Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
74 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Real Clear Politics Current Polling Clinton/ Trump rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge...

Bloomberg* 6/10 - 6/13 750 LV 3.6 49 37 Clinton +12
FOX News 6/5 - 6/8 1004 RV 3.0 42 39 Clinton +3
Rasmussen Repts 6/6 - 6/7 1000 LV 3.0 42 38 Clinton +4
Reuters/Ipsos 6/4 - 6/8 1440 RV 2.9 42 34 Clinton +8
Econ./YouGov 6/2 - 6/5 1636 RV 3.6 44 41 Clinton +3
IBD/TIPP 5/31 - 6/5 850 RV 3.3 45 40 Clinton +5


By no means a landslide yet.


204 Clinton 170 Trump 164


Interesting bit.

Clinton is not gaining many voters (43.2 to 44.1).

Trump is losing voters. Down from 43.4 to 38.6 in 20 days.

That's 12% of people who were going to vote for Trump on May 24th who now won't vote for him. The loss is very steep and he's about to break his lowest rating (set on april 4th) since the start of his campaign.

====

Looking at the senate races, they are mostly in contested presidential states so trumps campaign may effect active senate races a lot more than the past several elections.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/08/the_201...

Real Clear Politics is also projecting democrats to pick up 19 house seats.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/battle_for_t...
Quote:
Splitting Toss Ups 50/50, RCP projects Democrats picking up 19 seats in the House of Representatives with an overall range of 14 - 24 seats.


But if trump is doing really badly- the upper end of the range will be more likely so 24 seats is possible.

Even the average result is HOUSE: 222 D, 213 R. Democratic control of the house and so the speaker.

That would mean Hillary, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge...

Bloomberg* 6/10 - 6/13 750 LV 3.6 49 37 Clinton +12
FOX News 6/5 - 6/8 1004 RV 3.0 42 39 Clinton +3
Rasmussen Repts 6/6 - 6/7 1000 LV 3.0 42 38 Clinton +4
Reuters/Ipsos 6/4 - 6/8 1440 RV 2.9 42 34 Clinton +8
Econ./YouGov 6/2 - 6/5 1636 RV 3.6 44 41 Clinton +3
IBD/TIPP 5/31 - 6/5 850 RV 3.3 45 40 Clinton +5


By no means a landslide yet.


204 Clinton 170 Trump 164


Interesting bit.

Clinton is not gaining many voters (43.2 to 44.1).

Trump is losing voters. Down from 43.4 to 38.6 in 20 days.

That's 12% of people who were going to vote for Trump on May 24th who now won't vote for him. The loss is very steep and he's about to break his lowest rating (set on april 4th) since the start of his campaign.

====

Looking at the senate races, they are mostly in contested presidential states so trumps campaign may effect active senate races a lot more than the past several elections.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/08/the_201...

Real Clear Politics is also projecting democrats to pick up 19 house seats.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/battle_for_t...
Quote:
Splitting Toss Ups 50/50, RCP projects Democrats picking up 19 seats in the House of Representatives with an overall range of 14 - 24 seats.


But if trump is doing really badly- the upper end of the range will be more likely so 24 seats is possible.


Once the healing process is underway fur the Democrats I expect a spike up in her polling. Looks like Sanders will not be emulating Eugene McCarthy in 1968
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Plus Trump may have a problem pulling in enough of the white vote to win the election:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-isnt-winning-enoug...

2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
With the bizarre nature of the 2016 election cycle, predictions and polls right now are more likely to change than not. Still, it's interesting that Trump has lost a substantial (though by no means critical) number of voters.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just went to Yahoo and the new abc polls are even worse.


https://gma.yahoo.com/trump-unfavorables-spike-clinton-chall...#

Trump now down to 29% with 70% unfavorable rating for Trump.

Clinton and Sanders apparently had a good meeting
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-sander...

So Clinton is more likely to pick up Sander's voters now.

If the republican party dumps Trump, I think that action will hurt them badly even in stronghold republican states.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Obviously, both Clinton and Trump were helped by the fact the other party candidates were weak with the exception of Sanders. It looks more and more like Sanders could play the role of kingmaker -- if he throws his support behind Clinton, that could be the push needed to get her to 270 electoral votes. If he stays out of the race, or runs as a third-party candidate, then he will indirectly help Trump.

This has to be the most fascinating election cycle of my life.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
Obviously, both Clinton and Trump were helped by the fact the other party candidates were weak with the exception of Sanders. It looks more and more like Sanders could play the role of kingmaker -- if he throws his support behind Clinton, that could be the push needed to get her to 270 electoral votes. If he stays out of the race, or runs as a third-party candidate, then he will indirectly help Trump.

This has to be the most fascinating election cycle of my life.


I think the polls you are seeing now are without Sanders throwing his support to Clinton. If he does support her, her numbers go up. If he runs third arty, probably hurts Clinton, but has some impact on Trump, too. Net, it would make the race very close. That said, I see almost no chance Sanders goes third party (for President; he will remain third party in the Senate).
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
That would mean Hillary, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.


I'm sure that will have as much impact as Obama w/ a Democratic senate and house did.

One party system, etc, etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
That would mean Hillary, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.


I'm sure that will have as much impact as Obama w/ a Democratic senate and house did.

One party system, etc, etc.


1. Obamacare
2. Economc stimulus package
3. Wall Street reform
4. Ordered all Us forces out of Iraq (completed in 2011)
5. Auto industry bailout
6. Recapitalization of banks
7. Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
8. Reversed torture policies
9. Improved US image abroad
10. Eliminated bank participation in federal student loans
Pretty big impact in those two years. If Clinton has as much impact in her first two years, it would be a successful start to her presidency.

I recognize many on RSP do not support some or all of these accomplishments, but to suggest little or no impact is silly.
11 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm so glad you guys don't think democrats will be able to get anything done with a democratic congress, senate! No point for you to go vote at all!

Why not stay home and take a well deserved vacation for the next 3 election cycles and come back in 2024.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
actuaryesquire wrote:
Terwox wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
That would mean Hillary, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.


I'm sure that will have as much impact as Obama w/ a Democratic senate and house did.

One party system, etc, etc.


1. Obamacare
2. Economc stimulus package
3. Wall Street reform
4. Ordered all Us forces out of Iraq (completed in 2011)
5. Auto industry bailout
6. Recapitalization of banks
7. Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
8. Reversed torture policies
9. Improved US image abroad
10. Eliminated bank participation in federal student loans
Pretty big impact in those two years. If Clinton has as much impact in her first two years, it would be a successful start to her presidency.

I recognize many on RSP do not support some or all of these accomplishments, but to suggest little or no impact is silly.


2,3,5,6 were all due to a massive recession/depression. An outlier and not likely to happen again. If it did it would be bad for the Dems as they are the incumbents now.
Plus: 2 - hundreds of billions of money wasted for non-existent "shovel ready jobs"
3 - if you say so....
5 - if you say it was good....


4 - you guys say this was gonna happen no matter what because Bush made this deal. So now Obama gets credit? At least get your story straight.

8 - do you really believe that? I got a bridge to sell you
9 - really? Pretty sure the rest of the world still thinks we're dicks
10 - yay so now I can never declare bankruptcy and discharge my student loans. Plus the government has much more power to ruin my life if I can't pay! Oh and interest rates went up on the loans. What an awesome deal! Thank goodness this happened.

So you might get 6. This happened partially under Bush and continued under Obama. I would give more credit to the Fed (but they also take the blame for causing this shit too) so partial credit.

1 - I don't have the strength....I'll just say my biggest issue is the economy was crumbling and this is what he did. A major health care reform that scared the shit out of business and made the recovery take longer than it should have.

That leaves you with 7. Um whoopee!


First, Terwox implied Obama accomplished nothing in his first two years. My point was that he accomplished a great deal, not that you would approve.
Second, you are misinformed on student loans: 1) student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy, although the standard is higher than for discharge of other debts, and 2) student loans were treated different from other debt in bankruptcy long before Obama was President.
Third, suggesting responses to the Great Recession were not significant accomplishments because they were desparately needed is pretty silly.
Fourth, you are just clueless on 4, 8 and 9.

So, yes, Obama accomlished a great deal in his first 2 yeafs. you don't like the acomplishments - that's fine. But suggesting he accomplished nothing says a lot more about you than about Obama.

But thanks for playing.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eloquence fails me when I'm trying to talk about my view of America as a one party system, but I'll try:

Obamacare sucks (isn't liberal enough, wtb single payer)

Econ. stimulus packages, auto bailout... these things would have happened under Romney and a Republican congress. (Shit, Obamacare is modelled after Romney's setup for the state of Massachusetts, but nobody screams about Romneycare.)

Repealing DADT may not have happened under Romney, I guess? I like that bit.

Obama sure signed the shit where I couldn't get subsidized loans as a grad student anymore when I went back to grad school during the recession. Man, I felt SO GOOD about that. But then he signed the thing where now I just tithe 10% of my income to the holy government for 20 years and that covers it, which actually is nice. I'm really not sure that's progress for the nation, though.

And leaving Iraq? We have the islamic state now. That's not a fucking accomplishment, it's sticking to a campaign promise at the expense of horrible destruction. Killing everything with robots instead of people? We still have a neocon in office in terms of surveillance and war.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You can't just do an "under Romney" as that leaves out McCain, who I believe is on record as against the stimulus and auto bailout. Now that may just be because it was Obama.

McCain was also very against repealing DADT.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
actuaryesquire wrote:
galad2003 wrote:
actuaryesquire wrote:
Terwox wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
That would mean Hillary, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.


I'm sure that will have as much impact as Obama w/ a Democratic senate and house did.

One party system, etc, etc.


1. Obamacare
2. Economc stimulus package
3. Wall Street reform
4. Ordered all Us forces out of Iraq (completed in 2011)
5. Auto industry bailout
6. Recapitalization of banks
7. Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
8. Reversed torture policies
9. Improved US image abroad
10. Eliminated bank participation in federal student loans
Pretty big impact in those two years. If Clinton has as much impact in her first two years, it would be a successful start to her presidency.

I recognize many on RSP do not support some or all of these accomplishments, but to suggest little or no impact is silly.


2,3,5,6 were all due to a massive recession/depression. An outlier and not likely to happen again. If it did it would be bad for the Dems as they are the incumbents now.
Plus: 2 - hundreds of billions of money wasted for non-existent "shovel ready jobs"
3 - if you say so....
5 - if you say it was good....


4 - you guys say this was gonna happen no matter what because Bush made this deal. So now Obama gets credit? At least get your story straight.

8 - do you really believe that? I got a bridge to sell you
9 - really? Pretty sure the rest of the world still thinks we're dicks
10 - yay so now I can never declare bankruptcy and discharge my student loans. Plus the government has much more power to ruin my life if I can't pay! Oh and interest rates went up on the loans. What an awesome deal! Thank goodness this happened.

So you might get 6. This happened partially under Bush and continued under Obama. I would give more credit to the Fed (but they also take the blame for causing this shit too) so partial credit.

1 - I don't have the strength....I'll just say my biggest issue is the economy was crumbling and this is what he did. A major health care reform that scared the shit out of business and made the recovery take longer than it should have.

That leaves you with 7. Um whoopee!


First, Terwox implied Obama accomplished nothing in his first two years. My point was that he accomplished a great deal, not that you would approve.
Second, you are misinformed on student loans: 1) student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy, although the standard is higher than for discharge of other debts, and 2) student loans were treated different from other debt in bankruptcy long before Obama was President.
Third, suggesting responses to the Great Recession were not significant accomplishments because they were desparately needed is pretty silly.
Fourth, you are just clueless on 4, 8 and 9.

So, yes, Obama accomlished a great deal in his first 2 yeafs. you don't like the acomplishments - that's fine. But suggesting he accomplished nothing says a lot more about you than about Obama.

But thanks for playing.


Interesting on the student loan bankruptcy changes.

https://www.credible.com/blog/why-bankruptcy-courts-arent-ab...

Quote:
Consider one of the latest gestures, H.R.3451, the Student Loan Bankruptcy Parity Act of 2015. The bill would simply delete one paragraph of the bankruptcy code — about 100 words — that prohibits student loan debt from being discharged in bankruptcy court except in cases of undue hardship.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/this-court...

I don't see any evidence of legal changes on the bankruptcy but it really looks like the loan industry was greedy and overplayed their hand and will take a big hit.

It looks like there is a proposed change https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3451 which has been in committee for 9 months and has a 1% chance of being passed.

The real change seems to be a change in court attitude on "undue hardship". Previously being unemployed 64, with diabetes and multiple illnesses living on $774 a month social security wasn't enough hardship to qualify for setting aside a $90,000 debt ($60,000 interest).

----

here's the change I would make. Once you reach the wage garnishment stage, half the wages garnished would always go to the principle until the principle was paid off. At that point no further interest would be allowed to accrue.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Burt
Canada
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
My biggest concern about RealClearPolitics is that when polling Clinton, Trump and Johnson, they call it a "3-way"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
You can't just do an "under Romney" as that leaves out McCain, who I believe is on record as against the stimulus and auto bailout. Now that may just be because it was Obama.

McCain was also very against repealing DADT.


To rephrase: I don't think a Republican president would let the economy collapse, and I think they'd do whatever they could to keep it going reasonably. (Yeah, even Bush 2.)

I don't really care if the auto companies exist, nor the banks -- I just care about stability. I'm not an economist, I just care about the effects. I don't think Republicans are so incompetent that they couldn't deal with these same issues.

So yeah, like I said -- DADT, cool, I'm glad it's gone. Everything else? It might as well have been a Republican in office. (I don't really see Obamacare as better than what existed before. Insurance is still essentially a scam that now we all have to buy into.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
jmilum wrote:
You can't just do an "under Romney" as that leaves out McCain, who I believe is on record as against the stimulus and auto bailout. Now that may just be because it was Obama.

McCain was also very against repealing DADT.


To rephrase: I don't think a Republican president would let the economy collapse, and I think they'd do whatever they could to keep it going reasonably. (Yeah, even Bush 2.)

I don't really care if the auto companies exist, nor the banks -- I just care about stability. I'm not an economist, I just care about the effects. I don't think Republicans are so incompetent that they couldn't deal with these same issues.

So yeah, like I said -- DADT, cool, I'm glad it's gone. Everything else? It might as well have been a Republican in office. (I don't really see Obamacare as better than what existed before. Insurance is still essentially a scam that now we all have to buy into.)


So you think a Republican would have put Kagan and Sotomayor on the Court, and nominated Merrick Garland? Not to mention less well known but important judges in other positions? (The ones the GOP has deigned to allow to be confirmed, that is.)

There's a big difference between Democratic and Republican presidencies, not just in the the headlines but elsewhere that is also very important.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
So you think a Republican would have put Kagan and Sotomayor on the Court

wow, that's an excellent point. without Obama it's pretty certain DOMA wouldn't have been repealed nor would same sex marriage now be legal. That's important stuff.

Besides those, there are many other SCOTUS decisions and ones made by judges he appointed to the Federal courts that would be different.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, alright, that's fair too.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the parties are substantially different. It can seem like they aren't to someone who is far enough from the political center (at which point, to you, they look the same), but in addition to judicial nominees there are a wide range of areas where they differ.

I also think it's odd to look at something like the auto bailout and say that neither party would have let the economy crash so it's not so important. I think you can make a very credible case that we were in real danger of a much worst financial recession than we had, and there was a big difference between how Obama and the GOP thought we should react. It's one thing to say that one of them had a better plan than the other, but I think to say it didn't matter is puzzling to say the least!
5 
 Thumb up
0.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
Well some of us think the recession would have ended sooner with a Republican in office. Hell, did it really end?

what sort of policies do you think a Republican would have done, or done differently, that would have led to that result?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/healthc...
Oct 2013 (almost 2014)

Quote:
A few weeks ago, a CNBC poll purported to show major differences when asked about the law in different manners: 46% were against Obamacare, while only 37% were opposed to the ACA.


LOL.

Gallop..

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Republican logic:

Bush comes in with a budget surplus and a robust, if slightly faltering, economy. He leaves office with a huge deficit and a crashing economy, but somehow none of it is his or the GOP Congress's fault.

Obama comes in, improves the economy in basically every measurable way, and none of it is to his credit, nor the Democratic Congress he had for the first 2 years that passed several of his reforms.

Right guys, keep thinking you're the party of "fiscal responsibility" or whatever.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Not to mention with the exception of Carter, the economy almost always does better under Democratic Presidents, but please don't let facts get in the way of your blind partisan hatred.

Here's some charts, but there are literally hundreds available with a simple Google search: http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_charts_prove_that_th...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You do need to consider the total national debt (still increasing and closing on 20 trillion).

But also the total national debt as a % of GDP (not quite so ugly - but still needs to be slowed down / reigned in so GDP can catch up).

I.e. While obama did keep the airplane from crashing into the ocean hundreds of miles from land, he did it by borrowing money our kids and grandkids are going to have to pay for (and they don't even get a vote).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.