Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[LeRainDrop]

Thank you, Mitt, thank you!  http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/03/03/read-text-mitt-romney-speech/rZu0XlsYF85e7l1rPRkNDM/story.html

As unusual as it is to have him weigh in like this, I think it's an excellent speech -- very well-written, even if you disagree with his policy statements -- and one that the remaining Republican primary voters need to hear and heed.  As an aside, I also love the Warren Buffett quote he included:

Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that “the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”

[MoonShadow]

  I merely said they are banking on a complete unknown, and that I couldn't figure out why anyone with sense would choose him.  I legitimately can't.  It may be a fine point, but I did not in any way insult them -- you will not that -- I just expressed my confusion why people with sense would choose him.

Therein lies the rub.  Trump doesn't need people with sense to vote for him, he just needs votes.  That is part of the reason that he speaks at a 3rd grade level; almost all adults can understand him.  There is a very large group of adults that does not decide their vote upon policy distinctions, nor ideology, but upon image.  On some level, Americans want a son-of-a-bitch 'Big Daddy' as commander in chief, to deal with foreign affairs with a forceful hand, maybe even a bit crazy (i.e. Reagan); but want a 'mommy' to handle domestic affairs with kid gloves & nuance.  Trump is playing the 'Big Daddy' role to a perfection, and it appears that this cycle that is what Americans want.  Compassionate conservatism be damned, Americans want a strongman, this time around.  This is the core of democracy; the idea that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good & hard.

[MoonShadow]

Thank you, Mitt, thank you!  http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/03/03/read-text-mitt-romney-speech/rZu0XlsYF85e7l1rPRkNDM/story.html

As unusual as it is to have him weigh in like this, I think it's an excellent speech -- very well-written, even if you disagree with his policy statements -- and one that the remaining Republican primary voters need to hear and heed.  As an aside, I also love the Warren Buffett quote he included:

Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that “the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”

I think Trump is laughing today, and predict a mysterious bump in the polls for Trump over the next couple days, that I'm going to dub now as the "losing former candidate's opinion effect".  Americans love a winner, and also tend to discount a loser.

[Jack]

Though, you guys are right. I apologize to Trump and Sanders supporters in this thread for my offensive generalization.

Apology accepted.

[gaja]

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out.  Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.

Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.

Yes, it is.  But it's also telling that 10% of the population regard the public health system, that is already paid for by their taxes, with such low value that they are willing to replace it at their expense.  These are employer sponsored plans, like are very common in the US, but businesses won't pay for these benefits if they aren't valued by employees, and that suggests that employees have been requesting these plans for many years; and the funds to pay for them are cut from an employee's potential wages.

Are those the number who have private insurances, or who use them? We see some of the same in Norway, and there are a few reasons that might be outside your sense of logic:

A) insurance companies love selling these insurances, especially for kids, because people end up using the free public health care. Great profits for the insurance agencies.
B) a substantial amount of Norwegian and swedes are employed by foreign companies, including US companies. These often include health insurance in the benefit package by default, especially since it is very cheap (due to the reasons mentioned above).
C) Public health service is good enough, but the sickest people have priority, and there are waiting lists for the non critical stuff. If there is a chance you will get better from waiting, resting or exercise, you won't get a surgery. Some employers and some employees do not want to wait for this. Since the employees get full sick pay for a year, it is often the employers who are pushing for private health care (and sometimes unnecessary surgery), not the employees.

[nereo]

Thank you, Mitt, thank you!  http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/03/03/read-text-mitt-romney-speech/rZu0XlsYF85e7l1rPRkNDM/story.html

As unusual as it is to have him weigh in like this, I think it's an excellent speech -- very well-written, even if you disagree with his policy statements -- and one that the remaining Republican primary voters need to hear and heed.  As an aside, I also love the Warren Buffett quote he included:

Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that “the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”

I think Trump is laughing today, and predict a mysterious bump in the polls for Trump over the next couple days, that I'm going to dub now as the "losing former candidate's opinion effect".  Americans love a winner, and also tend to discount a loser.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree - I think this played right into Trump's playbook.  He gets to call an "establishment Rupublican" a loser, the press covers it, and now we're all talking about it.  The Trump campaign couldn't have scripted this better.

(disclaimer - I am not a Trump supporter)

[boy_bye]

  I merely said they are banking on a complete unknown, and that I couldn't figure out why anyone with sense would choose him.  I legitimately can't.  It may be a fine point, but I did not in any way insult them -- you will not that -- I just expressed my confusion why people with sense would choose him.

Therein lies the rub.  Trump doesn't need people with sense to vote for him, he just needs votes.  That is part of the reason that he speaks at a 3rd grade level; almost all adults can understand him.  There is a very large group of adults that does not decide their vote upon policy distinctions, nor ideology, but upon image.  On some level, Americans want a son-of-a-bitch 'Big Daddy' as commander in chief, to deal with foreign affairs with a forceful hand, maybe even a bit crazy (i.e. Reagan); but want a 'mommy' to handle domestic affairs with kid gloves & nuance.  Trump is playing the 'Big Daddy' role to a perfection, and it appears that this cycle that is what Americans want.  Compassionate conservatism be damned, Americans want a strongman, this time around.  This is the core of democracy; the idea that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good & hard.

Eh, let's say "some Americans." Trump is only getting like 1/3 of the Republican vote at present. Enough to cause a stir in the primaries ... but there's no indication that he's gonna cut it in a country where the majority of the electorate are not white men ...

[arebelspy]

Trump is only getting like 1/3 of the Republican vote at present.

But once he's the only republican on the ballot?  Once they're choosing between him and Hillary?

[MoonShadow]

Are those the number who have private insurances, or who use them?

Honestly, I don't know.  I only have as much information as provided by the article, assuming that is accurate.  Your explanations, or Kris's, could certainly be as likely as my own.  The idea that Swedes use the employer provided benefit as a backup seems likely enough.

[zoltani]

That's how it works in france, private insurance, as offered by employers, is used as a supplement to the public system, not as a replacement.

[nereo]

Trump is only getting like 1/3 of the Republican vote at present.

But once he's the only republican on the ballot?  Once they're choosing between him and Hillary?

I think that's where my predictions of the general election differ from arebelspy's. 
I tend to think more people will be scared of Trump than Hillary and vote accordingly (or not vote when they otherwise would).

I guess we'll find out in 9 months.

EDIT:  Man, I need to proof-read my posts before clicking "post"... (fixed grammatical mistakes)

[arebelspy]

Trump is only getting like 1/3 of the Republican vote at present.

But once he's the only republican on the ballot?  Once they're choosing between him and Hillary?

I think that's where my predictions of the general election differ from arebelspy's. 
I tend more people will be scared of Trump than Hillary and vote accordingly (or not vote when they otherwise would).

I ugess we'll find out in 9 months.

Indeed. :)

[nereo]

so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?

[Roland of Gilead]

I wouldn't even bet $10 on the outcome of a Trump vs Hillary election.   It could go either way.

There are a lot of people who are NOT going to vote for Hillary.

"Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.

Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.

Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away. "

[MoonShadow]

  I merely said they are banking on a complete unknown, and that I couldn't figure out why anyone with sense would choose him.  I legitimately can't.  It may be a fine point, but I did not in any way insult them -- you will not that -- I just expressed my confusion why people with sense would choose him.

Therein lies the rub.  Trump doesn't need people with sense to vote for him, he just needs votes.  That is part of the reason that he speaks at a 3rd grade level; almost all adults can understand him.  There is a very large group of adults that does not decide their vote upon policy distinctions, nor ideology, but upon image.  On some level, Americans want a son-of-a-bitch 'Big Daddy' as commander in chief, to deal with foreign affairs with a forceful hand, maybe even a bit crazy (i.e. Reagan); but want a 'mommy' to handle domestic affairs with kid gloves & nuance.  Trump is playing the 'Big Daddy' role to a perfection, and it appears that this cycle that is what Americans want.  Compassionate conservatism be damned, Americans want a strongman, this time around.  This is the core of democracy; the idea that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good & hard.

Eh, let's say "some Americans." Trump is only getting like 1/3 of the Republican vote at present. Enough to cause a stir in the primaries ... but there's no indication that he's gonna cut it in a country where the majority of the electorate are not white men ...

Ummm...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump

While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.

Again, some people here are letting their emotions rule their reason.  What you would like to see, or expect to see, is not likely what you are actually going to see.  Trump is playing a different game than Hillary, and it seems he is making up the rules.  Hillary is surrounded by career long political agents, who are running on a rule set that no longer applies.  While Hillary appeals to rational liberals, who are willing to accept a bit of waffle for the political game; Trump appeals to his supporters on a purely emotional level, and that will work just as well for working class Democrats.  He paints his opposition with wordplay & mental images that stick & sting, while the media is almost beholden to repeat & spread these "gaffs" as if they are accidental.  They are not; he is playing a game that he spelled out quite well in his book, The Art of The Deal written in 1987.  I have a copy I borrowed sitting on my desk right now.  A whole lot of what he is doing is right there in the book, so it's certainly not an accident.  The only chance Hillary has to beat him, is to do so using his own rulebook, but I suspect that she will stick with the traditional political campaign tactics that won her husband the White House.  Polls mean almost nothing this cycle, because they are asking the wrong questions.

[boy_bye]

so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?

I think that, with the exception of 2008 and 2012, you've just described every election I can remember.

[MoonShadow]

so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?

More so than usual, yes.

[nereo]

so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?

I think that, with the exception of 2008 and 2012, you've just described every election I can remember.

how many election cycles would that be?  I think there was a lot of support for Reagan in '84 and Clinton in '96.  Probably others as well...

[arebelspy]

so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?

Most elections are like that, unfortunately.

Remember "anyone but bush?"  Think anyone was thrilled with kerry in 04?  No, they just wanted "not bush."

[nereo]

so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?

Most elections are like that, unfortunately.

Remember "anyone but bush?"  Think anyone was thrilled with kerry in 04?  No, they just wanted "not bush."

So what's this year's motto?  "Anyone but any of these!"?

[MoonShadow]

so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?

I think that, with the exception of 2008 and 2012, you've just described every election I can remember.

how many election cycles would that be?  I think there was a lot of support for Reagan in '84 and Clinton in '96.  Probably others as well...

Yes, Reagan had a lot of cross party support, and won every state but 6 against Carter.  His popularity grew during the following years, and beat Mondale in 1984 taking every state but Minnesota; for which he didn't really compete in that state because he didn't want to embarrass Mondale by taking his home state.  I doubt that Trump would be so considerate for Hillary, and it's possible for Trump to take both New York & Arkansas away from the Dems.  This is shaping up to be quite the show for myself, since as a libertarian, I consider both Trump or Hillary to be a disaster; this is going to be like watching a fight when you don't like either person involved, and you just hope that they both last long enough to take a good beating.

[boy_bye]

so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?

Most elections are like that, unfortunately.

Remember "anyone but bush?"  Think anyone was thrilled with kerry in 04?  No, they just wanted "not bush."

So what's this year's motto?  "Anyone but any of these!"?

LOL I think so, especially on the Republican side. Currently, of the voters who have voted in the primaries so far, only 49 percent say they would be satisfied with Trump as their nominee. Cruz and Rubio fare hardly any better. Compare this to nearly 80 percent of Dems who say they'd be satisfied with Hillary.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/

[Malaysia41]

I don't like Hillary's policies or her hawkishness. But if it comes down to Trump v Hillary, I will do everything in my power to convince every person in my extended network - Hillary haters included - to vote for Hillary.

By the way, regarding Trump's verbal attacks: I like the way Scott Adams characterizes them: linguistic kill shots. Ha ha. / cry. This isn't the school yard. This is the battleground for the leadership of our country. :(.

[LeRainDrop]

I don't like Hillary's policies or her hawkishness. But if it comes down to Trump v Hillary, I will do everything in my power to convince every person in my extended network - Hillary haters included - to vote for Hillary.

For years I've thought, never in a million years would I vote for Hillary.  Well, this year might be the million-first year because I am truthfully considering it at this point.

[GuitarStv]

When Rob Ford ran for mayor of our city, everybody laughed.  I mean, he had a long record of saying racist stuff, stupid stuff, domestic abuse, non-sensical rantings.  He came from a wealthy family, and had been successful as a businessman.  He made popular appeals, personal attacks on his opponents, and didn't have any substantial plans for running the city.  It was a bit of a running joke actually.  Then he won.  Joke was on us.  We'll be picking up the pieces for many years to come.

I see a lot of Rob Ford in Donald Trump.  Hopefully you learn from our mistake.

[Malaysia41]

Thank you, Mitt, thank you!  http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/03/03/read-text-mitt-romney-speech/rZu0XlsYF85e7l1rPRkNDM/story.html

As unusual as it is to have him weigh in like this, I think it's an excellent speech -- very well-written, even if you disagree with his policy statements -- and one that the remaining Republican primary voters need to hear and heed.  As an aside, I also love the Warren Buffett quote he included:

Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that “the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”

I just read Romney's speech, and watched Drumpfs rebuttal. Romney's speech was measured and well thought out. I don't agree with all of his assessments, but by and large, his message was reasonable.

Drumpf's rebuttal was full of imagery of Mitt Romney on his knees providing oral sex.

Now I'm sad. He appeals to the basest of prejudices and whips the crowd up into a furious mob. And it seems to work - on an alarming number of my countrymen.  It's beyond shameful.

[beltim]

Ummm...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump

While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.

Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election.  And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide:

Should Trump become the Republican nominee, his current low standing among Hispanic voters could jeopardize the party’s hopes of winning the general election in November. In current matchups with Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, Trump scores worse among Hispanics than any of the three other leading Republican candidates — Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

The Post-Univision survey tested those four GOP candidates against Clinton and against Sanders. While all trail badly among Hispanics at this point, Trump does the worst — losing the Hispanic vote to Clinton by 73 to 16 percent. That 57-point gap is little changed from a 54-point deficit recorded last June, but is significantly wider than the 44-point margin by which former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost Hispanics four years ago and bigger than in any presidential exit poll since the 1970s.

[Malaysia41]

You know, I would characterize my feelings toward people like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, William J Casey, Henry Kissinger, John Foster Dulles, and Allan Dulles as being extremely negative. I think all of these people, guided by blind idealism, hunger for power, and contempt for contrary viewpoints, have severely damaged our democracy and relations with the world. They failed to think critically, sought yes men rather than dissenting voices, and sought evidence to support their preconceived ideas rather than gathering facts and giving them honest evaluations.

But I would never call any of these people anything close to the names Donald Drumpf calls his naysayers, nor use such foul imagery.  Really, I'm kind of sick to my stomach now, having watched Drumpf's response to Mitt Romney.

[MoonShadow]

Now I'm sad. He appeals to the basest of prejudices and whips the crowd up into a furious mob. And it seems to work - on an alarming number of my countrymen.  It's beyond shameful.

Yes, indeed.  I can already see the twitter memes that will ravage Hillary till November.  Sad, but it's true.

[MoonShadow]

Ummm...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump

While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.

Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election.  And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide:

Again, the far away match-up  polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.  Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time.  He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate.  We shall see.

[beltim]

Ummm...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump

While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.

Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election.  And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide:

Again, the far away match-up  polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.  Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time.  He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate.  We shall see.

In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).  But you were responding to a comment about non-white voters.  There's no chance that Trump will win the non-white vote.

[music lover]

It's mind boggling that so many people seem to be completely and utterly blind to the years of Clinton lies and corruption.

That level of denial is almost matched by Trump's popularity. It really is a race to the bottom.

[Cressida]

It's mind boggling that so many people seem to be completely and utterly blind to the years of Clinton lies and corruption.

That level of denial is almost matched by Trump's popularity. It really is a race to the bottom.

Wow, you have evidence for this? Dude, go find the nearest tabloid immediately, they'll pay handsomely. They've been looking for this for decades.

[MDM]

People sometimes see what they want to see, and are blind to what they prefer to overlook.  Seems the further to the right or left one is, the more prevalent this condition becomes.

[MoonShadow]

Ummm...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump

While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.

Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election.  And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide:

Again, the far away match-up  polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.  Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time.  He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate.  We shall see.

In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).  But you were responding to a comment about non-white voters.  There's no chance that Trump will win the non-white vote.

Oh, no, he won't win minorities, but he doesn't have to, either.  He only has to take a large enough of a minority of each group to win.  The business about attacking immigrants from Mexico was a play for lower class, Southern Blacks; many of whom, on a base level, feel that illegal immigrants are competing for the same kind of lower skill labor jobs that they are, which is somewhat true.  The unemployment rate for young black adults is pretty bad, so that's going to be a big thing for at least some of them.  As far as hispanics are concerned, a fair percentage of them are already conservatives, and in particular of Cuban decent in South Florida; and Florida has been a swing state in recent elections.  So has Ohio, which already leans to the right a bit, and Kasich really is a popular governor there.  It seems to me that Kasich is only still in this race to make himself the ideal running mate, with influence in Ohio.  Furthermore, Trump isn't exactly a conservative, and can credibly undermine a lot of Hillary's liberal cred in a general, keeping New York & Illinois questionable.  That is the cause for the bit about siding with Planned Parenthood using liberal arguments, while at the same time condemning alleged criminal activities.  As I said, Trump is playing a different game than Hillary is.  Trump is playing a character, as if this was a huge reality tv show, which it sort of is now, isn't it?

[yuka]

Ummm...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump

While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.

Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election.  And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide:

Again, the far away match-up  polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.  Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time.  He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate.  We shall see.

In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).  But you were responding to a comment about non-white voters.  There's no chance that Trump will win the non-white vote.

Oh, no, he won't win minorities, but he doesn't have to, either.  He only has to take a large enough of a minority of each group to win.  The business about attacking immigrants from Mexico was a play for lower class, Southern Blacks; many of whom, on a base level, feel that illegal immigrants are competing for the same kind of lower skill labor jobs that they are, which is somewhat true.  The unemployment rate for young black adults is pretty bad, so that's going to be a big thing for at least some of them.  As far as hispanics are concerned, a fair percentage of them are already conservatives, and in particular of Cuban decent in South Florida; and Florida has been a swing state in recent elections.  So has Ohio, which already leans to the right a bit, and Kasich really is a popular governor there.  It seems to me that Kasich is only still in this race to make himself the ideal running mate, with influence in Ohio.  Furthermore, Trump isn't exactly a conservative, and can credibly undermine a lot of Hillary's liberal cred in a general, keeping New York & Illinois questionable.  That is the cause for the bit about siding with Planned Parenthood using liberal arguments, while at the same time condemning alleged criminal activities.  As I said, Trump is playing a different game than Hillary is.  Trump is playing a character, as if this was a huge reality tv show, which it sort of is now, isn't it?

Interesting Analysis, and the first time I've seen it. Like a lot of people in this thread, I find both of the candidates repulsive, and would be embarrassed to have either as a president, let alone vote for them. I'm feeling like when I 'throw my vote away' with a third party this November, I'm going to find a crowded garbage bin.

[MoonShadow]

Ummm...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump

While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.

Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election.  And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide:

Again, the far away match-up  polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.  Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time.  He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate.  We shall see.

In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).  But you were responding to a comment about non-white voters.  There's no chance that Trump will win the non-white vote.

Oh, no, he won't win minorities, but he doesn't have to, either.  He only has to take a large enough of a minority of each group to win.  The business about attacking immigrants from Mexico was a play for lower class, Southern Blacks; many of whom, on a base level, feel that illegal immigrants are competing for the same kind of lower skill labor jobs that they are, which is somewhat true.  The unemployment rate for young black adults is pretty bad, so that's going to be a big thing for at least some of them.  As far as hispanics are concerned, a fair percentage of them are already conservatives, and in particular of Cuban decent in South Florida; and Florida has been a swing state in recent elections.  So has Ohio, which already leans to the right a bit, and Kasich really is a popular governor there.  It seems to me that Kasich is only still in this race to make himself the ideal running mate, with influence in Ohio.  Furthermore, Trump isn't exactly a conservative, and can credibly undermine a lot of Hillary's liberal cred in a general, keeping New York & Illinois questionable.  That is the cause for the bit about siding with Planned Parenthood using liberal arguments, while at the same time condemning alleged criminal activities.  As I said, Trump is playing a different game than Hillary is.  Trump is playing a character, as if this was a huge reality tv show, which it sort of is now, isn't it?

Interesting Analysis, and the first time I've seen it. Like a lot of people in this thread, I find both of the candidates repulsive, and would be embarrassed to have either as a president, let alone vote for them. I'm feeling like when I 'throw my vote away' with a third party this November, I'm going to find a crowded garbage bin.

Oh, I vote libertarian every time, so I don't consider it throwing my vote away.  There was never the possibility that I'd have voted for them anyway, and voting third party affects ballot access for small parties in most states for the following 4 years.  Might as well vote for someone you can actually agree with, results be damned.

[yuka]

Ummm...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump

While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.

Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election.  And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide:

Again, the far away match-up  polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.  Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time.  He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate.  We shall see.

In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).  But you were responding to a comment about non-white voters.  There's no chance that Trump will win the non-white vote.

Oh, no, he won't win minorities, but he doesn't have to, either.  He only has to take a large enough of a minority of each group to win.  The business about attacking immigrants from Mexico was a play for lower class, Southern Blacks; many of whom, on a base level, feel that illegal immigrants are competing for the same kind of lower skill labor jobs that they are, which is somewhat true.  The unemployment rate for young black adults is pretty bad, so that's going to be a big thing for at least some of them.  As far as hispanics are concerned, a fair percentage of them are already conservatives, and in particular of Cuban decent in South Florida; and Florida has been a swing state in recent elections.  So has Ohio, which already leans to the right a bit, and Kasich really is a popular governor there.  It seems to me that Kasich is only still in this race to make himself the ideal running mate, with influence in Ohio.  Furthermore, Trump isn't exactly a conservative, and can credibly undermine a lot of Hillary's liberal cred in a general, keeping New York & Illinois questionable.  That is the cause for the bit about siding with Planned Parenthood using liberal arguments, while at the same time condemning alleged criminal activities.  As I said, Trump is playing a different game than Hillary is.  Trump is playing a character, as if this was a huge reality tv show, which it sort of is now, isn't it?

Interesting Analysis, and the first time I've seen it. Like a lot of people in this thread, I find both of the candidates repulsive, and would be embarrassed to have either as a president, let alone vote for them. I'm feeling like when I 'throw my vote away' with a third party this November, I'm going to find a crowded garbage bin.

Oh, I vote libertarian every time, so I don't consider it throwing my vote away.  There was never the possibility that I'd have voted for them anyway, and voting third party affects ballot access for small parties in most states for the following 4 years.  Might as well vote for someone you can actually agree with, results be damned.

Would you have voted for Rand Paul if he had stayed in the election, or, by some miracle, become the nominee? He seems like he would have been the best nominee I could probably hope for in my lifetime, had he succeeded. He seemed to me like he tried to be more palatable as a mainstream Republican candidate, as compared to his father. But that came with difficulties too; I was never so disappointed in him as when he introduced his anti-abortion bill; the parts of it he emphasized for the primary were, I believe, pandering that ran counter to his beliefs. Anyway, back to what I meant to ask: would you rather add your vote to a libertarian-ish guy running from a position of strength, or add to the argument for viable third parties?

I guess it's off-topic at this point, but it's much more enjoyable than talking about the candidates who we actually are faced with.

[arebelspy]

In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).

But if he does win the nomination, I think that fact is irrelevant... even though you'd think it would be (if he's that unpopular among his own party, how could he win the general?), but unless you have data on how popular each person who won was 8 months before they were elected, it's hard to say.  I think his popularity will grow and grow over the summer, sadly.

[beltim]

In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).

But if he does win the nomination, I think that fact is irrelevant... even though you'd think it would be (if he's that unpopular among his own party, how could he win the general?), but unless you have data on how popular each person who won was 8 months before they were elected, it's hard to say.  I think his popularity will grow and grow over the summer, sadly.

Why?  It hasn't changed in the last 9 months:


And ratings generally go down as we switch from the primary to the general election: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-trump-most-unpopular-candidate-in-at-least-a-generation/article/2582074

[arebelspy]

Link with more info?  Who are the respondents of that?

Also, he hasn't been going against Hillary for the last 9 months.

[beltim]

Link with more info?  Who are the respondents of that?

Also, he hasn't been going against Hillary for the last 9 months.

The picture is linked to the source article.

[arebelspy]

Thanks.  Good to know.  We'll see if it holds.

[Jeremy E.]

In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).

But if he does win the nomination, I think that fact is irrelevant... even though you'd think it would be (if he's that unpopular among his own party, how could he win the general?), but unless you have data on how popular each person who won was 8 months before they were elected, it's hard to say.  I think his popularity will grow and grow over the summer, sadly.

Those are general favorability ratings, not republican favorability ratings.

[arebelspy]

Yes, I understood that... not sure what I said that indicated I was talking about just Repubs. :)

[Jeremy E.]

Yes, I understood that... not sure what I said that indicated I was talking about just Repubs. :)

if he's that unpopular among his own party, how could he win the general?

[arebelspy]

Huh?  I posted that sentence before you even posted the data.  :)

[Jeremy E.]

Huh?  I posted that sentence before you even posted the data.  :)

Huh? What data are you talking about

[arebelspy]

lol.

[hoping2retire35]

I think it is pretty safe to assume trump will win the nomination and judging by enthusiasm (absolute number of Rep vs Dem primary votes in swing states(look at Virginia)) I think he will win the nomination and the general. Which basically leads me to believe the republican party will not hold together.

Relevant article and best quote from it, 
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gop-rip/

"The Republican Party as we know it is not going to survive this year, and in fact is already dead. If Trump gets the most delegates and is denied the nomination somehow, that’ll tear the party apart. If Trump gets the nomination, it’s going to tear the party apart. If Trump gets the nomination and wins the presidency, it’s going to tear the party apart."

Maybe we discussed this earlier, I've read so much lately, but I cannot remember for sure.