Hoop
Wow. they have to know if they pull that there will be deep anger across flyover country. It will change perceptions of Washington that will last for generations. Now, half of Americans mistrust, after a stunt like that there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind.
The people I know don’t riot or burn cities, But anger runs deep, and memories long.
Ben Nelsen was along term, very popular senator here, until he cut a deal to give Obamacare it’s 60th vote. Afterward he couldn’t even appear in public without being confronted by very angry constituents’
He went back to private practice.
People would see through that bullshit in a second.
Clinton wins with btw/ 272 and 323 electoral votes and with a plurality (not a majority) of the popular vote.
The Senate will either crate a 50/50 tie or Republicans will retain a 1-2 seat majority. I agree that Dems pick-up Illinois, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania, but that doesn’t give them a 51 seat majority since the Dems effectively have 46 seats now, so Dave presumably thinks the Dems will also pick-up New Hamshire and one more (likely either MO or IN). I think the Dems may not pick-up any more than those three, but that New Hampshire and Nevada are toss ups, which if the Dems pick-up both would make the Senate 50/50, and if they lose both 48/50, or it may be somewhere in between.
I’m not sure if I discovered this before or right after Dave’s predictions, but I hadn’t realized that Bayh’s polling had dropped precipitously because of a number of stories / gaffes that make him appear to be a phony. I used to think he would win.
Agree that Republican control will remain, but diminish.
The interesting thing about Indiana or Missouri is that they are both states that Trump will win and are necessary for the Democrats to retake the Senate. To win, they need to advance on a centrist outsider message. Bayh’s centrism is old-school DLC, and the stories about him cashing-out in a lobbying firm and in private equity hurt. In Missouri, the Democratic candidate, a relatively youthful Afghan Vet, assembles assault-style weapons on camera and challenging his NRA-backed opponent to do it as quickly.
The way that could happen, steve, is if Trump carried all of the states that are presently toss-ups plus Pennsylvania. Florida will be the real test of that. If he doesn’t carry Florida, I don’t see any way he can win. Florida will also be a test of the “Hispanic vote” theory of interest group politics.
It’s hard for me to see that happening but keep in mind that I’m sitting in Chicago in Cook County in Illinois. From where I sit the only way I could imagine Trump carrying Illinois is if he carried 40+ states.
The day after the election . . . I predict America will awake with a bad hangover of excess exposure to media pundits, annoying robo calls that filled up answering machines, a recycling bin full of paper from organizations no one ever heard of that assume voters will tow the party line and follow the picks made for them, and ‘shock’ political reporting by ratings-driven news media that makes adolescent drama and pettiness look comparatively tame. As with many bad hangovers, we won’t be certain what happened the previous day or how we ended up where we are the next morning. Some may claim a black out or deny their actions on Election Day. There is no escaping the reality of the situation. Luckily, we have three years before we start on the next binge.
As to the ‘result’ prediction – I concur Clinton is the likely (but not certain) winner with 280-300 electoral votes and a plurality (but not majority) of votes cast. Voters in populous ‘Blue States’ may not feel motivated to vote simply to give Clinton a higher national popular vote count. If Trump comes through with a big turnout, it is possible he could beat Hillary in the popular vote, but nevertheless lose the election.
Brave souls! “Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues” (Proverbs 17:28). Predictions are meant to make us foolish, especially online where it is forever.
With that, I’ll make an 2 observations that lead to a prediction. The polling this year has been crappy, not because they are skewed against Trump or rigged, but because pollsters keep modeling a 2012ish electorate when it is unknown if it is a good assumption. There is a good argument it is a poor one. One, while Trump low character has obscured it, Trump’s brand of conservatism is unrecognizable from recent Republican nominees. For example, Trump’s skepticism of trade is a first for a Republican nominee since the 1920’s (Trump stated he disagreed with Reagan on trade during a debate). Trump’s position on Russia, Nato, and American intervention abroad is notable for being isolationist, another first for a Republican nominee in the post WW2 era. And these positions have effects, in this poll http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/republicans-especially-trump-supporters-see-free-trade-deals-as-bad-for-u-s/, Republicans say free trade is bad by a margin of 53-38 while Democrats say free trade is good by 56-34! Even without all the scandals, I doubt Ryan, Kasich, et al would have supported Trump strongly, Trump’s just too different on these things.
If Trump’s positioning has affected the electorate, it should show up in how strongly the states/regions tilt toward one party. Admittedly, there has been few datapoints here. One that caught my attention is Ann Selzer’s (famously predicted Obama would win Iowa in 2008, and Earnst wins big in 2014, and does not try to model the electorate in a poll) poll of Iowa where Trump is leading by 7. Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and (mostly) Michigan vote very similarly, always within a range of 3% of each other since 1992. Based on a gut feel that the Iowa poll is right, Wisconsin and Minnesota will shock and go for Trump and it won’t be close. Michigan should go for Trump but it will be close.
On the reverse, there is good anecdotal data that strong republican states like Georgia, Texas, Utah, will be less republican, maybe semi-close.
Because it’s a dishonest move. The 13% rate, which I voted for, was presented as and was meant to be a temporary response to the effects of the recession. This kind of move breeds cynicism, and if there’s one thing we have enough of in politics . . . They should let it expire and come back to it via the legislature.
California is way too reliant on the initiative approach and it’s caused some serious problems, starting with the infamous Prop 13 and getting into crimes against humanity territory with the ill-considered 3-strikes law. If the legalization initiative goes through we will have in short order legalized an act which under 3-strikes could have landed you in prison for life. That’s nuts.
If we’re going to direct democracy voters are going to have to get a whole lot smarter.
Trump by 7+.
Scary possibility among a few.
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201611061047117877-digital-9-11-if-trump-wins/
Hoop
Wow. they have to know if they pull that there will be deep anger across flyover country. It will change perceptions of Washington that will last for generations. Now, half of Americans mistrust, after a stunt like that there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind.
The people I know don’t riot or burn cities, But anger runs deep, and memories long.
Ben Nelsen was along term, very popular senator here, until he cut a deal to give Obamacare it’s 60th vote. Afterward he couldn’t even appear in public without being confronted by very angry constituents’
He went back to private practice.
People would see through that bullshit in a second.
I’m not sure our predictions are that different.
Clinton wins with btw/ 272 and 323 electoral votes and with a plurality (not a majority) of the popular vote.
The Senate will either crate a 50/50 tie or Republicans will retain a 1-2 seat majority. I agree that Dems pick-up Illinois, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania, but that doesn’t give them a 51 seat majority since the Dems effectively have 46 seats now, so Dave presumably thinks the Dems will also pick-up New Hamshire and one more (likely either MO or IN). I think the Dems may not pick-up any more than those three, but that New Hampshire and Nevada are toss ups, which if the Dems pick-up both would make the Senate 50/50, and if they lose both 48/50, or it may be somewhere in between.
I’m not sure if I discovered this before or right after Dave’s predictions, but I hadn’t realized that Bayh’s polling had dropped precipitously because of a number of stories / gaffes that make him appear to be a phony. I used to think he would win.
Agree that Republican control will remain, but diminish.
The interesting thing about Indiana or Missouri is that they are both states that Trump will win and are necessary for the Democrats to retake the Senate. To win, they need to advance on a centrist outsider message. Bayh’s centrism is old-school DLC, and the stories about him cashing-out in a lobbying firm and in private equity hurt. In Missouri, the Democratic candidate, a relatively youthful Afghan Vet, assembles assault-style weapons on camera and challenging his NRA-backed opponent to do it as quickly.
Trump by less than 20 electoral votes. Better turnout by the GOP.
Steve
The way that could happen, steve, is if Trump carried all of the states that are presently toss-ups plus Pennsylvania. Florida will be the real test of that. If he doesn’t carry Florida, I don’t see any way he can win. Florida will also be a test of the “Hispanic vote” theory of interest group politics.
It’s hard for me to see that happening but keep in mind that I’m sitting in Chicago in Cook County in Illinois. From where I sit the only way I could imagine Trump carrying Illinois is if he carried 40+ states.
The Hawks will beat the Canadians for the Cup in 6. Goals will be scored by Kane, Panarin and Seabrook.
Still think will be tugging the forelock to President Clinton. Senate will put at a probable D majority. House a reduced but still R majority.
@Roy Lofquist In the immortal words of Aerosmith, dream on.
@Ken Hoop Are you really that gullible?
@Gray Shambler I see that you are in fact that gullible.
@PD Shaw I think your analysis is about right.
@steve Why would the GOP bother to turn out when Trump has told them he can’t win because the riggers will steal the election?
The day after the election . . . I predict America will awake with a bad hangover of excess exposure to media pundits, annoying robo calls that filled up answering machines, a recycling bin full of paper from organizations no one ever heard of that assume voters will tow the party line and follow the picks made for them, and ‘shock’ political reporting by ratings-driven news media that makes adolescent drama and pettiness look comparatively tame. As with many bad hangovers, we won’t be certain what happened the previous day or how we ended up where we are the next morning. Some may claim a black out or deny their actions on Election Day. There is no escaping the reality of the situation. Luckily, we have three years before we start on the next binge.
As to the ‘result’ prediction – I concur Clinton is the likely (but not certain) winner with 280-300 electoral votes and a plurality (but not majority) of votes cast. Voters in populous ‘Blue States’ may not feel motivated to vote simply to give Clinton a higher national popular vote count. If Trump comes through with a big turnout, it is possible he could beat Hillary in the popular vote, but nevertheless lose the election.
Clinton will win, senate will be tied, House will stay GoP barring some black swan or polling incompetence.
Brave souls! “Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues” (Proverbs 17:28). Predictions are meant to make us foolish, especially online where it is forever.
With that, I’ll make an 2 observations that lead to a prediction. The polling this year has been crappy, not because they are skewed against Trump or rigged, but because pollsters keep modeling a 2012ish electorate when it is unknown if it is a good assumption. There is a good argument it is a poor one. One, while Trump low character has obscured it, Trump’s brand of conservatism is unrecognizable from recent Republican nominees. For example, Trump’s skepticism of trade is a first for a Republican nominee since the 1920’s (Trump stated he disagreed with Reagan on trade during a debate). Trump’s position on Russia, Nato, and American intervention abroad is notable for being isolationist, another first for a Republican nominee in the post WW2 era. And these positions have effects, in this poll http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/republicans-especially-trump-supporters-see-free-trade-deals-as-bad-for-u-s/, Republicans say free trade is bad by a margin of 53-38 while Democrats say free trade is good by 56-34! Even without all the scandals, I doubt Ryan, Kasich, et al would have supported Trump strongly, Trump’s just too different on these things.
If Trump’s positioning has affected the electorate, it should show up in how strongly the states/regions tilt toward one party. Admittedly, there has been few datapoints here. One that caught my attention is Ann Selzer’s (famously predicted Obama would win Iowa in 2008, and Earnst wins big in 2014, and does not try to model the electorate in a poll) poll of Iowa where Trump is leading by 7. Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and (mostly) Michigan vote very similarly, always within a range of 3% of each other since 1992. Based on a gut feel that the Iowa poll is right, Wisconsin and Minnesota will shock and go for Trump and it won’t be close. Michigan should go for Trump but it will be close.
On the reverse, there is good anecdotal data that strong republican states like Georgia, Texas, Utah, will be less republican, maybe semi-close.
@Scott O
Not dreaming. Just predicting.
Hillary with 322. A 50/50 Senate, which will organize as Dem. The House stays essentially the same.
Also, I think the marijuana initiative will win in CA, as will, sadly, the move to make the 13% top income tax rate permanent.
“Also, I think the marijuana initiative will win in CA, as will, sadly, the move to make the 13% top income tax rate permanent.”
Why sadly? I thought you wanted to pay higher taxes.
Because it’s a dishonest move. The 13% rate, which I voted for, was presented as and was meant to be a temporary response to the effects of the recession. This kind of move breeds cynicism, and if there’s one thing we have enough of in politics . . . They should let it expire and come back to it via the legislature.
California is way too reliant on the initiative approach and it’s caused some serious problems, starting with the infamous Prop 13 and getting into crimes against humanity territory with the ill-considered 3-strikes law. If the legalization initiative goes through we will have in short order legalized an act which under 3-strikes could have landed you in prison for life. That’s nuts.
If we’re going to direct democracy voters are going to have to get a whole lot smarter.
Thanks, that makes sense. I don’t know much about California ballot measures. I share some of your concern about ballot measures.