Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

This article posits that Trump would need to win 70% of all white men in the U.S. to win a majority, which is a staggering, unprecedented amount in the modern era:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699?paginate=false

that's a lot of pints to buy

nobody here is saying Reagan Democrats are the only votes that really matter

i know no one here is necessarily saying that, but I am seeing an increasing discussion of it in the media over the past few weeks. There's been all sorts of talk of rust belt states like PA, Michigan, and Wisconsin potentially going for Trump after not going republican for nearly 30 years.

Had a feeling MI would pull through. \m/

I did the same calculations a couple of weeks ago, trying to convince a friend that Trump couldn't win. I started from two premises, both extremely conservative: same turnout as 2012 (turnout for a Trump election will likely be massive on the left), Democrats get 85% of African-American/Hispanic vote (also unlikely--sure it will be more like 90-95%). I came up with Trump needing to win 61% of the white vote, which only happened in '64, '72, and '84, all historic landslides.

xp so that wasn't necessarily directed at this board, i guess i'm honestly kind of bored that the media's already breaking out the same tired stuff I've seen my whole adult life, horse race speculation from people who can't quite shake the narrative of that demographic bloc representing "real america".

@clemenza

the 70% in the second article i linked to was for white men, not sure if that's relevant to your calculations

The 62% in the first article was specifically "white working class"

xp got it.

Thanks, I haven't read the piece yet. I went by Gallup's breakdowns on this page:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx

Just grouped all white voters together independent of gender/income/whatever.

cool, thanks clemenza

Cruz projected to win Iowa.

i imagine so

xpost you mean ohio

Idaho

Rubio has an amazing 0 delegates tonight

rubiomentum

took me three re-reads to realize I typed Iowa and not Idaho. too goddamn late here.

he means 40(b) but....

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/707430680133763074

Do you think these big data people get a raging boner when their computer finishes downloading a new set of spreadsheets?

don't really think about nerds and their erections

Nothing's hotter than a Nate Silver fantasy, and I'm sure even straight guys can agree on that one.

https://twitter.com/cdcarter/status/707438000163127297

Ok funny or die lurking writer needs to fess up

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/691b209fe7/finnish-news-team-reports-on-u-s-elections?_cc=__m___&_ccid=47bce0c034d440bc

Didn't see Trump's speech earlier tonight, but apparently he was claiming that Trump steaks are still around, they didn't go under, and he brandished some steaks to prove it. A panelist on CNN pointed out that the steaks were from a local butcher and not his own.

Van Jones: "He's lying about his meat again."

So seeing my name mentioned a lot in this thread since last night, do people really want to hear my thoughts on Michigan?

1) Great surprise, great victory, no doubt. At first I was dismayed, got way too caught up in the sport of it, but fuck that. However, does anyone really believe this changes anything fundamental about the primary? He still lost black voters by 35-40% (which is now considered really good...) he's still losing the pledged delegate count, and even if it turns out polling is off by 20% over the entire midwest, he won't make it up.

2) This just prolongs his defeat. Which is great! I've said repeatedly that I hope Sanders continues in the race, so this is good for that.

3) However, if he doubles down on an anti-free trade message, it could be the same. He won't win on that message, and the trade agreements weren't the cause of the decline in the rust belt, but another symptom of a wave of globalization that the west was ill suited for, due to the conservative waves in the eighties. And also, how does anti-NAFTA rhetoric track with hispanic voters?

(Also, anyone complaining about my 'smugness' in teaching US citizens about their own country, go to literally any debate on here where I try to explain what is going on in DK. Start with the Ice Age thread. This attack is massively hypocritical.)

for the record, your name was mentioned because we think you're a clown, not because we wanted your thoughts

One doesn't preclude the other.

Also, I don't care what you think, kevin.

"HEY I am also a smug dick about my own country's politics too! Not just on this thread!"

@pareene
An irony of Sanders' success with whites is that he is the opposite of what Democratic Party elites said they need to be to win back whites

"Race back to the middle" they said.

I'm not gonna run away and pretend something striking and unexpexted didn't happen. But what I've been saying all along is still right.

so...you'd like to point out that you've been otm on this thread?

@dick_nixon
I would like to reiterate at this point what a dumb son of a bitch Mitt Romney is. I think the events of the night warrant it.

morbs are dennis perrin and dick nixon the only people you follow on twitter

i don't follow anyone

"This wasn't unexpected for us" -- @HillaryClinton Deputy Communications Director on @BernieSanders' Michigan win

‏@ggreenwald
Actual LOL

http://i.imgur.com/MF30iTu.gif

so...you'd like to point out that you've been otm on this thread?

― Neanderthal, 9. marts 2016 14:06 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, surprisingly enough, I have. Luckily for me I didn't try any predictions about Michigan, other than saying he wouldn't make up his delegate deficit there. Which turned out to be technically tom (though of course not what's important)

LOL Sanders has a two hundred+ delegate deficit obv he's not going to make up his deficit with one state that only has 120 something pledged delegates. That's some serious OTMing there, Fred. What wondrous and surprising predictions will you make next?

Got dammit, you're dumb.

He needed to win Michigan by a lot more than he did to begin making up the deficit. There, is that spelled out enough for you?

It's not an insightful point however you try to spin it.

Did I claim it to be?

Not that you appear to have ever made an insightful point on this thread (or any US politics one) which you mostly fill with vapid and obvious political predictions and defensiveness.

You appear to be patting yourself on the back on some sort of master of US political knowledge and prognostication all the time! If that was all meant to be humor, CONGRATS your dry Dane wit appears to have snookered all of us.

Yeah, that's not true. Go back and read. But then again, who cares, you're not trustworthy. You've shown yourself over and over to be a liar, and nobody believes what you're saying.

Fantastic Donald Trump imitation! Now tells us about your hands!

your dry Dane wit appears to have snookered all of us.

Snøkered all of us, I think you mean

dnftD