New Poll Shows Dems' Mammoth Congressional Lead for 2018 Has Disappeared

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 09:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is this saying that those that criticize him are only doing so for his personality, and not based on policy?

He has no policy. The policy is coming from those who work under him. He gets the credit but if we are being honest he is just at the top taking the heat for the rest of the administration who is done a lot of conservative things.

The slashing of regulations has been absolutely amazing and yet we never hear about it because the media is chasing tweets.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 09:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have to say I take issue with his completely neglecting the Russian propaganda attacks and generally not standing up to Putin. As a non-American that is. I can imagine there are quite a lot of domestic issues many people don't like about his leadership, debt or repealing mandate or whatever. But the one I mentioned is my biggie.

He stepped up cyber security and reinforced his commitment to NATO. That’s pretty much right in the Russians Face.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 09:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: For starters he could acknowledge the deed. Instead he turns against his own agencies and doubts their findings. Then he could make sure that there are at least some tiny new precautions for the next election in place. He could also follow through with Congress and put sanctions on Russia, but he'd rather not. He'd rather have a wonderful time with Lavrov and expose some top secret intelligence while at it. I guess what I intended to point out is that there's enough reason to have a problem with his leadership, it doesn't necessarily just stem from personal disgust (which I do have).

This Russia reaction is a bit "personal" because Putin is pulling similar stunts all over Europe. The fact that by all means he must feel emboldened by the US reaction right now means no good for our European democracies. For me that's a big loss in US leadership column. As is crossing Europe with this Iran deal and the Paris accord, but that's something else already. 

- The NK point is a legit one though. Then again, I'd prefer a functioning US, with a fully staffed state secretary and a robust intelligence and all that which is hampered under Trump, over Russia. Russia isn't a friend of yours or ours no matter what Trump or the US does. So, well.

Don’t worry we will be able to protect you guysz. We don’t need a bloated government to do so.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 11:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He has no policy. The policy is coming from those who work under him. He gets the credit but if we are being honest he is just at the top taking the heat for the rest of the administration who is done a lot of conservative things.

The slashing of regulations has been absolutely amazing and yet we never hear about it because the media is chasing tweets.

Any decision a POTUS makes has policy implications. Of course, delegating to the extreme like you describe is just undemocratic as the policy makers are supposed to be elected and the appointees and other bureaucrats just execute the policy. So either he has policies, or we have an undemocratic government.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2018, 11:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He stepped up cyber security and reinforced his commitment to NATO.   That’s pretty much right in the Russians Face.

Trump said something about supporting NATO after a year or so of saying "we don't need it".

All he has done for cyber security is say we need to have some.  I think he had an executive order to tell someone to get on that.

That's it.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2018, 11:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, I wouldn't exactly describe my Dad as "uninformed".  He retired from his UAW job at age 51, he's continued to work for 20 years and counting since.  Why?  Because he don't want to touch is pension or 401K, and he likes going on cruises 3 or 4 times per year.

Heck, Dad's the one who swayed me over to Trump, when I was still skeptical.  He said that all that bloviating BS is just an act, this guy has our true interests at heart.  

My dad is 72 and still works because when Regan and his cronies destroyed the union he was in he had to dig out from under the horrible economy that followed.  Knock on wood my parents are doing well enough now.  He ended up with a good, family owned company where he's been for 30 years.  And now he has good insurance with them.

With apologies to your father: All that bloviating is exactly who Trump is.  Look at how he speaks off the cuff versus a scripted speech.  Look how he tweets.  Hell look at the times he's been sued and lost.

Trump knows how to put Trump on things while other being get the blame/do the work and he gets the credit.

I certainly know that if someone doesn't recognize the way Trump is by now they aren't going to change their minds.  So I won't try.  But I can't deny his true self either.

[*michaelsean*]

I don't pay much attention to the generic polls. It's one person against another in a specific district.

[hollodero]

(01-31-2018, 11:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He stepped up cyber security and reinforced his commitment to NATO.   That’s pretty much right in the Russians Face.

Is it? Your president said 1.000 times that it maybe could be Russia, but it could also be Tschaina, or anyone really who meddled. If so, cyber security is not really against anyone specifically for him - and he suggested working together with Putin on that, of all people, so meh. Also, there are no additional precautions against online propaganda campaigns in place. And no retaliation for getting heavily involved in the US campaign by bots and publishing DNC mails. But OK.

That he doesn't abandon NATO, ah well, even Putin could not have expected that move. But point taken, sure. As for Europe's perspective, I guess at this point it's not so much about protecting us from Russian troops, it's about having a partner in fighting Russian political interference and propaganda campaigns, and there is squat from the US right now.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 11:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He stepped up cyber security and reinforced his commitment to NATO. That’s pretty much right in the Russians Face.

Those are policies, FYI.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

I learned to not trust political polls.

Even if I did trust them, I probably wouldn't trust the ones that The Daily Wire is reporting on.

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2018, 12:16 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I learned to not trust political polls.

Even if I did trust them, I probably wouldn't trust the ones that The Daily Wire is reporting on.

It's so funny to me how many people take this approach to polls, now. What happened in 2016 wasn't even that the polls got it wrong, but that's a longer discussion.

Also, Monmouth is fairly reputable.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-01-2018, 12:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's so funny to me how many people take this approach to polls, now. What happened in 2016 wasn't even that the polls got it wrong, but that's a longer discussion.

Also, Monmouth is fairly reputable.

They got the electoral wrong didn't they?

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2018, 12:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They got the electoral wrong didn't they?

They aren't designed to predict the electoral. The pundits got the electoral wrong based on the polls, but polls and models are only good for the popular vote.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-01-2018, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They aren't designed to predict the electoral. The pundits got the electoral wrong based on the polls, but polls and models are only good for the popular vote.

Can't they do a state by state poll?  

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2018, 12:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Can't they do a state by state poll?  

They can, and often individual state polls are done. But, the modeling for the presidential election polling hasn't been set up to really focus on that. With this being only the, what, third time a POTUS won the election but lost the popular vote it just hasn't been a scenario that they have designed their modeling for, plus it would require much more collaboration between polling firms (not likely) to share data and make it all work out.

We'll continue to see the focus on popular results rather than electoral, but there has been discussion in the community about how we can account for these things, with no real solutions. I've actually read academic journal articles on this because, well, I'm a nerd.

[BmorePat87]

(02-01-2018, 12:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They can, and often individual state polls are done. But, the modeling for the presidential election polling hasn't been set up to really focus on that. With this being only the, what, third time a POTUS won the election but lost the popular vote it just hasn't been a scenario that they have designed their modeling for, plus it would require much more collaboration between polling firms (not likely) to share data and make it all work out.

We'll continue to see the focus on popular results rather than electoral, but there has been discussion in the community about how we can account for these things, with no real solutions. I've actually read academic journal articles on this because, well, I'm a nerd.

And this is the issue with doing the same for a Congressional election. Republicans got 1% more of the popular vote of all Congressional races combined, but that translated into a difference of +47 seats compared to Democrats, or about 10% of seats.

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2018, 01:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: And this is the issue with doing the same for a Congressional election. Republicans got 1% more of the popular vote of all Congressional races combined, but that translated into a difference of +47 seats compared to Democrats, or about 10% of seats.

Yup. The "generic opponent" polls are junk for this very reason.

[*Nately120*]

(02-01-2018, 12:16 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I learned to not trust political polls.

Even if I did trust them, I probably wouldn't trust the ones that The Daily Wire is reporting on.

I have to admit I thought Hilary was going to win based on how much Trump was saying that the election was rigged.  It just didn't seem like an angle a person who thinks he has a shot at winning would push.  Wacky, to say the least.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-01-2018, 02:41 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I have to admit I thought Hilary was going to win based on how much Trump was saying that the election was rigged.  It just didn't seem like an angle a person who thinks he has a shot at winning would push.  Wacky, to say the least.

I don't think he thought he was going to win, and was probably a little disappointed when he did.

[*Nately120*]

(02-01-2018, 02:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think he thought he was going to win, and was probably a little disappointed when he did.

Well, like I said, I can't blame anyone for being wrong about who was going to win this election because Trump himself was pulling the "it's rigged" card, and he ended up losing the popular vote by the largest margin for any president who won the election.  How often do you see a candidate do both of those things?  


Part of me wonders if this is just a one-off thing, or if this is going to be presidential politics going forward.  If/when Trump runs in 2020 will he be talking about the election being rigged?  Will his opponent do the same thing?  Will Gary Johnson also admit the election is rigged against him, but be telling the truth?