Republikanische Vorwahlen 2016: Endspiel
-
Glaskugel, 2012 und 2016
Wanli, 04.05.2016 19:12, Reply toThe Onion hat es schon direkt nach der letzten Präsidentschaftswahl geahnt:
https://politicalwire.com/2016/05/04/flashback-of-the-day-27/
Zu den Wahlchancen Donalds im kommenden Herbst. Ziel jedes Präsidentschaftskandidaten ist es ja, auf 270 Electoral Votes zu kommen, und da sieht es düster aus:
As we have pointed out many times, presidential elections are not much about the candidates—although with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both historically unpopular, it might be a little bit. The country is so partisan that if Donald Trump were the Democratic nominee most Democrats would vote for him, just as most Republicans would vote for Hillary Clinton if she had that all-important (R) after her name. As the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza points out, there are 19 states plus D.C. that the Democrats have won in every election from 1992 to 2012. Together they add up to 242 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. A new general-election poll of a Clinton-Trump matchup shows Clinton ahead by 13 points in Florida, a state with 29 electoral votes. A simple sum shows 242 + 29 = 271. Game over. [...]
But Trump has so many problems in so many states that this is almost the best-case scenario in a year when Colorado and Virginia are probably lost causes and Utah, Arizona, and even Mississippi may be in play.
Several factors are at work here. The first is demographics. The Republican Party is basically an all-white party and hostile to people who aren't white. As national demographics change, states that used to be all white, like Virginia and Colorado, aren't any more, so they have moved towards the Democrats. Few states are getting whiter.
The second problem is the old "Be careful what you wish for; you might get it" thing. Republicans strongly supported the run up to the Citizens United Supreme Court case and celebrated the decision. Maybe they shouldn't have. Yes, it brought it tons of money for Republican-oriented SuperPACs, but it also completely blinded the Party. It wholeheartedly embraced all the big donors and completely adopted their goals, oblivious to the fact that much of its base hated those goals. Donald Trump, clever businessman that he is, saw that nobody was advocating what the base wanted: an end to immigration, to trade agreements, to outsourcing of jobs, and to tax cuts for the rich. Add some xenophobia and racism, stir well, and you have Trump's secret sauce. Even if Trump loses in 2016, the genie is out of the bottle and next time the party may be confronted by a more polite and less overtly racist candidate who wants the same policy goals that Trump supported—and which the donors strongly oppose. The Democrats don't have any kind of problem like this. If a future candidate like Bernie Sanders got the nomination, the Democratic Party donors would be fully behind him or her. His problem is simply that he is a bit ahead of his time and Clinton is actually quite popular with Democrats; not that there is a fundamental conflict between what the donors want and what the base wants.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/May04.html#item-3
-
RE: Nö.
Wolli, 05.05.2016 17:20, Reply toTrump als Republikaner-Kandidat wird jedenfalls viele Parteigänger zum Nichtwählen zwingen.
Dieser von einem strammen Republikaner aus meinem Bekanntenkreis vorgestern auf Facebook gepostete Slogan bringt es auf den Punkt:
