reader Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 “I wish I have big mushroom head”. stevenkesslar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmmetK Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 On 5/21/2024 at 7:55 AM, Goober said: Why do you even care about election polls? If Von ShitzInPantz loses the election, won't MAGA just stage another coup? Another day..... Another poll. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-22/violence-around-2024-election-feared-by-half-of-swing-state-voters-poll For those who get the firewall, it shows Trump leading in six of the 7 toss-up states in a 3-way race, trailing only in Michigan by 2 points (within the margin of error). https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls Arizona: Trump vs. Biden vs. Kennedy vs. West vs. Stein Bloomberg/MrnConsult Trump 45, Biden 40, Kennedy 7, Stein 2, West 1 Trump+5 Georgia: Trump vs. Biden vs. Kennedy vs. West vs. Stein Bloomberg/MrnConsult Trump 44, Biden 39, Kennedy 8, West 1, Stein 1 Trump+5 Michigan: Trump vs. Biden vs. Kennedy vs. West vs. Stein Bloomberg/MrnConsult Biden 42, Trump 40, Kennedy 7, Stein 2, West 1 Biden+2 Nevada: Trump vs. Biden vs. Kennedy vs. West vs. Stein Bloomberg/MrnConsult Trump 44, Biden 39, Kennedy 7, West 2, Stein 1 Trump+5 North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden vs. Kennedy vs. West vs. Stein Bloomberg/MrnConsult Trump 46, Biden 38, Kennedy 7, West 1, Stein 1 Trump+8 Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden vs. Kennedy vs. West vs. Stein Bloomberg/MrnConsult Trump 45, Biden 42, Kennedy 7, West 2, Stein 1 Trump+3 Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden vs. Kennedy vs. West vs. Stein Bloomberg/MrnConsult Trump 43, Biden 42, Kennedy 6, Stein 1, West 1 Trump+1 Poor Dementia Joe..... Maybe allowing 10 million illegals into the country wasn't such a great idea...... Trump 2024 MAGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 23 Members Share Posted May 23 8 hours ago, EmmetK said: Poor Dementia Joe..... Yeah. Poor Joe. Lichtman, who has always been right, says Biden will probably win unless a lot of really big things change quickly. And he will win based on reliable fundamentals, like economic growth and getting laws passed. Poor Joe. What a mess! Your strategy, @EmmetK, is simple. Be demented. I mean, you are not really demented, I don't think. But you act demented, in that you deny reality. Lichtman has been right every time. Even Trump, personally, in writing, acknowledged that. But your strategy is basically, "I'll just put my head deep up my ass like I am some crazy fuck and pretend facts are not facts." By the way, polls are not facts. Except on the day they come out. Maybe. So the fact that Trump and Biden are about 1 % apart in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in the RCP average should tell us this race is close. And either could win. I think that is a fact. You don't really want to believe that fact, do you? Here's another set of facts that is interesting and relevant. If you are interested in facts. In Arizona, Democrat Gallego leads Lake by 6 % on average. In Nevada., Democrat Rosen leads her strongest opponent by 5 % on average. In Michigan, Democrat Slotkin is statistically tied with her strongest opponent. (Slotkin, like Trump, has a statistically insignificant 1 % lead). In Wisconsin, Democrat Baldwin leads her opponent by 7 % on average. In Pennsylvania, Democrat Casey leads his opponent by 5 % on average. Those are all states you are assuming Trump will win, based on the current POTUS polls. Even though the Trump/Biden poll averages clearly show Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are toss ups. If Biden wins all three, Trump is toast. Lichtman is strongly suggesting Biden will win all three. But, again, what does he know that you don't? 😉 Now let's talk about two states Biden will almost certainly lose. In Ohio, Democrat Brown leads his opponent by 5 % on average. In Montana, Democrat Tester leads his opponent by 5 % on average. See the pattern? Here's the thing. Since Trump entered the picture and played his "divide and conquer" card, the nation has been very divided. The only Senator that won in a state that did not match with the POTUS result in 2022 was a Republican win in Wisconsin, which Biden won in 2020. In 2020, the only non-match was a Republican win in Maine, which Biden won. In 2018 there were a few more non-matches, including Democrats Brown and Tester above winning in what are now seen as strong red states. But, generally, states that vote for Biden vote for Democratic Senators. States that vote for Trump elect Republican Senators. Even in Maryland, where anti-Trump Republican Hogan was a very popular Guv, the latest polls show voters just won't elect a Republican, even an avowed anti-Trumper, if it helps tilt the country to Trump. Does this tell you anything? Of course not! Silly question. Facts just don't matter. Too complex. There are three possibilities. First, this could be 1980. In May 1980 Carter led Reagan by 8 points. He even led Reagan by eight points in October 1980. So much for polls, as Lichtman says. (But, hey, what does he know?) Not only did Reagan win. He also took out Democratic Senators that were not even seen as particularly vulnerable. So maybe a red wave is building, like in 2022. Maybe all these Democratic Senators who appear to be headed to victory are actually headed to extinction. Egads! Except there are no signs of a red trickle, let alone a red wave, like in 2022. By the way, did anyone ever find 2022's AWOL red wave? 😉 Second, maybe the fever has broken. And we are going back to compromise and bipartisanship and ticket splitting as a governing strategy. I personally would vote for that. Maybe Trump will win all the states I cited above. Even as they elect Democratic Senators and a Democratic Senate majority. Possible, but unlikely. I see the MAGA minority's embrace of a law breaker and wannabe democracy destroyer like Trump as evidence that the fever has not broken. It is more heated than ever. Everything you post here in anecdotal evidence of the same. You're into fever, not facts. So as much as I would like a more bipartisan Congress, I don't hold my hopes up. And, if people want a POTUS who is good at getting bipartisan laws actually passed - infrastructure, CHIPS, Ukraine/Israel - that's a reason to vote for Biden. How many bipartisan tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans did Trump get passed, anyway? Third, and most likely, the reason most Democratic Senators outpoll Biden is that most people do not like Joe Biden. It's now pretty clear that won't change between now and election day. Mostly because Biden won't stop aging. Nor will the majority of Americans suddenly decide they like Donald Trump. Mostly because he won't get any less crazy. So in all these states where Democratic Senators have strong leads, is it possible that the underlying trend says that people will vote Democratic? Even though they have serious problems with the guy at the top of the ticket? Yes, it's quite possible. I just described about how half my nieces and nephews feel. It's back to that old South Park episode, about the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. So the idea that people who tend to vote Democratic and say they will vote for a Democrat for Senate will ultimately see Biden as the lesser of evils seems possible, and even probable. The thing that is funny about you, @EmmetK, is that you are deeply committed to ignorance on two very important points. You see them as Trump's greatest strengths, when they are in fact much more likely to be his greatest weaknesses. And his reasons for probably losing again. The first point is the five party race. You keep citing polls that show Biden is further behind Trump in polls that count RFK, Stein, and West. True. But that is Trump's problem, not Biden's. He has a lead that is built on quicksand. It's a fact that every four years, to the degree there is any third party that even registers, you can take whatever they are polling now and divide it by at least half. People just do this, literally every four years. They shop, but don't buy. In October or November they decide it is a wasted vote. With Stein and West, those are mostly younger or non-White voters who lean toward Democrats. That said, we also know for a fact that Jill Stein alone was capable of handing the election to Donald Trump in 2016. Which every single American who doesn't want Trump will be reminding Stein supporters this Fall. What you are essentially arguing is that a house built on quicksand is as good as a house built on cement. A Trump victory premised on the idea that these polls are right about how RFK or West or Stein will do is just bullshit. That's a fact. It literally never works out that way. Literally every four years. The second point has nothing to do with any argument you make. It is the whole Trump/MAGA philosophy that ignorance is not only bliss. It is a ticket to victory and power. As a conniving brand huckster, Trump needed poorly informed people to go to Trump U, or buy Trump crap. So of course he loves "poorly educated" voters. Because, as this study showed, if you read newspapers or websites or watch networks news, you're probably voting for Biden. The people who Trump does best with, by a whopping 26 point margin, are not cable news viewers, like Fox. They people who follow no political news at all. What does it tell us when a political leader's success (meaning he won one very close election, one time) is based on people who are committed to being ignorant about politics? It tells us mostly bad things, in my opinion. But that's me being anti-Trump. One thing it tells us for a fact is that these are absolutely the least reliable voters ever. If Trump's poll lead, such as it is, is based on people who don't follow politics, because they mostly don't care about it, those polls are particularly unreliable. That's true in two ways. Trump clearly knows he has this vast army of "poorly educated" voters who are pissed off. And to the degree that tune in at all, they want to be thrown red meat about how the Deep State ... [name something about a conspiracy or how Democrats drink the blood of children]. Trump could win in 2024 in part because these occasional voters did turn out in 2016. And they gave him just enough votes in enough states so that Trump could lose by millions of votes, but still somehow win. Trump actually got millions more of them to vote for him in 2020, when he lost by 7 million votes. So this is a politics built on quicksand. Ignorance is not bliss if you want to win. This is also true for Biden, way more than in 2020. Mark Penn's polls are particularly detailed and interesting. Trump always does better than average in those Harvard/Harris polls. Like right now Penn says Trump is leading Biden by 5 points, compared to Trump's statistically insignificant 1 % lead in the RCP average. One big reason is that Penn shows young voters are split on Trump/Biden. Whereas most polls show young voters overwhelmingly for Biden, like they actually voted in 2020. And why Biden won. So Penn's polls could just be fucked up. Or they could be right. But if they are right it is because he taps into young voters whose political views are vaguely based on Tik Tok rants about how inflation sucks and Biden sucks and the cost of living is out of control. And that's it. Gaza? What's that? Trump's tax policies? Huh? So who knows? Maybe this young Tik Tok/You Tube contingent, which is not the same as the equally uninformed and older MAGA cult, will actually vote for Trump. Or maybe they just won't vote, even though they are the demographic that sealed Biden's victory in 2020. Nobody knows. Nobody can know. Anyone who believes polls that are based on this kind of quicksand make sense should also believe that Carter actually beat Reagan by eight points in 1980. The thing we do know is that the more people read newspapers or websites, the more reliable they are as voters. Reliable both in terms of the fact that they know who they will vote for, which is more likely to be Biden. And they know they will actually vote. So the idea that the least reliable voters, who know and care the least about politics, are somehow going to be the vanguard of a Trump victory is more than shaky. It could work again, like in 2016. Lightning can sometimes strike twice. Just don't count on it. These are Trump's greatest weaknesses. Which helps explain why Lichtman is probably right about reliable benchmarks, Like how Biden will win based on how he has governed. You see Trump's greatest weaknesses as strengths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmmetK Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 Another day..... ........Another poll This time, it/s the non-partisan Cook Political Report. It has TRUMP leading Dementia Joe Biden in SEVEN of the EIGHT swing states (it is tied in Wisconsin). So you can have your stupid GIF's, JPEG's, msn.com talking points, and idiotic comments. And, speaking of idiotic, you can have the democrat hack Alan Lichtman. As poll after poll after poll shows, Trump has the people! https://www.cookpolitical.com/survey-research/2024-swing-state-project/unique-election-driven-traditional-issue stevenkesslar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bingo T Dog Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 6 hours ago, EmmetK said: So you can have your stupid GIF's, JPEG's, Would this be a stupid or cute JPEG? Maybe it's sexy for all the MAGA women to look at. Who are we to judge?? stevenkesslar and KeepItReal 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pete1111 Posted May 25 Members Share Posted May 25 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pete1111 Posted May 25 Members Share Posted May 25 stevenkesslar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 25 Members Share Posted May 25 4 hours ago, Pete1111 said: Dancing is one of the countless things Donald Trump does exceptionally well. Which is why America needs him. Every day I take a moment to think about how lucky America is, if we can just restore the Reich. Dancing is why Black people will vote for Donald Trump in unprecedented numbers. He reminds them of Michael Jackson. And no, that is not a racist stereotype. I am the second least racist person in the world, next to Donald Trump. Bingo T Dog 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 26 Members Share Posted May 26 15 hours ago, EmmetK said: And, speaking of idiotic, you can have the democrat hack Alan Lichtman. As poll after poll after poll shows, Trump has the people! You are very consistent, @EmmetK. Good for you. You want us to be absolutely clear that you are fact free, and mean-spirited about it. The reason you are fact-free is, as Lichtman keeps saying, is name a poll in May [fill in a year since 1945] that was NOT wrong. How about the polls in May 1980 that said Carter would wipe Reagan's ass? Or in May 1988 that said Dukakis would wipe Bush 41's ass? And yet you are absolutely clear that you prefer to keep your head up your own ass and repeat your own bullshit, rather than face facts. You are mean-spirited because the "pro-cop" Trump party won't actually defend cops when their bones are being broken in support of cruel lies about how Trump won in 2020. It is cruel and sick and a disease to democracy. And that is the kind of bullshit you support. It is a big part of why Trump, Dein Fuhrer, will lose. Lichtman has been factually correct in his predictions and system every election since 1984. Including 2016 when he predicted Trump would win in September, which Trump himself praised Lichtman for. .But you would rather have cultish bullshit than facts. It is who you are. It is what you do. We get that. You are in a cult. You have no choice. Donald Trump is outrunning other Republicans. What does it mean for November? If we want to focus on facts, including what current polls that are totally unreliable are telling us, that article is so much more interesting. Quote But the implications are also unclear: Does it suggest that Trump is breaking through with even core Democratic voters, setting himself up for a victory? Or that Biden has an opportunity to win back voters whose political instincts favor his party as they tune in more closely? That is the million dollar question that will help determine the outcome this November. And anyone who thinks they know the answer right now is full of shit. But it is interesting that more journalists are noting what has been sticking out like a sore thumb for months. In every swing state Biden absolutely needs to win, there is a Democratic Senate candidate that is leading. He needs to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Democrats lead. He does not need to win Arizona or Nevada. But Democrats lead there, too. He certainly does not need to win, and won't win, Ohio and Montana. But Democratic incumbent Senators lead there, too, by about 5 points each in poll averages. I think the least likely explanation is that we're now less polarized and everyone is into ticket splitting again. We are more polarized than ever. I have deep contempt for assholes who are happy, or at least tolerant, of Fuhrer Putin slaughtering Ukrainian women and children. And happy with Trump's foot soldiers beating the shit out of cops in defense of his anti-democratic lies and cruelty. I think contempt is the appropriate response to cruel lying assholes. This is going to be a mean and ugly election. So there are two other explanations. It could be that millions of people are just wrong when they tell pollsters they support Democratic Senators in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio, and Montana. Maybe all those Democratic Senators will be wiped out. Because ultimately people will vote for Trump and whoever the Republican is in each state. They just don't know it yet. That's been the overwhelming pattern since 2016. You elect a Senator that is from the same party as Trump, or his opponent. But, if you believe that, it means all these polls are wrong. Or, you can believe the opposite. Maybe the polls suggest that in all these swing states, people actually prefer Democrats - mostly incumbents, but in Arizona and Michigan the Democrat is not an incumbent. And you can believe that Biden has "unique" issues that drag his numbers down, as the article suggests. Which mostly boil down to 1) age and 2) inflation. I think the closest we can get to any factual statement is that neither Biden nor Trump are anywhere near closing the deal that would ensure their win. And I think Lichtman is absolutely spot on about the way to think about it. 2024 will be a thumbs up or thumbs down on Team Biden. Just like 2020 was a thumbs up or thumbs down on Team Trump. All through 2020 the polls suggested that the verdict on Trump was thumbs down. And the poll numbers were well beyond poll margins or error. What 2024 is telling us so far is that no judgment has been made. But it is not bad news to me that every Democrat running for Senate in a swing state that is on Team Biden is ahead. The other thing that I think Lichtman is correct about is that incumbency helps, not hurts, Democrats. If you buy Lichtman, which I do, the 2000 and 2016 elections were close enough that if Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had been eligible to run for a third term as incumbents, they would have won. I believe that. Particularly in 2016. Not only did we not have an incumbent. We had a bitter primary that divided the party. Lichtman believes that was two big nails in Hillary's coffin. I believe that. Is there any reason to think a food fight at the Democratic convention would help elect a Democrat? That is just bullshit from journalists like Ezra Klein who like having their heads up their asses. Almost every day there is another article about how Joe Biden should resign for the good of his party and his country. And not one article cites a poll documenting how [name a living Democrat who breathes air and pees and shits poo] would be more likely to win. In fact, almost every poll I have seen documents that any other Democrat would do worse than Biden. Here's one showing that Biden is 1 point behind Trump, compared to Harris 3 points behind, Newsom 10 points behind, and Whitmer 12 points behind. Some of that is name recognition, of course. But that's the whole point. Incumbency helps, not hurts, Democrats. Lichtman is right. Lichtman has not officially predicted Biden will win. What he has said is Biden is down on 2 of his 13 keys. And you need to be down six for him to predict Biden will lose. I think it's a safe bet that Biden will not somehow have a foreign policy win between now and November. So he will probably have three keys against him, like Bush 41 in 1988 and Obama in 2012. Again, note that many polls said Dukakis would beat Bush, and Romney would beat Obama. Poor pollsters! Lichtman has named the other three things that would have to go wrong for Biden to lose. 1) He'd have to have a big foreign policy defeat in Ukraine or Israel. Not likely, now that he got yet another bipartisan assistance package passed. 2) The third parties would have to take off, and get over 5 % of the vote at least. His basic theory, which I buy, is that support for third parties always show dissatisfaction with the incumbent party. Clearly young people like RFK because they are pissed at Biden. Will they all rally behind RFK, or Stein, or West? Ain't gonna happen. This is where @EmmetK really prefers his own shit to facts. It is just a fact that whatever they are polling now, cut that number at least in half by election day. It literally happens that way EVERY FOUR YEARS. Let me repeat, least you have your own poo in your eyes. EVERY FOUR YEARS. I doubt RFK will get 5 % of the vote. People who don't mind Trump will decide a vote for RFK is a vote for Biden. People who can live with Biden will decide a vote for RFK is a vote for Trump. 3) There would have to be mass social unrest. In theory, there could be riots in the streets all Summer about apartheid in Israel, and how Genocide Joe is a monster. And what makes anyone think that people who are pissed at Genocide Joe will instead want Trump, who would be fine if Bibi could kill every Palestinian man, woman, and child alive? But, mostly, most young people don't really give a shit. The polls are very clear on that. Lichtman is being very clear. All three of these nails would have to be pounded into Biden's coffin for him to lose. I don't think any of these three will be. Which is why Biden will win. And @EmmetK will be wiping his own shit out of his eyes, yet again. Poor guy! And since I am in endless rant mode, speaking of young people, I'll throw this in. If I had to pick one article I have read in 2024 that I think accurately describes what is going on that superficial polls don't tell us, I would choose this article: A Finance Guru on What the Inflation Debate Gets Wrong I think Sethi is exactly right on all his main points. First, people bitching about food prices really have no idea what the same thing cost in 2020 or 2016. And, mostly, they are still buying the same thing. But they are unhappy, because it does cost more. And as the first article says, they do blame that on Biden. But where the rubber really hits the road with Biden is on three issues: housing, housing, and housing. For a lot of working class Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, as well as Millennials and Zoomers who would tend to vote Democratic, and will vote for [name a Democratic Senator running in a swing state], this is THE issue. On one end, they can not possibly think of buying a home, and the rent is too damn high. On the other hand, they may be able to buy a home, and want to. But home prices and mortgage rates are too damn high. And they blame that on Biden. I've been surprised how long it took Democrats to talk about housing. Since it is clearly at the core of the inflation problem. Rent costs more than apples or milk, in case anyone didn't know that. And, as Sethi suggests, Biden's solutions - a tax credit if you buy a home - pretty much suck. If young voters could get the POTUS they wanted, she would use the government to figure out how to vastly increase the supply of affordable housing in the places that matter. Meaning mostly big cities in blue states. That is exactly what Bill Clinton did in the 1990's. And it worked great until Bush 43 let the subprime scum come in between 2002 and 2006 (when Republicans ran everything) and fuck everything up. RFK has nailed that one. He wants the government to help young families with 3 % government fixed rate mortgages. Here's the logic problem that the outcome of the 2024 election probably depends on. How likely is it that Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Millennials, and Zoomers who are pissed at Biden will say the following: "The problem with America is it is too hard to be rich. It is too hard to be a large corporation. If we just cut taxes for billionaires and big corporations, my rent would go down. And I could buy a home. And while we are at it, all these Obamacare subsidies that help me afford health care for my family suck. They need to be cut, so that billionaires can pay less tax. Child tax credits for my children that cut child poverty in half under Biden are a horrible idea, too! It would be so much better if the corporations that gouge me for gas or food paid lower taxes. Please, do whatever you can to help me less, and give billionaires and big corporations the help they desperately need." Trump's biggest accomplishment was cutting taxes for the richest Americans and the most profitable corporations. He has said he wants more of the same. His biggest failure is he failed to kill Obamacare. Which is more popular than ever. So Republicans are correct that they "own" the issues that piss people off. They are correct that people blame Biden for inflation, and immigration, in particular. But what poll tells us that the Republicans own the solutions? In Trump's defense, there are polls that suggest that maybe a majority of people support the mass deportation of millions of families. But I don't believe when we start talking about how children need to be taken out of homes and put in cells (cages?) until they can be sent somewhere else (a shit hole like Mexico?) that's gonna go down well. More tax cuts for the rich? That won't go down well. Repeal and replace Obamacare? When Trump tried to do that his favorable ratings tanked, even among his White working class supporters. Restore the expanded child tax credits that actually helped tens of millions of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and young families who tend to vote Democratic? Republicans are the ones that killed that. I would not bet on Biden winning, yet. But these are the reasons I think he likely will win. A lot of this polling reflects pissed off people who don't like inflation. And especially the cost of rent or buying a home today. But what solutions has Trump got? He has not closed the deal yet. And I very much doubt he will. Rant over and out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 26 Members Share Posted May 26 14 hours ago, EmmetK said: This time, it/s the non-partisan Cook Political Report. It has TRUMP leading Dementia Joe Biden This one will be relatively brief. I am really scared. It's not just that Charlie Cook is nonpartisan. It is that he is insightful, wicked smart, and pretty much always right. Charlie Cook: Hillary Clinton Will Win in November My own favorite Cook phrase is one he came up with in 2018: "color intensifier." I truly thought that nailed it. What it meant is that Trump managed to make red states redder, and blue states bluer. That helps explain why Senators McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Donnelly (Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana) were taken out in red states, even as Democrats took control of the House by romping in blue districts. A similar "color intensifier" effect would suggest why Democratic Senate candidates are leading in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada, all of which Biden won in 2020. And which we know from Guv and state and court races have tended to vote Democratic lately. With exceptions, like Nevada electing a Republican Guv. This does not explain why Tester and Brown are ahead in Montana and Ohio. They should be far behind. There is no correct answer, yet. But the most logical answer to me is that Biden has an age and inflation problem, and it is dragging him down. It means maybe Trump can close the deal. Maybe by talking more about how helping billionaires and big corporations and Putin is good for the working class. And how taking Brown and Black children and all those various ethnic types out of homes they have no right to live in and deporting them is what America is all about. There is absolutely nothing racist about deporting ethnic children who have no right to live here. Don't count on that, though. Not yet, at least. I think the election is Biden's to lose. And he certainly has not lost it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stable Genius Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 If the Orange Turd thinks that this was a rough crowd, wait 'till he hears from the jury next week. Trump loudly booed at Libertarian convention when he asks attendees to ‘nominate me or at least vote for me’ https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/25/politics/libertarian-party-trump-convention-speech/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lookin Posted May 26 Members Share Posted May 26 2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said: Don't count on that, though. Not yet, at least. I think the election is Biden's to lose. And he certainly has not lost it yet. Personally, I don't have a problem with Biden's overall performance nor with his age but I do give some extra weight to his Vice President. Not only would I like to see a VP who could be a real contender in 2028 but also one who could step in earlier if necessary. And, sadly, Kamala Harris doesn't tick those boxes for me. I've never felt I'd enjoy having a beer with her, plus she's been given the job of fixing the border and I haven't seen any evidence that she's succeeded or even shown much interest. I worry that he'll handicap himself with Harris as a running mate, though I expect that's what he'll do. I'll still vote for him, but never stop wishing that someone like Michelle Obama would be his running mate. And, yes, I know that wish will not be granted. Similar calculations with Trump, in my opinion. Plus he'll throttle any running mate who stands for something besides kissing his ass. If you ask me, his best bet would be Nikki Haley and she does seem to be puckering up for a big wet one. 💋 I've never paid much attention to VP picks, and the issue doesn't count at all with Lichtman. But somethin' tells me it could be more of a factor this time. Both Biden and Trump need all the help they can get. stevenkesslar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 26 Members Share Posted May 26 3 hours ago, lookin said: I've never paid much attention to VP picks, and the issue doesn't count at all with Lichtman. But somethin' tells me it could be more of a factor this time. Both Biden and Trump need all the help they can get. The Veep pick should matter more, given the age of both candidates. This Rant 2.0 isn't in response to anything you said, @lookin. I just think it is funny that as soon as I posted my rant above, I went to Real Clear Politics. And there was today's perfect example of what I ranted about. Biden is denying reality - he's losing this election I think the only logical explanation is that a lot of reporters are lazy. To speculate about why Biden should quit, all they have to do is cite a poll, or maybe two. And then speculate about a lot of total bullshit. I also have to assume they must be pretty stupid. Or cynical, because they think most people who read what they write are stupid and won't notice the total lack of logic. The most obvious problem is this: since when is being 1 % behind in poll averages in May "losing this election"? If the idea is that any candidate who is 1 % behind should step aside, then the basic idea here is that in almost every election, one or both candidates should step aside. The next most obvious problem is: for who else to run? As I said above, all these geniuses seem to just overlook the fact that if Biden doesn't run, someone else has to. And if the whole idea is that Biden should do his country and party a service because he's going to lose, one might think there'd be just a teeny little focus on the question of who else might run instead. And whether they have any realistic hope of doing any better. Usually what passes for rational thought is something like "Michelle Obama". Which, as you are realistic enough to admit, @lookin, is wishful thinking. What almost every poll I have seen says, as I cited above, is that [name any Democrat] would do worse than Biden against Trump. Plus, every primary poll showed that Biden was Democrats' first choice. And if he didn't run the likely next first choice was Harris - including in hypothetical horse races against Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders. The third thing that is almost offensive about all these articles is they just completely ignore the fact that it would be monumentally un-democratic to say, "Fuck what voters just said. Fuck those dimwits. Fuck people who voted for Biden thinking he can win. Fuck em, fuck em, fuck em. They are stupid. Fuck em. We're nominating [fill in the name of a Democrat] instead." It would be especially stupid to do this in 2024. There is pretty good evidence, based on tons of polls, that the argument that Trump is a threat to democracy resonated with a lot of centrist voters in 2022. And it is resonating again in 2024. So if the way to win that argument is for Democrats to trump Trump's abuses of democracy, like Jan. 6th, and just decide to ignore actual voters and nominate someone else, that's just digging our own grave. This article seems particularly stupid, in that the author didn't even bother to research or think through the very few actual facts he cites. So there is this: Quote One has to go back to 1992 to find a candidate who won the popular vote when trailing at this point. In an article with almost no facts and tons of bullshit, you'd think the guy could get the few facts he uses right. In mid-October 2012 Obama was 1 % behind Romney in the RCP average. Lichtman said Obama was going to win, and he did. We're saying that because Biden is 1 % behind Trump in May we know he is going to lose? Huh? The even more obvious example is that Trump was behind Clinton in 2016 at almost every point. And he still won. Technically, the statement above is correct, because Trump has never won the popular vote. But he's the poster child for the idea that you can be behind in polls, and dismissed by everybody, and still win. The more appropriate example for Joe Biden is Harry Truman in 1948, which the author is at least honest enough to cite. Here's what the races in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin looked like on June 1, 2016: In Pennsylvania, Clinton led Trump by 5.3 % at the beginning of June in the RCP average. Right now Trump is leading Biden by 2.3 % in Pennsylvania In Michigan, Clinton led Trump by 8.3 % at the beginning of June in the RCP average. Right now Trump is leading Biden by 1.1 % in Michigan. In Wisconsin, Clinton led Trump by 11.6 % at the beginning of June in the RCP average. Right now Trump is leading Biden by a whopping 0.1 % in Wisconsin. If you believe that whoever is ahead in the polls in May is going to win, then obviously Trump stole the 2016 election! I don't think ignorant MAGA cultists who post here have quite thought that through. I think you can make a decent argument, based on the polls above, that Trump has some superpower that allows him to always do better than the polls predict. Including polls right before the election. There is logic to that. If he outperformed the polls when he was behind, won't he also outperform the polls when he is ahead? It is barely true that Trump outperformed polls in the past. The final RCP poll average in 2016 said Clinton would win the popular vote by 2.8 %. She won by 2.1 % There was a bigger difference in 2020. RCP's final poll average said Biden would win by 7.8 %. He won by 4.5 %. So, twice, Trump outperformed what the final polls said he would do. But we have no idea what the polls will say in late October. And it's not logical to think that Trump has some superpower that somehow allows him to always outperform the polls. What we know for a fact is that he lost the popular vote in 2016, he lost the popular vote in 2020, and he has the slimmest of leads right now in 2024. That does not make Trump a juggernaut. It makes him a weak candidate. One alternative to MAGA's cultish superpower theory about Trump, which I think is based on their preference for authoritarian leaders, is Lichtman's theory of governance. It is actual good news in a democracy, and a compliment to voters, that Lichtman thinks incumbent parties win or lose based on how well they have actually governed. So you can believe Trump won in 2016 because he has some superpower. Or you can believe Lichtman's theory of governance. In 2016 Obama had no second term successes, in part because a Republican Congress blocked him. Democrats got clobbered in the 2014 midterms, which signaled rumblings of an earthquake. Hillary was unable to build broad appeal beyond her partisan base. And the final two nails in her coffin were that she was not an incumbent, and the 2016 primary tore her party apart. Lichtman's theory is that Americans care about actual governance, and these were the things that hurt Clinton and created an opening for Trump. We of course can't prove that Lichtman is correct. But we do know that he uses the same theory every four years to accurately predict who will win every time. That 's not a superpower. That is just being smart, and paying attention to facts. If you buy Lichtman's theory of governance, Americans are likely to do what they did in 1948: re-elect someone who they basically have a grudge with, in large part due to inflation. But who they decided governed at least adequately. There's another theory I have read about 1948 that I think applies to 2024. People may not have liked Truman all that much. But they did like FDR/New Deal governance and wanted to continue it. Of course, the New Deal coalition fell apart at least half a century ago. But there is a similar enough fight over what people want in 2024 that has not even started yet. And that is probably going to make a difference. Trump 1.0 was about tax cuts to the rich and corporations, and trying to kill Obamacare. That's not what people want more of. If people did want more of that, Brown and Tester would be way behind in polls. And all these Democratic Senators like Tammy Baldwin leading in swing states would be losing. So it's fine to say inflation sucks and immigrants suck. But that is not enough for Trump to win. My guess is part of the reason Biden wants a debate early is that he knows he is in a difficult position, and could lose. But once the election is about abortion, and democracy, and cutting taxes more for the rich, and child tax credits that help the working class, and getting rid of affordable health care, that may change this nostalgia for how awesome Trump 1.0 was. I'm pretty sure the Trump cult are the ones in denial here. They are taking polls that say Trump has the narrowest of leads, and assuming that means they will win in November. Democrats, meanwhile, are the ones wetting the bed about Biden losing. The thing that seems the most unrealistic about what the cult's intellectual leaders are saying (can we even call them intellectuals?) is that they actually think Trump will win the youth vote. Or at least split it with Biden. What election in 2020, or 2021, or 2022, or 2023, or so far in 2024 tells us that young voters want conservative policies to restrict abortions, and cut taxes for rich people and corporations? Not to mention making life harder for The Gays, The Illegals, and the Ethnics. I think the Trump cult have their heads so far up their asses that they think all this indignation about how Biden is NOT PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH is somehow going to translate into votes for Trump. I think Lichtman is right. The Trump cult is going to be very disappointed when young voters hold their nose and vote for Biden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmmetK Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said: The Veep pick should matter more, given the age of both candidates. This Rant 2.0 isn't in response to anything you said, @lookin. I just think it is funny that as soon as I posted my rant above, I went to Real Clear Politics. And there was today's perfect example of what I ranted about. Biden is denying reality - he's losing this election I think the only logical explanation is that a lot of reporters are lazy. To speculate about why Biden should quit, all they have to do is cite a poll, or maybe two. And then speculate about a lot of total bullshit. I also have to assume they must be pretty stupid. Or cynical, because they think most people who read what they write are stupid and won't notice the total lack of logic. The most obvious problem is this: since when is being 1 % behind in poll averages in May "losing this election"? If the idea is that any candidate who is 1 % behind should step aside, then the basic idea here is that in almost every election, one or both candidates should step aside. The next most obvious problem is: for who else to run? As I said above, all these geniuses seem to just overlook the fact that if Biden doesn't run, someone else has to. And if the whole idea is that Biden should do his country and party a service because he's going to lose, one might think there'd be just a teeny little focus on the question of who else might run instead. And whether they have any realistic hope of doing any better. Usually what passes for rational thought is something like "Michelle Obama". Which, as you are realistic enough to admit, @lookin, is wishful thinking. What almost every poll I have seen says, as I cited above, is that [name any Democrat] would do worse than Biden against Trump. Plus, every primary poll showed that Biden was Democrats' first choice. And if he didn't run the likely next first choice was Harris - including in hypothetical horse races against Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders. The third thing that is almost offensive about all these articles is they just completely ignore the fact that it would be monumentally un-democratic to say, "Fuck what voters just said. Fuck those dimwits. Fuck people who voted for Biden thinking he can win. Fuck em, fuck em, fuck em. They are stupid. Fuck em. We're nominating [fill in the name of a Democrat] instead." It would be especially stupid to do this in 2024. There is pretty good evidence, based on tons of polls, that the argument that Trump is a threat to democracy resonated with a lot of centrist voters in 2022. And it is resonating again in 2024. So if the way to win that argument is for Democrats to trump Trump's abuses of democracy, like Jan. 6th, and just decide to ignore actual voters and nominate someone else, that's just digging our own grave. This article seems particularly stupid, in that the author didn't even bother to research or think through the very few actual facts he cites. So there is this: In an article with almost no facts and tons of bullshit, you'd think the guy could get the few facts he uses right. In mid-October 2012 Obama was 1 % behind Romney in the RCP average. Lichtman said Obama was going to win, and he did. We're saying that because Biden is 1 % behind Trump in May we know he is going to lose? Huh? The even more obvious example is that Trump was behind Clinton in 2016 at almost every point. And he still won. Technically, the statement above is correct, because Trump has never won the popular vote. But he's the poster child for the idea that you can be behind in polls, and dismissed by everybody, and still win. The more appropriate example for Joe Biden is Harry Truman in 1948, which the author is at least honest enough to cite. Here's what the races in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin looked like on June 1, 2016: In Pennsylvania, Clinton led Trump by 5.3 % at the beginning of June in the RCP average. Right now Trump is leading Biden by 2.3 % in Pennsylvania In Michigan, Clinton led Trump by 8.3 % at the beginning of June in the RCP average. Right now Trump is leading Biden by 1.1 % in Michigan. In Wisconsin, Clinton led Trump by 11.6 % at the beginning of June in the RCP average. Right now Trump is leading Biden by a whopping 0.1 % in Wisconsin. If you believe that whoever is ahead in the polls in May is going to win, then obviously Trump stole the 2016 election! I don't think ignorant MAGA cultists who post here have quite thought that through. I think you can make a decent argument, based on the polls above, that Trump has some superpower that allows him to always do better than the polls predict. Including polls right before the election. There is logic to that. If he outperformed the polls when he was behind, won't he also outperform the polls when he is ahead? It is barely true that Trump outperformed polls in the past. The final RCP poll average in 2016 said Clinton would win the popular vote by 2.8 %. She won by 2.1 % There was a bigger difference in 2020. RCP's final poll average said Biden would win by 7.8 %. He won by 4.5 %. So, twice, Trump outperformed what the final polls said he would do. But we have no idea what the polls will say in late October. And it's not logical to think that Trump has some superpower that somehow allows him to always outperform the polls. What we know for a fact is that he lost the popular vote in 2016, he lost the popular vote in 2020, and he has the slimmest of leads right now in 2024. That does not make Trump a juggernaut. It makes him a weak candidate. One alternative to MAGA's cultish superpower theory about Trump, which I think is based on their preference for authoritarian leaders, is Lichtman's theory of governance. It is actual good news in a democracy, and a compliment to voters, that Lichtman thinks incumbent parties win or lose based on how well they have actually governed. So you can believe Trump won in 2016 because he has some superpower. Or you can believe Lichtman's theory of governance. In 2016 Obama had no second term successes, in part because a Republican Congress blocked him. Democrats got clobbered in the 2014 midterms, which signaled rumblings of an earthquake. Hillary was unable to build broad appeal beyond her partisan base. And the final two nails in her coffin were that she was not an incumbent, and the 2016 primary tore her party apart. Lichtman's theory is that Americans care about actual governance, and these were the things that hurt Clinton and created an opening for Trump. We of course can't prove that Lichtman is correct. But we do know that he uses the same theory every four years to accurately predict who will win every time. That 's not a superpower. That is just being smart, and paying attention to facts. If you buy Lichtman's theory of governance, Americans are likely to do what they did in 1948: re-elect someone who they basically have a grudge with, in large part due to inflation. But who they decided governed at least adequately. There's another theory I have read about 1948 that I think applies to 2024. People may not have liked Truman all that much. But they did like FDR/New Deal governance and wanted to continue it. Of course, the New Deal coalition fell apart at least half a century ago. But there is a similar enough fight over what people want in 2024 that has not even started yet. And that is probably going to make a difference. Trump 1.0 was about tax cuts to the rich and corporations, and trying to kill Obamacare. That's not what people want more of. If people did want more of that, Brown and Tester would be way behind in polls. And all these Democratic Senators like Tammy Baldwin leading in swing states would be losing. So it's fine to say inflation sucks and immigrants suck. But that is not enough for Trump to win. My guess is part of the reason Biden wants a debate early is that he knows he is in a difficult position, and could lose. But once the election is about abortion, and democracy, and cutting taxes more for the rich, and child tax credits that help the working class, and getting rid of affordable health care, that may change this nostalgia for how awesome Trump 1.0 was. I'm pretty sure the Trump cult are the ones in denial here. They are taking polls that say Trump has the narrowest of leads, and assuming that means they will win in November. Democrats, meanwhile, are the ones wetting the bed about Biden losing. The thing that seems the most unrealistic about what the cult's intellectual leaders are saying (can we even call them intellectuals?) is that they actually think Trump will win the youth vote. Or at least split it with Biden. What election in 2020, or 2021, or 2022, or 2023, or so far in 2024 tells us that young voters want conservative policies to restrict abortions, and cut taxes for rich people and corporations? Not to mention making life harder for The Gays, The Illegals, and the Ethnics. I think the Trump cult have their heads so far up their asses that they think all this indignation about how Biden is NOT PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH is somehow going to translate into votes for Trump. I think Lichtman is right. The Trump cult is going to be very disappointed when young voters hold their nose and vote for Biden. Thanks for this and all of your other.... er.. lengthy posts. I'm sure nobody else bothers to read in their entirety. For me, like I am sure almost everyone else here. I read them until I start to snooze, which is about 2 or 3 sentences. Though they are repetitive and soporific, i can't say your posts are totally useless. They rock me to sleep, and save me a lot of $$ on Ambien! lol stevenkesslar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 26 Members Share Posted May 26 5 hours ago, EmmetK said: Though they are repetitive and soporific, i can't say your posts are totally useless. They rock me to sleep, and save me a lot of $$ on Ambien! lol Always happy to help a friend. 😉 But I of course knew this already. The cult you belong to obviously feels the same way about newspapers, and facts in general. Puts you to sleep. You're immune to logic. It shows in each of your posts. The cruelty and lack of fact about living in Trump Cult World is now well documented. Until recently I did assume that all these cult members who think we are in a recession are simply talking about how they feel. So it is not factually wrong to say, "Geez, it sure feels like a recession to me." It won't explain reality when Biden wins. But the cult, by definition, is not particularly interested in understanding reality. Or winning, when they choose a loser like Trump. Cultish feelings and cruelty don't explain why half of Americans think the S & P is down for the year, when it was up 12 % when the poll was taken, after being up 24 % last year. Cultish feelings and cruelty don't explain why half of Americans think unemployment is at a 50 year high, not a 50 year low. Cultish feelings and cruelty do explain why you are immune from facts. And why facts put you to sleep. And why most Americans who believe factually incorrect things like this are Trumpy truthy folks. You would rather live in an alternative reality that thinks America sucks when it is not being led by a narcissistic authoritarian. I get that, @EmmetK. Being in the Trump cult leaves no room for facts, or logic. It's all about devotion to an authoritarian loser who has a thing for seeing cops tortured and beaten up. And lies. And cruelty. Since @EmmetK is now happily asleep, it won't disturb his alternative reality to post this: The whole article that is from has a lot of interesting facts about stocks, financial perceptions, and reality. But for those of us in a cult that simply buy DJT, none of this matters, of course. That chart and article are NOT pushing forecasts or predictions, like Lichtman. The author points out that the Forecaster's Hall Of Fame has zero members (other than Lichtman, of course). But I will note (if you can tolerate facts) that Biden's term has followed the typical pattern of Presidents and stock market returns, in several ways. There's another chart in that article that says Years 1 and 3 are usually the ones with the best stock market returns. That was true of Biden, with the S & P up 28 % in 2021 and 24 % in 2023. Year 2 is usually the worst. Again, very true of Biden, when the S & P was down 18 %. So far, the S & P in 2024 has been following the typical pattern of years when the incumbent party wins, as you can see above. In fact, like Years 1 and 3 of Biden's first term, it has way outperformed the typical gains in a year the incumbent POTUS wins. We've had the typical April/May dip, which happily gave my "data driven" nephew and me a chance to load up on even more SOXL in the $30's and $40's. My nephew, who bet the store on SOXL in Fall 2022 at about $8 a share, is now a millionaire. My net worth only went up about $60,000 so far thanks to that stock. Boo hoo! I played it way more conservative than he did. But if the chart above turns out to be correct, and the market ends the year higher than it is today, we have nothing to complain about. Other than having to pays lots of capital gains tax to re-elected President Biden (and, in my case, Guv Gavin) in 2025. It's a nice problem to have. But sorry to be boring and repetitive. I am sure when @EmmetK wakes up his investment in Trump, the cult, and DJT will have paid off marvelously. Who needs facts, anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pete1111 Posted May 26 Members Share Posted May 26 2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said: Always happy to help a friend. 😉 But I of course knew this already. The cult you belong to obviously feels the same way about newspapers, and facts in general. Puts you to sleep. You're immune to logic. It shows in each of your posts. The cruelty and lack of fact about living in Trump Cult World is now well documented. Until recently I did assume that all these cult members who think we are in a recession are simply talking about how they feel. So it is not factually wrong to say, "Geez, it sure feels like a recession to me." It won't explain reality when Biden wins. But the cult, by definition, is not particularly interested in understanding reality. Or winning, when they choose a loser like Trump. Cultish feelings and cruelty don't explain why half of Americans think the S & P is down for the year, when it was up 12 % when the poll was taken, after being up 24 % last year. Cultish feelings and cruelty don't explain why half of Americans think unemployment is at a 50 year high, not a 50 year low. Cultish feelings and cruelty do explain why you are immune from facts. And why facts put you to sleep. And why most Americans who believe factually incorrect things like this are Trumpy truthy folks. You would rather live in an alternative reality that thinks America sucks when it is not being led by a narcissistic authoritarian. I get that, @EmmetK. Being in the Trump cult leaves no room for facts, or logic. It's all about devotion to an authoritarian loser who has a thing for seeing cops tortured and beaten up. And lies. And cruelty. Since @EmmetK is now happily asleep, it won't disturb his alternative reality to post this: The whole article that is from has a lot of interesting facts about stocks, financial perceptions, and reality. But for those of us in a cult that simply buy DJT, none of this matters, of course. That chart and article are NOT pushing forecasts or predictions, like Lichtman. The author points out that the Forecaster's Hall Of Fame has zero members (other than Lichtman, of course). But I will note (if you can tolerate facts) that Biden's term has followed the typical pattern of Presidents and stock market returns, in several ways. There's another chart in that article that says Years 1 and 3 are usually the ones with the best stock market returns. That was true of Biden, with the S & P up 28 % in 2021 and 24 % in 2023. Year 2 is usually the worst. Again, very true of Biden, when the S & P was down 18 %. So far, the S & P in 2024 has been following the typical pattern of years when the incumbent party wins, as you can see above. In fact, like Years 1 and 3 of Biden's first term, it has way outperformed the typical gains in a year the incumbent POTUS wins. We've had the typical April/May dip, which happily gave my "data driven" nephew and me a chance to load up on even more SOXL in the $30's and $40's. My nephew, who bet the store on SOXL in Fall 2022 at about $8 a share, is now a millionaire. My net worth only went up about $60,000 so far thanks to that stock. Boo hoo! I played it way more conservative than he did. But if the chart above turns out to be correct, and the market ends the year higher than it is today, we have nothing to complain about. Other than having to pays lots of capital gains tax to re-elected President Biden (and, in my case, Guv Gavin) in 2025. It's a nice problem to have. But sorry to be boring and repetitive. I am sure when @EmmetK wakes up his investment in Trump, the cult, and DJT will have paid off marvelously. Who needs facts, anyway? IMO the VP factor isn't much. If Merchan sends Trump to jail, how would that affect Lichtman's keys? The GOP party at the state level has turned into such a shitstorm, that might give the Dems an advantage in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Those 3 are all Biden needs outside of the Blue states. Down ballet candidates and measures could favor Biden. One can be hopeful justice will be done and Trump and the MAGA cult will fail. I dreamt a dream tonight. Mercutio: And so did I. Romeo: Well, what was yours? Mercutio: That dreamers often lie. Romeo: In bed asleep while they do dream things true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 26 Members Share Posted May 26 3 hours ago, Pete1111 said: If Merchan sends Trump to jail, how would that affect Lichtman's keys? Probably the most technically correct answer is, it doesn't. The only key that has anything to do with the challenger is the "charisma" key. The two Presidents since he started predicting in 1984 Lichtman gave that to were Reagan and Obama - but only in 2008. I think in practice what it means for Lichtman is that Reagan in 84 and Obama in 2008 (but not 2012) were "charismatic" in the sense that they were able to rise above their narrow partisan base. Like Ike, a war hero, was also able to do. Whereas by 2012 Obama was basically seen as a divisive partisan figure. The thing that I like most about Lichtman is that his keys not only have worked in practice, but they also make common sense. And they are complimentary. The idea is that people actually care about important things, like war and peace and the economy. All the stupid stuff that happens in ads and on social media has very little to do with the outcome. Which is why the polls are often so unreliable. And the other core tenet is that the election is always the incumbent partys to win or lose. So it makes common sense to me that the challenger doesn't really matter, unless and until the incumbent party governs in a way that people give it a thumbs down. Or if the challenger is so broadly popular or heroic that they draw people to them. I think 2016 is a great example of that, as Lichtman views the world. He has said that given the way the keys fell, against the incumbent Democratic Party, anyone running against Hillary would have won. I'm pretty sure (going from imperfect memory) that he has said if the GOP had nominated someone more conventional, like Kasich, Republicans would have probably won more decisively in 2016. As it relates to his keys, he has been very consistent in saying Trump doesn't qualify as charismatic, because he basically only appeals to a narrow partisan base. He also said this in a recent interview: Quote “But it’s always possible there could be a cataclysmic enough event outside the scope of the keys that could affect the election, and here we do have, for the first time, not just a former president but a major party candidate sitting in a trial and who knows if he’s convicted — and there’s a good chance he will be — how that might scramble things,” he said. I'm a little surprised he said that. I have watched lots of interviews or speeches he gave. His standard position, which makes sense to me, is that his system is based on patterns in every Presidential election since the Civil War. So in over a century and a half of elections we have seen pretty much everything under the sun already. Including all kinds of scandal. In fact, impeachment was one of the keys Lichtman counted against Trump when he predicted he would lose in 2020. Some of these keys obviously depend on subjective judgment. Like what is "charisma"? Lichtman also said that he has shorter versions of his keys that can predict something like 90 % of Presidential elections based on fewer factors. Incumbency and whether or not the party in power has a huge divisive internal fight (like in 2016) are particularly useful keys for predicting, he has said. But the reason they did 13 keys is that, at least so far, that many keys have been able to predict with 100 % accuracy. The common sense way I view 2024 is that, unless something changes dramatically like it did in 2020 due to COVID, Biden is nowhere near getting a thumbs down rating - despite what the polls say right now. He has only two keys definitely against him now, so four more would have to turn against him to lose. (I'm no Lichtman, but IMHO Biden won't get a foreign policy win, and RFK may get a big chunk of votes. So that would make two more keys against Biden. But that still means Biden would win.) Either you believe that, or you don't. I do believe Lichtman is right, obviously. My interpretation of Lichtman's keys is that where Trump and his trials enter in is that to the degree that there is any opening for a challenger to win, Trump is simply NOT the right guy. The trial probably can not help, even if there is a mistrial. And it probably can hurt, if we believe the polls that say a guilty verdict will disqualify him with some swing voters. @TotallyOz nailed it last year when he called out Nikki Haley as probably the best Republican alternative to Trump. I was singing Tim Scott's praises at the time. But Haley was the one who got some traction. At least to the degree that anyone could compete with a cult leader. This may sound off now, especially to cultists like @EmmetK. But I really do believe Republicans sealed their fate when they nominated Trump. Had they gone for Haley I think they would have had a better chance of winning. We'll see. Pete1111 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotallyOz Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 15 hours ago, stevenkesslar said: @TotallyOz nailed it last year when he called out Nikki Haley as probably the best Republican alternative to Trump. I was singing Tim Scott's praises at the time. But Haley was the one who got some traction. At least to the degree that anyone could compete with a cult leader. This may sound off now, especially to cultists like @EmmetK. But I really do believe Republicans sealed their fate when they nominated Trump. Had they gone for Haley I think they would have had a better chance of winning. We'll see. I liked her and did not like Tim Scott but I don't think anyone can compete with Donald. He has complete and utter control of the mass of Republicans. Even those who know he is nuts still support him. Sheep. stevenkesslar and Pete1111 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 28 Members Share Posted May 28 10 hours ago, TotallyOz said: Sheep. So basically you are saying Trump is a sweetheart under the gruff exterior? Or the opposite. Is this why he has been taking about Hannibal Lector recently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 28 Members Share Posted May 28 So I will add a poll, a quote, and of course another long rant. The survey: Harvard Youth Poll The quote: Quote John Della Volpe, the IOP’s longtime polling director, said he sees “seismic mood swings” in the results as young people feel “angst” over a host of issues. “They’re deeply concerned … about the direction of the country. They are deeply concerned about their own economic well-being, the cost of housing, inflation, [the] day-to-day cost of living. They’re concerned about conflicts around the world,” he said. Quote “But at the same time, the choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden isn’t necessarily close.” I bold-faced that last quote, because that is probably what the 2024 election turns on. If you are not a policy wonk like @EmmetK and I, Della Volpe is the guy who everyone talks to about the youth vote. So in 2022 Stephanie Ruhle had him and his young partners in crime on TV all the time. He predicted that young voters would turn out, and have something to say about this hypothetical red wave. Everything he said in 2022, and 2020, pretty much turned out to be spot on. I would not dismiss him when he says the choice between Trump and Biden "isn't necessarily close." So if you ask me why Biden won in 2020, I'd say, "Young voters." If you asked me who stopped the red wave in 2022, I'd say, "Young voters." If you ask me why Biden is hurting in the polls now, I'd say, "Young voters." If you ask me why Biden will win in 2024, I'd say, "Young voters." If I am wrong and Biden loses in 2024, why might I be wrong? Young voters. We don't have a crystal ball about what young voters will do in five months. But we do have "facts" about what they are saying now. And those "facts" are just plain fucked up. So if anyone understands the facts, can you please explain them to me? The Harris Poll says that Trump is beating Biden by 5 points. It also says that among 18-24 year olds Trump is beating Biden 40/39, with 16 % going to RFK. 25 to 34 year olds are also split, 42/41 for Biden, with 13 % going for RFK. So are we saying a young cohort that voted 2 to 1 against Trump or Trump/MAGA candidates or policies in 2018, 2020, and 2022 are now evenly split? I just don't believe it. In that hyperlink above Della Volpe says a lot of these polls now talk to a sample size of maybe 200 young voters and think they got it right. Harris has a sample size of 277 voters aged 18-24. Call me a skeptic. You Gov's most recent poll says Trump is beating Biden by 1 %. So, basically, a statistical tie. They say 18-29 year olds are for Biden over Trump 41/27, with 5 % for RFK. A 13 percent margin is small compared to the whopping pro-Democratic youth vote margins of 2018, 2020, or 2022. But it seems closer to the reality of what happened during those recent elections. YouGov says 30-40 year olds are for Biden are for 43/32,with 6 % for RFK. The difference between these two sets of "facts" about young voters pretty much explains the difference between whether Trump is leading Biden by something like five points, or the race is a toss up. And none of this is about some prediction Lichtman is making about November. This is simply about the "facts" of what young voters say they plan to do right now. In one reality, all these young people who were firmly against Trump, his candidates, and his policies by up to 2 to 1 margins for three elections in a row are now split, and have fond memories of how well Trump governed. In the other, they are still against Trump by pretty wide margins. Huh? So what does Della Volpe say, since they do this "more robust" poll of young people every year, that he says is more accurate? That's all over the map, too. Again, I'd read the whole report. But this chart shows why nobody knows what is going to happen: You can have your reality any way you like it. If we are talking about all young people, the results look more like what Harris is saying: they are nearly split between Biden and Trump. And by double digit percentages they plan to vote for someone other than those two. But these are the ones who get their politics from rants on TikTok and think the S & P is down for the year and unemployment is at a 50 year high, not low. If we are talking about likely voters, the 43/30 split for Biden is a lot like the 41/27 split for Biden YouGov is reporting. Again, unless what happens in every single election in my lifetime changes, at least half the voters who say they are going to vote for RFK, Stein, or West in polls in May will actually not do so in November. How likely is it that people who prefer West or Stein in May, and voted against Trump or his candidates in 2018, 2020, or 2022, will vote for Trump in 2024? I ain't gonna hold me breath for that. If you read the full survey above, in a two way race Biden had a 19 point lead over Trump among 18-29 year old voters. So a lot of RFK/Stein/West voters today will probably be Biden voters in November, even if they're holding their nose. The reason I am gonna hold my breath is that issue poll above. It confirms everything Ramit Sethi said in the interview on inflation I posted above. Trump might win. And the reason he might win is complicated. Young voters are not happy about inflation, or housing, or the economy. In their own eyes, it's clear they have better reasons to vote against Trump than they have to vote for Biden. If you are young and Black, the #1 issue is housing. Which probably means the rent is too high. If you are young and Hispanic, housing is the #2 issue, tied with affordable health care. The only priority that is slightly higher is gun violence. Young White voters do say inflation is their #1 issue, with healthcare #2 and housing in the middle of the list. I'm really curious what "inflation" means to young White voters who say it is their top issue. The part about rent and sky home home prices, I get. But, like Sethi said in the interview, I doubt most young voters or any voters really know what they paid for milk or bread in 2020 or 2016. And they are still somehow managing to buy the same milk and the same bread. This is why every poll between now and November could be wrong. Who knows what these voters will actually do? Including whether they will actually vote? My main reason for thinking Lichtman will be right again, other than his perfect track record, is that I do agree with him that elections really are about governing. And not just bullshit There is no evidence most young people, at least those who actually have voted, actually liked how Trump governed. More important, it's early days. But I see no evidence that Trump is offering young voters reason to think he will govern in a way they like in 2025, if they elect him. Blacks interested in affordable health care? Hispanics interested in reducing gun violence? Give me a break. Let's not even get started on women and abortion. Even by Trump standards, it seems rich to go to New York City, where he started his real estate career by being sued by the Justice Dept. for racial discrimination in rental housing, to tell people it doesn't matter if you are Black or Brown. We're all Americans. But let's give him a break. People change. Or, at least, young voters don't know, or care, what the fuck he did in 1973. So is Trump, a builder, proposing to build millions of units of affordable housing, like Biden did in Build Back Better and Sethi thinks young people want and need? Is he, like RFK Jr., saying that if banks can't offer you affordable 3 % fixed rate mortgages, the government will - at no expense to taxpayers? Nope. He's saying Black and Brown Americans should vote for him, because Black and Brown immigrants are trying to take your housing and jobs away. And they need to be deported. Man, woman, and child. Okay, he did not literally spell out that most of the immigrants he wants to deport happen to be Black or Brown. But they are. So I'm not sure how well that resonates as housing policy for young Black and Hispanic voters who actually see it as their top issue. And are not happy about rentflation and mortgage rates under Biden. Right wing Goebbels wannabe Mollie Hemingway just called this "Trump's unbridled multi-ethnic optimism", as opposed to Biden's "race-baiting rhetoric." I do think this is a debate Biden wants. Because I don't think Trump wins this debate with young Black and Brown voters. We'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KYTOP Posted May 28 Members Share Posted May 28 There is an old saying, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics' ( I believe it was Mark Twain). Polls are nothing more than statistics and I expect them to bounce about a bit until November. With answers depending on who is asking who, and who is paying for the stats. I've always enjoyed Stats and polls and they can tell us much about the past and we wish to use them to know the future. But they really are not that good of a crystal ball. Like most statistics you can twist them and almost always find some that will come close to what we want to believe. This is true I think of both sides. I put little stock in any of them at this point, especially a National Poll. In a national poll if they poll heavy in California or New York you will have one result, if they poll heavy in Texas or the South they get another answer. One poll says Trump is ahead, another says Biden but I notice they are all relatively close in the so called "battle ground states". Due to the Electoral College, required by our Constitution, individual state polls are really the polls that matter. stevenkesslar and Lucky 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 28 Members Share Posted May 28 13 minutes ago, KYTOP said: Due to the Electoral College, required by our Constitution, individual state polls are really the polls that matter. Thanks, Allan. 😉 Speaking of which. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted May 28 Members Share Posted May 28 Skyrocketing rents and home prices may be pivotal in the 2024 election And there you have it. I'm glad Democrats and the left-of-center media have finally caught on. It is telling. Most politicians and reporters probably own homes. If not, they certainly make decent incomes. So if there were a poll of politicians and reporters, I doubt they would say housing is their personal "pain point". But as this argument documents very nicely, it is for lots of working class and young Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Whites. They don't really say why they picked Las Vegas to profile. Other than it has a particularly bad housing supply shortage. It's also the swing state Biden won in 2020 that he is now usually furthest behind in, in polls. It is kind of the perfect storm. As the article says, the workforce structure in Vegas is such that many of the most common jobs don't pay enough for the people who work them to be able to afford rent. Which is going through the roof. Ouch! There is some part of me that feels if the Democrats, my party, is so fucked up that they can not figure this out, they deserve to lose. The only problem with my idea is that Trump and Republicans won't solve the problem, ether. This is an interesting issue for Trump, who is a real estate guy and builder. To me, it really exposes what an absolute and total fraud and piece of shit he was and will be as a leader. There was a brief moment in late 2016 and early 2017, right after Trump won, when all kinds of lefty journalists were freaking out. The narrative went like this: Oh my God! What if Trump is secretly a centrist? What if he is secretly competent and effective? What if he can actually get an infrastructure bill passed? I thought, Geez. That would be a nice problem to have. My point is that, had any of that been true, the most obvious thing in the world is The Smartest Builder In The Galaxy, Ever surely could have figured out how to get the federal government to stimulate massive affordable housing development. By Spring 2017 all the bed wetting journalists figured out that Trump doesn't exist, and never did. He is a narcissistic old gas bag and TV star and con man. Democrats have been there and done this before. Black homeownership was higher than it has ever been in 2000, thanks to Clinton taking all this public/private partnership stuff grassroots CDCs had been building gradually for decades and putting it on steroids through a federal focus on affordable and fair and sound mortgage lending. Black and Latino and working class White homeownership rates - and net worth - soared. The right wing loves to blame Clinton for subprime and 2008. But they are completely ignorant. Clinton left office in 2001. The mortgages made on his watch had nothing to do with subprime, which started in earnest when W. was POTUS and the Republicans ran everything. Most important, the built in reality check was the 2001 recession. If all these crappy mortgages had been made in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, the 2001 recession was the perfect time for them to go belly up. It didn't happen. My point is that the federal government, under Clinton, did what Republicans always say they want. It used capitalism and the free market, with a push from the federal government and community groups, to build wealth and economic stability among aspiring working class people of every race. If Democrats can not figure out how to do this now, they are stupid and lack vision. And they deserve to lose. Yes, this is complicated. But so was taking out Hitler. So was putting a man on the moon. So was Trump himself pushing for a vaccine that, in record time, took out a virus that killed 1 million Americans. Compared to those three things, and many more, this is a piece of cake. People love construction jobs. Home Depot loves selling building supplies. What is the problem? I think the sad diagnosis, which is why so many Americans don't like their choices, is that neither Trump nor Biden will get this done. Trump has proven he lacks the political skills. What surprises me a little, as a builder with grand ideas, is that he doesn't have the vision to do this. Call me biased. But I think it is because his main vision is of him being The Big Guy who sits behind the desk and is adored as he lies and pats himself on the back. Biden definitely has the political skills, as he has proven time and again. I doubt he has the vision. I hope if he wins a second term I am wrong. Because he should be able to do something like what Clinton did 30 years ago. My best guess is that Biden will turn out to be right, that he is a transitional figure. Nobody young really sees him as their leader. Even if they are the ones who elected him, and will re-elect him. That Youth Vote survey of top issues - all about kitchen table economics - screams for a new vision that is more like Bernie Sanders than Donald Trump. And at some point Millennials and Gen Z will be the predominant voting bloc in America. So even if Biden wins my guess is the pressure will just build for some new post-Trump and post-Biden leader and vision to come along in 2028. lookin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenkesslar Posted June 1 Members Share Posted June 1 On 5/26/2024 at 12:21 PM, Pete1111 said: If Merchan sends Trump to jail, how would that affect Lichtman's keys? And here is Lichtman in a new interview, answering your question directly. Trump’s guilty verdict will have ‘cataclysmic’ impact on election outcome I'm not sure that YouTube poster's headline accurately reflects what Lichtman said. I guessed above that the correct technical answer is it doesn't matter. Lichtman said it falls outside the context of his 13 keys. But he reiterated that a lot would have to change for Biden to lose. And there is every reason to think this helps Biden, not Trump. If it helped Trump, why would he be in whining loser bitch mode? We know that whenever Trump whines like a losing bitch, it is because he knows he is losing. Perceptions of Trump Guilty Verdict - HarrisX Overnight Poll - 31 May I think that documents why this is bad news that will keep being bad news for Trump. To put it in context, 538 posted two new polls today. Both of which presumably measure reactions after the verdict. In one (Ipsos) Biden is ahead by two points, and in one Trump is ahead by two points. That is the definition of tossup. This Harris poll is the one in which Trump is up by two points. So if this particular poll has a bias, it would probably be slightly favorable to Trump. It's also probably worth noting that in one version of the horse race question in this poll there was a 50/50 split. Trump only gets to a 51/49 lead when you add leaners. So this is very fragile. It's also worth noting that in this Harris poll, which is more favorable to Trump than the other poll, 86 % of Republicans will vote for Trump, and Independents split narrowly for Biden 51/49. So any small erosion this causes among Republican and Independent Trump supporters over the next five months will matter. That reinforces what Lichtman says in that interview. This is a tossup. 57 % of all voters, and 60 % of Independents, say Trump is "mostly guilty" in this Harris poll. Only 19 % of Republicans agree. 54 % of all voters, and 60 % of Independents, believe Trump received a fair trial. Only 16 % of Republicans agree. 56 % of all voters, and 62 % of Independents, think the 12 person jury was fair to Trump. Only 22 % of Republicans agree. My point is that this is kind of MAGA v. everyone else. All this anti-US and anti-judicial system nonsense he is spouting about a "rigged trial" and how this is a Biden witch hunt just doesn't resonate for most voters. Most voters think Trump got a fair trial from 12 ordinary people. And he is mostly guilty. The MAGA/Reichpublican line is that this is rigged, America is broken, and extraordinary measures are needed for our Fuhrer to restore the Reich, or whatever. That shit just scares most people. We are going to be talking about this for months. And it is not going to help mein Liebling. Oops. As much as I love him, I mean mein Fuhrer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
