quote in the Atlantic a few weeks back that people have been repeating since Election Day: the press takes Trump literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. I'm not sure it's even accurate to talk about Trump's campaign "promises." The spirit, tone, and orientation of his campaign speeches mattered a lot more than whether they described projects he could actually achieve. (All of which is not so different from Obama in 2008, weirdly.)

So I don't see why Bernie Sanders or Biden or anyone else who spoke directly to the white working class voters who flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 couldn't have obtained their support. Trump was just the one who was smart enough to focus on them.

Biden is probably still kicking himself in the nuts for not running.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
How convenient! That explanation just happens to exculpate your preferred policies from blame for the current populist backlash. Trump was an anomaly, back to business as usual. Pray tell, how does Paul Ryan plan to help the people who just handed the GOP full control of the government? Because they aren't going to be satisfied with HSAs and privatized SS. If the GOP refuses to learn anything from this cycle, the next populist backlash is going to be even more extreme.
I actually believe in supply-side economics. I think lowering the corporate tax rates and easing the regulatory burden on job creators will lead to economic growth and job creation. You don't need a program that says "this program is designed to help the working class period" in order to help the working class. Their standard of living and real wages will rise for the first time in decades.

If Trump was the product of a populist backlash, why wasn't there a single other populist elected along with him? Where are all the Trumpista Republican representatives from Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota? You can't argue "economic liberalism lost in the 2016 election" when economic liberals won every single federal office except for one.

Bullsh!t. Every movement has a goal, and the goal of #NeverTrump was to prove that the GOP couldn't elect a candidate that the intelligentsia withheld its support from. And it utterly failed, thereby revealing just how little popular influence they have nowadays.
To the extent #NeverTrump started with the February 15 issue of National Review, their goal was to stop Trump from winning the primary. They obviously failed in that regard, for several reasons:

1. Failure to coalesce on an alternative to Trump. "Marco Rubio - A New American Century" is much more effective than "Against Trump"
2. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity providing cover to Trump largely due to personal friendship
3. Timing. Trump was ignored for too long until it was too late.
4. False equivocation between the GOP establishment, RINOs, and the conservative intelligentsia. This is where the populism kicked in. The Tea Party crowd disliked the GOP establishment on the basis that they were RINOs, i.e. not conservative. Somewhere along the way, the RINOs and the intelligentsia got conflated as all being party of the same establishment. Paul Ryan was no different than John Boehner, they told us.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
31,525
Reaction score
17,410
Biden is probably still kicking himself in the nuts for not running.

I don't know...creepy Uncle Joe?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xy07yHAgM4E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
I'm not comparing Trump's primary run to Bernie's primary run because their opponents were vastly different. I'm comparing Trump's general election run to Bernie's primary run because they were both one-on-one races against Hillary Rodham Clinton. You're kind of proving my point. If Bernie's favorables were so high, why couldn't he defeat Hillary? Spare me the shit about "sandbagging." He lost 15.8M to 12.0M. That's 57-43, i.e. not fucking close at all. There's no chance Debbie Wassermann-Schultz' corruption was worth 4 million votes.

You can't do that though. You can't compare Bernie in a primary to Trump in a general. No way. And as to The DNC sandbagging him it was definitely a coordinated national effort and not just DWS. And further if you know anything about the DNC primaries is that they are ridiculous and convoluted. It is not about the popular vote.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,546
Reaction score
29,009
Whiskey for Prez in 2020. He's gonna close down scUM, so we know that he'll carry Ohio.

Can you imagine that platform?

"I'm going to burn down the University of Michigan. Whatever is left I will dismantle brick by brick, and then salt the earth."... get all the Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Spartan votes, cruise to victory.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,941
Reaction score
6,164
Some of the comments from the SJW's and their total meltdown is hilarious. Never seen a group more out of touch with reality and completely unable to grasp just why their side lost.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I actually believe in supply-side economics. I think lowering the corporate tax rates and easing the regulatory burden on job creators will lead to economic growth and job creation. You don't need a program that says "this program is designed to help the working class period" in order to help the working class. Their standard of living and real wages will rise for the first time in decades.

What do you think Republican economic policy has been since 1979? Did the GOP somehow stray from this golden path at some point? I must have missed it.

If Trump was the product of a populist backlash, why wasn't there a single other populist elected along with him? Where are all the Trumpista Republican representatives from Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota? You can't argue "economic liberalism lost in the 2016 election" when economic liberals won every single federal office except for one.

National elections are very different from state politics, and our two major parties have a tremendous amount of momentum behind them. Turns out there aren't many self-financing billionaires willing to denounce their own class interests in the service of solidarity with the working class. It's painfully obvious that "supply side economics" has left millions of Americans behind; just as it has in Europe. Trump's election is just the leading edge of a wave that started overseas many years ago. Focusing on domestic politics alone, you might be able to build a coherent case for Trump being an anomaly; but if you consider Europe as well, it's obviously just wishful thinking.

To the extent #NeverTrump started with the February 15 issue of National Review, their goal was to stop Trump from winning the primary. They obviously failed in that regard, for several reasons:

1. Failure to coalesce on an alternative to Trump. "Marco Rubio - A New American Century" is much more effective than "Against Trump"
2. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity providing cover to Trump largely due to personal friendship
3. Timing. Trump was ignored for too long until it was too late.
4. False equivocation between the GOP establishment, RINOs, and the conservative intelligentsia. This is where the populism kicked in. The Tea Party crowd disliked the GOP establishment on the basis that they were RINOs, i.e. not conservative. Somewhere along the way, the RINOs and the intelligentsia got conflated as all being party of the same establishment. Paul Ryan was no different than John Boehner, they told us.

They failed. The vast majority of the Establishment--elected GOP politicians, past presidents, conservative intellectuals, etc.-- all refused to endorse Trump. Many went so far as to explicitly denounce him. And he still won; yet you seem to believe that Trump's election wasn't in any way a rejection of what that Establishment stands for? I understand perfectly well why you want to believe that, but I'd like to think you're too logical to so delude yourself.
 

zelezo vlk

Well-known member
Messages
18,014
Reaction score
5,055
Can you imagine that platform?

"I'm going to burn down the University of Michigan. Whatever is left I will dismantle brick by brick, and then salt the earth."... get all the Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Spartan votes, cruise to victory.

MICHIGAN DELENDA EST. (My Latin is rusty, sue me)
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
If anyone doubts Bernie Sanders would've crushed Trump, show them this
Here is an article that basically supports all of what Whiskey has posted on a Trump v Sanders.

POLITICSIf anyone doubts Bernie Sanders would’ve crushed Trump, show them thisZach Cartwright | November 10, 2016
35
SHARES
Facebook
Twitter

According to the data, Donald Trump would have been soundly defeated by Bernie Sanders last night had the Vermont senator been the one to face him.

When examining the 13 states Hillary Clinton lost twice — the states Trump won side-by-side with the states Bernie Sanders won during the Democratic primary — the similarities are striking. The GOP nominee likely saw this, and tweeted in May that he was relieved to not have to face Sanders in the general election:


In five states Sanders won where exit polling data is available — Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — the demographics that helped Trump hit 270 electoral college votes were also Sen. Sanders’ key demographics that helped him defeat the former Secretary of State in multiple primaries in different regions of the country

The numbers suggest that there may have been enough Sanders votes in those pivotal states to have swung the election in Sanders’ favor if superdelegates and restrictive closed primaries weren’t part of the Democratic primary process. Popular blog All That Is Interesting created an electoral map assuming that Sanders won white, rural rust belt voters in the traditionally blue states that Hillary Clinton lost on Tuesday night in a hypothetical Trump/Sanders general election matchup, giving Sanders with a 303-235 advantage.

Determining whether or not Sanders would have won the states Clinton lost is easy when looking at exit poll data taken during the Democratic primary. Here’s a state-by-state breakdown:

Take a look at the breakdown.
 
Last edited:

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,546
Reaction score
29,009
<iframe src="//cdnapisec.kaltura.com/p/591531/sp/59153100/embedIframeJs/uiconf_id/6740162/partner_id/591531?iframeembed=true&playerId=kaltura_player_1413478522&entry_id=0_ewkx9wq0" width="664" height="421" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozAllowFullScreen frameborder="0" style="width: 700; height: 394px;"></iframe>

Obama gets it. Truly think history will look back on him as one of the good guys who did the best he could for the country with a lot of success.
 

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
You can't do that though. You can't compare Bernie in a primary to Trump in a general. No way. And as to The DNC sandbagging him it was definitely a coordinated national effort and not just DWS. And further if you know anything about the DNC primaries is that they are ridiculous and convoluted. It is not about the popular vote.

If anyone doubts Bernie Sanders would've crushed Trump, show them this
Her is an article that basically supports all of what Whiseky has posted on a Trump v Sanders.



Take a look at the breakdown.

...but now you just used Sanders primary numbers to compare....
 

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
<iframe src="//cdnapisec.kaltura.com/p/591531/sp/59153100/embedIframeJs/uiconf_id/6740162/partner_id/591531?iframeembed=true&playerId=kaltura_player_1413478522&entry_id=0_ewkx9wq0" width="664" height="421" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozAllowFullScreen frameborder="0" style="width: 700; height: 394px;"></iframe>

Obama gets it. Truly think history will look back on him as one of the good guys who did the best he could for the country with a lot of success.

Ehhh...The ACA will hurt his legacy. .
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
...but now you just used Sanders primary numbers to compare....

No they used each of their primary numbers compared to each other. They specifically showed Trumps primary results versus Bernies results. Did you see the tweet from a Trump ? As has been said multiple times, The demo the went for Trump also went for Bernie but Bernie performed better. What wizard was doing was to compare Bernie in a primary to Trump in the general relative to HRC instead of relative to each other which you can't do

What contributed most to Sanders’ primary win in Indiana was his dominance with white voters (57 percent support) and men (59 percent support), who collectively made up 72 percent and 42 percent of voters, respectively, according to NBC News. Sanders also excelled among poor and lower-middle class voters, winning the majority of voters who made less than $30,000 in 2015, and between $30,000 and $50,000. Sen. Sanders won the support of a whopping 72 percent of independents, 54 percent of voters who said free trade had a negative effect on jobs, and 60 percent of voters who said they were “very worried” about the future of the U.S. economy.

Comparatively, Donald Trump won 53 percent of white voters in the Hoosier State’s Republican primary, and 59 percent of men — roughly the same percentages Sanders won for those same demographics. Trump also won 54 percent of voters who made between $30,000 and $50,000 in 2015, and 53 percent of voters who were “very worried” about the future of the economy.
.

The March 8 Michigan primary was perhaps Bernie Sanders’ most important victory, as pollsters widely and wrongly predicted a considerable victory for Hillary Clinton due to her strength with black voters in cities like Detroit and Flint. Sanders’ 50-48 win was largely due to his strength with rural, white voters disenfranchised by free trade deals backed by the Clintons, like NAFTA.

Much like Indiana, Sanders prevailed with the help of 55 percent of male voters and 56 percent of white voters. 54 percent of voters who made less than $50,000 in 2015 supported Sanders, as well as 71 percent of voters identifying as independent. NAFTA hate brought Sen. Sanders over the finish line, as 56 percent of voters who said free trade was bad for job growth in Michigan picked Sanders. The Vermont senator did very well with voters who said they wanted an outsider in office, winning 84 percent of that demographic. Sanders’ strength wasn’t in inner cities, but in suburbs and rural areas, capturing 50 percent and 57 percent of voters, respectively.

Donald Trump beat all four of his competitors in the Michigan primary along the same demographic lines. Trump won 53 percent of men and 38 percent of white voters (13 points better than his closest competitor, Ted Cruz). Among the $30,000 to $50,000 income demographic, Trump demolished Cruz by 21 points. Trump also won 45 percent of voters who said free trade took away American jobs, which was 23 points higher than Cruz.
I could go on but it's in the article.
 
Last edited:

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
31,525
Reaction score
17,410
Ehhh...The ACA will hurt his legacy. .

Arguably the biggest move of his Presidency, and one of the biggest points of contention in the country right now. I agree that there are some very important parts of it that shouldn't be repealed, and Trump seems keep on keeping some of those concessions like pre-existing conditions, but overall the implementation left a lot to be desired. I agree that his legacy is going to be affected by the ACA and how much of it ends up remaining.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Arguably the biggest move of his Presidency, and one of the biggest points of contention in the country right now. I agree that there are some very important parts of it that shouldn't be repealed, and Trump seems keep on keeping some of those concessions like pre-existing conditions, but overall the implementation left a lot to be desired. I agree that his legacy is going to be affected by the ACA and how much of it ends up remaining.

Whatever Trump does, regardless of what it is called...if it is successful, it will be Obama's, and if it fails it will be Trump's. I mean...just because the MSM got knocked on their ass over this election doesn't mean they don't/won't control the narrative regarding who gets credit for what, and whose legacy they pump up.

The reality is, Trump has, all along, given a nod to a couple aspects of ACA, and planned on keeping those in whatever goes forward.

President Obama is showing great leadership during the transition...not taking that away from him. But when he had everything in his favor he failed to address immigration reform, and he is the one who claimed they could walk and chew gum at the same time...He oversaw shovel ready jobs...i mean not so shovel ready jobs, hehehe, and the idiotic exchange rollout, as well as the lies and ramrod job that is ACA...he also said nothing when Harry reid was re-writing the rules in the senate btw, and really didn't do much when it is clear someone weaponized the IRS....and at least half the country did not see justiice in his justrice departments, as relationships with law enforcement melted down. And multiple times got his ass handed to him by Scotus.

I mean, if people do an honest accounting, he tried to do some shit...for sure...but in terms of a legacy...to me he becomes the picture in the book next to "motion isn't progress...or a good idea without a plan is called a wish.

His administration operated almost entirely in the realm of the political.

I don't expect more from Trump, but at least I know his shit will get called out.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Can you imagine that platform?

"I'm going to burn down the University of Michigan. Whatever is left I will dismantle brick by brick, and then salt the earth."... get all the Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Spartan votes, cruise to victory.

Talk about smashing the blue wall!
 
Top