Arizona is a very realistic possibility. (Nor is it a southern state, like Georgia.) Hispanics make up almost 20% of eligible voters; McCain is in for a battle; all signs indicate that Maricopa County has had it with Arpaio. I wouldn’t put money on it, but I won’t be a bit surprised if Arizona goes for Clinton.
We are, of course, still five months out.
Arizona was in play for a little while in 2008, even though it’s McCain’s state. I could easily see it go for Hillary this year.
Latest poll shows Trump with toxic 70% unfavorables: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-unfavorable-ratings/index.html
Wow. 70% unfavorable rating. That’s impressive.
The June 10 - 13 Bloomberg poll has Clinton up by 12 points.
Just out of interest, I found the Gallup rolling average polls for Obama McCain for the month of June 2008. Ranged from McCain up by 1 pt. to Obama up by 7 pts, and then settle down at the end of the month to Obama up by 2 or 3 pts., then a dead heat 45;45 at the end of the month.
Any state with a large and growing Hispanic, especially Mexican-American, population has to look gettable for her. It’s hard to see how they could get even more motivated than they already are.
Seriously?
Dude: the killer was born in 1986… which means, his parents already lived in the USA before that (aka immigrated). Which means, they were vetted during… the Reagan administration?
You’re attacking Republicans over their vetting processes?
No. What we NEED is a time machine :rolleyes:
So, here’s an idea: why don’t you go to Germany and tell THEM how they should vet THEIR immigration process?
Look: you have a problem now. With AMERICAN citizens. How about you try to solve YOUR problem?
I thought you wanted *more *Republican voters.
Or judges! Don’t forget judges!
Maybe. But they certainly wouldn’t write honor with a “u” :eek:
You see a signpost up ahead. You have now entered the Trumplight Zone:
I literally laughed out loud when I read the headline…and it gets funnier.
One wonders how someone would be able to hack Hillary’s server, considering that it’s extremely unlikely to be connected to a network, let alone the internet…
sorry that adaher puts country above party. Progressives need to do that too.
And a new RV poll, CBS’s, puts it +6 in Clinton vs Trump and +7 if Johnson is added.
A solid lead but different than the 12 in Selzer’s Bloomberg LV poll. Who will actually be LVs and how well Selzer calls it (usually amazingly well) of course being a significant item.
Meanwhile among all RVs CBS tells us that: Trump wins men by 8 while losing women by 19; wins all White RVs by 6; wins White men by 20 while losing White women by 8; wins White non-college educated by 21 while losing White college-educated by the same 21.
Of course usually college educated folk and women are more likely voters and non-college educated males … not.
And dang - Romney won non-college educated Whites by 24, more than Trump is polling among all RVs, let alone LVs, and Romney won White college-educated (the most reliable voting bloc) by 12.
I am going to assume that Trump does not actually lose college-educated White by 21, but even with much better than typical White non-college educated turnout even a narrow loss in White college educated is pretty dire for him. And with the women voter numbers? Hoo boy. At this point in this one poll.
We often forget that because we are so blindly partisan. Your wise words are a beacon to us all.
What the CBS poll shows is that Clinton’s support isn’t increasing so much as Trump’s is going down and voters are going into undecided, with a few going to Johnson. Clinton has been pretty consistently around 38-39 this month except for that Bloomberg poll.
That is indeed one of the things that that poll shows: within the RV universe Clinton is not increasing while Trump is dropping dramatically.
In the details it also shows that fewer who support Clinton feel they might change their mind than those who support Trump, more of her supporters “strongly support her” while more of his support him “with reservations.” IOW the theory that he is going to drive up turnout within the demographics that support him has no basis. It shows that he is not doing better among non-college educated Whites than Romney did and that his supporters, historically a less likely voting group, are not saying the things that would make one believe they are going to be likely voters this time either.
I really do not want to overplay polling in June, but what happens when you plug in those CBS numbers for White college educated and White non-college educated into the 538 app, without changing Hispanic or Black at all, and keeping turnout the same? That turns into an 18 to 19 point margin with an Electoral College result of 462 to 76. Hell give him 14% Black share and lower Black turnout by 5 … it still reads out a 16 point Clinton margin and Electoral College of 445 to 93.
Being behind by 6 or 7 in a June poll is not so horrible. Many candidates have come back from that or worse. But when your path is predicated upon achieving turnout and share within the White non-college educated population outside of any historic precedence without losing college-educated Whites too much and without provoking doing significantly worse among other groups than others have, and the polling shows that none of that is happening, at least at this point in time? That’s more important than the number.
It’s starting to look as if the only real path is to just dump Trump. Seems like even many of his supporters aren’t sure about him anymore, so what do we have to lose?
Doubt they’re gonna do it. I think they’re gonna let him go, for purposes laid out here. A loss would destroy the Tea Party and the anti-Mexican wing of the party, which would allow the mainstream GOP to go back to normalcy.
But hey, as a Republican, you’re probably happy that Hillary winning a 2nd term is unlikely, for much the same reason as Bush Sr. couldn’t do so; any economic downturn from 2017-2021 will not merely be blamed on her, but blamed on “12 years of failed policies.” As Bill moved his party to the right on race-related and economic issues, the GOP will do the same, likely. And it could crack the blue wall, as Bill Clinton broke the electoral lock.
There was a guy from Salon on NPR yesterday, talking about the Repubs’ efforts in 08/10, and their successes related to redistricting.
With the exception of SCt nominees and some administrative actions reserved to the President, Repubs have achieved amazing results despite getting a minority of votes case. Most reports I’ve seen have shown a minority of Americans agreeing with most Repub positions. If the Dems don’t get smart and combat the Repubs’ “small ball” in 2018/20, the Repubs may simply be doing the best they can (which is amazingly well) as a minority party. They don’t NEED the presidency to accomplish the lion’s share of their agenda.
If the agenda is just controlling spending, then yeah, a minority can do that quite well, and it has been done quite well. I can live with that.