Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I doubt Rubio beats the record set by GWB, but he would give the GOP at least a fighting chance with that demographic. I disagree with a ton of his policies, but he's the most presidential candidate on the GOP side IMO. With Rubio as President, I wouldn't have to wear a bag over my head if I traveled to Europe, like I would with President Trump.
Trump would make Dole's record low share of the Latino vote look positively glowing in comparison. He wouldn't sniff 20%.
Rubio has a fighting chance, but that's about it, with Hispanics/Latinos. His policy views aren't shared by many if not most Latinos.
i.e. In the last 72 years, since the two term limit for Presidents went into effect only one time has the same political party held the Presidency for 3 terms. (Reagan/Bush) Hence probability says Hillary Clinton will lose. Any argument that you make against that, also applies to what you have stated. This is why your "demographic" argument is a logical fallacy.
As I said, you have yet to demonstrate that demographics force people to vote just one way. History proves just the opposite.
Demographics obviously don't force any individual to vote a particular way, but when you get past the individual and look at demographic segments of the population, the fact is that groups tend to vote in predictable patterns at least in comparison with other groups. That's why exit polling of carefully selected bellwether precincts on election nights are usually so accurate. By gauging how particular subsets of the electorate are performing as compared to past elections in those key precincts, statisticians can accurately model how that state is voting. Their models are based on past elections. If voting patterns were not predictive by subgroups, accurate modeling should not be possible, but they are and statistical analysis has been used with increasing accuracy for decades.
Demographics obviously don't force any individual to vote a particular way, but when you get past the individual and look at demographic segments of the population, the fact is that groups tend to vote in predictable patterns at least in comparison with other groups. That's why exit polling of carefully selected bellwether precincts on election nights are usually so accurate. By gauging how particular subsets of the electorate are performing as compared to past elections in those key precincts, statisticians can accurately model how that state is voting. Their models are based on past elections. If voting patterns were not predictive by subgroups, accurate modeling should not be possible, but they are and statistical analysis has been used with increasing accuracy for decades.
I agree past usually indicates future, but again, this will be IMO the most "National Security First" race in a long term, and I think even more than '04, as by 11/2004, we were feeling safe again, since the US had taken the offensive.
This race will be a beta IMO, and I'm uncomfortable saying how it will break, but I do suspect it will differ from any race in my lifetime. and I say that, as one who thinks we are NOT well protected, and unfortunately, one expecting more San Bernadinos in the next year. Hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
I agree past usually indicates future, but again, this will be IMO the most "National Security First" race in a long term, and I think even more than '04, as by 11/2004, we were feeling safe again, since the US had taken the offensive.
This race will be a beta IMO, and I'm uncomfortable saying how it will break, but I do suspect it will differ from any race in my lifetime. and I say that, as one who thinks we are NOT well protected, and unfortunately, one expecting more San Bernadinos in the next year. Hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
As usual for you, an interesting comment. National security has been the top issue for GOP voters for months now; Democrats not as much. How San Bernardino will resonate in November is difficult to say. Stopping a coordinated 9-11 level attack from abroad is one thing; trying to stop low tech attacks like SB and Boston's quite another. I'm not sure you can stomp out the threat of lone wolves with pipe bombs and assault rifles. Deploying troops on a large scale basis to attack ISIS will probably be an issue. Lot of the R candidates are backing that. The problem is that that's just what the b**tards want. The ISIS propaganda mag is named after some village in Syria where their version of Armageddon is supposed to be fought against the "Army of Rome". We need a plan beyond "I'll bomb the **** out of them", or "we'll see if we can make sand glow". I'm not convinced that large numbers of western nation ground troops would make it better. It could make more Sunnis rally to ISIS.
As usual for you, an interesting comment. National security has been the top issue for GOP voters for months now; Democrats not as much. How San Bernardino will resonate in November is difficult to say. Stopping a coordinated 9-11 level attack from abroad is one thing; trying to stop low tech attacks like SB and Boston's quite another. I'm not sure you can stomp out the threat of lone wolves with pipe bombs and assault rifles. Deploying troops on a large scale basis to attack ISIS will probably be an issue. Lot of the R candidates are backing that. The problem is that that's just what the b**tards want. The ISIS propaganda mag is named after some village in Syria where their version of Armageddon is supposed to be fought against the "Army of Rome". We need a plan beyond "I'll bomb the **** out of them", or "we'll see if we can make sand glow". I'm not convinced that large numbers of western nation ground troops would make it better. It could make more Sunnis rally to ISIS.
The key will be how Nation Security influences the independent vote. The party line, both D and R, will stay largely as they have, but IMO, indys are quite volatile. Indys swung R in 80s IMO largely due to Carter's handling of the Hostage Crisis. and post Paris, BO has been mostly tone deaf, reminds me of Carter in that regard.
It's doubly a wild card when BO has 34% terrorism approval ratings, and his ex Secretary of State is the party nominee.
This will be a wild year politically. If I were just a 3rd party voyeur, breathtaking"ly" interesting.
The key will be how Nation Security influences the independent vote. The party line, both D and R, will stay largely as they have, but IMO, indys are quite volatile. Indys swung R in 80s IMO largely due to Carter's handling of the Hostage Crisis. and post Paris, BO has been mostly tone deaf, reminds me of Carter in that regard.
It's doubly a wild card when BO has 34% terrorism approval ratings, and his ex Secretary of State is the party nominee.
This will be a wild year politically. If I were just a 3rd party voyeur, breathtaking"ly" interesting.
The question is how many independents are truly movable. Most with that label now are leaners, quite a few of them on the extremes, who would never vote for the other major party. We've been in a period where the max swing has been about 7%, hence no true landslides since Reagan in '84. I'm not sure that there's more than 5-7% of true swing voters that are up for grabs, even in a national security election. The bases of the two major parties are too far apart and too evenly divided to make a big win very likely, IMO. Only time will tell.
The question is how many independents are truly movable. Most with that label now are leaners, quite a few of them on the extremes, who would never vote for the other major party. We've been in a period where the max swing has been about 7%, hence no true landslides since Reagan in '84. I'm not sure that there's more than 5-7% of true swing voters that are up for grabs, even in a national security election. The bases of the two major parties are too far apart and too evenly divided to make a big win very likely, IMO. Only time will tell.
Key is unknown, indy % movable in swing states. Indys in solid red/blue are a non factor.
I just think security will reign supreme, as I think sadly SB was not the last during this administration. And the party in charge takes the heat when SB's occur. Naturally.
Let's get real here, Clinton would absolutely destroy Trump in a general election. He's losing 85% of the hispanic vote, he's lucky if he gets 45% of independents, she will win 60% of female voters, and many Republicans will stay home, vote for Clinton, and a few will go third party. Any fantasy about Trump being competitive is laughable. The man isn't very bright, he doesn't understand economics, he certainly doesn't understand foreign policy, and he's an elitist jerk. On top of that, he's insulted about every demographic group imaginable. He has no agenda, just stupid tweets against fellow Republicans and ridiculous conspiracy theories about Obama being born in Kenya. The guy is terrible in debates because he has a low IQ and looks like a mess, Clinton would destroy him in a debate and he'd be embarrassed.
Let's get real here, Clinton would absolutely destroy Trump in a general election. He's losing 85% of the hispanic vote, he's lucky if he gets 45% of independents, she will win 60% of female voters, and many Republicans will stay home, vote for Clinton, and a few will go third party. Any fantasy about Trump being competitive is laughable. The man isn't very bright, he doesn't understand economics, he certainly doesn't understand foreign policy, and he's an elitist jerk. On top of that, he's insulted about every demographic group imaginable. He has no agenda, just stupid tweets against fellow Republicans and ridiculous conspiracy theories about Obama being born in Kenya. The guy is terrible in debates because he has a low IQ and looks like a mess, Clinton would destroy him in a debate and he'd be embarrassed.
Polls disagree.
And if you think Trump has a low IQ, and Clinton would destroy him in a debate, you have not been watching him handle the press recently.
Thinking he is not competitive is laughable. He is in fact competitive, and deserves to be paid attention to, and appropriate effort made to beat him. If people are foolish enough to think otherwise they will end up letting him win. A bad plan. The man deserves to be taken seriously.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
