US Politics: Be Careful Out There

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Respectfully lots of people care.  We care or we wouldn’t be talking about him.  Perhaps none die hard supporters care is more what you were driving at?

Not really. I'll say it another way - no one cares about this to change their decision about him. Diehard supporters aren't gonna change. Indies aren't going to change because of this. Dems aren't gonna be even more angry at him.

It's immaterial to changing anyone's mind. Or, shorthand - no one cares. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Not really. I'll say it another way - no one cares about this to change their decision about him. Diehard supporters aren't gonna change. Indies aren't going to change because of this. Dems aren't gonna be even more angry at him.

You held the candle for Trump being reelected to very close to the very end.  Telling me after Ginsburg died that he had a 90 percent probability.  Not sure why you still carry that flame, but it's extinguished.  Time to move on.  A Republican nominee can very easily beat Biden as things stand now.  But if it's Trump, that's advantageous to Biden.  Nobody with a brain denies that.

[TrackerNeil]

26 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

He will, because Republicans fall in line. He may not get independents mind you - but the notion that he will lose supporters because tywin thinks he looks week is ridiculous.

I don't have data on this, but I'll warrant a number of typically Republican voters broke ranks to vote Biden in 2020. I doubt Uncle Joe won Georgia and Arizona just because people there thought he was nice. I imagine there is exit polling that can confirm or deny this, but I am too lazy to Google it. So accept my hypothesis or not, as you like.

In any case, I don't know how many presidents are elected solely on the votes of party faithful. I'd need some convincing before I'd buy that. Until I get that convincing, I'm going to reasonably assume that red-hat wearers, plus their Republican enablers, are insufficient to win Trump the White House. The nomination, sure, but that's a different ball game.

I can't speak for @Tywin et al., and I make no argument about Trump losing supporters because he looks week. I'd have to think that over. However, I just don't think it's plausible that Trump can lose almost every single Democrat and the majority of independent voters and still have a viable path to the presidency. Maybe Trump will get another flukey win, but...well, he rolled a 20 in 2016, and anyone who's played Dungeons and Dragons knows you shouldn't bet on criticals too often.

Edited May 13, 2023 by TrackerNeil

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

You held the candle for Trump being reelected to very close to the very end.  Telling me after Ginsburg died that he had a 90 percent probability.  Not sure why you still carry that flame, but it's extinguished.  Time to move on.  A Republican nominee can very easily beat Biden as things stand now.  But if it's Trump, that's advantageous to Biden.  Nobody with a brain denies that.

 I didn't and don't deny it. Trump running is probably one of the only ways Biden can win at this point.

Though after Ginsburg died I had thought they'd hold that out as something for Trump to do in his second term and it was a poor strategy (for Trump at least) to not wait. 

You're really arguing against someone who said something else. My point was to Tywin saying how it matters that Trump appears weak. It doesn't. My point was to Tracker thinking that Republicans who voted for him before are going to leave him. They aren't. That is just magical thinking. Trump is certainly beatable, but saying that Trump is beatable does not contradict the argument that Trump is not going to lose support from the Republican party.

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't have data on this, but I'll warrant a number of typically Republican voters broke ranks to vote Biden in 2020. I doubt Uncle Joe won Georgia and Arizona just because people there thought he was nice. I imagine there is exit polling that can confirm or deny this, but I am too lazy to Google it. So accept my hypothesis or not, as you like.

Okay, there was exit polling and it was virtually the same as it has been for every single election in the last 25 years. About 5-10% defected on either side. Same as it's been. 

Uncle Joe won Georgia and Arizona largely because independents went more towards him and (especially in Georgia) Democrats mobilized really well and turned out more. In neither case was it because Republicans stayed home or voted for Biden to any major degree. 

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

In any case, I don't know how many presidents are elected solely on the votes of party faithful. I'd need some convincing before I'd buy that. Until I get that convincing, I'm going to reasonably assume that red-hat wearers, plus their Republican enablers, are insufficient to win Trump the White House. The nomination, sure, but that's a different ball game.

I can't speak for @Tywin et al., and I make no argument about Trump losing supporters because he looks week. I'd have to think that over. However, I just don't think it's plausible that Trump can lose almost every single Democrat and the majority of independent voters and still have a viable path to the presidency. Maybe Trump will get another flukey win, but...well, he rolled a 20 in 2016, and anyone who's played Dungeons and Dragons knows you shouldn't bet on criticals too often.

This ignores his opponent though. The question shouldn't be 'are his supporters enough to get him in'; it should be 'are his supporters enough along with whoever is swayable against the other guy to get him in'. In 2016 the answer was largely for the latter case, as enough people hated Clinton - and enough Dems stayed home (which is always a real big issue) that he won. In 2020 more of those independents and more people in states that matter turned out for Biden, but that doesn't mean his support dropped with independents necessarily (it slightly did in some places, it didn't in others depending on demographics). And even then it was less about Biden and more about hatred of Trump.

He didn't really roll a 20 either. He didn't just get lucky, and that's exactly the bullshit magical thinking that'll get him elected again. There is a very large amount of support - especially from white men - for Trump. Even now. That is not by itself enough to get elected, but it's a lot better than a 1 in 20 chance would give him. The most important thing to understand about Republican voters is that this is the first time in a long time that they have had a POTUS candidate that they actually genuinely worshipped and adored. GWB wasn't like that. GHWB wasn't like that. Republicans have dutifully voted for their person over and over again; what tends to change elections is whether or not the dem candidate is loved or just okay, and whether or not independents in certain states care. 

But the notion that Trump was able to win states that a Republican hadn't won in 20 years is lucky? Please. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

He didn't really roll a 20 either. He didn't just get lucky, and that's exactly the bullshit magical thinking that'll get him elected again. There is a very large amount of support - especially from white men - for Trump. Even now. That is not by itself enough to get elected, but it's a lot better than a 1 in 20 chance would give him. The most important thing to understand about Republican voters is that this is the first time in a long time that they have had a POTUS candidate that they actually genuinely worshipped and adored. GWB wasn't like that. GHWB wasn't like that. Republicans have dutifully voted for their person over and over again; what tends to change elections is whether or not the dem candidate is loved or just okay, and whether or not independents in certain states care. 

Most of this is just wildly inaccurate.  Republicans didn't adore Dubya in 2004?  Where the fuck were you?  They absolutely adored him and bought his administration's horseshit even though anyone with a brain knew they were talking out of their ass.  Further, Biden in 2020 improved on the white male compared to Hilary and even Obama.

Does Trump have a better than 1 in 20 chance - which is 5 percent - of being elected next year?  Yeah, sure.  But not much larger than that unless things go real south.

[Zorral]

Imma gonna do a ghoulish throw in here -- in a lotta of Those States a lotta of those voters are dead. Including in my stepfamily.  They were too smart to wear masks, isolate or vaccinate.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Zorral

[Raja]

Man, I've just learned and read about Vivek Ramaswamy, his 'Meet Vivek' page is so bad on his website. Why must these brown dudes embarrass us so

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

 He didn't really roll a 20 either. He didn't just get lucky, and that's exactly the bullshit magical thinking that'll get him elected again.

Kal, I think you are aware I wasn't indicating I think that Trump literally had a 5% chance of winning; I was using the term critical loosely. I'm not engaging in magical thinking, but since you seem to think so, I think we've reached the limits of this conversation.

Edited May 14, 2023 by TrackerNeil

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Does Trump have a better than 1 in 20 chance - which is 5 percent - of being elected next year?  Yeah, sure.  But not much larger than that unless things go real south.

What do you mean by "real south" though? Nobody knows what will happen to the economy, but a recession in the next year or two seems to be more likely than not.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

What do you mean by "real south" though? Nobody knows what will happen to the economy, but a recession in the next year or two seems to be more likely than not.

That's a fair, and good, question.  There are defined parameters for a recession, and whether we meet them or not in the next 18 months I really couldn't say.  Frankly if pressed I'd say it's more likely than not that we don't.  Regardless, my point about the economy "tanking" is to emphasize it'd require far more economic angst among the electorate than is currently being expressed - which, again, is already bad.

Edited May 14, 2023 by DMC

[IheartIheartTesla]

14 hours ago, Raja said:

Man, I've just learned and read about Vivek Ramaswamy, his 'Meet Vivek' page is so bad on his website. Why must these brown dudes embarrass us so

I've had the misfortune of hearing about and from him on Real Time with Bill Maher. If you do want a non-embarrasing brown dude, cant go further than Ro Khanna though.

[Raja]

30 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I've had the misfortune of hearing about and from him on Real Time with Bill Maher.

Look, this is really on you for watching Bill Maher

[Zorral]

Dems behaving like Them.

Minneapolis police respond to fights at DFL endorsement convention
Video shows supporters of Minneapolis City Council candidate Nasri Warsame shout and rush the stage, leading to the convention being adjourned. 
By Andy Mannix Star Tribune 

https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-police-respond-to-fights-at-dfl-endorsement-convention/600274713/

 

 

[Kalbear]

17 hours ago, DMC said:

Most of this is just wildly inaccurate.  Republicans didn't adore Dubya in 2004?  Where the fuck were you?  They absolutely adored him and bought his administration's horseshit even though anyone with a brain knew they were talking out of their ass.  Further, Biden in 2020 improved on the white male compared to Hilary and even Obama.

No ,Republicans didn't love gwb. He was fine - certainly better than McCain or Romney - but nothing remotely like what you see for, say, Obama. Or Trump. Or Clinton. 

And Biden absolutely improved on white men compared to Clinton - shocking! Meanwhile Trump improved with black men and all hispanics.

17 hours ago, DMC said:

Does Trump have a better than 1 in 20 chance - which is 5 percent - of being elected next year?  Yeah, sure.  But not much larger than that unless things go real south.

From your standard reading I don't see how that follows. With the data we have right now Biden is below 40% approval - weren't you the one saying Trump was doomed because of that? And Trump has higher approval than Biden right now overall. How does it follow that Trump would have, say a 1 in 4 chance from that?

[Kalbear]

15 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Kal, I think you are aware I wasn't indicating I think that Trump literally had a 5% chance of winning; I was using the term critical loosely. I'm not engaging in magical thinking, but since you seem to think so, I think we've reached the limits of this conversation.

I'm aware, but his chances aren't remotely that bad. Trump barely lost in 2020. His approval ratings are higher than Bidens. Why would he have a worse chance now?

What evidence would you need to convince yourself that Trump has a fairly decent chance of winning?

The reason I say that this is magical thinking about trump is that it ignores data in favor of what should be true. Trump outperformed his estimates both times he ran. He turns out people who typically don't vote. He has a 44% approval rating and over 80% of the republican party supports him right now. He has crazy amounts of money for campaigning and the ability to generate massive amounts of free media. That's not thinking he has magical powers - that's recognizing that he is pretty powerful.

A lot can change in a year and a half, but the idea that he got lucky to win understates things considerably. And honestly which would you bet on - Trump having any kind of legal issues that actually harm him politically, or Biden having problems as POTUS (economic, military, health) that cause him to sink further?

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

No ,Republicans didn't love gwb. He was fine - certainly better than McCain or Romney - but nothing remotely like what you see for, say, Obama. Or Trump. Or Clinton. 

LOL!  This is flagrantly invalid and not worthy of response.

3 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

With the data we have right now Biden is below 40% approval - weren't you the one saying Trump was doomed because of that?

No, he's not.  538's aggregate has him at 42.4.  Trump's favorability is peaking right now!  ...at 43.9 percent.  That's not much to worry about once the voting actually starts.

Anyway, it follows because of actual election results.  Which, ya know, is the most reliable data.  And the voters - at least those in swing states that matter - have rejected Trump for three straight cycles.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL!  This is flagrantly invalid and not worthy of response.

Happy to look at data saying otherwise. His approval in 2004 was mid 50%. I will concrete that he got more of the Republican vote than anyone - including Reagan. But that doesn't mean they loved him. Something that Trump used. Per this report only 43% of Republicans had a strong approval of his presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/15/republicans-like-george-w-bush-they-dont-love-him/

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, he's not.  538's aggregate has him at 42.4.  Trump's favorability is peaking right now!  ...at 43.9 per cent.  That's not much to worry about once the voting actually starts.

Just out of curiosity - what was Biden's approval before he was elected? Compared to now? (57% vs 42%) What was his approval with independents then vs. now? (61% vs 37%).

And this doesn't matter...why?

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Anyway, it follows because of actual election results.  Which, ya know, is the most reliable data.  And the voters - at least those in swing states that matter - have rejected Trump for three straight cycles.

We already know Trump doesn't turn people out as well when he's not on the ballot. 2018 was an absolute bloodbath, but 2022 was a bit more explainable by some fairly stupid candidates like Walker - who almost won anyway!

I guess it is bizarre that you are discounting trumps opponent quality and value so heavily. You're usually not like that. And Biden in 2020 is not the same as Biden now.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Happy to look at data saying otherwise. His approval in 2004 was mid 50%. I will concrete that he got more of the Republican vote than anyone - including Reagan. But that doesn't mean they loved him. Something that Trump used. Per this report only 43% of Republicans had a strong approval of his presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/15/republicans-like-george-w-bush-they-dont-love-him/

I can't read WaPo articles, but I don't need to.  Nor do I need polling.  Dubya was absolutely "loved" by the Republican base -- until he wasn't.  There's plenty of data out there to demonstrate that, look it up.  It's very silly to try to argue otherwise.

5 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Just out of curiosity - what was Biden's approval before he was elected? Compared to now? (57% vs 42%) What was his approval with independents then vs. now? (61% vs 37%).

And this doesn't matter...why?

It doesn't matter if he's facing Trump.  Because there's no way Trump can persuade those that don't want to vote for him - just as there's no way to persuade those that do want to vote for him.  And the bottom line is the former is larger than the latter.  Most importantly, in the swing states that matter.

If Biden is facing anyone else, yes, his approval is very concerning.  I literally mentioned that in the first response.  But against Trump it's already ingrained.  There's no changing that dynamic.

9 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

We already know Trump doesn't turn people out as well when he's not on the ballot. 2018 was an absolute bloodbath, but 2022 was a bit more explainable by some fairly stupid candidates like Walker - who almost won anyway!

Yeah, I've seen this "not on the ballot" shit too by talking heads as if it means anything.  It doesn't.

[maarsen]

17 hours ago, Raja said:

Man, I've just learned and read about Vivek Ramaswamy, his 'Meet Vivek' page is so bad on his website. Why must these brown dudes embarrass us so

Don't sweat it. The number of white, and orange, dudes embarrassing me is so much more.