What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

538 does a good job describing what their models predict in the battleground states if the national polling of D+3 to D+5 is correct. That the battleground polls do agree with their model is fine for them, but one important result is that NV is finally starting to "behave" now that the better polls are starting to come in. Hitherto, NV has been polling as much more red than one would predict from demographics, and nobody had a very good theoretical reason for this (i.e., why only NV?). With NV results seemingly starting to collapse towards expectation that could potentially remove a warning sign that this election is different enough that the modeling is missing something important. It could still be, of course.

There are two other trends I have noticed in the state polls (not addressed in this piece) that I'd like an explanation for:

(1) Why is IA leaning so red? I would have expected this if the GOP nom was heavily religious but the Chrome Cretin is about as irreligious as any GOP candidate could be.

(2) Why are OH and PA moving in opposite directions relative to expectations, with PA significantly bluer and OH significantly redder than expected? If the reason for the former is the density of under-educated,under-employed whites, why isn't that also giving Trump a boost in PA? In prior elections these two have trended as one (albeit with OH starting a little redder), but this time they have decoupled. Why? What changed in just 4 years? I can't think of any particular reason for either state to have animus against or affection for any of the four on the major tickets. The only near native son, Pence, I would think would affect them equally.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Iowa is lily white, and Ohio is whiter than Pennsylvania. If I had to guess, Pennsylvania is also the most educated of the three. Philly outweighs the western half of the state.

One other thing with Iowa right now is that the farm economy is down from its highs, which impacts not only the rural areas but also the major industrial employers in the state (John Deere, Monsanto, etc.).

If you're a white collar professional in Des Moines or Cedar Rapids, you're much better off than eight years ago. If you're a farmer or otherwise attached to the ag sector, you're still better off than eight years ago but it doesn't feel like it because it's been down the last couple of years.

And there's the closeted (and not so closeted) racists and sexists, too.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Kepler said:
(1) Why is IA leaning so red? I would have expected this if the GOP nom was heavily religious but the Chrome Cretin is about as irreligious as any GOP candidate could be.
Click to expand...

Evangelicals love him! It's part of their proud tradition of shooting themselves in the foot, electorally.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Kepler said:
There are two other trends I have noticed in the state polls (not addressed in this piece) that I'd like an explanation for:

(1) Why is IA leaning so red? I would have expected this if the GOP nom was heavily religious but the Chrome Cretin is about as irreligious as any GOP candidate could be.

(2) Why are OH and PA moving in opposite directions relative to expectations, with PA significantly bluer and OH significantly redder than expected? If the reason for the former is the density of under-educated,under-employed whites, why isn't that also giving Trump a boost in PA? In prior elections these two have trended as one (albeit with OH starting a little redder), but this time they have decoupled. Why? What changed in just 4 years? I can't think of any particular reason for either state to have animus against or affection for any of the four on the major tickets. The only near native son, Pence, I would think would affect them equally.
Click to expand...

On (1) I'd say it's because the Christian right has been effectively brainwashed over the last 30-40 years. One would think Jimmy Carter would have appealed to Christians far more than the divorced Hollywood actor. One would think they'd shun the likes of Giuliani, Gingrich or Trump -- 9 marriages between them and God only knows how many affairs. Or Sarah Palin, who failed miserably to teach her daughter to keep her legs together. But they flock to them in droves.

(2) is odd to me as well. The two states seem so similar, and in past elections have voted similarly. Both are -- give or take -- around 80% non-Hispanic white. Both have similar numbers of people with 4 year or advanced degrees, although PA is a little more educated. Having lived in both (PA for a couple of years until 2001 and Ohio now) I will say the rural areas of Ohio seem even more "rural" to me than Pennsylvania. Outside of NE Ohio (where I live) the Trump love is large. Even union members love him. Last year in a non-scientific phone poll of members of the union I am employed by, 25% of the respondents indicated Trump was their choice. I was shocked.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

But then why wouldn't he just admit it? Instead he's clung to the bs audit excuse.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

I don't have to like it, but what Trump did was most likely legal. 1995 was a year where he was still operating under the terms of all the debt restructuring deals he made with his creditors in the early 90s, and he was under intense scrutiny at the time. When he made his final trip to bankruptcy court about a year later, the people auditing him admitted they had gone through all of his submissions with a fine-tooth comb, and couldn't find anything wrong with his financial statements, or any of the deals he had made.

Tax lawyers - gotta love 'em.

He doesn't want anyone to see the returns, because he knows the media will jump all over the narrative that he didn't pay any personal income taxes for almost 20 years (or longer). And that will lead to further investigations into his debt restructuring deals, thereby keeping the story of his bankruptcies in the news. In case you haven't figured it out by now, Trump doesn't like it when negative stories about him come out. :p
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

The good news is it's legal; the bad news is it shows how incompetent he is at business. :p
 
Kepler said:
The good news is it's legal; the bad news is it shows how incompetent he is at business. :p
Click to expand...

If IF he spins it as he made a series of bad business decisions, learned from them, and recovered the loss in X years, he'll strike a (small) chord with the small business owners who have failed before getting it right.

Nah

And if HRC goes after him, I'll trot out the auto industry coup that violated every bankruptcy principle.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

joecct said:
If IF he spins it as he made a series of bad business decisions, learned from them, and recovered the loss in X years, he'll strike a (small) chord with the small business owners who have failed before getting it right.
Click to expand...

Except he won't be able to spin it that way, because one can easily find documentation that his casino resort businesses have declared bankruptcy on 2 additional occasions since the early 90s, with his ownership stake being reduced each time in exchange for favorable restructuring deals.

The only thing Trump learned from his initial "comeback" was to never, ever personally guarantee a business loan.
 
joecct said:
Looks legal. It boggles the 99%, but folks, welcome to the life of the rich and famous.

If you don't like it, change the tax code.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't doubt it is legal but if it's still shady...plus it begs the question what is he hiding now ?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I don't have to like it, but what Trump did was most likely legal. 1995 was a year where he was still operating under the terms of all the debt restructuring deals he made with his creditors in the early 90s, and he was under intense scrutiny at the time. When he made his final trip to bankruptcy court about a year later, the people auditing him admitted they had gone through all of his submissions with a fine-tooth comb, and couldn't find anything wrong with his financial statements, or any of the deals he had made.

Tax lawyers - gotta love 'em.

He doesn't want anyone to see the returns, because he knows the media will jump all over the narrative that he didn't pay any personal income taxes for almost 20 years (or longer). And that will lead to further investigations into his debt restructuring deals, thereby keeping the story of his bankruptcies in the news. In case you haven't figured it out by now, Trump doesn't like it when negative stories about him come out. :p
Click to expand...

Because it kills his whole "Hillary doesn't care about you because look at all of the jobs that have left" story. While they have been paying good money towards taxes, money they could have put towards retirement or college for their kids, money they have been paying so they get basic services like roads and schools, money they would happily pay as part of the social contract to provide for these basic services, he has been making 100x times them yet paying squat. It's one thing to make more money then them, more power to him if he can accomplish that, but then to pay nothing while they are sacrificing for it, when he wouldn't even notice the money gone, is something the Hillary campaign needs to hit and hit and hit again. If you get that message right, they don't care how much of a paper loss he took one year, he's still living in his solid gold condo and flying everywhere, yet they're still giving good things up to provide for the basic society we need to live in, and he's not paying a penny. His whole message is he will get back at the people living high of the hog while they work and get nowhere. If it looks like he's one of those people, then that basically kills the entire message of his campaign.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Handyman said:
...Oh I don't doubt it is legal but if it's still shady...plus it begs the question what is he hiding now ?
Click to expand...

This could also apply to the emails and the pneumonia that featured Hillary. ;)

As for the latter part of my comment, if she just came out and said, "Yup, pneumonia. Trying to push through, but can't do it." Ok, cool. Crap happens. But she didn't. So what else is she going to try and hide?

Obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate here, and not trying to fully equate specific things. Just general "what is (candidate) willing to hide?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top