Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

The Politics Thread

1423424426428429457

Comments

  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 2,899
    edited January 19
    No, oragnized crime is organized crime. Ambassadors, once confirmed, are subject to the Secretary of State and the POTUS. The job of an ambassador is to carry out the foreign relations directives coming from their bosses; if the bosses want their employee recalled then they can do it without having to ask anyone's permission and if the people in charge want to fire that employee then that is also what will happen.

    Congress abdicated its ability as the sole power with the ability to engage in military activity a long time ago. The War Powers Act and all those NDAA and AUMFs which have happened in recent years are, in fact, unconstitutional--that the SCOTUS never struck them down is a failure of that judicial body.

    I am beginning to see that it is in my best interest not to respond to anyone directly here, just pop in from time to time to state my opinion or cite a news story and then leave. I can live with that. In fact, I think I will just bow out again like last time.

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 5,751
    Congress abdicated its ability as the sole power with the ability to engage in military activity a long time ago. The War Powers Act and all those NDAA and AUMFs which have happened in recent years are, in fact, unconstitutional--that the SCOTUS never struck them down is a failure of that judicial body.

    @Mathsorcerer I posted the other day text from the Constitution showing what the division of powers is. Essentially, the powers about providing armed forces, regulating those forces and declaring war are with Congress. The President's only constitutional role is to act as the Commander in Chief of those forces.

    As far as I'm aware that split has always been interpreted by most legal scholars as allowing the President to use the armed forces to respond to attacks without getting Congressional approval in advance, but not to initiate an attack. Congress never abdicated their sole responsibility for declaring war and that's why they were concerned when Presidential acts infringed on that, for instance during the Vietnam war. The War Powers Resolution was aimed at preventing presidents from initiating attacks without declaring war, i.e. it was codifying what was already the generally agreed legal position.

    The main argument I've seen against the Act is the idea that "declaring war" is not the same as "making war", i.e. implying that the President should be able to initiate undeclared wars. I don't think this argument is consistent with the original intention of the framers of the Constitution - there's a little bit of discussion about that here. The reason why SCOTUS has not struck down the Act is because they agree that it does in fact support the constitutional split of powers. Why do you think they are wrong about that?

    BallpointManThacoBell
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 14,093
    It's not just Texas anymore. Other states are now considering passing laws to prosecute parents and doctors who offer treatment to trans kids.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/over-dozen-new-bills-target-trans-youth-lgbtq-advocates-warn-n1118826

    They're trying to forbid the use of hormone treatment on trans kids, even if that goes against the advice of those kids' medical health professionals, their therapists and their doctors. We are at a point where the GOP is considering appointing itself the sole arbiter of trans kids' fates--over the needs of the kids themselves, and even over the advice and consent of their doctors and parents.

    How does this square with the concept of individual liberty, that these kids aren't allowed to get the treatment they want? How does this square with the concept of limited government, that their doctors aren't allowed to use their judgment without politicians overruling them? How does this square with the concept of family values, that parents don't get to decide how to raise their own children, that mothers and fathers could be locked up behind bars and literally have their children talen away from them for daring to love and accept their kids for who they are?

    It's hard enough for trans kids to get treatment as it is. I go on trans subreddits and almost every day I hear from these at-risk trans kids saying they can't get treatment because their parents or arbitrary laws forbid them, so many people saying they don't want to go on living in the wrong bodies, so many people who give up on life and happiness because they can't get the only accepted and proven treatment for gender dysphoria. Every day I see the luckier folks taking photos of their meds and announcing that they finally started treatment.

    I talk to people in these places and tell them that it gets better and that there's still hope--I actually try to discourage people in the community from committing suicide--but this sort of repressive authoritarian approach is only going to make things that much harder for this population. While the rest of us are reaching out to these people and trying to give them hope and A REASON TO LIVE, we have these political groups trying to take it away.

    Repression is not how you treat people in pain. Imprisonment is not how you encourage good parenting. Outlawing doctors from using their own best judgment is not how you promote better mental healthcare.

    Grond0jjstraka34smeagolheartThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 7,778
    edited January 20
    There are many laws (and especially attempts to pass laws) in this country that are nothing short of theocracy. For instance, in North Dakota, until 2018, there was something called a "Blue law", which I didn't know about or could have even conceived of being possible until I went to a Wal-Mart one Sunday morning about 5 years ago and found it closed. It turned out there was a law on the books, being enforced, that businesses were NOT ALLOWED to open before noon on Sunday. Now, there is only one reason for this, and we all know what it is. Only one religion congregates specifically on Sunday mornings. Because of a law specifically catered to one religion (Christianity), residents of North Dakota were flat-out not allowed to 1.) Open their business or 2.) Shop until a designated time. This was in place until last year. The only exemptions I ever personally saw were hospitals and grocery stores.

    Now, I'm not saying this is anywhere close to as important as what you are describing above. But there is a baseline of support in this country for nothing less than a Christian theocracy. 30% of the country would be fine with it, as long as they get to pick and choose who gets punished and make damn sure it isn't people like them.

    ThacoBell
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 899
    There are a great many blue laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States

    Your North Dakota actually closed hospitals and pharmacies during the aftermath of a blizzard, apparently, leading to that exemption.

    And yes, I've seen polling data for conservatives. During 2016 (or maybe it was 2015) a good 40% or so were perfectly fine saying they would approve of Christianity becoming the national religion, U.S. Constitution bedamned.

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,342
    Speaking of sex vs gender and Conservative attacks against science and individual rights...

    A Trump appointed judge dismissed a transgender defendant's chosen pronouns and the broader concept of gender identity, just less than two years after LGBTQ advocates warned that Duncan would not rule fairly if confirmed to the bench.

    Duncan refers to a transgender woman by only using "he" pronouns throughout his opinion and referef to her as a "gender-dysphoric" person, instead of as a transgender person.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-appointed-judge-mocks-transgender-woman-s-gender-identity-opinion-n1117501

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 7,778
    edited January 21
    This is a really horrible idea. Releasing this app to the public would be like giving potential rapists a treasure map. Guy gets rejected at a bar, whips out his phone, pushes one button and he's got the girl's address. Law enforcement having this is bad enough. Making it into something that can be accessed as easy as Instagram would be the single biggest abuse of technology imaginable:

    https://www.cnet.com/news/clearview-app-lets-strangers-find-your-name-info-with-snap-of-a-photo-report-says/

    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,342
    As feared, Mitch McConnell is rigging the impeachment trial though rules designed to cover up the crimes of the President. More GOP corruption.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 7,778
    edited January 21
    As feared, Mitch McConnell is rigging the impeachment trial though rules designed to cover up the crimes of the President. More GOP corruption.

    They are proposing 24 hours for each side to make their case because it would pretty much guarantee that a large portion of it would be taking place in the middle of the night. Pretty chickenshit move for a group of people who insist there is no "there there". Because when you actually believe that, what you absolutely attempt to do is force 50% of the case to be presented while the most of the country is literally asleep.

    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 5,553
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    As feared, Mitch McConnell is rigging the impeachment trial though rules designed to cover up the crimes of the President. More GOP corruption.

    They are proposing 24 hours for each side to make their case because it would pretty much guarantee that a large portion of it would be taking place in the middle of the night. Pretty chickenshit move for a group of people who insist there is no "there there". Because when you actually believe that, what you absolutely attempt to do is force 50% of the case to be presented while the most of the country is literally asleep.

    Most of the country doesn't care about the impeachment. That much is obvious. McConnell might be doing the Democrats a favor by getting this over with quickly...

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,342
    edited January 21
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    As feared, Mitch McConnell is rigging the impeachment trial though rules designed to cover up the crimes of the President. More GOP corruption.

    They are proposing 24 hours for each side to make their case because it would pretty much guarantee that a large portion of it would be taking place in the middle of the night. Pretty chickenshit move for a group of people who insist there is no "there there". Because when you actually believe that, what you absolutely attempt to do is force 50% of the case to be presented while the most of the country is literally asleep.

    Most of the country doesn't care about the impeachment. That much is obvious. McConnell might be doing the Democrats a favor by getting this over with quickly...

    He's not. He's running a cover up and betraying his oath of office.

    Not only is there only 24 hours over two days, he isn't even allowing the evidence from the House of Representatives investigations to be allowed - much less allowing for witnesses or document requests.

    Additionally, he is limiting press access and Senate Republicans will control TV cameras.

    Even sedate C-SPAN is aggrieved, calling on the Senate to allow its television crews to document the trial instead of the government-controlled cameras.

    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 5,553
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    As feared, Mitch McConnell is rigging the impeachment trial though rules designed to cover up the crimes of the President. More GOP corruption.

    They are proposing 24 hours for each side to make their case because it would pretty much guarantee that a large portion of it would be taking place in the middle of the night. Pretty chickenshit move for a group of people who insist there is no "there there". Because when you actually believe that, what you absolutely attempt to do is force 50% of the case to be presented while the most of the country is literally asleep.

    Most of the country doesn't care about the impeachment. That much is obvious. McConnell might be doing the Democrats a favor by getting this over with quickly...

    He's not. He's running a cover up and betraying his oath of office.

    Not only is there only 24 hours over two days, he isn't even allowing the evidence from the House of Representatives investigations to be allowed - much less allowing for witnesses or document requests.

    Additionally, he is limiting press access and Senate Republicans will control TV cameras.

    Even sedate C-SPAN is aggrieved, calling on the Senate to allow its television crews to document the trial instead of the government-controlled cameras.

    This is all a big sham to cover up the fact that the Democrats have nobody that can beat Trump. Even Michael Moore is saying it now (especially if Biden wins the nomination).

    BTW: Sleepy Joe wants this to go longer for sure. Keeps his major opponents tied up on Capitol Hill...

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 7,778
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    As feared, Mitch McConnell is rigging the impeachment trial though rules designed to cover up the crimes of the President. More GOP corruption.

    They are proposing 24 hours for each side to make their case because it would pretty much guarantee that a large portion of it would be taking place in the middle of the night. Pretty chickenshit move for a group of people who insist there is no "there there". Because when you actually believe that, what you absolutely attempt to do is force 50% of the case to be presented while the most of the country is literally asleep.

    Most of the country doesn't care about the impeachment. That much is obvious. McConnell might be doing the Democrats a favor by getting this over with quickly...

    He's not. He's running a cover up and betraying his oath of office.

    Not only is there only 24 hours over two days, he isn't even allowing the evidence from the House of Representatives investigations to be allowed - much less allowing for witnesses or document requests.

    Additionally, he is limiting press access and Senate Republicans will control TV cameras.

    Even sedate C-SPAN is aggrieved, calling on the Senate to allow its television crews to document the trial instead of the government-controlled cameras.

    This is all a big sham to cover up the fact that the Democrats have nobody that can beat Trump. Even Michael Moore is saying it now (especially if Biden wins the nomination).

    BTW: Sleepy Joe wants this to go longer for sure. Keeps his major opponents tied up on Capitol Hill...

    This is almost indistinguishable from a Trump tweet. You're even using his stupid-ass nicknames that wouldn't even be considered clever in grade-school.

    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 828
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    This is all a big sham to cover up the fact that the Democrats have nobody that can beat Trump. Even Michael Moore is saying it now (especially if Biden wins the nomination).

    BTW: Sleepy Joe wants this to go longer for sure. Keeps his major opponents tied up on Capitol Hill...

    Right. The 51% of respondents to a CNN poll that the president should be impeached and removed from office disagree.

    Democrats are still the odds on favorites to win the WH in 2020. Trump is historically unpopular. Biden wins by such a large margin that he’d probably get the senate to or close to 50/50.

    Honestly - the idea that Trump is unbeatable is absurd.

    The number of mitigating circumstances that Trump needed to win is not repeatable (hard to win 3 times in a row. Historically unpopular opponent. Won independents).

    Trump’s opponent will be more popular then him this time. He’s underwater with independents. Democrats have been out of the WH for 4 years, so the “change” candidate will be a D.

    Trump’s only benefit is incumbency - which we have seen to mean less and less in recent elections.

    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 5,553
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    As feared, Mitch McConnell is rigging the impeachment trial though rules designed to cover up the crimes of the President. More GOP corruption.

    They are proposing 24 hours for each side to make their case because it would pretty much guarantee that a large portion of it would be taking place in the middle of the night. Pretty chickenshit move for a group of people who insist there is no "there there". Because when you actually believe that, what you absolutely attempt to do is force 50% of the case to be presented while the most of the country is literally asleep.

    Most of the country doesn't care about the impeachment. That much is obvious. McConnell might be doing the Democrats a favor by getting this over with quickly...

    He's not. He's running a cover up and betraying his oath of office.

    Not only is there only 24 hours over two days, he isn't even allowing the evidence from the House of Representatives investigations to be allowed - much less allowing for witnesses or document requests.

    Additionally, he is limiting press access and Senate Republicans will control TV cameras.

    Even sedate C-SPAN is aggrieved, calling on the Senate to allow its television crews to document the trial instead of the government-controlled cameras.

    This is all a big sham to cover up the fact that the Democrats have nobody that can beat Trump. Even Michael Moore is saying it now (especially if Biden wins the nomination).

    BTW: Sleepy Joe wants this to go longer for sure. Keeps his major opponents tied up on Capitol Hill...

    This is almost indistinguishable from a Trump tweet. You're even using his stupid-ass nicknames that wouldn't even be considered clever in grade-school.

    I did that on purpose. I do seriously believe that Biden loses to Trump though. Michael Moore thinks the same (which is kinda scary to me).

    jjstraka34
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 5,553
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    This is all a big sham to cover up the fact that the Democrats have nobody that can beat Trump. Even Michael Moore is saying it now (especially if Biden wins the nomination).

    BTW: Sleepy Joe wants this to go longer for sure. Keeps his major opponents tied up on Capitol Hill...

    Right. The 51% of respondents to a CNN poll that the president should be impeached and removed from office disagree.

    Democrats are still the odds on favorites to win the WH in 2020. Trump is historically unpopular. Biden wins by such a large margin that he’d probably get the senate to or close to 50/50.

    Honestly - the idea that Trump is unbeatable is absurd.

    The number of mitigating circumstances that Trump needed to win is not repeatable (hard to win 3 times in a row. Historically unpopular opponent. Won independents).

    Trump’s opponent will be more popular then him this time. He’s underwater with independents. Democrats have been out of the WH for 4 years, so the “change” candidate will be a D.

    Trump’s only benefit is incumbency - which we have seen to mean less and less in recent elections.

    Trump's benefit is the economy. If you don't thinkno that matters you may have a rude awakening come November...

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 828
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    Trump's benefit is the economy. If you don't thinkno that matters you may have a rude awakening come November...

    It’s already baked in. People like the economy and *still* want him removed from office. It’s not like he’s going to get +5 points to every poll on Election Day because “the economy is good”. That isn’t how it works.

    The “fundamentals” say he should have a good chance at reelection - but the polls wildly disagree with this. He’s less popular with a good economy than any president in modern US history.

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,050
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    As feared, Mitch McConnell is rigging the impeachment trial though rules designed to cover up the crimes of the President. More GOP corruption.

    They are proposing 24 hours for each side to make their case because it would pretty much guarantee that a large portion of it would be taking place in the middle of the night. Pretty chickenshit move for a group of people who insist there is no "there there". Because when you actually believe that, what you absolutely attempt to do is force 50% of the case to be presented while the most of the country is literally asleep.

    Most of the country doesn't care about the impeachment. That much is obvious. McConnell might be doing the Democrats a favor by getting this over with quickly...

    No he is doing Trump a favour. Once again this is all over before the State of the Union address in February.

    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,342
    edited January 22
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    This is all a big sham to cover up the fact that the Democrats have nobody that can beat Trump. Even Michael Moore is saying it now (especially if Biden wins the nomination).

    BTW: Sleepy Joe wants this to go longer for sure. Keeps his major opponents tied up on Capitol Hill...

    Right. The 51% of respondents to a CNN poll that the president should be impeached and removed from office disagree.

    Democrats are still the odds on favorites to win the WH in 2020. Trump is historically unpopular. Biden wins by such a large margin that he’d probably get the senate to or close to 50/50.

    Honestly - the idea that Trump is unbeatable is absurd.

    The number of mitigating circumstances that Trump needed to win is not repeatable (hard to win 3 times in a row. Historically unpopular opponent. Won independents).

    Trump’s opponent will be more popular then him this time. He’s underwater with independents. Democrats have been out of the WH for 4 years, so the “change” candidate will be a D.

    Trump’s only benefit is incumbency - which we have seen to mean less and less in recent elections.

    Trump's benefit is the economy. If you don't thinkno that matters you may have a rude awakening come November...

    What economy? The rich are doing well, who gives a damn? If you work two jobs for minimum wage who cares about the unemployment numbers? This is crap, and of course Trump is lying about any numbers because he lies about everything. He has men lying for him right now in the impeachment trial.

    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 5,553
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    This is all a big sham to cover up the fact that the Democrats have nobody that can beat Trump. Even Michael Moore is saying it now (especially if Biden wins the nomination).

    BTW: Sleepy Joe wants this to go longer for sure. Keeps his major opponents tied up on Capitol Hill...

    Right. The 51% of respondents to a CNN poll that the president should be impeached and removed from office disagree.

    Democrats are still the odds on favorites to win the WH in 2020. Trump is historically unpopular. Biden wins by such a large margin that he’d probably get the senate to or close to 50/50.

    Honestly - the idea that Trump is unbeatable is absurd.

    The number of mitigating circumstances that Trump needed to win is not repeatable (hard to win 3 times in a row. Historically unpopular opponent. Won independents).

    Trump’s opponent will be more popular then him this time. He’s underwater with independents. Democrats have been out of the WH for 4 years, so the “change” candidate will be a D.

    Trump’s only benefit is incumbency - which we have seen to mean less and less in recent elections.

    Trump's benefit is the economy. If you don't thinkno that matters you may have a rude awakening come November...

    What economy? The rich are doing well, who gives a damn? If you work two jobs for minimum wage who cares about the unemployment numbers? This is crap, and of course Trump is lying about any numbers because he lies about everything. He has men lying for him right now in the impeachment trial.
    Just a couple articles I found about real wage growth. Things aren't as dire as you think (or want to think). More people working does tend to drive up wages. So will the massive amounts of retirements due to happen in the next five to ten years.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/economy/wage-growth-economy.amp.html

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/E8F91FDA-41BA-11E9-8DB1-A5C1CA56392A

    There were quite a few more articles, including one that, from the headline, looked like it might be more along your line of thinking. Unfortunately, I'm too tired to read any more of them right now...

    Grond0
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,342
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    This is all a big sham to cover up the fact that the Democrats have nobody that can beat Trump. Even Michael Moore is saying it now (especially if Biden wins the nomination).

    BTW: Sleepy Joe wants this to go longer for sure. Keeps his major opponents tied up on Capitol Hill...

    Right. The 51% of respondents to a CNN poll that the president should be impeached and removed from office disagree.

    Democrats are still the odds on favorites to win the WH in 2020. Trump is historically unpopular. Biden wins by such a large margin that he’d probably get the senate to or close to 50/50.

    Honestly - the idea that Trump is unbeatable is absurd.

    The number of mitigating circumstances that Trump needed to win is not repeatable (hard to win 3 times in a row. Historically unpopular opponent. Won independents).

    Trump’s opponent will be more popular then him this time. He’s underwater with independents. Democrats have been out of the WH for 4 years, so the “change” candidate will be a D.

    Trump’s only benefit is incumbency - which we have seen to mean less and less in recent elections.

    Trump's benefit is the economy. If you don't thinkno that matters you may have a rude awakening come November...

    What economy? The rich are doing well, who gives a damn? If you work two jobs for minimum wage who cares about the unemployment numbers? This is crap, and of course Trump is lying about any numbers because he lies about everything. He has men lying for him right now in the impeachment trial.
    Just a couple articles I found about real wage growth. Things aren't as dire as you think (or want to think). More people working does tend to drive up wages. So will the massive amounts of retirements due to happen in the next five to ten years.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/economy/wage-growth-economy.amp.html

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/E8F91FDA-41BA-11E9-8DB1-A5C1CA56392A

    There were quite a few more articles, including one that, from the headline, looked like it might be more along your line of thinking. Unfortunately, I'm too tired to read any more of them right now...

    It is dire for a lot people - for example there seems to be a massive amount of homeless people. These people don't show up on employment numbers because they aren't actively looking for jobs.

    Anyway, while the jobless rate is supposedly down and wages are supposedly up, most Americans nevertheless remain one misstep away from a financial crisis.

    Fifty-seven percent of Americans don’t have enough cash to cover a $500 unexpected expense, according to surveys. Like some people if they break their foot or something, they might have to file bankruptcy and lose their house.

    Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Nobody can live off $7.25 an hour in America.

    The economy is not great for most Americans. We can do better. The market is not the economy either.

    It is not worth the rest of the crap that we have to put up with this lying corrupt administration. What good is the economy if you are dead from poisoned water? What good is the "economy" if your kids are morbidly obese because Trump rolls back environmental protections and school nutrition guidelines? Know what I mean?

    ThacoBell
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 864
    Democrats are still the odds on favorites to win the WH in 2020. Trump is historically unpopular. Biden wins by such a large margin that he’d probably get the senate to or close to 50/50.

    Honestly - the idea that Trump is unbeatable is absurd.

    True, but so is the idea that Democrats are "odds-on favourites". Neither polls nor history suggests they are (though neither give the Republicans cause for rejoicing, either).
    Trump’s only benefit is incumbency - which we have seen to mean less and less in recent elections.

    The last time an incumbant US president didn't win reelection was in 1992.

    Balrog99
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 828
    Ayiekie wrote: »
    Democrats are still the odds on favorites to win the WH in 2020. Trump is historically unpopular. Biden wins by such a large margin that he’d probably get the senate to or close to 50/50.

    Honestly - the idea that Trump is unbeatable is absurd.

    True, but so is the idea that Democrats are "odds-on favourites". Neither polls nor history suggests they are (though neither give the Republicans cause for rejoicing, either).
    Trump’s only benefit is incumbency - which we have seen to mean less and less in recent elections.

    The last time an incumbant US president didn't win reelection was in 1992.

    I’ll grant that general election polls at this stage aren’t terribly predictive, but you would rather be ahead than behind (and most polls show Dems ahead, Biden and Sanders being 5 or 6 points ahead on average).

    No president has ever won re-election when their approval rating is -10 at this time of year. Incumbency in all election (since there aren’t enough presidential ones for the sample size to be significant) has consistently meant less than it used to.

    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 864
    I’ll grant that general election polls at this stage aren’t terribly predictive, but you would rather be ahead than behind (and most polls show Dems ahead, Biden and Sanders being 5 or 6 points ahead on average).

    Hillary led the vast majority of polls and indeed won the most votes, which didn't lead to her becoming president.

    Again, Trump isn't secure, but it is wishful thinking to say any Dem nominee is a shoe-in. You're also ignoring (like the media routinely does, in fairness) that most party nominees are more popular before they win the nomination, because they face heightened scrutiny and attacks from the other party after that point. How popular, say, Bernie Sanders is now does not necessarily have much bearing on how popular he would be in November.

    This election is not as yet a gimme for anyone, and if Democrats want to win, they better come prepared to work for it.
    No president has ever won re-election when their approval rating is -10 at this time of year. Incumbency in all election (since there aren’t enough presidential ones for the sample size to be significant) has consistently meant less than it used to.

    Presidential elections aren't like other US elections, and in any case the incumbent still comfortably wins the vast majority of all US elections where one is contesting.

    Aside from that, you're ignoring some of the things that have also changed over time that benefit Trump (that Republicans are currently well-situated to win while losing the popular vote, or that Trump's support is unusually static likely due to heightened partisanship, which also means he might be able to benefit from more voter enthusiasm than would be expected for a scandal-plagued incumbent).

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 828
    Ayiekie wrote: »
    I’ll grant that general election polls at this stage aren’t terribly predictive, but you would rather be ahead than behind (and most polls show Dems ahead, Biden and Sanders being 5 or 6 points ahead on average).

    Hillary led the vast majority of polls and indeed won the most votes, which didn't lead to her becoming president.

    Again, Trump isn't secure, but it is wishful thinking to say any Dem nominee is a shoe-in. You're also ignoring (like the media routinely does, in fairness) that most party nominees are more popular before they win the nomination, because they face heightened scrutiny and attacks from the other party after that point. How popular, say, Bernie Sanders is now does not necessarily have much bearing on how popular he would be in November.

    This election is not as yet a gimme for anyone, and if Democrats want to win, they better come prepared to work for it.
    No president has ever won re-election when their approval rating is -10 at this time of year. Incumbency in all election (since there aren’t enough presidential ones for the sample size to be significant) has consistently meant less than it used to.

    Presidential elections aren't like other US elections, and in any case the incumbent still comfortably wins the vast majority of all US elections where one is contesting.

    Aside from that, you're ignoring some of the things that have also changed over time that benefit Trump (that Republicans are currently well-situated to win while losing the popular vote, or that Trump's support is unusually static likely due to heightened partisanship, which also means he might be able to benefit from more voter enthusiasm than would be expected for a scandal-plagued incumbent).

    Let me clear a few things up:

    I haven’t ignored any of that. I also never said the democrats would be a shoe in. I said they’re the odds on favorite to win. These are not the same thing.

    Hillary’s lead in polls vs Democrats lead in polls is apples and oranges because Trump wasn’t taken seriously at this point in the election. He is being taken seriously, so it would be wrong to assume he’ll surge in polls over the rest of the year.

    A woman has never won a presidential election. Until Obama, neither had a black man. I mention this because the sample size of presidential elections is so low that we cannot comfortably look at prior elections and expect to exactly know how this election will play out. So saying “Presidential elections are different” as a way of dismissing the empirical evidence that incumbency means less in all other elections doesn’t add up. We don’t know exactly how much it means, but it is a safe bet it means less today than it did for Truman or Nixon or Reagan.

    Trump is positioned to have an electoral college edge in the coming election. He has a popular vote disadvantage at the same time. There had been some research done to suggest the upper maximum Trump might lose the popular vote by is 5 million while still winning the election. Most people think it won’t be that bad (maybe close to the neighborhood of the last election.)


    The case I’m making here is that Democrats had a lot of structural disadvantages to winning in 2016 (Hard to win 3 terms. Lost independents. Lower turnout than previous two elections, historically unpopular candidate). Being out of office, and Trump being historically unpopular will reverse a lot of those disadvantages. Trump gets some advantages from being an incumbent, but do his change in advantages outweigh the Democrats’ changes? I think no. I genuinely think Trump is less likely to win in 2020 than he was in 2016 - and I already believe he was unlikely to win that election.

    Grond0semiticgodThacoBell
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 899
    A woman has never won a presidential election. Until Obama, neither had a black man. I mention this because the sample size of presidential elections is so low that we cannot comfortably look at prior elections and expect to exactly know how this election will play out. So saying “Presidential elections are different” as a way of dismissing the empirical evidence that incumbency means less in all other elections doesn’t add up. We don’t know exactly how much it means, but it is a safe bet it means less today than it did for Truman or Nixon or Reagan.

    Well, in 2008, it was going to HAVE to be one of those, either a woman or a black man, those were the only two candidates who made it through the primaries, and it was a close split. Hillary barely won the popular vote, Obama barely won the primary delegate vote.
    Trump is positioned to have an electoral college edge in the coming election. He has a popular vote disadvantage at the same time. There had been some research done to suggest the upper maximum Trump might lose the popular vote by is 5 million while still winning the election. Most people think it won’t be that bad (maybe close to the neighborhood of the last election.)

    It really boils down to where those voters are, because of the BS first-past-the-post that flips entire states one way or another. Trump flipped 3 states his way so narrowly that it was impossible to tell statistically which way they were going to go up until Election day.
    The case I’m making here is that Democrats had a lot of structural disadvantages to winning in 2016 (Hard to win 3 terms. Lost independents. Lower turnout than previous two elections, historically unpopular candidate). Being out of office, and Trump being historically unpopular will reverse a lot of those disadvantages. Trump gets some advantages from being an incumbent, but do his change in advantages outweigh the Democrats’ changes? I think no. I genuinely think Trump is less likely to win in 2020 than he was in 2016 - and I already believe he was unlikely to win that election.

    I agree, because of my previous sentence about how narrow his electoral victories in several states were. If he doesn't repeat his performance (and the way 2018 looked that's doubtful) he's toast, because he can't get those votes from anywhere else.

    As an aside, I say let's call it "The Obama Effect" for being a relatively new face in politics. Obama had only 12 years in politics before becoming President, and just 4 years at the federal level. Trump obviously had 0.

  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 14,093
    Trump doesn't really have many advantages. He has gerrymandering, the electoral college advantage for being a Republican, foreign interference, incumbency, and a good GDP figure to aid him (and we can gripe about the first 3 or 4), but otherwise he's just flat-out not a popular person in the United States. We keep searching for weaknesses in his opponents, but Trump is not a strong candidate by any measure of popular opinion.

    His approval rating has been unnaturally low at every stage of his presidency. He's never gotten it up very high before, and I do not foresee him getting it up in time for the election.

    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 5,553
    semiticgod wrote: »
    Trump doesn't really have many advantages. He has gerrymandering, the electoral college advantage for being a Republican, foreign interference, incumbency, and a good GDP figure to aid him (and we can gripe about the first 3 or 4), but otherwise he's just flat-out not a popular person in the United States. We keep searching for weaknesses in his opponents, but Trump is not a strong candidate by any measure of popular opinion.

    His approval rating has been unnaturally low at every stage of his presidency. He's never gotten it up very high before, and I do not foresee him getting it up in time for the election.

    But God is on his side (just ask my family).

    BallpointMan
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 7,778
    edited January 23
    I don't know where people are getting this idea Trump can't win. Yes, it's virtually impossible for him to lose the popular vote by less than 3-5 million. But he could lose Pennsylvania and Michigan and pull it out by 100 votes in Wisconsin and that's still ballgame. Florida and Ohio aren't flipping this time. Democrats HAVE to take back MI and PA and then flip NC, AZ or WI back. Democrats have gained solid holds in CO, NM, NV and VA, but I don't view FL and OH as being competitive. Which means the election is gonna likely come down to the five states I mentioned above.

    The plus side to this doom and gloom is that Democrats are (at this point), almost certain to nominate a male who can play in the Rustbelt outside the cities. Biden has been doing it all his life, and Bernie will talk like Trump did in 2016 without being completely full of shit about it because he actually has beliefs and cares about jobs in those areas (whereas Trump was able to get away paying lip service). Can he do it again?? What does the stock market mean to farmers who have gone out of business due to tariffs?? Will people recognize that, gee whiz, the factory didn't, in fact, come back like he promised?? Who knows?? But I am not in the camp that says he loses going away. I'd say he has a 60/40 shot of winning. And no, impeachment has nothing to do with it. No recent polling bears that out.

    Balrog99semiticgodThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 5,553
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I don't know where people are getting this idea Trump can't win. Yes, it's virtually impossible for him to lose the popular vote by less than 3-5 million. But he could lose Pennsylvania and Michigan and pull it out by 100 votes in Wisconsin and that's still ballgame. Florida and Ohio aren't flipping this time. Democrats HAVE to take back MI and PA and then flip NC, AZ or WI back. Democrats have gained solid holds in CO, NM, NV and VA, but I don't view FL and OH as being competitive. Which means the election is gonna likely come down to the five states I mentioned above.

    The plus side to this doom and gloom is that Democrats are (at this point), almost certain to nominate a male who can play in the Rustbelt outside the cities. Biden has been doing it all his life, and Bernie will talk like Trump did in 2016 without being completely full of shit about it because he actually has beliefs and cares about jobs in those areas (whereas Trump was able to get away paying lip service). Can he do it again?? What does the stock market mean to farmers who have gone out of business due to tariffs?? Will people recognize that, gee whiz, the factory didn't, in fact, come back like he promised. Who knows. But I am not in the camp that says he loses going away. I'd say he has a 60/40 shot of winning. And no, impeachment has nothing to do with it. No recent polling bears that out.

    Well if he loses Michigan by one vote you can thank me!

Sign In or Register to comment.