u.s. politics: is this purity test covered under my obamacare?

[Fez]

Who's ready for 2020 polling?! I'm sure as hell not, but it has begun.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/pres20/

New Hampshire Republican Primary poll showing that if Kasich primary'd Trump, he'd win 52-40 with 8% undecided.

Is that accurate? Who knows! But New Hampshire can be an odd duck. Back in 1992, H.W. Bush only got 53.2% in the primary there; which is pretty crazy for an incumbent President (Similarly, Obama only got 59.4% in the West Virginia primary in 2012).

I actually would like to see a lot more polls like this though, and of other states; because it offers a different kind of data point. If this is accurate, it shows that even if most Republicans still approve Trump, they'd approve of another Republican as President even more. And could help push elected Republicans to oppose Trump more; especially if 2018 goes bad for them.

[TheKitttenGuard]

20 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

 And to be fair, Trump turned the entire process on its' head. From primary to the General. If you're being honest you have to admit that he crushed the GOP more handily than he did the DNC. And he had some help with the second, methinks. Not that this is any real excuse.

I think the crowded field helped Trump a lot. The front loading, ironically, did help him. I am not looking to completely discount but I think it would of been different if an heir apparent or consensus candidate, like Hillary, was established early.

[TheKitttenGuard]

17 hours ago, Maithanet said:

And the funny thing is that I feel like Trump is governing as if he's still in the Republican primary.  The only votes he seeks in Congress are Republican votes.  The only voters he appeals with his policies and rhetoric are Republican.  He's still holding rallies and railing against Clinton. 

The real irony is that Trump ran more as apolitical and disdain for both parties. That he than wants to govern as most vicious of partisan you can think and can not for he ran on how corrupt the system is.

[TheKitttenGuard]

@GAROVORKIN

Quote

Trump , the problem with that  as the recent  Senate election results  in places like Georgia

Those were Congressional races not Senatorial.

[IheartIheartTesla]

16 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Since before the election and its results ,  i have  become a bit skeptical of things predicted by polls.  

You should be skeptical of individual polls, I just posted two that were 12 points apart (even though each of them individually probably only give a 3-4% margin of error). Also, it is Michigan, which is quite hard to poll, as I've mentioned numerous times before.

The 50% approval rating for Trump in Michigan is interesting though (although the questions are not quite phrased as 'approve/disapprove'). This isn't a conservative state by any means, and the college towns + 'Hillary corridor' (Detroit/Flint/Saginaw) would normally be enough to carry over a Democrat, but I guess they still havent regained all the historic Democrat locations like Macomb that they lost in this election year.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Also about polls, sometimes even the best aggregating can be off if all the polls have a systematic bias in them. For instance, this could be in choosing what the eventual poll-going demographics would be and how those demographics would vote. For Michigan we don't need party affiliation while registering, so its further complicated even if you do get for instance the amount of African American turnout right.

[denstorebog]

On the topic of polls, Rasmussen says that

13% Have Switched Parties or Gone Independent Recently (as in 'recent months').

For some reason, they didn't bother to ask "from what to what?", but I'd be pretty surprised if this wasn't a large movement from Republican to independent.

[LongRider]

NV Senator Dean Heller has primary challenger:  Danny Tarkanian

https://twitter.com/DannyTarkanian/status/894887167151022081

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 hours ago, Maithanet said:

But does anyone think that Clinton would have beaten Rubio?  Or Kasich?  Or Cruz?  I certainly don’t think so.  In the case of the first two, I don’t even think it would have been particularly close (Cruz being a complete asshole doesn’t help him).

I know this is the prevailing wisdom, but I think it's somewhat overstated. First, Clinton would have beaten Cruz IMO. He was the weakest of the final four Republican primary candidates, and he wouldn't have enjoyed some of the advantages that Trump did. As for Rubio and Kasich, they certainly would have been tougher challengers, but they also would not have inflicted as much damage on Clinton. And more importantly, Trump's base might have bailed on them. I don't think any of them would have done as well as Trump in the Midwest. Ultimately we'll never know, but I don't think it's a given that she would have automatically lost to all three of them. 

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Is that the Tark's son? 

 Yes, he is the son of Tark.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

That race might be a decent indicator of Trump's sway over GOP voters. If Heller wins that primary convincingly it might show Republicans, you can oppose the orange thing without getting primaried. And maybe they'll discover a conscience and a spine to act according to the new found conscience.

[LongRider]

13 minutes ago, Notone said:

That race might be a decent indicator of Trump's sway over GOP voters. If Heller wins that primary convincingly it might show Republicans, you can oppose the orange thing without getting primaried. And maybe they'll discover a conscience and a spine to act according to the new found conscience.

Uh, he caved for the skinny bill thanks to some big Nv donors and all their beautiful money.   Tark has lost a couple of elections for different things so it remains to be seen if he can dislodge Heller. 

[Swordfish]

On 8/7/2017 at 1:08 PM, Maithanet said:

I think that looking back, the 2016 Presidential election was going to be more difficult to win for the Democrats than it initially appeared.  There are a few factors behind this, including:

 

-          Intense Republican desire to retake the White House after 8 years of Obama.  The same could not be said of Democrats. Dysfunction within the Republican party created the impression that they were in disarray, but in politics, motivation counts for more than organization.

 

-          Obama is an excellent campaigner and candidate, which hid some of the flaws of the Democratic Party.

 

-          Obama is from Illinois and was always particularly popular in the Midwest, precisely the region with the most electoral sway in determining the presidency.  This hid the fact that IA, WI, MI, OH, and PA were all becoming redder.  This also created the illusion that the electoral college would help the Democrats (in 2012 Obama won the Electoral College by 5.4% by winning Colorado, whereas he won the general election by only 3.9%).   

 

We can (and have) debated whether Sanders would have beaten Trump (I personally doubt it - Sanders wasn’t a great candidate and only overperformed because Clinton’s negatives were so high).  But does anyone think that Clinton would have beaten Rubio?  Or Kasich?  Or Cruz?  I certainly don’t think so.  In the case of the first two, I don’t even think it would have been particularly close (Cruz being a complete asshole doesn’t help him).

 

To me it feels like Trump had a message and style that was extremely effective in the Republican primary.  That message was less effective in the general, and that’s why he was behind for virtually the entire race.  But a combination of Clinton being a poor candidate and favorable electoral conditions allowed him to squeak out a win in a very winnable election. 

 

(I'll admit this may just be self serving justification of an absolutely appalling loss on the part of the Democrats)

 

The race was astonishingly close with arguably the best possible candidate the democrats could've hoped for.  It's not like Trump got record turnout, he didn't even win the popular vote.

That race was eminently winnable, just not by Hilary.

[GAROVORKIN]

8 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

@GAROVORKIN

Those were Congressional races not Senatorial.

 

My mistake.

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I know this is the prevailing wisdom, but I think it's somewhat overstated. First, Clinton would have beaten Cruz IMO. He was the weakest of the final four Republican primary candidates, and he wouldn't have enjoyed some of the advantages that Trump did. As for Rubio and Kasich, they certainly would have been tougher challengers, but they also would not have inflicted as much damage on Clinton. And more importantly, Trump's base might have bailed on them. I don't think any of them would have done as well as Trump in the Midwest. Ultimately we'll never know, but I don't think it's a given that she would have automatically lost to all three of them. 

If it's the case that a decent number of Bernie Bros' switched to Trump as the "anti-establishment" candidate, then it's pretty certain they would have most likely stayed home if anyone other then Trump was the Republican nominee. Or they would have wasted their vote going libertarian. Not sure if that would have been significant.

I'm not sure I see anyone other than Trump winning WI, PA and MI. 

[ThinkerX]

43 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If it's the case that a decent number of Bernie Bros' switched to Trump as the "anti-establishment" candidate, then it's pretty certain they would have most likely stayed home if anyone other then Trump was the Republican nominee. Or they would have wasted their vote going libertarian. Not sure if that would have been significant.

I'm not sure I see anyone other than Trump winning WI, PA and MI. 

In the comments sections of the political articles during that time, Sanders had substantial popularity among blue-collar types.  Sanders was vastly more popular than Clinton in those comment sections.

 

I get lots of calls from pollsters - 2-3 a week even now, more like 1-2 a day during the campaign.  (I also seem to be the only one on this site who actually does take the telephone polls.)  I noticed most of two years ago that the majority of polls had a hard bias built right into them - I literally could not express my position because the relevant options in the polls did not exist.  That right there told me there were deep, serious flaws with the process.

So, I started reading what people were saying about the candidates and relevant issues in the comments sections of various political articles.  I learned...

 

...well, as of a year ago, I posted here repeatedly that Clinton was in deep, deep trouble.  Practically everybody here deemed that notion was laughable.

 

 

 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I get lots of calls from pollsters - 2-3 a week even now, more like 1-2 a day during the campaign.  (I also seem to be the only one on this site who actually does take the telephone polls.)  I noticed most of two years ago that the majority of polls had a hard bias built right into them - I literally could not express my position because the relevant options in the polls did not exist.  That right there told me there were deep, serious flaws with the process.

 

FYI, those polls aren't polls. They're designed to sway your opinion. 

[The Fallen]

On 8/7/2017 at 5:11 PM, Week said:

Hey bro, Bernie totally would have won because Bernie. /newsflash /hotnewtake http://combatblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Bros.jpeg

What states did Hillary win that Bernie would have lost and what states did Hillary lose that Bernie could have won?

[ThinkerX]

And again - Republican congressmen are catching major flack. I figure its only a matter of time until things reach the physical attack stage.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/furious-voters-wish-death-unemployment-on-republicans/ar-AApIQIz?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

Voters flocked to the first town halls scheduled for Republican representatives since the majority left Washington Friday afternoon, demanding an end to the party’s efforts to repeal former President Barack Obama’s landmark health care initiative, the Affordable Care Act.

Things got ugly very quick.

One protestor attending a town hall in California with representative Doug LaMalfa—who voted in favor of replacing Obamacare with the GOP’s widely opposed American Health Care Act—wished for his death, while holding a sign reading "Lackey for the Rich!"

"May you die in pain!" He shouted at the Republican congressman.

[ThinkerX]

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

FYI, those polls aren't polls. They're designed to sway your opinion. 

In some cases you are right - leading questions with carefully placed factoids.

In others, you are not - straight up political surveys.

In both cases, the answers I wished to give were often not available.

Now, how often do YOU take these polls (or whatever you choose to call them.)