I think DSeid nailed it. The interesting thing about these statistics is that they don’t win the presidency, and they once would have. Because we are no longer a nation full of white non-college educated men. We are actually at a point in history where the votes of college-educated young people, women and people of color have a huge sway on the final outcome of the election. ‘‘White America’’ is no longer the only America (it never has been, but this is the first time that fact has been really visible in a mainstream way.)
What I would really like to see come out of this is a viable 3rd party for conservatives. The newer generation of voters (gen Y or Millennials, whatever - I was born in 1983) has different ideas about what it means to be liberal or conservative. My best friend’s Dad is a staunch union-leading long-time Democrat, and his politics look nothing like that of myself or my peers. And my young conservative friends are almost entirely libertarian because social conservativism is becoming increasingly antiquated.
I’m sure that is what is at the root of all this fear – Trump’s base is not wrong when they say our country has changed. They are not wrong when they say their needs are increasingly marginalized. They are batshit insane for believing Trump will have anything to do with fulfilling those needs, but they are nonetheless correct that this is not the country they know. I for one am grateful for that. We’ve known for years that we were headed toward a non-white majority but I think this is one of the first times we have truly seen that reflected in the political sphere.
The GOP will either have to get with the times or it will die and a younger, more diverse conservatism will take its place.
I’m curious, Spice Weasel (sincerly) - among your socially liberal but overall conservative friends, what issues are important to them that cause you to describe them as conservative? Are they all supply-siders?
They are pro gun rights and unregulated capitalism. They generally hate taxes and welfare. They usually vote Republican and are voting 3rd party this year.
Today’s generation on both sides seems much more invested in social justice than ever before. I know people who consider themselves progressive conservatives trying to address systemic inequality through their own conservative advocacy and community organizing lens. That may be a little on the extreme side but I know a lot of young advocates and nonprofit and community leaders by nature of grad school and being involved with the Philly nonprofit network. I know conservative feminists, conservative anti-racists, etc.
Even the young social conservatives I know seem to have a better grounding in the realities that certain demographics face these days. I was having a conversation with a cousin of mine, who is a staunch, staunch pro-life advocate (her husband teases her about always bringing every argument back to the evils of abortion) and she said, in essence, women need more holistic support, more access to contraceptives, maternity leave, child care services, easier access to adoption and medical services, and she didn’t give a damn if we had to raise taxes to do it. That is the first time in my life I have ever heard a pro-lifer argue in favor of raising taxes.
Thanks, Spice Weasel. I grew up in MI with a bunch of anti-tax hunters, but now live in the bubble of the West Coast. It seems like the Michiganders from my youth grew up to be Trump-loving, brown and gay people hating adults (or maybe they’re the ones who dominate Facebook). Good to know that at least some of the newer batches of anti-tax hunters aren’t jingoist, racist, sexist assholes.
I should probably add the caveat that I’m not overly encouraged about Millennial Men and their attitude toward women. But that applies to both liberals and conservatives. I’d be way more concerned about the gap in domestic role expectations between young men and women if I weren’t already in a solid egalitarian relationship.
I just don’t agree with the ‘common wisdom’ that a more attractive Republican candidate would have beaten HRC. Maybe a populist with a clean record and solid social conservative credentials…But, if we could have a race where the platforms and issues pertinent to the people were debated, I think HRC would still make a very formidable opponent and would be the first choice.
The trend line on that four-way RCP doesn’t look great for Hillary. On the plus side, early indications are that the e-mail story isn’t hurting her too much. There has been a very effective push-back by the campaign and its surrogates which I expect will limit the damage.
Her position in the electoral college is still decent. While her blue wall is eroding a little, Trump still needs to win one state where he is 4-5 points behind which is hard to do with a week left. Hillary’s position in NC also seems solid and if she can pull that one, the rest will be a lot easier.
Or, rig the system in their favor so that they reclaim their advantage of majority (plurality). And if Trump and the Republicans in congress somehow pull it off next week, that’s where I see this headed. A rigged senate rigs the judiciary. A rigged judiciary supports “states rights” (we know what that means), vote suppression, and the suppression of civil liberties. A rigged congress sharply curtails immigration. “But wait, surely Silicon Valley will protest!” Yeah, so what? That’s the end game. And we already know that few republicans have the balls to put a stop to the extremists in their party.
The polls will tilt favorably toward Trump in states where he has polled strongly throughout the campaign: Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and perhaps North Carolina. The question is, how will polling translate into voting. Remember, Trump has a terrible ground game. That didn’t hurt him so badly in the primaries, but you get one chance to get it right in the general. That’s why I still think the odds are that Clinton wins even if Trump takes a narrow lead in the polls on November 6 or 7, which is possible but not necessarily a given. Trump would have to seriously outperform Clinton on election day.
But my point was, as we’ve seen already, hyper-partisan politics could be a factor if the race is close. Who’s to say, for instance, that one of Trump’s or the GOP’s state-level activists simply refuses to certify an election?
Are there any Trump loyalists in such a position? Trump has few political allies who are, well, politicians.
Republicans in a position of such power are all people who supported Cruz, Kasich, Rubio et al. They might vote Trump, but they’re not going to put their own heads in the guillotine for him. Calm down, man.
Looking at RCP’s latest polls I see six nationwide polls conducted on 31 October. Hillary leads in five, but the average of all six shows Hillary ahead by less than 1 percentage point.
In the other Monday polls, Trump leads by 2 points in North Carolina, and 4 points in Nevada. Hillary can survive, barely, the loss of those states, but the latest poll shows her ahead by only 2 points in Pennsylvania, and ahead by only a single point in Colorado. Those are both must-win states for Hillary.
Sunday’s polls look somewhat better than Monday’s, and maybe L.A. Times and Remington Research polls just have a Trump bias. Still, I find these Monday polls quite frightening.
LA Times and Remington do have a Republican house effect, yes. In truth the LA Times “Tracker” is kind of weird and no one is sure what it means at all.
Before you hang yourself, remember; it’s October 31. The election’s on November 8. If Clinton was going to have an October surprise, having it the Friday before the Friday before the election is a good time to have it. By Wednesday, people will be bored of the email thing and will return to your usually scheduled opinions, which are roughly Clinton up four points. Heck, 15 percent of the electorate (at least) voted before this email thing rose its head again.
If there is nothing more to the e-mail story, it probably won’t matter much. The nightmare scenario is that there is something genuinely damaging and it leaks a few days before the election causing undecided voters to break towards Trump.
Most notable, for Sat-Sun only, Clinton’s Lead over Trump only drops to 6 points vs. 7 points for Mon-Sun in the 2 way polls, and the email issue seems to be simmering down in the press.
Also, I’m unsure of the scientific value of this but I personally find it reassuring that as of this posting Clinton would win 271 EV solely by winning states that are currently >75% win chance in the Polls Only. In fact, the only states in this group that are below 80% are NH(77.1%) and CO(79.0%).
We could have a race that comes down close races in states such as Florida or Ohio where we already have well-documented attempts to purge hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls. We’re talking about deliberate efforts
What’s keeping them, or those with similar roles in other states, from refusing to certify election results? Without certification, there are no official results to submit and thus, by virtue of the laws among the states, no electors who can cast votes.
Further, someone in the Senate could propose an “objection” which could then be signed by a Senator and a Representative. Each House could meet and consider the “merits” of the objection – remember, this is a Republican congress we’re most likely dealing with here. And most likely, an extremely bitter, hostile, and hyper-partisan Republican congress at that. Paul Ryan has limited power. Mitch McConnell is politically neutered. The floor belongs to radicals in the House and Ted Cruz in the senate. And before you laugh off the idea of someone like Ted Cruz supporting his former nemesis Trump, remember that he’s not necessarily supporting Trump. He’s supporting Trump - Pence and the party. And if it gets to that stage there’s no way he’s going to do anything to help the political opposition. This could drag on for weeks with no resolution.
