May 6, 2016 ^^tf In terms of states that Trump could win in November that Mitt Romney lost in 2012, Priebus pointed to the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, as well as Iowa and potentially Michigan and Minnesota. “I think this is going to be a really close election," the chairman predicted, adding that of course, he expected to win. “I won’t put a percentage on it, but I think he will win." Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/reince-priebus-trump-gop-nominee-222888#ixzz47tA05VnN Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook @Swizz im scared tbh
May 6, 2016 I mean...you're scared because the RNC chair is putting on a good face publicly? lol I'm scared in the sense that this man could potentially, somehow, someway win the White House, absolutely. That's definitely terrifying. But in terms of his chances to win? They're still pretty f---ing low. The GOP was already in a rough spot demographically. Trump, more than probably anyone else they could have nominated, dramatically exacerbates that problem. How do you improve on Romney's performance when you're going to do far worse with women? How do you improve on Romney's performance when you're going to do far worse than Latinos? Trump winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota? LOL. Give me a f---ing break. Not going to happen. I mean, take a look at this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-begins-in-a-massive-hole-222816?cmpid=sf McHenry outlined some back-of-the-envelope math, starting with a number of assumptions, to outline Trump’s uphill path. First, he assumed 3 in 10 voters this fall are nonwhite — a modest increase from 28 percent in 2012, according to exit polls. He then gave Trump a vote share of 10 percentage points greater than his average favorable rating for a number of demographic groups. If Trump’s vote share among white women was 50 percent, McHenry said — which would be down from Romney’s 56 percent four years ago — that would mean Trump would have to win about 85 percent of white men to win, an astounding percentage and dramatically better than Romney’s 62-percent share. Those are estimates of course! But that is a bad, bad, bad, bad place to start for Trump. I believe in the polls. They are generally right. So when this race naturally tightens (as any presidential race would), I will probably freak out a bit because I can't help myself. But the fundamentals of the race are extremely favorable to the Democrats. Like, "the House is in play" favorable to the Democrats.
May 6, 2016 Yeah. no you're right. I've been taking solace in the math too -- however, it's still only 6 months out and Trump's success has (largely) been outperforming predictions from the same kinds of political scientists/panelists/thoughtful people now dismissing his chances in a general. His voodoo or however you want to describe it is perfectly suited for the media landscape (dunno if you saw the vox piece on this.) He's going to rly take HRC through the ringer. Ofc, on the other hand, the DNC/Harry Reid >>>>>> the sad stunted goobers from the primary. For all his contributions to today's toxic environment, Reid is definitely someone I want in my corner. can already see him clamoring for a last hurrah
May 8, 2016 To be fair though most of the inaccurate predictions regarding Trump were stated last year when he first announced he was running. Trump's been the presumptive nominee for the GOP since pretty much voting began and even before that he was looked at as the front-runner. I think this idea that trump's "defying the odds" has come and gone. Yeah, he's exceeded expectations but at this point everyone has already accepted it. His success isn't surprising anyone anymore and the polls have been very accurate in determining how he's performed throughout the country. Like Swizz said, come the general election, Trump's going to need to cover a lot of ground some how.
Jul 13, 2016 this cycle gonna be a busy one for our pal @Swizz... will you be phone banking for evan bayh, or perhaps handing out lit on why mike pence is a regarded choice for veep?
Jul 13, 2016 Things are so weird rn, Trump and Gingrich are currently meeting at the hotel where I had my wedding reception
Jul 18, 2016 Been thinking about this a lot lately... decided Al Franken would be the best running mate for HRC. Tim Kaine is serviceable, and a considered choice. But he's very vanilla. (It's 2016, can we really go back to an all-white ticket?) This election is going to be a rockfest, and she needs a running mate who can counterpunch Trump. Franken obviously is incredibly media savvy, and cut his teeth politically as a Rush Limbaugh trashing talk radio host. At the same time, he's not quite to the level of Liz Warren where he'd overshadow HRC, or go off-message. Second choice IMO: Xavier Becerra (not saying she WILL pick either, but if i had my truffles) edit: http://gawker.com/all-the-most-excruciating-moments-from-the-trump-pence-1783831489 holy s---
Jul 18, 2016 I like Franken a lot, but I have qualms about whether he would reduce the Dem side to Trump's level. I agree with you on Kaine being serviceable but boring...and yet she's in a good position pre-convention, so why not pick a VP who a) will do no harm and b) is qualified for the job? I've personally become a big fan of a potential Clinton-Warren ticket (their chemistry has been great and Warren has been as good as anyone in belittling Trump and getting under his skin), but I don't think it's the likeliest outcome. Clinton will probably make a responsible, boring choice. It will almost certainly be someone who can crush Mike Pence in a debate. The fact that he was the "safe/conventional" choice tells you just how far the Republican party has gone off the rails. https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkacz...man-out-of-you?utm_term=.anMaYbo9g#.xeKXM20OD lmfaoooooo
Jul 18, 2016 The negative press Trump/Pence will generate over the next 4 months.... and yet, he's currently competitive in multiple battleground states. I'm likely being alarmist (after all, the polls that matter won't start accumulating until August right?) But IDK. I think as foolish as Trump sounds, his idiot savvy and "message" actually resonates with people. I don't buy into the email scandal's merits, but I can 100% see why the average person views her as crooked. Right now, this is my prediction: 45 -41- 10- 4 hillary trump johnson stein RE: veep. your assessment is likely right. Dunno if HRC is (again) underestimating 'the threat' like she did in the primary. (politico has a great piece on that today if u missed it.) she has reason to be cautious though... but i agree: she could benefit from a warren-type person on the stump. (i think she's too volatile/controversial/offmessage to be the #2, which is what led me to franken). i 100% think this election year dems should totally lower themselves to trump's level, in that sense. clinton's got a charisma deficit, which is what allowed the goat to take her in 08 -- that worked out fine, but trump is like the dark alt universe version of that election cycle. (tonally, intellectually hes obama's mirror... but there's some overlap stump-wise) also on pence... were you the one who tweeted about the mini HIV outbreak he caused in your state? YIKES - that should be an ad
Jul 18, 2016 Mid-August would definitely be when we start taking the polls seriously. Right now it's just too fluid - we just had the Bernie Sanders endorsement, the Trump VP pick, and we're about to have two conventions and a Clinton VP pick. These are all the kind of event that causes a temporary bounce. So while the media is likely to freak out over the results over the next few weeks, it's worth taking a deep breath and waiting it out. I don't think your prediction is unreasonable. That's about where the average seems to be right now. To me, the biggest question still remains the unification of the Republican party. I still have a lot of Republican friends who hate Trump but hate the idea of a Clinton presidency - and have no idea what they're going to do. I think that's a pretty common feeling among mainstream GOPers across the country. The question is - do those people stay home because they're disenchanted? Do they cross over for Hillary (probably not, I think, because they've spent a quarter of a century hating her)? Do they s--- it up, hold their nose, and vote Trump after all? Or do they take a serious look at a third party like Gary Johnson, or even consider a write-in vote (I actually do know someone who plans to write in Ted Cruz I hate him so much)? I know that seems like run-of-the-mill political analysis since this has been the big question for the past 6 months, but I truly think the answer to this can make the difference between a big Clinton victory and a close election that could swing either way. Right now, I think I side with you on the popular vote total, probably. I think the final map looks exactly like 2012, but perhaps with the Dems pulling NC as well. Again, too early - let's talk more about that map in 6 weeks or so
Jul 18, 2016 ^My Republican friends have the exact same feelings. It does seem like most of them will still vote for Trump with a few staying home because they do not want to be called a racist, win or lose. None of them will cross over to vote for Hillary. I will say that I manage condominiums in the Tampa Bay area and I am seeing a good amount of people over 55+ saying they are Repubs that will vote for Hillary. Lastly, maybe you do not take much stock in this number but Vegas has Hillary as 3.5 to 1 favorite to win right now. Including being a huge favorite to win Ohio, Florida, Penn, and Virginia. Vegas is rarely wrong and this isn't UFC where someone can be KO'd with one punch. As far as VEEP, I hope she goes with Julian Castro. Play the card, win the election. He's young, he's Hispanic, and he will energize the base. Go ahead and call it pandering but a win is a win.
Jul 26, 2016 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...s_deeply_involved_in_dealing_with_russia.html this is ur guy @Lamont
Jul 26, 2016 Instead she went with an old, rich white guy who attended private school in the middle of the country and could pass for a republican.
Jul 26, 2016 Yeah, honestly when looking at the "strategy" of this pick, she seems to be making a move for white vote who hate Trump. All the John Kasich supporters who cannot stand that Trump is their candidate? Oh well... I guess she passed on Castro, Warren and Booker because she feels she has those segments wrapped up. Trump does not seem like he is going to be able to bring in even the same percentages as Romney when it comes to minorities. He doubled down on the uneducated white vote and is hoping Pence can bring in the Cruz supporters. In the end, very disappointed with both VP picks. Both were boring and more of the same from each candidate.
Jul 26, 2016 Both were very safe VP picks. It hurts Clinton more than it does Trump IMO; only because Pence is an establishment conservative, and Trump needed someone conservative in order to validate his own conservatism. Clinton's VP is very moderate, even conservative on a few fronts. Someone like Cory Booker, Warren, or even Castro would have been better. In order to win Hillary needs to secure Bernie voters and I think selecting Kaine is going to turn out to be a bad move.
Jul 26, 2016 Where we disagree is securing the Bernie voters. Bernie will rally his own people regularly over the next 3 months and she is betting that if your belief system lines up with Bernie, then you will vote for her versus Trump. Trump did need someone to validate his own conservatism because his views do not line up with his base. The Pence pick should end the pro-life questions and help bring in the Cruz voters who were going to stay home. I don't think either pick hurts them. Both help bring in people who may have stayed away from the polls.
