I predict that Donald Trump is going to win the election for POTUS this year.

[ElvisL1ves]

It’s called “ratfucking”, Sam.

[Sam_Stone]

@ElvisL1ves

It’s called “ratfucking”, Sam.

Yeah. And if that many Democrats are doing that in one county alone, it’s going to feed into the Republican narrative that Democrats don’t play fairly in elections. And again, if Democrats are doing that and help Trump get nominated and then he goes on to win the general election, they’re going to have been partly responsible.

So I hope they aren’t doing that, because the U.S. don’t need yet another way to screw up the political system and destroy trust in the electoral process.

[ElvisL1ves]

It’s the Democrats causing damage to confidence in the electoral process. Uh-huh.

[Sam_Stone]

Not always, but in this case they’d be adding to it. It’s a sleazy way to win, and it undermines trust in the nomination process.

[GIGObuster]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Neither your pithy truism nor your cite refute anything I’ve said. I’m telling you what I hear from people I work with, people I work for, people I hear in stores and malls and walking around the park. ETA: Note that I said nothing about Trump being #1 with Hispanics, nor did I claim that most Hispanics support him. You are refuting straw men, GIGO.

Not really, what is the title of the thread? And did you not ask to be proven wrong?

The point stands, you may know Hispanics that are telling you that, but I’m showing you how small their vote power is.

@Snowboarder_Bo

Do you not hear these same types of things from people around you? If not, where are you? And are you listening?

I’m listening to what the numbers in the big picture are showing us, and personally the wealthy family members I know (that are Hispanic) just gave up on the Republicans and are voting Democrat this November. And same at my workplace.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Sam_Stone

Not always, but in this case they’d be adding to it. It’s a sleazy way to win, and it undermines trust in the nomination process.

A few minutes ago you were telling us it meant Trump was winning Democrats’hearts and minds.

Shrug.

[Sam_Stone]

@ElvisL1ves

A few minutes ago you were telling us it meant Trump was winning Democrats’hearts and minds.

Shrug.

No, I said that was one of the possibilities. If that’s the case, it’s bad news for Democrats. If it’s just Democrats ‘ratfucking’ Republicans, then it’s bad for Republicans, and if Trump wins the nomination and goes on to win the general election, it’s bad for Democrats too - and the country. The third possibility is that Democrats are jumping ship for the Republicans not for Trump, but because they don’t want to be Democrats any more. That’s bad for Democrats.

My point wasn’t to blame anyone or to claim I know what’s going on - just that this is a worrying development for Democrats, or Republicans, or both.

[Peremensoe]

@Sam_Stone

Not always, but in this case they’d be adding to it. It’s a sleazy way to win, and it undermines trust in the nomination process.

Well, not to worry, because that’s not happening. I am sure that the overwhelming share of people voting for Trump, are voting for Trump.

[Sam_Stone]

@Peremensoe

Well, not to worry, because that’s not happening. I am sure that the overwhelming share of people voting for Trump, are voting for Trump.

I think you’re probably right - and that should keep all of us from having a good sleep. It means his support cuts across party lines and he has a very substantial electorate behind him.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Sam_Stone

It means his support cuts across party lines and he has a very substantial electorate behind him.

You seem unclear on how ratfucking works in our system.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

I think you’re probably right - and that should keep all of us from having a good sleep. It means his support cuts across party lines and he has a very substantial electorate behind him.

The primary numbers are higher for the Republicans in many places but that does not mean much, the Democrats are very good at not being primed for primaries, but are more up to general elections.

Why Democrats (probably) shouldn't worry about record Republican primary turnout

Experts say Democrats probably shouldn’t worry too much about what the primary turnout totals mean for their odds in a general election. The disparity is more likely a result of some trends we’ve known about for a long time, rather than a revelation that indicates some new Republican advantage.

“I don’t think it means anything for the general election. I don’t think the primary turnout is really predictive of what’s going to happen,” says Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

…

There are a few major problems, however, in trying to use turnout in the primaries to extrapolate what will happen in the general election.

The first is historical. Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida and a voter turnout guru, notes that in 2000 the Republican primary turnout ran ahead of that for Democrats (by around 3 million votes), and yet Al Gore won the popular vote over George Bush.

Over at RealClearPolitics, Sean Trende adds that 1988 saw the second-highest Democratic primary turnout ever. But Republican George H.W. Bush went on to win the general election anyway.

Another big reason not to overanalyze the primary data: The Republican coalition is primed to participate in these early contests in a way the Democratic coalition isn’t.

…

Even record primary turnouts aren’t all that impressive

Then there’s the fact that — compared with the general election — just not that many people are participating in even the record-breaking primaries.

In 2012, nearly 1 million people in Nevada voted in the race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Last night’s Republican primary did see voter turnout increase from previous primaries — but just from 33,000 voters to 75,000.

“On the one hand, it’s a big increase,” says Kondik, of the Center for Politics. “On the other hand, it’s not that many people total.”

One possible benefit of higher turnout in the primary is that Republicans get more information about their voters — information they can use on Election Day through mailers and phone calls. But even that is unlikely to be too much of a boost to Republicans: The voters who show up for the primaries are probably going to also show up for the general election without much prodding.

[Sam_Stone]

I agree with you about turnout - I wouldn’t expect as much Democratic turnout for primaries for the simple reason that Hillary’s pretty much got a lock on the nomination - and also that she’s very few people’s first choice for who they would really like. She’s more like the acceptable, inevitable mainstream candidate that you support because you think she can win, and not because she inspires you.

But we’re not talking about turnout here - we’re talking about the apparent fact that 14% of Democrats in one country in Ohio we know about have flipped to the Republicans. These aren’t your typical low-information voters - they’re members of the party who went to the trouble of giving up their party affiliation and registering in advance for the Republican primary. Doesn’t that worry you a bit?

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

I agree with you about turnout - I wouldn’t expect as much Democratic turnout for primaries for the simple reason that Hillary’s pretty much got a lock on the nomination - and also that she’s very few people’s first choice for who they would really like. She’s more like the acceptable, inevitable mainstream candidate that you support because you think she can win, and not because she inspires you.

But we’re not talking about turnout here - we’re talking about the apparent fact that 14% of Democrats in one country in Ohio we know about have flipped to the Republicans. These aren’t your typical low-information voters - they’re members of the party who went to the trouble of giving up their party affiliation and registering in advance for the Republican primary. Doesn’t that worry you a bit?

A bit for that county yes, but there are many others where I do not think that will mean much in the general election. I still expect to see many more moderate and educated Republicans to sit this election or even vote Democratic.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

[E-DUB]

In some cases it may look like Dems are voting in the Republican primary, either for sincere or malicious reasons, when all that is actually happening is that more people are voting in the Republican primaries, perhaps simply because there have more candidates on that side and fewer voting in the Democratic primaries simply because they’re not excited about the choices. That doesn’t mean that the same people are doing both.

[Jackknifed_Juggernaut]

@Johnny_L.A

This Guy Thinks Trump Already Won The Presidency

:D. That has to be fake. “You only vote once bro. Read the constitution.”

[funky_little_lee]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Thank you, funky little lee for offering a similar perspective to what I see and hear from members of my own union, from Teamsters, from IBEW, from LIUNA and SEIU members, etc. everyday and that I wrote of and quoted myself on in the OP.

For a while there, I thought LSLGuy was the only other person who paid attention to the seemingly rarefied levels that I move in (and I didn’t even realize you were a fellow union member, LSLGuy).

I wish I had a union to belong to. Where I live, people are so afraid of losing their jobs that they don’t dare to even THINK the word union. We’re pretty much at the mercy of our employers and the government–and I’m not sure which one is more exploitative at this point.

[Thing_Fish]

@Sam_Stone

I agree with you about turnout - I wouldn’t expect as much Democratic turnout for primaries for the simple reason that Hillary’s pretty much got a lock on the nomination - and also that she’s very few people’s first choice for who they would really like. She’s more like the acceptable, inevitable mainstream candidate that you support because you think she can win, and not because she inspires you.

But we’re not talking about turnout here - we’re talking about the apparent fact that 14% of Democrats in one country in Ohio we know about have flipped to the Republicans. These aren’t your typical low-information voters - they’re members of the party who went to the trouble of giving up their party affiliation and registering in advance for the Republican primary. Doesn’t that worry you a bit?

Despite the statement of that one county chairman you quoted, isn’t it also likely that some nonzero numbers of Democrats have decided that their vote is best cast against Trump rather than for one of their own candidates?

[GIGObuster]

Speaking of Unions, Trump does not seem to mind how the ones that he delegates or use his name like to bust them.

Trump, Accused Of Union Busting, Is Losing A Vegas Labor Dispute

Donald Trump Says He’s Chummy With Unions. Then Why’s He Fighting One In Las Vegas?

The friction at the hotel stretches back to at least August, when a union organizing campaign apparently was in full swing. There are at least two batches of so-called unfair labor practices complaints pending against the hotel, including workers being threatened, punished and even fired for supporting the union, according to NLRB filings.

In October, the hotel’s owners filed a lawsuit against the union, accusing it of false advertising. The union had distributed flyers saying that Trump had stayed at a union hotel in Las Vegas during a visit rather than at the Trump International. “If Trump chooses to stay in a union hotel, why can’t Trump Hotel workers choose to form a union?” the flyers asked. The Trump International owners said the union’s claim was false and was made “to damage the reputation of the hotel.”

Local 226, an affiliate of the hotel workers’ union Unite Here, represents many of the housekeepers, restaurant workers and casino workers on the Vegas strip. When it comes to casinos and hotels, Vegas is pretty much a union town these days, well known for having solid wages for service workers. Local 226 says Trump’s property is one of just a few on the strip where housekeepers are not currently unionized. The union claims that the housekeepers at the Trump International – many of whom are Latino and Filipino, according to NLRB filings – earn $3.30 less per hour than the average union housekeepers on the strip.

Despite Trump’s claims of collaboration with unions, the Trump International appears intent on keeping the culinary union out of the hotel. According to filings with the Labor Department, in 2014, Trump Ruffin Commercial, the corporation affiliated with the hotel, retained the services of the Labor Relations Institute, a firm known for so-called union avoidance work. According to its contract with the hotel, the company was providing an expert to “educate and prepare your employees for union organizing.”

That included what were deemed “inoculation meetings,” in which a consultant would “communicate your message directly to employees.” Local 226 claims the hotel also brought in consultants from Cruz & Associates, another firm known for helping keep unions out of the workplace.

[SlackerInc]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Do you not hear these same types of things from people around you? If not, where are you? And are you listening?

I see them on the Facebook threads for the local TV station in my area (a purple, fairly rural county in a red state). But I don’t hear them around me at all in my “meatspace”, real life.

@Thing_Fish

Despite the statement of that one county chairman you quoted, isn’t it also likely that some nonzero numbers of Democrats have decided that their vote is best cast against Trump rather than for one of their own candidates?

I do see a lot of people talking about doing this. Which is frustrating, because I’ve been campaigning hard for Democrats to cross over and vote *for *Drumpf, not because I want him to be president but because I want to blow up the GOP.

[Buck_Godot]

@SlackerInc

I do see a lot of people talking about doing this. Which is frustrating, because I’ve been campaigning hard for Democrats to cross over and vote *for *Drumpf, not because I want him to be president but because I want to blow up the GOP.

At this point I think that they might be better off voting for Rubio or Kasich. Left to their own debices, Trump seems to be the likeky winner of the popular GOP vote. To really blow up the GOP you want a brokered convention, with sore feelings all around and Trump running as an independent against whomever the party establishment drafts over him.