2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Novak: Here's why Trump is beating Clinton in the latest polls
Jake Novak,CNBC 8 hours ago Comments Sign in to like Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email

What is it about ignorance that seems to encourage an abundance of snark in those afflicted with it? This syndrome is especially pronounced among people who clearly don't understand Donald Trump's improbable path to the GOP nomination and his resurgence in the polls. That lack of understanding seems to result most often in lots of hysterical anger, shouting, and plenty of social media posts peppered with lots of "LOL's" and "WTF's."

This ignorance fueled snarkiness has been in full bloom lately as Trump haters and less biased election observers alike have been scratching their collective heads over what his campaign is hoping to accomplish with Trump's recent outreach to minority voters. That would of course include his visit to Mexico last week where he praised Mexican-Americans and his trip to an African American church in Detroit this past weekend where he spoke humbly and warmly to the community as a whole.

The consensus response to these moves from all too much of the professional and amateur punditry is incredulity and scorn. Critics are bemused that Trump seems to think he can win over black and Latino voters and they're laughing at what seems to be a big waste of time. Of course they're laughing even as Trump's fortunes in the polls continue to markedly improve. Tuesday's CNN poll showed Trump leading Hillary Clinton by two points nationally, and that comes just a few days after a Reuters/Ipsos poll and Rasmussen Reports showed him ahead by one point in each of those surveys.

Do those polls mean Trump's minority outreach is working, despite the chorus of derision? The answer is yes, but not in the two-dimensional/direct way many think. No, Trump's numbers will not significantly improve among minority voters due to this shift in campaign strategy and tone. But his numbers among supposedly undecided Republican-leaning/moderate WHITE voters will. In fact, as the above cited polls prove, they already are.

By doing more mainstream/"acceptable" things like visiting a black church and by sounding more conciliatory in his tone, Trump is making himself more acceptable to a good deal of voters who haven't been able to feel comfortable supporting him before… at least not publicly. It's probably more accurate to say these voters were always going to vote for Trump all along, but they were just waiting for some kind of visible change in his campaign or news event to use as an excuse to say that's what changed their mind.

And make no mistake, the guarded and even sheepish nature of a great deal of Trump's support is real. The experts at the vaunted 538.com have recently noticed that Trump polls much better in surveys taken by computerized "robocalls" and in online surveys compared to his numbers in surveys taken by human pollsters on the phone or in person. 538 says it isn't able to explain why this is, but it's really not a mystery.

The reason is a lot of Trump voters are embarrassed to say they're supporting him in public. They either live in a neighborhood, work in a profession, or belong to an ethnic group where public attacks on "The Donald" are so prominent that his supporters need to think twice about coming out of the Trump closet. This is a reality the depths of which the poll dichotomy is just scratching the surface. That's the audience Trump is really reaching out to in his restructured and refocused campaign. His direct audience at his outreach events is not really the primary focus.

Trump isn't exactly breaking major new ground with this strategy. Ronald Reagan famously visited a devastated neighborhood in the South Bronx in 1980, a place where he wasn't going to get any votes and he was indeed heckled during that campaign visit. But lots of voters saw Reagan looking like he cared about people who weren't going to ever vote for him, and it made it easier for those non-Bronx residents to consider voting for him. Reagan never did get many African American voters in either of his general election presidential campaigns, but he did get a massive share of lower income Democrats and everyone else who liked what they saw that day in 1980 in the Bronx.

Trump also gets another benefit from his outreach and softer tone: he dilutes the 24/7 drumbeat from the Clinton campaign and much of the news media where he's portrayed as a hateful and dangerous maniac. The Clinton campaign is hoping it will be able to at least come close to matching the massive African American turnout that tipped the election for Barack Obama in 2012 and 2008. Clinton could have made an effort to do that by choosing an African American to be her running mate, but instead her campaign is clearly looking to use the fear factor to encourage minority turnout instead.

There's a double trap associated with that strategy. First, negative campaigning can be very effective in helping a candidate win an election but it almost always results in reduced turnout. If Clinton wants African Americans, Millennials, and the other groups who turned out in much higher than traditional numbers for Obama to come out for her this time, negative campaigning probably won't work. Second, all Trump has to do is continue not looking like a dangerous racist to introduce just enough doubt in the fear-mongering Clinton mantra. And that's just what he's done over the last three weeks or so. The polls say it's working.

Once again, the Trump campaign and its messaging have exceeded expectations by going after a new and unexpected target audience. And that audience isn't minority voters or any other block of traditional Democrats. It's the traditional Republicans and right-leaning moderates who never really wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton and are just looking for a way out of an embarrassing predicament. If Trump's campaign schedule and messages continue on this path, they'll get one.

Commentary by Jake Novak, a senior columnist for CNBC.com. Follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I still thank it'll be well in hand for Hillary. Polls dip from time to time, but Trump still has the debates to humiliate himself over. My prediction is less of a blowout than 08, more of a blowout than 12
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
I still thank it'll be well in hand for Hillary. Polls dip from time to time, but Trump still has the debates to humiliate himself over. My prediction is less of a blowout than 08, more of a blowout than 12
I could easily see Trump destroying Clinton in the debates. He needs to be careful not to be too mean to her though or it will turn a lot of people off. It's one thing for a guy to pick on another guy. But to pick on a girl could rub the public the wrong way.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I could easily see Trump destroying Clinton in the debates. He needs to be careful not to be too mean to her though or it will turn a lot of people off. It's one thing for a guy to pick on another guy. But to pick on a girl could rub the public the wrong way.
How do you see that?

He has shown very little actual grasp of facts and policy and little ability to string together complete thoughts without talking points.

He also contradicts himself constantly.

His only strength shown in debates is to bully and name call.

How is that going to destroy anybody in a debate?
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
How do you see that?

He has shown very little actual grasp of facts and policy and little ability to string together complete thoughts without talking points.

He also contradicts himself constantly.

His only strength shown in debates is to bully and name call.

How is that going to destroy anybody in a debate?
Because she is a really easy target and because he is really good at berating people and not letting them get a word in. Those debates aren't about who can best explain their stances. It's about whoever is best as hogging the spotlight and making a fool of the other.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Because she is a really easy target and because he is really good at berating people and not letting them get a word in. Those debates aren't about who can best explain their stances. It's about whoever is best as hogging the spotlight and making a fool of the other.
I'm really interested to see how he does in a one on one debate. It's a lot easier to stick to talking points when you've got 16 other guys competing for the microphone. Not to mention the fact that he's not going to get away playing to his base the way he did in the republican debates. The stupid stuff he says now has real effect on his poll numbers, he tries to pull the same "bleeding from her wherever" nonsense now he'll find himself back down 7 points in a jiffy.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,837
How do you see that?

He has shown very little actual grasp of facts and policy and little ability to string together complete thoughts without talking points.

He also contradicts himself constantly.

His only strength shown in debates is to bully and name call.

How is that going to destroy anybody in a debate?
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Because she is a really easy target and because he is really good at berating people and not letting them get a word in. Those debates aren't about who can best explain their stances. It's about whoever is best as hogging the spotlight and making a fool of the other.
He is just as much of a target as she is and yes the debates are about explaining stances at this point.

The undecided and fence sitters are not going to be swayed by clever put downs and name calling.

You just said yourself berating is not going to look good against Hillary.

And just last night he showed again how he can't stop making shit up on the fly.

He is going to replace most of the Generals in the 1st 30 days , are we now N Korea?:lol
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
He is just as much of a target as she is and yes the debates are about explaining stances at this point.
Yeah but she sucks at pointing that stuff out. That's the difference.

The one big thing Hilary does have in her favor though is that the mass amount of media is behind her. So I'm sure most media channels will report her debates as a great success regardless of what happens. Not to mention the debates themselves may be swayed in her favor by those running them.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Yeah but she sucks at pointing that stuff out. That's the difference.

The one big thing Hilary does have in her favor though is that the mass amount of media is behind her. So I'm sure most media channels will report her debates as a great success regardless of what happens. Not to mention the debates themselves may be swayed in her favor by those running them.
The right wing and left wing both think there's a media bias. Matt Lauer got a lot of flack last night for continuously interrupting Hillary while not letting Trump talk as long as he liked.

Trump has probably, in a lot of ways, gotten it worst from Fox News even though they're right wing biased. Since he went after Megan Kelly and isn't exactly a darling of the republican establishment.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
The right wing and left wing both think there's a media bias. Matt Lauer got a lot of flack last night for continuously interrupting Hillary while not letting Trump talk as long as he liked.

Trump has probably, in a lot of ways, gotten it worst from Fox News even though they're right wing biased. Since he went after Megan Kelly and isn't exactly a darling of the republican establishment.
What?

Hannity slurps Trump for an hour every night and O'reily tries and spoon feeds Trump answers to softball questions.

I don't think Hillary has a leg to stand on in saying media bias but Fox is still very much in the tank for Trump.

There is a reason that is the only place he will do interviews these days.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Yeah but she sucks at pointing that stuff out. That's the difference.

The one big thing Hilary does have in her favor though is that the mass amount of media is behind her. So I'm sure most media channels will report her debates as a great success regardless of what happens. Not to mention the debates themselves may be swayed in her favor by those running them.
After that showing the other night I can't fathom how anyone can think Trump could do well in a debate.

Once he is off script he makes shit up and obviously lies, his comment about the security briefings and the generals was especially horrible.

Hillary has her own debate issue but the best Trump can do is a tie and that is because the bar is set so low.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Yeah about Gary Johnson.:unsure

I don't think it's the end of the world that Johnson spaced on that,unlike Hillary who's been able to sit at fundraisers in the Hamptons all year, Johnson's had to hit the talk show circuit for the last several months.

Without that carefully curated media exposure that Hillary can enjoy as a virtual incumbent, somebody's bound to have a senior moment sometime in their 1000s of interviews. This is a Romney "likes firing people" style of political gaffe that's more about people on the other team high fiving each other because the candidate they don't like sounded dumb that one time.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I don't think it's the end of the world that Johnson spaced on that,unlike Hillary who's been able to sit at fundraisers in the Hamptons all year, Johnson's had to hit the talk show circuit for the last several months.

Without that carefully curated media exposure that Hillary can enjoy as a virtual incumbent, somebody's bound to have a senior moment sometime in their 1000s of interviews. This is a Romney "likes firing people" style of political gaffe that's more about people on the other team high fiving each other because the candidate they don't like sounded dumb that one time.
It's not just one time.

I have no issue with a lot of what libertarian-ism is about, I have real issues with it's practicality.

Johnson has real issues within his own party so lets not act like its a partisan thing only.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
It's not just one time.

I have no issue with a lot of what libertarian-ism is about, I have real issues with it's practicality.

Johnson has real issues within his own party so lets not act like its a partisan thing only.
I wasn't trying to pick on you. Most of the liberal stuff I follow had a field day with this. It's a gaffe but not even a 10th of what we've endured from Trump or even Stein (who are exactly the same level of idiot in my book).

I like and hate libertarianism. I think it's based on a really poor understanding of economics. But as a political movement I think it gets the right to individual liberty better than a lot of liberals.

Gov Johnson gets all his cred from being a decent governor whose running mate was also a pretty decent governor. His idealism isn't really that pertinent to me since (as Obama demonstrated) ideals don't make it past the first 100 days or so. He's still no where near as qualified as Hillary, but is probably just as qualified as her husband was.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I wasn't trying to pick on you. Most of the liberal stuff I follow had a field day with this. It's a gaffe but not even a 10th of what we've endured from Trump or even Stein (who are exactly the same level of idiot in my book).

I like and hate libertarianism. I think it's based on a really poor understanding of economics. But as a political movement I think it gets the right to individual liberty better than a lot of liberals.

Gov Johnson gets all his cred from being a decent governor whose running mate was also a pretty decent governor. His idealism isn't really that pertinent to me since (as Obama demonstrated) ideals don't make it past the first 100 days or so. He's still no where near as qualified as Hillary, but is probably just as qualified as her husband was.
:buddy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom