Trump

[pogo]

Americans do all their voting at once, don't they? So if disillusioned Republicans sit this one out, does that suggest a Democrat advantage in Congress?

It suggests it, but it‘s far from clear cut or obvious. I think there are a few things going on. One, Trump is certainly wrecking the Republican brand. Not only is he on course to lose, boosting the Democrat share of the vote, but he is attacking other Republicans for not supporting him, making it less likely his own supporters will vote for them. That’s why other Republicans are so worried, they face the horrible choice of backing Trump and so associating themselves with his madness, or opposing him and inviting his attacks.

On the other hand though there may be some voters who deliberately split their vote, so vote Clinton for president but Republican for Congress. This may be to balance things out, or as they are deep down Republican but cannot bring themselves to vote for Trump. It’s unclear how significant this is though; it may have more of an impact in years when there isn’t a presidential election, and the party in the Whitehouse usually loses seats.

Another factor is the built-in bias that benefits Republicans. Because of gerrymandering they have more safe seats than Democrats, and it’s quite possible for Democrats to get more votes but Republicans get more seats in the House or Representatives. There’s no independent Boundary Commission like ours to fix this, it is up to highly partisan state legislatures where the boundaries are drawn.

[gravy]

Americans do all their voting at once, don't they? So if disillusioned Republicans sit this one out, does that suggest a Democrat advantage in Congress?

I was initially imagining it going the other way -- that Republicans would feel motivated to vote to keep Hillary under control -- bit I hear a lot about people sitting this one out.

But I don't know how they do it and if people would still make the trip even after giving up on casting a vote for president. There's all sorts of other stuff to vote on. Like soda tax. They do it all at once, right? In the same place?

Swing voters decide a lot in US politics. The core support from GOP and Dems mean they're part of the duopoly while floating voters usually decide which of them are in power.

There are exceptions in regional votes where local issues trump (lol) national ones but mostly the above is true.

[KlaxonCow]

They do it all at once, right?

Looking at Wikipedia, broadly yes.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are voted on in Presidential years and at the Midterms. So it's every two years, but that's a "yes".

The Senate is more interesting, as there's 100 seats and they split it (roughly) into thirds. Class I (33 seats), Class II (33 seats) and Class III (34 seats). The votes occur every two years in the Presidential and Midterm years, rotating through the classes, electing senators for a 6 year term. So it's kind of a "yes", as at least a third of them will be changing hands in a Presidential year anyway.

The Gubernational votes are a bit all over the place. 11 states do this in Presidential years, 36 states do it at the Midterms, 2 states (NJ, VA) do it in the first off-year after the Presidential year and 3 states (KY, LA, MS) do it in the second off-year after the Midterms. So "yes" for 11 states, but "no" for the others.

State and Local votes happen whenever. There's no overall national pattern to that, each state and county comes up with its own rules.

So it's not a 100% "yes" because the Senate is done differently, but it's mostly a "yes" because Presidential years do mean that a large chunk of the other political offices go up for grabs too.

[pogo]

The other factor is demographic. Democrat and Republican bases are very stable, much more than here. But the Republican base is shrinking, the Democrat one is growing. The fastest growing ethnic groups are minority ones, due to immigration and higher birth rates, and they vote mostly Democrat (in some cases such as Blacks overwhelmingly Democrat).

Some Republicans recognise this and have tried to address it head on with comprehensive immigration reform. The was a major cross-party push for this early in Obama’s presidency, with the “gang of eight” - four Democrats four Republicans – coming up with a workable plan. But that plan fell apart due to opposition from Tea Party Republicans, who have been a growing force within the Republican party for a decade or more.

The other approach is the one Donald Trump is trying: double down appeals to disenfranchised whites with racist appeals to their worst instincts. But this does not help with the fundamental problem of a fewer white voters. The more Trump stirs up his base with such appeals, the more he drives away more moderate whites and even further damages his standing with ethnic minorities.

And it keeps getting worse for them. America is on course for whites making up a minority of the electorate within a few decades. If that happens and Republicanism hasn’t changed then not only will winning the presidency be impossible for them but congressional and state elections will more and more be won by Democrats.

[pogo]

[pogo]

Apparently not everyone liked that:

Watched Saturday Night Live hit job on me.Time to retire the boring and unfunny show. Alec Baldwin portrayal stinks. Media rigging election!

FWIW, SNL is topping the ratings with its topical coverage of the election.

[gumboot]

What I imagine is much core support normally goes in and ticks anything marked Republican without thinking too hard about it. This time a lot of people who would normally go in to tick the Republican president box have given up, so Republican congressfolk may miss out on a lot of default votes.

Alternatively, Republicans may see that they've lost the presidency already and now feel a lot more pressure to do what they can to keep Hillary under control.

[pogo]

Probably some of both. Really hard to call how it will affect races down the ballot which tend to be harder to predict due to the vagaries of local polling.

More SNL; this time the women in his life in the style of Beyoncé. You can see why he was so annoyed with it – it’s good, funny and spot on.

[Dio]

Personally? I think it's going to do the opposite. A bunch of people are going to vote Clinton and take the entire Republican slate to make them feel less dirty. America has always had a tendency to swing opposite ways for President and Congress and I think this is going to emphasise it.

The whole race is showing how she has far too much baggage to be a decent candidate. Any moderate Republican would have probably had an easy time of it, and a less encumbered Democrat could have made Trump (look even more of) a fool.

[pogo]

The whole race is showing how she has far too much baggage to be a decent candidate. Any moderate Republican would have probably had an easy time of it, and a less encumbered Democrat could have made Trump (look even more of) a fool.

I disagree. She is the most qualified candidate for president there has been for a while, with her experience and expertise. The only “baggage” she has is associated with that experience, but that is much more positive than negative.

What she does have is a Republican party which will use any means it can to defeat her. So it looks for controversy where there is none, or even manufactures issues wholesale to try and smear her. The e-mail scandal is trivial compared to what the Bush administration got up to. The Benghazi scandal is even more artificial in that it was nothing to do with her. Trump has brought his own brand of it. Resurrecting Bill Clinton’s sexual misdemeanours and trying to somehow pin them on her, and implying her gender makes her unfit to serve.

This would happen to any Democrat. Obama experienced many racist attacks, not least the racist Birther conspiracies. John Kerry four years earlier had his war record challenged by lies told by “Swift Boat” veterans. Republicans know they have no hope winning arguments on policies, as their policy platforms do not stand up to inspection. So they instead use lies, including any they can get away with about their opponents.

[gumboot]

Trump has brought his own brand of it. Resurrecting Bill Clinton’s sexual misdemeanours and trying to somehow pin them on her,

Well it's totally her fault for not putting out, right?

[Dio]

Radio 5 last week was covering the US election in detail and they hardly found one person who thought Clinton was a decent candidate. Indeed, there were probably more people who were unquestioning of Trump than Clinton; the almost-universal opinion was that these were two really crappy candidiates.

[pogo]

I think many people don’t like her, but that is not really a problem. Just look at the UK. Jeremy Corbyn is by far the nicest, most likeable leader of any major party in a while. But he is also the most unelectable leader of any major party in decades. The Tories meanwhile are generally disliked, both individually and as a party. But we keep electing them: we don’t want nice and likeable in government, we perhaps worry they would be unable to make the hard choices needed.

Separate is the hate for Clinton expressed by Trump and the more enthusiastic of his supporters. But this is entirely irrational, and is such is not likely to be believed beyond a small hardcore. If anything the debates solidified this, as voters got to see for themselves she is not some sort of monster but a normal and effective politician. Voters don’t have to like her to see she is the far better candidate than Trump.

[gravy]

I think many people don’t like her, but that is not really a problem.

It would be in a normal election. I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney would have beat her for example.

She's kind of responsible for Trump ever being viewed as serious competition to becoming POTUS.

He's fucked now obviously but not because of any of Hilary's positive traits, he's fucked because he's done a better job opposing himself than the democrat's candidate.

[Dio]

I think it's right to a degree that it's hard to separate an honest negative perception of Clinton and one generated by the opposing campaign - but that it's relatively easy for the opposing campaign to make the mud stick is in itself an indication of baggage and an electoral handicap.