Political Prediction Thread

[Rashiminos]

You should always fact check Ted Cruz.

As to his racist facade...that isn't particularly easy to just toss aside. For a couple reasons. First off, the minorities aren't generally disposed to accept "oh I was just kidding."

No they aren't (Enter Hillary). In a choice between evils you pick which?

Spoiler :

Too bad the larger implication of that article isn't sinking in yet...

Second, in the casting off he loses everything. The voters that love him because of the facade are lost, obviously, but he also loses the whole 'straight talking no PC pandering here' shtick that is basically the core element of his campaign to date.

This is where the GOP nomination win comes in. If Kasich/Cruz (predictably) fail to oust Trump, then GOP voters will have two choices (unless you want to debate why Republicans might go independent... Har.) Vote Trump, or lose, and then lose again in the next 3 election cycles as Trump takes the party down with him. They might have to pinch their noses, but barring unforeseen disasters (or assassinations), they'll vote Trump.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, to turn away from the USA elections business, I'll make my extremely bold prediction for my dear homeland...

The coalition that is currently ruling will break apart before they run their mandate
Disaffected by that, the voters will elect the Commu- er, the Socialists
Who, predictably, will also go down in flames in ~2 years
Thus, proving that democracy in Bulgaria's one nice circle.

 

[Cheetah]

As to his racist facade...that isn't particularly easy to just toss aside. For a couple reasons. First off, the minorities aren't generally disposed to accept "oh I was just kidding." Second, in the casting off he loses everything. The voters that love him because of the facade are lost, obviously, but he also loses the whole 'straight talking no PC pandering here' shtick that is basically the core element of his campaign to date.

He'll be able to throw aside anything. The only question is how many voters he will throw away at the same time. But I'm pretty sure he will find ways to talk to as many as possible.

And he'll still be a straight no-PC talker. He can do close to a 180 and still be understood by the general voter as something new and better than the established politicians. It's all about attitude, and he has all of it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

For all the talk of Angry White People I'm going to throw this one out there:

If Donald Trump is the nominee, he will outperform among minority voters, at least African American voters, compared to every republican of the last 20 years.

What are you saying here? That he might hit double digits?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No they aren't (Enter Hillary). In a choice between evils you pick which?

Riiiiiiight. Where exactly did Hillary Clinton pander to the white supremacists that would require her to run a "just kidding" retraction?

 

[Sommerswerd]

What are you saying here? That he might hit double digits?

That was my thought too. So I can buy the idea that Trump does better with black voters, I have a lot of anecdotal evidence to support that. So lets go crazy, and say that the Trump factor doubles the black vote for Republicans, just to put the numbers through the roof.

OK so assuming that happens... Republicans got 5% of the black vote last time. So double that and Trump raises it to 10%. But since blacks are only 12% of the population, assuming comparable-to-whites voter turnout rates, which well, lets just put that aside for now... So anyway Trump gets 10% of 12%, which is 1.2%. So a 1.2% gain for the Republicans is a 1.2% loss for Democrats a net gain of 2.4% for Republicans.

Hillary is leading Trump by 10% on RCP. President Obama beat Romney by 4%. So even in a best case scenario, a better showing with blacks isn't gonna get Trump the win. Especially considering most of the states with the highest percentages of black voters are southern, and already Red States.

 

[Rashiminos]

Riiiiiiight. Where exactly did Hillary Clinton pander to the white supremacists that would require her to run a "just kidding" retraction?

Ask the Sanders campaign* where her 'condescension' lies (it's not that she's pandering to white supremacists, but that her pandering to minorities looks insincere, in which case she can achieve a racist mantle by default). Trump isn't going to issue a retraction in any case. He'll instead change focus (while still mostly avoiding the sobriety of substance) to issues (eg employment) which are relevant to his new targets while avoiding typical GOP (Romney) sticking points like welfare and commentary on work ethic (or lack thereof). Trump's wall can be spun as a job creation project (both the construction and then eventual border patrol staff) and if he needs a similar example that has 'worked,' he can point to the TSA. In comparison to Hillary, his offerings will seem more genuine than his or hers really are (with reminders that he's a good salesman/businessman). The aforementioned segment of voters have plenty of time to forget about who else is voting for Trump (along with subtle reminders about the guilt by association fallacy) and why.

*(Or have appropriately situated non-profits employ a similar attack strategy if Hillary wins the nomination)

Hillary is leading Trump by 10% on RCP. President Obama beat Romney by 4%. So even in a best case scenario, a better showing with blacks isn't gonna get Trump the win. Especially considering most of the states with the highest percentages of black voters are southern, and already Red States.

Hillary's strength here is popular feminism, where Trump cannot make any inroads on his charm and instead relies on the increase of anti-feminist movements. It's that anti-PC (meaning anti-feminist) crowd that he cannot ignore, among which include... blue-collar male democrats.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ask the Sanders campaign* where her 'condescension' lies (it's not that she's pandering to white supremacists, but that her pandering to minorities looks insincere, in which case she can achieve a racist mantle by default). Trump isn't going to issue a retraction in any case. He'll instead change focus (while still mostly avoiding the sobriety of substance) to issues (eg employment) which are relevant to his new targets while avoiding typical GOP (Romney) sticking points like welfare and commentary on work ethic (or lack thereof). Trump's wall can be spun as a job creation project (both the construction and then eventual border patrol staff) and if he needs a similar example that has 'worked,' he can point to the TSA. In comparison to Hillary, his offerings will seem more genuine than his or hers really are (with reminders that he's a good salesman/businessman). The aforementioned segment of voters have plenty of time to forget about who else is voting for Trump (along with subtle reminders about the guilt by association fallacy) and why.

*(Or have appropriately situated non-profits employ a similar attack strategy if Hillary wins the nomination)

People aren't going to forget. The airwaves will be saturated with reminders.

You think the women quoting Donald Trump on women ad is a one off wonder that is going to be abandoned? He isn't going to retract, and he isn't going to be forgotten, and he is never going to do well with women voters. Ever.

I read somewhere recently that one in six Hispanic American citizens has a direct family member that is in the country illegally. An aunt or uncle, brother or sister in law, something. I didn't fact check this claim, or even assess the credibility of the source, I just thought it sounded plausible. Extend to friends, coworkers, etc, and I would guess that this "deport them all" crusade would have pretty direct impact on something well north of three quarters of Hispanic Americans. Trump will not do well with them. Not only will he not do better with them than Romney did, he will do worse.

Sommerswerd already pointed out the mathematics of Trump doubling up on Romney with black voters. For my part I can't see that doubling up happening, or anything even close to it. You suggest "asking the Sanders campaign," which is a great idea. Let's ask the Sanders campaign just how effective having an old white guy tell black voters that despite all evidence to the contrary they should really vote against Hillary Clinton because <reasons> is.

 

[Rashiminos]

People aren't going to forget. The airwaves will be saturated with reminders.

Since this is a prediction I feel a wait and see response to your optimism is sufficient at this time. IMO, a number of people supporting Trump or Hillary are having longterm memory issues.

You think the women quoting Donald Trump on women ad is a one off wonder that is going to be abandoned? He isn't going to retract, and he isn't going to be forgotten, and he is never going to do well with women voters. Ever.

As this concern is predominately feminist, it amounts to saying dyed-in-the-wool Dems won't vote Trump. Obviously. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he's not courting (and the word is courting) these demographics. Last I checked, not all women vote Democrat consistently. If practically all women vote Democrat in this election, Trump loses, but I doubt Hillary or Sanders gets near unanimous support from women voters.

I read somewhere recently that one in six Hispanic American citizens has a direct family member that is in the country illegally. An aunt or uncle, brother or sister in law, something. I didn't fact check this claim, or even assess the credibility of the source, I just thought it sounded plausible. Extend to friends, coworkers, etc, and I would guess that this "deport them all" crusade would have pretty direct impact on something well north of three quarters of Hispanic Americans. Trump will not do well with them. Not only will he not do better with them than Romney did, he will do worse.

Without reference to the particular source my first thought is that the illegal status is not evenly distributed among families and this limits the impacts Trump's supposed deportation plans to concentration in specific regions(eg haven cities). Moreover, Trump's wall project is a moonshot that likely meets an expensive reality (it costs too much time, effort, and money to kick them all out)*. The hiring practices of Trump's companies belie his words. (Trump is more crony capitalist than ultranationalist diehard -> money/fame over principles). None of this is direct appeal for Trump so much as mitigation of the perceived negatives Democrats will highlight (albeit the mitigation is negative along other lines). The rest of the GOP can boost his appeal indirectly through support of vets, "traditional" values, and anti-crime policies. Trump's ads will focus on undermining "overly intellectual" (out of touch) Democrats.

*I doubt Trump is Hadrian or Qin Shi Huang.

Sommerswerd already pointed out the mathematics of Trump doubling up on Romney with black voters. For my part I can't see that doubling up happening, or anything even close to it. You suggest "asking the Sanders campaign," which is a great idea. Let's ask the Sanders campaign just how effective having an old white guy tell black voters that despite all evidence to the contrary they should really vote against Hillary Clinton because <reasons> is.

Somehow better than what Hillary (aka white feminist) is doing:

http://www.thenation.com/article/we...er-organizer-who-interrupted-hillary-clinton/

&#65279; And were you satisfied with her response?

No, I think that her response reflected Clinton’s inconsistency. But we know that she’s been inconsistent on these issues, and we know that according to her these are not issues that she’s interested in. She’s campaigning around this state right now, trying to get the black vote, and she’s going around saying, “It’s time to listen.” So she had an opportunity to listen last night, and she wasn’t listening.

The more fumbles Hillary makes along these lines, the less credit she would receive come election time for claiming to be race-conscious.

 

[Lexicus]

Sommerswerd already pointed out the mathematics of Trump doubling up on Romney with black voters. For my part I can't see that doubling up happening, or anything even close to it. You suggest "asking the Sanders campaign," which is a great idea. Let's ask the Sanders campaign just how effective having an old white guy tell black voters that despite all evidence to the contrary they should really vote against Hillary Clinton because <reasons> is.

Eh, what "evidence to the contrary" do you mean exactly?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Somehow better than what Hillary (aka white feminist) is doing:http://www.thenation.com/article/we...er-organizer-who-interrupted-hillary-clinton/ The more fumbles Hillary makes along these lines, the less credit she would receive come election time for claiming to be race-conscious.

The argument that you seem to be making is an old one, from the perspective of the election discussions we've been having on these threads. You're arguing that Hillary doesn't really care about black people and she's just now pandering to get votes. You also seem to be saying that blacks have "figured it out" or will figure it out, or that Sanders campaign will "expose her" pandering, resulting in her losing her support among black voters.

I think this is all just wishful thinking on your part. These lines of argument have already been so thoroughly debunked by myself and others in the threads... as well as been proven demonstrably false by the actual results of the primary voting... so much so that I'm not sure what else to tell you. Willful blindness is an affliction without a cure.

One of the challenges with divining the will of a minority voting block, particularly black voters who are nearly monolithic in supporting Democrats, is that people (whites especially) are sometimes lulled into translating that perception of being monolithic into individual black people. Where you see the effect is when someone finds an internet video of a black person agreeing with them and concludes triumphantly that this must mean that most black people think this way. But its just as wrong as thinking that one Kukluxer at a Trump rally means that all Trump supporters are Klan.

 

[Rashiminos]

The argument that you seem to be making is an old one, from the perspective of the election discussions we've been having on these threads. You're arguing that Hillary doesn't really care about black people and she's just now pandering to get votes. You also seem to be saying that blacks have "figured it out" or will figure it out, or that Sanders campaign will "expose her" pandering, resulting in her losing her support among black voters.

Not quite, although the resemblance is important. Third-party Trump supporters paint that picture and try to avoid Dems connecting the dots. Sanders benefits from public endorsements based on either his association with BLM or under-the aisle help from the GOP interfering in the Dem race. If Hillary wins the nomination Sanders's supporters could avoid switching back out of inertia or relative equalization. If Sanders wins, oh well.

I think this is all just wishful thinking on your part. These lines of argument have already been so thoroughly debunked by myself and others in the threads... as well as been proven demonstrably false by the actual results of the primary voting... so much so that I'm not sure what else to tell you. Willful blindness is an affliction without a cure.

If you feel the debunking is that strong, you won't mind linking. While the primary results indeed don't favor my argument, I believe their explanation has to do with Sanders having initially been a foil for Clinton's candidacy (ie not a serious candidate). The problem is his campaign hasn't taken a dive yet despite establishment wishes. His continued run serves to damage Clinton and discourage younger voters regarding her when it was anticipated to do the opposite. If that explanation has any reality to it, later primaries will shown a reduction in the disparity... Clinton loses more of her lead.

One of the challenges with divining the will of a minority voting block, particularly black voters who are nearly monolithic in supporting Democrats, is that people (whites especially) are sometimes lulled into translating that perception of being monolithic into individual black people. Where you see the effect is when someone finds an internet video of a black person agreeing with them and concludes triumphantly that this must mean that most black people think this way. But its just as wrong as thinking that one Kukluxer at a Trump rally means that all Trump supporters are Klan.

My predictions are based on a number of (violent, crudely intersectional) fractures taking place, not a sea-change where minority votes switch over to Republicans at large. Think internecine conflicts that disrupt the wider Democrat unity (staying home come election time for reasons A, B, C,..., or voting Republican out of protest/ lack of meaningful difference), but maybe not enough for a Republican win. Hillary and Sanders both still have the opportunity to skewer Trump's campaign, but not if they stick to overly liberal topics of discussion. The criticisms Tim and you apply are better levied against Cruz, Kasich, et al, who actually have some compunctions about remaining conservative and consistent. Trump's pathological character affords a political and moral flexibility that has proven seductive features.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Eh, what "evidence to the contrary" do you mean exactly?

Mostly historical facts that have been pointed out enough times before, right in this thread, that your question strikes me as disingenuous.

As the saying goes, maybe Sanders stood with MLK, but Hillary Clinton stood with us.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The criticisms Tim and you apply are better levied against Cruz, Kasich, et al, who actually have some compunctions about remaining conservative and consistent. Trump's pathological character affords a political and moral flexibility that has proven seductive features.

Compunctions don't matter. Romney (maybe) had compunctions about staying consistent (but overcame them). The problem is that people don't really forget, especially if they aren't allowed to. And the modern world doesn't allow them to.

Trump's willingness to say whatever is most expedient in the moment is not in question. But the Romney campaign demonstrates the results. Addressing a Latino conference and telling them what they want to hear gets you booed off the stage...if three days before you said exactly the opposite thing and clips from that speech have been viral on the internet for the previous 48 hours. Saying something in a closed room full of donors that will offend 99 percent of the population gets you crushed. The days when you could make a whistlestop tour and point to a closed factory at every stop and say "that factory right there, your town, you are my number one priority" are over. Now you are met with a guy in the audience with a tablet shouting "Hey, you say that at EVERY stop! We can't ALL be number one."

No one expects politicians to actually be consistent, but there is a level of inconsistency that you cannot exceed. Even Trump.

 

[Lexicus]

As the saying goes, maybe Sanders stood with MLK, but Hillary Clinton stood with us.

Hillary Clinton stood with Goldwater and for mass incarceration.

But okay.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hillary Clinton stood with Goldwater and for mass incarceration.

But okay.

Bull. The crime bill of 1994 wasn't "hey, let's mass incarcerate black people." That may have turned out as a consequence, but that wasn't in any way shape or form the intent, and if you are going to pretend that everyone who supported it "should have known better" you are going to be pursuing a very long list.

This is where the divide is created. People want to cherry pick a bad consequence and hold it against people who have tried, in favor of people who have never had anything go wrong because they've never done anything in particular.

As to standing with Goldwater...at the time that was the primary outlet of radicalism. Johnson owned the Democratic party, and he was busy doing body counts in Viet Nam. Once again, there was a choice between standing with somebody or just tuning in and dropping out with Leary. Goldwater was a nut, but he was a fad of a nut and pretty harmless at the end of the day.

 

[Lexicus]

Bull. The crime bill of 1994 wasn't "hey, let's mass incarcerate black people." That may have turned out as a consequence, but that wasn't in any way shape or form the intent, and if you are going to pretend that everyone who supported it "should have known better" you are going to be pursuing a very long list.

Of course it's a very long list - that's what having a structural problem means.

The crime bill was only a part of Bill Clinton's capitulation to the Southern Strategy.
I suggest reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander for more on this.

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

It's very clear that this was all intentional and not accidental at all, and of course your protest that it was an unforeseeable consequence is ludicrous considering there were people (Sanders among them, even though he voted for it) who foresaw the consequences and spoke out about them.

This is where the divide is created. People want to cherry pick a bad consequence and hold it against people who have tried, in favor of people who have never had anything go wrong because they've never done anything in particular.

BS. If you mean Bernie, he has a long history of doing stuff.

You are right, though, that I tend to distrust career politicians and prefer activists who remain outside of electoral politics: those are the people I "favor" if you like.

As to standing with Goldwater...at the time that was the primary outlet of radicalism. Johnson owned the Democratic party, and he was busy doing body counts in Viet Nam. Once again, there was a choice between standing with somebody or just tuning in and dropping out with Leary. Goldwater was a nut, but he was a fad of a nut and pretty harmless at the end of the day.

This is just so completely wrong it's hard to know where to begin.

The Goldwater campaign was the "primary outlet" for the worst sort of right-wing nuttery. I really have no idea what you mean by "radicalism" but if you wanted to oppose the Vietnam War you certainly didn't do it by supporting Barry "let's nuke Vietnam" Goldwater.

While Hillary Clinton was campaigning for a man part of whose platform was anti-integration Bernie was chaining himself to black people to protest segregation.

I mean really. The "primary outlet of radicalism"? Do you know why my avatar is a Black Panther?

 

[Arakhor]

Presumably because you're a radical leftist?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Regressive left-wingers five miles ahead!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do you know why my avatar is a Black Panther?

As a wild guess, Hillary Rodham was not invited to join the black panthers. As another wild guess, neither where you. I wasn't either, though I did get a lot of good advice from one once.