Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by gugi

It is extremely unlikely that Donald Trump will become president. His general unfavorability is very high plus if he wins the republican nomination the ideological faction of the party (that presently has an outsize influence) will likely prefer him to lose so that they can try again in 4 years rather than him hijacking the party and leaving them out of it.

While I agree that Trump has giant gap between his favorable voters and those that oppose him. BUT, I think you underestimate the "ideological faction". In general, the right is very motivated. They are somewhat fractured, divided, and angry. But I don't think that they will choose to sit home on election day. We'll see on election day but I think that turnout will be high. If anything, I think the dems have more to worry about as it pertains to enthusiasm.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

While I agree that Trump has giant gap between his favorable voters and those that oppose him. BUT, I think you underestimate the "ideological faction". In general, the right is very motivated. They are somewhat fractured, divided, and angry. But I don't think that they will choose to sit home on election day. We'll see on election day but I think that turnout will be high.

May be, but the National Review went for direct assault on Trump few weeks ago. I don't see why would a movement conservative want to vote for Trump over Clinton. Policy-wise he's probably closer to her than to them and will postpone the chances for a 'true conservative' president by at least 4 years.
The only thing that I can imagine overriding this is the supreme court vacancy - if you think that Trump's nominee would be far better than Clinton's that is - but if you're looking into that you are concerned with the bigger picture and then the future vacancies are just as important if not more.

Originally Posted by gugi

May be, but the National Review went for direct assault on Trump few weeks ago. I don't see why would a movement conservative want to vote for Trump over Clinton. Policy-wise he's probably closer to her than to them and will postpone the chances for a 'true conservative' president by at least 4 years.
The only thing that I can imagine overriding this is the supreme court vacancy - if you think that Trump's nominee would be far better than Clinton's that is - but if you're looking into that you are concerned with the bigger picture and then the future vacancies are just as important if not more.

Those employed at the National Review might stay home but the man on the street will likely be enthused to vote. I'm not here to defend Trump or his record as a conservative. But I feel confident that, if given only one choice between Trump and a democrat, they will prefer Trump. And many of the "republicans" will be energized by Trump simply because he represents an execution of the Bush/Boehner/McConnnel republicans that have angered them so much over the past ten years. A final flushing of that toilet that has been stinking up the place for so long.

That's all fine from the Republican side, but there are a lot of people who don't like Trump's views and policies, surely. Why would he energise Republican voter turnout and not also energise Democrat voter turnout for precisely the opposite reason? Why do you think the voter turnout will be asymmetrical? One thing I know about people with views like Trump's is that they polarise and energise both/all sides.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

That's all fine from the Republican side, but there are a lot of people who don't like Trump's views and policies, surely. Why would he energise Republican voter turnout and not also energise Democrat voter turnout for precisely the opposite reason? Why do you think the voter turnout will be asymmetrical? One thing I know about people with views like Trump's is that they polarise and energise both/all sides.

James.

This is my opinion, pure speculation. First, there is a human tendency to be fat dumb and happy after getting you way for the last 8 years. Complacency sets in. Second, Hillary has always had a problem energizing her base. Its why she lost to Obama the first go around and why Sanders has given her more of a headache than she ever thought possible. She simply doesn't do it for them the way others do. She has her supporters for sure but its debatable how well she will do with the really young voters (who are already siding with Sanders) and the middle. Its been said that Trump is already pulling in center-left voters. If Sanders energized the youth vote, they are likely to stay home. Energizing them is always harder than any other group and with their man out (assuming he ends up that way) they will be harder to get to the polls. Third, there are some that have a lack of enthusiasm for Hillary because they are old enough to remember all the Clinton scandals and know that she is potentially facing indictment herself. Her baggage turns some of the voters she will need off. If some of these people could vote from their couch they might vote for her. But I think that if they have to take an hour out of their day to vote for her, it might be too much for some. Finally, I'm not convinced that the black vote will come out for her in the numbers they did for Obama for the obvious reasons. Its my opinion that turnout could be a problem for the left but the right has multiple reasons to get out and vote. But there is also an eternity between now and election day. Anything could happen and anything could change the landscape.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Those employed at the National Review might stay home but the man on the street will likely be enthused to vote.

One thing that we're seeing is that 'movement conservatism' is far smaller than it's proponents have been claiming (based on 2010 tea-party wave and 2014). But I still don't think it's confined just the employees of the National Review.

Sanders has been consistently underperforming on what he needs to win, so at this point Clinton is pretty much a given. She most likely won't be able to put together the Obama coalition, but she's highly experienced politician with the full support of the Democratic machine.
I just don't see after the republican primary that has been unfolding a well functioning republican machine to compete with it. Of course, it is possible that Trump will win narrowly but it seems just as likely that he'll lose by a lot.
And of course it's also possible that Rubio can manage to win the primaries, but to me a contested convention seems more likely at this point.

In any case talking is free, but the betting markets favor Clinton for the next president. I am certainly not a 'the free market is always right' type of person, more of 'the free market is usually, but not always, in the ballpark'.

At this point I'd rather vote "none of the above."