Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[pbrower2a]

[pbrower2a]

[Classic-Xer]

(03-29-2019, 11:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well, let's keep laughing. Colbert said that Trump is doing the opposite of everything Obama did. Well, Obama got re-elected...

Colbert has said a lot of stupid crap over the years. Me, I wouldn't place much faith in what Colbert or any other blue puppet has to say about anything important these days.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-29-2019, 12:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: To Trump or not to Trump, as I put it, with apology to the Bard:




50% or more against Trump, margin 9% or higher
50% or more against Trump, margin 5% to 8%
50% or more against Trump, margin 4% or less

The usual margin of error is 4%, and twice that is not close.

I have yet to see any state poll asking such a question as "Do you want to re-elect Donald Trump or do you want someone else?" or "Do you plan to vote for Trump or for the Democratic nominee?" in which this question comes back positively -- yet. This is different from approval, probably suggesting that one likes the results even if one despises the President.  Opposing Trump may not mean that one has fallen in love with liberalism; it may mean that one would rather have some different expression of conservatism as President.

I think you should ignore that fact and continue what you've been doing for the last decade. In other words, you should continue lying and promoting/advancing a false sense of hope to liberal voters.

[pbrower2a]

(04-12-2019, 08:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-29-2019, 11:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well, let's keep laughing. Colbert said that Trump is doing the opposite of everything Obama did. Well, Obama got re-elected...

Colbert has said a lot of stupid crap over the years. Me, I wouldn't place much faith in what Colbert or any other blue puppet has to say about anything important these days.

Some of the greatest wisdom comes in the form of humor. 

“If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.”   -- George Bernard Shaw.

It's what people say in jest about President Trump that often exposes that hollow, reckless, cruel man at his worst. You must recognize how different Obama is from his successor. Even Karl Rogue, asked what he thought was best about Obama, said that he is cautious. Consider this: in a dangerous time, caution is a virtue. It forces people to think things out. Planning the D-Day invasion of Greater Hitlerland went to the person who found the task most odious: General Dwight Eisenhower, someone whose first objective as a general was to keep his troops' casualties as low as possible. Eisenhower was the most cautious of American generals. In view of how Eisenhower planned the invasion, he proved to be the right choice. He overestimated American casualties and underestimated potential German losses. Within a couple weeks of the invasion the more daring George S. Patton was able to get into the rear of German defenses and inflict a military calamity similar in the number of losses that the Wehrmacht endured at Stalingrad. Within a year, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler would off themselves.

Historians have come to recognize Dwight Eisenhower as a great President. His caution kept him from doing anything reckless. He stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon which at first looked like a powerful tool to weaken the Democratic Party. He chose to accept the decisions of the US Supreme Court on race relations as the law of the land and chose to use his authority to enforce the decisions. When Governor Orval Faubus chose to have the Arkansas National Guard to defend the segregation of Little Rock high schools, Ike put them under his direction as Commander-in-Chief and ordered them to facilitate desegregation. His conduct over the Suez Crisis may have stopped a nasty war between Britain and France on the one side... and Egypt. Egypt had the right to the Suez Canal.

Obama acted with caution and integrity. He knew that he could never know everything, so he surrounded people with more specialized knowledge than his. His speeches are coherent, whether you like the content or do not -- reflecting that he rarely spoke off the cuff, and that his public statements as a rule went under the careful scrutiny of people who might find a grammatical error or some other blunder. One always knew for what Obama stood. He may not have been the chest-pounding nationalist, but he respected the intelligence services and the Armed Forces.

I have looked for analogues to Obama, and I find Eisenhower closer than anyone else. I can say this: the next effective Republican President will be more like Obama than like Trump. I would find Trump objectionable were he a liberal because he does so many things wrong, and he would be making a travesty of a liberal agenda.

[pbrower2a]

(04-12-2019, 08:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-29-2019, 12:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: To Trump or not to Trump, as I put it, with apology to the Bard:




50% or more against Trump, margin 9% or higher
50% or more against Trump, margin 5% to 8%
50% or more against Trump, margin 4% or less

The usual margin of error is 4%, and twice that is not close.

I have yet to see any state poll asking such a question as "Do you want to re-elect Donald Trump or do you want someone else?" or "Do you plan to vote for Trump or for the Democratic nominee?" in which this question comes back positively -- yet. This is different from approval, probably suggesting that one likes the results even if one despises the President.  Opposing Trump may not mean that one has fallen in love with liberalism; it may mean that one would rather have some different expression of conservatism as President.

I think you should ignore that fact and continue what you've been doing for the last decade. In other words, you should continue lying and promoting/advancing a false sense of hope to liberal voters.

Yeah, sure. This map shows people saying that they would rather vote for someone else than for Trump. The question might not be asked quite the same, and it shows only 145 electoral votes. If Trump loses only the states that I show with pink or with red shades, then he wins re-election by a margin of 393-195.

Well, that map is already obsolete, as I found a similar question asked of California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Virginia.

To Trump or not to Trump, as I put it:




50% or more against Trump, margin 9% or higher
50% or more against Trump, margin 5% to 8%
50% or more against Trump, margin 4% or less

So if he wins everything in gray, he still wins 309-227. Yeah, sure --- he is going to win several of Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. If you really believe that, then I could post a video that shows how absurd you are -- except that I do not mock people with mental illness. I do not make handicap, LGBT, or ethnic jokes, either.

I have seen the polling -- and Trump is more likely to lose such states as Georgia, Iowa, and Ohio than win any of the states that I mentioned above.

To win re-election from being at this level, Donald Trump must undo much of the ill will that he has created among voters on the margin, voters who voted for Obama but rejected Hillary Clinton.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-13-2019, 01:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(04-12-2019, 08:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-29-2019, 12:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: To Trump or not to Trump, as I put it, with apology to the Bard:




50% or more against Trump, margin 9% or higher
50% or more against Trump, margin 5% to 8%
50% or more against Trump, margin 4% or less

The usual margin of error is 4%, and twice that is not close.

I have yet to see any state poll asking such a question as "Do you want to re-elect Donald Trump or do you want someone else?" or "Do you plan to vote for Trump or for the Democratic nominee?" in which this question comes back positively -- yet. This is different from approval, probably suggesting that one likes the results even if one despises the President.  Opposing Trump may not mean that one has fallen in love with liberalism; it may mean that one would rather have some different expression of conservatism as President.

I think you should ignore that fact and continue what you've been doing for the last decade. In other words, you should continue lying and promoting/advancing a false sense of hope to liberal voters.

Yeah, sure. This map shows people saying that they would rather vote for someone else than for Trump. The question might not be asked quite the same, and it shows only 145 electoral votes. If Trump loses only the states that I show with pink or with red shades, then he wins re-election by a margin of 393-195.

Well, that map is already obsolete, as I found a similar question asked of California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Virginia.

To Trump or not to Trump, as I put it:




50% or more against Trump, margin 9% or higher
50% or more against Trump, margin 5% to 8%
50% or more against Trump, margin 4% or less

So if he wins everything in gray, he still wins 309-227. Yeah, sure --- he is going to win several of Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. If you really believe that, then I could post a video that shows how absurd you are -- except that I do not mock people with mental illness. I do not make handicap, LGBT, or ethnic jokes, either.

I have seen the polling -- and Trump is more likely to lose such states as Georgia, Iowa, and Ohio than win any of the states that I mentioned above.

To win re-election from being at this level, Donald Trump must undo much of the ill will that he has created among voters on the margin, voters who voted for Obama but rejected Hillary Clinton.

Do you know which candidate that you're going to be voting for/ supporting in 2020 like me? Does the candidate matter more to the Democratic voters these days? I know it shouldn't but does it these days? You don't mock people with mental illness's. You just blindly accuse people of having a mental illness like most blues tend to do these days. Hey, do you think any blues who lack the real life experience of getting/having had their asses kicked or finding themselves in a scary situation having it happen to them understand the consequences of doing stupid stuff like that in real life. I'm sorry dude but the odds are now in his favor to win re-election and he knows it and he will have a couple of years to watch, listen, study and size up your pool of candidates.

[Eric the Green]

(04-13-2019, 04:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-13-2019, 01:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(04-12-2019, 08:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-29-2019, 12:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: To Trump or not to Trump, as I put it, with apology to the Bard:




50% or more against Trump, margin 9% or higher
50% or more against Trump, margin 5% to 8%
50% or more against Trump, margin 4% or less

The usual margin of error is 4%, and twice that is not close.

I have yet to see any state poll asking such a question as "Do you want to re-elect Donald Trump or do you want someone else?" or "Do you plan to vote for Trump or for the Democratic nominee?" in which this question comes back positively -- yet. This is different from approval, probably suggesting that one likes the results even if one despises the President.  Opposing Trump may not mean that one has fallen in love with liberalism; it may mean that one would rather have some different expression of conservatism as President.

I think you should ignore that fact and continue what you've been doing for the last decade. In other words, you should continue lying and promoting/advancing a false sense of hope to liberal voters.

Yeah, sure. This map shows people saying that they would rather vote for someone else than for Trump. The question might not be asked quite the same, and it shows only 145 electoral votes. If Trump loses only the states that I show with pink or with red shades, then he wins re-election by a margin of 393-195.

Well, that map is already obsolete, as I found a similar question asked of California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Virginia.

To Trump or not to Trump, as I put it:




50% or more against Trump, margin 9% or higher
50% or more against Trump, margin 5% to 8%
50% or more against Trump, margin 4% or less

So if he wins everything in gray, he still wins 309-227. Yeah, sure --- he is going to win several of Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. If you really believe that, then I could post a video that shows how absurd you are -- except that I do not mock people with mental illness. I do not make handicap, LGBT, or ethnic jokes, either.

I have seen the polling -- and Trump is more likely to lose such states as Georgia, Iowa, and Ohio than win any of the states that I mentioned above.

To win re-election from being at this level, Donald Trump must undo much of the ill will that he has created among voters on the margin, voters who voted for Obama but rejected Hillary Clinton.

Do you know which candidate that  you're going to be voting for/ supporting in 2020 like me? Does the candidate matter more to the Democratic voters these days? I know it shouldn't but does it these days? You don't mock people with mental illness's. You just blindly accuse people of having a mental illness like most blues tend to do these days. Hey, do you think any blues who lack the real life experience of getting/having had  their asses kicked or finding themselves in a scary situation having it happen to them understand the consequences of doing stupid stuff like that in real life. I'm sorry dude but the odds are now in his favor to win re-election and he knows it and he will have a couple of years to watch, listen, study and size up your pool of  candidates.

Since McAuliffe, Landrieu or even Sherrod Brown have not announced, the Democrats will likely have to depend on a couple of old geezers, and maybe only one (Bernie Sanders), to take out Trump in these key states. None of the other candidates has a ghost of a chance against the Orange Menace. They simply do not give the impression of being strong, articulate, steady and charismatic leaders.

It's the blues who have had to deal with more difficult and scary life experiences. Poverty and discrimination is no fun. The reds are cushy folks who benefit from untrammeled capitalism, or else rural folks who are just too provincial and parochial to avoid being brainwashed.

Being a leftist, Sanders has a challenge even to defeat the worst president in the history of this conservative country, but who is a skilled demagogue and insult-mongerer who will not cease hitting Sanders over the head with socialism. Trump can't win a debate on points-- he lost 3 of them to Hillary-- but he can score through intimidation and the power of his personality, honed through years of celebrity and reality TV.

Since Trump has only 44% approval at best, and is down in polling in the 3 states that gave him the election, there's a chance he might lose. I would agree the odds are still slightly in Trump's favor. But if Sanders can hold VA and the western purple states that Hillary won, and can keep his likely lead in Wisconsin and Michigan, then Pennsylvania will be the key to the election. It could be another cliff hanger, and much will depend on what the Republicans can get away with in rigging the vote.

What Sanders has going for him is an ability to inspire with his sincerity and energy, and his honest conviction that he can bring real benefits to the people through his "revolution" against the oligarchs. He really does come across as a leader, if he can sustain it as he gets toward 80 years old.

[Eric the Green]

(04-12-2019, 08:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-29-2019, 12:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: To Trump or not to Trump, as I put it, with apology to the Bard:




50% or more against Trump, margin 9% or higher
50% or more against Trump, margin 5% to 8%
50% or more against Trump, margin 4% or less

The usual margin of error is 4%, and twice that is not close.

I have yet to see any state poll asking such a question as "Do you want to re-elect Donald Trump or do you want someone else?" or "Do you plan to vote for Trump or for the Democratic nominee?" in which this question comes back positively -- yet. This is different from approval, probably suggesting that one likes the results even if one despises the President.  Opposing Trump may not mean that one has fallen in love with liberalism; it may mean that one would rather have some different expression of conservatism as President.

I think you should ignore that fact and continue what you've been doing for the last decade. In other words, you should continue lying and promoting/advancing a false sense of hope to liberal voters.

Mr. Brower is not lying, but it's true we should remember the lesson of 2016 and not be complacent about another Trump win being possible. As Bill Maher said before the election, "Hillary Clinton is not a sure thing." Bernie Sanders is not a sure thing either.

[pbrower2a]

(04-13-2019, 04:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [quote pid='42441' dateline='1555136582']
(excised for brevity)

Do you know which candidate that  you're going to be voting for/ supporting in 2020 like me? Does the candidate matter more to the Democratic voters these days? I know it shouldn't but does it these days? You don't mock people with mental illness's. You just blindly accuse people of having a mental illness like most blues tend to do these days. Hey, do you think any blues who lack the real life experience of getting/having had  their asses kicked or finding themselves in a scary situation having it happen to them understand the consequences of doing stupid stuff like that in real life. I'm sorry dude but the odds are now in his favor to win re-election and he knows it and he will have a couple of years to watch, listen, study and size up your pool of  candidates.
[/quote]

I am nearly a year away from deciding for whom I will vote in the 2020 Democratic Party. We have a quarterback controversy that will have to settle itself. I can only hope that we can find a Democratic nominee around whom a majority of Americans can find acceptable.

Trump is so objectionable to practically any Democrat that he will lose well over 90% of the Democratic voters. No incumbent President has ever shown so many examples of personal vileness as he has. People who voted for him with the suspicion that he is a rogue but capable of doing some important things right have often come to the recognition that he is a Frankenstein monster.

I will spare you of any contention that people who support Donald Trump are intellectually deprived or mentally ill. Diagnoses of mental illness are for experts, but sometimes behavior is so erratic that we can recognize that someone is crazy or exudes such obvious stupidity that an observer can only assume mental retardation. Even the smartest people, often the supposed great thinkers, can be very wrong. Just read Paul Johnson's Intellectuals.

Staying the course with Donald Trump looks like a big mistake. This man entered the Presidency with lesser knowledge of how the political process works, lesser knowledge of American and world history, unprecedented contempt for expertise, and a dismissive attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him for any purpose. He acts as if the President is some dictator capable of forcing any political change that he wants. He does many things that I would not do as President. I would no more way that there are good people on both sides on violent, Nazi-style racism any more than there are good people on both sides on... armed robbery. People who do bad things in knowledge that the rest of Humanity disparages such things are evil. Armed robbery is indefensible.

Donald Trump stands for the worst in American life -- corruption, cronyism, bigotry, and an anti-intellectualism that encompasses anyone with an above-average education. This man selects people who gut the responsibility of regulatory agencies. His foreign policy is muddled in the extreme. Just imagine a liberal thinking that he could kiss up to Kim Jong-un and get miracles. A conservative would rightly be aghast. If I were President I would be doing everything possible to squeeze the horrid regime in North Korea to cause it to divest itself of weapons of mass destruction. Two of North Korea's neighbors have officially stated that they want a nuclear-free Korean peninsula: China and South Korea. That would make my policy obvious if I were President.

Only fools cast off policies and practices that work well. Maybe they might try to refine them incrementally, but only fools would throw away something that works well. Drastic, irreversible change is not my choice except in a desperate situation.

Finally -- Trump is far behind Obama at a similar stage in his Presidency. Obama never got disapproval ratings above 50% nationwide, and never had approval below the mid-40's. Sure, he had to campaign for re-election, and he may have needed to get the CIA to hone in on and Special Forces to whack Osama bin Laden to get re-elected (he barely won a majority of the vote in 2012) -- but he did that. Obama may not have been a chest-pounding militarist, bit he was probably the worst President that one could have as an implacable enemy. Obama recognized the effectiveness of Special Forces and the ability of the CIA, and did not treat them with hostility common among people of the new Left. Trump needs a miracle or few to get his approval ratings in the range in which a spirited and competent campaign for re-election can put him over the top.

I am accustomed to assuming that the incumbent President holds all the advantages. In the last three Presidential elections involving an incumbent President, and in each case the map changed little from the election that installed a President and the election that fave the incumbent involved changes in the voting in few states. Five states changed sides from 1992 to 1996; three from 2000 to 2004; two states and one Congressional district from 2008 to 2012.  I see Trump gaining nothing that he lost in 2016, and having plenty of opportunities for losses in 2020. Florida and any state with ten or more electoral votes defeats him. Pennsylvania and any two states with ten or more electoral votes defeats him. In view of recent electoral history in America, it is counter-intuitive  for me to accept that Donald trump will not be defeated decisively. Just because we have not seen  an incumbent President go down to defeat for a quarter of a century does not preclude such. This said, Trump loses unless he can change perceptions drastically in his favor.

But let's remember the purpose of this thread: it is either light-hearted ridicule or gallows humor about this awful Presidency. It is not really for analysis of the polls. If you want to push the idea that President Trump really has a chance, then I have a thread on polling of approval, which includes approval and disapproval (I see disapproval as more critical than disapproval because disapproval is harder to undo than approval is possible to increase) or whether people want to re-elect Trump or get someone else as President.

The polls that I see seem to confirm my opinion that Trump sucks as a leader and as a person. We are simply lucky that nothing big has really gone wrong for people likely to vote for President. Puerto Ricans can vote for President -- if they reside in the Continental United States -- but otherwise do not matter to Trump.

[pbrower2a]

(04-13-2019, 07:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-12-2019, 08:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I think you should ignore that fact and continue what you've been doing for the last decade. In other words, you should continue lying and promoting/advancing a false sense of hope to liberal voters.

Mr. Brower is not lying, but it's true we should remember the lesson of 2016 and not be complacent about another Trump win being possible. As Bill Maher said before the election, "Hillary Clinton is not a sure thing." Bernie Sanders is not a sure thing either.

Thank you, Eric. I could be wrong about the 2020 election if the political climate reverts to what it was in late 2016, let alone 2014 or 2010, wave years for the Republican Party. In such a case, Donald Trump still wins, if perhaps with a barer margin in the Electoral College -- or even gains some. I cannot understand why someone predicts something like that except if he has a rosy view of the chances of Trump to get re-elected.

I don't ordinarily make predictions unless I see some pattern fitting precedent. The pattern need not be perfect, but it needs to  (1) be decisive, and (2) have relevant precedent. President Trump is decisively behind other Presidents at this stage, including some who eventually got defeated, and it is not for doing things that create short-term pain for long-term improvements. Reagan was one of the least effective Presidents at this stage, and such reflects that he compelled many Americans to lower their expectations so that he could set economic policies to put an end to stagflation. In the early 1980s America had the best-educated salesclerks in malls and fast-food workers ever, which was one way of ensuring that people sold out their dreams cheaply.

Interest rates fell, and employment rose -- even if it was because people had to work two minimum-wage jobs to survive. Wages stagnated, profits and executive compensation skyrocketed, and Big Business was able to establish labor discipline as harsh for many people as it was in the 1920s. The problem is that we are stuck in that trend. It will crash, and the Millennial Generation reminds me of the French generation that stormed the Bastille. Having seen economic conditions at their most unforgiving most of their lives and hearing their older late-X siblings or late-Boom or early-X parents complain about life being harder without compensation, they have no cause to believe the pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die promises of people who exercise great power and show no restraints in personal indulgence.

For all our prosperity, we are mishandling it badly. We have food surpluses -- and food insecurity for millions. We have opulent splendor that aristocrats of early-modern aristocrats of central Europe could imagine, but we also have gross deprivation. There has never been a time and place in which it has been more rewarding and secure to be filthy rich than contemporary America, but with worsening poverty. The bounty of capitalist productivity has not been trickling down.

Unlike Classic X'er, utterly incompetent at statistical inference, I recognize such as one of my strengths. I can see patterns and deviations from them. I see a Presidency in disarray to an unprecedented extent in a President's first term.  For Presidents who did not get re-elected in the last century (Hoover, Ford, the elder Bush, and Carter) I often see one glaring problem. Hoover was fine except for his economic stewardship. Ford lacked experience in winning statewide elections and did not learn how to run an effective campaign in 1976 until it was too late. Carter thought that he could bring his Atlanta model to Washington -- and national politicians stopped him early. The elder Bush solved most of the problems of his time but had no coherent idea of what to do in a Second Act.

Trump does not know how government works, and it shows. He is cruel and corrupt as no President has ever been. He offends he sensibilities of all liberals and even many conservatives. Sure, he has fanatical supporters, but so does every despot and dictator. I cannot now see him getting re-elected in a fair and honest election unless America starts believing as he does.

[David Horn]

Let's agree on a few things that make polling particularly hard at the moment:

• The electorate is divided in more ways than pro-Trump and anti-Trump. The true believers in both the pro and anti camps are not as great in number as the pro and anti polling numbers suggest. I suspect that a large percentage of the respondents are just angry, and support or oppose Trump as a way to make a point -- but little else.
• The center of the electorate hates Trump's persona but is willing to overlook that if it benefits them personally. If the economy goes South or healthcare is dismantled, all bets are off.
• There will be an ever increasing level of Trump fatigue, because that effect is already occurring. He's just more than most people can bear over the long haul, and that will drive down his fringe support. They may not support the Dems, but they may very well stay home.

So what, if anything, does this portend? It's too early to tell, but the Trump will win again crowd may wish to take a breath.

[pbrower2a]

(04-14-2019, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote: Let's agree on a few things that make polling particularly hard at the moment:

• The electorate is divided in more ways than pro-Trump and anti-Trump.  The true believers in both the pro and anti camps are not as great in number as the pro and anti polling numbers suggest.  I suspect that a large percentage of the respondents are just angry, and support or oppose Trump as a way to make a point -- but little else.
  
• The center of the electorate hates Trump's persona but is willing to overlook that if it benefits them personally.  If the economy goes South or healthcare is dismantled, all bets are off.
  
• There will be an ever increasing level of Trump fatigue, because that effect is already occurring.  He's just more than most people can bear over the long haul, and that will drive down his fringe support.  They may not support the Dems, but they may very well stay home.
  

So what, if anything, does this portend?  It's too early to tell, but the Trump will win again crowd may wish to take a breath.

I have seen disapproval levels for President Trump so high, and see a ceiling of just above 50% of the popular vote for the Democratic nominee (the electorate is so severely polarized) that there will be a significant vote for a conservative nominee as an Independent or Third Party alternative.

At this point I would predict a range between a mirror image of the 1980 election, with the Democrat winning just over 50% of the popular vote and Trump getting just over 41% of the popular vote and the result of the 1992 Presidential election, wherein Clinton got about 375 electoral voters against a President against whom Americans had fatigue.

I am accustomed to seeing close elections, and we have not seen a 400-electoral vote election involving a Democratic winner since LBJ in 1964. We are in strange political territory in part due to Donald Trump.

[Eric the Green]

The polls are likely not to be accurate yet about who will win the nomination and presidency. No prediction about who will win will be relevant until the Democratic nominee is chosen. The skill and strength of the nominee will be critical. The Democrats often blow this, because liberals like us think the country wants what we want: someone who is smart and has the right policies. That's not enough. Americans need to be impressed that the candidate is a strong leader. Skill in connecting with the voters is needed, at the heart and gut levels as well as the head level. That is the pattern I see in looking at who wins and loses presidential elections in the USA.

[pbrower2a]

There is a thread on polling for the President, and I suggest that the discussion go there.

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid42314

[pbrower2a]

Does anyone have a problem with Donald Trump, having praised Wikileaks to the heavens during his campaign, saying now that he knows nothing about it? Talk about an Orwellian memory hole!

Sorry, Mr. President, and I have read Nineteen Eighty Four several times since adolescence... and it fits you well, especially on linguistic fraud.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-14-2019, 11:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does anyone have a problem with Donald Trump, having praised Wikileaks to the heavens during his campaign, saying now that he knows nothing about it? Talk about an Orwellian memory hole!

Sorry, Mr. President, and I have read Nineteen Eighty Four several times since adolescence... and it fits you well, especially on linguistic fraud.

I assume that you are unable to see the signs and associate the blue regime that you currently support as being similar to the one that you read about/ learned about by reading "1984".

[Classic-Xer]

(04-14-2019, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote: Let's agree on a few things that make polling particularly hard at the moment:

• The electorate is divided in more ways than pro-Trump and anti-Trump.  The true believers in both the pro and anti camps are not as great in number as the pro and anti polling numbers suggest.  I suspect that a large percentage of the respondents are just angry, and support or oppose Trump as a way to make a point -- but little else.
  
• The center of the electorate hates Trump's persona but is willing to overlook that if it benefits them personally.  If the economy goes South or healthcare is dismantled, all bets are off.
  
• There will be an ever increasing level of Trump fatigue, because that effect is already occurring.  He's just more than most people can bear over the long haul, and that will drive down his fringe support.  They may not support the Dems, but they may very well stay home.
  

So what, if anything, does this portend?  It's too early to tell, but the Trump will win again crowd may wish to take a breath.

How many Americans are getting tired of the liberals? I'm tired of the liberals.

[David Horn]

(04-14-2019, 10:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The polls are likely not to be accurate yet about who will win the nomination and presidency. No prediction about who will win will be relevant until the Democratic nominee is chosen. The skill and strength of the nominee will be critical. The Democrats often blow this, because liberals like us think the country wants what we want: someone who is smart and has the right policies. That's not enough. Americans need to be impressed that the candidate is a strong leader. Skill in connecting with the voters is needed, at the heart and gut levels as well as the head level. That is the pattern I see in looking at who wins and loses presidential elections in the USA.

Actually, this is the argument for Mayor Pete.  It's notable that he became more than a bit dyspeptic with the Democrats when he was a college student, wrote a paper about it, and is following his own advice today: forget positions and policy statements and rely on telling a narrative that aligns with people's lives.  He's now third n the early polling -- coming out of nowhere.  Even if he's not the one, and he's incredibly impressive, his strategy of narrative first should be followed by whoever gets the nod.

[David Horn]

(04-15-2019, 01:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-14-2019, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote: Let's agree on a few things that make polling particularly hard at the moment:

• The electorate is divided in more ways than pro-Trump and anti-Trump.  The true believers in both the pro and anti camps are not as great in number as the pro and anti polling numbers suggest.  I suspect that a large percentage of the respondents are just angry, and support or oppose Trump as a way to make a point -- but little else.
  
• The center of the electorate hates Trump's persona but is willing to overlook that if it benefits them personally.  If the economy goes South or healthcare is dismantled, all bets are off.
  
• There will be an ever increasing level of Trump fatigue, because that effect is already occurring.  He's just more than most people can bear over the long haul, and that will drive down his fringe support.  They may not support the Dems, but they may very well stay home.
  

So what, if anything, does this portend?  It's too early to tell, but the Trump will win again crowd may wish to take a breath.

How many Americans are getting tired of the liberals? I'm tired of the liberals.

Liberals haven't run the government since Lyndon Johnson, so I assume you're referring to liberal dominance of the culture.  What can any politician do to change that?  The culture is driven by many things, almost none of them tied to the government.  You should be happy.  It's the model you claim to support.