US PoliERA 2019 |OT4| Folded like a DOG

Status
Not open for further replies.

DinosaurusRex

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,679
Several well-known modelers and pollsters are predicting a Trump re-election at this point. Starting to wonder whether that would be for the better seeing as Dems stand an excellent chance at retaking the Senate in 2022 with a significant majority if Trump is re-elected and he would be largely ineffective without any power in Congress.

If Dems do win the WH in 2020, but without the Senate (let's be real, it's looking really likely at this point), the Dem President would still be stonewalled by the GOP.

I wish it wasn't like this, but Climate and Healthcare reform seem to be far out of scope at this point in time.
Fuuuuuuck that. Dude is an existential threat to our democracy.
 

TheHunter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,461
Several well-known modelers and pollsters are predicting a Trump re-election at this point. Starting to wonder whether that would be for the better seeing as Dems stand an excellent chance at retaking the Senate in 2022 with a significant majority if Trump is re-elected and he would be largely ineffective without any power in Congress.

If Dems do win the WH in 2020, but without the Senate (let's be real, it's looking really likely at this point), the Dem President would still be stonewalled by the GOP.

I wish it wasn't like this, but Climate and Healthcare reform seem to be far out of scope at this point in time.
What pollsters have you been looking at?
 

Psamtik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,513
Several well-known modelers and pollsters are predicting a Trump re-election at this point. Starting to wonder whether that would be for the better seeing as Dems stand an excellent chance at retaking the Senate in 2022 with a significant majority if Trump is re-elected and he would be largely ineffective without any power in Congress.

If Dems do win the WH in 2020, but without the Senate (let's be real, it's looking really likely at this point), the Dem President would still be stonewalled by the GOP.

I wish it wasn't like this, but Climate and Healthcare reform seem to be far out of scope at this point in time.
There's just no way around the fact that, if Biden is the nominee, Trump loses Pennsylvania. That doesn't close off Trump's chances entirely, but it constricts an already narrow path.
 

Royalan

Yeah I'm in my bag, but I'm in his too.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
3,744
I'm sure the Franken thing didn't help, but even before that I never saw it for Gillibrand. I mean, I don't understand what the thinking was behind her viability as a candidate outside of...occupying Hillary's old Senate seat?

Prior to 2017 she had no name recognition outside of New York. And she seems intent on running the kind of campaign that guarantees she never really will. Upstate NY ain't a model for the country, sis.
 

thuway

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,465
Several well-known modelers and pollsters are predicting a Trump re-election at this point. Starting to wonder whether that would be for the better seeing as Dems stand an excellent chance at retaking the Senate in 2022 with a significant majority if Trump is re-elected and he would be largely ineffective without any power in Congress.

If Dems do win the WH in 2020, but without the Senate (let's be real, it's looking really likely at this point), the Dem President would still be stonewalled by the GOP.

I wish it wasn't like this, but Climate and Healthcare reform seem to be far out of scope at this point in time.
Link?
 

Poodlestrike

There is much talk, and I have listened...
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
5,601
I'm sure the Franken thing didn't help, but even before that I never saw it for Gillibrand. I mean, I don't understand what the thinking was behind her viability as a candidate outside of...occupying Hillary's old Senate seat?

Prior to 2017 she had no name recognition outside of New York. And she seems intent on running the kind of campaign that guarantees she never really will. Upstate NY ain't a model for the country, sis.
For a lot of us, the Franken thing was what got us interested in her to begin with. For a while there she was just so sharp, man. Every time there was some shift in the party policy, she was out there calling for it days or weeks in advance. Showed up to a ton of the DC protests in a big way, too.

Then she started to campaign for President and it all just fell apart. I think the response from some quarters to the Franken thing made her gunshy. She needed to double down on that, really commit to the intersectional feminism. Instead, she's acting like the people who called her an opportunist for doing good right.
 

Raster

Member
Feb 28, 2018
2,056

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,116
The Al Franken thing, while absolutely the right thing to do, really seems to have sunk any chance she had.
Yeah I'm gonna have to go and disagree with you there dawg

The problem is she's a shitty campaigner. She's failed to connect with any group, let alone multiple groups, and has no interesting policies that aren't shadowed by other candidates' better policies.
Re: Gillibrand, Politico had a profile on her recently: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/31/kirsten-gillibrand-2020-democratic-campaign-president-primary-podcast-227032

The gist of it is that she's running her campaign as if this were the general, when this is still the primary where grassroots energy and progressivism leads to the most engagement. And she's doing this because she doesn't want to be typecast as the "woman candidate", but it's a problem when there are 20 other candidates in the field and Gillibrand doesn't excel or draw in any specific demographic better than others.
This is it, more eloquently than how I put it.
 

mclem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,872
The cryptic crossword in today's Daily Telegraph looks forward to the Presidential visit to the UK ...

16a Awfully cheap dime charged (9) = IMPEACHED
24a After turn of century, end possible contract (2-5) = NO TRUMP
For 24A, I get the cryptic part of the definition, but I'm failing to see how NO TRUMP stems from 'possible contract'. Am I missing something obvious? This should be the easy bit!
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
12,133
London
Well, this Hill article sent me into a panic lol
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/445668-3-modelers-predict-trump-reelection

That + the Professor who predicted Trump would win based on his model.

Nate Silver has also been pretty hesitant about making a bold prediction or at least an assessment of where things stand now.
The Hill articles are basically designed to send one into a tizzy.

What's funny is that the NYT opinion article that portions of the The Hill article are based on shines a light on just how much Trump's general assholery is hurting him:

When the 2016 election rolled round, a surprising result emerged. According to the model, Donald Trump should have received 54.1 percent of the vote; in actuality he received 48.8 percent. I’m quite confident that the gap was a function of the generally unfavorable rankings on Mr. Trump’s personal qualities. In other words, a more “normal” Republican would likely have won the popular vote by a substantial margin (instead of losing it by three million votes).

A good part of Mr. Trump’s edge in 2016 was the incumbency factor — after eight years of a Democratic president, voters would ordinarily have wanted a Republican. (Since 1952, only one man has become president following eight years of a president of the same party.) In 2020, incumbency will be a tailwind for Mr. Trump as the vast majority of presidents are chosen for a second term.

In its present state, the economy will also be helpful to the president. All told, Mr. Trump’s vote share would ordinarily be as high as 56.1 percent. But that’s before factoring in his personality. As recent polls show, if the election were today, he would lose to most of the Democratic hopefuls by a substantial margin; in the case of Joe Biden, by nearly eight percentage points.
Any sane Republican would cruise to re-election with an economy this good. The fact that the race is competitive at all just shows you how much of a dumpster fire he is.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
7,834


Jake Sherman @JakeSherman

>⁦@jaketapper⁩ got a big-time admission out of ⁦@WhipClyburn⁩ — the no 3 house democrats says he thinks trump will eventually be impeached.



10:50 AM - Jun 2, 2019




State of the Union @CNNSotu

.@JakeTapper: “It sounds like you think that the President will be impeached, or at least proceedings will begin in the House at some point, but just not right now?"@WhipClyburn: "Yes, that's exactly what I feel." https://cnn.it/2Mo5CFE #CNNSOTU

9:45 AM - Jun 2, 2019
 

EvilChameleon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,800
Youngstown, Ohio
The ship thing is just such petty bullshit because the ships don't have their names plastered on the side of them like cruise ships, so does anyone really think Trump would have known, in the moment, that the USS John McCain was docked nearby?
 

ArkhamFantasy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,730
I have asked this question for months

WHO IS HICKENLOOPER FOR? How did he make the debates?
Most of these candidates know they don't have a chance, they're just trying to get publicity, Hickenlooper probably not getting the publicity he wants, or maybe he is?

The fact that he brought "We can't afford a normal healthcare system" to a california democratic event makes me think he's not taking this too seriously.
 

Tomohawk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
741
She has no national base, but does have a very strong anti-Trump voting record in the Senate. None of his nominees. Potential debate spoiler for both Biden and Sanders, but could help the other women candidates.

News orgs not being paragons of virtue in no way puts them on the same level as tyt. For over two years the reporting about the Russia investigations has been proven to be extremely accurate, none of that has come from tyt.
I feel like tyt is singled out as worse then most news orgs, when if someone posts something from WSJ a paper that endorsed Bolsonaro or even CNN which has dumber pundits they don't immediately get ad hommed. Sure they're smaller and their aggressive progressive programming is incredibly stupid, but I would argue they're better than both sidesing CNN that doesnt face anywhere near the same scrutiny.

Also I feel like Brainchild takes the time to make well thought out posts and gets treated with the least amount of charity regularly with low effort responses and it's very annoying.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,673
The Hill articles are basically designed to send one into a tizzy.

What's funny is that the NYT opinion article that portions of the The Hill article are based on shines a light on just how much Trump's general assholery is hurting him:



Any sane Republican would cruise to re-election with an economy this good. The fact that the race is competitive at all just shows you how much of a dumpster fire he is.
If Kasich were president right now, his approval rating would be in the mid-50s. Still might have lost the House due to a more standard midterm slump, but he’d be cruising to reelection.
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
12,133
London
If Kasich were president right now, his approval rating would be in the mid-50s. Still might have lost the House due to a more standard midterm slump, but he’d be cruising to reelection.
Yep. After the midterm shellacking Trump hasn't tried to expand his base one bit and has doubled-down on anti-immigrant rhetoric, and from what we're getting from polling there's almost no undecideds when people are asked whether they approve or disapprove. If the 52+% that disapprove of him bother to turn out in decent numbers it should be a pretty good result for the Dem - plus the economic recovery appears to be peaking and with the ongoing trade dispute it's really going to hurt his farm-/rust-belt numbers.

It's not a done-deal but it's not at all impossible to beat him.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,703
Minnesota

Powerful #BigIdeas from today: Sanders: End Endless Wars Booker: Baby Bonds Warren: Clean Up Corruption Beto: Treat Every Immigrant w/Dignity Gillibrand: National Family Paid Leave Harris: Close Gender Pay Gap Castro: End Police Brutality Klobuchar: Expand Voting Rights @MoveOn

These were all really good picks.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,448
I feel like tyt is singled out as worse then most news orgs, when if someone posts something from WSJ a paper that endorsed Bolsonaro or even CNN which has dumber pundits they don't immediately get ad hommed. Sure they're smaller and their aggressive progressive programming is incredibly stupid, but I would argue they're better than both sidesing CNN that doesnt face anywhere near the same scrutiny.

Also I feel like Brainchild takes the time to make well thought out posts and gets treated with the least amount of charity regularly with low effort responses and it's very annoying.
By all means, defend TYT as a news gathering organization and Brainchild as a quality poster. Also, what's that Chapo Reddit you get your insight from? Also, has a post of yours not ever used lols as a response condescendingly. Rhetorical question so don't feel compelled to answer. Low effort indeed.
 

Puppet Shadow

Member
Oct 25, 2017
217
The ship thing is just such petty bullshit because the ships don't have their names plastered on the side of them like cruise ships, so does anyone really think Trump would have known, in the moment, that the USS John McCain was docked nearby?
As the name is at the stern of the ship, I don't think he'd have any way of seeing it. Which makes the whole thing just that more petty.
 

chadskin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,360
Chris Lehane, a California-based Democratic strategist now working in the tech sector, said that momentum and media attention from early victories would power any success in the Super Tuesday states.

He summarized his best California strategy in two words: “Win Iowa.”
Good look at the role California will be playing as an early primary state.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,703
Minnesota
By all means, defend...Brainchild as a quality poster.
You know, with the way I'm antagonized on this forum sometimes, you'd think I was some kind of petulant troll. If you don't like me, you can just say that instead of suggesting that I'm a low effort poster. If the goal is to get me to stop posting here (which I feel is a growing sentiment) then you might succeed on that front because I did not come here for this.
 

Avinash117

Member
Oct 25, 2017
841

In a news conference in the Gulf of Mexico port of Veracruz, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said Mexico could be ready to step up measures to contain migration in order to reach a deal with the United States.

A Mexican delegation led by Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard will discuss the dispute with U.S. officials in Washington on Wednesday, and Lopez Obrador said he expected “good results” from the talks, and for a deal to emerge.

“The main thing is to inform about what we’re already doing on the migration issue, and if it’s necessary to reinforce these measures without violating human rights, we could be prepared to reach that deal,” Lopez Obrador said.
Do anyone thinks anything will turn out will? I doubt that Mexico has the ability to halt the flow of migrants or slow it down significantly it will take a lot of resources that they have with all the things going on in Mexico, unless they put a huge amount of focus exclusively on stop migration. That is something I don't see them doing.

Many of the Trump administration officials don't want the tariffs and Trump can be played, so I wonder if they come to an agreement that won't happen in reality to placate Trump.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
9,659



Do anyone thinks anything will turn out will? I doubt that Mexico has the ability to halt the flow of migrants or slow it down significantly it will take a lot of resources that they have with all the things going on in Mexico, unless they put a huge amount of focus exclusively on stop migration. That is something I don't see them doing.

Many of the Trump administration officials don't want the tariffs and Trump can be played, so I wonder if they come to an agreement that won't happen in reality to placate Trump.
Probably gonna end up with a lot more dead Mexican soldiers in cartel territory and a minimum reduction in immigration flowing to the US
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,448
You know, with the way I'm antagonized on this forum sometimes, you'd think I was some kind of petulant troll. If you don't like me, you can just say that instead of suggesting that I'm a low effort poster. If the goal is to get me to stop posting here (which I feel is a growing sentiment) then you might succeed on that front because I did not come here for this.
I didn't say you were low effort, I was responding to those saying criticsms of your posts were low effort. Because those not ignoring you put a good deal of effort into reading your posts.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,703
Minnesota
I didn't say you were low effort
Not explicitly, no, but that's the implication, right? Your statement that Tomohawk should defend TYT and myself was sarcastic, right? Well, I'm sure people can infer from that sarcasm something a bit more disparaging than you're willing to say directly, and I just think it's a bit petty, but whatever. Don't wanna derail the thread, but I'd appreciate it if we didn't resort to these kinds of cheap shots when having discussions in this community.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,448
Not explicitly, no, but that's the implication, right? Your statement that Tomohawk should defend TYT and myself was sarcastic, right? Well, I'm sure people can infer from that sarcasm something a bit more disparaging than you're willing to say directly, and I just think it's a bit petty, but whatever. Don't wanna derail the thread, but I'd appreciate it if we didn't resort to these kinds of cheap shots when having discussions in this community.
Nope. I never said you were low effort. Tomohawk's post history was mighty low effort from the skim. Can't choose your defense force though, right Helio?
 

Tomohawk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
741
By all means, defend TYT as a news gathering organization and Brainchild as a quality poster. Also, what's that Chapo Reddit you get your insight from? Also, has a post of yours not ever used lols as a response condescendingly. Rhetorical question so don't feel compelled to answer. Low effort indeed.
Im sorry I honestly don't understand this post. But yes I was condescending to someone who was being rude, you got me.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,673
Yep. After the midterm shellacking Trump hasn't tried to expand his base one bit and has doubled-down on anti-immigrant rhetoric, and from what we're getting from polling there's almost no undecideds when people are asked whether they approve or disapprove. If the 52+% that disapprove of him bother to turn out in decent numbers it should be a pretty good result for the Dem - plus the economic recovery appears to be peaking and with the ongoing trade dispute it's really going to hurt his farm-/rust-belt numbers.

It's not a done-deal but it's not at all impossible to beat him.
Yeah, right now I’m setting my expectations at about a three-point popular vote victory, which should be enough to win the presidency depending on the candidate. Biden, for example I think has Pennsylvania on lockdown, while Michigan should flip naturally - it would just be a matter then of flipping Wisconsin or Arizona, both of which could go blue for very different reasons (Wisconsin due to Midwestern/Rust Belt snapback, while Arizona is likeliest to be turned off by Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric). He could also win Florida, or for maximum comedy, peel off two extra electoral votes in Nebraska and Maine for the slimmest win possible.


Powerful #BigIdeas from today: Sanders: End Endless Wars Booker: Baby Bonds Warren: Clean Up Corruption Beto: Treat Every Immigrant w/Dignity Gillibrand: National Family Paid Leave Harris: Close Gender Pay Gap Castro: End Police Brutality Klobuchar: Expand Voting Rights @MoveOn

These were all really good picks.
Goddamn, that would be a beautiful platform in totality. I hope no matter who wins the primary, the country can get behind the nominee, win the House and Senate and make it all happen.

None of that strikes me as particularly fanciful, either, so long as something is done about the filibuster. Like, I think each of those is something even the Manchin-Sinema-Jones caucus could get behind, and peel off a few Republican votes in the process (along the Murkowski, Rubio, Romney lines - I’m hoping Collins is out by this point).
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,118
I'm not saying Trump won't win, but when multiple polls show him trailing in head-to-head matchups, sometimes by a lot; when his approval is as low as it always is; when he hasn't retooled his strategy after the midterms; when articles show that his team is privately worried about at least MI and PA... you can say he faces an uphill battle and we have a very good chance of winning. It doesn't mean you're ~~~complacent~~~. It doesn't mean you're jinxing anything. It doesn't mean you're unaware of the work it'll take to win the election. You're just being realistic.
 

XMonkey

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,536
Gillibrand’s trying to play it too safe and there’s nothing that really distinguishes her from the other candidates. It’s easy to see why she’s underwater.

Well, this Hill article sent me into a panic lol
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/445668-3-modelers-predict-trump-reelection

That + the Professor who predicted Trump would win based on his model.

Nate Silver has also been pretty hesitant about making a bold prediction or at least an assessment of where things stand now.
The Hill kinda sucks and of course there are paths to Trump winning again, but besides that, I would hope Nate would be holding off on making any bold predictions. The election is nearly 1.5 years away.
 

Neoweee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,883
Well, this Hill article sent me into a panic lol
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/445668-3-modelers-predict-trump-reelection

That + the Professor who predicted Trump would win based on his model.
The professor dude is a total hack that changes his mind and his prediction constantly, notes himself favorably whenever there is a EC/PV split, and is making some utterly baffling calls this time (Trump isn't hit by "scandal", which is laughable). He is bolstered by terrible political reporting that doesn't even try to judge anyone's predictions consistently.

People shouldn't take him seriously.
 
Last edited:

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
12,133
London
I'm not saying Trump won't win, but when multiple polls show him trailing in head-to-head matchups, sometimes by a lot; when his approval is as low as it always is; when he hasn't retooled his strategy after the midterms; when articles show that his team is privately worried about at least MI and PA... you can say he faces an uphill battle and we have a very good chance of winning. It doesn't mean you're ~~~complacent~~~. It doesn't mean you're jinxing anything. It doesn't mean you're unaware of the work it'll take to win the election. You're just being realistic.
I looked at pre-convention polling for 2011 and Obama was leading almost every head-to-head, by a lot - he only dipped behind Romney after the primaries in mid 2012

Trump behind behind right now is awful.

Yeah, right now I’m setting my expectations at about a three-point popular vote victory, which should be enough to win the presidency depending on the candidate. Biden, for example I think has Pennsylvania on lockdown, while Michigan should flip naturally - it would just be a matter then of flipping Wisconsin or Arizona, both of which could go blue for very different reasons (Wisconsin due to Midwestern/Rust Belt snapback, while Arizona is likeliest to be turned off by Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric). He could also win Florida, or for maximum comedy, peel off two extra electoral votes in Nebraska and Maine for the slimmest win possible.


Goddamn, that would be a beautiful platform in totality. I hope no matter who wins the primary, the country can get behind the nominee, win the House and Senate and make it all happen.

None of that strikes me as particularly fanciful, either, so long as something is done about the filibuster. Like, I think each of those is something even the Manchin-Sinema-Jones caucus could get behind, and peel off a few Republican votes in the process (along the Murkowski, Rubio, Romney lines - I’m hoping Collins is out by this point).
Would a three point margin keep the House?
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,118
I looked at pre-convention polling for 2011 and Obama was leading almost every head-to-head, by a lot - he only dipped behind Romney after the primaries in mid 2012

Trump behind behind right now is awful.



Would a three point margin keep the House?
With incumbency advantage and distribution of the vote, we'd be pretty likely to keep it. These maps were designed for a President Romney or Kasich, not Trump. The areas that gave us the House won't vote GOP with him on the ballot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.