Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Nody

amandstu wrote: »

Is the outcome of next election in 2020 likely to revolve around the results in the Rustbelt States ?

How long is a piece of string? It comes down to how some other potential states fall out and/or flips basically. All being equal to 2016 election then yes they would matter; if certain states flip not so much.

Which States are definitely no contest and can the ones in real play be predicted at this early stage?

Well you have some classics such as Florida (likely to remain R) but could see potentially Arizona for example. Texas is still a bit off but it's moving dangerously in the wrong direction and could be an outlier for surprises.

Was Scaramucci correct to say last night that some of Trump's lines are now tired and ineffective? (can't quite remember what he meant )

Trump lines are dependent on who you ask; I was reading an article on farmers who were stating they did not like Trump but supported him because he was the president. Now if Trump ends up rolling over on China for example that's a group that could potentially flip on him. Hence I don't think the lines are ineffective as it will come down to economy (duh) and what he will achieve until the election (China being an obvious big deal for certain groups).

Is he likely to appeal to the Republicans in his assessment of the "President" or is he just a flash in the pan soon to be forgotten?

There's the republican core that would vote for a rock with an R on it but neither party hardcores win the election; it's the middle ground voters who swing it usually and they have to swing in the right state obviously. The republicans (as a party) are to strong to see a new challenger actually win through imo; even though there are individuals who'd want to challenge him. I think most Republicans will simply let Trump fail and if he does bad blame Trump and distance themselves afterwards instead and look to take it back 2024/2028 while focusing on the senate/house ("Well Trump did, and because of Trump, Trump was not really a Republican as he was a Democrac back in etc.).

I think he may have been promoting the idea of a challenger to Trump from the Republican ranks (again if memory serves)

Well what I read was that he though Trump would not challenge in 2020 because he did not want to have a loss against his name in another interview. Honestly I think he's mainly trying to get air time to raise his profile for future jobs/conventions etc. by being hyperbolic in his predictions; it's similar to inviting Farage all the times because you know it will create headlines.

everlast75

rossie1977 wrote: »

The polls were right nationwide. It was state polls in certain areas like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin etc that were wrong

Those being the specific States that Manafort shared internal polling data with a Russian operative according to Mueller.

Complete coincidence of course...

amandstu

everlast75 wrote: »

Those being the specific States that Manafort shared internal polling data with a Russian operative according to Mueller.

Complete coincidence of course...

I know that the evaluation of Russian interference in the election may be more of an art than a (very new)science (and much data may be missing) but I wonder if anyone has attempted to make such an analysis and come up with any predictions as to the likely impact they might have had on the turnout and voting in States such as those subjected to online misinformation attack (if that is a correct characterization)

The first bit of data I can spot is the difference between the result in those States vis a vis expectations and as against the national average where the campaign was presumably less focused.

That might allow us to make some sort of prediction as to the likely effect of the ongoing campaign in 2020 -and perhaps how to counteract it (hard with the present administration apparently viewing it as a tool in their box)

marno21

https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1163650128957325313

If this is the result of his promises that got him swing voters in the Rust Belt he will be defeated in these states in 2020.

spacecoyote

amandstu wrote: »

Is it shrinking because Independents are growing in numbers (or non voters) ?

Is the pool of registered Dems also shrinking,or holding (or increasing)?

Any evidence on levels of motivation(on either of the 3* sides) at this early stage?

*if Independents are a "side"

I can't remember specifically to be honest. It was an article on 538 and it was from a while ago.

I think that the current numbers from Gallup identity polling are roughly in the area of:

28% Rep
28% Dem
44% Ind

So there is pretty significant room for movement in either direction

amandstu

spacecoyote wrote: »

I can't remember specifically to be honest. It was an article on 538 and it was from a while ago.

I think that the current numbers from Gallup identity polling are roughly in the area of:

28% Rep
28% Dem
44% Ind

So there is pretty significant room for movement in either direction

Wonder why Independents don't do better...

Have they always been so preponderant?

Nody

amandstu wrote: »

Wonder why Independents don't do better...

Have they always been so preponderant?

Most likely due to lack of grassroots support & movement. Every D/R has a huge support organization on the ground to push not only the president but also the house and senate; they would not. That's why you can see independents winning Mayor etc. but not a national contest because they can get out on a local but not national level with their message. Add in the history of the independents only getting a few percentage ("wasted votes") and you add yet another road block on the way.

Igotadose

Nody wrote: »

Most likely due to lack of grassroots support & movement. Every D/R has a huge support organization on the ground to push not only the president but also the house and senate; they would not. That's why you can see independents winning Mayor etc. but not a national contest because they can get out on a local but not national level with their message. Add in the history of the independents only getting a few percentage ("wasted votes") and you add yet another road block on the way.

And some seriously loony-tunes candidates. H. Ross Perot. John Anderson. George Wallace. Ralph Nader. Nader if anything caused a lot of the strife we suffer from today, siphoning enough votes for GWB to "win" in Florida.

amandstu

So half of all voters over there are voting tactically in General Elections ,but without a party that they feel aligned with?

There is no major political party fishing in that pool (apart from Rep/Dems)?

Quin_Dub

spacecoyote wrote: »

I can't remember specifically to be honest. It was an article on 538 and it was from a while ago.

I think that the current numbers from Gallup identity polling are roughly in the area of:

28% Rep
28% Dem
44% Ind

So there is pretty significant room for movement in either direction

amandstu wrote: »

So half of all voters over there are voting tactically in General Elections ,but without a party that they feel aligned with?

There is no major political party fishing in that pool (apart from Rep/Dems)?

Are those figures based on the numbers of "registered" GOP/Dem people or is it based on a "what party are you likely to vote for next time" question in the poll.

Are all Independents actually undecided "swing" voters , or are some (most)of them people that are clearly aligned with one side or the other but just haven't gone to the trouble of registering.

Given the numbers that actually vote 3rd Party my assumption has always been that it's the latter , with maybe ~10/15% truly in play to shift sides.

Igotadose

amandstu wrote: »

So half of all voters over there are voting tactically in General Elections ,but without a party that they feel aligned with?

There is no major political party fishing in that pool (apart from Rep/Dems)?

There's no notion of "General Elections" in the US. There's the Presidential Election every four years. There are elections for the House of Representatives every 2 years. Senators are elected every 6, so usually there are some running every election cycle.

At the State level, there are elections depending on how the state works, ie., might be every 2 for Assemblymen and 4 for State Senators.

Then, there are local elections as well (city/county/...) Varies by state and region. Local Judges might be elected then

And, there are 2 major parties, Republican and Democratic. There are a bunch of fringe parties (Green party, Socialist Workers Party). You see more fringe parties at the State and local level than you do nationally.

spacecoyote

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Are those figures based on the numbers of "registered" GOP/Dem people or is it based on a "what party are you likely to vote for next time" question in the poll.

Are all Independents actually undecided "swing" voters , or are some (most)of them people that are clearly aligned with one side or the other but just haven't gone to the trouble of registering.

Given the numbers that actually vote 3rd Party my assumption has always been that it's the latter , with maybe ~10/15% truly in play to shift sides.

I'm pretty sure that the question in the Gallup one I saw was:

"What do you identify yourself as, Rep, Dem, Ind?"

as opposed to "registered"

serfboard

amandstu wrote: »

Wonder why Independents don't do better...

Bernie Sanders, an independent, was recently polling as the most popular politician in America.

The reason he ran under the Democrat ticket in 2016 is because it is impossible to win a Presidential election in America without being under one of the two parties.

In his home state of Vermont, Sanders runs as an Independent in Senate elections.

amandstu

serfboard wrote: »

Bernie Sanders, an independent, was recently polling as the most popular politician in America.

The reason he ran under the Democrat ticket in 2016 is because it is impossible to win a Presidential election in American without being under one of the two parties.

In his home state of Vermont, Sanders runs as an Independent in Senate elections.

Do they have party whips over there?

Has Sanders gone back to an independent affiliation in the Senate following his run against Clinton in 2016?

Was there an understanding he would support the Dems in the Senate as some sort of a quid pro quo?

serfboard

amandstu wrote: »

Has Sanders gone back to an independent affiliation in the Senate following his run against Clinton in 2016?

Was there an understanding he would support the Dems in the Senate as some sort of a quid pro quo?

Wikipedia is your friend.

Yes and yes are the answers to both of your questions. Bernie "caucuses with" the Democrats, which means he is part of a group "with shared affinities or ethnicities who convene, often but not always to advocate, agitate, lobby or to vote collectively, on policy."

IIRC, Bernie votes with Democrats more than 90% of the time.

Quin_Dub

serfboard wrote: »

Wikipedia is your friend.

Yes and yes are the answers to both of your questions. Bernie "caucuses with" the Democrats, which means he is part of a group "with shared affinities or ethnicities who convene, often but not always to advocate, agitate, lobby or to vote collectively, on policy."

IIRC, Bernie votes with Democrats more than 90% of the time.

Which is probably more than some "actual" Democrats like Joe Manchin..

amandstu

Might it be a fair observation that a two party system is only better than the one party system (which is only better than dictatorship)?

duploelabs

Could Trump's claims of voter fraud be the pathway to denying the legitimacy of next years elections?

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/20/trumps-outrageous-claims-of-voter-fraud-are-about-one-thing-invalidating-the-2020-election/

pixelburp

The biggest question is: will any in the GOP or Fox side with Trump and give voice to any potential talk of voter fraud? That's the real danger; Trump winding up his base might be dangerous enough, but if the GOP decide this is a tactic worth pursuing & actively try to steal the election (again, given what went on with the "Brooks Brothers Riot" of 2000) then things are truly heading in a darker direction.

everlast75

duploelabs wrote: »

Could Trump's claims of voter fraud be the pathway to denying the legitimacy of next years elections?

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/20/trumps-outrageous-claims-of-voter-fraud-are-about-one-thing-invalidating-the-2020-election/

He did it before he "won" in 2016.

He has an excuse for everything and an answer for nothing.

serfboard

duploelabs wrote: »

Could Trump's claims of voter fraud be the pathway to denying the legitimacy of next years elections?

In the court of public opinion, possibly, but actual courts insist on things like evidence ...

duploelabs

serfboard wrote: »

In the court of public opinion, possibly, but actual courts insist on things like evidence ...

And who has been appointed to the courts as of late?

marno21

Him talking about illegal voting and voter fraud is a sure sign he's starting to get rattled from the current poll results and his general downwards trend.

Where he takes this "discomfort" is the issue.

serfboard

marno21 wrote: »

Him talking about illegal voting and voter fraud is a sure sign he's starting to get rattled from the current poll results and his general downwards trend.

And you're basing that just off the public polls. You can bet that the Republicans have done plenty of private polling that's showing the same or worse.

The thing is, who (apart from Ivanka) could go to Trump and tell him that the poll results are bad? He wouldn't believe a word of it.

Water John

This is an interesting finding about Trump's Scottish golf courses;
'His 2018 “public financial disclosure” filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics also claims those two resorts earned him “income” of $23.8 million. His filings with the U.K. Companies House office in Edinburgh for that period showed the resorts had actually lost 4.6 million pounds ― equal to $6.3 million.' Huffington Post.
When you start telling porkies, you better stick to the one story.
Penalty is five years in jail.

TomOnBoard

Water John wrote: »

This is an interesting finding about Trump's Scottish golf courses;
'His 2018 “public financial disclosure” filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics also claims those two resorts earned him “income” of $23.8 million. His filings with the U.K. Companies House office in Edinburgh for that period showed the resorts had actually lost 4.6 million pounds ― equal to $6.3 million.' Huffington Post.
When you start telling porkies, you better stick to the one story.
Penalty is five years in jail.

Income of $23.8 million could easily result in a loss of $6.3 million, depending on the accounting method being used and the expenses being written off.

Phileas Frog

Water John wrote: »

This is an interesting finding about Trump's Scottish golf courses;
'His 2018 “public financial disclosure” filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics also claims those two resorts earned him “income” of $23.8 million. His filings with the U.K. Companies House office in Edinburgh for that period showed the resorts had actually lost 4.6 million pounds ― equal to $6.3 million.' Huffington Post.
When you start telling porkies, you better stick to the one story.
Penalty is five years in jail.

You are confusing turnover (income) with profit/loss.

everlast75

Billy Mays wrote: »

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-called-out-for-deriding-most-jews-in-america-as-ignorant-or-disloyal-blatantly-anti-semitic/

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1163909975896416259?s=19

Here's the video

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Billy Mays wrote: »

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-called-out-for-deriding-most-jews-in-america-as-ignorant-or-disloyal-blatantly-anti-semitic/

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1163909975896416259?s=19

Here's the video

IMHO, this video of Trump's total removal from any sensible reality will prove to be a crucial nail in his political coffin... standby for KAC and the multitude of apologists to spin this total ****up into some kind of Fox talking point. ..

Timberrrrrrrr

It's going to be fun watching them spin this and tell us

"No No, what he really meant when he said that was....."