Support NeoGAF

[Fenderputty]

My wife is rad. Paul Ryan came over to shake hands with her catering staff, and she dodged it and walked away. "The minute I saw him going to shake hands, I was out!" She says there's a fuckton of protestors outside and that she hid her face as they pulled up to the event.

Too bad she didn't wait for the "oooo too slow move" pulling her hand away. lol

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/22/how-many-people-watched-trump-afghanistan-speech-241905

Trump address on Afghanistan: 17.5 million viewers

Obama address on Afghanistan, 2009: 40.8 million viewers

lol

 

[Wilsongt]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/22/how-many-people-watched-trump-afghanistan-speech-241905

Trump address on Afghanistan: 17.5 million viewers

Obama address on Afghanistan, 2009: 40.8 million viewers

lol

Fake!

 

[BoogieWoogie]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/22/how-many-people-watched-trump-afghanistan-speech-241905

Trump address on Afghanistan: 17.5 million viewers

Obama address on Afghanistan, 2009: 40.8 million viewers

lol

Doesn't have Spicey anymore to argue against the reporters about this. Are they still even having press briefings anymore?

 

[Random Human]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/22/how-many-people-watched-trump-afghanistan-speech-241905

Trump address on Afghanistan: 17.5 million viewers

Obama address on Afghanistan, 2009: 40.8 million viewers

lol

This will legit piss him off if the numbers make it to him through his multiple layers of enablers feeding him good news.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Not a surprise, but didn't another reputable company do one later that week that showed something similar (at least closer than we would want it)? I can't recall the name, but they were a group that actually didn't do too bad in 2016. I remember Enten posting the link on Twitter. Trafalgar, maybe?

Yes it was something like that. They were a heavily partisan R pollster that either fell ass-backward into some lucky calls thanks to the surprising swings in the rust belt states, or were picking up something that no one else saw, or maybe there's not actually much difference between those explanations.

 

[whyamihere]

VA Gov, Roanoke Poll.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/politic...cle_2fc85769-bc5a-5a9d-befe-f67390da61cb.html

Northam (D): 43
Gillespie (R): 36
Hyra (L): 4

Also, their track record sucks, so, meh.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...est-8-22?t=1503430626532#update-1503430626000

VA-Gov: Roanoke College's first poll of Virginia's gubernatorial race this fall finds Democrat Ralph Northam leading Republican Ed Gillespie 43-36, a margin that's similar to recent surveys from other institutions. Unfortunately, though, Roanoke's track record is poor: In 2014, when Gillespie came within a point of unseating Sen. Mark Warner, Roanoke's final poll found Warner up by 12. Every public pollster badly whiffed on that race, but more infamously, Roanoke put Mitt Romney ahead of Barack Obama 49-44 in 2012, when Obama went on to win Virginia by 4 points—a contest most pollsters called correctly. They also predicted Republican George Allen would win that year's open seat Senate race by 5, even though he lost to Tim Kaine by 6.

Roanoke did a little better last year, figuring Hillary Clinton for a 9-point victory (she carried the Old Dominion by 5), but they're still not an outfit we can put a lot of trust in. However, even when you don't feel confident in a survey's toplines, the trendlines—that is, the change from one poll to the next—can still be useful. In this case, they tell us that Donald Trump has managed to get even more unpopular in Virginia: Back in February, Trump had a 32-50 job approval rating, and now it's 28-57. By contrast, outgoing Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe has a 49-30 approval score, a divide we've seen in other polls as well.

 

[whyamihere]

Not a surprise, but didn't another reputable company do one later that week that showed something similar (at least closer than we would want it)? I can't recall the name, but they were a group that actually didn't do too bad in 2016. I remember Enten posting the link on Twitter. Trafalgar, maybe?

It was Trafalgar, but they're also an R pollster.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4lhKxf9pMitRFpUd3lHV21ZdGs/view

But the only independent pollster that's polled the race so far has her up by 8.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/31/poll-kid-rock-trails-stabenow/104176822/

There just isn't a lot of polling at this point.

But the 538 story quotes them as saying this, which, yeah.

He says he's had some difficulty getting accepted by some members of the media because he isn't as well-known as more traditional pollsters. He told me that he completely agreed that the existence of fake firms makes it easier for skeptical members of the media to dismiss all pollsters they are unfamiliar with. Ignoring unknown pollsters like Calahy could deprive readers of information that big-name pollsters are missing. Instead, what the media needs to do is examine each poll and pollster individually and make a judgment call.

 

[Blader]

Some dark predictions involve Trump replacing Yellin next February with a stooge who will irresponsibly cut interest rates in 2020, and deal with fallout from inflation in 2021 after Trump's wins reelection. So getting a responsible Fed chair is critical, too.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. And it sounds like Gary Cohn has been angling for that job for a while.

 

[Aaron Strife]

VA Gov, Roanoke Poll.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/politic...cle_2fc85769-bc5a-5a9d-befe-f67390da61cb.html

Northam (D): 43
Gillespie (R): 36
Hyra (L): 4

Good margin, and good to see the Charlottesville stuff isn't hurting Northam. Still, I'd feel better if the undecideds closed up.

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't expect Northam to significantly run ahead of Clinton just because she already did much better there than in any other swing state. Doing well in VA is more about holding onto Clinton's gains than reversing her losses.

 

[whyamihere]

Good margin, and good to see the Charlottesville stuff isn't hurting Northam. Still, I'd feel better if the undecideds closed up.

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't expect Northam to significantly run ahead of Clinton just because she already did much better there than in any other swing state. Doing well in VA is more about holding onto Clinton's gains than reversing her losses.

Updated it with context, they're a shitty pollster.

 

[pigeon]

Trump needed a perfect storm of factors to win last year. He's the president now. He can give some meager middle-class tax cuts, juice the economy for a short-term burst, and maybe do another everybody-loves-this military strike in 2020 to grease the wheels just long enough to get through re-election. He doesn't need to hit 60 percent approval and coast on it for three years to make it through again, he just needs to push the needle a little bit right at the finish line.

Our best chance at beating Trump is for someone on the right to try and primary him. Not that he would lose a primary challenge, but it would weaken his standing. If there is no Republican primary in 2019/2020, I feel less confident about a Dem winning.

This seems like...the opposite of the truth?

Presidents are probably more likely to run behind themselves than ahead of themselves for a second term.

Trump is not actually capable of doing any of the things you describe. You are falling into the trap of thinking "here's what I would do if I were President, Trump can easily do that." The failure is twofold: you have no idea what you could do if you were President, and you are wrong to think that Trump can do anything at all effectively or correctly.

My general assessment is that 538 was right: Trump had a 30% chance of winning in 2016, and he hit his numbers. That means the correct way to think about 2020 is that, if it's exactly like 2016, Trump is extremely likely to lose. Then think about what factors might make it better than 2016 (not many) and what factors might make it worse (almost all) for him.

 

[pigeon]

They're deliberately not hitting beat #1 because it turns out a whole bunch of angry white rural people get REALLY energized when you do that and has a massive backfire effect.

This is literally explicitly capitulating to white supremacy.

I don't want the Democrats to do that!

 

[Blader]

Trump is not actually capable of doing any of the things you describe. You are falling into the trap of thinking "here's what I would do if I were President, Trump can easily do that." The failure is twofold: you have no idea what you could do if you were President, and you are wrong to think that Trump can do anything at all effectively or correctly.

Well I wouldn't do any of those things if I were president!

 

[Box of Kittens]

This seems like...the opposite of the truth?

Presidents are probably more likely to run behind themselves than ahead of themselves for a second term.

Trump is not actually capable of doing any of the things you describe. You are falling into the trap of thinking "here's what I would do if I were President, Trump can easily do that." The failure is twofold: you have no idea what you could do if you were President, and you are wrong to think that Trump can do anything at all effectively or correctly.

My general assessment is that 538 was right: Trump had a 30% chance of winning in 2016, and he hit his numbers. That means the correct way to think about 2020 is that, if it's exactly like 2016, Trump is extremely likely to lose. Then think about what factors might make it better than 2016 (not many) and what factors might make it worse (almost all) for him.

Yeah, these takes tend to overestimate the amount of control the president has over the economy and other factors, even in the short term.

And yes, I think 538 was pretty much right as well. I'm honestly more impressed by their model's performance in 2016 than in 2012 (when they got every state right) because 2012 was a year in which the polls were pretty much dead on, and the essential reality of 2016 (namely how much uncertainty there was) was harder to grasp. Of course, they blew the GOP primary quite badly, but I think they did quite well in the general despite being "wrong."

 

[kirblar]

This is literally explicitly capitulating to white supremacy.

I don't want the Democrats to do that!

Is it literally capitulating if your goal is to avoid talking about it, then do all the stuff white supremacists don't like once you're in power? (aka the GOP strategy on social issues, but inverted?)

They clearly came to the conclusion that explicitly running on this stuff is good ethics/morals/etc. but terrible electoral politics, and I can't blame them for that after what happened in '16.

VA Gov, Roanoke Poll.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/politic...cle_2fc85769-bc5a-5a9d-befe-f67390da61cb.html

Northam (D): 43
Gillespie (R): 36
Hyra (L): 4

Also, their track record sucks, so, meh.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...est-8-22?t=1503430626532#update-1503430626000

High "who?" numbers in this poll for both Northam and Gillespie as well.

 

[pigeon]

Is it literally capitulating if your goal is to avoid talking about it, then do all the stuff white supremacists don't like once you're in power? (aka the GOP strategy on social issues, but inverted?)

They clearly came to the conclusion that explicitly running on this stuff is good ethics/morals/etc. but terrible electoral politics, and I can't blame them for that after what happened in '16.

Yes, explicitly choosing to avoid talking about how white supremacy is bad, in the hopes that you can get into power and do all that anti-white supremacy stuff and nobody will notice and punish you for it, is bad. It's also dumb because voters are not stupid, but that's a secondary issue.

Since white supremacy is a moral and normative issue, visible statements and performance are themselves important policy actions (not goals!). Refusing to talk about white supremacy because it will lose you votes cedes the moral center of the country to white supremacists.

We should be willing to talk about it because opposing white supremacy should be a vote-winning issue. If it isn't, again, the problem we face is not electoral, it's actually just logistical, because the solution in that universe is for all the people of color to leave America or form their own country, and that's going to mean organizing a lot of plane tickets.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

If Trump is still President in 2020 then he's weathered a bunch of shit that seems nigh-impossible for him to weather at this point.

So Trump being the 2020 nominee means he probably gets the not-insignificant incumbency advantage, and most of the historically awful shit that seems to be coming down the pike, didn't quite come down the pike.

So then it's the economy. If there's a Trump/whoever 2020 election, and the economy is shit, then he's toast. If the economy is good, then he's... not toast. Not necessarily winning, but not toast, either.

Presidents generally don't get impeached over shit economies, but they definitely lose elections over them.

 

[Blader]

Yeah, these takes tend to overestimate the amount of control the president has over the economy and other factors, even in the short term.

I'm not overestimating anything, I just think everyone is seriously underestimating Trump's re-election chances based on low approval ratings and dismissing the possibility with a "well, as long as the Dems don't nominate another Hillary Clinton, we should be golden" handwave.

And the president does have a lot of influence on the economy in the short term! Nixon did exactly this in '72 to help glide his path to re-election.

 

[Sirpopopop]

This is literally explicitly capitulating to white supremacy.

I don't want the Democrats to do that!

Goal should be to get power back.

Then:

Nuke Filibuster
Repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929
Admit Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands as states.

I think that should be good enough to prevent white supremacists from having the ability to control all 3 branches of government like they do today.

 

[GTI Guy]

David Thorne
http://27bslash6.com/sign.html

 

[pigeon]

If Trump is still President in 2020 then he's weathered a bunch of shit that seems nigh-impossible for him to weather at this point.

So Trump being the 2020 nominee means he probably gets the not-insignificant incumbency advantage, and most of the historically awful shit that seems to be coming down the pike, didn't quite come down the pike.

This simplification seems overdone.

There's a huge space between "Trump is impeached or resigns" and "Trump is a shoe-in for reelection." It's the space Trump now occupies, where there's not enough political will for Republicans to actively remove their own president, but also not enough political will for them to actively support him.

That's not a space where Trump is a normal president running for reelection. It's a space where he has the worst approval ratings of any modern president, and no reason to think they will improve, and where those approval ratings spell major problems for an attempted presidential campaign.

 

[Box of Kittens]

So, that Enten piece got me looking at Delphi Analytica's twitter.

https://twitter.com/DelphiAnalytica/status/892492522295095296

60% of females disapprove of @realDonaldTrump's transgender ban while 40% of males approve. #Transgender #lgbt

Now, let's set their overall shadiness aside for a moment. Take a look at that bar graph and tell me that isn't the worst data visualization you've ever seen.

 

[pigeon]

So, that Enten piece got me looking at Delphi Analytica's twitter.

https://twitter.com/DelphiAnalytica/status/892492522295095296



Now, let's set their overall shadiness aside for a moment. Take a look at that bar graph and tell me that isn't the worst data visualization you've ever seen.

Holy shit, you warned me it was bad and I still misread it.

It's like a bar graph made by a bar graph cargo cult.

 

[Blader]

Somehow, that Greg Abbot post about the Kid Rock poll is more grating to me than maybe most of his actual public policy statements.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Updated it with context, they're a shitty pollster.

Wish PPP would do one here soon. The closer we get to Labor Day the sooner people start actually paying attention and we see the race firming up.

In a just world we'd be talking about the special election to fill Kaine's seat right now...

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Comparisons aside, isn't 17 million pretty bad regardless? Either people have already given up on Trump and/or a primetime address about Afghanistan policy in 2017 is not something America is interested in.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Comparisons aside, isn't 17 million pretty bad regardless? Either people have already given up on Trump and/or a primetime address about Afghanistan policy in 2017 is not something America is interested in.

What he was doing was widely reported, days before his speech. And yea, I don't think people care that much what happens in Afghanistan. It's to the point where having US troops in the middle east is just a way of life, most people probably don't even remember a time when we weren't.

 

[Electric Eye]

Comparisons aside, isn't 17 million pretty bad regardless? Either people have already given up on Trump and/or a primetime address about Afghanistan policy in 2017 is not something America is interested in.

No one gives a fuck what he has to say after what he did with the nazi shit. People have tuned out on Afghanistan and Trump. That number would be even worse if everyone that still pays for cable tv wasnt forced to watch it.

 

[Ogodei]

Obama in 2009 had a lot of hope of a radical rethink of America's foreign policy commitments. I think despite various derangements about Trump being a dove, nobody expects a GOP president to go off the handle about military policy.

 

[Wilsongt]

Comparisons aside, isn't 17 million pretty bad regardless? Either people have already given up on Trump and/or a primetime address about Afghanistan policy in 2017 is not something America is interested in.

I didn't even know there was a public Afghanistan address.

 

[pigeon]

What he was doing was widely reported, days before his speech. And yea, I don't think people care that much what happens in Afghanistan. It's to the point where having US troops in the middle east is just a way of life, most people probably don't even remember a time when we weren't.

Even the people who yell at me for being an imperialist warmonger don't mention Afghanistan.

 

[kirblar]

Yes, explicitly choosing to avoid talking about how white supremacy is bad, in the hopes that you can get into power and do all that anti-white supremacy stuff and nobody will notice and punish you for it, is bad. It's also dumb because voters are not stupid, but that's a secondary issue.

Since white supremacy is a moral and normative issue, visible statements and performance are themselves important policy actions (not goals!). Refusing to talk about white supremacy because it will lose you votes cedes the moral center of the country to white supremacists.

We should be willing to talk about it because opposing white supremacy should be a vote-winning issue. If it isn't, again, the problem we face is not electoral, it's actually just logistical, because the solution in that universe is for all the people of color to leave America or form their own country, and that's going to mean organizing a lot of plane tickets.

I'd argue that Obama did exactly that in his campaigns when possible, choosing to rely on the fact that people would implicitly trust him on this particular issue. When he did make speeches on the topic, speaking in more than standard grand outlines, it was always notable and got a lot of attention. (the philly speech, "beer summit", "Trayvon could have been my son", etc.)

Having to sugar-coat this for insecure white people is unpleasant and shitty, but as rural whites are massively overrepresented in the EC, it's a nasty political reality we avoid at our own peril.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I'm not sure who's saying Trump can't win in 2020. But if the overall trajectory doesn't change (and it very well might) then he'll certainly be the underdog and gimmicks (low interest rates, military strikes) won't likely be enough to save him.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I'm not sure who's saying Trump can't win in 2020. But if the overall trajectory doesn't change (and it very well might) then he'll certainly be the underdog and gimmicks (low interest rates, military strikes) won't likely be enough to save him.

The overall trajectory is also that PA/WI/MI/OH will have even higher percentage of whites without college education than 2016.

Trump won an EC he should have lost looking at popular vote margin. The same repeating in 2020 with an even bigger popular vote margin is possible.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Comparisons aside, isn't 17 million pretty bad regardless? Either people have already given up on Trump and/or a primetime address about Afghanistan policy in 2017 is not something America is interested in.

It's funny because I even remember there being way more hubbub about Obama's speech, even Republicans were tuning in.

No one gives a shit about Trump and I don't think many people care much about Afghanistan either. It's even harder now than it was in 2009 to explain why we're still there.

 

[pigeon]

The overall trajectory is also that PA/WI/MI/OH will have even higher percentage of whites without college education than 2016.

Trump won an EC he should have lost looking at popular vote margin. The same repeating in 2020 with an even bigger popular vote margin is possible.

Also, us getting hit by a meteor and all dying is possible.

 

[Blader]

This will all be moot when Trump announces in a couple weeks that he is stepping down due to his eclipse-inflicted blindness.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

I'm not sure who's saying Trump can't win in 2020. But if the overall trajectory doesn't change (and it very well might) then he'll certainly be the underdog and gimmicks (low interest rates, military strikes) won't likely be enough to save him.

Trump is literally a massive shitstorm on an hourly basis. There's no way things will change with him until he's gone.

Also, us getting hit by a meteor and all dying is possible.

Promise?

 

[Box of Kittens]

The overall trajectory is also that PA/WI/MI/OH will have even higher percentage of whites without college education than 2016.

Trump won an EC he should have lost looking at popular vote margin. The same repeating in 2020 with an even bigger popular vote margin is possible.

Trump's margins in PA/MI/WI were razor thin and NBC/Marist has him well underwater in those states. Also at some point if you increase the popular vote margin you start pushing FL/AZ/GA/NC, especially as the differences come from demographics that are underrepresented in the Rust Belt. Yes, winning the popular vote and losing the Electoral College is possible, but Trump was already pretty close to the realistic limit there and if he's sitting at 35/60 approval going into the election (and, again, I'm not saying he will be) the Electoral College isn't going to save him.

 

[sc0la]

Also, us getting hit by a meteor and all dying is possible.

Tangentially related:
this is my internal reasoning why I always procrastinate doing stuff like cleaning out the closet / garage etc.
"If a meteor kills us all tomorrow I sure as hell don't want to waste my final day on earth cleaning out the garage."

My wife doesn't like this answer.

 

[pigeon]

Tangentially related:
this is my internal reasoning why I always procrastinate doing stuff like cleaning out the closet / garage etc.
"If a meteor kills us all tomorrow I sure as hell don't want to waste my final day on earth cleaning out the garage."

My wife doesn't like this answer.

You're supposed to do the Bayesian probability assessment when making your cost/benefit analysis. The point of the analogy is that saying something is "possible" is meaningless! Clean out your garage! Parking on the street just clutters things up!

 

[Aaron Strife]

Also keep in mind that even though people thought Trump was reprehensible and gross last year, he had no record. It was easy to justify voting for him as "well ok, he's a shady businessman, but that'll let him get things done." If we're four years in and he has no record to show for it, that benefit of the doubt goes away.

 

[whyamihere]

Trump's margins in PA/MI/WI were razor thin and NBC/Marist has him well underwater in those states. Also at some point if you increase the popular vote margin you start pushing FL/AZ/GA/NC, especially as the differences come from demographics that are underrepresented in the Rust Belt. Yes, winning the popular vote and losing the Electoral College is possible, but Trump was already pretty close to the realistic limit there and if he's sitting at 35/60 approval going into the election (and, again, I'm not saying he will be) the Electoral College isn't going to save him.

You can lose Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine save for ME-1 and still in 271 EVs if you win FL, NC, and AZ.

 

[Aaron Strife]

You can lose Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine save for ME-1 and still in 271 EVs if you win FL, NC, and AZ.

Luckily President Klobuchar will make winning Minnesota a nonissue.

I just really want to see her beat Trump 70-30 here.

 

[eBay Huckster]

You can lose Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine save for ME-1 and still in 271 EVs if you win FL, NC, and AZ.

alternately, you can win all of those

 

[Dan]

Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. And it sounds like Gary Cohn has been angling for that job for a while.

Someone correct me if any of these details are wrong, but the Fed Chairman is nominated from the Board of Governors. Cohn would have to be nominated and confirmed twice in order to become Chair.

 

[sc0la]

You're supposed to do the Bayesian probability assessment when making your cost/benefit analysis. The point of the analogy is that saying something is "possible" is meaningless! Clean out your garage! Parking on the street just clutters things up!

Look at you being a car enabler!

My garage doesn't actually fit any of our cars because it was built over 70 years ago and cars are bigger now

 

[RumbleHumble]

Luckily President Klobuchar will make winning Minnesota a nonissue.

I just really want to see her beat Trump 70-30 here.

I don't think there's much question that Kobuchar would rock Trump in MN. It's just a matter of everywhere else.

 

[BronsonLee]

ABC News Twitter:

NEW: Pres. Trump will not take action to pardon controversial former Sheriff Joe Arpaio today, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders says.