Jump to content
Varysblackfyre321

US Politics: Celebrating and despairing too early;No poll bump for Trump yet.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Bernie had a bump up for two years because he had a best-seller. That book isn’t going to be a best-seller going forward, so he won’t be a 1%er earnings-wise anymore and he’s not a 1%er in net worth terms, since he doesn’t have $10 M in assets.

Bernie's set to be one of the Democratic front runners this election.  I would not count his book sales out. 

Bernie has been in congress since 1991.  Members of congress currently make $174,000.  His wife is a woman who wears many hats, but for close to 10 years she was a college president while he was in congress.  Bernie may not be 1% wise but he's certainly been very close to it throughout much of his congressional career.   I suspect him and his wife have been diligent about investing, which is not something a tax return necessarily captures.

 

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

 

Source for this?  I have a difficult time believing that 1 in 100 Americans has over 10 million in assets.

Go here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, mormont said:

Anecdotally, you toured it here, too, and the reaction was the same (most didn't care) but also different (those that did were not in favour). 

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Sure.  This is board isn't exactly the greatest sounding board for swing voters.  Frankly I'll trust a random (situationally, not statistically) focus group primarily made up of drunk bar patrons in Pittsburgh a whole hell of a lot more than a focus group made up of frequenters of this thread.

Sorry for belaboring the point and getting pedantic, but I think another thing's worth mentioning for why this is a completely inapt comparison beyond the ideological deficiencies between the two samples.  I have no idea how many people read my post about it, and I'm not asking them for a response.  Therefore it's entirely unknown how many people that didn't respond either didn't care, agreed with me, or disagreed.  Posters are overwhelmingly more likely to respond to something if they disagree with the content. 

That's perfectly fine, in fact it's a feature I like about discussion boards.  But it also is another reason it's a terrible sample methodologically speaking.  In contrast, I directly asked respondents for their opinion on the issue and had a discussion about their thoughts.  While I'm not a big fan of any type of focus group to draw conclusions (or even their general usefulness) - and to be clear I am not doing so - that's pretty much the gold standard in terms of polling methods.

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DMC said:
On 4/16/2019 at 2:23 PM, Zorral said:

This particular issue of his taxes could heat up a whole lot as many tax payers just recently got hit with the shock that not only were not getting a refund, they owed a tax bill this year, even though they'd planned ahead and instituted a much higher withholding since the tax law changes.

Nah, that's not true.

What part of the above are you declaring untrue?  Because a whole lot of people were calling in yesterday to talk shows about taxes saying exactly that.  Even when a buncha rethug reps who supposedly know all about the tax law changes rattled out a whole buncha pro politico word salad that contained absolute zero content or information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DMC said:

So you think someone confronting Trump and outright saying she is not releasing her returns wouldn't get more press'm  than someone simply releasing their returns?  I fundamentally disagree, and am fairly certain I'm right on that one.

I don't doubt that you think you're right.

But consider just for a second. Suppose you aren't right? Suppose I'm wrong? What are the downsides of each situation? If either strategy fails to damage Trump, and has no upside, what is the price?

In one case, nothing - we stay as we are. In the other, the precedent is set - releasing tax returns is no longer something you just do, it's now conditional on the other guy doing it first. Presidential tax returns become the highest profile example of the prisoner's dilemma in the political world, and we likely have to get used to not seeing them for either candidate in most elections.

I'm not keen on that. Are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Bernie's set to be one of the Democratic front runners this election.  I would not count his book sales out. 

Bernie has been in congress since 1991.  Members of congress currently make $174,000.  His wife is a woman who wears many hats, but for close to 10 years she was a college president while he was in congress.  Bernie may not be 1% wise but he's certainly been very close to it throughout much of his congressional career.   I suspect him and his wife have been diligent about investing, which is not something a tax return necessarily captures.

 

Go here

Checked out the link.   It seems... Suspect.  But if those figures are accurate I'm taking my pitchfork to the streets and helping the neighborhood build our own local guillotine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for double post, was just on Twitter and saw AOC and Warren both gave each other shout outs today... AOC has 3.9 million followers, imagine what she could do to the primary field by endorsing someone early and asking her followers to chip in, even if only one in ten donated $5-10 bucks each.  Could quickly give someone a shot of $1.5- $4 million.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Barr holding a press conference tomorrow at 9:30am est to discuss the Mueller report. He will take questions. Only issue is that he's taking questions from reporters who have not actually read the report since it hasn't been released. Feels par the course for Barr and another opportunity to spin the results before allowing people to dig into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Bill Barr holding a press conference tomorrow at 9:30am est to discuss the Mueller report. He will take questions. Only issue is that he's taking questions from reporters who have not actually read the report since it hasn't been released. Feels par the course for Barr and another opportunity to spin the results before allowing people to dig into it.

On Easter weekend no less. How are Americans supposed to follow the media coverage when they’ll collectively be biting off the heads of chocolate bunnies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

On Easter weekend no less. How are Americans supposed to follow the media coverage when they’ll collectively be biting off the heads of chocolate bunnies?

And just to add to it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mexal said:

And just to add to it.

 

I mean, was there any doubt that this was going on? Barr has clearly decided to be a hatchetman for the President.

One newer development that's troubling is that members from conservative organizations, like The Federalist Society for example, are coming out and arguing that actual the AG and DoJ should not be independent and work on behalf of the President's wishes.

These F'ing people.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DMC said:

And the vast majority of swing voters (or any voter, really) will not care, because they will not be watching the debates.  Because they have, like, twenty of them now in the span of 8 months.  Plus, now you have to multiply that by two, at least for a lot of it, with all the damn candidates.

I was talking about the General.

Quote

No, FNC is not the media.  If a candidate clearly articulates why they're doing it, which is kind of the entire point, the media is going to be spending much more time talking about the fact Trump hasn't released his.  And again, to go back to the Comey example, it doesn't really matter what the media is saying about it.  What matters is they're focusing on a clear losing issue for Trump.  That's why there is minimal if any risk.

I think you might have too much faith in the common man or woman. A lot of people will just gloss over the details and go, "Oh, so now they're both not releasing their taxes. I guess that makes Trump 1% less worse.*"

 

*gag from a show I like, don't overthink it. 

Quote

The public already knows this.  At least the potentially persuadable public.

Do they? I have run into a lot of low information voters who are not Trump sycophants that repeat his rationale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I mean, was there any doubt that this was going on? Barr has clearly decided to be a hatchetman for the President.

 

Yep.  I reiterate, Barr wouldn't have been selected for the job if he wasn't going to "protect" Trump the way Trump believes that Holder protected Obama and Sessions didn't protect Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mormont said:

But consider just for a second. Suppose you aren't right? Suppose I'm wrong? What are the downsides of each situation? If either strategy fails to damage Trump, and has no upside, what is the price?

Uh, that's been what I've been saying and considering for the entire discussion.  I don't know I'm right, but there's very little downside no matter what a Dem candidate does on the issue.  Can anyone explain to me this downside in any type of convincing manner?  Because I honestly don't see it.  The point is releasing returns = 0 costs, 0 benefits.  My tactic = 0 costs, potential benefits. 

Moreover, the broader point of all of this is to maintain focus on an issue that Trump is vulnerable on.  As long as the economy stays as healthy as it is, he is going to be very hard to defeat.  Regardless of party or candidate, the opposition must change the narrative to beat the incumbent in a strong economy.  Trump wants to put that alternative narrative on immigration.  Understandable, that's how he won in the first place.  So the opposition can't, or at least I think shouldn't, use that either.  Which means you run on winning issues - like health care and the environment, but that...is not exactly gonna get the media randy.  But they'd eat up this tactic, Joe and Mika would uncomfortably argue about it for hours upon hours.

11 hours ago, mormont said:

In one case, nothing - we stay as we are. In the other, the precedent is set - releasing tax returns is no longer something you just do, it's now conditional on the other guy doing it first. Presidential tax returns become the highest profile example of the prisoner's dilemma in the political world, and we likely have to get used to not seeing them for either candidate in most elections.

I'm not keen on that. Are you?

Sure, I'm totally keen on it!  You're acting like releasing tax returns is somehow a foundational aspect of running for president.  It's not.  It's been a norm for 40 years, but even within that timeframe there are many variations of what "releasing tax returns" means for each particular candidate.  And literally every nominee before Trump was not much of a worry.  Frankly the closest worries would be the Clintons.  Trump's already destroyed actually significant norms.  I don't care if you acquiesce to this rather nominal one if it helps you beat him.

10 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

AOC has 3.9 million followers, imagine what she could do to the primary field by endorsing someone early and asking her followers to chip in, even if only one in ten donated $5-10 bucks each.  Could quickly give someone a shot of $1.5- $4 million.  

Very good point, and I suspect she's shopping that with the candidates.  Assume she's torn between Sanders and Warren.

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was talking about the General.

Even in the general.

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think you might have too much faith in the common man or woman. A lot of people will just gloss over the details and go, "Oh, so now they're both not releasing their taxes. I guess that makes Trump 1% less worse.*"

It's always strange when someone tells me I'm overestimating the American public, considering my opinion of the American public.  The entire idea that voters are just stupid is, well, stupid, and has been demonstrably confirmed as bullshit multiple times.  Not to get all Rousseau about it, but there's something to be said for collective wisdom.  It largely relies on the economy, but it's still empirically identifiable.

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do they? I have run into a lot of low information voters who are not Trump sycophants that repeat his rationale. 

Well, stop going to seedy Minnesota strip clubs then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

On Easter weekend no less. How are Americans supposed to follow the media coverage when they’ll collectively be biting off the heads of chocolate bunnies?

It should be noted that this is an old trick Barr has used before, when he and H.W. Bush dropped the pardons for Iran-Contra, they did so on Christmas Eve. Although I think the internet, social media, and the 24 hour cable news cycle mean that this tactic will be a lot less effective in 2019 than it was in 1992.

But Barr always has been, and always will be, a willing Republican hatchetman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

It should be noted that this is an old trick Barr has used before, when he and H.W. Bush dropped the pardons for Iran-Contra, they did so on Christmas Eve. Although I think the internet, social media, and the 24 hour cable news cycle mean that this tactic will be a lot less effective in 2019 than it was in 1992.

But Barr always has been, and always will be, a willing Republican hatchetman.

He’s going full hatchetman as we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is embarrassing. We should just have King Trump and be done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He literally just said the investigation made Trump mad, and Trump acted as someone who was upset, therefore, no obstruction.

WTF?!?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He literally just said the investigation made Trump mad, and Trump acted as someone who was upset, therefore, no obstruction.

WTF?!?!?!?

Yup. He straight up disagreed with Mueller's findings. He's Trump's defense attorney, a role that is not his job.

Also this...

 

Edited by Mexal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Yup. He straight up disagreed with Mueller's findings. He's Trump's defense attorney, a role that is not his job.

Oh great, not only did they give the WH a heads up about the report, they let them read it beforehand.

This is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Oh great, not only did they give the WH a heads up about the report, they let them read it beforehand.

This is a joke.

It would be good if the journos got together and collectively refused to ask a single question until everyone has read the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×