I want to feel good about those numbers.  I just can't, I feel like our polling is still broken and we haven't figured out how to fix it yet.

 

I admit, I have no good basis for that skepticism, but I can't shake it.

I feel you.  What seems meaningful to me about that last poll is Trump has a highwater mark at 42% no matter who the candidate is.  It's a long way off, but I think that's the kind of data point that will be meaningful if it keeps up. 

I feel you. What seems meaningful to me about that last poll is Trump has a highwater mark at 42% no matter who the candidate is. It's a long way off, but I think that's the kind of data point that will be meaningful if it keeps up.

I still don't have faith the silent majority who voted for Trump last election are participating in online polls... Hope I'm wrong.

 

I still don't have faith the silent majority who voted for Trump last election are participating in online polls... Hope I'm wrong.

I think there's segments on both sides who evade polling.  So I do understand cynicism of polling in general. 

I still don't have faith the silent majority who voted for Trump last election are participating in online polls... Hope I'm wrong.

Just like to point out they are not the majority... even though they call themselves that. That is all

While I won't rule out a Trump victory in 2020, people are really underestimating the perfect storm of EC buffoonery it required to get him elected in 2016.

 

The guy won Michigan by .23%, Pennsylvania by .72%, and Wisconsin by .77%. That's 46 electoral votes decided by a combined total of ~75,000 votes. That's a few thousand more people than the population of St Cloud.

While I won't rule out a Trump victory in 2020, people are really underestimating the perfect storm of EC buffoonery it required to get him elected in 2016.

 

The guy won Michigan by .23%, Pennsylvania by .72%, and Wisconsin by .77%. That's 46 electoral votes decided by a combined total of ~75,000 votes. That's a few thousand more people than the population of St Cloud.

It was pegged at a 30% chance by 538. It wasn't terrible, but I shouldn't have bet on it. Polls are fun right now, but a lot can happen between now and then. Regardless what the polls say, or what taking heads say, I think Trump is in trouble. I don't believe he has gained much support, and has definitely lost some.

It was pegged at a 30% chance by 538. It wasn't terrible, but I shouldn't have bet on it. Polls are fun right now, but a lot can happen between now and then. Regardless what the polls say, or what taking heads say, I think Trump is in trouble. I don't believe he has gained much support, and has definitely lost some.

538 have him a 30% chance of victory, sure... but the way he got there was bonkers. The polling overall was mostly correct (Clinton by 3-ish points) but the razor-thin margins happened to bounce in Trump’s favor across three vital states all at the same time.

 

Again, 75,000 people were the difference between a Clinton and Trump presidency.

 

Now that Trump is the incumbent, I have a feeling he’s on a bit more secure ground but it’s still hard to call him the favorite unless something big happens.

 

Weird. You listed a bunch of things, close of half of which I disagree with, while leaving off the one that really matters to me, his aggressive stance toward China (like most things Trump, I don't like his methods but I agree with the goal).

 

So that's "hatred" on my part?

You only disagree with half.  OK

 

I was responding to Leviathan, not you.  Go back and look at the quote.

It was not a one-size-fits-all response so don't internalize it.

 

I don't like what the Republicans represent.  They tacitly allow racists in their midst.  .

I am honestly sick and tired of these broad accusations of "racism"

The word is used so much and in such a haphazard way by white people that it ceases to have meaning.  You weren't doing too bad until you troweled out this "racist" garbage.  If that is what you and the majority of those posting in this thread believe then you might be angry for a number of years.  

 

Case in point, immigration.  The idea that building a wall is "RACIST" and that "these people" are being targeted because they are brown is absolutely absurd.  I have went through immigration rather extensively already and backed everything up with data and articles from liberal media outlets just you couldn't talk smack about bias.

 

I guarantee you that if somehow Poland, Italy, Ireland and Sweden (pick a European nation) were south of the border and they used the same tactics that these northern triangle countries are now using to get into the country nothing would be different.  Trump and his team are going after a huge issue with the border.  Whether you understand or accept what is going on there matters not to them or me.

 

You say the way he talks about and handles immigration is ugly.  Are you even aware of how extensively children are being used to create fake family units?  I don't have time to get you up to speed on this.  I literally spent over 100 hours reading about and watching videos regarding the immigration issue in just the last three months.

 

This junk about how, "Republicans tacitly allow racists in their midst" is silly.  Who are you talking about exactly?  The whole damn party? 

He’d cash their checks, too, I have no doubt.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

 

He’d cash their checks, too, I have no doubt.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

At least he's honest....

 

I still don't have faith the silent majority who voted for Trump last election are participating in online polls... Hope I'm wrong.

Very few of the national polls are online polls. At most they are a component of some. If anything, old folks who still have landlines get over-represented. Doesn't mean the polls are right, just saying. 

 

He’d cash their checks, too, I have no doubt.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

Reminds me of OJ's book "If I did it". 

 

This junk about how, "Republicans tacitly allow racists in their midst" is silly.  Who are you talking about exactly?  The whole damn party? 

What party affiliation is Steve King again? I forget.

What party affiliation is Steve King again? I forget.

Or David Duke?

I am honestly sick and tired of these broad accusations of "racism"

The word is used so much and in such a haphazard way by white people that it ceases to have meaning.  You weren't doing too bad until you troweled out this "racist" garbage.  If that is what you and the majority of those posting in this thread believe then you might be angry for a number of years.  

 

Case in point, immigration.  The idea that building a wall is "RACIST" and that "these people" are being targeted because they are brown is absolutely absurd.  I have went through immigration rather extensively already and backed everything up with data and articles from liberal media outlets just you couldn't talk smack about bias.

 

I guarantee you that if somehow Poland, Italy, Ireland and Sweden (pick a European nation) were south of the border and they used the same tactics that these northern triangle countries are now using to get into the country nothing would be different.  Trump and his team are going after a huge issue with the border.  Whether you understand or accept what is going on there matters not to them or me.

 

You say the way he talks about and handles immigration is ugly.  Are you even aware of how extensively children are being used to create fake family units?  I don't have time to get you up to speed on this.  I literally spent over 100 hours reading about and watching videos regarding the immigration issue in just the last three months.

 

This junk about how, "Republicans tacitly allow racists in their midst" is silly.  Who are you talking about exactly?  The whole damn party?

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-met-dahleen-glanton-republican-party-racism-20190114-story.html

 

I guarantee you that if somehow Poland, Italy, Ireland and Sweden (pick a European nation) were south of the border and they used the same tactics that these northern triangle countries are now using to get into the country nothing would be different.  Trump and his team are going after a huge issue with the border.  Whether you understand or accept what is going on there matters not to them or me.

 

You say the way he talks about and handles immigration is ugly.  Are you even aware of how extensively children are being used to create fake family units?  I don't have time to get you up to speed on this.  I literally spent over 100 hours reading about and watching videos regarding the immigration issue in just the last three months.

 

This junk about how, "Republicans tacitly allow racists in their midst" is silly.  Who are you talking about exactly?  The whole damn party? 

 

1 - Explain Canada.

2 - I'm aware that there is fundamentalist propaganda stating that fake families are coming over, which shows ignorance of immigration laws and, heck, how humans actually work. "Want to go to the USA? Sounds good. Here, take my kid, they'll let you in if you have kids." No parent would do this.

3 - You consumed 100 hours of propaganda? Ouch man. I'm so sorry.

 

Don't let a group of con-men shape your view of the world.

 

3 - You consumed 100 hours of propaganda? Ouch man. I'm so sorry.

I have to admit I laughed.

 

1 - Explain Canada.

2 - I'm aware that there is fundamentalist propaganda stating that fake families are coming over, which shows ignorance of immigration laws and, heck, how humans actually work. "Want to go to the USA? Sounds good. Here, take my kid, they'll let you in if you have kids." No parent would do this.

3 - You consumed 100 hours of propaganda? Ouch man. I'm so sorry.

 

Don't let a group of con-men shape your view of the world.

 

1 - I dunno... hockey? Seriously, though, what possible point could you imagine that you were making?

 

2 - The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are purveyors of "fundamentalist propaganda"? Just playing a hunch here, but who do think was really responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

 

Well, if you're not going to be believe their assurances that fraudulent family claims are a thing, how about NPR, who saw fit to cover what they saw fit to call the "growing problem" of false family documents twice in consecutive weeks two months ago? Or are they just toothless NASCAR hillbilly Trumpies too in your world?

 

3 -  Propaganda? Con men? HFS, dude, even ThinkProgress ran an article on the introduction of DNA testing for family validity that didn't question the need for the program. Where are you getting your "news"?

Edited June 13, 20197 yr by LaBombo

 

I want to feel good about those numbers.  I just can't, I feel like our polling is still broken and we haven't figured out how to fix it yet.

 

I admit, I have no good basis for that skepticism, but I can't shake it.

 

I think Nate Silver said it best recently when he said that there is a huge mistrust right now for polls. What we saw in 2016 was within margin of error in every state, but the combination thereof was one of those things that was essentially a 94-97% chance that Clinton came away the winner. Most seem to forget that means that there is still 3-6% chance for the opposite to occur, no matter how accurate the polling, when they release numbers like that.

 

In other words, polling didn't fail us. We saw an extreme case of the combination of multiple polling all heading to the far extreme. While the chances of that happening in our lifetime are as likely as someone watching the same pitcher throw a no-hitter and a perfect game, the impact was obviously felt much more, and therefore there are many who are in the same boat as you, struggling to trust polling numbers. I hope Trump strategists continue to be among them.

 

IMG_20190614_081711.jpg

 

I'm intrigued by Montana Governor Steve Bullock and was disappointed that he did not qualify for the debates.

 

What does one need to qualify?

What does one need to qualify?

Minimum 1% in one or more of 4 approved polls, OR a minimum number of unique donors, from a minimum number of states, can't remember the exact numbers.

Edited June 14, 20197 yr by Mr. Brooks

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/first-democratic-debate-stages-2020/index.html

 

How did they decide who debates with whom? (Edit: it was random I guess.)

 

Warren being in one debate while the other top 4 of 5 in another debate seems problematic to me. 

Edited June 14, 20197 yr by PseudoSABR

 

1 - I dunno... hockey? Seriously, though, what possible point could you imagine that you were making?

 

2 - The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are purveyors of "fundamentalist propaganda"? Just playing a hunch here, but who do think was really responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

 

Well, if you're not going to be believe their assurances that fraudulent family claims are a thing, how about NPR, who saw fit to cover what they saw fit to call the "growing problem" of false family documents twice in consecutive weeks two months ago? Or are they just toothless NASCAR hillbilly Trumpies too in your world?

 

3 -  Propaganda? Con men? HFS, dude, even ThinkProgress ran an article on the introduction of DNA testing for family validity that didn't question the need for the program. Where are you getting your "news"?

We went through the border here back in March and April.  Through that whole discussion I made sure to use known liberal publications (such as the NY Times) and actual figures compiled by the underlined above.  This amounts to "propaganda" to them since it doesn't fall in line with what they prefer to believe.

 

Sometimes reality isn't pretty and the fake family unit phenomena is obviously something Doomints (and anyone who thanked his post) hasn't a clue about.  Not because it is not factual, but rather because they prefer to refer to it as either some form of racism or "propaganda"

 

 

 

 

 

He’d cash their checks, too, I have no doubt.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

Only after he clubbed some baby seals and poisoned our food supply.

 

We went through the border here back in March and April.  Through that whole discussion I made sure to use known liberal publications (such as the NY Times) and actual figures compiled by the underlined above.  This amounts to "propaganda" to them since it doesn't fall in line with what they prefer to believe.

 

Sometimes reality isn't pretty and the fake family unit phenomena is obviously something Doomints (and anyone who thanked his post) hasn't a clue about.  Not because it is not factual, but rather because they prefer to refer to it as either some form of racism or "propaganda"

I can accept that fake families are a thing, but they are not such a thing as to justify family separation.  I'm little tired of hearing about our immigration problem from you without you acknowledging how the Trump administration and homeland security has completely bungled the crisis.  Why should we trust these people to handle the situation humanely when they have shown they cannot do it?

 

Only after he clubbed some baby seals and poisoned our food supply.

So Trump admits to willingly accepting foreign help, which is illegal, and this is your response? And you wonder why people are reluctant to engage with you?

Edited June 14, 20197 yr by PseudoSABR

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/first-democratic-debate-stages-2020/index.html

 

How did they decide who debates with whom? (Edit: it was random I guess.)

 

Warren being in one debate while the other top 4 of 5 in another debate seems problematic to me. 

It's only the first debate. I expect the field to finally start to go down afterwards. Maybe by the 2nd debate in August they can all fit on one stage.