Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston




Found via Jobsanger

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Trump's Demographic and Electoral Votes Problems

An anonymous poster came to the comments section below this post and left this:

Anonymous said... 

 Can you folks be honest? Does Trump scare you at all? You know you have a very flawed candidate in Crooked Hillary. You do realize in 1980 Jimmy Carter was 30% ahead of Reagan at this point. You do remember what happened then? 

 May 10, 2016 at 2:17 AM 

Anonymous is betting on a repeat of what happened almost 40 years ago in the Carter-Reagan election. But Anonymous has little understanding of how the demographics have changed over more than two generations ago. Heck, things have changed since the 2008 presidential election, and those demographics favor Democrats, not Republicans.

Here's a graphic I found on Democratic Underground that explains Trump's number problems within these important voting blocs:

Anonymous, like many TGOPers, lives in a bubble which prevents any facts getting through. He/she sounds like so many TeaPublicans trying to talk themselves into accepting the Short-Fingered Vulgarian as the leader of their party and possible leader of the free world. 

They believe people who do not support The Trumper are "afraid" of him.  Yes, we're "afraid" of him the way we were afraid of Sarah Palin. 

Just remember how the 2008 turned out while people like "Anonymous" gloat nostalgically about past presidential elections.

Chris Cillizza, Washington Post:

Republicans have a major electoral-map problem in November. 


Donald Trump’s victory last week in Indiana’s primary not only effectively sealed the GOP nomination for the real estate billionaire but also brought into sharp relief how difficult it will be for any Republican to get to 270 electoral votes and beat Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president this fall. 

Start here: 

Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election between 1992 and 2012. 

Add them up, and you get 242 electoral votes. 

By contrast, 13 states have voted for the Republican presidential nominee in each of the past six elections. 

Total them up and you get 102 electoral votes. 

There are two important takeaways from these facts: 

The generic Democratic nominee starts with an electoral vote lead of 140, and the Democratic nominee needs to find only 28 votes beyond that reliable base to win the presidency.

What that means in practical terms is that if Clinton wins the 19 states that every Democratic nominee dating to her husband has won and she wins Florida (29 electoral votes), she wins the White House. 

It’s that simple. Or if she wins the 19 reliable Democratic states and Virginia (13 electoral votes) and Ohio (18). Or the 19 states plus Nevada (6), Colorado (9) and North Carolina (15). 

 You get the idea. 

There are lots and lots and lots of ways for Clinton — or any Democratic nominee — to get to 270 electoral votes. 

There are very few ways for Trump — or any Republican nominee — to get there.


A Proud Progressive said...

What ARE The Donald's policies, other than building that YUGE wall that the Mexicans are going to pay for? P.T. Barnum was right!

A Proud Libertarian said...

OT, but relevant because Trump keeps bringing up Bill Clinton:

Since Bill Clinton is NOT a candidate for the Presidency, let's compare the Serial Adulterer, Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton.

Donald got Marla Maples pregnant while married to Ivanka. He always fools around on his current wife, while looking for her replacement. He is a cad and a Serial Adulterer.
Hillary, on the other hand, forgave Bill for his indiscretions and worked on saving her marriage. Kudos to the woman who values family and is willing to work at it.

The "Christians" are all about family values, right? Wrong. Hillary stuck with Bill "for better or for worse," and saved the marriage. We have no insight on her forgiveness.

One thing we do know is that Donald Trump is an alley cat, he's acknowledged his infidelities, bragged about them, cheated on the first wife with the second wife (so like Newt Gingrich, eh?) and the Family Values Christians have no problem with that because he changed from "Democrat Party" to "Republican Party," so his lousy family values don't matter. But wait! His children like him! Even his sons who go on safaris and kill elephants and leopards for fun! Great kids, wot?

Flying Junior said...

Some clear advantages that the republicans have going for them:

Republicans lead the pack in voter intimidation, hassles, delays and outright voter disenfranchisement. They wasted no time after their conservative justices gutted the Voting Rights Act. Republican secretaries of state and election workers seem to see their task of helping elderly republicans register to vote, inexplicably throwing away voter registration forms and ballots in democratic-leaning districts and general monkey business in skewing and tipping elections as a type of sacred work to keep democratic politicians out of power. Democratic officials tend to see the right to vote in a clean election as their sacred duty.

Republicans and conservatives in general have a large and powerful network of television, radio and print propaganda networks that work tirelessly 365 days a year to poison the minds of their unfortunate viewers, listeners and readers. Conservative churches even pass out "Christian" voting guides as well as hold political rallies on their properties.

They have a twenty-four year head start in spreading lies about the Clintons. That's why Citizens United was incorporated. It never ceases to amaze me the irrational hatred and fear that duped repulicans hold for Hillary and to a lesser extent Bill.

Republicans are just better at dirty dealing and plain old-fashioned cheating.

Dave Miller said...

Proud... his audience is not interested in policies so much as a way of "being". Remember, many of these people backed GWB, who was like a gun toting cowboy in the Middle East.

It is not the policies so much, as even at the Mother Ship, many comments belie their belief that Trump will govern as a moderate, not as the commie, vermin, moslem, libtard, socialist hating extremist that many there want. They want a kick ass, take numbers kind of guy. And that guy for them is Trump, the man who reduced "Low Energy" Bush, "Lyin'" Ted and "Little" Marco to mush.

Policies? pfff...

Dave Miller said...


Here's the thing many liberals, libertarians and others miss in respect to Hillary and the dalliances of Bill.

For years Hillary and Bill both stood side by side with many feminists who said a woman having sex with her boss was always harassment. It was a power relationship. Yet when it happened in the Clinton White House, neither Hillary or anyone else in the liberal orbit would dare accuse the Pres of the very charge they were leveling at others across the US.

It was as if there were rules for you and me in regards to workplace sexual conduct, and others for Bill.

Then early in this campaign, Hillary said women who say they have been raped "deserve to be heard and believed".

Conservatives want her to square this view with her view that the women who have accused her husband of rape are liars. Period.

Even as a lib, I find these points compelling. How does Hillary explain her views in light of her own life experiences? Are there exceptions to what she has said? Is it not always harassment? Is is not always true? If so, how do we determine that? And if there are exceptions, why did she say "always"?

Is Donald a leech? Yes, of course he is... but before we go "he is such a hypocrite" on him, let's at least admit, Hillary is not such a woman of virtue either and also has a troubled past.

Kevin Robbins said...

Shaw, love the graphic. I especially like the elephant cadaver in the corner pushing up daisies.

A Proud Libertarian said...

"...but before we go "he is such a hypocrite" on him, let's at least admit, Hillary is not such a woman of virtue either and also has a troubled past."

If you mean by "not such a woman of virtue" that Hillary slept around like Bill and Trump, do you have evidence of that because usually "not being a woman of 'virtue'" means that.

I'm not a Hillary fan or a Bernie fan or a Trump fan. I don't know the stories connected to Bill's alleged rapes or Hillary's defense of Bill against the women. But I wonder what that has to do with Hillary's qualifications for being president.

Rape is a serious crime. Has Bill been put on trial by his accuser? I don't remember a trial on rape charges. I wasn't paying attention to politics or the Clintons 20 years ago.

I found this by googling the subject:

From VOX

"Broaddrick's allegation started resurfacing this fall, after Hillary Clinton made a number of statements on the importance of believing rape accusers. On December 3, a couple of weeks after Clinton tweeted, "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported," a woman at an event in Hooksett, New Hampshire, asked, "Secretary Clinton, you recently came out to say that all rape victims should be believed. But would you say that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones be believed as well?" Clinton replied, "Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence." The audience applauded."

Shaw Kenawe said...

APL and Dave,

I'm with those who say that we need to take rape accusations seriously, but I also believe we need to be careful. And the reason for that is what we learned from the Rolling Stone rape story scandal.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Michael Gerson, conservative writer:

By Michael Gerson
The great Republican crackup has begun.

There is a growing group of Donald Trump partisans, including former House speaker Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Then there are Republican officials who publicly support Trump and privately hope he will lose in November — a group that could only be counted via lie detector, but I would test Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell first. And there are Trump opponents and skeptics, including the 41st president, the 43rd president, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan. Ryan, in particular, is providing air cover for the unconvinced.

What common views or traits unite the most visible Trump partisans? A group including Limbaugh and Christie is not defined primarily by ideology. Rather, the Trumpians share a disdain for “country-club” Republicans (though former House speaker John Boehner apparently likes Trump because they were golfing buddies). They tend to be white and middle-aged. They are filled with resentment.

Above all, they detest weakness in themselves and others. The country, in their view, has grown soft and feeble. Their opponents are losers, lacking in energy. Rather than despising bullying — as Ryan, Romney and all the Bushes do — they elevate it. The strong must take power, defy political correctness, humiliate and defeat their opponents, and reverse the nation’s slide toward mediocrity.

There have always been politicians who despise weakness and the weak. Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson are examples. They were not always bad at governing, but they were bad human beings who came to a bad end.

Shaw Kenawe said...



Those who accuse Trump opponents of elitism are engaged in a particularly mendacious slur. Trump is attempting to place nativism at the center of U.S. politics. Those who resist are not enforcing the rules of a private club. Many — including religious people in poor and working-class communities — are defending a vision of politics in which empathy is honored and the weak are placed first. They are opposing a candidate who mocks disabled people, demeans women, engages in ethnic stereotyping and encourages religious bigotry.

Those who regard this tawdry mix of vulgarity and cruelty as typical of any social class are engaged in a particularly offensive form of condescension. Hating losers and the weak is fundamentally inconsistent with Christian ethics, and other sources of moral judgment, in every income quintile.


A Proud Progressive said...

Trump stands for nothing.

All he does is claim to be for this,that and the other. And he'll be GREAT!

All he does is talk about what he is for yet nobody asks to hear his plans to implement any of those things. But he'll be GREAT!

He is a phony who like all the other GOP presidential candidates have done nothing for those they claim they want to help. Poor women who depend on Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings? SHUT IT DOWN! They scream to please their base. Yeah. That's how to help poor women.

He claims "the blacks" and "the Hispanics" like him, and that he "loves women," and yet all he does is insult, belittle, and smear every group except angry white conservative men. And he won't win the presidency with just their votes.

Jerry Critter said...

@Dave - "... but before we go "he is such a hypocrite" on him, let's at least admit, Hillary is not such a woman of virtue either..."

The hypocracy of Trump is not dependent on the lack of virtue of Clinton. They are independent issues.

Bluebull said...

As a veteran, I was sickened by Trump slamming John McCain as being not a hero due to the fact that he was a POW and, in Trump's words "I like the guys who didn't get caught." You can agree or disagree with McCain (and I rarely do agree with him), but there is simply no doubt that the man is a genuine hero who survived torture at the hands of his captors. Trump gave the finger to McCain and to every one of us who served our nation and, for that, I can never support him.
As a Native American who's oldest daughter is half Mexican, I was angered by his talk of Mexicans being "Rapists" and his implication that Mexico was deciding who to send across the border. Division and pitting 'us vs them' may work with some, but for me it disqualifies Trump from ever getting my vote.
As a father of two young women and the grandfather of a wonderful little girl, it disgusts me how Trump talks to and about women. In 21st century America, we cannot remain silent when vicious, vile mysognists such as Trump spew their hatred and fear of women. For that, Trump will never ever get my vote.
Finally, as a proud American and as a proud Progressive American, I find each and everything about Trump to be diametrically opposed to my hopes and dreams for the future of our great nation. I find his constant retort of "make America great again," to be an insult to our great nation. I agree with Hillary, we've got problems to deal with, but we're already pretty great, thanks.
In other words, Donald J. Trump is more likely to shoot cotton candy out of his nether regions than he is to EVER get my vote.
I feel very badly for actual conservatives and for true libertarians. We may not agree on things politically, but I know they also want what's best for our nation. Trump backers? I have no idea what these people want other than rampant racism, sexism and trade wars, but I know they're not truly conservatives if they're willing to vote for Trump.

Shaw Kenawe said...

BlueBull, "...but I know they're not truly conservatives if they're willing to vote for Trump."

That's my opinion as well. I will never understand the so-called Christian right who supports Trump. He is everything they dislike in a politician -- his personal family values in particular, 5 children by 3 different women -- if that were an African-American male they would be ridiculing his lack of morals -- no matter how nice those kids seem to be.

Those far right evangelical TeaPublicans who support Trump, IMO, care more about someone who will represent their tribe than they care about their religious values or America. The worst sort of hypocrites, accepting a nasty, hateful, louche.

Rational Nation USA said...

Well said Bluebull.

One point, I'm pretty sure there are many 'conservatives" whose vote will be more against HRC than for Drumpf. For many HRC has too many warts, as well as not representing their beliefs in true conservative economic and fiscal principles.

There are many who have both conservative principles (with respect to economic/fiscal responsibility) and strong liberal (libertarian) social principles. I would go so far as to argue most Americans are not true purists, regardless of their professed ideology.

The major party choices will not be good this November. For me it will be a choice between HRC and presumably Gary Johnson. What is certain is Drumpf will never get my vote for all the reasons you mention and more.

Rational Nation USA said...

I see A Proud Progressive has copied and pasted a segment of my above comment on a reichwing weblog of great notoriety. Apparently APP is nothing more than a lowlife plagiarizer, void of any original thought, and your garden variety troll.

Interesting how these anonymous snakes function.