DJ Barry Hammond Posted 18 May 2016 Posted 18 May 2016 @leismac Looking at your split of states between Trump and Clinton - I was wondering what your thoughts on New York might be and whether Trump could cut some ice there and what the weaker of the stronghold states for each side were?
theessexfox Posted 18 May 2016 Posted 18 May 2016 Knowing nothing about US politics, is there any particular reason why certain states are safe Republican and some are safe Democrat? And why certain swing states are the ones that decide elections?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 18 May 2016 Posted 18 May 2016 Knowing nothing about US politics, is there any particular reason why certain states are safe Republican and some are safe Democrat? And why certain swing states are the ones that decide elections? Don't take this as gospel, but I expect it has it routes all the way back to the American civil war and the very different stances the two factions had then.
leicsmac Posted 19 May 2016 Posted 19 May 2016 @leismac Looking at your split of states between Trump and Clinton - I was wondering what your thoughts on New York might be and whether Trump could cut some ice there and what the weaker of the stronghold states for each side were? New York is pretty safe Dem territory. Yes, Trump is a native but Hillary was a Senator there for a long time too, and she rules the city pretty much. Significant double digit poll lead across the board - around 18%. As for the safe states that could flip, Arizona and New Hampshire are the weaker ones on the Dem side from what I can tell, and likewise Colorado for the Repubs. Looking at the poll data though, unless there's a big change for whatever reason (a gaffe or a great performance of some kind) I expect those states to still go red or blue as pointed out. Knowing nothing about US politics, is there any particular reason why certain states are safe Republican and some are safe Democrat? And why certain swing states are the ones that decide elections? Like DJBH has said, some of the attitudes in the states go back to the Civil War, but interestingly enough it was the Dems that were in favour of slavery and all the unpleasantness back then. Around the end of WW2, the Republicans engineered something called the 'Southern Strategy', using a variety of ideas to appeal to voters in the South where they were getting massacred every election. So when the Civil Rights Movement came about, the two parties essentially flipped their positions in terms of the states they control, and have stayed there mostly since. That all being said, it's only been in the last couple of decades that the swing state prediction model like the one I have given has been really viable (Reagan won in 1984 in an utter landslide, for instance, and that doesn't happen anymore). The idea of large numbers of safe states has only been around since the early 90's, but it seems to be sticking around, as politicians from both parties don't even tend to bother campaigning in such states and focus entirely on the swing states...which really only reinforces the status quo. As for which states are swing states...often it's in an area where the combination of industries means that you have a lot of blue-collar workers out in the sticks and professionals in cities and the numbers of both are pretty similar (Ohio). or a similar effect with age/race demographics (Florida). That's nowhere near the whole picture, though - I'd recommend reading up via Google if you want to know more as there are those out there far better versed on this than I.
theessexfox Posted 19 May 2016 Posted 19 May 2016 New York is pretty safe Dem territory. Yes, Trump is a native but Hillary was a Senator there for a long time too, and she rules the city pretty much. Significant double digit poll lead across the board - around 18%. As for the safe states that could flip, Arizona and New Hampshire are the weaker ones on the Dem side from what I can tell, and likewise Colorado for the Repubs. Looking at the poll data though, unless there's a big change for whatever reason (a gaffe or a great performance of some kind) I expect those states to still go red or blue as pointed out. Like DJBH has said, some of the attitudes in the states go back to the Civil War, but interestingly enough it was the Dems that were in favour of slavery and all the unpleasantness back then. Around the end of WW2, the Republicans engineered something called the 'Southern Strategy', using a variety of ideas to appeal to voters in the South where they were getting massacred every election. So when the Civil Rights Movement came about, the two parties essentially flipped their positions in terms of the states they control, and have stayed there mostly since. That all being said, it's only been in the last couple of decades that the swing state prediction model like the one I have given has been really viable (Reagan won in 1984 in an utter landslide, for instance, and that doesn't happen anymore). The idea of large numbers of safe states has only been around since the early 90's, but it seems to be sticking around, as politicians from both parties don't even tend to bother campaigning in such states and focus entirely on the swing states...which really only reinforces the status quo. As for which states are swing states...often it's in an area where the combination of industries means that you have a lot of blue-collar workers out in the sticks and professionals in cities and the numbers of both are pretty similar (Ohio). or a similar effect with age/race demographics (Florida). That's nowhere near the whole picture, though - I'd recommend reading up via Google if you want to know more as there are those out there far better versed on this than I. Cheers, I'm studying the Civil War in history and like you say I know that the Republicans were the ones opposed to slavery expansion, I guess that's a big defining factor in American culture, when I get time I'll read up on it - I think we look at the US system a bit in politics next year.
leicsmac Posted 28 May 2016 Posted 28 May 2016 More trouble following Trump around: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36404323
Harry - LCFC Posted 30 May 2016 Posted 30 May 2016 I was pleased to see that Gary Johnson won the nomination of the Libertarian Party yesterday. Having watched the party debate it was obvious that he was the only person on stage who could represent a significant force at the election. He's done surprisingly well in the three national polls he's been included in so far, especially when you consider he hadn't yet been nominated when any of them came out. Maybe he'll get a bit more coverage now that his campaign can begin. If he does start to get more attention things could get interesting. If a candidate averages 15% in five selected national polls they have to be included in the presidential debates. Were that to occur he could be well placed to pick up a significant share of the vote. Anyway, it'd be good to see a genuinely principled candidate compete with the two self-motivated, artificial characters we see at the moment. If I were an American citizen that's who I'd vote for in November.
Guest MattP Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 That barmy old bastard Sanders is still going to be going state to state in 2017 saying the democratic nomination isn't sewn up yet like a hard left version of the Wandering Jew.
Nick Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 I'm amazed so many people take Trump as a serious prospect and not as a more dangerous version of UKIP.
Guest MattP Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 I'm amazed so many people take Trump as a serious prospect and not as a more dangerous version of UKIP. Or Sanders, a man so unsuited to American politics it's beyond belief. (although most of his supporters are young, white, naive "progressives" being radical, most of the Trump ones are old enough to know better). The reason in reality is a collapse in trust of central ground politics alongside some pretty horrific candidates. Still think Clinton will win, the female vote alone should carry her through, the only way I can see him winning is if the childish "Bernie or Bust" lot spit the summy out (which is possible) even Susan Sarandon has said she feared a Clinton presidency more than a Trump one - and that's from someone prominant on the left. Still at least it's not boring.
Nick Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 Or Sanders, a man so unsuited to American politics it's beyond belief. (although most of his supporters are young, white, naive "progressives" being radical, most of the Trump ones are old enough to know better). The reason in reality is a collapse in trust of central ground politics alongside some pretty horrific candidates. Still think Clinton will win, the female vote alone should carry her through, the only way I can see him winning is if the childish "Bernie or Bust" lot spit the summy out (which is possible) even Susan Sarandon has said she feared a Clinton presidency more than a Trump one - and that's from someone prominant on the left. Still at least it's not boring. I'm just a bit concerned that Trump in the chair will make Bush look like Barbie.
Guest MattP Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 I'm just a bit concerned that Trump in the chair will make Bush look like Barbie. Trump is just playing to the gallery anyway, if he did get in he knows the talk of walls, wars etc isn't going to happen, the Americans don't have the appetite or the finance for more war. We'll probably see some extra bombing of ISIS targets People should be more worried about investment, jobs and losing the hidden illegal Labour that has made America so rich if the Donald does get the vote rather than him invading anywhere.
BoneDog Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 Don't worry, it's without doubt going to be Hilary. It will still be quite awful for America, but maybe not quite as bad. I don't like to blow my own trumpet, but 18 years ago I predicted this day (Hilary for pres) would come. Have witnesses.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 15 June 2016 Posted 15 June 2016 Anyone think Trump's essentially blown all chance of getting elected now? Not the best idea to be quite so smug immediately following a mass shooting.
Rincewind Posted 15 June 2016 Posted 15 June 2016 Anyone think Trump's essentially blown all chance of getting elected now? Not the best idea to be quite so smug immediately following a mass shooting. The Americans will love that.
Wymsey Posted 15 June 2016 Posted 15 June 2016 Whatever any outcome on gun-control in the US, it's still going to be the usual result - a manic person/couple go on a rampage at some school, bar/nightclub but never get caught alive. There's reports the FBI want to unlock the gay club shooter's phone but Apple are standing themselves.
foxy boxing Posted 16 June 2016 Posted 16 June 2016 If Hillary gets in the White House she will have to watch bill with those interns,every time she sees him smoking a cigar she will be wondering where it has been and she will be checking the female staffs dresses for stains
MC Prussian Posted 16 June 2016 Posted 16 June 2016 I find it quite revealing how suddenly mainstream media have ceased to report on Bernie Sanders, pushing the Clinton vs. Trump agenda. It's as if Bernie doesn't exist no more. Still, he has a (slim) chance of beating Hillary at the convention or so I thought.
leicsmac Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36582770 What an idiot. Like this is going to help.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36582770 What an idiot. Like this is going to help. Do you reckon this will result on a Universal ban of Brits going to the US until "we can figure out wha the hell is going on?"
leicsmac Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 Do you reckon this will result on a Universal ban of Brits going to the US until "we can figure out wha the hell is going on?" It might be funny to see how this is spun in the aftermath. Lone wolf Brit or terrorist?
Webbo Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 It obviously isn't terrorism and if he thought he had a chance to grab a policeman s gun and shoot Trump he probably a bit mental or at least extremely thick.
Guest MattP Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 It might be funny to see how this is spun in the aftermath. Lone wolf Brit or terrorist? Just complete idiot I think, as Webbo says earlier not the greatest action plan. Pathetic cry for attention.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 In other news, Trump got rid of his campaign lead yesterday and has a massive funding deficit compared to Hillary - plus the contrived revolt plan from some inside the Republican Party has not been beaten down yet. I suppose of the funding front, Trump might not need as much given he can hold a front page by just making another outburst and I saw an interesting point that highlighted if he's only around 6pts behind with hardly any funding, what could he do with a little more? Could it be, turmoil over here in Europe might have a spin on effect in the US, giving the governing Democrate position impossible.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.