Trump's path to victory: Both parties' working-class whites

[webfact]

Trump's path to victory: Both parties' working-class whites

DENVER (AP) — Should he win the Republican nomination, Donald Trump's most plausible path to victory in the general election would be a GOP map unlike any in years. He'd be relying on working class, largely white voters in states that have long been Democratic bastions in presidential contests, from Maine to Pennsylvania to Michigan.

To make that work he'd have to thread a narrow needle — not only holding on to those core supporters but also softening rhetoric that has alienated black and Latino voters and calming those in the GOP who vow to never vote for him.

It could be tricky, but the past eight months have taught political professionals in both parties not to underestimate the man.

"He attracts a different kind of voter," said GOP pollster Frank Luntz. "It's a completely different equation."

Trump has signaled he's already thinking about the general election, bragging that "we've actually expanded the Republican Party" and slamming Hillary Clinton as part of the political establishment that's to blame for the sour economy.

"She's been there for so long," Trump said after notching seven victories on Super Tuesday in states as diverse as Massachusetts and Alabama. "I mean, if she hasn't straightened it out by now, she's not going to straighten it out in the next four years."

Trump has dominated a majority of Republican primaries by combining his celebrity and can-do demeanor with a message that once was off-limits in both parties — a full-throated demand to restrict both trade and immigration. That's now a potent mix for voters from any party who've seen jobs vanish and wages stagnate in an increasingly globalized economy.

"Immigration and trade policy changes the winners and losers, and the people who are going to be in play are the ones who are the losers in that process," said Roy Beck of Numbers USA, which advocates limiting immigration. "This has the potential to turn out a lot of voters."

Trump has boasted that he could win even Democratic strongholds like his home state of New York. Analysts say that's unlikely, and he may face a tough climb in more diverse or well-educated states like Colorado, Florida and Virginia that have traditionally been presidential battlegrounds.

Instead, Trump may best appeal to the Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania through Wisconsin, an area that's been a bedrock of Democratic presidential victories but is reeling from job losses and still struggling to recover from the recession.

"The path for Trump is through the Rust Belt," said Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network, a center-left group in Washington that studies the electorate. "It doesn't mean it can't get done, but he will have to do things that no one has ever done as a Republican."

Trump will also have to contend with basic mathematical realities of an electorate that has been favoring Democrats as it's become increasingly diverse.

Though Trump's vowed he'll win Latinos, it's unlikely he'd outdo Mitt Romney's performance with Hispanics in 2012, and he could probably count on only modest improvements among blacks. That might require him to win even more of the white vote to prevail in the election than the 63 percent Ronald Reagan captured in his 1984 re-election, when Reagan won 49 states.

"He's going to be battling on very different terrain if he's the nominee," said William Galston of the Brookings Institute.

Finally, Trump would have to bridge divides with Republicans who say they won't vote for him because of what they see as his demagoguery, breaks from conservative thinking and his personal conduct. Romney, the party's most recent presidential nominee, has blasted him as a "phony."

"I can't tell you how many suburban Republicans Trump will lose to us, but he'll lose plenty," predicted Ed Rendell, former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, though he acknowledged that the billionaire developer also could pick up some union members who would otherwise vote Democratic. "My gut reaction is he'll lose more suburban independents than gain Reagan Democrats."

He added: "It scares you a little bit because you just don't know."

Trump supporters believe he's being underestimated again. Ed McMullen, Trump's South Carolina chairman, noted that the candidate had broad appeal in his state — winning women, college graduates and evangelicals.

"I think clearly what happened with Mr. Trump was the message was not something that was only hitting one group," McMullen said. "It was not just angry white men."

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, said Democrats will have to use ads to blunt Trump's apparent strength with economically disaffected voters.

"One of the challenges will be defining Trump around the economy," Lake said. "This is a guy who could win or implode."
___

Associated Press writer Jill Colvin contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-03-08

[Boon Mee]

"Win or implode" huh?

The Donald have a track record of imploding?

Nope...

[NeverSure]

That isn't the current story. That story is about how his own party is trying to subvert his efforts. Should he get past those turds and get the nomination he'll pull a lot of "Reagan Democrats". He's also getting record turnouts.

[helpisgood]

"Win or implode" huh?

The Donald have a track record of imploding?

Nope...

He doesn't have a track record as a politician, but:

http://time.com/money/3923629/donald-trump-name-business-failures/

Yeah, maybe he has been successful at some things, but he also has a record of failed ventures as well. The point being is that he is capable of imploding.

[lannarebirth]

"Win or implode" huh?

The Donald have a track record of imploding?

Nope...

He doesn't have a track record as a politician, but:

http://time.com/money/3923629/donald-trump-name-business-failures/

Yeah, maybe he has been successful at some things, but he also has a record of failed ventures as well. The point being is that he is capable of imploding.

Here's my take. I've got two girls in college. Everything they read, every prof that's teaching them, is talking about the value of failing. It drives me nuts. IMO failure is never to be wished for and with few exceptions it has never helped me get better, except as noted in another post ^. ALWAYS play to win. If you end up failing , learn from it. I don't think that's what's going on with Trump. He's a brand now, and he thinks merely the inclusion of his brand is enough to swing the venture, or not. What does he care because he's got 50 other saps in line right behind this one who will pay him licensing fees to try it out. It's a pretty good position to be in IMO.

[Publicus]

Elections of Potus are decided in the suburbs.

The OP cites the Democrat the former Philadelphia Mayor of two terms and former two-term Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, speaking about the national vote:

"I can't tell you how many suburban Republicans Trump will lose to us, but he'll lose plenty," predicted Ed Rendell, former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, though he acknowledged that the billionaire developer also could pick up some union members who would otherwise vote Democratic. "My gut reaction is he'll lose more suburban independents than gain Reagan Democrats."

He added: "It scares you a little bit because you just don't know."

This is something of a wildcard campaign to date, so everyone will have to find out the outcome of the Republican party nominating convention in July. There likely will be some indications before then however, by early or mid June most likely.

Reagan and his people used their political savvy to seal victory in 1980 by choosing George H.W. Bush as his vp. GHW pulled in the undecided vote of suburban Republican women without which the election would have been either much closer or a close loss to Carter instead of the blowout of Carter that it was.

Accordingly, the one thing we can figure is that suburban Republican women throughout the country will vote D if Trump is the nominee. As Ed Rendell points out, the issue is how much this would balance some blue collar Democrats in certain Blue states voting for Trump if he is the nominee of the Republicans.

In Pennsylvania which is Blue, it would take a net turnaround and gain for the Republican nominee of almost 500,000 votes to win the state narrowly, and Ed knows this intimately though he didn't say it in this particular news story. Ed also knows that is a tall order to net...net.

What applies in PA would also be true with varying numbers in other Blue states in Potus elections, such as Michigan and Ohio, while other Blue states have far too many D voters for Trump to turn them, such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois among others which on election night add up D candidate big Electoral College votes very quickly and decisively.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, which is still an open question even though he's favored to be, Trump will have to pull a rabbit out of his hat with the general electorate, to include suburban Republican women and blue collar D party voters in Blue states. Ed knows this so he's not going to say it's a D party picnic cause the majority of the electorate that votes D needs to be motivated to vote.

The green in Las Vegas says Trump is not the magician others think he will be with the general electorate:

Odds today on the election of Potus Tuesday November 8th are:

HR Clinton has odds of 1-2 which equal the percentage probability of 66.7%

Donald Trump has odds of 3-1 which equal the percentage probability of 25%

After that forget the rest of 'em going forward. To start to consider one of the others Trump would have to lose the nomination....

Odds probability of winning the Republican party nomination for the office of Potus

Donald Trump has odds of 1-4 or 80% probability

Ted Cruz is at 4-1 of 20% probability to win nomination

Marco Rubio is at 9-1 or 10,0%

John Kasich is at 10-1 or 9.09% to be nominated.

Odds don't say everything but they do say something significant. And Ed Rendell chooses to only suggest what he very much knows, i.e., on balance Trump still loses the general.

[realenglish1]

He will win the general election in November

MARK MY WORDS

[lannarebirth]

Elections of Potus are decided in the suburbs.

The OP cites the Democrat the former Philadelphia Mayor of two terms and former two-term Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, speaking about the national vote:

"I can't tell you how many suburban Republicans Trump will lose to us, but he'll lose plenty," predicted Ed Rendell, former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, though he acknowledged that the billionaire developer also could pick up some union members who would otherwise vote Democratic. "My gut reaction is he'll lose more suburban independents than gain Reagan Democrats."

He added: "It scares you a little bit because you just don't know."

This is something of a wildcard campaign to date, so everyone will have to find out the outcome of the Republican party nominating convention in July. There likely will be some indications before then however, by early or mid June most likely.

Reagan and his people used their political savvy to seal victory in 1980 by choosing George H.W. Bush as his vp. GHW pulled in the undecided vote of suburban Republican women without which the election would have been either much closer or a close loss to Carter instead of the blowout of Carter that it was.

Accordingly, the one thing we can figure is that suburban Republican women throughout the country will vote D if Trump is the nominee. As Ed Rendell points out, the issue is how much this would balance some blue collar Democrats in certain Blue states voting for Trump if he is the nominee of the Republicans.

In Pennsylvania which is Blue, it would take a net turnaround and gain for the Republican nominee of almost 500,000 votes to win the state narrowly, and Ed knows this intimately though he didn't say it in this particular news story. Ed also knows that is a tall order to net...net.

What applies in PA would also be true with varying numbers in other Blue states in Potus elections, such as Michigan and Ohio, while other Blue states have far too many D voters for Trump to turn them, such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois among others which on election night add up D candidate big Electoral College votes very quickly and decisively.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, which is still an open question even though he's favored to be, Trump will have to pull a rabbit out of his hat with the general electorate, to include suburban Republican women and blue collar D party voters in Blue states. Ed knows this so he's not going to say it's a D party picnic cause the majority of the electorate that votes D needs to be motivated to vote.

The green in Las Vegas says Trump is not the magician others think he will be with the general electorate:

Odds today on the election of Potus Tuesday November 8th are:

HR Clinton has odds of 1-2 which equal the percentage probability of 66.7%

Donald Trump has odds of 3-1 which equal the percentage probability of 25%

After that forget the rest of 'em going forward. To start to consider one of the others Trump would have to lose the nomination....

Odds probability of winning the Republican party nomination for the office of Potus

Donald Trump has odds of 1-4 or 80% probability

Ted Cruz is at 4-1 of 20% probability to win nomination

Marco Rubio is at 9-1 or 10,0%

John Kasich is at 10-1 or 9.09% to be nominated.

Odds don't say everything but they do say something significant. And Ed Rendell chooses to only suggest what he very much knows, i.e., on balance Trump still loses the general.

Obviously, you've given this a lot of consideration. Like most Democrats, you seem to know, or think you do, a lot more about the people you oppose than the people you support. Cut it out. Give me the case for Hillary Clinton instead.

It's super easy to take pot shots at "the other". Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

[Rancid]

Articles suggest former loser Mit Romney might be about to enter the fray with the idea of stealing the vote from Trump. No doubt the old boys club would prefer good old Mit, stuff who the voters prefer.

[NeverSure]

Articles suggest former loser Mit Romney might be about to enter the fray with the idea of stealing the vote from Trump. No doubt the old boys club would prefer good old Mit, stuff who the voters prefer.

[Publicus]

Elections of Potus are decided in the suburbs.

The OP cites the Democrat the former Philadelphia Mayor of two terms and former two-term Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, speaking about the national vote:

"I can't tell you how many suburban Republicans Trump will lose to us, but he'll lose plenty," predicted Ed Rendell, former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, though he acknowledged that the billionaire developer also could pick up some union members who would otherwise vote Democratic. "My gut reaction is he'll lose more suburban independents than gain Reagan Democrats."

He added: "It scares you a little bit because you just don't know."

This is something of a wildcard campaign to date, so everyone will have to find out the outcome of the Republican party nominating convention in July. There likely will be some indications before then however, by early or mid June most likely.

Reagan and his people used their political savvy to seal victory in 1980 by choosing George H.W. Bush as his vp. GHW pulled in the undecided vote of suburban Republican women without which the election would have been either much closer or a close loss to Carter instead of the blowout of Carter that it was.

Accordingly, the one thing we can figure is that suburban Republican women throughout the country will vote D if Trump is the nominee. As Ed Rendell points out, the issue is how much this would balance some blue collar Democrats in certain Blue states voting for Trump if he is the nominee of the Republicans.

In Pennsylvania which is Blue, it would take a net turnaround and gain for the Republican nominee of almost 500,000 votes to win the state narrowly, and Ed knows this intimately though he didn't say it in this particular news story. Ed also knows that is a tall order to net...net.

What applies in PA would also be true with varying numbers in other Blue states in Potus elections, such as Michigan and Ohio, while other Blue states have far too many D voters for Trump to turn them, such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois among others which on election night add up D candidate big Electoral College votes very quickly and decisively.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, which is still an open question even though he's favored to be, Trump will have to pull a rabbit out of his hat with the general electorate, to include suburban Republican women and blue collar D party voters in Blue states. Ed knows this so he's not going to say it's a D party picnic cause the majority of the electorate that votes D needs to be motivated to vote.

The green in Las Vegas says Trump is not the magician others think he will be with the general electorate:

Odds today on the election of Potus Tuesday November 8th are:

HR Clinton has odds of 1-2 which equal the percentage probability of 66.7%

Donald Trump has odds of 3-1 which equal the percentage probability of 25%

After that forget the rest of 'em going forward. To start to consider one of the others Trump would have to lose the nomination....

Odds probability of winning the Republican party nomination for the office of Potus

Donald Trump has odds of 1-4 or 80% probability

Ted Cruz is at 4-1 of 20% probability to win nomination

Marco Rubio is at 9-1 or 10,0%

John Kasich is at 10-1 or 9.09% to be nominated.

Odds don't say everything but they do say something significant. And Ed Rendell chooses to only suggest what he very much knows, i.e., on balance Trump still loses the general.

Obviously, you've given this a lot of consideration. Like most Democrats, you seem to know, or think you do, a lot more about the people you oppose than the people you support. Cut it out. Give me the case for Hillary Clinton instead.

It's super easy to take pot shots at "the other". Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Dedicated my life is a big opening dude

Let's narrow it significantly....

My first vote for Potus was Hubert H. Humphrey. Then came George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, John B. Anderson a Republican, Walter Mondale who made it tough to vote for as he wore Thom McAn shoes; Michael Dukakis my governor, Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore (once, unlike the Scotus each of which justice got to vote twice), John Kerry my US senator, Barry twice.

Coming soon Hillary Rodham Clinton who is another in a long line of persons for whom I vote for Potus and for other offices thx.

So now tell us more about the candidates on the right that he conservative hard right likes so much it hasn't ever criticised in significant or substantial terms. Hey, I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

[Ulic]

Go Donald, play that wild card and make it a TRUMP.

[lannarebirth]

Elections of Potus are decided in the suburbs.

The OP cites the Democrat the former Philadelphia Mayor of two terms and former two-term Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, speaking about the national vote:

"I can't tell you how many suburban Republicans Trump will lose to us, but he'll lose plenty," predicted Ed Rendell, former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, though he acknowledged that the billionaire developer also could pick up some union members who would otherwise vote Democratic. "My gut reaction is he'll lose more suburban independents than gain Reagan Democrats."

He added: "It scares you a little bit because you just don't know."

This is something of a wildcard campaign to date, so everyone will have to find out the outcome of the Republican party nominating convention in July. There likely will be some indications before then however, by early or mid June most likely.

Reagan and his people used their political savvy to seal victory in 1980 by choosing George H.W. Bush as his vp. GHW pulled in the undecided vote of suburban Republican women without which the election would have been either much closer or a close loss to Carter instead of the blowout of Carter that it was.

Accordingly, the one thing we can figure is that suburban Republican women throughout the country will vote D if Trump is the nominee. As Ed Rendell points out, the issue is how much this would balance some blue collar Democrats in certain Blue states voting for Trump if he is the nominee of the Republicans.

In Pennsylvania which is Blue, it would take a net turnaround and gain for the Republican nominee of almost 500,000 votes to win the state narrowly, and Ed knows this intimately though he didn't say it in this particular news story. Ed also knows that is a tall order to net...net.

What applies in PA would also be true with varying numbers in other Blue states in Potus elections, such as Michigan and Ohio, while other Blue states have far too many D voters for Trump to turn them, such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois among others which on election night add up D candidate big Electoral College votes very quickly and decisively.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, which is still an open question even though he's favored to be, Trump will have to pull a rabbit out of his hat with the general electorate, to include suburban Republican women and blue collar D party voters in Blue states. Ed knows this so he's not going to say it's a D party picnic cause the majority of the electorate that votes D needs to be motivated to vote.

The green in Las Vegas says Trump is not the magician others think he will be with the general electorate:

Odds today on the election of Potus Tuesday November 8th are:

HR Clinton has odds of 1-2 which equal the percentage probability of 66.7%

Donald Trump has odds of 3-1 which equal the percentage probability of 25%

After that forget the rest of 'em going forward. To start to consider one of the others Trump would have to lose the nomination....

Odds probability of winning the Republican party nomination for the office of Potus

Donald Trump has odds of 1-4 or 80% probability

Ted Cruz is at 4-1 of 20% probability to win nomination

Marco Rubio is at 9-1 or 10,0%

John Kasich is at 10-1 or 9.09% to be nominated.

Odds don't say everything but they do say something significant. And Ed Rendell chooses to only suggest what he very much knows, i.e., on balance Trump still loses the general.

Obviously, you've given this a lot of consideration. Like most Democrats, you seem to know, or think you do, a lot more about the people you oppose than the people you support. Cut it out. Give me the case for Hillary Clinton instead.

It's super easy to take pot shots at "the other". Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Dedicated my life is a big opening dude

Let's narrow it significantly....

My first vote for Potus was Hubert H. Humphrey. Then came George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, John B. Anderson a Republican, Walter Mondale who made it tough to vote for as he wore Thom McAn shoes; Michael Dukakis my governor, Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore (once, unlike the Scotus each of which justice got to vote twice), John Kerry my US senator, Barry twice.

Coming soon Hillary Rodham Clinton who is another in a long line of persons for whom I vote for Potus and for other offices thx.

So now tell us more about the candidates on the right that he conservative hard right likes so much it hasn't ever criticised in significant or substantial terms. Hey, I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

My very first vote was for John Anderson. The only other times we've crossed paths is when i voted for Obama once. No, all my other votes weren't for Republicans. I almost voted for Clinton once but couldn't bring myself to do it for all the same reasons ( more really) that I could never vote for Hillary. I tend to lose more than I win because I try to do the right thing.

[canman]

"Win or implode" huh?

The Donald have a track record of imploding?

Nope...

He doesn't have a track record as a politician, but:

http://time.com/money/3923629/donald-trump-name-business-failures/

Yeah, maybe he has been successful at some things, but he also has a record of failed ventures as well. The point being is that he is capable of imploding.

Any successful man/woman will have several failures behind them. It's the fear of failure which stops most people from succeeding big time.

[Publicus]

Elections of Potus are decided in the suburbs.

The OP cites the Democrat the former Philadelphia Mayor of two terms and former two-term Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, speaking about the national vote:

"I can't tell you how many suburban Republicans Trump will lose to us, but he'll lose plenty," predicted Ed Rendell, former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, though he acknowledged that the billionaire developer also could pick up some union members who would otherwise vote Democratic. "My gut reaction is he'll lose more suburban independents than gain Reagan Democrats."

He added: "It scares you a little bit because you just don't know."

This is something of a wildcard campaign to date, so everyone will have to find out the outcome of the Republican party nominating convention in July. There likely will be some indications before then however, by early or mid June most likely.

Reagan and his people used their political savvy to seal victory in 1980 by choosing George H.W. Bush as his vp. GHW pulled in the undecided vote of suburban Republican women without which the election would have been either much closer or a close loss to Carter instead of the blowout of Carter that it was.

Accordingly, the one thing we can figure is that suburban Republican women throughout the country will vote D if Trump is the nominee. As Ed Rendell points out, the issue is how much this would balance some blue collar Democrats in certain Blue states voting for Trump if he is the nominee of the Republicans.

In Pennsylvania which is Blue, it would take a net turnaround and gain for the Republican nominee of almost 500,000 votes to win the state narrowly, and Ed knows this intimately though he didn't say it in this particular news story. Ed also knows that is a tall order to net...net.

What applies in PA would also be true with varying numbers in other Blue states in Potus elections, such as Michigan and Ohio, while other Blue states have far too many D voters for Trump to turn them, such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois among others which on election night add up D candidate big Electoral College votes very quickly and decisively.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, which is still an open question even though he's favored to be, Trump will have to pull a rabbit out of his hat with the general electorate, to include suburban Republican women and blue collar D party voters in Blue states. Ed knows this so he's not going to say it's a D party picnic cause the majority of the electorate that votes D needs to be motivated to vote.

The green in Las Vegas says Trump is not the magician others think he will be with the general electorate:

Odds today on the election of Potus Tuesday November 8th are:

HR Clinton has odds of 1-2 which equal the percentage probability of 66.7%

Donald Trump has odds of 3-1 which equal the percentage probability of 25%

After that forget the rest of 'em going forward. To start to consider one of the others Trump would have to lose the nomination....

Odds probability of winning the Republican party nomination for the office of Potus

Donald Trump has odds of 1-4 or 80% probability

Ted Cruz is at 4-1 of 20% probability to win nomination

Marco Rubio is at 9-1 or 10,0%

John Kasich is at 10-1 or 9.09% to be nominated.

Odds don't say everything but they do say something significant. And Ed Rendell chooses to only suggest what he very much knows, i.e., on balance Trump still loses the general.

Obviously, you've given this a lot of consideration. Like most Democrats, you seem to know, or think you do, a lot more about the people you oppose than the people you support. Cut it out. Give me the case for Hillary Clinton instead.

It's super easy to take pot shots at "the other". Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Dedicated my life is a big opening dude

Let's narrow it significantly....

My first vote for Potus was Hubert H. Humphrey. Then came George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, John B. Anderson a Republican, Walter Mondale who made it tough to vote for as he wore Thom McAn shoes; Michael Dukakis my governor, Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore (once, unlike the Scotus each of which justice got to vote twice), John Kerry my US senator, Barry twice.

Coming soon Hillary Rodham Clinton who is another in a long line of persons for whom I vote for Potus and for other offices thx.

So now tell us more about the candidates on the right that he conservative hard right likes so much it hasn't ever criticised in significant or substantial terms. Hey, I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

My very first vote was for John Anderson. The only other times we've crossed paths is when i voted for Obama once. No, all my other votes weren't for Republicans. I almost voted for Clinton once but couldn't bring myself to do it for all the same reasons ( more really) that I could never vote for Hillary. I tend to lose more than I win because I try to do the right thing.

Deep down inside we all admire with the most glowing feelings all self-righteousness.

Not to mention a moral and philosophical superiority by which each of us can measure our own flagging standards.

Thanks for that.

[Srikcir]

In the last three presidential elections, the Democratic candidate lost among white working-class (non-college) voters by an average of 22 points.¹ But in the last two presidential elections, Democrats still won the POTUS. So it's unlikely that the working-class whites will adversely affect Democrats in this year's POTUS election any more than it did in the previous two elections.

Furthermore, the ranks of working-class non-college degreed whites is decreasing and in part being replaced by working-class non-college degreed minorities who are more liberal. There is also an increasing generational gap within working-class whites itself. The working-class is evolving into a majority of Millennial generation voters, and educated whites living in more urbanized states. Millenials are substantially more liberal on social issues with less religious affiliations versus the Baby Boomers generation.

A political party should never ignore a voter base but having the support of the working-class white vote is no longer a clear path to victory.

¹Ref. The Challenge of the White Working Class Vote by Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin

[lannarebirth]

Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Dedicated my life is a big opening dude

Let's narrow it significantly....

My first vote for Potus was Hubert H. Humphrey. Then came George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, John B. Anderson a Republican, Walter Mondale who made it tough to vote for as he wore Thom McAn shoes; Michael Dukakis my governor, Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore (once, unlike the Scotus each of which justice got to vote twice), John Kerry my US senator, Barry twice.

Coming soon Hillary Rodham Clinton who is another in a long line of persons for whom I vote for Potus and for other offices thx.

So now tell us more about the candidates on the right that he conservative hard right likes so much it hasn't ever criticised in significant or substantial terms. Hey, I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

My very first vote was for John Anderson. The only other times we've crossed paths is when i voted for Obama once. No, all my other votes weren't for Republicans. I almost voted for Clinton once but couldn't bring myself to do it for all the same reasons ( more really) that I could never vote for Hillary. I tend to lose more than I win because I try to do the right thing.

Deep down inside we all admire with the most glowing feelings all self-righteousness.

Not to mention a moral and philosophical superiority by which each of us can measure our own flagging standards.

Thanks for that.

I'd have never said it myself, but since you did, then yes, I guess I do feel both a moral and philosophical superiority to you. But, as you say, " carry on".

[Berkshire]

"Win or implode" huh?

The Donald have a track record of imploding?

Nope...

He doesn't have a track record as a politician, but:

http://time.com/money/3923629/donald-trump-name-business-failures/

Yeah, maybe he has been successful at some things, but he also has a record of failed ventures as well. The point being is that he is capable of imploding.

Pretty good list of Trump failures. But there's a glaring omission on that list--Trump University. Maybe it's because it's still in existence...but not for much longer. The class actions are piling up.

[chuckd]

Elections of Potus are decided in the suburbs.

The OP cites the Democrat the former Philadelphia Mayor of two terms and former two-term Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, speaking about the national vote:

"I can't tell you how many suburban Republicans Trump will lose to us, but he'll lose plenty," predicted Ed Rendell, former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, though he acknowledged that the billionaire developer also could pick up some union members who would otherwise vote Democratic. "My gut reaction is he'll lose more suburban independents than gain Reagan Democrats."

He added: "It scares you a little bit because you just don't know."

This is something of a wildcard campaign to date, so everyone will have to find out the outcome of the Republican party nominating convention in July. There likely will be some indications before then however, by early or mid June most likely.

Reagan and his people used their political savvy to seal victory in 1980 by choosing George H.W. Bush as his vp. GHW pulled in the undecided vote of suburban Republican women without which the election would have been either much closer or a close loss to Carter instead of the blowout of Carter that it was.

Accordingly, the one thing we can figure is that suburban Republican women throughout the country will vote D if Trump is the nominee. As Ed Rendell points out, the issue is how much this would balance some blue collar Democrats in certain Blue states voting for Trump if he is the nominee of the Republicans.

In Pennsylvania which is Blue, it would take a net turnaround and gain for the Republican nominee of almost 500,000 votes to win the state narrowly, and Ed knows this intimately though he didn't say it in this particular news story. Ed also knows that is a tall order to net...net.

What applies in PA would also be true with varying numbers in other Blue states in Potus elections, such as Michigan and Ohio, while other Blue states have far too many D voters for Trump to turn them, such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois among others which on election night add up D candidate big Electoral College votes very quickly and decisively.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, which is still an open question even though he's favored to be, Trump will have to pull a rabbit out of his hat with the general electorate, to include suburban Republican women and blue collar D party voters in Blue states. Ed knows this so he's not going to say it's a D party picnic cause the majority of the electorate that votes D needs to be motivated to vote.

The green in Las Vegas says Trump is not the magician others think he will be with the general electorate:

Odds today on the election of Potus Tuesday November 8th are:

HR Clinton has odds of 1-2 which equal the percentage probability of 66.7%

Donald Trump has odds of 3-1 which equal the percentage probability of 25%

After that forget the rest of 'em going forward. To start to consider one of the others Trump would have to lose the nomination....

Odds probability of winning the Republican party nomination for the office of Potus

Donald Trump has odds of 1-4 or 80% probability

Ted Cruz is at 4-1 of 20% probability to win nomination

Marco Rubio is at 9-1 or 10,0%

John Kasich is at 10-1 or 9.09% to be nominated.

Odds don't say everything but they do say something significant. And Ed Rendell chooses to only suggest what he very much knows, i.e., on balance Trump still loses the general.

Obviously, you've given this a lot of consideration. Like most Democrats, you seem to know, or think you do, a lot more about the people you oppose than the people you support. Cut it out. Give me the case for Hillary Clinton instead.

It's super easy to take pot shots at "the other". Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Dedicated my life is a big opening dude

Let's narrow it significantly....

My first vote for Potus was Hubert H. Humphrey. Then came George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, John B. Anderson a Republican, Walter Mondale who made it tough to vote for as he wore Thom McAn shoes; Michael Dukakis my governor, Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore (once, unlike the Scotus each of which justice got to vote twice), John Kerry my US senator, Barry twice.

Coming soon Hillary Rodham Clinton who is another in a long line of persons for whom I vote for Potus and for other offices thx.

So now tell us more about the candidates on the right that he conservative hard right likes so much it hasn't ever criticised in significant or substantial terms. Hey, I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

My very first vote was for John Anderson. The only other times we've crossed paths is when i voted for Obama once. No, all my other votes weren't for Republicans. I almost voted for Clinton once but couldn't bring myself to do it for all the same reasons ( more really) that I could never vote for Hillary. I tend to lose more than I win because I try to do the right thing.

@ lannarebirth:

Notice he didn't answer the part asking all the great things about Hillary?

Typical deflection.

[Publicus]

My very first vote was for John Anderson. The only other times we've crossed paths is when i voted for Obama once. No, all my other votes weren't for Republicans. I almost voted for Clinton once but couldn't bring myself to do it for all the same reasons ( more really) that I could never vote for Hillary. I tend to lose more than I win because I try to do the right thing.

Deep down inside we all admire with the most glowing feelings all self-righteousness.

Not to mention a moral and philosophical superiority by which each of us can measure our own flagging standards.

Thanks for that.

I'd have never said it myself, but since you did, then yes, I guess I do feel both a moral and philosophical superiority to you. But, as you say, " carry on".

I'd have never said it myself,

Hmm, you might want to reread your posts a bit there.

In fact, quite a bit.

Past, present, future....

It's an old truth there are a lot of different ways to say the same thing.

Indeed.

[lannarebirth]

Elections of Potus are decided in the suburbs.

The OP cites the Democrat the former Philadelphia Mayor of two terms and former two-term Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, speaking about the national vote:

"I can't tell you how many suburban Republicans Trump will lose to us, but he'll lose plenty," predicted Ed Rendell, former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, though he acknowledged that the billionaire developer also could pick up some union members who would otherwise vote Democratic. "My gut reaction is he'll lose more suburban independents than gain Reagan Democrats."

He added: "It scares you a little bit because you just don't know."

This is something of a wildcard campaign to date, so everyone will have to find out the outcome of the Republican party nominating convention in July. There likely will be some indications before then however, by early or mid June most likely.

Reagan and his people used their political savvy to seal victory in 1980 by choosing George H.W. Bush as his vp. GHW pulled in the undecided vote of suburban Republican women without which the election would have been either much closer or a close loss to Carter instead of the blowout of Carter that it was.

Accordingly, the one thing we can figure is that suburban Republican women throughout the country will vote D if Trump is the nominee. As Ed Rendell points out, the issue is how much this would balance some blue collar Democrats in certain Blue states voting for Trump if he is the nominee of the Republicans.

In Pennsylvania which is Blue, it would take a net turnaround and gain for the Republican nominee of almost 500,000 votes to win the state narrowly, and Ed knows this intimately though he didn't say it in this particular news story. Ed also knows that is a tall order to net...net.

What applies in PA would also be true with varying numbers in other Blue states in Potus elections, such as Michigan and Ohio, while other Blue states have far too many D voters for Trump to turn them, such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois among others which on election night add up D candidate big Electoral College votes very quickly and decisively.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, which is still an open question even though he's favored to be, Trump will have to pull a rabbit out of his hat with the general electorate, to include suburban Republican women and blue collar D party voters in Blue states. Ed knows this so he's not going to say it's a D party picnic cause the majority of the electorate that votes D needs to be motivated to vote.

The green in Las Vegas says Trump is not the magician others think he will be with the general electorate:

Odds today on the election of Potus Tuesday November 8th are:

HR Clinton has odds of 1-2 which equal the percentage probability of 66.7%

Donald Trump has odds of 3-1 which equal the percentage probability of 25%

After that forget the rest of 'em going forward. To start to consider one of the others Trump would have to lose the nomination....

Odds probability of winning the Republican party nomination for the office of Potus

Donald Trump has odds of 1-4 or 80% probability

Ted Cruz is at 4-1 of 20% probability to win nomination

Marco Rubio is at 9-1 or 10,0%

John Kasich is at 10-1 or 9.09% to be nominated.

Odds don't say everything but they do say something significant. And Ed Rendell chooses to only suggest what he very much knows, i.e., on balance Trump still loses the general.

Obviously, you've given this a lot of consideration. Like most Democrats, you seem to know, or think you do, a lot more about the people you oppose than the people you support. Cut it out. Give me the case for Hillary Clinton instead.

It's super easy to take pot shots at "the other". Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Dedicated my life is a big opening dude

Let's narrow it significantly....

My first vote for Potus was Hubert H. Humphrey. Then came George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, John B. Anderson a Republican, Walter Mondale who made it tough to vote for as he wore Thom McAn shoes; Michael Dukakis my governor, Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore (once, unlike the Scotus each of which justice got to vote twice), John Kerry my US senator, Barry twice.

Coming soon Hillary Rodham Clinton who is another in a long line of persons for whom I vote for Potus and for other offices thx.

So now tell us more about the candidates on the right that he conservative hard right likes so much it hasn't ever criticised in significant or substantial terms. Hey, I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Twin sons of different mothers.

The hateful racist, xenophobic, bullying tactics are not going to make it in the general election. This "What if" nonsense by the AP writer in this article is just silly. He's not bringing Democrats and Independents over. It's just not going to happen. The Republicans are screwed. Democrats take the Senate while the Republicans run away from Trump. Massive turnout to stop Trump getting anywhere near the white house.

Drumpf is incapable of being anyone but what he has already shown himself to be. He'll likely double down and get worse than the obnoxious POS that he's shown himself to be.

Can you imagine what a HRC/Trump debate for the POTUS would be like? No...I can't either.

And Hillary is going to prison for this email server crap? Benghazi! http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-we-learned-from-52000-pages-of-hillary-clintons-emails/

I'll ask you the same question that Publicus failed to respond to: Yes, we know the deficiencies of the opposition candidates, so, what's so great about your candidate?

[Publicus]

Tell me what's so great about the candidate you've dedicated your life to sponsor.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Dedicated my life is a big opening dude

Let's narrow it significantly....

My first vote for Potus was Hubert H. Humphrey. Then came George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, John B. Anderson a Republican, Walter Mondale who made it tough to vote for as he wore Thom McAn shoes; Michael Dukakis my governor, Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore (once, unlike the Scotus each of which justice got to vote twice), John Kerry my US senator, Barry twice.

Coming soon Hillary Rodham Clinton who is another in a long line of persons for whom I vote for Potus and for other offices thx.

So now tell us more about the candidates on the right that he conservative hard right likes so much it hasn't ever criticised in significant or substantial terms. Hey, I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

My very first vote was for John Anderson. The only other times we've crossed paths is when i voted for Obama once. No, all my other votes weren't for Republicans. I almost voted for Clinton once but couldn't bring myself to do it for all the same reasons ( more really) that I could never vote for Hillary. I tend to lose more than I win because I try to do the right thing.

@ lannarebirth:

Notice he didn't answer the part asking all the great things about Hillary?

Typical deflection.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

You've lost more than only one step theze dayze dude.

[lannarebirth]

My very first vote was for John Anderson. The only other times we've crossed paths is when i voted for Obama once. No, all my other votes weren't for Republicans. I almost voted for Clinton once but couldn't bring myself to do it for all the same reasons ( more really) that I could never vote for Hillary. I tend to lose more than I win because I try to do the right thing.

Deep down inside we all admire with the most glowing feelings all self-righteousness.

Not to mention a moral and philosophical superiority by which each of us can measure our own flagging standards.

Thanks for that.

I'd have never said it myself, but since you did, then yes, I guess I do feel both a moral and philosophical superiority to you. But, as you say, " carry on".

I'd have never said it myself,

Hmm, you might want to reread your posts a bit there.

In fact, quite a bit.

Past, present, future....

It's an old truth there are a lot of different ways to say the same thing.

Indeed.

You know you want to support Bernie but you're such a party hack all you can think about is winning. C'mon, make your sainted mother proud and do the right thing. Vote for Bernie

[sercoed]

As a non American looking in I am amazed at how the selection of a nominated runner for a party is run. It is organized and controlled by the media. It is a huge business run by them and generates billions of dollars. Even though I have read that only 50% of the people vote TV channels virtually run 24 hour coverage of the race ( I only receive CNN and BBC). At least the Democrat debates have had some substance while the Republican debates should not even be called debates. The American political system should be scrapped and a whole new system should be devised before they talk themselves into becoming a has been nation.

[lannarebirth]

As a non American looking in I am amazed at how the selection of a nominated runner for a party is run. It is organized and controlled by the media. It is a huge business run by them and generates billions of dollars. Even though I have read that only 50% of the people vote TV channels virtually run 24 hour coverage of the race ( I only receive CNN and BBC). At least the Democrat debates have had some substance while the Republican debates should not even be called debates. The American political system should be scrapped and a whole new system should be devised before they talk themselves into becoming a has been nation.

You are an astute observer. Ignore the rantings of the candidates, but DO pay attention to how the media pundits tell you to think. Yes, most of them are on the payroll of one candidate or another, but pay that no never mind.

[Pinot]

As a non American looking in I am amazed at how the selection of a nominated runner for a party is run. It is organized and controlled by the media. It is a huge business run by them and generates billions of dollars. Even though I have read that only 50% of the people vote TV channels virtually run 24 hour coverage of the race ( I only receive CNN and BBC). At least the Democrat debates have had some substance while the Republican debates should not even be called debates. The American political system should be scrapped and a whole new system should be devised before they talk themselves into becoming a has been nation.

You are an astute observer. Ignore the rantings of the candidates, but DO pay attention to how the media pundits tell you to think. Yes, most of them are on the payroll of one candidate or another, but pay that no never mind.

Huh? You mean I should be paying attention to what Fox New's media pundits tell me to think? Uh oh.

The American political system will work just fine in the end. This cycle we have a bit of an outlier with the self-distruction of the Republican party. It will make for spectacular TV and America will be stronger and better after the wingnuts are disarmed.

[Grouse]

The best argument against democracy is a five minute read of the opinions on here - to paraphrase Churchill

Who's idea was universal suffrage? Big mistake. If an unpleasant oaf like Trump can get this far what does it say about the electorate? Nothing good that's for sure.....

[RickBradford]

Amazingly, The Guardian in the UK, while doing its required left-wing virtue signalling, admits that Trump might have some solid grounds for his widespread support:

But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington’s free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.

From The Guardian's Komment Macht Frei section.

[Norvid 1950]

I wonder how many brain-dead "bolsheviks" will vote for unscrupulous Clinton selling smooth lies?

Trump shall be victorious !

[boomerangutang]

He will win the general election in November

MARK MY WORDS

I'll mark your words, but you'll be wrong - similar to the crowd who was sure Romney would win 4 years ago, and some of the same folks are posting herein, 4 years later, thinking Trump has it wrapped up. Yes, there's a redneck contingent in American, but they ain't a majority by any means. There are much greater numbers of voters who are reasonable, and they will sway the vote for the Dem candidate. The margin will be greater than Romney's defeat. Mark my words.

@ lannarebirth: Notice he (Publicus) didn't answer the part asking all the great things about Hillary? Typical deflection.

I can't speak for Publicus. Also, it doesn't have to be a matter of one candidate being great at all things, and the opposing candidate is bad at all things.

I can, however, say Hillary would make a much better president than Trump - some of the reasons, below.

Hillary Rodham Clinton. . . .

>> is thoughtful, whereas Trump is impulsive,

>> knows her way around the halls of power, whereas Trump is like a bull in a China shop,

>> is friendly with many world leaders. Trump knows few and alienates more than he gains trust with. He can't even get along with the Pope for Krissaches,

>> knows the power of the US armed forces and will act responsibly. Both will seek advice from experts, but Trump is likely to fly off the handle with his anger and impulsiveness,

>> is mature. Trump is immature to the 10th degree, easily and quickly resorting to peurile name-calling, taunting, references to how big his dick is, etc.

>> is not a braggart. Trump is a braggart and never misses a chance to say he's "worth many, many billions of dollars." (actual quote). In reality, he's worth tens, perhaps hundreds of millions. His hyper-inflated self-praising numbers are due to his (no one else's) estimate of the hyped values of his Trump brands, some of which have gone belly-up and worth nothing,

>> will try to destroy ISIS. Trump will increase ISIS's strength by giving ISIS recruitment much ammunition. Their numbers (and donations) will increase dramatically if Trump is Prez,

>> sticks to her policy statements. Trump flip flops day to day. His handlers are forever having to tell him what he said wrong,

>> cares about disadvantaged. Trump thinks their 'LOSERS.' He even mocked a spastic handicapped man. It's on video,

>> knows how government works. Trump doesn't. He'll be learning on the job, making mistakes daily.

. . . . . . . . . . . . ......and even with all that, I'm hoping Bernie goes all the way.