And I see the same analogy Crocket....only in the complete reverse with the bag being a garbage bag size and contents fresh for HRC.
Since Maine is polling well for Hillary, I looked up the 2012 results...Obama won by 15 pts. So, how is Trump "such a disaster"? Also, there is this: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146605145036/persuasion-update-clinton-vs-trump
Trump down 2 in latest poll. Regardless, in last election, that Nate Silver guy said to look at the state polls of battleground states to get a better picture.
Fox News Poll: Clinton up by 6 points, 89 percent say 'hot-headed' describes Trump http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...9-percent-say-hot-headed-describes-trump.html
Re all the dumping on Romney: He almost won. A few states were the hinges. Both of these two candidates have such high negatives that neither is going to get much separation from the numbers we usually expect for their parties. I.E., not many Republicans are going to go for Hillary or Dems for Trump. Whoever gets their vote out in greater numbers will win and right now I would say the passionate vote is for the beauty pageant promoter, so I think he has a chance. When I ask pro Hillary friends why they like her they almost invariably start talking about what a jerk Trump is. Little enthusiasm for Hillary, though I do get some enthusiasm for the idea of a woman president. That should be some help for her. But the negatives are just unbelievable. Either party could have nominated somebody else and had a much easier ride.
Clinton +2 in new national poll and tied in FL. What a disaster!!! By the way, very few state polls are post-Brexit vote.
Lots of time between now and November - plenty of time for one of the candidates to pull a total bonehead move and blow it. Hillary and Trump are both capable of such a bonehead play.
Oh my god, it's a disaster! Trump only raises $51MM in June (and most of it coming in the latter half of the month). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-for-his-campaign/?wpisrc=al_alert-politics
How much did you send him? Good for Trump for getting his fundraising going. He still has a long ways to go based on these paragraphs from the article.
My token Trump supporter friend on Facebook posted the same story. I'm not sure why you all claim he's viable by comparing him to candidates who lost. That doesn't make a lot of sense. I'd compare him with a candidate who won like George W. Bush. After all, I doubt HRC will judge her campaign a success by matching John Kerry's performance.
Cause people like yourself were predicting a 10-15 pt loss, and then using this faulty forecast to rationalize why they wouldn't vote for Trump, as if Cruz would have a better chance. Basically a big case of butthurt for Cruz and establishment supporters. Furthermore, people also said Trump would hurt down ticket races. That may be the case for other reasons, but not because of a lack of support.
In other words...Trump has less support than Romney but is closer to Romney than expected so all is good? How much did Romney lose by again? It might be too early to search for silver linings.
People seem to downplay the fact that Trump is hanging close against a mostly unified Dem party while many Reps are still withholding support in a holding pattern. Trump is winning big with his Rep fraction of loyal supporters and independents. Hillary has already consolidated a good portion of her whole base. Once Cruz, Ryan, and other major players whip the base up for Trump and never-Hillary at the convention, the unifying dividends will shift this race into a neck-and-neck poll dogfight by August. It would be a mistake to underestimate the value of Trump's sizable lead with Independents. If he consolidates the Rep base to a respectable level, big trouble for Hil. Cruz's speech and role at the convention will make all the difference in the world. How far he digs in behind Trump could decide the election. If he speaks solely in favor of the party and anit Hillary, it will help. But if Cruz rallies his ultra-conservative portion to stand big time behind Trump in addition to the rest...uh oh.
HRC has consolidated the Dems? Someone needs to tell a few HS friends (Sanders supporters) that continually post about how she should be in jail and that the DNC should turn to Bernie. Honestly, I see more support for the Libertarians. 2-3 different conservatives yesterday looking to Gary Johnson. Like here, I told them I'd join them if Trump isn't competitive in Washington State.
What I've said is that the electorate is too polarized to have a Reagan-style blowout. Furthermore, that wasn't the main reason I opposed Trump, and I was never a Cruz supporter.
One advantage Trump has that no other Republican candidate would have, is the potential to grab a percentage of the trade union vote which traditionally has voted Democrat. The Democrats basically abandoned labor unions about 20 years ago. They still accept their donations and pander to the crowd, but they really don't represent them. Democrats now pander to the "professional class" such as lawyers, doctors, techies, and Wall Street. That's where the money is. Democrats didn't have to sweat the fact they betrayed the unions simply because the unions had nowhere else to go. With Trump, they think they have an alternative. So no, the Democrat Party is far from unified. They will get the majority of the black vote, the LGBT vote, and probably the Hispanic vote, but labor is up for grabs.
I generally agree with your characterization of the Democrats. Their relationship with unions has definitely changed dramatically in the last 20 years. They've made a trade. They gave up the economic nationalism (hostility to "free" trade and expanded immigration) that was friendly to unions and substituted a globalist agenda ("free" trade and expanded immigration) and more identity politics in order to appeal to the professional class and Hispanics. If you're looking at it entirely from a political standpoint, it's hard to blame them. The professional class brought a lot of money with it, and the Hispanic demographic is growing, while the union vote has been shrinking for 50 years. Furthermore, they didn't have to sell out all unions. They're still favorable with service employees and especially government employees (the only union sector that has grown in the last several years). They really only sold out the industrial trade unions, which have been in the steepest decline, and like you said, so long as the GOP was hostile to labor unions in general, they had no where to go anyway. I think it was a smart move for them. The entire West Coast, which used to lean red is now reliably blue. Furthermore, the Northeast and Illinois, which used to lean blue but could swing red is now solidly blue. Both shifts were a product of that trade. It probably cost them a few states like West Virginia and some others and turned some former swing states (like Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee) solidly red, but the gain was much bigger. I don't agree that Trump was the only candidate who could have appealed to union voters though. Kasich could have attracted them as well. He wasn't going to get union endorsements, but he could have gotten enough of their voters to be very competitive in industrialized states.
OMG!!! SMH!!! Trump +2 in Iowa. More seriously, have you noticed Trump does better in state polls than national polls? Well, Obama did the same against Romney and poll guru Silver said that state polls were a more accurate reading and that the national polls will move towards the state polls over time. Funny, I don't here him saying that now. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...08-trump-clinton-locked-in-tight-race-in-iowa
