Trump vs Hillary 2016

Quote: ams288

If Hillary wins Florida, it's game over for the Orange man...

Probably. But don't forget the scenario I posted where Hillary doesn't win a single state that Obama lost, and the remainder are divided up as follows. I call it the DJT white, not Latino path to victory.

Of course, it is not really a likely to happen as Hillary is polling well in Pennsylvania.

Hillary
29 Florida
13 Virginia
16 Michigan
9 Colorado
6 Nevada

Doesn't really matter
4 Maine WNL
4 New Hampshire WNL

Trump
20 Pennsylvania 20
18 Ohio 18
10 Minnesota 10
10 Wisconsin 10
6 Iowa 6

I still think this election is strongly about voting against a candidate, more than for a candidate. When that happens the Libertarian party does well. It may have it's best run this year in history. Could make the election highly unstable.

Trump is very unlikely to alienate his fans at the last minute. Hillary has a better chance of passing out at the microphone and scaring the undecideds.

Libertarian Party Presidential did well in 1980 and 2012
1980 Ed Clark David H. Koch 921,128
2012 Gary Johnson James P. Gray 1,275,971

Quote: Pacomartin

I still think this election is strongly about voting against a candidate, more than for a candidate.

It's almost as though both parties want to lose this year.

In a nutshell, the problem is hit: Clintons isn't popular, Trump is unpopular.


BTW, Heinlein's Maxim is that there's always a candidate worth voting against.

Quote:

When that happens the Libertarian party does well. It may have it's best run this year in history. Could make the election highly unstable.

That's all it can do.

Gary Johnson is the best candidate in this election, but his chances of winning it are only slightly better than mine. As things stand, it would take a miracle for a Libertarian, or any other third-party candidate, to win a general election. In time it may happen, but only if said third-party replaces one of the two main parties (kind of like when the Republicans replaced the Whigs).

And that Aleppo blunder really hurt him.

This article is actually about why no IRS employee (with a personal grudge against Trump) has leaked Trump's tax returns to the news media. Considering that the IRS employs 84,000 workers, their discipline is rather remarkable.

But in an unrelated tangent, I noticed this little nugget of trivia:

Quote: Washington Post

It all started with Richard Nixon.

Running as Dwight Eisenhower’s vice-president in 1952, Nixon got in trouble for maintaining a secret campaign fund. Eisenhower and other candidates released their full returns that year in a bid for transparency after the ensuing scandal — though Nixon, ironically, did not.

The former president faced a day of reckoning, though. In 1973, information from his tax returns was leaked by an IRS employee to the Providence Journal-Bulletin. The next year, the agency figured out the identity of the leaker, who “quit under a threat of being fired,” as The Post put it at the time. No one was ever prosecuted for the Nixon leak, tax historian Thorndike said.

But the leak changed history. Since then, every major-party nominee for president has released at least a year’s worth of tax returns except for Ford, who released only summaries. And every president since Jimmy Carter has released his returns while in office.

Trump is setting a terrible precedent.

Quote: Nareed

Gary Johnson is the best candidate in this election, but his chances of winning it are only slightly better than mine. As things stand, it would take a miracle for a Libertarian, or any other third-party candidate, to win a general election.

Since the beginning of the 20th century only 4 times has a third party candidate received any electoral college votes. The most notable was when former POTUS Teddy Roosevelt destroyed the Republican party, his former party, for failing to nominate him after a 4 year absence and ditching his hand picked successor, William Taft.

Taft ended up winning only two states with 4 electoral college votes, while Teddy won 6 states with 88 ec votes. Taft and Roosevelt together secured 7,608,963 popular votes which was substantially higher than Woodrow Wilson's 6,296,284 popular votes. Had Taft or Roosevelt conceded, it is very doubtful that Woodrow Wilson would have won, and the history of USAs involvement in WWI might have been substantially different.

1912 Progressive Theodore Roosevelt 88 ecv (6 states)
Pennsylvania 38
Michigan 15
Minnesota 12
California 11 (of 13)
Washington 7
South Dakota 5
1924 Progressive Robert M. La Follette 13 ecv (1 state)
1948 States' Rights Democratic Strom Thurmond 39 ecv (4 states)
1968 American Independent George Wallace 46 ecv (5 states)

If the Libertarian Party ends up being a spoiler in 2016, it is not clear which candidate he will help.

Quote: Pacomartin

Had Taft or Roosevelt conceded, it is very doubtful that Woodrow Wilson would have won, and the history of USAs involvement in WWI might have been substantially different.

IMO Roosevelt would have rushed the US into the war earlier. Though it's doubtful he'd have led troops into battle personally (but you never know).

Quote:

If the Libertarian Party ends up being a spoiler in 2016, it is not clear which candidate he will help.

Right now they have more potential to "take" votes from Clinton.

The Aleppo Blunder (TM) looks really bad, though. Even when he caught on and answered rather sensibly, Johnson looks like a complete fool when he asks "And what is Aleppo?" Seriously, look at the clip and tell me you don't feel embarrassed on his behalf.

Quote: Pacomartin

If the Libertarian Party ends up being a spoiler in 2016, it is not clear which candidate he will help.

It depends on the state and frankly, it depends on the pollster. Most of these hypothetical match-ups used by pollsters include Green Party candidate Jill Stein, so it's tricky to isolate just Gary Johnson's effect on the race.

This article is worth reading.

Quote: Jacob Levy

let’s look at this new New York Times/ Siena College poll of Florida. When pollsters offer respondents only the choice between Clinton and Trump, they find a 43%-43% tie.

When the respondents are offered Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, the results are 41-40-9-2, a one-point Clinton lead.

Suppose that 3/4 of Stein’s voters chose Clinton and 1/4 Trump in the two-candidate question. That means that Stein’s effect on the race is (.75-.25)*2= -1 point for Clinton.

Since the overall effect of adding Johnson and Stein to the question is a +1 move for Clinton, that means Johnson’s net effect is +2 points for Clinton, enough to more than outweigh Stein’s effect (unlike in the national polls), and to move Florida from a tie to a narrow Clinton lead.

With the exception of marijuana legalization, I think most of Gary Johnson's policy positions appeal to GOP voters, not Democrats. For example, Johnson is polling at 23% in red Utah. He's polling at 19% in South Dakota, Idaho, and Alaska.

Quote: reno

With the exception of marijuana legalization, I think most of Gary Johnson's policy positions appeal to GOP voters, not Democrats.

That has always been the issue with libertarianism in general. To some people it means removal of government from financial affairs, and to others it means removal from social affairs. Historically it has produced strange bedfellows.

So Trump wants to make a mess of trade policy, which would quickly 1) engender a recession, 2) cause markets worldwide to collapse, and 3) destroy millions of jobs.

He also wants to spend around $600 billion dollars over, one assumes, four years to 1) build a wall at the border and 2) expel every last "illegal" immigrant. Many of whom are engaged in productive work and a vast portion of whom pay direct income taxes, and all of them pay indirect taxes (sales taxes, property taxes, etc.) This would mean burning good money after bad, for a net loss on government revenue. I've heard of spending money to make money, but it takes someone very "special" to advocate for spending money to lose money.

Question: how much does Donald Trump hate America?

Quote: Nareed

So Trump wants to make a mess of trade policy, which would quickly 1) engender a recession, 2) cause markets worldwide to collapse, and 3) destroy millions of jobs.

He also wants to spend around $600 billion dollars over, one assumes, four years to 1) build a wall at the border and 2) expel every last "illegal" immigrant. Many of whom are engaged in productive work and a vast portion of whom pay direct income taxes, and all of them pay indirect taxes (sales taxes, property taxes, etc.) This would mean burning good money after bad, for a net loss on government revenue. I've heard of spending money to make money, but it takes someone very "special" to advocate for spending money to lose money.

Question: how much does Donald Trump hate America?

That question is easy to answer Nareed. He hates America a little less than you hate Trump.

Quote: kenarman

That question is easy to answer Nareed.

I'm a little late on this image, but the episode "Bart to the Future" which aired in the year 2000 predicted Trump as POTUS