^^No, but the fact is the article says Hispanics are more optimistic about their future and they make an average of 18k less than white people. A 50 cent raise will make them feel like a king. OTOH, white people with college degrees who are making at least 40K a year probably aren't too happy with any small pay increase that they may get.


[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2016 11:49:54 AM

Do you not ever get frustrated for being such a caricature?

6/13/2016 12:10:45 PM

Quote :

"Local White Man Resentful of Marginal Improvements in Minority's Economic Situation"

6/13/2016 1:04:12 PM

^ you joke, but if that resentment is causing them to do dumb stuff like vote for trump, it's a serious issue.

How do you make them not feel so resentful? If he's not asking for handouts, he seems to be asking to punish minorities that have less than him, which is basically what Trump is saying.

But there has to be another alternative that isn't sneering at the stupidity of the sentiment.

6/13/2016 1:13:33 PM

if poor people are given a fair chance, its worrisome because they will actually have to compete with people who have upward mobility. They could be losing their entitlements.

6/13/2016 1:13:55 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Interesting that as Trump plummets in the polls recently, Hillary isn't rising. This is "enough" for her to win, but i wonder what, if anything, she could do to capture support, rather than just relying on Trump to implode.

6/14/2016 9:42:21 PM

6/15/2016 1:00:04 PM

Quote :

"Interesting that as Trump plummets in the polls recently, Hillary isn't rising. This is "enough" for her to win, but i wonder what, if anything, she could do to capture support, rather than just relying on Trump to implode."

Tell the truth.

Come clean about her dealings with the Clinton Foundation. Come clean about why she wanted her own email server, and that she knew it was a shady proposition to start with. I guarantee you most moderate Americans would forgive the admission once made. Now whether she would get in trouble with the law is a different story if she made such admissions.

Also, she needs to be warmer. I just get a feeling of harshness from her. It's hard to describe.

6/15/2016 3:49:27 PM

From my perspective, the Republicans from at least 2008-Present have been so focused on blocking everything they haven't been able to practice good governance. In this environment you are fundamentally training everyone in your party to govern in that vein. That mind set becomes what the party is. This is why there isn't anyone worth voting for coming out of the party for 2016.

Paul Ryan might be one exception. But anytime he mentions republican values and policy's I cant remember anyone from the republican party reflecting it. I don't recall anyone articulating what that actually means. For me, being a republican is being obstructionist. Its just what I have seen over the last 8 years. I don't know what an effective republican politician looks like.

Christy? Cruz? Bush? Rubio? Graham?

For the love of god! To me, there is a fundamental culture problem at the core of the republican party. To get any shining star to rise to the presidential level it needs to be fixed.

Not trying to change any opinions, this is just my lens.

6/15/2016 4:34:16 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-new-poll-support-for-trump-plunges-giving-clinton-a-double-digit-lead/2016/06/25/0565bef6-3a31-11e6-a254-2b336e293a3c_story.html

Most people thought Trump's judge comments were inappropriate and racist.

Clinton leading Trump by 12 points in 1 recent poll.

6/26/2016 11:55:57 AM

Two way polls are intentionally misleading

6/26/2016 2:32:14 PM

Uh, Clinton hasn't even been announced as the official nominee, Obama and Biden haven't started campaigning for her, and none of her general election advertising is running yet. You think Jill Stein or Gary Johnson are going to take a significant amount of her support? The only thing misleading about this poll is her actual lead is probably quite larger. This isn't really about Trump anymore for the Republicans, he will never be President. It's about not losing the House and Senate (the latter is likely already gone).

[Edited on June 26, 2016 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2016 4:19:09 PM

Haha u got Earled

6/26/2016 5:01:38 PM

More rumors out now she's going to pick Warren.

I personally don't have a problem with Warren's views, but I don't see her pulling in independent voters.

6/27/2016 7:53:12 PM

That wouldn't by the point. The point would be to shore up the base. But I don't think that's really needed so I'm pretty doubtful.

6/27/2016 8:53:59 PM

warren would be an idiot to accept

6/27/2016 9:00:12 PM

I like when people think that someone other than Clinton or Trump will be President come January.

6/27/2016 9:20:16 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html

Hillary just regained a marginal lead over trump in NC now. Will be interesting to see if it sticks.

6/27/2016 11:04:09 PM

Well, according to NPR, Trump isn't even campaigning in the state, so...

6/27/2016 11:06:16 PM

Quote :

"It's all relative, isn't it? I didn't say "A candidate aaronburro would like." If you're a Republican bigshot, the kind of person for whom the Republican party is an end rather than a means, then "a good candidate" is just a candidate who can win the election. By this standard, George W. Bush was a good candidate and Donald Trump isn't. Even if you're just someone with Hillary Derangement Syndrome, I think you have to suck it up and acknowledge that you're gonna lose this one. Unless something really big happens, Clinton will be elected in 2016. Trump is a bad candidate because he allows that to happen. If you cut your losses and divert funding to congressional races, you at least mitigate her legislative influence for four years until you get a good candidate -- and, again, a "good candidate" here is just somebody who could beat Hillary Clinton. It won't be Trump in 2020, either, because after the shit hurricane that is this election he's going to be back firmly in laughingstock territory."

Sorry, been a while, but Imma drag this back up. I think the chief problem in the Republican party has been Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and it's been that way for 20+ years. Their idea of a "good candidate" has been whoever they think has the best shot at beating a Clinton. In 96, it was Dole, in 2000, it was Bush (with Gore being "the Clinton"), in 08, it was McCain, and in 16 it's Trump. It's been nothing but "OMFG, WE CAN'T LET CLINTON (or *that guy*) IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! ANYBODY BUT THAT PERSON!!!!!!!!!!" And after all the hyperventilating is over and the dust settles, what are we left with? The dogshit that was George W Bush, and a bunch of a Democrats in the White House.

Put simply, the Republican Party hasn't given the country anyone to vote for for President in almost 24 years. Their platform has been almost universally "anyone but the other guy." It's why they had the absolute shit show this year and why they are now stuck with Trump. It's why, in 2012, when everyone hated rich people, they nominated the richest motherfucker they could find, and then wondered why they got walloped. If Dubya is your only "good candidate" in 20+ years, you're are pretty fucked, and it's time to change course, whether you use your metric of electability or not.

It's not a matter of finding a candidate that I approve of. It's a matter of actually having a platform that stands for something, instead of just being against whoever the Democratic front-runner is. Right now, the Republican platform is "fuck anything Obama says." Next year, when Hillary is in the WH, the platform will be "fuck anything Hillary says." That's just not viable, and until they have an actual candidate with actual ideas that aren't "fuck the Democratic guy," they are going to keep getting slammed.

As for your theory that a libertarian candidate won't work, I also disagree. Bubba-Trump-Supporter isn't voting for Hillary, no matter what. The Bible-thumpers aren't voting for Hillary, either. They will, however, vote for, at a minimum, someone who respects gun rights and wants to keep the government out of economic issues. They'll be uneasy with someone who doesn't trash homosexuals, but given the opportunity to have real healthcare reform that doesn't involve Obamacare and top-down gov't design, they'll jump at it. That's a lot more than the Republican party has offered over the last 10-15 years while they've frothed anal lube and orange spray tans while pissing in the wind of the gay marriage battle. Probably the toughest thing they'll have to get used to is the idea of not bombing every single Muslim country we can find on a map, which might be a tougher fight than I want to admit.

[Edited on June 27, 2016 at 11:34 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2016 11:32:52 PM

Romney was a good candidate IMO. Now 51.1% of Americans thought Obama was better than him, but time's been kind to him when comparing him to the 2016 candidates.

Kerry and the Democrats from 2004-08 by the way stood for nothing except they were against George W. Bush. Jon Stewart in the runup to the 2006 midterm elections I remember made a lot of jokes about that.

If you want to listen to the strategy calls of the people behind "Free the Delegates" (I'm amazed they're actually sharing this publicly), go to the link. http://www.freethedelegates2016.com/ They have the audio records of the 2 calls they held the past 2 Sundays.

[Edited on June 29, 2016 at 10:18 PM. Reason : /]

6/29/2016 10:14:52 PM

God bless Rassmussen polling.

6/30/2016 10:41:48 AM

I honestly don't remember, how did they do in the last election? Were they predicting a Romney victory?

6/30/2016 10:51:38 AM

^

Quote :

"The final 2012 Electoral College projection by Rasmussen Reports showed 237 safe electoral votes for Barack Obama, 206 safe electoral votes for Mitt Romney, and eight toss-up states with a total of 95 electoral votes.[46][47][48]"

Quote :

"A Fordham University study by Dr. Costas Panagopoulos compared pre-election polling with the results from election day. The study ranked Rasmussen Reports 24th out of 28 polls in accuracy, one slot above Gallup.[51] An analysis by Nate Silver on FiveThirtyEight ranked Rasmussen 20th out of 23 pollsters for accuracy in the 2012 elections with an average error of 4.2 points.[52] After the election, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times wrote that "Some conservative media outlets used the Rasmussen polling to prop up a narrative in the final days of the campaign that Romney had momentum and a good chance of winning the White House."[53]"

Quote :

"Rasmussen Reports, the prolific automated pollster whose projections fell far from the mark Tuesday, explains what went wrong: Our final daily presidential tracking poll showed Romney at 49% and Obama at 48%. Instead, the president got 50% of the vote and Romney 48%. We were disappointed that our final results were not as close to the final result as they had been in preceding elections. There was a similar pattern in the state polls. For example, in Ohio we projected a tie at 49% but the president reached 50% of the vote and the challenger got just 48%. Although every individual result in the battleground states was within the margin of error, the numbers we projected were consistently a bit more favorable for Romney than the actual results. A preliminary review indicates that one reason for this is that we underestimated the minority share of the electorate. In 2008, 26% of voters were non-white. We expected that to remain relatively constant. However, in 2012, 28% of voters were non-white. That was exactly the share projected by the Obama campaign. It is not clear at the moment whether minority turnout increased nationally, white turnout decreased, or if it was a combination of both. The increase in minority turnout has a significant impact on the final projections since Romney won nearly 60% of white votes while Obama won an even larger share of the minority vote. Another factor may be related to the generation gap. It is interesting to note that the share of seniors who showed up to vote was down slightly from 2008 while the number of young voters was up slightly. Pre-election data suggested that voters older than 65 were more enthusiastic about voting than they had been four years earlier so the decline bears further examination.k"

6/30/2016 11:22:19 AM

Well that makes sense given their latest polls. Nate Silver wrote a great article on 538 about this elections predictions.

6/30/2016 11:54:02 AM

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

they have a really great polls dashboard. Nice hexagonal EC vote map about half-way down.

7/1/2016 4:03:22 PM

The data visualization nerd in me really likes what they did minus the expected margin of victory one. Bounds are way too wide given how clustered the data is around 0

7/1/2016 4:15:39 PM

Quote :

"Romney was a good candidate IMO. Now 51.1% of Americans thought Obama was better than him, but time's been kind to him when comparing him to the 2016 candidates. Kerry and the Democrats from 2004-08 by the way stood for nothing except they were against George W. Bush. Jon Stewart in the runup to the 2006 midterm elections I remember made a lot of jokes about that."

Romney was a horrible candidate. He was very much like Kerry in 2004, where there wasn't much distinction between him and the incumbent, not anything meaningful. To make matters worse, at a time where just about everyone hated rich people, the GOP went and nominated the richest SOB they could find. It was a horrible pick.

I think you're agreeing with me in a way about Kerry and the Dems not standing for anything other than being anti-GWB. The GOP has nothing but anti-Clinton since 1994, and that's why the best they can muster this year is Donald Fucking Trump.

7/6/2016 1:00:09 AM