Why did both parties nominate the most abominable candidates available…
…so that we have been left with a roller-coaster ride of a race to the bottom?
It’s a real question, and I’m not sure of the answer, but I’m pretty sure it has to do with the fact that we’ve sunk a lot lower as a society than we used to be—culturally, spiritually, morally, and educationally. And that last part is despite the fact that the trappings of education are better than ever: more people spend more time in school, and fancier schools at that, than ever before.
But a diploma does not an educated person make.
Or a wise one. And I don’t see a lot of wisdom flowing these days.
As for the status of the polls and predicting this election, there has been a tightening. This almost always happens close to the election. It’s also not just hard to know, but impossible to know, how turnout will go, and turnout is vital.
Personally, I would really like neither of these people to become president. I realize that’s not an option. There will be no joy in Mudville for me about the presidential race returns this evening whatever the outcome, although I suppose I can look on the bright side: if she wins, at least it’s not him, and if he wins, at least it’s not her.
I believe, however (as I’ve said before) that Hillary will most likely win. I have believed that since the moment it became clear to me (back in March or April) that Donald Trump would most likely be the GOP nominee.
As Rich Lowry writes in National Review:
The country has clearly lowered its standards in this election, and Donald Trump’s madcap candidacy provides evidence of that almost every day. But Hillary’s nomination was itself an offense against American political norms and an incredibly reckless act. And the Democrats were supposed to be the party acting rationally. Clinton effectively locked up the nomination in June and wasn’t cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the FBI until July. What if she had been indicted? Would Democrats have run her anyway?
Lowry then points out another thing I’ve been thinking myself, which is that at least the GOP bigwigs didn’t choose Trump; he was the product of a populist wave. But the Democratic “elites” chose and supported Hillary from the start. So Hillary was a case of the party favorite winning the primaries as well, although Sanders gave her a run for her money. Trump, on the other hand, was a populist phenomenon that went against the wishes of the party, although quite a few came onboard with Trump in the end as the only alternative to her left standing.
“…Sanders gave her a run for her money.”
Hillary rigged the Dem nomination, and screwed all of Bernie’s supporters. I think Bernie was also in on it, so he screwed his supporters too.
neo writes, “As for the status of the polls and predicting this election, there has been a tightening. This almost always happens close to the election.”
Do correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me the polls tend to tighten when a Democrat is leading BUT, when a Republican is leading, polls tend to widen. (This is all in a relatively modern polling era.)
My memory says
– Reagan 1980;
– Reagan 1984 was a foregone blowout anyway;
– Bush 41 1988;
– Bush 43 2000 was Gore was slightly ahead?;
– Bush 43 2004.
What does yours say?
For some reason (hmmmm . . . ), pollsters do have a way of catching up to reality as Election Day draws nigh — as if they figure it’s time to gradually abandon the desired message and get down to truth, so as to look better post-election?
M J R:
Here’s an overall analysis. The phenomenon seems to hold true whatever party is ahead before those last few weeks.
As for Reagan in 1980, see this.
I have already written at some length about my opinion that most of the big pollsters actually try to get it as right as possible, and not just shortly before the election, either. Polling is tough, and predicting turnout (which is key to it) is especially tough.
Democrats did it because they are depraved and had no viable alternatives. GOP were mostly tricked by Hillary and MSM. However, Trump does speak for a minority in this country who actually care about truth, justice, and the American way [!]
The majority appear to have picked a dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent hack.
Kevino:
Some people who originally supported Trump care very much about truth, justice, and the American way. Some don’t.
And plenty of people (me, for example), who care very deeply about truth, justice, and the American way have been repelled by Trump.
I see a Dem/Rep difference too. Facing a candidate unfit for office, a noticeable number of Republicans took public stands against Trump.
No Democrats took principled stands against their candidate even though Hillary would have been indicted on the way to the White House had our justice system not been corrupted.
Though there were Bernie supporters who pulled long faces and pouted.
What happens to the media after this?
The wikileaks material didn’t seem to make much difference in the polls. It seems both Democrats and Republicans have become inured to collusion between media and the progressive agenda.
However, the wikileaks did lay out in detailed emails that there was a tight loop between the media, the DNC and the Hillary campaign itself.
Nate Cohn writes, in your second link,
“The legend of Reagan’s epic comeback is largely the result of anomalous Gallup polling, which even showed a Carter advantage over the final month of the campaign. But if RealClearPolitics or Pollster.com had existed in 1980, the conventional wisdom would have been a little different. In fact, Reagan held a lead from mid-September onward and had a two or three point lead heading into the debates. Private polling conducted for the Reagan and Carter campaigns showed the same thing. Reagan’s 10 point victory is a precedent for sweeping undecided voters, but it isn’t a model for a come-from-behind victory.”
I well imagine polling has advanced even since 1980, if only by dint of having more and more polls to crank into an average poll-of-polls.
But I’m still scratching my head over the contents of your first link. To “average together all 15 of those contests” is, to me, to gloss over what took place in the specific contests, as I (with my questionable memory) attempted to do.
The writer in the first link asserts, “In 10 of the 15 presidential elections from 1944-2000, the candidate who was leading in the polls on Labor Day saw his margin shrink by the time of the final poll.” Okay, I’ll buy that. But it’s 10 out of 15, not 13 or 14 or 15 out of 15.
(Who won those 15 elections? By my count, 7 were won by Democrats and 7 were won by Republicans, with 1, the last one, a split decision [popular vote versus electoral vote].)
Anyway, I think it depends on the individual election year. In which 5 elections did the Labor Day leaders’ margins expand? Was it generally in earlier years, when polling was not nearly as sophisticated, or in later years? Or are the 5 uniformly (uniformly-appearing) scattered among the 15 election years? Depends on the individual election, no?
Thanks a big bunch, neo, for your research on this. I think it’s still a hypothesis not quite proven, but very fluid.
There is a big right split right now, and there is no equivalent in the left.
There’s a little between BLM, or Sanders, and Hillary. But it’s not a cavern. It’s not a gulf, it’s some cracks. Maybe it will get worse, but it hasn’t yet.
The right is a big gaping crack right now.
has a
RE neo: truth, justice, etc
Same here. The good part about Trump was that when he talked about serious issues, he voiced concerns that no one else did. I didn’t vote for him, but he had his moments and that gave him support.
Sadly GOPe doesn’t care.
The answer is in your opening, Neo.
The country has been manifestly decaying, morally and spiritually, culturally and educationally, for almost 60 years, starting in the 1960s. Who has led the charge of decay? Why, the Dems, of course.
Immorality begets further immorality. No-fault divorce led to a 50% divorce rate. Abortion, really infanticide, is a woman’s right to choose, though she cannot (yet) choose to murder her unwanted spouse. Psychotics have been granted the civil right to refuse medications even while they are delusional. Marital fidelity is so yesterday, and broader fidelities themselves are under assault.
Truth itself is relative. Hillary defends a woman’s right to partial birth abortion “If it will save the woman’s life”, though the mother in labor is not in danger of death from the labor process itself, ever. Black Lives Matter; other lives matter not to the BLM crowd.
The Democrats were going to nominate Hillary no matter what; it was her turn, and they would not let little things like criminality or corruption dissuade them.
As for the GOP, well, I used to place a lot of emphasis on character, because I was convinced the GOP was on my side. Since we agreed on the issues, of course I was going to pick the best person as they would be most likely to win (no scandals to unearth), exercise sound judgment and represent the country well.
I no longer think the establishment GOP agrees with me, not on the most fundamental issues facing the country. Thus I had two candidates out of 17 to pick from (I supported Cruz). For me at least, character now places a distant second to being right on the issues.
Kevino & Frog do a predictable job of blaming Democrats and the GOPe for everything, but it was the salt of the earth, flyover folks who saddled us with the horrible person and horrible candidate, Donald J. Trump.
I would not have thought that, much less predicted it.
huxley:
I wrote about sixty (60) years of progressive Democratic-led decay of our society. Nothing about Trump or Trumpkins, nothing about the GOPe. Not in this chain. I agreed with Neo, and just added a few remarks of my own.
I’m not condemning folks in flyover country either. Trump got his pluralities, OK?? That’s how it works. Not nearly as bad a process or an outcome as the corrupt Democrats and their charade of primaries, with prepicked Superdelegates bought and paid for by Hillary.
I am more hopeful the House and Senate will keep Trump in check than I am that the same magnitude of checks will be applied to Hillary. I also feel pretty good about his short list for SCOTUS. Do you?
“George W. Bush and his wife, Laura Bush, did not vote for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump or Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Tuesday.
“They didn’t vote for Hillary; they didn’t vote for Trump,” spokesman Freddy Ford told the Texas Tribune.”
In fact, Freddy said they did not vote for any presidential candidate, just down-ballot Republicans.
Papa Bush intends to vote for Clinton.
*************
All above reported by Fox News.
” at least the GOP bigwigs didn’t choose Trump”
The GOP bigwigs will not choose the kind of man we need.
Conrad:
“I no longer think the establishment GOP agrees with me, not on the most fundamental issues facing the country. Thus I had two candidates out of 17 to pick from (I supported Cruz). For me at least, character now places a distant second to being right on the issues.”
this.
For me at least, character now places a distant second to being right on the issues.
Trum is fine with promising you things in return for your vote. Which he in fact did. He got his clan to put out surveys asking grassroots conservatives what they wanted him to do. And they told him, so he put it up in a speech and regurgitated it back to you. That was the “issues”, you wanted, so he gave you what you wanted.
But the problem with having no character is that they don’t need to keep their promises. After all, you couldn’t do anything to make the GOP E keep their promises, what makes anyone think they can make Trum keep his promises? Heh.
Papa Bush intends to vote for Clinton.
Bush I was still reading the New York Times, both before and after he said “read my lips, no new taxes”.
Yeah, that’s always been that way.