Message auto-removed
rpannier
(24,304 posts)In many states there are propositions, local elections: school boards, mayoral races, city councils/village boards, etc
Vote for a 3rd party, don't vote for the Presidential candidate, but do vote for the rest of it
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Funtatlaguy
(10,856 posts)A Dem Senate means a confirmed 5th Justice for us.
edhopper
(33,208 posts)Clinton maintains a commanding lead.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)Also, in this case, Rasmussen is propping up Trump to make it look like he has a chance.
7962
(11,841 posts)it looks to me like he has NO chance.
NEVER SAY NO CHANCE....thats when you look like an idiot...trust me, Trump never had a chance to win the nomination....hmmmm it was going to be JEB JEB JEB..... yeah right....
7962
(11,841 posts)And I was telling people in the summer it wasnt going to be Jeb; Bush fatigue
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)That is why those numbers for Clinton are so damning for a GE. And to boot she is tied, already.
Calamity I tell you!
GO BERNIE, AND MAKE 'THE CASE'!
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)a 52% - 54% voter turnout.
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)least the local races, but they don't. If the voters have to bring Maalox or Tums to be able to vote, they just won't take the time to do it.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)in rain and snow to hear him talk and to see him will not turn out to vote for him.
I sit back at night and wonder what kind of nation we would have if we had free and fair elections. MLK must have seen it when he went to the mountain top.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)So if typical turnout is 54%, they would expect it to be about 41% for this particular matchup.
The idea of record low turnout is not shocking, when you're putting up two candidates who both have unfavorables over 50%.
Also see post #25.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)54 - 24 = 30 ....
so I don't understand the 41
Perogie
(687 posts)It's 24% less than 54% that vote
So 24% of 54 is about 13%
54% - 13% = 41%
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)Of course, a lot can happen between now and November, too. The poll is based only on what people are saying today.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)We are assuming that 54% of eligible voters are actually "likely voters."
If 24% of the 54% (who are likely voters) don't vote, it means that 76% of them do vote.
How do we figure out what 76% of likely voters comes to? That is, how do we calculate 76% of 54%?
Multiply 54 times .76.
54 * .76 = 41
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...to be former Republicans for POTUS, US Senate, and Representative. Yep, turnout will be low.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Cruz as well. Trump's a fascist, Cruz is a theocrat.
I could be wrong, but both of them are 2016's version of Sarah Palin.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Besides that, Rasmussen polls are always republican heavy until the last minute. I think Rasmussen is the only pollster giving Obama a negative rating right now.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)So turnout would be 24% lower than what would normally have been expected.
(If you read the link, you will see that this was not a poll among all registered voters, but rather, one among likely voters, which I believe is based mostly or entirely on who has voted in presidential elections in the past. I don't know how they account for voters who have only recently become old enough to vote... but as neither Trump nor Sanders has extraordinarily high youth appeal, that factor might not alter the stats much anyway.)
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Especially coming from Rasmussen
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)can find solace in the fact as they contribute to the problem....same attitude of Nader voters in 2000 who gave america 8 years of GWB/Cheney....luckily this time around it won't happen
Javaman
(62,442 posts)I didn't vote nader than, I voted for Al. but Al also ran a really shitty campaign that didn't help anyone least of all himself.
so blame nader all you want, I choose to go with the facts.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The powers that be have already decided who they want for president and whoever that is will win by hook or by crook.
And the only race that matters is the Dem nominee...and they got that covered.
And we little people are just bit players in the show.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)They will instead vote for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Response to Herman4747 (Reply #6)
Name removed Message auto-removed
blm
(112,920 posts)working together on GOTV efforts to overturn GOP governor and legislature and the US Supreme Court justices who have been making many lives in this state as miserable as possible.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)blm
(112,920 posts)Did you read Terms of Service before you joined?
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Gore won the election. If you have a problem with why he wasn't president, talk to the Scalia 5.
Over 200,000 Dems voted for Bush in Florida, twice the total number of votes Nader received. So, even if Nader hadn't run, and his votes had split in Gores favor, it wouldn't have offset the number of Dems voting for Bush.
Also, if Gore 2.0 had run (the unapologetic liberal one who championed global warming in 2003, as opposed to the centrist in 2000) he would have won hands down.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I am sorry that this upsets the "pragmatists"
Javaman
(62,442 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)New Third Way Democrats pursue money, not ideology. Money IS their ideology. Dovetails nicely with the GOP.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Only the privileged opt out of political races.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I am sure it will convince everyone to slap their forehead and change their mind.
People who no longer have any faith in the system also opt out, as do people who understand that voting for the lesser of two evils still means voting for evil.
Vote for my candidate because they suck less and are not as corrupt is not going to motivate people.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Only the privileged apathetic opt out of political races.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)It's the poor, the disenfranchised and the broken who do not show up at elections.
It's the privileged who are always there at the polls. It's why we are in our current situation.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)Kittycat
(10,493 posts)To choose.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)Kittycat
(10,493 posts)I will vote for down ballot. I will vote for candidates who haven't crossed a line too far or who have recognized that they themselves need to step back. But I will not vote for racism or war Hawks or neoliberal a that bow at the corporate trough and forget those they're elected to serve.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)It cuts both ways.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)The perfect Vice President would pull many of those voters back in for the general election. If the nominee is Hillary and she picks another Joe Lieberman or John Edwards then she will be a tough sell in November. She doesn't need a Joe Biden for the ticket because she has experience and Joe was picked for Obama because Obama needed experience to balance the ticket and he already brought excitement to the ticket.
For Hillary, she needs a Julian Castro or Cory Booker. Both of these men bring excitement to the ticket. They are young, progressive democrats and they also appeal to minority voters. Castro has serious appeal to Hispanic voters and Booker was able to bring high voter turnout to his Senate special election race in New Jersey because of his popularity.
You put either of these candidates on the ticket and it's a total win.
And no, not Bernie Sanders. I adore him but I think he would be useless as a Vice President. I'd like to have a VP that could feasibly run after Clinton serves her 2 terms (or Sanders serves his 2 terms) and I think Bernie could do more good for the country fighting hard for us in the senate. If it means anything if Bernie gets the nomination I wouldn't want him to pick Hillary (I'd still go with Castro or Booker although I think he'd be considering Warren too).
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I think he's only running for president because his conscience couldn't allow him to idly stand by.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)I really don't know who rounds out the ticket for Hillary enough to draw out all the Is and Rs she will need to win.
Response to Name removed (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)blm
(112,920 posts)because you're so much more pure than all those Dem GOTV activists working longer and harder hours in their states to overcome gerrymandering and increased voter restrictions put into law by GOP legislatures and governors.
Ya know
..We just don't get enough of those posts around here.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)you have no chance of winning.
The party bosses decided to have Clinton the nominee come hell or high water. The fact that so many will pay the price, has never occurred to them. They want what they want, how do you suppose this country has ended up in the position it has.
Z
blm
(112,920 posts)efforts of diverse groups in a swing state like NC.
For us there is only the stark reality of working longer and harder to overcome what GOP Supreme Court justices and the NCGOP have done in this state.
And the stark, very real differences between GOP and Dem parties that exist, especially in the nomination of Supreme Court justices who have had a serious effect on voting rights in this state.
That may not be of consequence to some here, but it matters GREATLY to the millions of us effected.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)No excuses!
NONE! ZERO! Nothing. I will not debate with anyone who will not vote!
zalinda
(5,621 posts)If she can't close the deal, it's no one's fault but those who put her in the GE in the first place.
If I go to a car lot and the salesman can't sell me a car, then they have failed. Period. I was there, I was ready to buy. It's their fault they lost the sale.
Z
liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)If you don't like the candidates, get involved in party politics and make some changes happen. Poor analogy with the car lot crap - apples to grapefruit.
You can't sit back and say that you don't like the candidate so you will not do anything. That is not how democracy works.
I really wish voting was compulsory, then no one would be able to make that claim.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)has no claim on being a progressive.
As far as big money, Bernie spent more than Hillary by 50% in Jan-Mar. so money doesn't always win.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)blm
(112,920 posts)in any of my 6 decades. Does he ever have a rally that corpmedia isn't giving wall to wall coverage?
News reports about HRC are usually planted smears from GOP ops commenting on all of her 'crimes' and 'investigations' and polls questioning her 'honesty'. Sanders was treated to reports about how 'young' and 'idealistic' his supporters are without giving any serious consideration of what was being said.
I doubt the corpmedia will reflect on what they are doing. They have determined Trump is a goldmine for them.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)exceeded the tiny amount given Clinton was worth. The super pac spending was just reported to the FEC, so it is available to everyone who is interested.
blm
(112,920 posts)were given.
Wall to wall coverage versus scattered reports here and there about Dem candidates. Granted, most of the HRC stories from corpmedia were highly negative.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I sent the money for him to spend it to try to win the election. You Clinton people should worry about your own damn candidate.
Oh, and I've been a far left progressive my entire life. I really think Trump would be more of a progressive than Hillary. Yes, I do!
So you can take your judgments about people and throw them out because they are worth nothing.
Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)and it doesn't carry a log of it's travels with it.
I do feel sorry for people who think they are progressive and would vote for Trump over Hillary. Of course, I don't believe that progressives can be far left.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)then money spent on campaigns buys votes. So since Bernie spent more, he should have had more votes. He didn't.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)in a number of issues. It matters what the voter wants and needs from the nominee. If they hate war, they will consider Trump over Hillary. If they need a job they will consider Trump over Hillary. If they hate the trade agreements, they will consider Trump over Hillary.
She has far more negatives than her supporters are willing to acknowledge. And Trump has far more positives than Hillary supporters are willing to acknowledge.
Z
blm
(112,920 posts)He intends to employ worse forms of torture than water boarding.
He gets HIS products made in China with the 'deals' he personally made.
And when, in modern history, have Republican policies resulted in job growth greater than Dem policies?
And I am replying to you NOT as an HRC supporter, but as a Sanders VOTER - Trump does not have ANY more positives than HRC and all the propaganda in the world isn't going to make anyone with active braincells believe he does.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Democratic values have really been twisted.
Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)single word descriptions of what you think are progressive, but I don't get how you moved to democratic values from there.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)where did you find that? I'd like to look at the 'other' match-up
Response to floppyboo (Reply #35)
Name removed Message auto-removed
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
mountain grammy
(26,571 posts)but I will vote. I will always vote, if for nothing else then to influence my state and local offices who are doing the real damage to democracy in our country. As a white woman, I've faced no roadblocks to vote. Never a problem. I'm privileged and I know it and definitely won't waste it. Too many have died for this right, and I don't mean in some foreign war, but right here in the good old US of A.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)you am a grammy. I vote for them and with the young. But unless Bernie somehow wins this thing I do not see much to base my vote for president on. They are all three beginning to sound alike. But only one has been saying the same thing for 40 years.
The other two have been swinging around like a merry go round that cannot stop. In the back of my head when I think of voting for Hillary is always the question "Does she mean it?"
Vogon_Glory
(9,086 posts)i have no respect for the idea that voting for Hillary is the same as voting for someone who'd make Dubya look moderate.
This country cannot afford another Republican in charge--witness the Iraq invasion and what happened to New Orleans as examples.
These Hillary equals Trump posts remind me of the sloppy thinking and lizard-brain thinking of their right-wing counter-parts.
Response to Vogon_Glory (Reply #41)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Vogon_Glory
(9,086 posts)I admit it. I'm jaundiced. Whenever I read one of these "purity" posts written by people who say they'll never vote for the leading candidate my first impulse is to check their profile, date of joining, and wonder if they're working for Roger Stone and the Trump campaign.
Hillary Clinton is far from perfect, but she's far better than the avatar for racism, sexism, and military adventurism currently leading the Republican pack.
You may call me a DNC dupe; but I think of your sort as the RNC's "useful idiots," as foolish as the Republican moderates still voting for their party's extremist candidates thinking that they might be lucky and get thrown a bone.
Vogon_Glory
(9,086 posts)I just want to make that clear. It's not that I'm a nice guy, but I usually prefer my arguments to have contexts.
blm
(112,920 posts)because, when you live in a swing state like NC there is no fantasy one can entertain that there is no difference between the parties. We are stuck LIVING with how much damage the GOP can do when it reverses decades of progress and gains made by the Dem leaders they replaced.
The RandPaul supporting 'no difference' crowd can go fvck themselves
.gently
..with a chainsaw.
Response to Vogon_Glory (Reply #41)
Post removed
blm
(112,920 posts)statements where he contradicts himself.
Brilliant decision.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)Vogon_Glory
(9,086 posts)Sell that fable to the DREAMERS, maybe they'll buy it
I don't.
-------
And the big question for those of us Hillary-supporting cynics for the day is if Roger Stone pays his cyber-minions by the piece or for quality?
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Boomer
(4,159 posts)He's emotionally disturbed. He has a classic case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That alone renders him unfit for any position of leadership.
He doesn't have policy positions, he has ego-driven needs for attention. He will say anything at any given moment to get attention and feed his ego. What he said 5 minutes ago is irrelevant to that need.
What appalls me the most about the success of the Trump campaign is that there are so many people in this country who are oblivious to his disability and mistake his delusional self-aggrandizement for strength of mind and purpose. Now THAT is scary.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)the public, offering up two candidates that are neither trusted or well liked by the general public...
If dwindling membership and a relatively unknown Independent Socialist in his 70's giving a Dem party icon a run for her money doesn't provoke some genuine internal soul searching searching then I'm afraid the Democratic party is heading over the same cliff the Republicans have already gone over...
underpants
(182,279 posts)This is not good news.
peace13
(11,076 posts)...should not mandate a bad decision on anothers. This is all look part of looking at the facts and making decisions. All if this is really out of order anyway. We don't know what the choices will be until after June.
Response to underpants (Reply #55)
Post removed
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)Trump: 66 percent of GOP voters would vote for him, 10 percent would vote for Clinton
Clinton: 75 percent of Democrats would support her, 11 percent would vote for Trump. Clinton is starting out with more registered Democratic Party members - so she only drops down to 74%.
Pivot To:
I find the Republican Party "true hearts" far more interesting. That shows a high level of disgust amongst people who generally do what they are told and who are spoon fed what to believe by Fox, Breitbart, etc. etc.
Could that many really be thinking for themselves? 10% crossing over? 16% third party? 5% out of total disgust just sitting home?
What have they done wrong over there?
Who would that 31% have preferred?
It's obvious where the 25% who just hate Clinton's guts would prefer Sanders or a ham sandwich - but with that WIDE huge field on the right - 1st string and 2nd string debates back in the late Fall and early Winter -
Who was it they had hoped would stay in the race? They had plenty of people to choose from. Why couldn't they get it together?
Aviation Pro
(12,053 posts)...just as in 2008, the parties will unify and this 24% figure from a poll taken in the Spring will be nothing more than a fart in a thunderstorm.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)you only had to choose what design you wanted. That is the only reason people came together.
This is not 2008. One candidate is made from denim and the other candidate is made from taffeta, they are not interchangeable fabrics.
Z
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)Sec. Clinton will win the GE in a landslide. Heck, 2012 was very nearly a landslide and '16 will top that. I am most definitely not worrying my little head about it. Stay home on election day if you want to, it won't matter. Plenty of us WILL be voting that day, and we'll be voting for Hillary Clinton. The United States of America's first female President. I cannot wait!
zalinda
(5,621 posts)Laser102
(816 posts)You want to vote in the Democratic primaries, become a democrat. If not form your own party of independents. Do the work Democrats have had to do and stop complaining about us. Close your primaries so we can't get in and screw you over. Better than kvetching. Do something.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Jimbo S
(2,955 posts)because too many Dems wouldn't vote for them Dem candidate. Neither did I, I wrote-in another Dem. Shame on me.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Chico Man
(3,001 posts)I'm sure it will be the first time he feels like he has "lost" to a woman in his life. It will be sweet.
As much as Romney thought he would beat Obama, Trump's own delusions of grandeur go far beyond.
Blue_Adept
(6,384 posts)It's surely making all the right people smile.
liberalgunwilltravel
(316 posts)I am sure that Trump and Clinton would nominate the same "quality" of people to the Supreme Court. Right.