2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum24% of voters will opt out of a Clinton-Trump race.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump and Clinton tied at 38% each. But 16% say they would vote for some other candidate if the presidential election comes down to those two, while six percent (6%) would stay home. Only two percent (2%) are undecided given those options...
...Trump is more toxic within his own party than Clinton is in hers. If Trump is the Republican nominee, 16% of GOP voters say they would choose a third-party candidate, while five percent (5%) would stay home. Sixty-six percent (66%) would vote for Trump, but 10% would vote for Clinton instead.
If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, 11% of Democrats would vote third-party, while three percent (3%) would stay home. Seventy-five percent (75%) would support the nominee, but 11% say they would vote for Trump.
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, nearly one-third say they would opt out: 21% would choose a candidate other than Trump or Clinton, and 10% would stay home. Trump leads Clinton 38% to 27% among unaffiliated voters...
Link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/24_opt_out_of_a_clinton_trump_race
Emphasis mine.
Mz Pip
(27,454 posts)A lot can change in 6 months. Election Day is to far out for really accurate predictions.
runaway hero
(835 posts)She should not rest on her laurels.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)And then immediately followed up with the I formthat in 2008, there was also a 25% stat of those disappointed Hillary supporters who would not vote for Obama. Time, SCOTUS, the Republican nominee, women's rights, and social safety net...and yes, the first black President, all played into a great many of this non voters, changing their mind.
I must say, after the WHCD last night, Obama's firm, clever, amusing, informed, calm, measured demeanor (something he was vilified for from the right and even some on the left), seems like a god send in Comparison to what is being offered from the Right. We had been more lucky in having Obama for the last 8 years than we can ever imagine. Hillary may not have the comedic sense of timing that Obama has (very few on this planet does), but she is calm, and measured, informed etc etc.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)people of color know what's really at stake if NAZI Trump gets in the WH and we continue with a GOP terrorist controlled Congress. So we're gonna rock the vote like our very lives depend on it because it does.
The rest of y'all can have a seat.We got this.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)more or less anyone who doesn't believe the world exists to cater to their whims and fancies
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)just got EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW and there's no way in hell we're gonna let that be overturned.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and that will be a motivating factor to vote and not sleep in
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)To vote in primaries or not registered dems.
runaway hero
(835 posts)She needs to come out and campaign hard. Trump is malleable, don't forget that.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Just as not *every* POC voted for Obama, or Kerry, or Gore, or B. Clinton.
But an overwhelmingly high percentage of POC will vote for Clinton. And a very high percentage of women will vote for Clinton. And a decent enough percentage of white men will vote for Clinton. Put it all together and Clinton is likely to win in an electoral college landslide.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Good thing we only need 50% plus 1 to elect her!
I'm getting more and more confident we are going to have a great November!!!
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Not, "50% +1". Many Presidents have been elected while not garnering 50% or more of the vote.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)is the same as voted for Bush in 2000. Jaw-dropping numbers for those voting third party from both parties. I doubt the third party Dems will reconsider and fall in line with Clinton, but I suspect a lot of those Reps will end up voting for Trump.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)but I think Trump and Clinton are both awful.
I live in CT, the DEM nominee will win my state.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)Just curious...
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)...but then again we all know by now the priorities of the current Democratic Party.
TM99
(8,352 posts)but you continue to dismiss us.
Only 25% of registered voters are Democrats. If 11% of those vote 3rd Party, 3% stay home, and Trump leads with independents, the Democratic Party is fucked because Clinton loses the GE.
Thank the gods it is not too late to do the right thing and support Sanders for the GE.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)before its too late.
TM99
(8,352 posts)too smart, does it?
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)that has won so many converts
TM99
(8,352 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)That's been clear all along. I think they'd back Clinton over Sanders even if she was indicted.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Fighting for their own corporate paychecks over party and country.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)That's per the Establishment Democrats. The GE is another matter.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Look at Clinton's lead among superdelegates in states which Bernie won handily.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)The current round with Jane as his main surrogate is not going well.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Jane is fantastic. So take your sexist bullshit elsewhere.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)but much better than Devine/Weaver. Those guys did a lot of damage to Bernie's brand.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Yes, that man is an incredible surrogate.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)you've crossed the line here with "sexist bullshit"
TM99
(8,352 posts)me sticking up for his wife as she is slandered and attacked here for no reason.
So you ready to call out some HillaryBros on their 'fat' attacks of Jane Sanders on social media, or are you too busy trying to lecture to me?
Yes, someone has crossed a line, but it is not me!
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Isn't the way Bernie would respond and expect his supporters to respond.
Lecturing seems to one of your specialties.
"Yes, someone has crossed a line, but it is not me!" Oh yes it is, trying to play bully and censoring freedom of speech is way beyond the line.
Let's see what you got now.
TM99
(8,352 posts)and harass users after I was suspended from another site for bad behavior towards mods and fellow Sanders supporters.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and i am free to choose who, when and where I post.
I see your ignore post was a complete lie.
"bad behavior" Is your definition of censoring free speech and locking threads with your childish behavior
TM99
(8,352 posts)Keep it up. You are revealing yourself for everyone to see.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)You are exposing yourself as a calculated promoter of the censorship of "free speech" for all to see, congratulations
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Just like you don't have a right to free speech in a private establishment.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)So a corporation trumps the constitution, wonderful
Wanna take a guess what the Revolution is all about.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The first amendment only prevents the government from limiting your speech, there are and have always been a huge number of other limitations.
Try going to work and telling your boss you think he's and idiot for instance, or walking into a bar and loudly talking about how bad you think the beer is there. You can say whatever you want, but others have a right to fire you, eject you from their premises or in this case delete your post data from their website.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)So what do you think a Pro-Bernie, Pro-Revolution website should do?
You forget to tell us what the Revolution was all about, should The People have the power?
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Be more important than a website owners right to not have things they find harmful to their business posted on their own site, using their storage space and their bandwidth?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Is it profit over people?
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)You keep repeating this bizarreness about 'the Revolution' as if it has any meaning in this discussion, which is frankly quite odd. Sanders doesn't have any weird positions about changing how the basic tenets of the constitution work, so why is he relevant here?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Do you think money should be free speech? Do you think this is a weird Bernie position?
What about "pure speech" do you think that should be free speech?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment to the Constitution
"A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it protects several basic liberties freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Interpretation of the amendment is far from easy, as court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. The definitions have evolved throughout American history, and the process continues today".
A constitutional right with limiting court definitions (see post 90)
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The distinction of it being a protection against government curtailing of free speech is not and is never likely to be up for serious discussion. The discussions traditionally revolve around areas where one persons right to expression collides with another persons constitutionally protected rights.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"Do you think money should be free speech? Do you think this is a weird Bernie position?"
My right to expression, isn't that a wonderful concept?
"Pure speech in United States law is the communication of ideas through spoken or written words or through conduct limited in form to that necessary to convey the idea. It is distinguished from symbolic speech or "speech plus," which involves conveying an idea or message through behavior. Pure speech is accorded the highest degree of protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The problem with money affecting election campaigning is a result of constitutionally protected rights clashing. The right to a free and fair democratic process is impeded if people can just spend unlimited money on elections.
The idea that those people should be prevented from censuring speech in a private setting though is just completely unworkable, deeply undesirable and would be a terrible restriction on people's right to control personal property.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"The right to a free and fair democratic process is impeded if people can just spend unlimited money on elections." So why did the RW court define it as such and why shouldn't it be a principle to overturn it in a people's movement?
"terrible restriction on people's right to control personal property." You mean like the 1% and above after transferring our money into their "personal property" vaults. This would be a terrible restriction, unworkable but deeply desirable to "We the People" so it's time to find a way to do it, it's called the Revolution
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:
We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.[37]"
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)The 1st Amendment of the Constitution says that the government will make no laws abridging free speech. It says nothing about private individuals. That's the whole point, to protect your right to speak against the government. It says nothing about private parties limiting speech in places they control. This is a common misconception on the right. Just saying.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it protects several basic liberties freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Interpretation of the amendment is far from easy, as court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. The definitions have evolved throughout American history, and the process continues today".
So the court's interpretations is defining the right to expression.
and "pure speech" is "highest degree of protection"
"Pure speech in United States law is the communication of ideas through spoken or written words or through conduct limited in form to that necessary to convey the idea. It is distinguished from symbolic speech or "speech plus," which involves conveying an idea or message through behavior. Pure speech is accorded the highest degree of protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
"The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:
We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers."
So this is right wing thought, huh sounds pretty progressive to me. Did you notice the part "impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" kinda sounds like private corporations, too
It's already protected in the private world thru slander and libel isn't it?
"We the People" pursue freedom of expression everywhere and corporate rule (dependent on states to exist) should be returned to serving the people and not profit.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Quit with the deflection and conflation. You're the one who erroneously brought up constitutionality vis-a-vis communication on privately owned websites. How has the government prohibited your speech?
Sheesh, it's like arguing with an adolescent.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and the constitutionality is defined by the courts, you must have overlooked that.
You see private corporations are only granted existence by state governments and the Fed, FCC sets rules for the media.
So its time to maintain and insure "PURE SPEECH" exists everywhere, that's what a movement of change is all about.
"The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:
We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers."
So this is right wing thought, huh sounds pretty progressive to me. Did you notice the part "impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" kinda sounds like private corporations, too
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Last edited Sun May 1, 2016, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)
The founders never envisioned that private corporations would usurp sovereignty, they were to provide for the people and not profits
When a private corp. can erase your "pure speech" tell you what to think, how to vote, how to dress, what words you can and cannot say, what you can do in your free time, etc. society has gone completely astray.
If you choose to live in that world, go for it but I choose a people's movement for change, "The Revolution"
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)What you seem to be demanding now is the right to post whatever you want to, using the storage and bandwidth paid for by other people. Why would you imagine that is fair?
And why do you keep talking about corporations when this began about posting limitations here? Do you bizarrely imagine Skinner is a huge corporation?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)The founders never envisioned that private corporations would usurp sovereignty, they were to provide for the people and not profits
When a private corp. can erase your "pure speech" tell you what to think, how to vote, how to dress, what words you can and cannot say, what you can do in your free time, etc. society has gone completely astray.
If you choose to live in that world, go for it but I choose a people's movement for change, "The Revolution"
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Which is why they didn't do so. The very idea is ridiculous, if you had pure free speech you could call your boss a stupid idiot and they'd have to be fine with you expressing that. It completely erodes the idea of freedom of association.
Mz Pip
(27,454 posts)That will change pretty fast when the GOP PACs and super PACs start flooding the media with negative ads portraying Sanders the second coming of Stalin. They've left him alone but if he's the candidate it will take 30 seconds for the hit job to begin.
We shall see.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)"Thank the gods it is not too late to do the right thing and support Sanders for the GE."
How do you do that when you support anti-Bernie titles like "Berni Sanders, Enemy of the World's Poor"?
TM99
(8,352 posts)Don't drag your personal issues from one forum to the next.
Not only is it wildly inappropriate, but god damned creepy.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)trying to censor debate and speech.
You dragged your personal issues onto my thread and it was "wildly inappropriate"
TM99
(8,352 posts)You are way the fuck out of line.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Now you're out in the open, nowhere to hide and this is all you got.
Censorship of free speech, now there's a line not to cross.
TM99
(8,352 posts)If you have a problem with me at another site in another capacity, have the maturity to bring it up with me there in private.
But what you are doing here is beyond creepy. It is grossly inappropriate, immature, and demonstrates quite bizzarre behavior for a supposed adult.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"If you have a problem with me at another site in another capacity, have the maturity to bring it up with me there in private."
You came barging onto my thread with your problem in public with no PMS and now you ask for PM's
"It is grossly inappropriate, immature, and demonstrates quite bizzarre behavior for a supposed adult." Your childish bullish actions is beyond creepy and shows absolutely no class at all. You should resign in disgrace because censorship of free speech will never be a Bernie principle.
TM99
(8,352 posts)and that is being kind.
No one has censored you. No one.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)with your fingerprints all over it.
Your actions of controlling speech is crooked and cruel "and that is being kind"
Hypocritical thought, now there's some straight thinking.
TM99
(8,352 posts)elsewhere. But I can here.
Rant away and get in the last word if you must, I won't be reading any more of your delusional nonsense.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)When you have to defend yourself you fall flat on your face.
So run away and hide and take your Establishment decorum with you.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Oh damn you are delusional.
I am only putting you on Ignore so I don't have to read your dribble and be tempted to put you in your place which will get me hides instead of the weirdo stalking me should.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Your Establishment decorum should be free of any hides.
Stalking, what a joke. I caught you out in the open where you are stripped of your childish toys. Anti- American, anti-Bernie "delusional" actions and your"weirdo dribble" and I'm not running anywhere, bring it.
TM99
(8,352 posts)here appears to be the user who was suspended for bad behavior towards mods and other users at another site.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)your lie of putting me on ignore is vividly clear right here on this thread.
Shame on you for being a liar in plain sight
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"Please show some decorum and maturity."
How's it feel to have to stand on your own 2 feet and not hide behind a super duper moderator
Renew Deal
(81,882 posts)Better to lose with dignity than under the pressure of threats from the Sanders crowd
TM99
(8,352 posts)when y'all are in control and want to remain that way.
But when the reality of compromise and coalition building smacks y'all in the face, now it is blackmail.
It is not dignity that you will lose under, it will be pride.
Renew Deal
(81,882 posts)I'm not in control of anything.
You made a threat.
"Thank the gods it is not too late to do the right thing and support Sanders for the GE."
TM99
(8,352 posts)It is that simple.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)What has the Turd Way ever had to sacrifice for the "coalition"?
TM99
(8,352 posts)on nothing.
Sure they triangulate but that is only lip service to the left and benefits to the right.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)joshcryer
(62,277 posts)The people who are overwhelmingly annoyed or apathetic are not a demographic that the Democrats have relied on for years now.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)the ones that need to do the math.
donco
(1,548 posts)happen between now and Nov.For instance, a third party run is not out of the ballpark if hump looses his bid in Cleveland.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)If they don't give a damn who governs. We will manage without the irresponsible.
marlakay
(11,508 posts)Doesn't surprise me because Trump is not really a big republican.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)That is so ugly.
Voter turnout among whites will be low, depressing the numbers imo.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)They're loving the "made for TV high political drama" and Trump knows exactly how to play the role for them.
Will the season finale in November be a general election victory or a defeat? Such a cliffhanger! I can't wait to watch.
runaway hero
(835 posts)He will lose but it will be less then six points. He is putting on a marketing class right, and succeeding at it.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Among general party democrats which many of my friends are, I believe their support is unquestioned. But, among independents and even democrats that don't like her for whatever reason, she is anathema. And if the media keeps giving Trump all that airtime - as they did today on all three cable shows - it's anybody's guess who will win. I used to assume she had it in the bag. But now, I'm not so sure. There has been so much disgust with party politics on both sides, Trump's anti-establishment reputation could win out. Esp. if enough people do sit it out.
When so many people voted for Bush Jr., I realized Americans can make some really dumb choices. If they like this guy - and I sort of like him in spite of myself - he can win.
onenote
(42,779 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)76% turnout would be phenomenal for the US. It was 64% in 2008.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)Well we need a third party to pull away the cross-over votes since they will pretty much cancel each other out. 24% is enough to get funding for a 3rd party. Perhaps some good would come of this, and that may finally wake up both NCs.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)76% turnout would be phenomenal. It won't happen. Turnout was under 58% in 2012 and under 62% in 2008.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and that same Media will record every insult and folly he makes. Hillary is in a position to take advantage, but only if she tells her advisors to stop trying to keep her along a path of just waiting for Trump to ruin himself. She needs to play Matador, making that idiot charge right into the sword.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Many seem to refuse to believe it...but many are going to sit this race out.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Turnout in 2012 was below 58%. Turnout in 2008 was below 62%. Turnout in '04 was about 60%.
24% is nothing. 40% is more like it.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)And no matter how you want to sugar coat it or make excuses....turnout compared to 2008 is way down.
Voters hate their choices. It's truly is that simple.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I suspect 2016 turnout will be between 55 and 65 percent, as usual.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)have that kind of energy. I hope she can reverse her numbers soon. They've been in the tank for months and months now, and still going down- opposite of Bernie's trend. Oh well...there's not much more I can do than what I have been. I was thinking of taking some time off after convention to re-charge, and my plans won't be changing. I have multiple projects at home that cannot wait, and this fall is when I intend to get them done.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)Why stand in line and do something when your vote doesn't mean anything.
The parties choice is a bad retread and the other guy is your drunk uncle.
The Parties want these two, the populace doesn't.
We are in for a decade of shit.
And I as a single person have zero power to change it.
Democracy!
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)I can believe significant dropoutsboth partiesby those voters who participated in their respective partys caucuses/primaries who are not okay with their partys eventual nominees.
YesI can believe that there will be Republicans and Democrats who participated voting during primaries season and are genuinely turned off and will reject Republican Donald Trump (R-New York) and Democrat Hillary Clinton (D-New York).
The numbers would have to get made up in the general electionmuch more participation there. (They are not comparable.)
In 2008, there were about 131 million votes cast for president of the United States. That came down to 128 million in 2012. So, I would not be surprised if that number goes lower. It would actually support, to an extent, this issue.