Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:01 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by divemaster View Post
Trump infuriates me, as a conservative Evangelical-style Republican. I can not vote for him; I will not vote for him.
You're in a potential swing state. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Trump.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 06-07-2019 at 03:02 PM.
  #52  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:08 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
There's a whole bunch of people who have not been operating in good faith for a long time now; they aren't gonna want to change eh.
Very true.
  #53  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:13 PM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
You can join a third party if you want, but that probably won't help much in terms of keeping Trump out of office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
You're in a potential swing state. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Trump.
Actually, voting third-party is like either not voting or like voting 1/2 for both major parties. It's only half as effective at removing the offending candidate as voting for the other major party would be, but it is not equally as effective at keeping the odious person in power as actually voting for him would be.
  #54  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:11 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Actually, voting third-party is like either not voting or like voting 1/2 for both major parties. It's only half as effective at removing the offending candidate as voting for the other major party would be, but it is not equally as effective at keeping the odious person in power as actually voting for him would be.
Vote for Schrödinger's cat in 2020?
  #55  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by divemaster View Post
Well, that lasted about as long as I thought it would.

"Biden reverses course. Democratic candidate no longer supports Hyde Amendment..."

(from my phone's Yahoo news feed).

"...bowing to pressure...and abandoning a long and allegedly deeply held point of personal conviction."

(from my phone's CNN news feed)
He's a politician, trying to win the Dem nomination in a time where the Dem party has moved a long ways to the left. He's doing the amoral, politically-savvy thing.
  #56  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:18 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,220
The Biden abortion stuff is interesting in light of the argument I have been making on the abortion threads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Unfortunately, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and there’s a good chance they’ll nominate someone like Warren because it’s “her turn” rather than someone who can simply connect to people on a gut level like Gabbard or Buttigieg.

My first sighting this season of a Gabbard supporter! I knew there must be some out there somewhere, but I had not seen any until this moment. It's as exciting as I expected--and as hilarious.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
My humble disjointed opinions: Republicans always come home and they always vote. Elections turn on how many Democrats turn out. If Roe v Wade is overturned or appears in imminent danger, this will galvanize Democrats to come out and vote. We can't be afraid of impeachment riling up Republicans, they're always riled up anyway and are reliable voters. 2016 was an aberration, Democrats had the misfortune of nominating someone that too many people found totally unlikable. Not Donald is the unlikable one, the "will not vote for him under any circumstance" numbers are killers.

I think the Dems take back PA, MI, WI, and IA. Ohio and Florida will be tough. Both seem to be trending redder. I don't see DJT flipping any states. The tight MN race in 2016 was an aberration.

Agreed. Minnesota has added my wife and me to its electorate since 2016. We are not letting him win, I promise!

But yeah: the 55% "will not vote for him under any circumstance" are not changing their minds. Regardless of the circumstance.
  #57  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:28 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Actually, voting third-party is like either not voting or like voting 1/2 for both major parties. It's only half as effective at removing the offending candidate as voting for the other major party would be, but it is not equally as effective at keeping the odious person in power as actually voting for him would be.

Thank you! This trope has always irked me for its innumeracy.
  #58  
Old 06-07-2019, 08:04 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... yeah: the 55% "will not vote for him under any circumstance" are not changing their minds. Regardless of the circumstance.
About 74% of eligible voters didn't vote for him last time. Of course about 74% of eligible voters didn't vote for Clinton. He won with only 26.3% of all eligible voters and she lost with 26.5% of them. Not bothering to vote won the popularity contest by far at nearly 46%.

Will not vote for him under any circumstance is not enough.

Last edited by DSeid; 06-07-2019 at 08:04 PM.
  #59  
Old 06-07-2019, 08:17 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,220
Speaking of innumeracy...
  #60  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:00 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,964
Yes, I was in fact speaking of innumeracy. Thinking that 55% of possible voters saying they are going to not vote for a candidate is the same as 55% saying they are going to vote for the Democratic candidate is a serious lack of understanding the numbers.

Let's actually look at the poll itself.
Quote:
... 2020 may not be as much of a slam-dunk for the Democrats as some of his ratings would suggest. One example: Among those who rule Trump out, just 29 percent say they’ll definitely support his eventual Democratic opponent. Two thirds, instead, say they’re waiting to see who that is.

Also, while more than half say they’ll definitely not support Trump, 42 percent of Americans overall, and 45 percent of registered voters, say they’d at least consider him for a second term. Trump won 46.1 percent of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 48.2 percent in 2016 ...

... In the Midwest – the region where he won the presidency – 54 percent say they’d definitely or possibly support him for re-election
That last bit is particularly scary and on point for this thread. His support is highest in the regions a D cannot again lose and win the election.
  #61  
Old 06-09-2019, 04:45 PM
Mike Mabes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 197
Call me overconfident (an adjective no one has ever used about me) but unless the Dems nominate Emma Goldman, they can't lose. Trump, in the last election, was a very strong candidate. He was the outsider who would drain the swamp, the great businessman who would create jobs, the deal maker who would solve the Iran and North Korean isssues. No one, other than MAGA-hat-wearing-morons, still believe that. He is going to be on the defensive for the entire campaign, he will not be able to point to any accomplishments, he will ramble on and on and tweet on and on. He will be even more incoherent.

I know what the approval ratings are for him now. Historically, a sitting President can't win with those numbers; Trump could win if he were the same Trump he was last time. Even then, it would be a close race.

He is not that guy. And I don't see anything that can happen that will cause his approval rating to go up in the next couple of years, and I see a lot of things that will cause it to go down
  #62  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:07 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,209
I just don't get the idea of needing to "earn" someone's vote when you are already 100% against their opponent. It's as if people have this nature to reject bivalent choices.

You are against Trump. So vote against him. That means voting Democrat.

The only reason it would ever make sense not to vote Democrat if you are against Trump is if you think the Democrat is worse.

All elections involve voting for the candidate that will do the best, and against the one that will do the worst. These are synonymous. If Trump is the worst, then the Democrat will be the best.

The other candidates cannot win. Your vote does in any way stop either candidate who can win. It does nothing.

This is one situation where I'm all about looking at the practical reality rather than ideology. The practical matter is that you'll either vote against Trump, or you won't. You'll either try to stop him, or you won't. '

You can always say "I didn't want to vote for the pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate, but even they were better than Trump.

If you must temper your vote, vote for Republicans in Congress. Use the checks and balances to your advantage. But VOTE AGAINST TRUMP.
  #63  
Old 06-09-2019, 06:59 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,978
I'm an outsider, of course, so just rubbernecking, but that's how I would analyse it too.

The US has a two and only two party system.

If you say you're a "never Trumper" but aren't prepared to vote against him, then you're actually a "grudgingly okay with Trump" voter.

Maybe you're okay with that. But don't call yourself a "never Trumper" if you're not prepared to do something that keeps him out of the Oval Office.

As one of our comics up here once said: "So what if it's the choice between two evils? It's always important that the lesser of two evils gets elected."
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #64  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:24 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
Call me overconfident (an adjective no one has ever used about me) but unless the Dems nominate Emma Goldman, they can't lose.
You're overconfident.

But seriously, you're overconfident. It doesn't matter whether Trump loses by 10,000 votes in states like California, or 10,000,000. And it doesn't matter whether Trump wins in Wisconsin/Michigan/Pennsylvania/etc. by 10,000 votes or 10,000,000. The only thing that matters is how well Democrat X can fight it out with the Donald in a 51-round (D.C. included) fight.

And Donald Trump fights dirty. Dirty in ways that Richard Nixon would have never done.
  #65  
Old 06-09-2019, 11:45 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
Call me overconfident (an adjective no one has ever used about me) but unless the Dems nominate Emma Goldman, they can't lose. Trump, in the last election, was a very strong candidate. He was the outsider who would drain the swamp, the great businessman who would create jobs, the deal maker who would solve the Iran and North Korean isssues. No one, other than MAGA-hat-wearing-morons, still believe that. He is going to be on the defensive for the entire campaign, he will not be able to point to any accomplishments, he will ramble on and on and tweet on and on. He will be even more incoherent.

I know what the approval ratings are for him now. Historically, a sitting President can't win with those numbers; Trump could win if he were the same Trump he was last time. Even then, it would be a close race.

He is not that guy. And I don't see anything that can happen that will cause his approval rating to go up in the next couple of years, and I see a lot of things that will cause it to go down
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
You're overconfident.

But seriously, you're overconfident. It doesn't matter whether Trump loses by 10,000 votes in states like California, or 10,000,000. And it doesn't matter whether Trump wins in Wisconsin/Michigan/Pennsylvania/etc. by 10,000 votes or 10,000,000. The only thing that matters is how well Democrat X can fight it out with the Donald in a 51-round (D.C. included) fight.

And Donald Trump fights dirty. Dirty in ways that Richard Nixon would have never done.
I agree that Mike is overconfident. So does Allan Lichtman:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan Lichtman
Trump wins again in 2020 unless six of 13 key factors turn against him. I have no final verdict yet because much could change during the next year. Currently, the President is down only three keys: Republican losses in the midterm elections, the lack of a foreign policy success, and the president's limited appeal to voters.
Here are Professor Lichtman's 13 key factors:
Quote:
1. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2 Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
So far Trump only records a "false" for 3, maybe 4 of those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan Lichtman
Democrats are fundamentally wrong about the politics of impeachment and their prospects for victory in 2020. An impeachment and subsequent trial would cost the president a crucial fourth key -- the scandal key -- just as it cost Democrats that key in 2000. The indictment and trial would also expose him to dropping another key by encouraging a serious challenge to his re-nomination. Other potential negative keys include the emergence of a charismatic Democratic challenger, a significant third-party challenge, a foreign policy disaster, or an election-year recession. Without impeachment, however, Democratic prospects are grim.
  #66  
Old 06-10-2019, 05:32 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,220
Those "keys" were built up over the years of observing elections that were conducted under a set of political norms that used to change only very slowly. They aren't relevant to Trump.

It has often been observed that Trump has done or said scores, maybe hundreds, of things that are so outrageous any single one of them would have been career ending scandals in the relatively recent past (remember "Macaca"?). The takeaway is "wow, this guy is coated with some kind of political Teflon!" And that's true, to an extent. It would have been unthinkable in the past to imagine a president so beyond the pale managing to hold onto approval numbers around 40 percent or even a little higher. It is remarkable that he defies political gravity to that extent.

But it is only to an extent. That jawdropping onslaught of crass degeneracy does have an impact. It is disturbing that it doesn't knock his poll numbers down into the twenties or below, but there is still a majority of the population that did not sign off on our dumping all those norms into the shitter, and therefore they don't care about whatever "keys" are in place: they want him gone.

And I really don't think this is special pleading. If you went back in a time machine to five years ago and asked the good professor then "What if a candidate had the following keys in their favor, but[list some Trump lowlights, take your pick]?" I'm sure he would have said "Okay, sure: any candidate can ruin their position regardless of the keys, if they just go completely off the deep end."

That's the situation we're in. We have a president off the deep end, and a shockingly large minority who is willing to jump in with him. But they are distinctly outnumbered, thank goodness.
  #67  
Old 06-10-2019, 05:54 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I agree that Mike is overconfident. So does Allan Lichtman:Here are Professor Lichtman's 13 key factors:So far Trump only records a "false" for 3, maybe 4 of those things.
With all due respect, I think Lichtman is wrong about impeachment. For one thing, Trump has had scandals - scandal, after scandal, after scandal. He's just not as affected by them as past presidents have been, and that's because the electorate has changed. Voters are far more cynical than they have been in the past. Their tolerance for scandal is high, particularly if the candidate is white, male, and christian, or if he is at least seen as serving the interests of that demographic.

He thinks impeachment is the only way Democrats have a chance at winning, and I'd again caution that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that impeachment would be a net gain for democrats. He points out that Trump would be exposed, but exposed for what? Hasn't he been exposed already? Look, people know who and what Trump is. Those who don't, don't want to know. They just want their lives to not be screwed up by the president. That's it. That's how little they expect of their democracy, because they're so fucking cynical they barely believe their vote means shit.

That is why Democrats cannot rely on impeachment as a thing that's going to resonate with voters and topple Trump. Democrats have been pinning their hopes on the Mueller report and "the truth" since inauguration day, and I've got some bad news: you can stop hoping. The only thing that's going to change minds are a couple of the other things on Lichtman's list: economic failure and maybe foreign policy failure. A botched response to a natural disaster in the Heartland or the South, with lots of rural white people killed or left homeless, might do it. But Mueller? Russia? Impeachment? Pffff...get real.

Last edited by asahi; 06-10-2019 at 05:55 AM.
  #68  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:57 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,220
We don't need to change any minds.
  #69  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:26 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 316
Fuck Lichtman. I was 12 - 0 until 2016.

And let me get Fuck Nate Silver out of the way right now. What a sweet racket, he can never possibly be wrong.
  #70  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:57 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
Fuck Lichtman. I was 12 - 0 until 2016.

And let me get Fuck Nate Silver out of the way right now. What a sweet racket, he can never possibly be wrong.
Nate Silvers models are pretty well calibrated. If he predicts races with 90% confidence, then you'd expect he gets 90% of the races correct. That's basically what happens. If you don't understand that, the fault is with you, not him.
  #71  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:34 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,237
I don't put a lot of stock in Licchtman and his keys. Scandal? Forget about it. Republican voters are totally blind to scandal, as long as it's one of their guys. If a Republican is convicted of murder, they're cool with it as long as they can find a Democrat accused of jaywalking so they can engage in whataboutism. I'm afraid that impeachment would simply enable Republicans to tell their gullible voters that Democrats are incapable of governing and only interested in harassing Individual 1.
  #72  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:35 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
Nate Silvers models are pretty well calibrated. If he predicts races with 90% confidence, then you'd expect he gets 90% of the races correct. That's basically what happens. If you don't understand that, the fault is with you, not him.
He publishes probabilities based on polls. He can never be wrong.

Last edited by UnwittingAmericans; 06-11-2019 at 09:35 AM.
  #73  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:49 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
He publishes probabilities based on polls. He can never be wrong.
irrelevant and misleading. You can be good at predictions and you can be bad at predictions. Nate Silver is good at predictions.
  #74  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:28 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
He publishes probabilities based on polls. He can never be wrong.
If you'd care to learn how 538 can actually be evaluated, there's a really good article on the subject.
  #75  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:44 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Those "keys" were built up over the years of observing elections that were conducted under a set of political norms that used to change only very slowly. They aren't relevant to Trump.
I agree with this. There are lots of claims that we should ignore Trumps steady low approval numbers because the economy is so good, and incumbents pretty much always win when the economy is so good. This reasoning overlooks the fact that when the economy is so good, the incumbent president pretty much always has a high approval rating. It isn't the good economy that wins the presidency for the incumbent it is voters who approve of what he's doing that win the presidency. It's just that having a good economy (usually) convinces most voters to approve of what he's doing.

The reason not to be overconfident is that the Dems are up against an campaign that has no moral qualms, no interest in the truth, a fully politicized Justice department, and an army of spam bots poised to strike against whomever the Dems eventually pick. Trump can win with 40% approval provided he can muck his opponent down to 39%.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 06-11-2019 at 12:45 PM.
  #76  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:14 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,657
We can maybe start looking at #5 and #6 on Professor Lichtman's checklist: Businesses showing discontent with Trump’s trade policies
Quote:
Business groups, already uncomfortable with Trump’s attempts to stem immigration, are struggling to figure out where to stand in the fast-shifting political climate. They have happily supported Trump’s corporate tax cuts and moves to loosen environmental and other regulations. But the capriciousness of Trump’s use of tariffs has proved alarming.

“Business is losing,” said Rick Tyler, a Republican strategist and frequent Trump critic. “He calls himself ‘Mr. Tariff man.’ He’s proud of it... It’s bad news for the party. It’s bad news for the free market.”

“It was a good wakeup call for business,” James Jones, chairman of Monarch Global Strategies and a former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, said of Trump’s abrupt move to threaten to tax Mexican goods.
"But", you say, "those are people no one knows or cares about in the GOP or Trump-world."

Yeah, but:
Quote:
Just last week, the sprawling network led by the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch announced the creation of several political action committees focused on policy — including one devoted to free trade — to back Republicans or Democrats who break with Trump’s trade policies.
and
Quote:
The Chamber of Commerce, too, is in the early phases of disentangling itself from the Republican Party after decades of loyalty. The Chamber, which spent at least $29 million largely to help Republicans in the 2016 election, announced earlier this year that it would devote more time and attention to Democrats on Capitol Hill while raising the possibility of supporting Democrats in 2020.
The world of business and finance, in general, doesn't really like sudden changes and upheavals; such things tend to disrupt their plans for trying to acquire everything.
Quote:
Trump’s boundless enthusiasm for tariffs has upended decades of Republican trade policy that favored free trade. It has left the party’s traditional allies in the business world struggling to maintain political relevance in the Trump era.
Just something I saw today that I thought the board would be interested in.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 06-12-2019 at 11:14 AM.
  #77  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:21 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,657
There's also this news: US consumer prices edged up 0.1% in May.
Quote:
The Labor Department said Wednesday that the consumer price index rose 1.8% during the past year. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core prices rose 0.1% in May and 2% from a year ago.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 06-12-2019 at 11:22 AM.
  #78  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:25 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,220
Definitely interesting, Bo!
  #79  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:09 PM
tim-n-va is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
The 46% of eligible voters who didn't vote is key. The Trump core is not shrinking and they will vote.

If dislike, outrage or disapproval equaled votes we would be remembering President Kerry.

The Democrats are generally poor at communicating. I think the abortion should be “legal, safe and rare” message would match with a lot of people’s view. On this board at least one conservative questioned the rare part if the first two were true. The answer is that the procedure is medical/surgical and safe doesn’t mean zero risk. Rare should be a focus on reducing the demand side, not the supply. Subsidized birth control and comprehensive sex education is the best way to reduce abortion rates.
  #80  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:39 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim-n-va View Post
The 46% of eligible voters who didn't vote is key. The Trump core is not shrinking and they will vote.

If dislike, outrage or disapproval equaled votes we would be remembering President Kerry.

The Democrats are generally poor at communicating. I think the abortion should be “legal, safe and rare” message would match with a lot of people’s view. On this board at least one conservative questioned the rare part if the first two were true. The answer is that the procedure is medical/surgical and safe doesn’t mean zero risk. Rare should be a focus on reducing the demand side, not the supply. Subsidized birth control and comprehensive sex education is the best way to reduce abortion rates.
One small quibble with this very good post: attrition is indeed shrinking the Trump/current GOP base just a little every presidential cycle.
  #81  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:25 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,220
And solidly Democratic Gen Z votes at a higher rate than Millennials or GenXers did at the same age. (I am a GenXer guilty of that myself: I didn’t vote in either ‘92 or ‘96, although I am atypical in that I did vote in low-turnout ‘94.)
__________________
Some people on TV are nice to look at.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-12-2019 at 09:26 PM.
  #82  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:12 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,787
An interesting piece from Ronald Brownstein in The Atlantic today. He cites numerous polling orgs who are predicting record turnout in '20, with most of the increases coming from younger and/or minority voters. Those orgs think that total voting could reach 156 million, based on early polling (up from 139m in 2016).
  #83  
Old 06-13-2019, 02:05 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,220
Brownstein may be the single sharpest mind in politics.
  #84  
Old 06-13-2019, 02:22 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But yeah: the 55% "will not vote for him under any circumstance" are not changing their minds. Regardless of the circumstance.
Dude, I love you but you gotta stop this.

This is the line of thinking that leads to lowered turnout. We have to go into every single opportunity thinking that it's razor thing, regardless of what the polls say, and that one. more. vote. is the one that will make the difference. This is not the time to get either complacent or apathetic. We want every vote in every state. That's how you win big. That's how you generate coattails. We want both those things.
  #85  
Old 06-13-2019, 02:30 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Inflation as a whole, however, isn't that much of a problem. It's the lack of inflation that in some ways I would find even more ominous if I were an economist in the White House (grounded in reality, that is). One thing keeping inflation somewhat in check is that the price of energy is low, and the dollar is relatively strong. These two factors are what they are because of our trade policy.

So why, then, is this a problem for Trump?

Because it means that the global economy, thanks in no small part to our trade policy, is increasingly risk-averse, and when businesses stop investing, they stop growing. And when they stop growing...they stop hiring. Exactly when that might boomerang back to us is anyone's guess. It's hard to determine how severe the problem is, but just generally speaking, I think it's fair to say that a trade war cannot continue ad infinitum without consequence in an economy like ours that is deeply connected to international trade and dependent on consumption. Pretty soon, what's happening to farmers is going to star having some major ripple effects to suppliers, banks, you name it. The Ag economy is something this country doesn't want to screw up.
  #86  
Old 06-13-2019, 02:41 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Regarding the 55% of people that said they would "definitely not vote" for President Trump in 2020, it's worth noting that in their January poll, it was 56%, the point being that that "definitely not vote" category can shrink over time, even in spite of what people tell a pollster 19 months before the election.
  #87  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:18 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Regarding the 55% of people that said they would "definitely not vote" for President Trump in 2020, it's worth noting that in their January poll, it was 56%, the point being that that "definitely not vote" category can shrink over time, even in spite of what people tell a pollster 19 months before the election.
This is one of those times when I find myself in complete agreement with HurricaneDitka. Not only that, but his shorthand "that 'definitely not vote' category' can easily turn into an actual "definitely not vote" for anyone.

I've watched Democrats screw up elections since 1968. History shows that in 1968 the Democrats had one old-line, party insider, with a long record of support for labor and civil rights issues, who literally oozed compassion and humanity; one candidate who inspired passion, but was assassinated ruing the primaries, and whose place was taken by another candidate with all the right ideas but none of the charisma; and a third candidate with a devout following of young people, who mobilized, got haircuts and shaved their beards, and went out door to door encouraging voters to support that candidate.

And with all that, the Democrats ended up winning only 11 states for a measly 191 electoral votes, and losing the popular vote to Richard Nixon by 560,000 votes.

Folks, Richard Nixon was a politician NOBODY loved, and a lot of people hated.
  #88  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:32 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,220
I spotted HHH, RFK, and “Clean for” Gene McCarthy. But who is the “no charisma” candidate?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Dude, I love you but you gotta stop this.

This is the line of thinking that leads to lowered turnout. We have to go into every single opportunity thinking that it's razor thing, regardless of what the polls say, and that one. more. vote. is the one that will make the difference. This is not the time to get either complacent or apathetic. We want every vote in every state. That's how you win big. That's how you generate coattails. We want both those things.

What I have heard from political scientists is the opposite: the side that thinks they are fucked is the one whose turnout drops in discouragement. The side that feels the wind at their backs still feels impelled to vote, to be part of the winning effort.

And even if that were not true, I think people were spooked enough by 2016 that we don’t have to worry about it in this cycle at least. Plus I think many voters will take a deep, unusually visceral satisfaction in voting Trump’s ass out of office. I know I will!


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Regarding the 55% of people that said they would "definitely not vote" for President Trump in 2020, it's worth noting that in their January poll, it was 56%, the point being that that "definitely not vote" category can shrink over time, even in spite of what people tell a pollster 19 months before the election.

Dude. Are you seriously taking a change from 56 to 55 as significant? That’s just statistical noise.
  #89  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:36 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Inflation as a whole, however, isn't that much of a problem. It's the lack of inflation that in some ways I would find even more ominous if I were an economist in the White House (grounded in reality, that is). One thing keeping inflation somewhat in check is that the price of energy is low, and the dollar is relatively strong. These two factors are what they are because of our trade policy.

So why, then, is this a problem for Trump?

Because it means that the global economy, thanks in no small part to our trade policy, is increasingly risk-averse, and when businesses stop investing, they stop growing. And when they stop growing...they stop hiring. Exactly when that might boomerang back to us is anyone's guess. It's hard to determine how severe the problem is, but just generally speaking, I think it's fair to say that a trade war cannot continue ad infinitum without consequence in an economy like ours that is deeply connected to international trade and dependent on consumption. Pretty soon, what's happening to farmers is going to star having some major ripple effects to suppliers, banks, you name it. The Ag economy is something this country doesn't want to screw up.
Hence our coming war with Iran.
  #90  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:55 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
My first sighting this season of a Gabbard supporter! I knew there must be some out there somewhere, but I had not seen any until this moment. It's as exciting as I expected--and as hilarious.
Well, technically I’m not actually a Gabbard supporter. I’m a Buttigieg supporter. He’s definitely my preferred candidate. That said, if he were to withdraw or something then I’d definitely be happy with Gabbard. I’m not sure if that makes me a supporter or a conditional supporter or whatever, but she’s my second or third choice.

I should also point out that my support for any candidate is 100% based on whether or not I think they can beat Trump. For example, I’d be horrified if Elizabeth Warren were nominated because, even though my politics align better with hers than with Gabbard’s, I honestly don’t think Warren has a hope in Hell of beating Trump. Gabbard, IMO, definitely could beat him, because she’s more charismatic and persuasive than him and, at the end of the day, that’s really the only thing that counts. But this is doubly true of Buttigieg, so he’s who I support.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 06-14-2019 at 02:57 AM.
  #91  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:33 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,301
Gabbard has no chance in Hell of beating Trump. She inspires very fervent support from her supporters, but that doesn't matter, because her supporters are a very small minority, and everyone else hates her.
  #92  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:49 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Gabbard has no chance in Hell of beating Trump. She inspires very fervent support from her supporters, but that doesn't matter, because her supporters are a very small minority, and everyone else hates her.
He just finished telling you that Gabbard was his second choice, so does Unreconstructed Man hate her or is he a fervent supporter?

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-14-2019 at 08:52 AM.
  #93  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:04 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,237
Apparently Donald's internal pollsters told him he was behind in 15 of 17 states. Does anyone know which states? It seems reasonable to assume that states that we know damn well how they're going to vote were excluded, so if he's losing 15 of 17 states that he could possibly lose or has a hope to win, then things are looking good for Biden right now. Of course, nothing like a war to rally the country behind you, as we're about to find out.
  #94  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:05 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
An interesting piece from Ronald Brownstein in The Atlantic today. He cites numerous polling orgs who are predicting record turnout in '20, with most of the increases coming from younger and/or minority voters. Those orgs think that total voting could reach 156 million, based on early polling (up from 139m in 2016).
It makes sense. One of the highest turnouts over the past few decades was in 2004 when many voters turned out to support or oppose George W Bush. I suspect that these same dynamics will take shape in this upcoming cycle. The attempts to suppress votes may actually result in a backlash against such efforts.
  #95  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:06 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Apparently Donald's internal pollsters told him he was behind in 15 of 17 states. Does anyone know which states? It seems reasonable to assume that states that we know damn well how they're going to vote were excluded, so if he's losing 15 of 17 states that he could possibly lose or has a hope to win, then things are looking good for Biden right now. Of course, nothing like a war to rally the country behind you, as we're about to find out.
I'm guessing it's not states like Wyoming, but states that may usually be fairly safe 'red' like Arizona, which is why they're alarmed. I woudn't even write off Kansas for Democrats if things start going way south. I'm writing under the assumption that Biden wins and emerges from the primaries unscathed.
  #96  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:15 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Gabbard has no chance in Hell of beating Trump. She inspires very fervent support from her supporters, but that doesn't matter, because her supporters are a very small minority, and everyone else hates her.

I was going to write a response to that myself, but you summed it up perfectly. Supporting Gabbard is bizarre and amusing to me. Supporting Gabbard because she is one of the only ones who can beat Trump? That's...just...
  #97  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:42 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Gabbard has no chance in Hell of beating Trump. She inspires very fervent support from her supporters, but that doesn't matter, because her supporters are a very small minority, and everyone else hates her.
What are you basing this on?
  #98  
Old 06-14-2019, 10:51 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
What are you basing this on?
Don't know about Chronos but I could base her being very disliked on things like the YouGov poll.

To be sure most don't know her at all, so it is not accurate to say "everyone else hates her", but of those with an opinion (restricting to D only) it's 3 times as many "very unfavorable" to "very favorable". Buttigieg is 4 to 1 the other way, for comparison. But then Harris is more than 5 to 1 the other way. Gabbard's underwater overall.

These are not the numbers of someone who is "charismatic and persuasive".

Last edited by DSeid; 06-14-2019 at 10:51 PM.
  #99  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:17 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,521
Ahead of his campaign rally in Orlando, the Orlando Sentinel decided to already issue an endorsement in the election. They are endorsing Not Donald Trump.
  #100  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:22 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,301
But who did they endorse in 2016? A newspaper changing its endorsement is significant. A newspaper endorsing the same party it did last cycle doesn't mean anything.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017