Rasmussen poll 5/2: Trump 41%, Clinton 39%

[Indus]

Republicans are facing an electoral disaster in November

The Republican Party is facing a crisis in November. If you’re thinking that crisis has a face, an orange and bulbous face, you’re half right. Donald Trump is surely a problem for Republicans, both in the short and long-term, but the party’s issues go well beyond the Donald.

Any analysis of a presidential election has to begin with the electoral college. Whatever you think of the electoral college, that’s how presidential contests are decided. And when you look closely at the map, it’s clear that Republicans have a narrow path to victory in November, regardless of who they nominate.

As The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza noted yesterday, the numbers in Florida alone portend doom for the GOP. A recent poll was conducted by the Associated Industries of Florida, a prominent business group in the state, and they found that Hillary Clinton would defeat Trump by a 49% to 36% margin if the election were held today. Clinton tops Cruz by nearly 10 points in that same poll.

The memo released by the group sums it up: “In this critical swing state, it is clear to us that Republicans continue to suffer substantial brand damage amongst all segments of the ascending electorate (younger voters, Hispanics, and No Major Party voters) and this presidential campaign has clearly exacerbated these attitudes.”

If these numbers are even remotely accurate, the Republicans can’t win in November. Cillizza explains: “If Clinton wins Florida and carries the 19 states (plus D.C.) have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in each of the last six elections, she will be the 45th president. It’s that simple…And here’s the underlying math. If Clinton wins the 19 states that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida’s 29 and you get 271. Game over.”

Hillary Clinton is deeply unpopular, but there’s no good reason to suppose that Trump can win in traditionally blue states, not with such dismal support among women (with whom he has a 66% unfavorable rating) and minority voters. Sure, it’s possible, but not at all likely.

Even if Republicans nominated a “safer” candidate like Paul Ryan or John Kasich, they’re still facing an unforgiving terrain. The so-called safe states for Republicans, as Cillizza points out, only amount to 102 electoral votes, meaning the nominee needs another 168 to reach 270. That leaves the Republicans in an extraordinarily difficult spot. The Democrats, conversely, begin with a substantial electoral college advantage.

There are many reasons why the GOP finds itself in this predicament, but the most significant is the party’s failure to appeal to non-white voters in any meaningful way. Cillizza makes the crucial point: “New Mexico, a state in which almost half the population is Latino, is the ur-example here. In 2004, George W. Bush won the Land of Enchantment in his bid for a second term. Eight years later, Barack Obama won the state by 10 points over Mitt Romney…What has become increasingly clear is that any state with a large or growing non-white population has become more and more difficult for Republicans to win.”

This trend is unmissable in states like Virginia and North Carolina, where Republican support has steadily slipped in the last decade or so. Indeed, it’s difficult to find states on the electoral college map that are moving rightward. Meanwhile, the Democrats are growing their base in critical states, slowly carving out a reliable path to the presidency.

The anti-democratic redistricting policies of the GOP won’t help them either. Gerrymandering will undoubtedly help Republicans keep their majorities in Congress, but it won’t shield them from these broader trends. If anything, the national numbers illustrate just how scandalously important redistricting has become. Republican control of Congress is a reflection not of their support among citizens but rather of their ability to redraw 55% of districts around the country to favor them (only 10% have been redrawn to favor Democrats). This is how Democratic congressional candidates received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican opponents in 2012 and managed to gain a paltry 8 seats.

But that won’t rescue the party from what appears to be a disaster in November. Trump has intensified the GOP’s demographic challenges, but he didn’t create them. Republicans have been cultivating their demographic problem for many years. As their base grows older, whiter, and more extreme, the party ceases to be competitive in presidential elections. They can blame Trump all they want, but these problems preceded Trump, and they will persist long after him.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hillary is far more qualitied to be President than Donald, but as I have learned painfully, anybody qualified to be President shouldn't be elected to that job.

 

[DrPizza]

That article still didn't touch on something I've mentioned a few times: poor "I'm not voting for Trump, and I'm certainly not going to vote for no damn Clinton" is going to result in a lot of stay at home Republicans. That's bad if you're a Republican running for many of the other offices besides President.

 

[echo4747]

That article still didn't touch on something I've mentioned a few times: poor "I'm not voting for Trump, and I'm certainly not going to vote for no damn Clinton" is going to result in a lot of stay at home Republicans. That's bad if you're a Republican running for many of the other offices besides President.

True ...IF that is what happens. I have a feeling that is not what is going to happen. I think Rep turnout will be higher than the norm. From what most folks here are saying (Clinton in a landslide) the reverse can be said and its possible many Dem's think Clinton has it in a bag and think:Why bother showing up to vote? I dont think this happens either.

 

[Exophase]

I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with her email controversy and a great deal to do with her entering the news as the likely democratic nominee. People generally dislike it when women act like men, and in order to be the president you need to act like a man.

Everybody knew Hillary was running and everybody knew of the other political positions she's had, it's not like she polled favorable before that because she was some unknown quantity.

And I'm pretty sure the ratings were specifically at whether or not people favored her as president, so what you're saying doesn't really make sense...

 

[soundforbjt]

True ...IF that is what happens. I have a feeling that is not what is going to happen. I think Rep turnout will be higher than the norm. From what most folks here are saying (Clinton in a landslide) the reverse can be said and its possible many Dem's think Clinton has it in a bag and think:Why bother showing up to vote? I dont think this happens either.

The Dems can definitely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by being complacent this cycle, they've done it before in the midterms. But this year is different in many respects.
Women vote in larger numbers than men, giving Trump a big hill to climb before you factor in his numbers with all minorities. Could he gather enough white male votes to win? Possibly, but highly doubtful.

 

[fskimospy]

Everybody knew Hillary was running and everybody knew of the other political positions she's had, it's not like she polled favorable before that because she was some unknown quantity.

Not really true at all, this is why primary polls are so inaccurate. People generally pay very little attention to candidates before primary season starts. As for the email controversy, polls showed that few Americans actually cared about it.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/03...s-than-democrats-in-clinton-emails-netanyahu/

It's no coincidence that Republicans cared about it far more than Democrats did, because it ties into her electoral prospects. Most Americans don't follow this stuff much if at all; it's just not on their radar.

And I'm pretty sure the ratings were specifically at whether or not people favored her as president, so what you're saying doesn't really make sense...

They are not. They are if you view someone favorably or unfavorably generally.

 

[compuwiz1]

Taking comfort in the idea that something is impossible sometimes leads to great surprises.

 

[Indus]

I don't know 1 person that's comfortable about a Trump Presidency.

The very thought unnerves the bejesus out of people.

 

[echo4747]

I don't know 1 person that's comfortable about a Trump Presidency.

The very thought unnerves the bejesus out of people.

If the election were today ... I would vote Trump (as opposed to Clinton) I would be comfortable too. I don't expect Trump to win but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[compuwiz1]

I don't know 1 person that's comfortable about a Trump Presidency.

The very thought unnerves the bejesus out of people.

Your circle of friends and acquaintances must be a pack of liberals. You should get out more.

 

[Indus]

Your circle of friends and acquaintances must be a pack of liberals. You should get out more.

I remember getting around enough that I still remember once in AR overhearing a guy was filling out his job application and he asked the lady, "Name of Spouse, is that my mother?" And she replied "No hon, that's your wife if you have one.

That's Trump country too.

 

[fskimospy]

Your circle of friends and acquaintances must be a pack of liberals. You should get out more.

About 70% of Americans say they are concerned or scared by the prospect of a Trump presidency.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/305549318/3-21-16-CBS-NYT-Gen-Elect-Toplines

 

[Exophase]

Not really true at all, this is why primary polls are so inaccurate. People generally pay very little attention to candidates before primary season starts. As for the email controversy, polls showed that few Americans actually cared about it.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/03...s-than-democrats-in-clinton-emails-netanyahu/

It's no coincidence that Republicans cared about it far more than Democrats did, because it ties into her electoral prospects. Most Americans don't follow this stuff much if at all; it's just not on their radar.

And those Republicans that cared about it were reflected in the polls. This was also not very long after the reveal and before more information that made things look worse.

While later polls showed 60% of people were tired of the emails, that's still 40% of people who weren't - and 48% of people polled thought she used the private server because she had something to hide. You don't need a sudden consensus of hate to see a 20 point swing in the favorable poll, you just need 20% of people to change their mind about you.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-...s-are-tired-of-hearing-about-hillarys-emails/

That doesn't sound like no one following it, and even some people who were tired of hearing about it still had a lowered opinion of Hillary over it.

They are not. They are if you view someone favorably or unfavorably generally.

Okay, so what you're saying is that she was polled for favorable or unfavorable while she was no longer Secretary of State, no longer Senator, and people rated her favorable while having no conception that she'd ever do anything again? And they found her favorable right up until she formally announced her bid for the election, after running in 2008 and after the media her held 2016 run as inevitable for pretty much the entire time in between?

Get real.

 

[alien42]

Your circle of friends and acquaintances must be a pack of liberals. You should get out more.

you say that as if Trump is a conservative, which he isn't, oh the irony.

 

[OutHouse]

Trump hasn't even won the Republican nomination for Christ's sake. Can we at least wait and see if there is a campaign before we decide he'll lose it. Nobody has the slightest fucking idea what will happen.

D: thats probably the most direct and truthful thing you have ever posted.

 

[fskimospy]

And those Republicans that cared about it were reflected in the polls. This was also not very long after the reveal and before more information that made things look worse.

While later polls showed 60% of people were tired of the emails, that's still 40% of people who weren't - and 48% of people polled thought she used the private server because she had something to hide. You don't need a sudden consensus of hate to see a 20 point swing in the favorable poll, you just need 20% of people to change their mind about you.

That poll was at the time you said her ratings nose dived. In practice they had been steadily declining for a long time before that and declined far more before that time than after it.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

I simply see no evidence that the email controversy had anything to do with her decline in favorability. Frankly, nobody cares about the email scandal outside of political junkies.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-...s-are-tired-of-hearing-about-hillarys-emails/

That doesn't sound like no one following it, and even some people who were tired of hearing about it still had a lowered opinion of Hillary over it.

I'm tired of hearing about the Kardashians and I don't follow them at all. That poll is also well after the period you said her favorables took a nose dive.

Okay, so what you're saying is that she was polled for favorable or unfavorable while she was no longer Secretary of State, no longer Senator, and people rated her favorable while having no conception that she'd ever do anything again? And they found her favorable right up until she formally announced her bid for the election, after running in 2008 and after the media her held 2016 run as inevitable for pretty much the entire time in between?

Get real.

I'm saying that people didn't even bother to think about it. People formulate their opinions of people based on cues from politicians and elites.

 

[DrPizza]

About 70% of Americans say they are concerned or scared by the prospect of a Trump presidency.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/305549318/3-21-16-CBS-NYT-Gen-Elect-Toplines

Not to mention the people in foreign countries who think we're nuts over here.

 

[Exophase]

That poll was at the time you said her ratings nose dived. In practice they had been steadily declining for a long time before that and declined far more before that time than after it.

The poll was ~2 months prior which is a significant amount of time for swaying opinions.

I simply see no evidence that the email controversy had anything to do with her decline in favorability. Frankly, nobody cares about the email scandal outside of political junkies.

And the 48% of people who said that it looked like she was hiding something in the poll I linked, or do you think those are all political junkies?

Meanwhile I simply see no evidence that her gender had anything to do with her decline in favorability.

I'm tired of hearing about the Kardashians and I don't follow them at all. That poll is also well after the period you said her favorables took a nose dive.

Yeah, it was after and yours was before. That doesn't mean that it wasn't affecting people by May.

 

[fskimospy]

The poll was ~2 months prior which is a significant amount of time for swaying opinions.

Okay, but if the email was the cause of her decline in favorability how do you explain the fact that most of the decline happened prior to the controversy?

And the 48% of people who said that it looked like she was hiding something in the poll I linked, or do you think those are all political junkies?

I think they are people who are offering an opinion about something that isn't terribly important to them.

Meanwhile I simply see no evidence that her gender had anything to do with her decline in favorability.

Yeah, it was after and yours was before. That doesn't mean that it wasn't affecting people by May.

My position is that people dislike women who take on strong executive personas that are typically reserved for men in the US and this is backed up by research on the subject. I strongly suspect this applies to the presidency as well or even more so.

 

[Exophase]

Okay, but if the email was the cause of her decline in favorability how do you explain the fact that most of the decline happened prior to the controversy?

May 2015 was prior to the controversy?

I think they are people who are offering an opinion about something that isn't terribly important to them.

Kind of like answering unfavorable in a poll.

My position is that people dislike women who take on strong executive personas that are typically reserved for men in the US and this is backed up by research on the subject. I strongly suspect this applies to the presidency as well or even more so.

There's a difference between corporate barriers and public barriers, so I strongly suspect that what you're looking at isn't the same for a poll on how favorable someone is. Corporate executives aren't polled or elected by the public.

 

[Jhhnn]

The favorability ratings are as they are because there's still mud in the water. Should Hillary take the nom it'll come into focus once the water clears.

Hillary or the ultimate question- Are you really out of your fucking minds?

I don't think enough Americans are that way to carry any Repub into the White House. Not nearly enough.

 

[theeedude]

Trump getting elected would be a bigger disaster for GOP than Democrats.

 

[mu11et]

Trump getting elected would be a bigger disaster for GOP than Democrats.

 

[cirrrocco]

Like i said before.. I am liberal, but fuck clinton. She sounds and acts like a wicked scheming queen. I am gonna stay at home.