Of course, because THAT would make sense. Trump’s campaign has been unraveling for weeks, it’s been nothing but bad news and trying to cover up his missteps. It makes literally zero sense for him to be gaining momentum.
The best defense I’ve heard for Trump wanting generals like Hitler is that he was too stupid to know those generals were Nazis. That’s the best defense I’ve heard. You’re right, his campaign has been bad.
I think a better way to think about it: will a plurality of Americans vote for overt fascism next month? Probably.
I also think that a big part of the reason America is in collapse is because we have a large, complacent segment of society who keep making excuses for bad behavior as long as it’s done by white America.
If it goosesteps like a duck…
I want to believe that this is true but I do not share your optimism.
In fact, he has historically performed better than the polls.
Yes but I don’t think the pollsters will fall into that pit for 3 elections in a row.
You all aren’t alone in thinking this. Ceding nothing to Trump until November. Polls aren’t elections.
Every reputable polling outfit has noticed the bias in their results for 2016 and 2020 and corrected for it. The ‘Trump voters are undercounted’ argument is highly unlikely to be true this year.
That doesn’t mean an easy win for the Democrats, but a polling tie does NOT mean Trump is actually ahead.
Trump didn’t go up in the polls after almost getting assassinated, or after beating Biden soundly in the debate or after the GOP national convention. I’ll be assed if I am going to believe he is gaining ground NOW given the state of his campaign, and Kamala’s.
I have no real idea who will win, but believe the polls when it comes to the trend. Trump has seen a bounce. While I would like to believe ugly TV ads, and campaigning in general, does not work, and have posted some research saying that, there is other research saying that they have some effect. That could be what is happening.
In case you are not in a swing state: Our airwaves are being flooded with ads ending “Kamala is for They/Them, Trump is for You.” The reply ”Trump is for he/him” ads are far fewer.
Is Trump aware that Hitler’s generals lost?
I thought he didn’t like losers.
Of course any sentence that starts, “Is Trump aware” must be answered no.
To be fair, Hitler’s generals were mostly quite good. It was Hitler meddling instead of letting his generals get on with it that helped lose the war for Germany (they might have lost anyway but it would have been a longer and deadlier slog to get to the end). Hitler’s generals were fighting for the evil side but it is not entirely unreasonable to say you’d want them fighting for you if you could.
Now I feel unclean that I even came close to supporting something Trump said.
I think one needs to keep in mind that the surviving generals were trying to keep their necks out of nooses. Their stories should be taken with a grain of salt.
To bring this back to Trump, if Kamala Harris does win, you will see a similar parade of rats trying to pin everything on Trump.
The NYT has been known to be negative on Harris. It had her underwater even when most others had her up a bit. So not “red wave” but not necessarily on track, either.
Yes, it’s rather ridiculous.
Trump’s point was that he wanted generals who were absolutely loyal to him. Time and time again, Trump was stymied by professionals who would tell him, “You can’t do that.” Trump came from a background where he ran a family business as an autocrat and when he found out the presidency didn’t work that way it was a rude awakening. Trump just wants to be surrounded by sycophants.
Some general observations on the last series of posts…
It’s been clear from the start here (and elsewhere on the ol’ Net, believe me…) that Democrats are incredibly skilled at negativity and despair at their chances. Why can’t we be more like the commenters on National Review right now, who are being some right cocky dicks? (I mean, maybe we can be a bit more positive without being dicks.)
Now the SPP (self-protective pessimism) I can tolerate and understand to a degree, but some of this stuff is just inconsistent and irrational:
- If the polls are good for Harris, they are not believed. If they are bad for her, they definitely are.
- Nate Silver gave Hillary a 75% chance on election day 2016. Trump won, but Silver was still right! (Because his model can’t be falsified, as we’ve discussed.) But if either his model or 538 has it roughly 50/50 or Trump up a percent, then Trump is definitely going to win! And Harris can’t sneak through as Trump did in 2016, since only Republicans can do that.
- Believing anything besides the polls that is positive for Harris is irrational, condemnable, and downright laughable, but anything negative for her and positive for Trump is of course believable. Her own people think she’s gonna lose, man. Oh, ffs.
- Bye, Opal.*
But, you know what? I’m gonna go ahead and admit I was wrong in the OP. Not because Harris is going to lose–I still think she will win, as nothing has really changed except Trump looking and being worse than ever. But I thought she’d be doing a lot better by now. I underestimated the depravity, ignorance, and general fuckheadedness of the American people. And that’s something that’s going to be true for a long time no matter who wins.
*“That’s four and not three,” you say. Oh but this is dark Opal for tragic topics. Therefore “bye,” not “hi!” And, besides, four is the number of death in China and Japan since both of those words are prounounced “sì” and “shi,” respectively, and Opal herself is dead, and life sucks.
I agree. Everyone else gets to be right no matter what.
Therein lies the pessimism. Trump won when he was a long shot. Now he is 50/50 within some margin for error. Add in some states working diligently to lean on the scale plus whatever plans they have post election if Trump does not win.
It’s scary.
NYT/Siena has had major sampling problems for a while now.
Well I did take a look at the NYT crosstabs, and while they show the mix of democrats to republicans are “balanced;” some other areas dispute that. Farther down the list is this list of the liberal, moderate, and conservative lean of the respondents. They breakdown to 24% liberal, 30% moderate, and 38% conservative. Oh, and they are, in my opinion, they are under sampling voters aged 18-28 (415 out of 2,516 respondents); against the maga base voters 45-64 (818 out of 2,516 respondents).
There is little about the NYT/Siena polls to instill confidence this cycle. Their cross tabs have been, at times, laughable, suggesting that they’re not doing an adequate job of reaching anything close to a representative sample. I’m a statistician, and the first thing I do when I look at a poll is check the cross tabs of lower propensity and underrepresented groups, eg, 18-29 and Black or Latino voters. If those are way off, eg, Harris winning 18-29 by four points or Trump winning 25% of Black voters or outright winning Latinos or women - I’ve seen all of these and more this cycle from this and other pollsters - I toss the poll.