The October 26, 2016 Thread
PRESIDENT
NATIONAL–Democracy Corps–CLINTON 50, Trump 38
MINNESOTA–Mason Dixon–CLINTON 47, Trump 39
NORTH CAROLINA–NYT/Siena–CLINTON 46, Trump 39
FLORIDA–Bloomberg–TRUMP 45, Trump 43
FLORIDA–SurveyUSA–CLINTON 48, Trump 45
FLORIDA–Associated Industries–CLINTON 44, Trump 41
Funny how every bit of conventional wisdom about HRC — weak candidate, no enthusiasm, etc. — has turned out wrong https://t.co/GFrSuBM69Y
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 25, 2016
Washington Post: “There are times when words do not do complete justice to a moment. Tuesday night’s Newt Gingrich-Megyn Kelly showdown is one of those times.”
Wow. pic.twitter.com/fUhQnWvB93
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 26, 2016
Nate Silver: “The nightmare scenario for the GOP is that high-information Republican voters, seeing Trump imploding and not necessarily having been happy with him as their nominee in the first place, feel free to cast a protest vote at the top of the ticket. Meanwhile, lower-information Republican voters don’t turn out at all, given that Trump’s rigging rhetoric could suppress their vote and that Republicans don’t have the field operation to pull them back in.”
New York Times: “Two outside groups aligned with Republicans, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Senate Leadership Fund, have begun running television commercials in Senate races implying that Mr. Trump’s defeat is likely and asking voters to send Republican lawmakers to Washington as a check on Mrs. Clinton.”
“And the Congressional Leadership Fund, a powerful ‘super PAC’ that supports Republicans in the House of Representatives, will begin running ads in the coming days that attack Democratic candidates as ‘rubber stamps’ for Mrs. Clinton, and urge voters in swing districts to support a Republican instead.”
Washington Post: “What few people talk about — but should — is that this could be a very short-lived majority for Senate Democrats, as the 2018 field is remarkably bad for them.”
“The numbers for that year are stunning: 25 Democratic or Democratic-affiliated independents are up for reelection, compared with just eight Republicans. That’s as lopsided an election cycle as you will ever see.”
“But a look inside the numbers makes the Democrats’ challenge in 2018 all the more daunting. Fully 20 percent of the 25 Democratic seats are in states that then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney carried in 2012.”
One election at a time.
Washington Post: “Many Republicans familiar with Nevada worry about this nightmare scenario: If Trump loses decisively along the Eastern seaboard—New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and/or Florida—the networks could declare that Clinton is the president-elect before polls even close in Nevada. Many core GOP voters typically cast their ballots while commuting home from work. What if a couple percent of them decide that the election is over and it’s not worth waiting in line? Because Republicans are so reliant on these voters, and Democrats will have so many votes locked in from early voting, it could lead to a down-ticket bloodbath. At the very least, it could tip a close Senate race to Cortez Masto.”
The Cook Political Report says Democrats will win 5-7 Senate seats: “History shows that races in the Toss Up column never split down the middle; one party tends to win the lion’s share of them. Since 1998, no party has won less than 67 percent of the seats in Toss Up. While the 2016 election has broken every political science rule and trend, we’d be surprised if this becomes one of them.”
“As such, we are increasing the range of expected Democratic pick ups to five to seven seats. This means that we feel that the prospect that Democrats will have at least 51 seats is greater than the odds of a tied Senate, or of Republicans somehow holding their majority.”
Stuart Rothenberg says big Democratic gains are to be expected in the House: “Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report and David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report continue to show Republicans near or over the 218 seats they need to retain House control when they each count safe or solid GOP seats and those likely to be won.”
“Two weeks can be a lifetime in politics, but it remains unlikely that Democrats will win back the House. There simply are too few takeover opportunities for them. On the other hand, the size of the Republican majority is sure to be cut, making for an obvious headache for House leaders next year. GOP losses of 12 to 20 seats would not be surprising.”
The New York Times on whether Clinton can win Texas: “Democrats in the state call it a long shot, but some say they believe she has a chance; Republicans say it will be close but are confident that Mr. Trump will triumph. Political consultants who have both Republican and Democratic clients, and people who study Texas politics, say regardless of Mr. Trump’s narrow lead, he will take the state.”
“From polling to early voting trends to TV ad spending to ground game, Donald Trump’s Florida fortunes are beginning to look so bleak that some Republicans are steeling themselves for what could be the equivalent of a ‘landslide’ loss in the nation’s biggest battleground state,” Politico reports.
“Trump has trailed Hillary Clinton in 10 of the 11 public polls conducted in October — according to Politico’s Battleground States polling average, Clinton has a 3.4 point lead. Even private surveys conducted by Republican-leaning groups show Trump’s in trouble in Florida, where a loss would end his White House hopes.”
“The Michigan Republican Party isn’t throwing a party for activists and elected officials on election night this year, while Michigan Democrats are planning a big bash at the MGM Grand casino in Detroit,” the Detroit News reports.
“The two major political parties usually host competing events to serve as the base camp for the news media, political pundits and activists to watch election results roll in on projector screens inside a convention center and give their candidates a platform for victory and concession speeches.”
“But the state Republican Party is taking this year off, citing the cost and the fact there isn’t a statewide race at the top of ticket or special connection to GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump or his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.”
“Hillary Clinton and her allies have an animating aim in the final 14 days of the 2016 contest – drive up the score so dramatically that claims by Donald Trump of Democratic vote-rigging will be rendered inconsequential thanks to the margin of victory,” Politico reports.
“And if their final bombardment of campaign activity drags down-ballot Democrats across the finish line and sweeps proponents of Trump’s alt-right ideology off the political table, all the better.”
Charlie Cook says Republicans should be very worried: “For several weeks many Republican candidates and operatives have been fretting that Donald Trump’s misbegotten candidacy could cause the bottom to fall out for GOP candidates in Senate, House, gubernatorial, state legislative, and other down-ballot races. While their concerns were legitimate, it seemed too soon for the GOP to panic. After all, the Donald Trump brand and the Republican Party brand were certainly not one and the same. Hillary Clinton’s negatives were so high that a landslide seemed unlikely. And in quite a few races the Democratic candidates for some of these offices were not exactly of top shelf.”
“So while panic should not be the GOP’s attitude right now, extreme worry seems appropriate. The bottom has not fallen out for candidates down the ballot, but many Republican candidates are seeing their numbers turn to purple or even blue. One veteran Republican pollster said privately on Monday morning that he felt ‘sick to his stomach.’ In some cases, candidates are weighed down by their association with Trump. In other cases, Trump is causing normally stalwart Republican voters to lose heart. They see the GOP presidential nominee going down in flames and don’t want to be part of a Hillary Clinton coronation, so they’re contemplating not voting at all. When people report a lack of enthusiasm about voting, that often results in their dropping out as “likely voters” in opinion polls, causing the opposition candidate’s support levels to balloon.”
Rick Klein wonders if Trump will have a closing message: “If you believe Donald Trump’s version of the race, or something in its vicinity, he’s down but not out. Lacking another debate and trailing Hillary Clinton in resources, he needs something dramatic to change directions – or at least get those on the sidelines suited up on his behalf. His overriding message in recent days has been about the ‘rigged election’ – a rallying cry for anger, though not necessarily voting.”
“He is, of course, attacking the polls he once touted at the top of all his big speeches. He has also, in recent days, threaten to sue his accusers, along with the usual jumps on headlines – Wikileaks revelations, Obamacare rates, etc. The freewheeling style has gotten him this far. But it’s hard to discern a strategy behind Trump’s campaign style now, with two precious weeks still to play with.”
The New York Times says Trump’s biggest fear is losing status: “The intense ambitions and undisciplined behaviors of Mr. Trump have confounded even those close to him, especially as his presidential campaign comes to a tumultuous end, and he confronts the possibility of the most stinging defeat of his life. But in the more than five hours of conversations — the last extensive biographical interviews Mr. Trump granted before running for president — a powerful driving force emerges: his deep-seated fear of public embarrassment.”
“The recordings reveal a man who is fixated on his own celebrity, anxious about losing his status and contemptuous of those who fall from grace. They capture the visceral pleasure he derives from fighting, his willful lack of interest in history, his reluctance to reflect on his life and his belief that most people do not deserve his respect.”
“In the interviews, Mr. Trump makes clear just how difficult it is for him to imagine — let alone accept — defeat.”
On the Nate Silver quote, yesterday on MSNBC I’m listening to a report from the town northeast of Scranton where Hillary spent summers as a child. They interviewed a few of the residents asking if this was Trump Country or Clinton Country, and the responses from the non-Trump fans was one of embarrassment to know their neighbors/friends/family were Trump supporters. Two people said they absolutely don’t support Trump, but cannot vote for Hillary so they will vote for Jill Stein.
Then they got to the Trump supporter and I’m paraphrasing here: “Is that your Trump sign?” “Yeah, I gotta better one at home, says “Trump that [expletive].”” “So do you feel Trump will win the election?” “I feel the people will vote him in, but he won’t win.” “You believe this could be a rigged election then?” “Yes.” “But you’ll still be going out to vote for Donald Trump?” “No.” “You’re not going to vote for Trump?” “No, I’m going to stay home.”
Dem worries in 2018 makes the assumption that there will be a Republican Party around to run against. At this point, I would say that is a pretty big assumption.
If you have something to actually win, that is a thing to rally around. That 2018 field is also going to be why it will be hard for Hillary to push through an agenda that Congressional Dems will support. For those of us who still care about getting things done, that is. Dems will do what Dems do — watch their backs and continue to not care about dealing with the big issues.
Trump is a cretin, but it is also true that the media, especially FOX, is fascinated by sex. And this year that fascination is a very fortunate thing for America, because otherwise the presidential campaign would be played on an entirely different field – policy – where Hillary’s campaign skills have not been tested. America likes its tax cuts and trickle-down, and Democrats are much more comfortable campaigning against sex charges than against Republican economic theories.
Sexual assault and sex are two different things. Trumps assaults are not about sex. The media is too dumb to make the distinction.
I think the media has done pretty well making the distinction. It’s been refreshing to hear them describe what Trump said as sexual assault.
And the idea that Hillary, the biggest wonk out there, wasn’t able to run on policy is complete fiction.
“And the idea that Hillary, the biggest wonk out there, wasn’t able to run on policy is complete fiction.”
I guess we will find out in 2020.
When it became clear Trump was the nominee Hillary rewrote her campaign plan to make it a referendum on Trump. Which is the winning strategy in this election, otherwise we would be locked in a partisan battle over spending, jobs growth, and socialism. Hillary can fire up a Democratic crowd but we haven’t seen her go head to head with a non-Trump Republican over economic policy.
Did you miss her 2 Senate runs?
Can someone please make Rudy Giuliani go away? He’s been on MSNBC for at least the last 20 minutes. I can’t watch. He, Trump, and Gingrich are three peas in a misogynistic pod.
Seriously? For months and months we’ve heard, “She’s too wonky”, “She’s not inspirational”, “She doesn’t connect with voters because she’s in the weeds”, “She’s not a good campaigner because, while she does her homework, she lacks charisma, etc. But I guess we’ll just push that aside and make up a new narrative.
How does someone run against Trump? It can’t be about policy because he has no consistent policy. If you watched the debates and listened to her she discussed a lot of policy, but she wasn’t the show. Trump was – he made himself the show. The entire GOP field couldn’t take him down, but Hillary did. Quite easily and skillfully.
What’s also fiction is the idea that some people cling to that Hillary has shown no inclination or ability to debate policy points with a sober-minded politician of either party…
One minute she’s faulted for being a policy nerd and lacking in a “visionary” connection to voters and now she’s faulted for not yet showing any ability to debate strong Republican leaders on substantive policy issue.
That’s some bullshit right there…
Trump was had momentum and was making it nearly an even race until the Access Hollywood tapes were released.
America likes its tax cuts and promises of unleashed growth. And it doesn’t like wonks.
Well, actually ‘know-nothing’ Americans don’t like wonks.
Ignorant and proud of it. That’s why a guy like Trump who blames everyone for their problems appeals to them.
“Trump was had momentum and was making it nearly an even race until the Access Hollywood tapes were released.”
Not really. We knew that Trump’s support hovered somewhere in the 40% range. He never went higher. Amazing how many people buy into the horse race narrative. For months I pointed out how I wasn’t concerned about Trump winning – how there simply wasn’t enough angry white guys.
@Prop Joe, Yep, lots and lots of BS. It’s almost as if, for some reason, she can’t do anything right – that certain people keep changing the rules. Good thing Hillary didn’t have to discuss policy – are you flippin’ kidding me with that nonsense?
@Pandora: “It’s almost as if, for some reason, she can’t do anything right…” I would posit that that sentence right there could very well apply to almost every woman at some point in her life.
Yeah, I’m expecting some of the gents on here to get their boxer-briefs all up in a bunch over that observation, but you are a special kind of stupid to think that women of the past several generations haven’t been treated as inferior, or caught in a behavioral Catch 22, at multiple points in her life. My own wife, working in an overwhelmingly male field, has often faced that same “Too tough, too soft… WHICH THE FUCK DO YOU WANT ME TO BE!” dilemma.
[P.S. I enjoy cursing to emphasize points, so don’t mistake that as part of an attack.]
Lots of cursing, emotion, expressions of disbelief, accusations of misogyny. Translation: you got nothing.
And another thing – Trump isn’t the problem for the GOP, his supporters are. Unless you think this group is simply going to go away after the election, that they’ll happily vote for a Bush, Kasich or Rubio next time around? Do you think policy discussion matters to Trump supporters? Do you think they’ll learn anything from his loss? Or do you think they’re more likely to blame these GOP “elites” and voter fraud?
Do you think this group would ever again settle for dog whistles when they’ve basked in overt bigotry, racism and misogyny?
Trump has exposed the core base of the Republican Party (you know, the voters they’ve always counted on to get them to 40%+). Good luck putting that genie back in the bottle.
My daughter (first time voter) and I voted yesterday and there were at least 100 of my neighbors doing the same for the 10 minutes it took.
“For months I pointed out how I wasn’t concerned about Trump winning”
I remain very concerned. I won’t sleep well until he is completely repudiated and buried because much of America is “Ignorant and proud of it.”
This perverse pride in ignorance coupled with the willingness to rely upon the most bizarre of sources for the most bizarre of conspiracies is troubling. The golden age of information where just about everything someone could want to know is at their fingertips and people insist that what they believe is the truth, disavowing any and all sources of reliable information.
I’ve been talking about confirmation bias for a very long time and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not simply a coping mechanism, but is actually a disease for which there is currently no cure. And no, the left is not immune this disease, but the numbers of the afflicted are far far less than the right. I’m guessing it’s because the right (old white guys) feel like they have more to lose in relation to their closely held beliefs. It is fear of the unknown and how it will affect their lives. The only way to oppose this bias is to become a Missourian and demand reliable source data for every single assertion.
“When it became clear Trump was the nominee Hillary rewrote her campaign plan to make it a referendum on Trump. Which is the winning strategy in this election”
I don’t think she rewrote her campaign at all. I think she was ready for just about anything. The campaign has demonstrated the ability to pivot and exploit everything thrown their way, whether opportunity or misfortune.
If you want to use the campaign as a referendum on the ability to govern, the Clinton campaign has ably demonstrated that they know how to marshal their resources to focus (target) critical areas. There will be some books written on he campaign, it’s resources, tools, and techniques.
In short, Clinton is the most unexciting candidate running for office that I can remember. But she also demonstrates that she is one of the most capable and prepared candidates for effective governance.
Although I remain somewhat concerned about the election outcome (you know, On Any Given Sunday), I will say I am very interested in the first 100 days, because she doesn’t necessarily have to replace every job in the Plum Book right away. She can hit the ground running. The question is, running to where?
I don’t think she rewrote her campaign at all. I think she was ready for just about anything. The campaign has demonstrated the ability to pivot and exploit everything thrown their way, whether opportunity or misfortune.
This sounds about right to me. Anyone remember her campaign against Obama for President? Most of us here beat her up for that Mark Penn retread stuff. She learned alot of lessons and her campaign has really capitalized on that.
As for the wonky — I don’t know how many of you watch her rallys and speeches, but some of them are pretty issue-oriented. They just don’t get covered on TV. Which has been true for the last few cycles, really.
I was really impressed with the way that they have capitalized on an off-handed comment by their opponent to center their message on “Nasty Women”. This is just one example, but I think it is about picking their battles (they demurred on the comment about what Trump thought about Hillary’s appearance from behind). They have been extraordinarily good at it.
@puck: And what do you got? Imaginary numbers? The campaign isn’t about policy because it’s over most people’s heads. The entire Republican party, for example, loves to tout its economic agenda, but you’d have to be a completely partisan fool not to see the results of that agenda in the several states that have tried it.
When it comes to policy, Republicans got nothin’. As for your claim that they “love tax cuts and trickle-down,” this election has shown that they couldn’t care less. They really love the white supremacy. They put up with the obviously nonsensical policy prescriptions because they love the white male supremacy thing.
I can see why they want to replace you with a foreigner, though. You no think too good. And your comments over the months have made it clear you’ve got a thing for white male supremacy, too. Or at least male supremacy.
Here’s a story for the “Oh, the regulations are killing us!” crowd:
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/drug-maker-thwarted-plan-to-limit-oxycontin-prescriptions-at-dawn-of-opioid-epidemic/
“I can see why they want to replace you with a foreigner, though. You no think too good. ”
Replacement… have you ever been replaced?
Sure. Everybody gets replaced. The graveyards are full of indispensable men. When you get replaced, everything in the world will go on the same, except for you, you special little snowflake, you.
You’re unique, just like everyone else.
@meatball: Except for Trump. He’s uniquer than everyone else.
@DD “…this could be a very short-lived majority for Senate Democrats, as the 2018 field is remarkably bad for them.”
Two years should be enough to refill all (~100) Federal judiciary vacancies.
That should be the priority.
I love how you guys talk like it’s a done deal. How many heads here are going to explode if another 1980 happens? I work on a large union job, (2500+ construction workers) and if tent talk is any indication, half of them will be voting for trump.
Yes, the new prediction is that one half of dumb white men will still vote for Trump. It’s the other half who aren’t,.. that are throwing Hillary’s poll numbers into orbit.
I’m guessing that there aren’t very many women in that tent of his…
It’s the women of America who will be swinging the door that will hit Trump on the ass on his way out.
Just think of it as a kind of sexual assault.
That will make it easier for you Trumplodites to understand.
Are we sharing anecdotes? Goody! Not one of the women I know (D, R or I) is voting for Trump.
And if hmmm thinks his anecdote is shocking, he’s wrong. I already had that group firmly in the Trump column. He’ll need to expand his pool past angry white guys. Do that and I’ll worry.
Tent talk sounds like a Trump construction. Is that anything like locker-room talk? I mean if 1,250 guys you know may vote for Trump based on these confabs happening under the big top, we’re all doomed. Real question is how many of these guys can you squeeze into a VW Beetle?