2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Kanzler]

We'll see whether what happens in Indiana on Tuesday will affect Trump's likelihoods. And we'll see what happens if Clinton and Trump get their nominations. I don't know how effective the anti-women, racist Trump message will continue to be in the future. I think he'll be able to rebrand himself. 1) he doesn't have a political history, 2) he's good at communicating, 3) he's able to be more liberal, or at least speak more liberally than other Republican candidates. A lot of people don't take seriously that Donald Trump's a racist and see those early remarks as preaching to the choir. Once he has to appeal to all voters he'll change his tack and I think a lot of people are going to buy it.

 

[Ivysaur]

The odds of Trump not securing the delegates are extremely low given he's poised to win in basically every contest heading into the nomination. It's also unlikely the Republican Party will take it from Trump given he's only 230~ away, despite Ted Cruz believing differently. They know Trump will go third-party and will very likely take many of his 10 million voters with him - though arguably they'd be okay with that because they'd also rather have Clinton, someone they know is not going to rock the boat.

Clinton-and-Sanders is still a contest at least. And Clinton imploding/getting indicted is far more likely than Trump given (as you say yourself), he's a walking outlandish comment. But he's also anti-establishment so the fact that Republicans in positions like Mike Pence, an anti-LGBT rights supporter of Bible-thumpin' Ted, means little to someone like Trump, who claims to be looking for support from the people and not the politicians.

I'm not sure how you're seeing that he's falling at a constant pace or she's increasing though. That list is fairly consistent around 7%-12%, with a handful of outliers putting her at ~20% and him ahead by ~5% or so. That's hardly indicative of much other than it's close in polling. Factor in debates during the general, possible implosions, and a mix of other factors, and there's not really much saying this is going to be a landslide yet.

"My call" is that it's too early to predict anything in an unbelievably unpredictable cycle. I do recall you making such statements about Trump early on, so good on you. I'd never have guessed he'd have made it this far or done this well for the nomination. But I don't claim to be an expert. :) Just one vote.

Well, allow me to put it this way:

There are two main possibilities. One, as you have been suggesting, is that Trump becomes a normal candidate, the race becomes a normal presidential election, blue states vote blue, red states vote red, and swing states split up their votes. Or maybe they all vote D like in 2012, but allowing for several republican incumbent senators to stay in office anyway. Or maybe even Trump wins because stuff happens. Nothing really happens and everything will be up for grabs again in four years.

The other possibility, which makes RNC memebrs stay awake at night, is very different. Trump, who is an "outlandish comment", runs as an "outlandish comment" because that's who he is. Hispanics and minorities feel that when he's going on tirades about "illegal immigration", he's actually saying "all non-whites", reinforced by tons of clips in which he's just saying "Mexicans" and a million quotes from the campaign. Minorities (and tons of women) show up to vote against Trump, and he does lose by 7-10 points as polls suggest right now. Blue states become bluer, all swing states become Lean D and Lean R states become swing. Not only that, but a ton of "innocent" republicans -reps, senators, governors, state legislators- go out on Trump's anti-coattails because all those people showing up to vote against Trump simply go straight D when filling up their ballots. And, as a bonus, most of those people decide that a party who has allowed someone like Trump to happen is clearly not for them and are turned off from ever voting Republican for a generation, setting in stone all those gains.

A Democrat's pipe-dream? A crazy dystopia? No, California.

And that fact that it already happened is what makes it all the more terrifying for the RNC.

 

[Kanzler]

A Democrat's pipe-dream? A crazy dystopia? No, California.

And that fact that it already happened is what makes it all the more terrifying for the RNC.

Explain? Never heard of this before.

 

[Ivysaur]

Explain? Never heard of this before.

California was a reliable Republican state (home of Ronald Reagan himself) until R Governor Pete Wilson ran in 1994 for reelection on Proposition 187, also known as "Save Our State" (SOS). It essentially said that millions of illegal Mexican immigrants were flooding California (sounds similar?) and proposed banning all of them from taking advantage of a single public dollar- no school, no emergency healthcare, nothing. It passed, and the courts promptly killed it off a few months later. It was all very clearly about "illegal" immigrants only, but hispanics somehow felt it was about all latinos, not just illegal Mexicans. Starting in the following election, the Democrats painted the Californian GOP as a bunch of "racist" and "Hispanic-haters"- and won every single election afterward.

Since that year, the Republican party only won one statewide election -with Arnold Schwarzenegger- and are largely irrelevant in the state, because all those latinos keep voting democratic over and over and over, 20 years down the road. They took every statewide office, supermajorities in the Legislature... virtually every position down to dog-catcher is filled by a Democrat, except in tiny pockets of Republican support. All of that because a Republican decided to run in a harsh anti-illegal-immigrants platform in the 90s that hispanics felt a direct attack to them. Can the same thing happen again, on a nationwide level? That's the fear that's making scores of Republican officials pretend Trump doesn't exist, hoping he won't stick. Because his rhetoric feels eerily similar.

 

[Esper]

I'd like to add that here in California we only elected Schwarzenegger in a recall election when far fewer people turn out, and that even though he was a Republican he was fairly good when it came to the environment. The Republicans out here are rather moderate on average compared to what you see in other parts of the country. More business Republican than religious Republican.

For something like this to happen nationally, or even in a couple of states, sounds like a dream. Call me cynical, but I don't think it's likely to happen regardless of how badly Trump or Cruz does in the election.

 

[Ivysaur]

I'd like to add that here in California we only elected Schwarzenegger in a recall election when far fewer people turn out, and that even though he was a Republican he was fairly good when it came to the environment. The Republicans out here are rather moderate on average compared to what you see in other parts of the country. More business Republican than religious Republican.

For something like this to happen nationally, or even in a couple of states, sounds like a dream. Call me cynical, but I don't think it's likely to happen regardless of how badly Trump or Cruz does in the election.

The thing is, the Republicans already are in a disadvantage when you look at the "solid" partisan breakdown of the country. If you get a few swing states with large minority populations -Virginia, Florida or North Carolina- to become solidly Democratic out of an anti-Trump backlash because of his racism (or what Hispanics may perceive as "racism", which is what matters here anyway), then they'll be in very serious trouble for a long time, in both the Senate and the White House. And there is always their crown jewel: Texas, with a 38% of hispanic population in 2012...

 

[Kanzler]

The thing is, the Republicans already are in a disadvantage when you look at the "solid" partisan breakdown of the country. If you get a few swing states with large minority populations -Virginia, Florida or North Carolina- to become solidly Democratic out of an anti-Trump backlash because of his racism (or what Hispanics may perceive as "racism", which is what matters here anyway), then they'll be in very serious trouble for a long time, in both the Senate and the White House. And there is always their crown jewel: Texas, with a 38% of hispanic population in 2012...

How persistent could that effect be? Once he's out of office, couldn't those states lean back to red? The Republican party might shift when it comes to immigration reform.

 

[Ivysaur]

How persistent could that effect be? Once he's out of office, couldn't those states lean back to red? The Republican party might shift when it comes to immigration reform.

Well, in California it is still in effect 20 years later and with no signs of letting down. And considering how the Republican party went from saying "we need to pass immigration reform" in 2012 to "better not or else the Tea Party will out-primary us for RINOs" in 2014 to "Let's build a wall in the border with Mexico and make them pay for it", what we are seeing is that they are, indeed, shifting... in the completely wrong direction. And now tell me, how do you get those party members and supporters who directed that shift against the Republican leadership's best wishes, to backpedal right to the other end of the road? Because if the party leadership tells them that they need to accept immigration reform "for the good of the party"... their answer can easily be to kick those leaders out of the premises, as they have done with the ones who said the same in 2012.

Well, it's their problem, not mine. But if the Democrats manage to make all hispanics see the Republican party as "the party who killed immigration reform and then voted for Trump because they actually want to kick every one of you out of the country" (insert video of one of Trump's thugs telling US reporter Jorge Ramos "Go back to your country" here), then it can take years to clean it up. Lots of years.

 

[Netto Azure]

I also find it interesting that it took Jerry Brown and a Democratic supermajority in the legislature to balance the budget after decades of financial window-dressing and crises.

Anyway, I'm quite close to tuning out the Primaries altogether, but California being relevant for now is keeping my eyes glued to it. In the Democratic side it's just become pretty negative with Bernie being accused of egotism ala Trump (which ticks me off...this is why we should just have a nationwide primary, let everyone's vote count properly) for having the gall to stay in the race all the way to the convention.

But still the rhetoric is a replay of 2008 with the pro-Hillary PUMA's that popped up around this time in the primary though I don't remember calls for her to drop out back then at this stage...I seriously do think this is indicative of a undercurrent of ideological struggle within the party. Sanders gets accused of "not being a real Democrat" when he certainly represents a significant faction in the party.

Though the Republican intransigence really does enforce party unity once elections are over on both sides as the sorting of the parties pretty much finish.

 

[Livewire]

States like California will stay blue for the forceable future, several electoral cycles down the road because the Democratic party has a such a hold on the levels of government there, it would take a long-term serious generational shift from voters in addition to a major re-branding of the GOP there to compete. Short term, a swing to the GOP there just isn't feasible. The "swing states" with large minority populations are currently swinging left/blue in opposition to GOP immigration stances, among other things, and will probably stay that way for some time as well, barring a major policy shift for the GOP which probably won't happen for some time also, because of the Tea Party and the current status-quo within the party and among its top officials.

Texas is interesting because it could go blue by 2028 or 2032, if the Hispanic population continues to grow there like it has been the past 15, 20 years. The border states of New Mexico, Arizona, etc., would follow suit with their burgeoning minority populations, and also swing blue, and suddenly Democrats have New York, Texas, California, Colorado, Illinois, the coasts, and possibly all the Great Lakes states accounted for before the election even begins - It would be over before it even starts, incredibly enough. And this is all because demographically speaking, America is becoming more ethnically and racially diverse, and democratic party membership is more representative of a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic America than the GOP is. It's happening right now, as we speak.

 

[Kanzler]

This is going a bit off topic (not that I mind, just acknowledging), but it would appear that a rebranding of the Republican party is just a matter of time. "Correct" social policy will evolve over time but small government will always be in fashion.

 

[Ivysaur]

A rebranding or a split, because under Nixon, the "small government" conservatives entered an alliance with the Southern segregationists. That was the "southern strategy", which was supposed to take all those states which used to vote democratic back when the Ds were the racist ones, and lock in the electoral college for a generation- which it did. The problem is, population changes are not only making the religious, nationalist, racist wing an ever-decreasing minority, they are also making it a liability for the "just business" wing of the party, which could arguably offer actual ideas to those minorities if they weren't straight-up turned off by the racists chanting "get out of my country! speak english! segregated bathrooms!" in the background. Either they ditch them, the Tea Party spuns off into a "Dixiepublican" party, or the Democrats will now be the ones with a near-lock on the White House for years to come.

You can rebrand the party all you want, but if your own members keep pushing policies against what the leadership of the party thinks are their best interests because those memebrs legitimately believe the Republicans stand for "anti-gay discrimination laws" and "build a wall with Mexico", either you kick those members out, or they'll keep passing those proposals and voting in representatives that believe in them.

 

[Esper]

I wonder what the future of the Democratic party will be. Like the Republicans they are also having a (less intense) ideological battle ala Clinton v Sanders. They don't have the same pressures of a shrinking voter bloc the GOP has, nor are they necessarily as big on ideological purity, but I wouldn't rule out a schism of sorts. In California (not to keep bringing up my state) our elections are now between the two best candidates, whether they're of the same party or not, and it looks like the senate race is going to be between two Democrats. They're almost going to be forced into having ideological differences.

 

[Kanzler]

TED CRUZ DROPS OUT OMGWTF

The Republican Party has decided to unite behind Trump after all. So much for all that contested convention talk.

 

[Netto Azure]

Well this is going to be a fun general US Presidential election campaign.

"If this election were a satirical novel I would abandon it halfway through as way too heavy-handed." - Tom Tomorrow

Also lol:

 

[Her]

Bernie won Indiana, but how much does that affect Hillary's chances of securing the nomination, if at all? It's my understanding that this win is just a morale boost for his camp and not much more, unfortunately.

 

[Livewire]

Hello President Clinton!

Kasich and Co. are still vowing to take it to the convention, so we shall see. California's primary is still looming and I'd wager he has a pretty decent shot there, so I won't rule anything out just yet. If the RNC is throwing in the towel and going with Trump gong forward, then this point in time is the proverbial edge of the abyss, the point of no return. Let's see where it leads us.

 

[Her]

Hello President Clinton!

Kasich and Co. are still vowing to take it to the convention, so we shall see. California's primary is still looming and I'd wager he has a pretty decent shot there, so I won't rule anything out just yet. If the RNC is throwing in the towel and going with Trump gong forward, then this point in time is the proverbial edge of the abyss, the point of no return. Let's see where it leads us.

Isn't it rather futile of Kasich at this point? I suppose being the last source of opposition for opposition's sake has its merits, but I can't imagine he seriously thinks the RNC will stand by him if he has even less electability prospects than Cruz, who was the only real stone in the way of Trump's bulldozer. With Cruz officially dead in the water, surely we are just waiting for the domino effect to finish now.

 

[Kanzler]

And Kasich is out, Trump is the last man standing. GG

I think Clinton will increase pressure on Sanders to drop out and unite the party in light of what's happened in the GOP.

 

[Esper]

Hello President Clinton!

I dunno, there was that poll last week that showed Trump ahead by 2 points. Probably an anomaly, but Democrats shouldn't be complacent just because Trump is all but the nominee now.

Also, technically, Clinton can't be the nominee without the super delegates. I know this sounds like Berniecrat on a sinking ship, but it's still possible that those super delegates could switch their votes for Bernie. This is assuming he does well in the remaining states, and since even Nate Silver predicted Clinton would win Indiana I think there's still space for Bernie to pull a big win in places like California.