Clinton and Sanders TIED Nationally!

This topic contains 9 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  SteveB6509 2 years, 5 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #177126

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    While the latest polling gives Donald Trump a 2:1 lead over Rubio and Cruz with 39% nationally, only two points separate Clinton and Sanders, putting them in a virtual tie at 44-42 Clinton. A few weeks ago, Hillary had a 25-30 point lead nationally.

    Though it’s still early to predict nominees, it’s looking like Trump may be the guy for the GOP. He’ll easily take South Carolina by 10-15 points at least, then he goes on to the Southern states where it’s just him and Cruz, and he’ll probably win most if not all of them. Of all the state polling out, only Virginia shows Rubio is a slight lead, the rest is all Trump.

    Clinton was the sure winner in Nevada up until the past few days. It’s her kind of state, lots of minorities and heavily unionized. Today–virtual tie, 50/50 on the nose. As one panel discussion said, if Clinton doesn’t win Nevada by a strong margin, she’s in trouble. If Bernie wins, she’s in big, big trouble.

    I have always thought from the start that Trump is a lot more focused and astute on this campaign than many others have. The GOP is roughly 40/60 blue collar to white collar, and he’s letting the Beltway guys fight over the white collar while he and Cruz go after the blue collar group, and Trump pretty much has them. It’s been the most ignored demographic subset in the nation over the last decade or so, the working class white vote, and they are responding well to his blathering. They are not stupid people. They have been cast aside, maligned, and ignored, and they are tired of it. Trump is tapping into that desire for change and recognition.

    Question is, if it’s Trump and Sanders or Clinton, what will the country do? I think if it’s Sanders, Trump wins. Sanders has had next to zero vetting from the right because no one has taken him seriously. Basically, he’s a bum. He didn’t have a real job until he was about 40 years old, and that was the Mayor of Burlington VT. He’s been in Congress for twenty some years, never passed a bill (maybe 1?), no clout, not much respect, no big committees. But, he’s tapping into a young, Obama voting white liberal crowd who has never really benefitted much by capitalism in their minds, and don’t have the same negative impression of socialism that we older folks do. Plus, he’s likable, he just is.

    Clinton is hard to read. She’s so personally objectionable to so many she’s always pushing the rock uphill to get support. Still, I’d be surprised if she didn’t end up with nomination. In that case, it would probably be a very close race, and if we had to bet today, I’d bet on her.

    Thoughts? What’s your assessment of where we are politically today? Are you getting burned out on it all yet?

  • #292568

    SteveB6509
    Participant
    • Topics - 36
    • Replies - 1,460
    • Total Posts - 1,496

    The bigger question: if it starts to look like Trump-Sanders, does Bloomberg jump in. When he does,the Democrats will move to him and then it will be Trump – Bloomberg – Bloomberg will easily win that one.

  • #292560

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    The question rolling around in my head is with a Trump/Sanders election and a likely GOP retention of Congress, would any voters in the GOP be inclined to vote for Sanders in order to keep the federal government split?

  • #292565

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Why would any non-socialist do that? Do you want Sanders’ policies implemented? Of course, you’re not a big or little R Republican. Any who are would depend on Congress to prevent Sanders from getting any further damage done. Why do you think Bill Clinton is well regarded? It’s because of the Republican Congress that kept him on a short leash.You’ll remember his first term?

  • #292559

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I can’t imagine any republican voting for sanders to keep it split. Maybe a moderate.

  • #292561

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @lc 124321 wrote:

    Why would any non-socialist do that? [/quote]

    Because the GOP doesn’t have a good fiscal track record either. The second derivative of the debt goes positive under GOP Presidents in the recent era.

    Quote:
    Do you want Sanders’ policies implemented? Of course, you’re not a big or little R Republican. Any who are would depend on Congress to prevent Sanders from getting any further damage done.

    Which they would probably do just fine. They’ve been blocking Obama for a number of years and have the skill.

    Quote:
    Why do you think Bill Clinton is well regarded? It’s because of the Republican Congress that kept him on a short leash.You’ll remember his first term?

    Yah. I remember. I also remember that he negotiated with Gingrich and things got done. That worked until the GOP got Gingrich out and Hastert in.
    Once the Hastert rule was in place, negotiation with Dem Presidents stopped.

    I’m just checking to see if there are people who remember some of the fiscal insanities that occurred when the GOP owned the legislative and executive branches.

  • #292566

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Al, you’ve been reading too many Internet memes and false positive charts. The blame for fiscal track record rests heavily on Congress, not so much the President. Power of the Purse–I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase. What throws this off is the excessive use of Executive Orders or Memos. This is not to defend the GOP but simply to clarify the cause.

  • #292562

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Hmm… I’ve checked the numbers myself. I get that Congress holds the purse, but the President holds the veto pen and delivers a budget request.

    Look at the numbers yourself. Look at total debt, debt as a percentage of GDP, or any other curve you like involving debt. I’ll attach one here, but you can pull your own.
    [IMG]http://www.elkgrove-laguna.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2224&stc=1[/IMG]
    On the graph, pick any two relatively close points and try to draw a circle that is tangent to the curve between the points. If the circle fits best above the curve, the 2nd derivative is positive. If it fits best under the curve, the 2nd derivative is negative. If the radius is tiny, the 2nd derivative is high… large and it is low. Only after you’ve drawn a few circles do you add the election years marking which party owned the WH. Do it again for who owned Congress. Look again at when the two were split or owned by the same party.

    We do better in terms of debt (on average) with a Dem in the WH, but it is even better with a split like what happened between Clinton and Gingrich.

    Try it out without me trying to sway what you see. It is an interesting exercise investors do and at the root of why they like a split on Wall Street.

  • #292567

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Yes, I can see Obama has done a miraculous job. Have you tried it by superimposing the average earth temperature over it?

  • #292563

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Heh. I’m not making the case that Obama is a miracle worker. I didn’t drink that koolaide in 2008.

    The particular graph I posted is debt as a percentage of GDP, so economic recovery during anyone’s term is going to make them look good. A recession will make them look bad even if they are a fiscal saint. GHWB looks bad that way and Clinton looks good. Try the same trick with a few other statistics, though, and one paints a fairer picture. Still… it’s not hard to see why the purists among the Libertarians thought Reagan lied to them.

    Shouldn’t outcomes matter to us? Is there a financial statistic showing that the nation prospers when the GOP runs everything? I know they don’t get to do it very often, but we have lots of numbers for when the branches are split. Shouldn’t we consider outcomes when voting?

  • #292564

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    On another note, one of the people at FiveThirtyEight is making the case that the establishment within the GOP is trying to settle on Rubio. There are some recent endorsements for him that support this case. If so, they will have to discourage Bush and Kasich to avoid splitting the anti-Trump vote.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Privacy Policy