I’ve seen some polls that show Texas as moving away from being a lock for the GOP. Which would make sense in this election, as Texas has big, highly populated cities that are very Democratic; Texas’s conservatism isn’t filled with deep strains of ethno-nationalism that are part of a Trumpian vision, as it is a very multi-ethnic state and always has been; and Texas has a deep Democratic base (not the same as the liberal base) that still turns out to vote, even if in yellow dog fashion (and Trump would get them off the couch to do so).
It’d be a big deal if Texas went blue in 2016, but not as shocking as if, say, Wyoming did.
Agree, I live in Texas so that’s the reason I focused on that state.
The RCP average in Texas is +8.4 for Trump, so I would need to see more to truly call it a toss up. Here’s another electoral map soley based on polling:
No, based on his policy prescriptions like tariff usage, for example
Do they have skin in the game and/or have they seen where the rubber meets the road?
General Bell III has served at some think tank since 1994.
General Hansen has been retired since 1989 and was a logistics officer.
Those are the first two names on the list.
How about General Allen, USMC who held a number of posts including Deputy Commander of U.S. Central Command and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan?
(deep breath)
I am not making an argument for or against these men.
I am pointing out that the fact that 88 retired officers support Donald Trump does not mitigate the risk that he will insight an international incident. It most certainly does not mean that those concerns are unfounded.
I think they’re basically meaningless, yes. If the endorser gives substantive reasons for their support then it adds value for me.
A fair minded reply and I had lunch with 4 staunch Dems Sun. I’m talking union and also governmental employees that have literally never voted GOP, work for Dem Precinct (85% GOP this primary), donate in thousands to Dems. Also known as nuclear family
#1 despises both majors & is looking to go Libertarian or abstain, #2 despises HilLIARy and thinking Green, #3 HRC, #4 voted Trump in primary, says voting HRC, but I think will pull lever for Trump because of vote for Wallace way back when.
Anecdotal you might be thinking but this is Field General vs PhD stuff hahahahahahaha
"We have no interest in a Republican nominee for whom all principles are negotiable, nor in a Republican Party that is willing to trade away principle for pursuit of electoral victory.
Trump doesn’t reflect Republican ideals of the past; we are certain he shouldn’t reflect the GOP of the future.
Donald Trump is not qualified to serve as president and does not deserve your vote."
There are 100K whites in city of Dallas out of total 1.3MM people. Austin and the Valley will probably be the only major metros with a definitive Dem victory
There is so much more than “war” to foreign policy its laughable to think otherwise.
Do I think PhDs have a better knowledge of logistics, satellite terrain imaging, CQB, airstrike capabilities etc. than active commanding generals? Fuck no.
That’s not what I said. It’s not even in the same universe as what I said.
Do you really thing War is the only fucking thing there is to foreign policy and geopolitics? I fucking hope not.
You really think a general knows more about the regional history, the ethnography, religious beliefs, political squabbling and back dooring, and interplay between religious leader and secular despot than a PhD who spent the last 15 years studying regional history, politics, and profiling leaders?
You better not. Because that IS NOT WHAT A GENERAL FUCKING DOES.
PhDs spend their life studying things that are integral to political maneuvering and advancing a countries interests in this century. Demographics, tribalism, sociology, all of that and a ton more.
Both of them are valuable and to think otherwise is essentially admitting you don’t actually care about understanding what goes into international relations.
Remember when the evil pants suit was ahead by 10 points and many of the people who THINK they understand Presidential politics got all excited thinking it was all over? And I said polls mean nothing until after Labor Day. In reality polls mean little until around Halloween. At that point one can get a pretty good idea of who will win…not always but usually.
And before any Trump supporters get excited because he is ahead by 2pts. keep in mind that 2pts. mean nothing. It is a statistical tie. But nonetheless he did come back no question. But of course it is the electoral vote that counts just ask Al (I love trees) Gore.
Keep an eye on Ohio and Florida. If you see Trump pulling ahead in both of those states now you have something to get excited (or depressed) about.
Everybody said it reflected the current state of the race, nobody said it was over… But high five for finding the one poll in the last month that Trump did ok in.
Another poll also showed Texas in a tie as TB pointed out.
I think both need plenty of more evidence before you start drawing any conclusions.
Okay, guys…this is what has my head spinning and more confused about an Election than I have been in years.
All of these “Polls” show Trump and Clinton, Up and Down…and Back and Forth…
Yet…as one looks at the Electoral College Map; it always shows Clinton with a substantial lead EVEN IF ONEIS OFF ONE OR TWO STATES. (i.e she loses states that she is predicted to win).
The EC IS in the Constitution; and was ratified in a Constitutional Convention.
I never crease to be blown away by Madison and his thoughts on government in his “Federalist Papers”. (INCLUDING the EC and the selection of a President).
My biggest beef with the EC is that it makes millions of people’s votes not count because most states aren’t swing states.
Say California, there is no point in Trump (or Romney previously) doing any events or focusing there… we all know what color that state is. Similar to tradional red states for Clinton/Obama.
I believe a better way would be to give the electoral votes based on congressional district (with a few for the overall state vote), instead of having the state painted all one color. The democratic candidate could go to places in Utah or Texas and pick up votes. People’s votes would matter a lot more, and with greater significance, they would (hopefully) learn, engage, and make more educated decisions.
I think one of the fundamental problems with our voting process is that a majority of votes don’t count. Because votes don’t count, there is no incentive to actually care or learn. If you can have the power of an electoral vote in your district, you can have an impact regardless of the state you’re in.
