Capitol Hill Blue
Posted By: jgw Winning - 07/31/21 05:20 PM
The Democrats are experiencing yet another attack of their progressive wing. This time they have decided to wreck the infrastructure thing by insisting that they have their way, in all things. Oh, and on the way, put another nail in the coffin of the Democratic party for next year.

If one is a Democrat one would think that party might have some with power to tamp that one down, and REALLY start to work on next year's election (of which the tamping would be one, probably important part). The real trick, in our political system, is to gain ownership of both the Senate and the House. If they can do that THEN they can start trying for the moon. Right now they should a plan not designed to turn off the entire voting middle. Anybody thinks they have even a slight chance, right now, for their needs, wants, and wins would be, I think, an expert in wishful thinking.

Think about it. Wouldn't be nice if the Dems understood that the whims of the progressive Dems and had the capacity to sit them down and explain that if they didn't win the Senate AND the house with more than 1 to 10 votes then whatever they wanted would be forever out of their ability to get ANYTHING done! Now think about the entire Democratic party agreeing on the basic messages of the entire party. Doesn't mean no local stuff - just a demonstration of their capacity, and their ability, to outclass the loons of the right. That would include an educational effort for some of the slower victims of Trump. The Right has been working, very hard to make sure the Dems recognize but they just can't seem to grasp the importance of what they are given, that their opponents just keep on demonstrating their capacity to lie, to cheat, to rebel, and dote of a man who has one the award as the Very Worst President and Businessman that America has ever produced, and run with it!

Unfortunately the Dems just can't seem to come together in any meaningful way. Most the the talking heads of TV think that and the Dems are losing and the Dems just keep on reinforcing that.

One can only hope but, so far, they have done a magnificent job of shooting the hell out of their own feet. They gotta start understanding they have win to succeed and fairy tales and wishful thinking just isn't gonna cut it.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 07/31/21 07:17 PM
Once again you are wishing for the Democratic Party to become more like the Republicans.

Punishing members who don't toe the line.

Marginalizing dissidents.


You apparently want them to establish some sort of authoritarian stance where members walk in lockstep like the Republicans so often do. Ignoring facts.

My issue isn't with progressives...it's with the moderates like Manchin and Sinema. Apparently you have no qualms with them voting with Republicans...it's the progressives who want to pass meaningful legislation you seem to have issues with.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 07/31/21 08:18 PM
I certainly don't. I like both Manchin and Sinema along with Biden when he was a senator and VP. I'd vote for both of them, I voted for Biden. But then again, I'm not a progressive. Just a non-affiliated, non-partisan swing voter. I'd certainly take Manchin or Sinema over Sanders and Warren. No doubt about that.

Now everyone's political perspectives, views are different. Not everyone sees the political world like you do nor as I do. That is what makes it interesting. This is why I study independents, they're all over the place, very interesting. Republicans and Democrats are dull as all get out. One know exactly how they'll vote, no challenge there.

Winning, now that take a certain amount of the non-affiliated, swing voters. For the Republicans, they must have a good majority of independents or lose. For Democrats, they must just keep the independent vote close. They don't need to win them. Probably just not lose them by more than 5-6 points.An example of this is 2012 where Obama lost the independent vote by 3 points and yet won the popular vote by 4. Hillary lost the independent vote by 4 points, but won the popular vote by 2. Hence just keeping the independent vote close.

The latest I have on Party affiliation is 18 Jun 2021, 24% Republican, 30% Democratic, 44% independent. Now this is very dynamic. These figures are probably way out of date, yet they're the most recent.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Winning - 07/31/21 09:00 PM
The Nazis did not have a majority in the election before Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

November 1932 German federal election

Party Votes % +/– Seats
Nazi Party 11,737,021 33.09 −4.18 196
Social Democratic Party 7,247,901 20.43 −1.15 121
Communist Party of Germany 5,980,239 16.86 +2.54 100

The problem was that the Social Democrats and the Communists refused to cooperate to keep the Nazis from seizing power.

Translated into American 2021 terms:
"The Democrats, social democrats and the rest of the Left refused to cooperate with moderates and independents in order to keep the Qanon/Trump Party from seizing power in 2022/2024."

Is this our fate?
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 07/31/21 10:03 PM
Thee seems to be some confusion. My basic thesis for the Democrats to win before they start running their mouths with desires, dreams, and all the rest - then have at it! If they were serious they would get it. Some, I guess, feel its more important to run their mouths rather than actually doing something.

Oh, I forgot the latest security moves of the Dens. In several places they have stopped bail after arrests if the person arrested is 'poor'. Then, because there is no legal way to hold the arrested they are turned loose. Apparently the Seattle authorities have now release 8 murderers because, after arrest, they were deemed 'poor'. Any an interesting aside it kind has the voters wondering about this particular insanity of the noisy left. Yet another clever move to make sure they don't win an electin! Well done!

Its kinda interesting - BOTH sides have clever ways to do absolutely NOTHING!
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Winning - 07/31/21 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by jgw
Thee seems to be some confusion. My basic thesis for the Democrats to win before they start running their mouths with desires, dreams, and all the rest - then have at it! If they were serious they would get it. Some, I guess, feel its more important to run their mouths rather than actually doing something.

Oh, I forgot the latest security moves of the Dens. In several places they have stopped bail after arrests if the person arrested is 'poor'. Then, because there is no legal way to hold the arrested they are turned loose. Apparently the Seattle authorities have now release 8 murderers because, after arrest, they were deemed 'poor'. Any an interesting aside it kind has the voters wondering about this particular insanity of the noisy left. Yet another clever move to make sure they don't win an electin! Well done!

Its kinda interesting - BOTH sides have clever ways to do absolutely NOTHING!

I was under the impression that bail reform of that kind only applied to misdemeanors, and that crimes like murder did not qualify.
What drove the move on bail was the fact that there was a glut of people who had already spent more time in jail than the max sentence for their misdemeanors just waiting for trial, because they couldn't afford to get bailed out.

Where did you read this?
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 07/31/21 10:13 PM
Interesting Jeffrey, a big difference is Germany had multi parties, we have two major ones and a bunch of third parties that don't count. Also the NAZI's didn't write Germany's election laws as Republicans and Democrats do here, today. Germany at that time was under a proportionality parliamentary system, not a two party system.

Lots of differences. Today, Democrats and Republicans expect independents to bend to their will. Neither really tries to attract independents although, independents do decide national elections, 2024 in your case.

Also you're ignoring the fact a majority of independents don't like Trump as proven in the 2018 midterms, 54-42 for Democratic congressional candidates and the 2020 presidential, 54-41 for Biden over Trump.

2022 is up for grabs, at least the House in my estimation. The Democrats should pick up 1-3 seats in the senate unless something very unforeseen happens that goes against the democrats. I also don't think either party can unite with independents or that they can't do much to attract them as a group as they're way too diverse. Trump has managed to drive the majority of independents into the Democrats column. That's where they stand today, tomorrow is unknown. But as long as Trump keeps being the face and the leader of the GOP, that coalition, fragile as it is, will probably hold.

2024 will depend on the two candidates. Please, no more Hillary's which a vast majority of independent didn't like. Biden was likable, Hillary wasn't and neither is Trump. Now 2022, I think at the moment the senate is safe. Until redistricting takes place, the house is an unknown factor. Probably much depends on whether the Democratic controlled congress does something or passes something that make independents angry at them. I would add if Trump fades away, that would dim the the democratic prospects of keeping the house.

I think the best way to keep independents happy is not to over do it. Certainly not to pass something a majority of Americans are against; Bill Clinton in 1994 and Obama in 2010 made that mistake. It resulted in a 54 and 63 seat loss. I'd also say lose the stupid slogans. Greger doesn't agree with me, but I think and the polls show Defund the Police slogan was the main reason the democrats lost 13 house seats, 2 state legislatures and a governorship in 2020.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 07/31/21 10:25 PM
A friend told me that one and the chances he is wrong are strong - I think. Still, the mess was serious about the poor in jail and I agreed to that. However, Seattle has been simply letting almost all arrests out as soon as possible and that includes those who have doing violent things, long records of bad, etc. One would have thought they would think it all through and make specific conditions for release. That did not happen and has not happened.

I have a daughter that works in an attorney office. They tend to talk about this stuff and, apparently, this was not thought through by them that did it. Its a little like the Seattle Council member (now gone) who publicly stated that it was ok for the poor to steal because they were poor and should never be arrested. OH, the results of stuff like this is a continuing exit of members of the Seattle police department - they are just giving up. Unfortunately I think the rule of the left will just go away because this stuff - they seem to be working pretty hard at making sure of this one.

There are sins and the worst political sin is going to extremes and we are seeing more and more of that and that's also unfortunate.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Winning - 08/01/21 03:31 AM
And yet ....

Fewer than 1 in 5 support 'defund the police' movement, USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds

Eighteen percent, and that shows that it can only mean that an incredible tsunami of cash is being poured into propaganda apparatus that tries to paint a majority of Dems as being in favor of "Defund the Police".

Oh...now I expect to hear protestations of hyperbole, as the Right continues to glibly weaponize the unfortunate to score rhetorical points, and demand to know why there's no theatrical flourishes from the Left: "Why aren't you beating the crap out of the Defund the Police people and holding up their severed heads to prove to us how much you love law and order!!!

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/01/21 01:22 PM
Not really. Democrats had a huge cash advantage in 2020.

Democratic candidates and groups have spent $6.9 billion, compared to $3.8 billion for Republicans. Democrats' spending falls to $5.5 billion when excluding spending by billionaire presidential candidates Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/

Studying exit polls, one sees a lot of ticket splitters, especially independents voting for Biden, then Republican down ballot. A good example of this is 41% of independents voting for Republican for Trump, 48% of independents voted for Republican congressional candidates, 51% of independents voted for Republican senate candidates, 54% for Republican governor candidates.

Defund the police didn't stick to Biden, maybe some of it did, but the independents dislike of Trump was more than enough to overcome that slogan. But apparently, the dislike of Trump didn't reach much below Biden.

An historical note here, Biden became only the second candidate to win the popular vote on his way to winning the presidency to lose seats in the house in this nation's history. The only other time was in 1884, Grover Cleveland who lost 18 house seats while winning the presidency and the popular vote 48.9 to 48.3%.

The thing is it wasn't money as the democrats had a huge advantage there. Just the presidency alone, Biden spent 1.6 billion to Trump's 1.1 billion rounding off.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race

I think the bottom line is Defund the Police was just a dumb slogan where independents took defund to mean defund as in Webster's definition. Not reform. Thus the huge difference in the percentage of vote for Trump 41% and congressional Republicans 48%. That's a lot of ticket splitters. 41.3 million independents voted in 2020, 16.9 million for Trump, but 19.8 million for Republican congressional candidates going by CNN exit poll percentages. Just independents alone had almost 3 million ticket splitters.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/01/21 03:53 PM
Quote
My basic thesis for the Democrats to win before they start running their mouths with desires, dreams, and all the rest - then have at it!
As I recall...Democrats won the last election. They have complete control Congress and the White House...should they choose to exercise it.

They have chosen instead to let Republicans determine which bills to vote for and which bills not to. As per the wishes of Manchin and Sinema.
Biden promised $15 an hour. He backed off that immediately and we will never hear another word of it. He promised a lot of things to progressive voters. He has already reneged on each and every one of them. M4A is DOA. Education and healthcare kicked to the side of the road. He is asking Republicans for permission before he does anything.

You said:
Quote
The Democrats are experiencing yet another attack of their progressive wing. This time they have decided to wreck the infrastructure thing by insisting that they have their way, in all things. Oh, and on the way, put another nail in the coffin of the Democratic party for next year.

It's okay if they wreck the infrastructure thing.
Like the ACA it doesn't go far enough. It's already too little and too late. It's another can kicked down the road. Another piece of legislation that will put money into corporate pockets and make the working guys' life a little harder.

If the left doesn't hold Democrat's toes to the fire who will...???

The Right that's who.

Is that what you really want?
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/01/21 05:37 PM
The Dems won by the skin of their teeth by a whole vote in the senate and lost something like 5 seats in the house. Are you kidding? Oh, I see, you actually believe that winning by one, in the senate is actually winning? I gotta say, I envy your faith and wish you good health.

Dems have only created a new mess for themselves. They actually work very hard to either flat out lose or win by a hair. Apparently just flat out winning is unfair.

I just wished they would actually start to win. They got the ammunition but they just can't seem to pull the trigger. Instead they come up with crap like "Defund the Police" and lose. We have had arguments about words here several times. Usually those who don't get it are very proud of their cleverness and ignore the results.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/01/21 07:29 PM
Actual results from Nov 2020, Democrats win the presidency, lose 13 house seats, 2 state legislatures, 1 governorship and gain 1 senate seat trailing the GOP in the senate 50-48. In Jan 2021, the Democrats picked up both Georgia senate seats for a 50-50 tie.

The Democrats were lucky due to Georgia having the unique runoff law of if no candidate receives 50% plus 1 vote, there will be a runoff. In any other state, Republicans, Perdue and Loffler would have won those seat in Nov without the runoff law letting the Republican maintain control of the senate.Even with ranked voting, the Libertarian candidate received 2.4% of the vote, both Republicans would have won in Nov without the runoff.

I like the runoff law. It's still in place and hasn't been tinkered with.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/02/21 07:15 PM
I prefer what we have in Washington state. We have a primary. The top two candidates, regardless of party then battle it out in the finals. Nothing complex, just straight on voting and the top two candidates face off.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/02/21 08:04 PM
That's what is known as a jungle primary. Louisiana has had that for a few decades now. Here in Georgia, we use it for special elections. All candidates regardless of party are on the ballot. Then is no one receives 50% plus one vote, the top two go to a runoff.

We had that in our congressional district 6 a few years back and in a special senate race last year. I like it too.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/08/21 06:22 PM
We are the third most populated country in the world. There are two that are bigger, in populace than we; China and India. Both hold approximately 3 times as many people as we. We have something like 360,000,000 people in America. I am not sure how, exactly, a nation can actually get that many people to agree on a single thing - just one single thing! Nations with a lot of people tend to have problems within. China does is it with a tight rein on its people and India is approaching that point right now. I wonder what would happen if the United States actually broke into two parts, probably north and south. That would leave each with a smaller population to deal with which, I suspect, would help in the virtual war that goes on, between the two, every day.

I suspect, in the end a division between the two would probably help the situation. I am equally convinced that should the US split then each nation would be determined to get the other under its sway.

so, wouldn't make an ounce of difference...........
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 08/08/21 07:27 PM
I think it would have worked out differently if the North had given all the property in the South to the former slaves and made every former slave-owner into a slave themselves, and all their progeny slaves for 100 years. Just a thought experiment
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/09/21 05:44 PM
I watched a show on how we finished up after winning the civil war. It was going fine until Lincoln bought the farm and then it kinda collapsed and now we get to live with that. I never understood it. My wife liked to travel down there and we would go to those little confederate 'museums' dedicated to the confederates and run by elderly women and I wondered just why they were there. It was, and probably still is, very strange. They actually built a story about the confederacy that many believe to this day.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/10/21 04:32 PM
Quote
It was going fine until Lincoln bought the farm and then it kinda collapsed and now we get to live with that.

Lincoln didn't "buy the farm" he was murdered. Assassinated by a pro-South sympathizer.
It's a little-known fact that back in the day...vice presidents were chosen from the opposition. Lincoln's successor was not politically aligned with him and had an entirely different plan for the post-war South.

Lincoln might as well have handed the reins to Donald Trump.

What occurred was chaos. To the folks actually living through those times in the south, the pre-war days were far superior to the post-war days and so those good times became legendary.

That story has been passed down through the generations. Many still fall for it.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/10/21 06:48 PM
"buy the farm" actually means he died in the line of duty and "murdered" is fine with me and you are flat out right about what happened.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/10/21 07:13 PM
Oh, we are, I'm afraid going to be entertained whilst the house Dems stop the infrastructure thing which will give them the win in the elections next year. The Republicans will go after the Dems by pointing out that they stopped the deal which would have fixed their streets, bridges, etc. and they will be telling the absolute truth. I really don't want this to happen but they are gearing up, bigtime, to prove their point which, apparently, is that they will sacrifuce any and everything to prove their determination to get EVERYTHING they want or nobody gets anything.

Pelosi will try to rein them in but, I fear, its a lost cause. I can actually get even worse in that before the house Dems are through they will also get rid of the filibuster so when the Republicans take both the house and the senate they will be able, basically, to do any damned thing they want and the only thing stopping them will be Biden.

I REALLY hope none of that is going to happen!
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/10/21 11:52 PM
I'm not sure what will happen in the house. There's been stories the House progressives should ransom the infrastructure until they get what they want, another on how many changes the house will make to it, thus making passage once more in the senate impossible. But who to believe? I think I'll just wait and see.

One more article was the House Democrats should pass the bill as is to ensure they, all of us get what's there. Then the House can take up their additional stuff the progressives wanted later. sort of a two tier approach. But that wouldn't work and it would fail in the senate.

I've come to the conclusion that if we're going to get an infrastructure bill, it will be the one the senate just passed. It's a battle of hard infrastructure vs. soft infrastructure.

It is said politics is the art of the possible. I'd be a pragmatist on this, take what I can today, come back tomorrow for the more or the rest. At least get something. Get what is possible. Put the impossible on the back burner for another day. That's better than nothing. At least in my book.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 08/11/21 03:12 AM
Originally Posted by jgw
...Pelosi will try to rein them in but, I fear, its a lost cause..!
Nancy is an extremely experienced Speaker of the House. She knows her Caucus extremely well. Fear not, all is good. smile
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 08/11/21 03:13 AM
Originally Posted by perotista
I've come to the conclusion that if we're going to get an infrastructure bill, it will be the one the senate just passed. .
Agreed.

The progressives will get what they want in the other infrastructure bill. Bernie and AOC are on it. smile
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/11/21 03:25 PM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
Originally Posted by perotista
I've come to the conclusion that if we're going to get an infrastructure bill, it will be the one the senate just passed. .
Agreed.

The progressives will get what they want in the other infrastructure bill. Bernie and AOC are on it. smile

Eggs-actly.

I dunno where JGW gets the notion that progressives are uncompromising. We have compromised on every single issue!

We expect to compromise on every issue in the future.

It is moderates who are unwilling to compromise. Moderates either want to do nothing at all or want to do too little to solve the problem at hand.

It was not wild-eyed leftist extremists who got us where we are today...

It was steady moderate governance. Never swinging more than a degree or two to the left or right.

I'm good with the Senate bill. I'm also good with the Squad threatening to vote against it on principle. Oddly enough...this is how compromise works. Each faction seeks to advance its position without giving up too much in the bargain.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/11/21 06:33 PM
This may be one of those occasions where the House must pass the exact bill the senate sends them without a single change. I fear if changes are made and the revised bill including the house changes wouldn't stand a chance of passing in the senate.

I could be wrong, but it seems we'll get all hard infrastructure with no soft or none at all. When talking infrastructure, most Americans only think of bridges, roads,etc.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/12/21 08:54 PM
Most likely it will pass.

Ya'll seem to think progressives are complete fools with no concept of political strategy.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/12/21 09:19 PM
Maybe it's not the progressives or maybe it is. Maybe it's Speaker Pelosi or maybe it's the progressives telling her to give them what they want or all fails. Time will tell.

Nancy Pelosi holding bipartisan US$1.2 trillion infrastructure bill 'to hostage’

https://www.news.com.au/world/nancy...e/video/86465b0efe6377ba35bd24187b86aa36

Lot's of maybe's, still don't know who to beleive.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Winning - 08/12/21 11:14 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Most likely it will pass.

Ya'll seem to think progressives are complete fools with no concept of political strategy.

No. But like every other group, there are enough fools that don't, and this is one of those times where it shows.
I'm grateful for the progressives who do have strategic skills.
I'm also grateful for the mainstream and moderates who possess such skills.

The problem we're having is that the one or two from each side who don't are clubbing each other like baby seals.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/13/21 02:23 AM
One's political strategy depends on what one exactly wants. How important it is that you get what you want. It also depends on how far one is willing to go. To the brink, then pull back and pass what is available or go past the brink which could doom the entire package or legislation in the quest to get what you want.

I go by the old political adage of "Politics is the art of the possible." I stated that many times. A strategy to gain more than what is possible will lead to failure or instead of getting 50%, 80% of what you want that is possible, you end up with nothing.

Either way, it's still a political strategy. One is a winning strategy, getting what is possible or available to come back at a latter date to try to the rest, the other is a gamble of all in, win big, gain everything or lose big and end up with nothing.

I'm sure on this infrastructure bill, Schumer has let Speaker Pelosi know that any changes would certainly lose the 19 Republicans who voted for it in the senate along with possibly Manchin and Sinema.. It seems the House Republicans are dead set against this bill, at least from what I've read so far. The Democrats have 222 members, 218 needed to pass it.

I don't know how this will turn out. If moderates or progressive democrats try to change the original bill from the senate or vote against it, I do know failure to pass this would be handing the GOP a good campaign issue for next year's midterms. I would add, if the Democrats are to retain the House next year, they need Biden to remain a popular president. Both President Biden and House democrats need this to pass in order for Biden to remain popular, over 50% approval in my estimation.

Biden today is right at 50.0%. The lowest he has been since inauguration day.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

Worst yet, independents give Biden a 47% approval. Again for the first time since inauguration day Biden has been below 50% among independents. One last thing, independents give Democrats in congress only a 25% favorable, 63% unfavorable. Republicans in congress get a 26% favorable, 62% unfavorable. Independents give congress a 10% approval rating vs. 66% disapproval. Now this congressional approval includes all of congress, not just Democrats or just Republicans. But one needs to remember it's the Democrats who are in control of congress. It's the Democrats in congress that's in the public's eye, much more than the Republicans since the Democrats are in control. Take that anyway you wish.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/13/21 05:12 PM
more fun from the democrats.

Moderate House Democrats threaten to blow up infrastructure negotiations

https://www.yahoo.com/news/moderate...frastructure-negotiations-133242084.html

It's seems like the Dems actually want to give back the house to the Republicans. It seems to me, in my view the budget and the infrastructure bill are two different things although probably a majority of democrats view them as the same.

Oh well, each side does have their own political strategy. Which side will pull back or will both step over the brink where perhaps both the infrastructure bill and the 3.5 trillion budget goes down the drain for some trying to get more than what is possible.

Time will tell.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/13/21 09:02 PM
Quote
The problem we're having is that the one or two from each side who don't are clubbing each other like baby seals.

Nine moderates are threatening to sink the bill if they don't get their way. No complaints here about that though...it's only when progressives speak up that folks get all up in arms here.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Winning - 08/16/21 04:18 AM
Originally Posted by Greger
Quote
The problem we're having is that the one or two from each side who don't are clubbing each other like baby seals.

Nine moderates are threatening to sink the bill if they don't get their way. No complaints here about that though...it's only when progressives speak up that folks get all up in arms here.

It's not that I am not complaining, I am waiting to see how it plays out.
Hopefully it's just posturing and hopefully Pelosi gets it sorted out.
Yes, agreed...it's pretty despicable when a handful of moderates try to kill a bill that should have wide support.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/16/21 01:12 PM
As I've been reading this, the nine moderates want the House to vote on the infrastructure bill first, then the budget second as they're two separate bills. Without the vote on the infrastructure bill first, they won't vote for the budget. The progressives want the vote on the budget first before the infrastructure bill as they tied their vote for the infrastructure bill, for or against based on the budget passing first.

It seems for the moderates, it's vote on the infrastructure first and if not, a no vote on the budget. For progressives, it a vote on the budget first or a no vote on infrastructure.

Anyway, from what I've been reading the battle is over which bill goes first. Each side tying their vote for or against on the second bill being decided whether their bill goes first or second.

I had a problem with word kill at first, but perhaps you're right. Moderates will kill the budget if the infrastructure bill doesn't get voted on first, the progressives will kill the infrastructure bill if the budget doesn't get voted on first. At least that is gist of what I've been reading.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/16/21 03:26 PM
The simple fact is that the Dems are pooping in their own nest - again! They will not disappoint the Republicans! They work hard at this and I, for one, am really sick and tired of it. They get my vote because the other side is, basically, bat s*** crazy! the Dems are not crazy but more like 8th graders trying to get into trouble. I have stated my own wishes as to what I think they should be doing and that hasn't changed. I have predicted what they will be doing and that is, obviously, not going to change. Just like a bunch of out of control children each of which gets their way or they will screw it ALL up! I suspect, by the elections next year they will have disgusted just about every voter there is so the voting will probably be low if anybody actually cares.

Its just incredible. Their opposition does virtually everything they can to turn off voters who are not true believers. That being the case the Dems see a chance to act out too! I guess its a competition!
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/16/21 05:13 PM
Election wise, I don't think all of this posturing means much if anything come Nov 2022. It may for the present and the next few weeks. But not for the midterms in Nov 2022. Too far away, Americans have extremely short memories. For the short term, Biden needs the infrastructure bill much more than getting the budget through which congress has until 30 Sep 2021 to pass it. Election wise, I see no repercussions for the democrats in this fight as the midterms are far away.

Now independents, which decide elections don't like congress, either party in congress, period. Only 10% of independents approve of the job congress is doing, 66% disapprove with the rest are in either the neither approve or disapprove or don't know columns. Although approval/disapproval includes both major parties in congress, it is the Democrats in charge or control of congress and hence chances are independent voters will more likely take their disapproval out on the Democrats than the Republicans.

History shows only twice has the party who held the presidency gained seats in the house during the first midterm election. FDR and the Democrats in 1934 and G.W. Bush and the Republicans in 2002.

Regardless of the above, I think Biden and the democrats in congress, for the present need to pass the infrastructure bill much more than the budget. The infrastructure bill has been touted as bipartisan all over the news. Independents like it. It shows how they want the two parties to work together and compromise. That is how they think congress should operate. Compromise, come together to get things accomplished. Not to go off on one's own, stand on principle if you will. Democrats torpedoing the infrastructure bill could have dire consequences. No big thing as far as independents are concerned on the budget bill. This is just my opinion on what the numbers show.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 08/17/21 01:49 AM
I'm with you on that: Pass the infrastructure bill un-touched in the House, and get Biden to sign it. That will be a huge accomplishment, with a Senate that has Manchin and Senema unwilling to act as Democrats. With that alone, Democrats can probably take enough Senate seats in 2022, that they don't need Manchin and Senema to dump the filibuster, and pass the new Voting Rights act. Then it's all over for Republican minority rule.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/17/21 04:15 AM
Be careful Pondering. Don't get too over confident. Sure, as of today the Democrats most likely will pick up Pennsylvania with the Retirement of R Toomey. Wisconsin is another possibility, R Johnson has said he would serve only two terms. Johnson isn't liked much in Wisconsin even if he runs for a third. Wisconsin is at least a 50-50 tossup to lean democratic. With R Burr retiring in North Carolina, North Carolina becomes another pure tossup state. These three make a possible gain of 3 seats for the democrats. The rest of the Republican held states look fairly safe at the moment, although Florida may give the democrats a shot at another. Hence my forecast as of tonight of a democratic pick up of 1-3 seats.

There's only 2 Democratic seats that may be in trouble. If Republican Gov Sununu runs against D incumbent Hassan in New Hampshire, that would make that state a pure tossup. If Sununu doesn't run, Maggie is safe. Then there is Georgia, D Warnock chances are also 50-50 at the moment for retaining his seat. Warnock may be a slight favorite today. But if so, not by much. The Democrats have the advantage of defending only 14 senate seats in 2022 vs. the Republicans having to defend 20.

Now the House, I've said all along no predictions until after redistricting. But the Republicans have a much better chance of winning back the house than the senate. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans do take back the House in 2022 while the democrats increase their advantage in the senate. That is probably the most likely scenario today. But until redistricting, that is just a stab in the dark.

There's a real possibility the Democrats after Nov 2022 will have a 53-47 advantage in the senate, but will be in the minority in the House which would make doing away with the filibuster meaningless.

Another thing to keep in mind is in 2024 the Democrats will be defending 23 seats to the GOP 10 in the senate. The republicans will have a much better chance of regaining the senate in 2024 than in 2022.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 08/17/21 09:31 PM
I'm assuming Democratic control of the Senate and holding the House in 2022 would mean the filibuster is dead and the new voting rights act passed. That and the latest demographics shown in the census pretty much takes the Republican prospects out of the picture. Just the demographic changes alone were always going to kill the Republicans, unless they suddenly stop being such racist a-holes depending on voter suppression. If they did what their post-election-loss analyses said, and tried to recruit more people of color and Spanish speakers, they might hang in there for a while. Not decades, though.

I think Covid19 might change the outcomes in some purple races as well. Anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers seem to be heavily Republican for some reason, even though Trump started Operation Warpspeed AND got vaccinated! When a Trump voter dies, he usually stops voting Republican. Do they see the light when they almost die? We shall see.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/17/21 10:37 PM
I think relying on demographics to give the Democratic Party control of congress and the government forever is a mistake. White Liberals paint Trump a racist. But Trump received 12% of the black vote in 2020. That's the largest percentage of the black vote any Republican candidate for president had received since Gerald Ford received 15% back in 1976.

Trump also received 32% of the Hispanic vote in 2020, That's a higher percentage of any Republican presidential candidate going back to Reagan in 1984 with the exception of 2000 and 2004 when G.W. Bush received 35% and 40% of the Hispanic vote. Reagan received 37% of the Hispanic vote in 1984. Bush spoke Spanish and made several political ads in Spanish. On the border area, Trump received 41% of the Hispanic vote in Texas, 38% in New Mexico and 37% in Arizona. Contrast to a state far away from the border, New York for example, Trump received only 22% of the Hispanic vote there.

Trump received 34% of the Asian vote, the most since 2004 when G.W. Bush received 41%. Comparing Trump to other Republican presidential candidates who weren't painted as racist, he did pretty well among minorities. Why was that?

My question is, is this a trend, minorities beginning to vote more Republican or was 2020 a one shot deal? I suppose we'll have to wait until 2024 to find out.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/18/21 04:27 PM
Quote
I think relying on demographics to give the Democratic Party control of congress and the government forever is a mistake. White Liberals paint Trump a racist. But Trump received 12% of the black vote in 2020.

But the black vote is only one demographic, Republicans face challenges in all of them.

As America becomes less white the Republican Party will become less white. The Republican Party will never become less conservative though.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/18/21 05:11 PM
We'll see. Parties always adjust. The White vote has been consistent since 1972 with the Republican candidates receiving 55-58% of the white vote with the exception of 1992 and 1996 mainly due to Ross Perot candidacy. Blacks too have been consistent since 1980 giving the Democratic candidate 90% of the vote with the exception of 1992 and 1996 when Perot drew 7% and 4% which caused the democratic candidate to fall below 90%. Trump Received 57 and 58% of the white vote in 2016 and 2020. But increased his black vote from 8% to 12% from 2016 to 2020. Biden received 87% of the black vote, the lowest for a Democrat since 1980 again with 1992 and 1996 being exceptions.Even Mondale in Reagan's landslide year of 1984 received 90% of the black vote.

Hispanics has been much more flexible than either whites or blacks. Giving Reagan 35 and 37%, G.H. W. Bush 30 and 25%, Dole 21%, G.W. Bush 35 and 44%, McCain 31%, Romney 27%, Trump 28 and 32%. So we have a range between 21-44% for Hispanic's historically voting for Republican presidential candidates.

The Republican Party knew they had to do something after Romney's defeat, they began an outreach toward Hispanics, which came to an abrupt end with Trump. Yet Trump did better among Hispanics than Romney with 28 and 32% while seemingly trying to alienate them.

Trend or one shot, there's the history as brief as I can make it. Now here's the latest generic congressional poll which asked which party one would vote for in the up coming 2022 congressional election. This is nationwide, not district by district which can't be done until redistricting occurs, so put as much stock in it as you care too.

Overall 42-40 for Democratic congressional candidates over Republican congressional candidates.
Whites 46-36 Republican over democratic
Blacks 72-14 Democratic over Republican
Hispanics 51-31 Democratic over Republican
Asian and other races, plus mixed, 41-41 tie

The rest are in the other, voting for a third party candidate or not sure so the totals won't add up to 100%

https://scottrasmussen.com/generic-ballot-democrats-42-republicans-40/


I added the generic ballot as it seems blacks are becoming more willing to vote Republican while whites could be leaving the GOP ranks. Trend or one shot? Perhaps the midterms will help answer that as for minorities becoming more willing to vote Republican.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/23/21 12:07 AM
This is interesting, it may effect the midterms much more than the evacuation of Afghanistan which I think will be short term. This may have lasting repercussions, election wise for the midterms, that is.

Deeply Divided, House Democrats Battle Over Priorities and Politics

https://www.yahoo.com/news/deeply-divided-house-democrats-battle-165019605.html

I'm looking at this from the upcoming midterm elections. The in-fighting, every party goes through that from time to time. That doesn't bother me much. What does is that progressives are trying to primary out incumbents, a lot of incumbents that won in swing and republican leaning districts because their rhetoric or ideology were suited more to those districts than a progressive challenger who isn't an incumbent would be.

An open seat is much easier to switch than beating an incumbent. I don't have an accurate rating for the house as to seats won or lost and won't have until redistrcting is completed. But it doesn't take a political rocket scientist to figure out keeping as many incumbents as possible to run next Nov increases your odds of keeping the house. Having no incumbent, makes losing that district much easier especially if the challenger doesn't match the districts ideology or partisan bent.

Of course I'm talking elections, chances of winning and losing elections with little thought to political ideology or agenda. The only realistic numbers we have to go by with the house without redistricting is the generic congressional ballot. The question is who would you vote for in the coming midterms in Nov 2022, the republican candidate or the democratic candidate? This is nationally, nationwide without regards to districts. Since 1 Aug I have seen the generic congressional ballot go from a plus 7 democratic, 48-41 down to a plus 1 today, 47-46 Democratic. Not good news for the Democrats, although I figure Afghanistan has a lot to do with the GOP rise. Especially among independents, swing voters, non-affiliated etc.

Throw in Democratic House retirements meaning open seats, add some Democratic incumbents being primaried out, the closing of the generic ballot, you're probably looking at a 15-20 seat loss in the house. That is as of today. But that isn't set in concrete. The concrete hasn't begun to dry yet, heck, the concrete hasn't been poured yet and won't be until redistricting is completed.

For someone who looks at these things from an election perspective, who studies independents, swing voters intensely. Primaring out incumbents who give you the best chance of retaining the house and winning elections is rather stupid. At least to me.

Of course, all of this may mean nothing a couple of months down the road, the Democrats could have patched up their differences and let a bit of political common sense when it comes to winning election come to the forefront. Then again, maybe not. I've seen both parties choose candidates solely based on ideology that have no chance at winning the district or state in the general election, not much surprised me anymore. We'll see.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/23/21 01:17 AM
One more thing that's just came in.

Biden approval rating hits lowest point yet amid Afghanistan chaos, Covid surge

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bidens-job-ratings-decline-amid-130000035.html

I agree with the conclusion of one of the pollsters that the fall has more to do with COVID, the Delta version than with Afghanistan. From the article.

“The promise of April has led to the peril of August,” Horwitt said, arguing that Covid — more than Afghanistan — has dented Biden’s numbers. “It is the domestic storm, Covid’s delta wave, that is causing more difficulties at this stage here at home and for President Biden.”

McInturff agrees.

“The best way to understand this poll is to forget Afghanistan,” he said.

Another indication is back in April 44% of all Americans believed the country was headed in the right direction, today that percentage is down to 33%. What's worse is today only 24% of independents believe the country is headed in the right direction. Down from 41% last April. Not good news for retaining the House.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

I let the numbers speak for themselves.Not the heart nor who I want to win. It's all about the numbers.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/23/21 01:55 PM
So the way I see this...Republicans are actually beating Biden by refusing to get vaccinated and dying.

That's a lot more dedication to The Party than Democrats are usually willing to muster and I'm not sure if they can keep this up.

It's become a death cult now. Even Trump was booed at a rally when he suggested his minions get vaccinated.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/23/21 03:04 PM
It's really not Republicans and Democrats I keep track of. I know how they'll vote. It's independents that decide election. As for vaccinations, I haven't seen or haven't paid any attention to the percentages via party.

What I'm interested in is actions that could influence independents as Gallup puts their percentage at 43% of the electorate as of 21 July 2021. Which that 43% can be broke down into independents lean Republican 15, lean Democratic 18, true or pure independents with no leans, 10, total 43%. No figures for August yet.

What this means is Democrats counting independent lean Democratic make up 45% of the electorate vs. the Republicans along with independents lean Republican at 41%

Keep in mind those who identify themselves with either major party vote for their party's candidates on average 92% of the time. while independents who lean toward one party or the other will vote for the party they lean toward 73% of the time on average.

The bad news since last month is independents are now stating they'll vote for the Republican candidate for the House,40%, for the Democratic candidate 35%, rest are undecided/not sure. Although I don't put much stock in the generic congressional polls. It's the best I have to go on until redistricting occurs.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/23/21 03:55 PM
Statistically, I'm not a very good independent.

Am not and will never be a Democrat, yet I vote for them 100% of the time.

I'm also white, southern and rural...or was before they forced me to move out of the swamp.

I'm uneducated. Worked in construction.

I live in the deep south.

And I am a socialist with a fondness for Marxist philosophy.

The path to social democracy lies through the Democratic party, not around it.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/23/21 04:39 PM
I agree Greger, a social democracy does lie with the Democrats and not the GOP. I'm different, although a political junkie, I have been since I first watched the Democratic and Republican National Conventions back in 1956. I'm no party hound. For some reason the intricacies of elections to include forecasting them became an obsession with me. I never was too interested in who won or lost, just getting my forecasts right.

Most political junkies are ideologues and party hound dogs, I may be the lone exception to that. I pick up on things that effect elections, if they don't have an effect on an election outcome, they usually don't interest me. So an article about progressives primaring out more moderate, better suited incumbents to win the districts they're in, that was of major interest. It mean the Democrats or at least progressive are putting ideology over winning elections. Dimming their chances of retaining the House. So too is this article from CNN.

How the political environment is moving toward Republicans

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/22/politics/special-elections-republicans-analysis/index.html

Intra-party squabbles usually don't interest me. But when Biden and the Democrats need the infrastructure bill much more than the 3.4 trillion dollar budget to maintain a winning and positive edge, especially among independents, that makes me wonder if the Dems care about winning elections.

As for me, I was a white Georgia farm boy prior to a 47 year career in the army. 21 years active duty, 26 more as a department of the army civilian. I left Georgia when drafted in 1966 and didn't return until 1987 going to work at Ft. McPherson near Atlanta. Since then I moved back out into the country. I never liked big cities, a big city is any city with more than 10,000 folks in my book.

My voting habits, Mostly Democratic until Reagan. Mostly Republican during Reagan and G.H.W. Bush, then all over the place from 1992 on which included quite a few votes for third party candidates.. I've come to despise both major parties as I think they're both putting party above country. I look on myself as a swing voter, not as an independent.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/24/21 06:19 PM
I'd be a swing voter too if Republicans offered up the occasional sensible candidate.

My inclination, more often than not, is to simply blow off the whole thing and sit on the couch with the other lefties. Perhaps if I were centrist I could see the value in an occasional moderate Republican. But I'm not.

And I don't.

Predictions are my main game too, and things are sliding downhill for Biden. But who and what are Republicans going to counter with?

Can Trump win again...? Are they determined to elect the least qualified candidate available...? Will Independents and swing voters go back to Trump...or a Trump-like troglodyte like DeSantis...? Because Biden couldn't MAKE Republicans get the vaccine...? Because he ended a trillion dollar decades-long war and everything didn't go smoothly...?

Or because a couple of hotly contested bills don't pass.

You're grumbling because progressives hope to make gains against centrist democrats by running against them in the primaries...as though this is going to throw the whole election.

I'm pretty sure this is how elections are supposed to work...people of various beliefs and ideologies vying to become elected representatives.

You seem to think it's best to always play it safe. Or that it's best to always stick to the centrist message.

Winning isn't everything. If all you care about is winning you wind up with the homogenous goo we have in congress right now. Incapable of accomplishing anything ever.
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Winning - 08/24/21 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
We'll see. Parties always adjust. The White vote has been consistent since 1972 with the Republican candidates receiving 55-58% of the white vote with the exception of 1992 and 1996 mainly due to Ross Perot candidacy. Blacks too have been consistent since 1980 giving the Democratic candidate 90% of the vote with the exception of 1992 and 1996 when Perot drew 7% and 4% which caused the democratic candidate to fall below 90%. Trump Received 57 and 58% of the white vote in 2016 and 2020. But increased his black vote from 8% to 12% from 2016 to 2020. Biden received 87% of the black vote, the lowest for a Democrat since 1980 again with 1992 and 1996 being exceptions.Even Mondale in Reagan's landslide year of 1984 received 90% of the black vote.

Hispanics has been much more flexible than either whites or blacks. Giving Reagan 35 and 37%, G.H. W. Bush 30 and 25%, Dole 21%, G.W. Bush 35 and 44%, McCain 31%, Romney 27%, Trump 28 and 32%. So we have a range between 21-44% for Hispanic's historically voting for Republican presidential candidates.

The Republican Party knew they had to do something after Romney's defeat, they began an outreach toward Hispanics, which came to an abrupt end with Trump. Yet Trump did better among Hispanics than Romney with 28 and 32% while seemingly trying to alienate them.

Trend or one shot, there's the history as brief as I can make it. Now here's the latest generic congressional poll which asked which party one would vote for in the up coming 2022 congressional election. This is nationwide, not district by district which can't be done until redistricting occurs, so put as much stock in it as you care too.

Overall 42-40 for Democratic congressional candidates over Republican congressional candidates.
Whites 46-36 Republican over democratic
Blacks 72-14 Democratic over Republican
Hispanics 51-31 Democratic over Republican
Asian and other races, plus mixed, 41-41 tie

The rest are in the other, voting for a third party candidate or not sure so the totals won't add up to 100%

https://scottrasmussen.com/generic-ballot-democrats-42-republicans-40/


I added the generic ballot as it seems blacks are becoming more willing to vote Republican while whites could be leaving the GOP ranks. Trend or one shot? Perhaps the midterms will help answer that as for minorities becoming more willing to vote Republican.
I love your analysis, but not your source. As far as past votes, those are mostly in stone. Rasmussen's polling, however, is often questionable. I think it's also relevant to point out that is mixing race and ethnicity. "Hispanic" is an ethnic designation, which includes such a mix of races, nationalities, and attitudes it is almost a meaningless designation, unless very carefully parsed.

Nonetheless, it is good to parse the elections to make predictions. Well done, sir.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/24/21 10:00 PM
Thank you Ponderer and Greger, it doesn't bother me one bit if the Democrats, progressive primary out more moderate candidates in several districts where the progressive isn't suited to win or the district just isn't that far left. I'll never understand how or why parties nominate candidates that can't win in the districts or states not suited for that district or state. .

But that's me, not you. I always thought elections were all about winning. I suppose I'm wrong on that. Ideology tops winning. It used to be the Republicans were the only party dumb enough to nominate candidates like Moore, Mourdock, Aiken, right wing wacko's in sure win Red states, Alabama, Indiana, Missouri that ended up losing in the general election.

In 2020 the Democrats primaried out two pro life incumbent democrats only to lose those districts. Maybe come 2022 they'll wish they hadn't done that and let the incumbent who seem sure to win be their nominee instead of a pro choice Democrat who lost.

But all in all, it's the Democrats choice, not mine. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the progressives are successful in primaring those incumbents out, how they'll do in the General Election. Mighty interesting, indeed. You may be right, they may win or they may not. Stay tuned.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 08/24/21 10:21 PM
I think the Republicans are going to primary the hell out their congressional races in 2022. The majority of the Party are Trump loyalists, and few Independents are going to vote for crazy Death Cult Big Lie supporters.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/25/21 01:27 AM
The latest scoop on the Republicans is that they plan on primaring out 10 house incumbents. Which could be counteracted by the Democrats doing the same. The difference is half of the GOP primaring out are in what is now safe districts. But that is the old district lines, not the new ones. So who knows?

There are twice as many incumbent democrats retiring at this point than Republicans. Winning an open seat whether through retirement or primaring out is much easier to switch than beating an incumbent.

This is where the Democrats have an advantage in the senate, 5 republicans are retiring, no democrats so far. The big two are Toomey PA and Burr NC which gives the Democrats an excellent chance at both of them. The other three, Portman, OH, Shelby AL and Blunt MO, should remain in GOP hands.

Now Greger got me thinking, no need to get up in the air over all these threats of primaring incumbents out. At least not until redistricting occurs. The threats of progressives against moderates and Trumpers again those who voted to impeach means nothing until the new district lines are drawn.

I got caught up in this knowing better. Nothing means anything until the new lines are drawn. Silly me on that.

This explains it better than I could. This is what I keep on eye on.

What All Those House Retirements Mean For Democrats So Far
Republican members are retiring too, but most hail from safe districts at this point.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-all-those-house-retirements-mean-for-democrats-so-far/
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/25/21 02:46 PM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
I think the Republicans are going to primary the hell out their congressional races in 2022. The majority of the Party are Trump loyalists, and few Independents are going to vote for crazy Death Cult Big Lie supporters.

Are there really any moderate Republicans left to primary? A few voted for Impeachment and a few voted for the infrastructure package but the majority remain Trump loyalists. A handful of firebrands will primary those weak links and maybe win or not.

The will is strong among republicans to turn the party into an authoritarian party. They like strong rulers who brook no nonsense from minority groups. Men who rule by decree and take the rule of law with a grain of salt.

The will to turn the Democratic Party into a leftist organization mostly doesn't exist(yet). It is a party made up of republican moderates. Neo-liberals. They like mealy-mouthed ineffectual representatives who don't make waves.

Somehow one is always getting trampled by the other...

But like Yin and Yang they seem to spin as one.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/25/21 06:28 PM
If the Dems continue with their ongoing very public personal battles they will lose. By the time of the elections nobody will have a clue as to where the Dems stand.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/25/21 07:02 PM
Intra-party battles this far out is meaningless as far as the 2022 midterms are concerned. Americans have very short memories. So too are approval and favorable ratings this far out. Too much time between now and Nov 2022 for any of this to have a meaning come the midterms. Although it's very interesting to talk about it. Remember, only twice has the party who held the presidency won seats in the house during a president's first midterm. 1934 and 2002. Influencing those midterms were the great depression and 9-11. Both events united this country behind FDR and Bush along with their party. In the 1934 midterm election the Democrats gained 93 seats. Presidential approval only goes back to Truman, so I have no idea what FDR's approval numbers were in 1934.

November presidential approval first midterm vs. gain and loses.
2022 Biden ???? Gain or loss ????
2018 Trump 39% lost 44 seats
2010 Obama 43% lost 63 seats
2002 G.W. Bush 63% gained 8 seats
1994 Bill Clinton 43% lost 54 seats
1990 G.H.W. Bush 54% lost 7 seats
1982 Reagan 43% lost 26 seats
1978 Carter 48% lost 15 seats
1970 Nixon 51% lost 12 seats

and so on. Even presidents with a positive approval rating, Nixon and G.H.W. Bush still lost seats in the house.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/26/21 03:27 PM
Originally Posted by jgw
If the Dems continue with their ongoing very public personal battles they will lose. By the time of the elections nobody will have a clue as to where the Dems stand.

It's okay if they lose!

As Pero has pointed out...even if they lose it can be considered a win!

If they don't lose too badly.

Losses are to be expected. We're hoping here that Democrats pull off a historic win by not losing too badly.

Voters might have short memories Pero, but you're asking them to forget a LOT. A disastrous end to a disastrous war. An attack on our capital by insurrectionists. The baseless claims of election fraud. An ongoing pandemic and economic crisis.

It's only a year until the election. Not really that much time for them to forget all this crap. Most have already taken sides. It's up to a handful of swing voters to decide which team they like best. And that's who will win.

Everything between now and then is political theatre.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/26/21 06:56 PM
You would be right except for one thing - they are just warming up!
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/26/21 07:01 PM
They will lose the house and the senate and have a president which, by then, will be at a low. This is exactly what happened with Obama. The onlyh difference was that Obama actually owned the house and senate for the first half of his first term. Then it all want south. One can only wonder what the Republicans can do for two years to fix the nation, or maybe not. Oh, whilst the Dems spend a lot of time blaming each other for their failure. They just don't seem to be able to actually function in any real sway. They are, however, really great at wishful thinking!
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/26/21 07:45 PM
Right now, I disagree about losing the senate. The Democrats should gain 1-3 seats there. The house, no one knows yet until redistricting is completed. Obama and the Democrats rushed and passed the ACA all by themselves with the majority of Americans against it. The ACA wasn't ready to be passed, it still needed a lot of work. But time was of the essence, Brown won a special election in Mass to replace Kennedy and once seated, that would end the filibuster proof senate majority. So the Democrats went ahead and passed it thinking they could change, correct any flaws in the legislation as all legislation have. No law or legislation is perfect from the start.

But 2010 happened. The Democrats made independents angry at them, independents voted against Democratic congressional candidates by a 57-39 margin. One of the bigger margins against one party in history by independents. Just 2 years earlier, independents voted for Obama 52-44 over McCain and for Democratic congressional candidates 52-45 over the Republican congressional candidates. What a difference 2 years make when one party makes independents angry at them.

Congressional wise the Democrats went from a plus 7 in 2008 among independents to a minus 18 in 2010, a swing of 25 points. Basically unheard of. Moral of the story, don't make independents angry at you if you want to win elections. Obama basically was a lame duck president for his last six years. Only getting anything accomplished through executive orders which the next president can revoke, cancel, change, rescind.

The house, the Democrats will probably lose control of it. The question is how many seats will they lose? That's unknown until redistricting occurs. With little to go on except the generic congressional vote, I don't see a red wave coming. I don't like going by the generic congressional ballot as it's nationally and not district by district. A loss of 10-15 seats most likely based on the Generic. That is basically a win for the democrats in the first midterm as losses of 44, 54, 63 seats have occurred for the party in control of the house and the presidency since 1994.

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the Senate passed it in November of 2009
CNN/Opinion Research 12/2-12/3 36% for 61% Against/Oppose +25
Rasmussen Reports 11/29 - 11/29 41% for 53% Against/Oppose +12
Gallup 11/20-11/22 44% for 49% Against/Oppose +5
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/19 - 11/22 34% for 46% Against/Oppose +12
Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 38% for 56% Against/Oppose +18
FOX News 11/17 - 11/18 35% for 51% Against/Oppose +16
PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the House passed it in March of 2010
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 38% for 50% Against/Oppose +12
CNN/Opinion Research 3/19 - 3/21 39% for 59% Against/Oppose +20
CBS News 3/18 - 3/21 37% for 48% Against/Oppose +11
Rasmussen Reports 3/19 - 3/20 41% for 54% Against/Oppose +13
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 36% for 54% Against/Oppose +18
Democracy Corps (D) 3/15 - 3/18 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12
FOX News 3/16 - 3/17 35% 55% Against/Oppose +20
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 08/26/21 07:46 PM
Obama did not "own" the Senate for two years. It was actually just a few months, because of Republicans delay in seating Franken, and then Kennedy dying. Just long enough to get that herd of cats to pass a severely compromised ACA.

Quote
“Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat.

When Obama had "Total Control" of Congress

That "Two Years" is a Republican meme used to negate Democrats desire for positive changes: IE. "If Democrats really wanted X, then Obama could have passed that when he had control of congress for two years.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/26/21 09:27 PM
In the senate the democrats did have their 60-40 advantage from 7 Jul 2009-25 Aug 2009 and then a 59-39 advantage through 9 Sep 2009, then back to a 60-40 advantage 25 Sep 2009-4 Feb 2010 then a 59-41 advantage until Nov 2010. If I read that graph right.

In the house the Democrats held a 256-178 advantage with each party gaining and losing a seat now and then throughout that 2 year period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Anyway you look at it, the democrats controlled both the house and the senate for Obama's first two years. Although not two years of filibuster proof senate, regardless they still controlled the senate and the house along with the presidency.

Now what does total control mean? The Democrats had total control of government for the entire two year period, the presidency, the senate, the house. Does total control mean filibuster proof senate also? Do the Democrats have total control of the government today? They have the presidency, the house and the senate. Granted the house is 222-213 and the Senate a 50-50 tie with VP Harris the tie breaker.

Regardless, even today the Democrats control the agenda and make up the rules for each chamber to operate under.

Yeah, I remember republicans saying that, asking why didn't Obama and company pass this or that when they controlled both chambers of congress and the presidency. Immigration reform was a big one. I think the reason why is the democrats put health care as their number one priority and not immigration reform. Which in my opinion the Democrats decided to tackle the toughest to get passed first, healthcare while all other things waited.

Election wise, that was a huge mistake. Although the ACA is fairly popular today, it wasn't through Obama's entire presidency.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

It took Trump to make the ACA popular.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/26/21 10:31 PM
I remember when he was trying to pass Obamacare. The big, and very long, fight wasn't with the Republicans, it was with the Democrats! By the time that got done there wasn't a whole lot of time left to do anything else. Its really pretty strange. This time its happening again! They could get the house and the senate for 4 straight years and have to fight their own party to get anything passed. Right now they have two bills to pass. One that everybody wants and the other is, literally, thousands of pages of Democratic wet dreams. The first can actually passed but a contingent of the Dems are going to fight it tooth and nail until they get their heart's desires and I doubt that's gonna happen but, then, who really cares?

If the Dems actually cared the small one could pass so they are fighting the passage playing "my way or the highway".
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/27/21 12:28 AM
I remember watching some of the fight over Obamacare. Watching the votes on C-Span. But that's about all. The ACA didn't affect me, so I paid little attention to it. What I did pay attention to, for my forecasts was the polls of those in favor and those oppose. When it passed, I knew the GOP was in for a red wave. I just didn't realize how big a red wave that was to be. 63 house seats lost, 8 senate seats lost. Like I said before, don't make independents angry at you if you want to win elections and in this case, retain huge majorities in both the House and the Senate.

As for the infrastructure bill and the 3.5 trillion budget. Americans want the infrastructure passed. The 3.5 trillion budget, not so much.

72% are in favor of the infrastructure bill, 28% oppose
3.5 trillion budget, 49% in favor, 51% oppose

my opinion, failure to pass the infrastructure bill would hurt the Democrats big time among independents. That bill is how most independents think congress should work, bipartisan, compromise, coming to a mutual agreement. The 3.5 trillion budget is no big thing to them. Passing it or not is kind of irrelevant, the budget bill is the kind of bill that comes from a congress that won't work together, won't compromise. So what happens to that, passed or not, it won't hurt or help the democrats either way as far as independents are concerned. Just my take.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...pport-for-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 08/27/21 08:45 PM
When the Senate minority leader says "We are going to block everything Obama tries to do.", then "Total Control of the Senate" means having a filibuster-proof majority. "Control of the Senate" is what Democrats have now: A 50:50 split with the VP breaking the ties. Huge difference.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/28/21 06:29 PM
lf the dems don't pass the infrastructure it will probably cost them next year's election. They are, of course, working on muti-fronts just to make sure they won't win. They will sacrifice the infrastructure bill for their wet dream 2+ trillion dollar plan. When its all set and done, nothing will get passed and the dems have made some kind of point. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Its really amazing! The Republicans seem to be working very hard to anger everybody but the Dems just seem to do it better and I just don't get it.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 08/28/21 11:59 PM
I would say looking at the numbers, failure to pass the infrastructure bill would hurt the democrats in the midterms, especially among independents. Due to many reasons I've already stated. Failure to pass the 3.5 trillion budget, that wouldn't hurt the dems at all. Election wise that is.

Now if we have a government shutdown due to a budget not being passed or a continuing resolution, I may have to backtrack on the statement above.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/29/21 05:16 PM
Its all just part of the deal and they REALLY gotta start paying attention and doing their damned jobs instead of public wishful thinking that tend to make many uncomfortable.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 08/30/21 01:23 PM
Yeah, we don't want to make anybody uncomfortable.

We don't want any wishful thinking either.

Best to keep quiet and do nothing as the founders intended.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 08/30/21 06:08 PM
Well, only if you want to win which you have already said you don't .............
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/03/21 12:03 AM
Speaking of winning with 2022 around the corner. August was a bad month for Biden and the Democrats.

Biden’s overall job approval/disapproval numbers:
1 Aug 51.3% approval, 45.9% disapproval/31 Aug 46.3% approval, 48.6% disapproval

Generic congressional vote
1 Aug Democrats 48% Republican 41% D plus 7/31 Aug Democrats 46% Republicans 44% D plus 2.

Direction of the Country, right track/wrong track

1 Aug right track 40%, wrong track 53%/31 Aug right track 30%, wrong track 61%

Now I wouldn’t blame all of this on Afghanistan, although Afghanistan was the wake up call which meant Biden not being Trump isn’t enough for the voters anymore. Especially independents. The honeymoon is finally over after 6 months. Other issues that have also fallen in August.

Immigration 1 Aug 42% approve, 54% disapprove/31 Aug 34% approve, 57% disapprove

COVID 1 Aug 62% approve, 38% disapprove/31 Aug 53% approve, 43% disapprove

Economy 1 Aug 55% approve, 45% disapprove/31 Aug 46% approve, 49% disapprove

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

My take on this, if one is to have a bad month, 14 months out before the election is the time to have it. Plenty of time to rebound. Even with the bad month of August, the senate still looks like the Democrats will gain 1-3 seats. Mainly because of Republican retirements which will leave 4 open seats. No retirements yet for the Democrats. Predictions on the House is useless until redistricting is completed. All I’ll say there is midterms haven’t been kind to the party that holds the presidency. Only once since 1934 has the party who holds the presidency gained seats. 2002 when the GOP gained 8. Those are extremely high odds for the Democrats retaining the house since the GOP needs a net gain of only 5 seats to take control. The odds aren’t zero, since it’s been done once since 1934. Probably in the single digits though. Just a SWAG.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/08/21 11:11 PM
For those who think demographics will ensure Democratic success, I think one should read this. The Democratic Party which was once the party of the working man/class has become the party of the college graduate. This also could explain Trump's success in 2020 among minorities. Trump did after all received the highest percentage of the black vote since Gerald Ford in 1976 than any other Republican presidential candidate. Hispanic vote also since Reagan.

How Educational Differences Are Widening America's Political Rift

https://www.yahoo.com/news/educational-differences-widening-americas-political-182536495.html

Make of this what you will, But as one who studies numbers, the working class is voting more and more Republican including Union House holds. Hillary Clinton received but 51% of the union household vote, Biden upped it to 54%, Obama received 62 and 65%, Kerry 62%, Gore 62% and on back. It'll be interesting to see if the trends mentioned in the article continue for 2024.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 09/09/21 12:44 AM
Biden's had a bad month alright, but another recent poll showed DeSantis getting smashed by Biden in a hypothetical race.

Republicans have gotten themselves into hot water in Texas over the abortion issue. A majority of Americans are in favor of safe, legal abortions. The new law is a slap in the face to that majority.

Depends a lot on what sort of nutcases run on the Republican side.

I'm bold enough to say that with everything I know right now, I'm still predicting fairly small changes in the House. Dems might not keep it but it'll stay closely matched. Unless something big changes, there will be no blue or red waves this time around.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/09/21 01:47 AM
I agree, there's no indication of any type of wave, red or blue as of yet. The change in the house, perhaps 10-15 seats as a SWAG. Nothing firm to indicate that though until redistricting is completed. DeSantis, The latest polling for governor has Charlie Crist leading DeSantis 52-40. But this was an average of four August polls, no polling done so far in September. Rubio is up by 6 over Demmings 50-44.

From what I read a majority of folks from Florida think DeSantis is too busy running for president than caring what happens in Florida. But you are there.

now being a numbers man, I’m doing a weekly comparison of Biden’s approval ratings, pre-Afghanistan withdrawal vs. post Afghanistan withdrawal. What I’m looking for is to determine if the drop in Biden’s approval numbers was solely due to Afghanistan or if it was a combination of different things. 1 Aug numbers, pre-Afghanistan, 31 Aug numbers, end of Afghanistan withdrawal, 7 Sep numbers post Afghanistan. I'm going to do this weekly.

Biden’s overall job approval/disapproval numbers:
1 Aug 51.3% approval, 45.9% disapproval/31 Aug 46.3% approval, 48.6% disapproval/7 Sep 45.7% approval, 49.1% disapproval.

Generic congressional vote
1 Aug Democrats 48% Republican 41% D plus 7/31 Aug Democrats 46% Republicans 44% D plus 2/7 Sep Democrats 46% Republicans 44% D plus 2.

Direction of the Country, right track/wrong track

1 Aug right track 40%, wrong track 53%/31 Aug right track 30%, wrong track 61%/7 Sep right track 30%/wrong track 60%.

Immigration 1 Aug 42% approve, 54% disapprove/31 Aug 34% approve, 57% disapprove/7 Sep 35% approve, 57% disapprove.

COVID 1 Aug 62% approve, 38% disapprove/31 Aug 53% approve, 43% disapprove/7 Sep 53% approve, 53% disapprove.

Economy 1 Aug 55% approve, 45% disapprove/31 Aug 46% approve, 49% disapprove/7 Sep 46% approve, 49% disapprove.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

A week without change after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Labor Day Weekend probably had a great deal to do with maintaining the status quo. I’ve believed after Afghanistan that Biden’s numbers would begin to improve as Afghanistan moved into history. This is just an opinion which everyone has one. I also think for Biden’s first six months as president he benefited greatly just from not being Trump. But Afghanistan brought that benefit to an abrupt end. So we’ll see.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 09/09/21 04:56 PM
Quote
This is just an opinion which everyone has. I also think for Biden’s first six months as president he benefited greatly just from not being Trump. But Afghanistan brought that benefit to an abrupt end. So we’ll see.

Republicans have fought Biden and reduced his popularity by grumbling about ending a war and by fighting the vaccine. They have stayed on top of their game by denying the results of the last election and keeping the covid death count high by refusing to mask or vaccinate.
They have renewed their war on women and continue the legislation to keep people of color from voting.

Biden still benefits greatly from not being Trump! All of us do! And all of us benefit from Biden not being Trump. His aggressive vaccine rollout saved thousands of lives. The government is actually getting a few things done and seems to be headed in the (actual) right direction as opposed to some science-denying wingnut's opinion of what the right direction might be.

Desantis has lost 14 points in popularity recently. I hear Greg Abbot is tanking as well.

California's governor appears poised to fight off the recall. I'm not a numbers guy but these trends seem to point to an overall favorability for the blue team right now.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Winning - 09/09/21 05:52 PM
One of the main features of the fascist totalitarians of the 1920's and 1930's was their tendency to turn ANY statement of fact into a question of MOTIVE.
That's a paraphrase of Hannah Arendt.
Here is a direct quote:
"The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but rather to destroy the capacity to form any."
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 09/09/21 06:56 PM
There are sins that a president can commit that is difficult to overcome. Biden's sin was that he publicly refused to admit that he had made an error in judgement in the evacuation of folks from Afghanistan. He didn't start soon enough nor did he have a plan when he did. All this was pretty obvious but he just couldn't say it out loud. He came close with the statement about the buck stopping but it was too vague. That kind of thing is not easily forgotten because it also means we have a president that is not always believable and we REALLY don't like that that.

Its really pretty interesting. When Trump ran into something he just said that he wasn't responsible - and he got away with it! At least we knew where he was coming from. Biden could have done something like that but he decided to dance. Now he has to do something stupid and then admit he did it and apologize.

Oh, one last on this. Presidents are always responsible for EVERYTHING! Even if they are, obviously, not responsible. That's just the way it is. Trump, for instance, inherited a really good economy from Obama but claimed responsibility for that same economy. He got away with that because he was president and everybody understood that he could do that. Its part of the deal - good or bad.

Oh, one REALLY last one. This rule also applies to governors, county commissioners, police chiefs, mayors, etc. If its on their watch then they are the responsible parties whether or not they agree. When they try and dance they make no friends. Its just the way it is.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Winning - 09/09/21 07:24 PM
Originally Posted by jgw
That kind of thing is not easily forgotten because it also means we have a president that is not always believable and we REALLY don't like that that.s.

But…but…I can’t remember the last time we had a president who WAS believable. Jimmy Carter, maybe, but only to his fans; the same with Obama (admittedly, had a lot of fans, me among them.) Reagan was mostly a glad-hander, IMHO, and Clinton betrayed his wife, so of course he would betray us. And then of course there was the ever-reliable Nixon..

My point is, it’s been a long time since there was a President that a large majority considered trustworthy or believable. We may not like it, but we’re used to it.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/09/21 08:52 PM
You probably have to go back to Eisenhower and JFK when a majority of Americans believed and trusted their president. Here's a graft on public trust in government.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/

I may be wrong in trying to equate believably with trust, but they do run hand in hand.What's amazing is over 70% of Democrats trusted IKE and over 70% of Republicans trusted JFK. You won't find that today,

As for the midterms of 2022, I'll not make any forecast on the house until redistricting is completed. I'd just remember that most Americans have short memories and nothing that happens in 2021 will probably effect the midterms of 2022. That's usually how it works. Senate wise, since no redistricting is needed, it still looks like a net gain of 1-3 seats for Dems. But as Greger stated earlier, no wave election is on the horizon. At least not yet for either party. Without a 9-11, some unforeseen event happening, I don't see the Democrats bucking the historical record of losing seats in the house. Only once since 1935 has the party who holds the presidency gained seats in the house during a president's first midterm, 2002 which the GOP gained 8.

First midterm loses by president
Biden ?????????????
Trump 44
Obama 63
G.W. Bush gained 8 seats, but lost 33 in his second midterm in 2006
Bill Clinton 54
G.H.W. Bush 8
Carter 15
Ford not elected, doesn't apply
Nixon 12
LBJ 47
JFK 4
IKE 18

Average loss 21 seats.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Winning - 09/09/21 08:57 PM
I agree that believability and trust go hand in hand, and I agree with you about Ike, as well.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 09/09/21 09:02 PM
And yet Trump was an inveterate liar.... makes sh*t up out of whole cloth on the spur of the moment.

And they LOVE him for it.

Perhaps it's only Democrats who are required to function as if they are under oath at all times.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/14/21 01:06 PM
As promised from your numbers guy. I’m doing a weekly comparison of Biden’s approval ratings, pre-Afghanistan withdrawal vs. post Afghanistan withdrawal. What I’m looking for is a trend developing. 1 Aug numbers, pre-Afghanistan, 31 Aug numbers, end of Afghanistan withdrawal, 14 Sep numbers post Afghanistan.

Biden’s overall job approval/disapproval numbers:
1 Aug 51.3% approval, 45.9% disapproval/31 Aug 46.3% approval, 48.6% disapproval/14 Sep 45.2% approval, 49.7% disapproval.

Generic congressional vote
1 Aug Democrats 48% Republican 41% D plus 7/31 Aug Democrats 46% Republicans 44% D plus 2/14 Sep Democrats 42% Republicans 40% D plus 2.

Direction of the Country, right track/wrong track

1 Aug right track 40%, wrong track 53%/31 Aug right track 30%, wrong track 61%/14 Sep right track 30%/wrong track 61%.

Immigration 1 Aug 42% approve, 54% disapprove/31 Aug 34% approve, 57% disapprove/14 Sep 36% approve, 56% disapprove.

COVID 1 Aug 62% approve, 38% disapprove/31 Aug 53% approve, 43% disapprove/14 Sep 52% approve, 43% disapprove.

Economy 1 Aug 55% approve, 45% disapprove/31 Aug 46% approve, 49% disapprove/14 Sep 45% approve, 49% disapprove.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

Two weeks with basically no change after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The only thing that stands out for me is those who answered the question, if the midterm election were held today, who would you vote for? The Democratic congressional candidate or the Republican congressional candidate? On both 1 Aug and again on 31 Aug there were only 10% of the electorate in the undecided column. As of 14 Sep, that has shot up to 18%. A lot more undecided and not sure than before.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/26/21 05:07 PM
With Trump holding a rally in Perry, GA yesterday, a thought crossed my mind. Trump made the headlines here.

I decided to go back through the generic congressional ballots or polls which go back through April 2021 and compare when Trump was in the news and when he wasn't. Sounds silly, I know. But I was curious.

What I found is when Trump is in the news, the Democratic congressional polling numbers rise, when he isn't, they fall. That may be a no brainier to most. But I see Trump staying out of the news the Democratic advantage shrinks to 3, then Trump makes headlines, the Democratic advantage rises to 6, Trump fades again, down to 2, now up to 4. I'll check back in a couple of days to see how his Perry rally affected the generic congressional poll numbers. This was just a whim on my part.

94-97% of democrats have answered the generic congressional poll that they will vote for their candidates, 92-96% of republican answered they would vote for their candidates. It was independents that do the fluctuation, that cause the rise and fall from 2-6 point Democratic advantage. When the Democratic advantage was but 2 points, independents by a 50-46 margin said they would vote for a Republican, when it was 6 points, it was 45-44 of independents responding they'd vote for the Democrat.

Perhaps the Trump effect is still alive. Not to the degree it was during Biden's first 6 months, but still there, lingering in some independent's minds. But slowly fading away. My take anyway.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 09/26/21 05:30 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
With Trump holding a rally in Perry, GA yesterday, a thought crossed my mind. Trump made the headlines here.
Futlon County will finish Trump off. smile

  • Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud
  • Intentional interference with performance of election duties
  • Conspiracy to commit election fraud
  • Racketeering


As usual, Democrats have to clean-up the Republican mess. coffee
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 09/26/21 06:55 PM
I have two thoughts about Biden. The first is that he is overwhelmed by a very professional, large, and self serving bureaucracy. They are giving him advice and he is doing what they suggest. On the other hand I might be the opposite. They are giving him great advice and he is ignoring them. The talking heads of tv seem to think the first is what is happening. The FDA, for instance, is a really good example of a bureaucracy with problems.

At the risk of repeating. I believe that Biden is on my side. I wish, however, that he understood that he is president and presidents MUST have responsibility if they are to be believed and apologize when bad things happen whether he is actually responsible or not. In other words, the president is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens on his/her watch. Its not fair but its the way it is. These days Biden does a lot of dancing, often falling in the process, and I just wish he would stop it! What he has been doing is not terrible so much as a bit wrong and a bit offensive and it kinda guts any feeling of my president doing it right. He's gotta start standing up, smelling the roses, occasionally admit to error, and move ahead.

It was my understanding, when he took over, that he would be demonstrating competence. So far ............
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/26/21 06:56 PM
As of 17 Sep 2021

Georgia criminal probe into Trump's attempts to overturn 2020 election quietly moves forward

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/politics/georgia-probe-trump-election/index.html

This whole thing has been quiet since April. So we'll see.

I was more interest in my post on the Trump effect on elections, not the ongoing investigations into election interference.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 09/26/21 08:22 PM
I see that actor Matthew McConaughey is polling seven points higher than Abbott. McConaughey has not declared party affiliation, but he seems exactly middle of the road based upon what he has said in interviews.

I suspect he'll go "independent" and help Dem down-ballot office holders both re-elected and newly elected. He doesn't seem rightwing at all. Measured Liberal is more of what I gather.

smile
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/26/21 09:12 PM
Here you go.

Still undecided Matthew McConaughey polling better than Beto O'Rourke in the Texas governor race

https://www.chron.com/politics/article/texas-governor-race-abbott-beto-mcconaughey-16472881.php

then as an aside, my tiny Reform party has a candidate running also, Patrick Wynne, software engineer, data scientist and U.S. Navy veteran (Reform Party)
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 09/26/21 10:04 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
Here you go.Still undecided Matthew McConaughey polling better than Beto O'Rourke in the Texas governor race)

How did my post about McConaughey and Abbott get a McConaughey and Beto reply? Hmm Some people might suggest that is an intellectually dishonest move to distract from Abbott's poor polling. smile

Originally Posted by pdx rick
I see that actor Matthew McConaughey is polling seven points higher than Abbott.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/27/21 12:29 AM
Just thought you'd be interested in up to date information. My bag.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/27/21 01:31 AM
I almost forgot, this is what I originally was going post before the WV talk that I got caught up in. This is as of today.

Donald Trump could be charged with multiple crimes over his attempts to overturn his loss in the state of Georgia, report says

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-could-charged-multiple-104506097.html
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 09/27/21 03:24 AM
Originally Posted by perotista
Just thought you'd be interested in up to date information. My bag.

Wouldn't that include Abbott's numbers from you? Hmm
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/27/21 12:38 PM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
Originally Posted by perotista
Just thought you'd be interested in up to date information. My bag.

Wouldn't that include Abbott's numbers from you? Hmm
Okay, here you go. As of 14 Sep 2021 which is the most recent poll with the most recent numbers on Texas which includes a ton of other information than just the governors race. Take a close look at all of it, you'll get a better understanding of where Texas is politically. It covers pretty much all politicians, Biden, Harris, Abbot, all the rest and then some political hot issues.

https://www.scribd.com/document/526125317/The-Dallas-Morning-News-University-of-Texas-Tyler-poll

Keep in mind this is Texas, not the Northeast or West Coast. Different politics, different issues are cared about.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 09/27/21 01:38 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
... different issues are cared about.
And what are those issues? Hmm
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 09/27/21 04:00 PM
Texas stuff.

From Pero's number I see that only 25% identify as liberal. The rest are centrist or conservative. Hard to swing left with a demographic like that.

I suspect that number might run around 30% on average. Perhaps the binary split between liberals and conservatives is not so binary...

There appear to be three ideological groupings. Makes sense, when any two of them join forces it makes the other 30% look batshit crazy.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 09/27/21 05:40 PM
Trump is going to have a lot of other indictments before the end of the year or the first part of next year..
Washington dc prosecutors are working on it, New York state prosecutors are working on it, there are, at least, two other federal prosecutors working on it. Then there are the charges for not paying workers he owes and women he has assaulted as well. I keep wondering where all this stuff went but I can only assume that they are moving ahead. Now add in the results of the House investigation into 6/1 as well.

I think it was Mitch who pointed out that he is wide open to law suits when he leaves office. (that was after he actually accused Trump just after the 1/6 thing and before he got religion.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/27/21 09:14 PM
I haven't given Texas much thought, the governor races belong to someone else. The House and senate are mine. Texas is an R+5 PVI which means most statewide races will be competitive, but the Republicans have the partisan advantage. Democrats in Texas must win the independent vote by a good margin to win there, statewide that is.doable with the right candidate/s.

It's the opposite nationwide, Republicans can't win the presidency unless they win independents. Nationwide it is D+3 which simply means for a Republican to win the popular vote, the GOP candidate would have to win independents by 6 points, give or take depending on the turnout of each party.

Just keep in mind these PVI's are as the first of the year, 2021 But are useful in determining how a state leans. But in the end it boils down to the candidates, the hot issues and recent events. Unless a state has a PVI of above 10, then it is considered safe, solid. When dealing with PVI's, the best rule of thumb is independents decide any election in a PVI of 0 to +5. Although there always are exceptions as with Jones winning in Alabama a couple of years ago, but that was more candidate driven than PVI or partisan driven. Jones won the independent vote 60-37 which enabled him to a 2 point win. You're not going to find many elections where independents will give one candidate a 20 point win. That is about as rare as you can get.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 09/28/21 06:50 PM
This morning I was listening to the generals speaking to Senators. Seems that Biden was either not paying attention to what the military was telling him or he was and was ignoring it. I also suspect that if he would do that then he might also ignore the rest of his administration too. This was pointed out during the senators talking to the generals. Not only that but Biden also, apparently, lied about who said what to who. This one bothers me.

I thought we were done with lying presidents when Trump went away. Now I'm not sure and I seriously hope its not true. If it is, then the talking heads of TV will hammer the hell out of Biden which is not going to be a good thing.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/28/21 07:30 PM
There's no doubt Biden and company had a very bad August with close to a 10 point drop across the board in approval. Overall Job approval, the economy, foreign policy, immigration, COVID and the direction of the country, right track/wrong track. September will end with basically the same numbers for Biden and company as August ended. No improvement, no decline.

Lying, it seems to me all politicians try to blame someone else when things go wrong or simply state, I didn't know, I wasn't told. That's the cynic in me. So why should Biden be any different? There's no doubt that Biden botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan. That is still having repercussions for him and the democrats. 4 weeks later, I expected recovery, an uptick in all the approval categories. That hasn't happened.

I think since Nixon most Americans expect to be lied to from time to time, to be mislead. Again, the cynic in me. As a former military man, we kept a lot of stuff classified, some due to national security, but a lot more due to not wanting to embarrass the military, the government and friendly nations.

Perhaps the bottom line is if Biden lied, I don't hold it against him. I voted for Biden to get rid of Trump. Biden has been better than Trump, my vote has been verified to the good even if Biden lied. There's way too many other things, issues out their that Biden and company need to get a grip on which they don't have now than lying about whether he was told or not about keeping troops in Afghanistan. I don't think this will hurt him one bit. Some will get all fired up, others not, but it will quickly blow over. Other things like inflation, the border, COVID, whether we're headed in the right or wrong direction, they won't so easily be left behind.

I'd be more worried if I were a democrat about the 60% of Americans that think the country is headed in the wrong direction today whether than if Biden lied about not being told about troop strength in Afghanistan. 60% wrong direction is Trump like numbers.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/29/21 12:11 AM
We've talked about Texas and Florida's governors races which take place next year. but there is one a month away. Virginia, where R Youngkin vs. D McAuliffe. I'd classify Virginia as a solid blue state, yet McAuliffe leads Youngkin by just 4 points. Virginia where Biden beat Trump by 11 and Northam won the governorship by 10 in 2017. Where Democrats have a 10 point advantage over republicans in party affiliation. Yet this race is close, competitive when it shouldn't be. Why? Youngkin leads with Republicans (82% to 15%) while McAuliffe leads with Democrats (90% to 6%). Among Independents, the majority (54%) support Youngkin, compared to 35% who support McAuliffe and 9% who are undecided.

https://emersonpolling.reportablene...e-and-division-over-critical-race-theory

In the field of you never know, it's interesting that Republicans, 15% who plan on voting democratic will probably give McAuliffe the win. Republicans being responsible for electing a democrat. Republicans negating the advantage their candidate has among independents. Strange, but true. At least with a month to go.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 09/29/21 02:07 AM
McAuliffe will win. smile

Looks like the next NJ gov will be a Dem too. cool
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/29/21 02:50 AM
VA and NJ shouldn't be close. I do agree with you however. Murphy has a 13 point lead in NJ as democratic as that state is, that is totally expected. However, VA should be like NJ, double digits lead for McAuliffe.

I wonder what McAuliffe has done to peeved off independents? Or perhaps, it isn't McAuliffe, it's the present Democratic governor of VA that independents are peeved at. Call it the carryover effect. Or maybe independents weren't too happy with McAuliffe when he was governor the first time?

Then there's elections where it's just time for a change. Even Massachusetts elects a Republican Governor every once in awhile.

All this speculation is needless, McAuliffe will win. I was just really surprised to see the race this close when it shouldn't be.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 09/29/21 04:08 AM
In the final analysis, a win is a win. smile
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 09/29/21 05:03 PM
I remain convinced that the Dems gotta start fighting and Biden has to understand that he is no longer just a legislator but the President of the United States and start acting the part. If there is an error admit it! Stop lying! Stand up and, at least, give indications that he is fighting back instead of taking it on the chin at every opportunity. The same goes for the Democratic party itself. I vote Democratic because the alternative is simply not right in the head!
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/30/21 05:09 PM
As promised, just cold hard numbers.

1 Aug numbers, pre-Afghanistan, 31 Aug numbers, end of Afghanistan withdrawal, 30 Sep numbers post Afghanistan.

Biden’s overall job approval/disapproval numbers:
1 Aug 51.3% approval, 45.9% disapproval/31 Aug 46.3% approval, 48.6% disapproval/30 Sep 45.2% approval, 50.0% disapproval.

Generic congressional vote
1 Aug Democrats 48% Republican 41% D plus 7/31 Aug Democrats 46% Republicans 44% D plus 2/30 Sep Democrats 45% Republicans 42% D plus 3.

Direction of the Country, right track/wrong track

1 Aug right track 40%, wrong track 53%/31 Aug right track 30%, wrong track 61%/30 Sep right track 32%/wrong track 60%.

Immigration 1 Aug 42% approve, 54% disapprove/31 Aug 34% approve, 57% disapprove/30 Sep 34% approve, 58% disapprove.

COVID 1 Aug 62% approve, 38% disapprove/31 Aug 53% approve, 43% disapprove/30 Sep 52% approve, 45% disapprove.

Economy 1 Aug 55% approve, 45% disapprove/31 Aug 46% approve, 49% disapprove/30 Sep 45% approve, 50% disapprove.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

After the bad August, one month after the Afghanistan withdrawal, basically no change since 30 Aug. The trend seems to be stagnation, Since the end of August. No improvement, no worsening.

Now this probably shouldn’t be surprising. Biden had a steady straight-line approval of 53% from inauguration day until July. Within a point or two of 53%. For the month of September, another straight-line of 46%, up or down one point. The cause is in my opinion today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship. Democrats have constantly given Biden around a 95% approval, Republican around 5% give or take a point or two. That leaves independents to move the needle in today’s modern political era. Independents were giving Biden a 52% approval for his first six months, 43% for August and September. Hence the drop from 53% down to 46% overall or nationwide. Independents decide elections these days, it also seems independents also decide approval/disapproval ratings. How the two major parties vote, whether they approve or disapprove on elected officials and issues, policy is set in stone. Independents are now the wildcard and deciding factor.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 09/30/21 05:43 PM
So Biden's numbers are fairly stable, all he's gotta do is perform some trick to make indies happy and he's walking in high cotton again...

Basically, we gotta sit on our hands for 6 months, everything happening now will be replaced with whatever is happening then and will point more closely to the election results.

I don't think it's a matter of getting indie voters to switch parties so much as which indies get off the couch. Left leaners tend to be kind of ho-hum about midterms.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 09/30/21 06:38 PM
Republican state legislators have seen fit to write into law that they can easily change any vote that they don't like. I would think this couldn't be but, I guess, I am wrong. This being the case one can only wonder what we end up with in the next election.

Now consider this one. Today I was watching Justice Sonia Sotomayor said:: 'There is going to be a lot of disappointment in the law, a huge amount' She is saying, basically, that the Dems have allowed the Republicans to stack the supreme court and now we get to watch them take down the Constitution of the United States.

This is yet another example of the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans stick to their plans and don't waiver, not one inch. The Democrats, on the other hand, have no plans to stick to and spend a lot of their time fighting with one another instead. They have, obviously, no plan, or desire, to win!

Yet something else I really, really, hope is not true. The problem is most turn out to be true - unfortunately.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/30/21 06:58 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
So Biden's numbers are fairly stable, all he's gotta do is perform some trick to make indies happy and he's walking in high cotton again...

Basically, we gotta sit on our hands for 6 months, everything happening now will be replaced with whatever is happening then and will point more closely to the election results.

I don't think it's a matter of getting indie voters to switch parties so much as which indies get off the couch. Left leaners tend to be kind of ho-hum about midterms.
Independents have made up approximately 40%, give or take a point or two of the electorate for the last 10 years. Yet they only make up 25% of those who actually vote. In 2020 republicans made up 27% of the electorate, Democrats 31%, yet Republicans made up 35% of those who voted, Democrats 37% while independents made up 26%

.https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results

I think one of the main reasons is Republicans and Democrats own the horses in the race, the candidates. Independents are basically bystanders or perhaps causal fans. Republicans and Democrats choose who they nominate, most independents have no say unless they live in open primary states.

But back to your point. What the numbers are today are basically meaningless come Nov 2022. If Biden and company had these numbers in August and September 2022, they'd be in trouble. But today, way too much time left. No one knows what will happen or what unforeseen event will occur that could change or turn the whole apple cart upside down.

This doesn't take away from independents deciding elections though. neither party's base is big enough to do that. Democrats enter an election, nationally, with a 3-4 point advantage in party affiliation. But independents can wipe that advantage out in a hurry.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/30/21 07:35 PM
I'm not sure how this will work. But it seems the infrastructure bill will be going down to defeat today. Because of progressives.

Pelosi says she'll push ahead with infrastructure vote despite opposition from progressives

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-s...osition-from-progressives-162614887.html

The part I'm not sure of is once the compromised, bi-partisan infrastructure bill is defeated in the house, to bring it back a live again, will it have to pass the senate once again? If it does, will those senators from both sides of the aisle who voted for this thing say to Hades with it? I don't know, I'm not up on the rules of the house and senate when it comes to these things.

They may be other repercussions. Will those moderate Democratic House members also say to Hades with it all as they must win reelection in districts that could go either way and vote against the 3.5 trillion bill as payback for the infrastructure bill they needed to help reelect them? All most all progressives are from safe districts where they don't have to worry about getting reelected. All unknowns to me. But very possible.

This is where I probably differ from you all. I'd take what I can get today and come back for what I couldn't get today, tomorrow. The old bird in the hand is worth two in the bush strategy. We'll see, this hasn't happened yet.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 09/30/21 08:08 PM
I'd take the bird in hand too. I'm betting most here would. Whichever faction gets blamed for blocking it will get multiple demerits, drops in polls and approval ratings.

It's the old art of the possible thing.

But it's also par for the course for Democrats. Since taking the helm a few months ago they've managed to disappoint everybody about everything. No $15 wage. No M4A. No filibuster changes. No more covid crazy checks. The botched retreat. Inter-party battles on what should be no-brainer legislation. ICE officers on horseback whipping Haitian refugees as if the regime hadn't really changed at all.

It's exactly what you'd expect from a guy like Biden and exactly what we're getting.

Unless he starts pulling some rabbits out of hats We're gonna have President DeSantis calling the shots soon.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 09/30/21 08:41 PM
I don't read the gloom and doom into all of this as much as you do. But my eyes are on Nov 2022, not today. Although I always look for trends among today's numbers.

I don't think DeSantis is going anywhere near the presidency. Sticking with Florida, Rubio might. So much dealing with 2024 depends on 2022. I don't think the democrats have the numbers to push their 3.5 trillion bill through. For me, it all boils down to numbers. When the ACA was first passed the democrats had a 256-178 advantage and could afford the loss of 34 democrats voting no. With a 222-213 edge, what the democrats can't afford is in-fighting. Take what's available.

For me, the bottom line is the Democrats are going to need these 10 or so moderate democrats from swing districts if they're going to maintain control of the house in 2022. They're also going to need Manchin and Sinema for control of the senate. Although the Dems should pickup PA and WI, but could lose GA and NH. NC is a pure tossup.

The senate passed a bill today keeping the government open until 3 Dec. If I were a Democrat, I'd take the infrastructure bill which would help keep those 10 moderate democrats from being replaced by Republicans, then concentrate on the debt ceiling. Put the 3.5 trillion on hold. Manchin and Sinema have already said they wouldn't vote for it anyway. It's dead in the senate. Be a political realist, realize the numbers aren't there and move on to other things that need done.

As an aside, I've been totally against the elimination of the filibuster and done a couple of papers on it. But the political realist in me tells me once the Republicans control the senate and have a GOP president, they'll do away with it anyway. So do away with it now. It's gonna go no matter what. Sometimes political reality sucks, but that's the way it is.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/01/21 01:09 AM
Quote
I don't think DeSantis is going anywhere near the presidency.

I hope not but it's one of the possible outcomes. Desantis is plagued by covid, if that blows over soon the voters will forget about it. Everything happening right now doesn't matter.

Both he and Biden know they need to do something to regain some momentum.

Afghanistan may have been a move to boost popularity that backfired spectacularly.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/01/21 03:15 AM
believe it or not, a majority of Americans still approve ending the war in Afghanistan, but a majority also think Biden botched the withdrawal. I agree because of most Americans short memory, what is taking place right now will have little to no bearing come Nov 2022. But I also think what happens in Nov 2022 will have a lot of bearing on Nov 2024.

Some other hot issue or unforeseen event will replace what we're all hot and bothered today. Apparently the vote on the infrastructure bill won't take place this night as promised by Pelosi. She's a very political savvy gal, but perhaps even her savvyness may not be enough to overcome the number problems or the in-fighting among moderates and progressives.

What was it Will Rogers once said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

We'll see.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/01/21 01:55 PM
I woke up this AM with the Braves having clinched the NL East Division title and Pelosi delaying the vote on the Infrastructure Bill.

Infrastructure vote postponed despite Pelosi's efforts to push forward: 'We are not there yet'

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/pelosi-still-planning-infrastructure-vote-162117565.html

I think it will all come together at some point. I also read the 3.5 trillion bill is using reconciliation process which eliminates the filibuster. Only Manchin and or Sinema can kill the 3.5 bill in the senate. The Republicans don't have the votes.

But in the house, the game of chicken continues. Moderates saying vote on the infrastructure bill first or we'll vote no on the 3.5 and the progressives saying vote on the 3.5 first or we'll vote no on the infrastructure bill.

Regardless, it's still a numbers problem for Pelosi. 222 is far way from 256 the Dems had for the ACA vote. The moderates feel they need the infrastructure bill to get reelected in swing districts or even slightly red districts. Most progressives are from safe districts and I have the distinct feeling progressives would be happy to get rid of the moderates. The few that's left after 2010.

This is where I look at things differently. To retain control of the house the Democrats are going to need those 10 or so moderates to win their swing districts. I think progressives in the house has lost track of this, haven't thought of it, ignoring it or just plain don't care. They want the 3.5 and are willing to pay any price for it even if it means losing control of the house next year. Which would doom any future bills or agenda they may want.

This brings back memories of 2010 which basically made Obama a lame duck president for his last 6 years. Only accomplishing anything through executive orders. Not legislation. Some will argue it was worth it, some not. It's all a matter of perspectives.

But I think everything will come together sooner or later.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/01/21 02:31 PM
Quote
Biden botched the withdrawal
Really????

Was Pres Biden on the ground in Afghanistan collecting and analyzing the intel himself? Of course not, and if people had actually listened to what the Generals said during the hearing, they would have known the intelligence community blew it. They were the ones who did not foresee the rapid collapse of the government and military allowing the Taliban takeover. And ... Pres followed the advise of the Generals during the withdrawal. If people have a problem with the ensuing chaos, they should address their concerns to the Generals.

Of course in the grand scheme of things, the buck stops on the Resolute Desk.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/01/21 02:40 PM
You must be some kind of optimist. I think the Dems have metaphorically committed suicide, which will allow the right wing extremists to takeover the country and place a stranglehold on the throat of American Democracy and squeeze the life right out it.

Which is more important .... saving democracy or passing a human infrastructure bill? Link the negotiations ... take a hit on human infrastructure but pass a voting rights bill to ensure the fascists do not steal future elections.

Right wing extremists have numerous well funded groups and organizations working in the background to stomp the boot heel of fascism into the face of American Democracy.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/01/21 04:51 PM
I don't let partisan politics get me down. But here recently, the Democrats have had the a huge money advantage. Especially in 2020.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/

I'm not worried about either bill at this time. mainly because I'm more insterested in how their passage or defeat will affect 2022 midterms. Now you may be correct that all this infighting has taken a toll on normal Democratic voters.

Biden's Slide With Key Voters: Momentary Blip or Danger Sign?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bidens-slide-key-voters-momentary-121039167.html

The article mentions Texas, where Biden is at a very low 30% approval rating among Hispanics in Texas. He's also very low in New Mexico and Arizona. Probably because they're all fed up with all these illegals crossing the border, while it seems to them the Biden administration is doing nothing to stop them. Just a SWAG which is based on the number of Hispanics voting for Trump in those three states, around 14 points above the national average.

If Hispanics in Arizona are peeved enough at Biden, that could mean D Kelly senate seat could change to Republican next year. Way too early to make any call there. Right now, at least to me, Kelly looks fairly safe. But that could change in a hurry. If it does, who controls the senate could boil down to one state, NC.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/01/21 05:36 PM
Pramila Jayapal is the leader of the Democratic progressives. She used to be on the Seattle council. Her traveling mate was the one that turned over a police station to rioters and wanted to pass a rule that poor people could steal. Seattle downtown is pretty much shut down. All in all the progressives of Seattle are not all that delighted with their city council and, I suspect Jayapal is right in that bunch that is not exactly in favor right now.

Jayapal has always been able to get what she wanted and, now, her my way or the highway will cost the Dems the next election. Up to this point she has done pretty good getting her way but I suspect this may change. I have said it before and can't resist saying it now. The Democrats have absolutely no desire to win anything. Instead they will whine a lot about them bad Republicans and work very hard proving that they really know how to blame somebody else.

I suspect there may still be a chance for the basic infrastructure bill but the other one is unlikely to get passed and, if it does, it will be seriously attenuated. Given my age and my teeth I would love to see dental work to be part of medicare but I doubt that's gonna happen either.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/01/21 07:17 PM
Quote
fed up with all these illegals crossing the border
OK, you gotta clarify.

Do you mean all the illegals who CROSS the border undetected, or asylum seekers who do SHOW UP at the border seeking legal asylum, or both?

Look ... all of those folks who can't tell the difference and still complain should be told there are laws regarding illegally crossing, legally seeking asylum, and if they don't like the media presentations, then they should contact their representatives to change the frakking law.

I think Trump supporters would like my proposal .... kill them .... kill them all. Of course I also believe at least 60% of the electorate are stupid.

Quote
I don't let partisan politics get me down. But here recently, the Democrats have had the a huge money advantage. Especially in 2020
My criticism is policy based, and certainly not based on what an uneducated electorate responds to pollsters. You look at the polls and say they are evenly split. I say look at the policies. While you defended your polls with historical data, I was listening to the Trump Base. Your polling did not reflect what the Trumpsters would do.

While I am a liberal, I do not allow that to color my objectivity. Had Pres Obama done what Mr Trump did, I would call for his impeachment and further call for legal proceedings for his criminal activities. I know it may be hard for you to understand that, coming from a partisan world, but you have to become an objective bystander to comprehend the threat coming from the right.

Here is an example. The Texas voting law alleges it addresses voter fraud, and yet Texas did not find voter fraud a problem. Each item in the law did not address fraud nor could be construed as combating fraud. So, consider Jim Crow Laws vis a vis Texas' Voting Rights Law. Blacks could vote under Jim Crow Laws, it was just an impediment to keep them from voting. Likewise the current Texas Law does the same thing. It does not prevent people (directed at urban centers, which means large percent potential Democrat voters) from voting, but does throw up hurdles to keep them from voting.

I suppose you would argue Republican governors have all stated that was not their intention, and it would prove your rebuttal. I'll let you try and figure it out ... it's not hard.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Winning - 10/01/21 08:24 PM
We should just stop saying “illegal immigrants crossing the border” and say “brown immigrants.” A large percentage of illegal aliens are people who came here legally but overstayed their visas. It’s a great way for Europeans to get here and stay here illegally - but nobody seems to worry about them.

(But I promise, if I ever lay eyes on my ex-husband from the British Isles, to turn his arse into ICE ASAP.)
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/01/21 09:12 PM
Let me put it this way, the electorate is made up of all of us. White, black, brown, Asian etc. Republican, Democrats, independents and those who just don't give a coyote's howl at all about politics or who wins or loses. It's made up of the educated, the uneducated and those in-between.

My problem is the painting of the broad brush, throwing the uneducated into the GOP column and the educated into the Democratic column. Although not long ago it was exactly the opposite with the uneducated voting Democratic, college grads, Republican.

Things change, change is constant. From a historical vantage, you have this from 1972 thru 2008 where I get a lot of my historical stats from.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html

You can see changes in demographics and how they voted.

As for illegals, I'd say your pretty much correct. Most would classify an illegal as not coming to this country with a passport and visa. whether seeking asylum or just crossing over are placed in the same column. But here is where the GOP makes hay, only 27% of All Americans approve of Biden's handling of immigration, 59% disapprove. independents 20% approve, 68% disapprove. Question 67B

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ab8vvo6g3z/econTabReport.pdf

there's tons of other information in the poll. Which I would say 99% of folks just skip over and go with the horse race numbers. The perception here, laws don't mean anything for a perception is Biden and company have thrown out the welcoming mat for illegals and are progressing to open borders. now perception doesn't have to be based in fact or the truth. One gleams their perception from a 30 second spot on TV showing thousands of illegals living under a bridge. Why becomes totally irrelevant.

As an aside, I've always wondered how many people vote on stances on issues and policies? I don't think many do. Republicans and Democrats vote for the letter behind the name of the candidate, regardless of who that candidate/s is or are. Independents, a lot of them vote the beauty contest, the popularity contest, for charisma as history shows, usually the most charismatic candidate wins and if not win the presidency, wins the independent vote.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/02/21 12:32 AM
Quote
The perception here, laws don't mean anything
Corroborating my claim. Excellent.

Quote
how many people vote on stances on issues and policies? I don't think many do.
O .... Corroborating my claim. Yes the electorate is as dumb as a box of rocks. But .... that was not what I intimated nor asked. You continue with the worn out line ... the polls say X. If your opinions or beliefs are dictated by the latest polls, welll .... there's not much point in me trying to discuss anything with you. It would be much like trying to discuss anything with a Trump supporter. Your opinion is what the polls say, theirs is what Trump says. And you wonder how you could have missed 1/6 .... ya ain't gonna git it from a poll.

Quote
My problem is the painting of the broad brush, throwing the uneducated into the GOP column and the educated into the Democratic column.
When I say the electorate is as dumb as a box of rocks, that does not mean only Republicans are stupid. I think the electorate includes all parties and independents.

I dunno. I think it is scary people are not as concerned as I am for the future of our country. I am just the mad man from the mountain .... you have heard the message.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/02/21 01:13 AM
I think people are more concerned than you might imagine. But their confidence in government fixing anything has waned over time due to the government's failure to ever fix anything.

Near as I can tell, the next eight years are pretty much a wash and little is going to get done.

Just exactly like the last eight years. I just don't see any chance of this logjam breaking up in the next decade.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/02/21 02:10 AM
My point is to let you know what America is thinking as a whole, all of America.. Not just one's party base or the like. That's what polls do. If I want you to know what I'm thinking, I'll tell you. Most partisans of both stripes don't want to know what America as a whole, the majority of Americans are thinking or even wanting or not wanting. Well, they do want to know if what America as a whole wants or a majority of Americans want if it is what they, the partisan wants. Finally, how this thought, the perceptions might effect the upcoming midterms.

Greger, you hit the nail on the head. Way too many of our problems this nation faces won't be solved because as a problem they're too valuable as a campaign issue. Solve them, then no hot campaign issue to fire up the old base or to use against your opponent. If one can equate confidence to trust in government, you have this.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/

Perhaps it's our political system, our two party system. Neither party wants the other party to solve anything because if they do, then the other party gets the credit and you stay out of power by losing the next election. If you can stop the other party from solving something, then you can use that as a campaign issue to regain power. Again that is the cynic in me.

Or maybe it's us, the voter. We'll give one party complete control, the presidency, the senate and the house in hopes of that party solving our problems. Then two years later we take either the house or the senate or both and return them to the party out of power. Prohibiting any problem solving. Probably because we, the voter have this sense we just gave one party too much power and we need to reign that power in.

We, the voter switch the presidency from one party to the next. From Truman to IKE, from IKE to JFK and LBJ, From LBJ to Nixon and Ford. From Ford to Carter, from Carter to Reagan. From Bush to Clinton, from Clinton to Bush and from Bush to Obama, from Obama to Trump, from Trump to Biden. Only in 1988 did we the voter stick with the party that held the presidency back to back, but for only one term.

We do the same for congress, we elected Bill Clinton and then 2 years later give him a GOP congress. We did the same for G.W. Bush in 2006 giving him a Democratic congress, the same for Obama in 2010 presenting him with a Republican House and in 2014 a Republican senate. We elect Trump and give him a Democratic house 2 years later. Now We elect Biden and chances are the GOP will retake the House in 2022.

Or it simply may be we don't trust government to solve our problems because they never do as you stated. So we just keep on making changes, not giving either party time to solve anything. Just a SWAG.
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Winning - 10/02/21 03:16 AM
What about the idea of an impartially programmed super computer making decisions? Of course if that computer made decisions that were contrary to what the other side wanted there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth that the computer had been programmed by the “wrong” people. Or at least people contrary to the desires of that side.

I am beginning to have a queasy feeling in my stomach as to the idea if democracy can survive.
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Winning - 10/02/21 03:29 AM
I hope that hypothetical computer would strive to construct laws that benefited most of society. Perhaps an 80/20 split? Not being swayed by the desires of politically powerful lobbyists.

I suppose the response would be “Dream on Ken”. Or should all the powerful Republicans simply want the lower to lower middle class to simply disappear? I believe that to be their goal but if that were to happen who would do all of the dirty work for them?
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Winning - 10/02/21 03:45 AM
Then again if the left-wing Democrats could simply bite the bullet and be satisfied enough that our government was working towards a mutualy beneficial direction that would be good enough. IMHO.

They seem to be ready and willing to sabotage the whole shebang thereby leaving Biden to drift about and the idea of any sort of compromise dead.

We are phuqued.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 10/02/21 04:05 AM
Originally Posted by Ken Condon
Then again if the left-wing Democrats could simply bite the bullet and be satisfied enough that our government was working towards a mutualy beneficial direction that would be good enough. IMHO. .
When the government experienced the longest shutdown in history during the Trump Administration, it was pretty hard to tell because the Trump Administration was so incompetent, nothing really got done... coffee
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 10/02/21 07:57 AM
Quote
due to the government's failure to ever fix anything

It's really their perception the government has never fixed anything. The US government is actually damned good at fixing things, but there has always been lots of opposition. For example, getting Moderna financed so they could do all the vaccine creation steps at the same time, instead of taking the usual slow low-financial-risk approach? They got the vaccine made in record-breaking time, because of government actions. And that was TRUMP's administration! All of the initial steps toward creating mRNA vaccines were funded by US government grants, and as a result we are that much closer to the biomedical singularity.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/03/21 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
Quote
due to the government's failure to ever fix anything

It's really their perception the government has never fixed anything. The US government is actually damned good at fixing things, but there has always been lots of opposition. For example, getting Moderna financed so they could do all the vaccine creation steps at the same time, instead of taking the usual slow low-financial-risk approach? They got the vaccine made in record-breaking time, because of government actions. And that was TRUMP's administration! All of the initial steps toward creating mRNA vaccines were funded by US government grants, and as a result we are that much closer to the biomedical singularity.

I’ll take a SWAG. Perhaps the perception of the government not solving anything is because of problems that have been with us for 50 years or more. The national debt was a topic during Eisenhower, illegal immigration ever since Reagan and probably before. The economy is always talked about, crime also. Especially the Mafia which we don’t hear much about anymore, but under a different name, organized crime. Drugs, drug lords etc. There’s probably many more that off the top of my head I haven’t mentioned. Numerous problems that gets talked about from when one is young to old age. Problems that never go away or are never solved.

It might be we forget about the problems the government solved. They’re not with us anymore. But these other problems remain forever as if the government isn’t doing a thing about them. I think it’s easy to understand folks having a perception the government never solves anything.

Then when we elect a new president, replace those in power with those out of power, we expect him and those who we elected to replace the old to solve all these problems in a matter of months, if not weeks. When they don’t, we get peeved at them and are ready to boot them out. It becomes the same old, same old nothing ever get solved. Just a SWAG.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 10/03/21 11:55 PM
Republicans ensure that government doesn't work when they are in office - if for only the rich, that it does. They then point to government and say:
Quote
See? Government doesn't work.
Hmm
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/04/21 01:23 AM
There's an Article in the Times where Ross Douthat points out the many progressive changes we've seen over the last few decades.

Liberals always win in the end. Not every battle, not every election, but in the end we will get what we want.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Winning - 10/04/21 01:38 AM
Originally Posted by Greger
Liberals always win in the end. Not every battle, not every election, but in the end we will get what we want.
Climate change?
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/04/21 02:00 PM
Yes, we will even adjust to climate change.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Winning - 10/04/21 02:46 PM
Is that getting what we want, or taking what we get…
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/04/21 04:27 PM
Yes.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 10/05/21 03:30 AM
Actually, a lot of those "persistent problems" are not real problems at all. Like the "national debt" issue Republicans raise against Biden's 3.5 trillion dollar infrastructure bill. That just happens to be about the amount of the GW Bush and Trump tax cuts for the rich, but suddenly we can't afford spending that much on things we actually need? And it not like we are just burning the money (or giving it to rich people which is functionally equivalent): We would get stuff we need with that spending.

Illegal drugs can only be "solved" by treating drug addiction as a medical issue. The legal system is totally worthless. It's like trying to put in a screw with a hammer.

The immigration "problem" is not a problem at all! So poor immigrants want to come here and do our crappiest jobs. Okay, let them. There, "problem" solved. We need somebody to reroof our houses, mow our lawns, and wipe our butts in the old folks home. Our kids are certainly not going to do it. My mom was racist as hell until she went into elder care. Then she told me she loved her Mexican girls who took care of her so well.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/05/21 01:02 PM
Quote
their confidence in government fixing anything
I am not sure that is the way to say that.

I "talked" with a Trump supporter last night and finally became aware he did not trust government at all, and specifically he did not trust a person who has spent a lifetime fighting for public health but did trust a reality show host to give him medical advice.

If that makes sense to anyone ... honk your horn
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/05/21 03:02 PM
LOL, in today's modern political era, I'm not surprised. Most Americans don't trust their government.

Public trust in government remains low. Only about one-quarter of Americans say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (2%) or “most of the time” (22%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/

If you go down a bit further in the poll, you'll find only 36% of Democrats and independents lean Democratic trust their government with Biden as president and the Democrats in control of congress. Much more information in the link dealing with Trust in Government.

Trust in government hasn't been there since Watergate. Even though we elect our government, we still don't trust them. Perhaps this is the reason we don't elect presidents from the same party back to back since FDR/Truman with the lone exception of Reagan/G.H.W. Bush and Bush was gone after one term. Perhaps it lack of trust when we elect a Democratic president, we turn around and give him a Republican House as with Bill Clinton and Obama. Why we elect a Republican president and turn around and give him a Democratic controlled house in the case of G.W. Bush and Trump. Perhaps we just plain don't trust those who we elect?

Okay, Trump. I do think he's an ever present danger. A danger that has succeeded slipping into the shadows. I don't like the trends I'm seeing, especially among independents who seem to have assigned Trump into the dust bin of ancient history.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/05/21 05:55 PM
Its pretty amazing. You have to go back to the 1970's to find any instances of the public almost approving of the actions of our congress! The fact that we have a federal bureaucracy which is a complete mess and proving it regularly is also interesting. So, we have a kindofa double deal going on here. between approval and a government ruled by its own bureaucracy why in the world would anybody expect anything else! The last time anybody even bothered to look at our bureaucracy was back in 1948 when Truman gave us the Hoover commission. The congress has done absolutely nothing to encourage any citizen to believe in the congress and individual members are not exactly heroes to the voting public.

Then there is the Republican/Democrat thing. The ONLY time the Democrats are allowed to take over is when the Republicans have created a financial disaster. Everybody seems to forget that one. They take over, fix the problem and then vote in the Republicans who do it all over again. That is a dance that has been going on for a very long time. The kicker is that the public actually believes that the Republicans are the ones who are good at managing the money even though they continue to vote them in anyway as the Republicans claim that they are and somehow the voting public buys it anyway.

This means that we have a congress admired almost as much as spit, a government with a bureaucracy completely out of control (the FDA and the Afghanistan exit are two good examples). Then we have a voting public which is desperate to believe in fairy tales as they don't seem to deal well with reality.

If you take those three things and stick them all together you have our mess. It even gets better. Many are concerned about people coming over the borders. That one is a dandy. The last time that was dealt with was back in Reagan times. Now we have Latin America as well as Haiti trying to move here. Not just a few, ALL of them. Seems that the weather is killing all the crops in Latin American so they starve. They also don't seem to have better governance than we do. We are dealing with thousands because they think we have food. However, that being said have a little visit with a few farmers. The middle west is dry as a bone, Los Angeles is out of water, etc. Our food supply is starting to be a risk as well.

I can keep going. I doubt there is any real solution to the border things. Everybody knows its a mess but nobody really has an answer to how to deal with not thousands but the millions warming up to visit as well just because they want to eat.

Now throw in the Corona Virus and the millions who think that its their right to infect everybody else basically, just because.

All this talk about fixing things is a damned joke. NOBODY has a solution and the proposed solutions boil down to 2. The first is to let everybody in because we love our fellow man. The other is to keep them all out anyway that is possible. No middle ground there and it boils down to "NO WAY!" Then the question becomes "Which way is NO WAY?"

I suspect the real problem is the simple fact that anybody here can go on, and on, and on about all of the above. The simple fact, however, is that to get anything done means that everybody has to get onboard for specifics and start to study and do something. That is NOT going to happen! Then the real problem starts - The guy on the white horse who can fix everything. This is demonstrated by the Trumpies. They expected him to fix it all, he didn't but many still believe. The simple fact that the man has proven that he is incapable of just about everything. His daddy gave him a half billion dollars and he went banko - 6 times! EVERYTHING he has tried has gone tits up! Yet half of our congress adore the man.

Sorry - I'm gonna wait for the second coming (any day now, we are told - Praise be!) If you really believe that stuff I got a bridge you might be interested in.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Winning - 10/05/21 06:33 PM
Originally Posted by jgw
All this talk about fixing things is a damned joke. NOBODY has a solution

Not quite true...plenty of people HAVE at least PARTIAL solutions to individual aspects of our problems, but they're not allowed to offer them.
You have to be in "the big club" to be listened to...ordinary people aren't listened to.

Just look at how hard Gordon (Loggy) has worked trying to get legs to grow under his bio-char project.
It gets some traction, but not the kind of global traction it deserves.
By this point, Loggy should be at the apex of a pretty sizeable team offering literally billions to help.

Why isn't that happening? Because too many in The Big Club have sacred oxen they think might be gored by his ideas.
They don't know with certainty, but just the fact that they are afraid it might be the case is enough.
And thus Loggy is being denied the kind of access he needs to get bio-char at or near Priority One.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/05/21 06:38 PM
Well said jgw. I think we, the voters expect that man on the white horse to solve all all problems within six months and when he doesn't, we start looking for another man or burden him with a congress of the other party. Besides most Americans having short memories, they want instant gratification, instant problems solved.

Looking back over presidential approval ratings, I was surprised to find most maintained above 50% approval, then abruptly fell after July. ALA exactly what Biden, Obama, Bill Clinton, Reagan had done. The reasons, the causes vary greatly, but there is a pattern here. Trump is an exception, he never achieved a 50% approval rating and G.W. Bush had 9-11 which skyrocketed his approval rating.

What I'm seeing today and over the last month or two is the high expectations for Biden hasn't been met, so the voters, basically independents have begun to look for for someone else. Which in this case means a change in congress since Biden isn't going anywhere. They did it to Bill Clinton, to Obama, to Trump and would have done it to G.W. Bush if not for 9-11. So they waited until G.W. Bush was reelected and then 2 years later wham, a Democratic congress.

I relate this to a bad baseball team with a bunch of problems, we bring in a new manager expecting a world series championship. and when the new manager doesn't deliver, we replace him with another manager, then another manager. All the while regardless of the manager, you still have a bad baseball team. This country has too many deep problems to expect one man to fix everything within a six month period. Yet, I think that is exactly what we expect when we elect a new president or change power in congress from one party to the other.

Maybe this makes sense, maybe not.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/05/21 07:00 PM
LOL ... kinda

In general I don't trust humans. Have you seen THE WALKING DEAD? However, I reserve my judgment on government on a case by case basis. I did not trust the Covid healthcare professionals in the Trump administration. They looked like they were about to bust. They look far better now.

I think some folks have already mentioned other examples of reasons why we should be wary of government. It has perhaps morphed into an entity no longer connected to our reality. I suspect that is simply the evolutionary process at work. Whether that is good bad or ugly, I'll let historians ruminate on it.

Could Trump be the proverbial head of the snake? Remove it and the threat disappears? I don't think so. I think we are a nudge or push away from open armed insurrection. Is this what it felt like in 1860????
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Winning - 10/05/21 08:16 PM
It does make sense Perotista and that is part of the problem, if not the entire problem. If elections come down solely to popularity and short term dreams of hope that there might be some painless miracle accomplished within a very short time frame. Our system is part of that problem. But another problem I see is that what’s popular is not always the right thing to do. In fact many times it is the wrong thing. Doing the right thing many times is not popular, in fact it will likely be very unpopular.

Just as in life.

A system built entirely upon short term popularity is going to be in trouble and ultimately fail.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/05/21 08:24 PM
I don't know. I may be old, but I wasn't around in 1860.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Winning - 10/05/21 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by Jeffery J. Haas
Why isn't that happening? Because too many in The Big Club have sacred oxen they think might be gored by his ideas.
They don't know with certainty, but just the fact that they are afraid it might be the case is enough.
And thus Loggy is being denied the kind of access he needs to get bio-char at or near Priority One.
Thanks for the kind words, Señor J. Furry!

I would like to give a somewhat different take on the lack of access (which is all too true) - the obstacles I have run into aren't generally fear or greedy protectionism - it's that people, especially powerful ones, think they know the most already, and aren't receptive to ideas that they are unfamiliar with. Or they have some preconceived standards for what a good idea looks like. In the case of global warming and forest fires, they think solutions should be humongous and nearly instantaneous. That's a job for the Big Boys! Big money, big industry, big donations, and BIG GASLIGHTING!!!

They are not intelligent enough, or informed enough to even begin to understand the problems, so the innovative solutions are invisible to them.

But they get to make the decisions.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Winning - 10/06/21 12:55 PM
Originally Posted by logtroll
That's a job for the Big Boys! Big money, big industry, big donations, and BIG GASLIGHTING!!!
...
But they get to make the decisions.
To get their attention, you have to be someone... be someone - maybe someone with a fast car.

Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/06/21 02:01 PM
Quote
the high expectations for Biden haven't been met, so the voters, basically independents have begun to look for someone else.

My expectations as an independent were that Biden would be an ineffectual placeholder who would lose(or cause Democrats to lose) to Republicans in 2024. His selection of Harris as a running mate pretty much cemented that fate.

Is this what it was like in 1860? I don't think so. Slavery was a much bigger issue than same-sex marriage or abortion or minimum wage increases...
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/06/21 05:02 PM
My expectation was for Biden to bring us back to a more normal, saner time. I didn't expect any new or massive legislation push. Just keeping the functions of government going smoothly without the name calling, temper tantrums, the needless feuds, etc.

I'm not into 2024 yet, but am whole hog into 2022. I think whatever happens in 2022 midterms will directly effect the presidential in 2024. I didn't see the implosion of Biden and the Democrats coming in August. That caught me by surprise. At first I chalked it up to the botched withdrawal of Afghanistan, but the continued low numbers into October tells me there is much more behind the fall. Exactly what that is, I don't know. But Biden and company have basically taken a 10 point plunge in August which has remained across the board on almost all issues since. Overall job approval, the economy, foreign policy, COVID, direction of the country, national security, etc. All around 10 points lower today than they were on 1 Aug 2021.

Now there's still over a year before the midterms, so no panicking. We may be seeing these numbers last until the next unforeseen event or until one party or the other does something stupid to get independents angry at them. Plenty of chances for that in the next year leading up to the midterms.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/06/21 10:03 PM
Quote
Slavery was a much bigger issue than same-sex marriage or abortion or minimum wage increases
So you think that is what {{{{{{{THE BASE}}}}}}} is all about .... hmmmm.

I am pretty sure it is not issue oriented. While shoving issues to the forefront is a tactic to distract, I suspect in this case what we have is a religious affront. The Lord and Savior of America, whom everyone loves and adores, was humiliated by Democrat Party {{{{{{{fraud}}}}}}. While not an issue like slavery, the impact is every bit as devastating.

1860? ... I think we are so close to being in the same position that I can smell the gunpowder from the cannons bombarding Ft Sumter.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/07/21 03:00 AM
I suspect not. The entire division is manufactured.

But assuming you're right, when do you expect the shooting to start? Will Republicans swarm down each street dragging us libruls from our homes and killing us? Will Law Enforcement be leading the way? Will it be State Police fighting the US Military? Maybe a Military Junta put into place?

Even if all that happens it will be over in ten years or so.

I don't see much point in doomsday hyperbole. At least not in regards to partisan politics. We've got global climate change looming that could actually spell the end of us and all our petty squabbles.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Winning - 10/08/21 01:28 AM
Originally Posted by Greger
I suspect not. The entire division is manufactured.

But assuming you're right, when do you expect the shooting to start? Will Republicans swarm down each street dragging us libruls from our homes and killing us? Will Law Enforcement be leading the way? Will it be State Police fighting the US Military? Maybe a Military Junta put into place?

Even if all that happens it will be over in ten years or so.

I don't see much point in doomsday hyperbole. At least not in regards to partisan politics. We've got global climate change looming that could actually spell the end of us and all our petty squabbles.


---I see it as being equivalent to "The Troubles" that plagued Northern Ireland for 30 years...random terrorist acts, innocent people maimed and killed, terrorists being let off easy by Trump judges and landmark cases where terrorism is tacitly approved by the Trump SCOTUS, lawmakers openly inciting further acts of terrorism, cops and military going rogue, terrorist attacks on polling places going up...way way up, disruption of services, purges, wannabe pogroms, and finally, attempts at rolling and diverse kristallnachts.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/08/21 01:28 PM
Quote
Will Republicans swarm down each street dragging us libruls from our homes and killing us? Will Law Enforcement be leading the way? Will it be State Police fighting the US Military? Maybe a Military Junta put into place?
Interesting you mentioned entities of forceful authority.

I mentioned last year the possibility the US Military "could" be a problem if then Mr Trump would not evacuate the WH. Well since then we have heard, read, and seen evidence of close ties between the military an law enforcement with Trump supporting groups and militias. So consider what happened in Iraq when al qaeda begin their campaign of asymmetrical warfare. This is what I see. None of these groups can mount a full frontal military style assault on anything, but can mount operations with limited military/political objectives i.e. asymmetrical ops. We have already seen the DoD talk about military people being closely associated with militias and Trump supporting groups, or the Capitol Police coordinating with some insurrectionists.

These folks believe, as all true believers do, in their delusion the country has been stolen, and therefore they have a right, an obligation, to overthrow an illegitimate government. What would stop that belief? It is burned in.

Hyperbole? Really? When I predicted the possibility of attempts by these folks to overthrow the election through legal machinations, little did I foresee the possibility of the extent of participation by folks who were former elected representatives, high ranking officials, and legal minds, in a conspiracy to overthrow the government. I thought only the delusional narcissist would be the sole voice of that insanity.

So I have to ask, hyperbole ... really?
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/08/21 06:51 PM
It was a riot Mr. Porter. Incited by an off-the-rails former reality show star. I'm as righteously indignant about "the insurrection" as the next guy. But it was such an utter failure and brutally representative of how every Republican endeavor always ends up.

The QAnon crowd is being left behind as reality catches up with their lies. Trump is nothing more than an angry vindictive old man who wants to be president so he can seek revenge against all who have wronged him.

Hyperbole...exaggeration. Yes, this isn't 1860.

But that's okay! We are here to rant and who knows, maybe you'll be lucky and all your predictions will come true!
Posted By: logtroll Re: Winning - 10/09/21 12:46 AM
Something I learned recently, extortion is basically the threat of damaging somebody if they don’t do what the other body demands. The extorter doesn’t have to actually do any harm. Similarly, insurrection is not the successful overthrow of a government, it is only the intent to do it.

Riot? Yes…

Insurrection? Yes.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/09/21 03:32 AM
Quote
riot ... "the insurrection"
I was taught in my math classes to always start with the definitions.

Originally Posted by USLegal
Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.”
and
Originally Posted by USLegal
riots and offenses connected with mob violence are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society
So there is a difference. One Republican Rep has infamously said the people shouting for VP Pence's head were just tourists (Actually I believe he was only referring to the one video of "trespassers" walking around the rotunda, but I use his stupidly used words for effect ... I mean he has to defend Trump at all costs).

Quote
But it was such an utter failure and brutally representative of how every Republican endeavor always ends up.
Utter failures? Really? I see great successes. Packed (not used in the historical sense, but in the pragmatic sense) the SC with politically far right justices. Republican state legislatures have enacted voting laws which will potentially restrict voters from predominantly Democrat districts. Republican legislatures have enacted anti-abortion laws. Should I go on with Republican failures? The reason they have been so successful is the dedication of far right organizations which are well funded. The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation come to mind.

Quote
The QAnon crowd is being left behind as reality catches up with their lies.
Not where I live.

Quote
Trump is nothing more than an angry vindictive old man who wants to be president so he can seek revenge against all who have wronged him.
Trump is a malignant narcissist. He is so delusional he actually believes the election was stolen from him. Does he want revenge? Damn straight.

Quote
Yes, this isn't 1860
As close as it has ever been. Trump supporters where I live are using crazy talk. None have taken their signs/flags down. When Trump says Pres Biden is destroying the country, they believe it. So what do you think these folks will do .... make smores.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/09/21 04:34 PM
Quote
As close as it has ever been. Trump supporters where I live are using crazy talk. None have taken their signs/flags down. When Trump says Pres Biden is destroying the country, they believe it. So what do you think these folks will do .... make smores.

Some of them are likely making s'mores as I type this. Grilling burgers, baking pies.
They're watching ball games, hauling their kids around and trying to make a living.

As to your definitions, yes I know. You can wrap that definition around these idiots if you want, but this was a mindless mob bent on nothing but destruction. If this were in fact a "movement" they would have organized those militia boys and come in shooting. They could have secured the capital and called Trump to hand him the victory.

That's not what happened. They took pictures of themselves smearing feces on the walls to prove they were true patriots!

Then they went home and made s'mores.

Paper Tiger.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/09/21 04:57 PM
Destroying the country, no. I've been fairly happy with Biden. Not so much with the Democratic controlled congress. Now it's time to let the numbers talk. If I were a Democrat, I'd start paying attention to them if the Democrats want to retain control of congress next year. Still early, but I haven't seen what I would see with these numbers.

1 Aug numbers, pre-Afghanistan, 31 Aug numbers, end of Afghanistan withdrawal, 7 Oct numbers post Afghanistan.

Biden’s overall job approval/disapproval numbers:
1 Aug 51.3% approval, 45.9% disapproval/31 Aug 46.3% approval, 48.6% disapproval/7 Oct 43.4% approval, 50.3% disapproval.

Generic congressional vote
1 Aug Democrats 48% Republican 41% D plus 7/31 Aug Democrats 46% Republicans 44% D plus 2/7 Oct Democrats 44% Republicans 41% D plus 3.

Direction of the Country, right track/wrong track

1 Aug right track 40%, wrong track 53%/31 Aug right track 30%, wrong track 61%/7 Oct right track 32%/wrong track 61%.

Immigration 1 Aug 42% approve, 54% disapprove/31 Aug 34% approve, 57% disapprove/7 Oct 32% approve, 60% disapprove.

COVID 1 Aug 62% approve, 38% disapprove/31 Aug 53% approve, 43% disapprove/7 Oct 51% approve, 45% disapprove.

Economy 1 Aug 55% approve, 45% disapprove/31 Aug 46% approve, 49% disapprove/7 Oct 45% approve, 50% disapprove.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

Still basically no change since 30 Aug outside of a one or two point drop in a couple of categories. If the drop was just Afghanistan related, the botched withdrawal, I’d expected Biden and company to be on an upward trajectory 5 weeks after the end of Afghanistan. That hasn’t happened. My only conclusion is the bad numbers run much deeper and into more categories than just Afghanistan. The latest, most recent numbers have been even worse than the RCP averages. But I’ll let this The Hill articles get into that nitty gritty.

'Battered on trust, doubted on leadership': A 'brutal' poll for Biden shows no easy fix


https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...dership-a-brutal-poll-for-biden-shows-no


The article mentioned normal ups and downs in the poll numbers. I'm beginning to wonder if there is such a thing in today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship as normal ups and downs.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/09/21 05:17 PM
I would like to point out, yet again, the degree to which Trump is a loser. In business he has failed at just about anything he has touched, except for the business that daddy started and he turned over to somebody else. He tried selling stuff, from neckties to steaks and education - all gone and broke. I think he won his base from his TV show which he didn't write and didn't control and portrayed him as being successful.

Daddy gave him half a billion dollars and he proceeded to go banko - SIX TIMES!

As president the secret service went broke paying for housing bodyguards for the President at overpriced prices.

As far as anybody can tell he has never made a dime on his golf courses.

His hotel is a financial disaster bailed out by the Saudis who ordered rooms that they never used but spent millions 'helping' Trump.

Contractors will no longer accept any work from Trump unless they get the money up front.

There is a huge amount of law suits against him. I think that if he ever gets charged and convicted of a crime he can no longer stand for president. He was, incidentally, the only president, I think, ever to publicly announce he wasn't responsible. The strange thing about that one is that he was speaking truth!

This is the guy his base thinks is the greatest businessman in the world. He lies to his base regularly and they cheer. They thank him for all he has done for them but, as far as I can tell, nobody has yet to tell us what, exactly that was. His base is a problem, its a problem for the nation, a problem for themselves, and if they ever grasp reality they will be a serious problem for Trump (no likely to happen but pleasant to think about)
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/09/21 05:33 PM
Pero, are you familiar with David Shor?

Democratic data scientist warns party could be out of power for a decade

This is a pretty likely scenario. Except I don't think the current Republican party has the chops to actually stay in power for a decade.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/09/21 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Pero, are you familiar with David Shor?

Democratic data scientist warns party could be out of power for a decade

This is a pretty likely scenario. Except I don't think the current Republican party has the chops to actually stay in power for a decade.
I'm researching and keeping track of numbers for 2022. Not a decade from now or even 2024. Way too much can and will happened to say the Democrats will be out of power for a decade. I don't believe that.

After the Goldwater debacle in 1964, Goldwater received only 39% of the vote, the Democrats took a 68-32 advantage in the senate and a 295-140 edge in the House. Pundits were saying it take 20 years for the GOP to recover. But 4 years later, Nixon was president, the Republicans had gained 40 house seats and 10 senate seats.

After Watergate, another 20 year republican absence was broadcasted. That lasted until 1980 with Reagan becoming president and the GOP actually taking control of the senate for the first time since 1954.

With Reagan talk of the Republican lock on the presidency. Many books were written about that. That lock lasted until 1992. I tend to ignore these long range forecasts.


Even with Biden's drop in approval in almost every category, along with the Republican Party gaining a tie in approval with the Democrats, not much has changed as to 2022. A 8-15 seat pickup for the GOP in the House, just enough to give the Republicans control. a 1-2 seat Democratic pickup in the senate. Thanks to retirements of GOP senators.

Current Democratic seats to watch in the senate, NH, GA, NV, AZ. Current Republican held seats to watch, NC, PA, WI and FL. Democrats have a slight advantage in PA and WI, these are the two seats they could pick up. NC is 50-50 and Rubio a slight advantage in Florida. NH all depends on Sununu, if he challenges Hassan or not. If not, NH stays Democratic, Warnock, Masto and Kelly all are very slight favorites to retain their seats. But a lot can change between now and Nov 2022.

Kelly, AZ looked safe a month ago, but since then has seen his lead drop from double digits down to 4 points over 4 potential Republican challengers.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/10/21 11:40 PM
Shor is a data scientist who does the same thing you do. But he has the time and the inclination to look deeper than most are capable of looking and to read futures a bit farther down the line.

It's not hard to see Democrats losing big in 2022, And if that happens then 2024 will likely go to Republicans as well. Nobody ever expected Uncle Joe to last two terms.

If Republicans field a qualified candidate who can actually govern without pissing everybody else off he will hold office and power for the next eight years...

And there's your decade gone in a single paragraph.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/11/21 12:20 AM
It's very possible. I do expect the GOP to retake the House in 2022. At least the early indications point to that. The senate, I'm not sure. But there's a year to go.

I agree 2024 probably boils down to the candidates. If Trump runs again, any decent democratic candidate would probably beat him. Harris, she could be another Hillary Clinton. Biden had said during the Democratic Primaries he plans on serving one term. I don't expect him to run again. I do think his hand picked successor, Harris is probably the worst candidate.

If the GOP decides to run someone else other than Trump, who knows. I think the best bet for the Democrats would be a fresh young face, if from flyover country, so much the better. The Republicans, I don't know who will come forth. Kasich and Rubio seem to be out of the picture.

But yes, if the GOP wins the presidency in 2024, yep, that's may be the decade.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/11/21 02:27 PM
The only fresh faces we're liable to see will be on the Republican side. You might have noticed that the Republican side has embraced and defended its own Young Turks, the Democratic side attacks them from every angle and tries to drive them away.

While AOC is considered a radical leftist among mainstream Democrats, the Proud Boys are considered "patriots" among mainstream Republicans. When it comes right down to it, Democrats are a lot more like Republicans than they'd like to admit.

SO MUCH like Republicans that they will vote for Republicans to stop ANY leftward movement.

It isn't the Republican Party that is doomed...they are driving the last nails into the Democratic Party's coffin as we type. Democrats have always sided with the losers anyway...what did they expect?

America rejected Trump in 2020. It did not reject conservatism. The only hope Democrats have is if Republicans run enough Trumpy candidates to make America reject Trumpism again in 2022 or by running Trump himself in 2024. This is the very reason I was so opposed to Biden during the primaries. And this is the very reason that he won.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Winning - 10/11/21 02:48 PM
I'm getting an idea that a cornerstone of American Culture is delusion.

Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/11/21 04:40 PM
Republicans actually have a culture according to your definition in the other thread. They are united under the flag, in Jesus, on war, 80 hour work weeks, motherhood, stock car racing, guns, and apple pie. Lefties should just go back where they came from.

They are united against science, education, fair wages, and healthcare.

2022 will likely see the house flip and in 2024 the Senate will go. That year there are 21 Democratic seats up for grabs and only ten Republican.

Harris is the presumptive Democratic candidate at this point in time and the Republicans will run Trump if he so chooses. If he chooses not to Desantis and Nikki Haley are topping the straw polls among conservatives. It'd be a hoot if the Reeps notched the first woman president and she set women's rights back a century. That's culture for ya!
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/11/21 05:14 PM
I agree, 2020 was a total rejection of Trump. But not of the GOP nor an endorsement of a Democratic Party agenda. It certainly wasn't a mandate. For a mandate, a president must swamp his opponent, then bring in numerous house and senate members on his coat tails. Biden had none.


Reagan in 1980 had a mandate, he beat Carter by 11 points, Ronnie brought in 34 Republican house candidates and 12 GOP senate candidate which enabled the Republicans to gain control of the senate for the first time since 1954. That is having coat tails and a mandate.

Biden beat Trump by 4 points and lost 13 house seats. In fact the Democrats also lost 2 state legislatures and a governorship.

Obama probably came the closest to having a mandate in 2008. He beat McCain by 7 points, brought in 23 new House Democrats and 8 new Democratic senators.

2020 was a rejection of Trump, but not a rejection of conservatism as the down ballot results shows. It wasn't an endorsement for Democratic Party ideals or agenda. It was basically, for independents anyway of their wish for a saner president who knew how to act presidential and behave as a president should. If Biden did something or didn't do a thing, that was okay with them. Just act and behave presidential.

The bottom line is Biden has lost independents, at least for the time being. But this loss may be beginning to be written into stone. Empty shelves in stores are beginning to appear, gas has risen from 1.70 a gallon to 3.30 at least here over the last 6 months.. The price of a loaf of bread gone up from 2 dollars to 3 dollars and much stuff has skyrocketed over the last 6-8 months.

These get noticed. The price of heating one's home with natural gas is a 100 dollars more a month than last year. As Bill Clinton once said, it's the economy stupid. I'll add the price and availability of goods in stores also. The infrastructure bill and that 3.5 trillion wish list could mean nothing next year unless Biden and company can get prices and the availability of goods under control. I'm surprised few folks have noticed this.

Probably not too surprised by the Democrats not noticing this, they're too busy, too focused on Trump than to pay any attention to what is going on in their own backyard.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/11/21 05:53 PM
Here's a couple of articles that might explain what is happening with Biden and company.

Independents have turned on Joe Biden

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/08/politics/independents-biden-losing-fast/index.html

and what I was talking about in my previous post.

An energy crisis is gripping the world, with potentially grave consequences

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/energy-crisis-gripping-world-potentially-120310123.html

I'm not saying Biden is responsible, but the buck stops at the president's desk. That' how voters, independents especially view these things.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/12/21 06:35 PM
Quote
I'm not saying Biden is responsible

I am. And I guess a lot of other independents feel the same.

Maybe acting presidential and not being Trump isn't enough to satisfy a struggling nation.

Maybe he's actually got to assert some power. If Trump had two senators standing between him and what he wanted... what would Donald do?
Posted By: logtroll Re: Winning - 10/12/21 07:52 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Republicans actually have a culture according to your definition in the other thread.
That they do. A culture is not necessarily a force for good...
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 10/12/21 09:10 PM
We are seeing a lot of behavior that is best described as "throwing a tantrum". Everybody hates everything about the pandemic, and some people need somebody to blame. Trump tried very hard to blame it all on the Chinese, but a recent research paper gave natural spill-over about a 99.999% probability.

The more rational among us recognize that this human tendency does no good, but we are in the minority here. No politician is going to make it go away, because they don't have that ability. Some will try to make things better. Some will try to make things worse.

Choose wisely.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/12/21 09:34 PM
Trump and I might add Obama would use executive orders. I might add it's 52 senators standing in Biden's way. 50 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Which leads me back to my numbers theory of the Democrats not having the numbers. But they may surprise me yet. Doubtful, but possible.

Not being Trump was good for 6 months. Most new presidents get a 100 day honeymoon, Biden received a 6 month one. No one should have expected that to last.

From looking at the numbers, my theory, Biden was a breath of fresh air compared to Trump. Just looking and acting presidential was enough to keep his approval numbers in numerous categories very high. Above 50%. The botched withdrawal from Afghanistan brought Biden into focus, especially among independents. Whereas breathing the Trumpless fresh air was good enough for six months, it ceased to be with the focus changed to what was happening today, the present, now.

First it was Afghanistan which turned independents attention to the border, then to COVID and Delta, then to the economy, then to rising gas and food prices, then on and on to other categories. With their attention averted from Trump, Biden and company began to pay the price of being Biden and company. Trump was for the most part forgotten by many independents. He's no longer president, the Republicans, no longer in charge.

So whatever is perceived as going wrong ends up at the foot of Biden Desk. The old buck stops here. No president maintains his high approval rating given during the honeymoon phase. Approval ratings usually begin to drop after 100 days, in Biden's case it was six months.

I wonder if not for the withdrawal of Afghanistan if Biden and company might not still be flying high today. If independents would still be more concerned with Trump than what Biden is doing or not doing. Probably not, something else would have poked up their head to bring attention from Trump to Biden.

As an aside, I'll add this, I think and have always thought congressmen and senators should represent the people of their district and state first and foremost, always. The political party they belong to can come in second or third or further down the line.But don't worry, once Manchin is gone, I'm sure West Virginia will elect an extreme right wing Republican to replace him. He won't count anymore to give the Democrats the majority. The Democrats better enjoy Manchin while they can. He can't last and won't.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 10/13/21 12:50 AM
Manchin being a Democrat does put them in the majority, but does little good if he won't vote for the Democrats major agenda. And it's especially obnoxious when you consider that agenda would do his constituents a lot of good, and cost them very little. Blue states like California and New York would end up paying for the 3.5 trillion dollar bill. Why is he resisting all these great things for his people back home?
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 10/13/21 02:45 AM
Manchin is a DINO.

frown
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/13/21 03:01 AM
Manchin represents a solid red, conservative state. You can't expect him to act and vote like a California or New York liberal. Manchin is the only reason the Democrats control the senate, be thankful for him or you'd be putting up with the GOP in control and Mitch McConnell as senate majority leader. Biden and or the progressive wing's agenda would be dead in its track.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/13/21 03:04 AM
I’ve been studying the numbers as is my habit. I discovered, actually I knew we have an anomaly that is out of historical norms. It’s I never gave it a thought. I should have caught it long before now.

Here’s the anomaly, Biden’s overall job approval has dropped 8 points since 1 Aug, the right track direction of the country has dropped 10 points as has Biden job approval on immigration and handling of the economy. On COVID, Biden has dropped 11 points since 1 Aug. Biden’s disapproval on the above issues has risen correspondently. He’s below water on all of them.

The anomaly, the generic congressional ballot. It stood at 48-41 back on 1 Aug, a 7-point advantage for the Democrats. Today, the generic congressional ballot stands at 44-41, still in favor of the Democrats. Although the Democrats have dropped 4 points, the Republicans haven’t gained a single point. That is the anomaly. Historical, a drop in the president’s approval numbers, overall, the economy etc. is reflected in the generic congressional ballot. It isn’t. A 10-point drop in all the issues above should be reflected in a general way in the generic congressional ballot also. One expects, at least historically that the Republicans would have the lead at a minimum. Not still be 3 points behind.

I don’t know why this is. Other than saying that anything dealing with Trump, historical norms have been tossed out the window. It could be the generic congressional ballot is just slow in catching up with the other issues that are polled constantly. That in a week or two, the congressional ballot will fall into line with the other issue polls. Then again, maybe not. Taking a SWAG, it might be a majority of the voters don’t like the way Biden and company have been doing their job or jobs lately. But are reluctant to put Trump Republicans back in charge of congress. That is just a SWAG. It could be just a hopeful SWAG or there may be something to it. Regardless, I’ll continue to watch and study the numbers. Any ideas?
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/13/21 02:43 PM
Quote
it might be a majority of the voters don’t like the way Biden and company have been doing their job or jobs lately. But are reluctant to put Trump Republicans back in charge of congress.

Seems like a fair guess. Voters rejected the divisive government of Donald Trump but also aren't so keen on the kumbaya attitude expressed in the new government. Marxist theory insists that balance will eventually be achieved. We're just watching the scales tilt back and forth between people and money.

Money has always been in control, the people are just beginning to gain some ground.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/13/21 03:02 PM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
Manchin is a DINO.

frown
That might well be true but he represents a majority of all Americans at this time.

The simplest and most obvious answer is to give Manchin everything he wants. I think he might well represent what is actually doable without violent partisan over-reaction. Give him what he wants then build on that wherever you can.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/13/21 05:15 PM
If the Dems are to win they have to set the conversation and stick to it. Same with their mouths - they gotta watch their mouths and stick with making it all about the Republicans. They should do this if they really want to win (I remain not too sure about that). The Republicans win because they do that and they march in lock step . The Dems need Republican disasters to win (historically speaking). Its really time for the Dems to actually try to win and go after the Republicans with consistent arguments as, so far, their system of depending on taking over a financially disastrous nation is somehow winning instead of taking on a job they get absolutely no credit for (because they haven't the capacity to toot their own horn).

I fear for us all after the election next year. The Dems simply don't seem to have the vigor or will to actually get out and do battle with the Republicans as they are too busy doing that to each other. As an anti-Trump person that considers that the Republicans are not exactly right in the head a lot of the time. On the other side they watch the Dems wound themselves at the slightest opportunity and think that them that vote Democratic are also not exactly right in the head. On reflection EVERYBODY seems to qualify in that one and THAT is a bit scary!
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/13/21 09:02 PM
I keep hearing and reading pundits claiming Trump supporters are moving away from him, but I don't buy it. Based on my unscientific, nonrandom, data set of Trump lovers around me, I would say they all are still just as enthralled and supporting of Trump. They all know the election was stolen, covid is a hoax, and Hillary just ate a baby.

I also hear reporters talk about how behind closed doors elected Republicans talk about dumping Trump. Sure I believe it, but I also know the reality they are facing. The base will not tolerate Trump denigration. They have no choice but to publicly support Trump to continue receiving the support of the base.

Weird .... in order to maintain power they have to destroy the very institutions which elected them to power. I think this may be a paradox, but one which has real life implications ... the fall of American Democracy.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/13/21 09:06 PM
Quote
give Manchin everything he wants
I propose linking voting rights to BBB. Get his vote for whatever his bottom line is .... be it money or policy .... if he votes for preserving voting rights, even if it requires a carve out for selective sequestration of the filibuster.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/13/21 09:28 PM
republican numbers dealing with Trump, Nov 2020 75% very favorable, 16% somewhat favorable. Question 74A.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/jsojry0vph/econTabReport.pdf

Republicans as of 12 Oct 2021, 63% very favorable, 23% somewhat favorable. Question 57G

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/h2rgoa7a3x/econTabReport.pdf

You do have a 12 point drop in Republicans who view Trump very favorably, but kind of offset in that most of them dropped down into the somewhat favorable column. I'm still trying to figure out what somewhat favorable means.

I take it those who view Trump very favorably are the avid Trumpers. You may take it differently.

On voting, high vs. low turnout, I did a paper on that awhile ago. Here it is.

Is High Voter turnout benefiting the Democratic Party an old wives tale?

I have been embroiled in a debate about high voter turnout always helping the Democratic Party. I’ve stated that it was nothing more than an old wives tale. But had nothing to back my stance up. So here is the research result on that.. I used VAP since VEP was only kept track of beginning in 1980.



Average voter turnout since 1960 in presidential elections 55%.

2020 62% high Biden winner

2016 55% average, Trump winner

2012 53% low, Obama winner

2008 57% high, Obama winner

2004 56% high, G.W. Bush winner

2000 51% low, G.W. Bush winner

1996 49% low, Bill Clinton winner

1992 55% average, Bill Clinton winner

1988 50% low, G.H.W. Bush winner

1984 53% low, Reagan winner

1980 53% low, Reagan winner

1976 53% low, Carter winner

1972 55% average Nixon winner

1968 61% high Nixon winner

1964 61% LBJ winner

1960 63% JFK winner



4 Democratic and 2 Republican winners when there was a high voter turnout, above average. 4 Democratic and 3 Republican winners when the voter turnout was low or below average. 1 Democrat and 2 republican winners when the voter turnout was average. Presidential wise, I see little difference between high and low voter turnout.



Midterm House elections. The average turnout for midterms is 40%

2018 50% high, Democrats gained 44 seats

2014 38% low, Republicans gained 8 seats

2010 42% high, Republicans gained 63 seats

2006 38% low, Democrats gained 33 seats

2002 40% average, Republicans gained 8 seats

1998 37% low, Democrats gained 3 seats

1994 42% high, Republicans gained 54 seats

1990 38% low, Democrats gained 7 seats

1986 38% low, democrats gained 5 seats

1982 43% high, democrats gained 27 seats

1978 39% low, Republicans gained 7 seats

1974 39% low, Democrats gained 39 seats

1970 48% high, Democrats gained 12 seats

1966 47% high, Republicans gained 47 seats

1962 46% high, republicans gained 4 seats



I still don’t see a correlation between high and low turnout benefiting one or the other party. What I see is when the house changed hands, control 1994, 2010 and 2018, turnout was high. But in 2006 when the democrats took control of the house with a net gain of 33 seats, turnout was low. Finally, I looked back at gains of one party or the other of 30 or more seats to compare that to voter turnout in the midterms.



2018 50% high, Democrats gained 44 seats

2010 42% high, Republicans gained 63 seats

2006 38% low, Democrats gained 33 seats

1994 42% high, Republicans gained 54 seats

1974 39% low, Democrats gained 39 seats

1966 47% high, Republicans gained 47 seats



4 with high voter turnout, 2 with low voter turnout. Interesting to note that in 3 of the 4 high voter turnout midterm elections, it was the republicans who gained 30 or more seats vs. 1 for the Democrats. The two elections that had low voter turnout, the democrats picked up 30 plus seats in both of those.



My conclusion, high voter turnout only benefiting the Democratic Party is an old wives tale that we all had bought into.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/13/21 11:34 PM
Different things get different people off the couch. And you never know before the election just which ones will come out and vote.

Only 15% of Americans identify as "progressive".
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/14/21 12:30 AM
Very true. One never knows about turnout. One also never knows who these, shall I say extra high voters or normal non-voters who get off the couch will vote for. This is why I never understand this voter suppression thing. High voter turnout is just a liable to benefit the GOP as it is the Democrats or work against them.

The myth was high voter turnout benefits the democrats, low voter turnout the republicans. The stats and numbers seem to bust that myth. My gut feeling at the moment is 2022 will be a low voter turnout year. Nothing to base that one, just a feeling.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/14/21 01:00 PM
Just received this in my inbox. It may explain a bit why Biden and company approval ratings are falling. A majority of Americans think the government is trying to do too much and is not putting enough focus on solving existing problems. That the federal government has too much power.

Americans Revert to Favoring Reduced Government Role

https://news.gallup.com/poll/355838...nt=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

As usual, it isn’t the Republicans or the Democrats that has changed their views on the role of government, it is independents. In 2020 independents favored a more active government, 56% did so vs. 36% who thought the government was doing too much. Today, those numbers are reversed, 57% says government is trying to do way too many things, should become less active while 38% think the government should be doing more.

It seems to me when we have a crisis, folks tend to think the government should do more, to solve it. When things are going good, the government should sit on its hands and play tiddlywinks. Also check out the graph that show those in favor of more services, more taxes and less services, less taxes. What I have found out here is a majority of Americans support cutting back on services, programs as long as it isn’t a program or service that involves them.
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Winning - 10/14/21 01:35 PM
I think the major problem regarding the federal level is that most respondents to questionnaires or polls really don’t know what they want. They vaguely want the federal government to do something, but they are not quite sure of what that something really is.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/14/21 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by Pero
It seems to me when we have a crisis, folks tend to think the government should do more, to solve it. When things are going good, the government should sit on its hands
It seems to me we haven't been out of a crisis in living memory. There are at least a dozen various crises running concurrently at any given time
But what I genuinely don't understand is anyone who imagines that we are not currently having a bit of a crisis....Prices are rising, shelves are bare, ports are jammed up, covid is raging. Nearly a million dead, help is hard to find, cash is short and Republicans and independents alike have decided that this is the time to sit on our hands. No crises here folks, move along, move along...

Originally Posted by Ken
They vaguely want the federal government to do something, but they are not quite sure of what that something really is.
It's not my fecking job to know what the federal government should do. We elect and pay enormous sums of money to people who are supposed to know what to do. They in turn pay experts to figure out what the best course of action might be. Then they talk about it some and decide to do nothing.

But maybe my take on the current situation is wrong. Maybe Republicans aren't trying to drive prices up and the stock market down to improve their chances in 2022...maybe it's just my imagination.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/14/21 03:28 PM
Pero, I don't think you've ever fully grasped my couch-sitter theorem. You attribute it to "independents". That's as good a word as any for them.

There's a bunch who always votes.

There's a bunch who never vote.

And there's a bunch who sometimes votes. This is the gang that determines the winners.

They might or might not get off their couches. Half of them are liberal, half of them are conservative, they are registered as partisans and independents and you never know what shiny thing might get them off the couches and into the polls. Some are voting for the first time, some haven't voted for 40 years. Some only vote in presidential elections.

Most of them agree with you. 15% of them agree with me. The rest are batshit crazy.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/14/21 03:38 PM
Quote
it isn’t the Republicans or the Democrats that has changed their views on the role of government, it is independents
My thought on just that statement is .... they have not read the Constitution.

We, as citizens, have a contractual agreement for the creation of the federal government. Thus I go back to the foundations and read what that contract says.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/14/21 04:48 PM
You have to realize that independents are about as far away from being political junkies as they can possibly be. Probably the last time they read or studied the Constitution was probably back when they were in High School. They're for the most part, not politically active. Generally, they don't have a political agenda like the two major parties do. They make up 40% of the electorate, but usually around 25 or 26% of those who actually get out to vote.They'll vote on feeling, likes and dislikes and their perception of how things are going.

But even at around 25% of all those who actually do vote, they, independents have the power to decide elections. Why they vote the way they do or the reasons behind their vote vary and is usually hard to pin down. I'd say mostly on perceptions and charisma. Independents don't own the horses in an election like both major parties do. They're probably more a casual fan. sometimes interested, sometimes not.

Independents can vote 58-42 for one party and its candidates one election, then switch and vote 58-42 for the other party's candidates in the next election. They can easily cause a wave election where they throw out the party in power or they can stick with the party in power. It all depends whether or not they're angry.

In 2006 independents threw out the Republican, then elected Obama and enhanced the Demorcratic presents in both the senate and the house. Then bang, they threw out the Democrats in the house in 2010, then turned around and elected Obama for a second time, then bang again, gave the senate to the GOP. They elected Trump in 2016, bam, in 2018 they threw out the Republicans, then switched and voted in Biden.

Most of those elections, it wasn't by small numbers either. They went big for one party or the other. This is just something folks or party partisans must get use to. Either make independents happy or lose the next election. Say what you will about them, but they do decide elections and independents are a growing faction of our electorate. They have grown from 30% in 2006 to 40% today as both major parties continue to shrink.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/14/21 05:23 PM
I think that everybody is really sick and tired of the Dems trying to make claims and failing each step of the way. Until they actually do something they are failing - that's just the way politics work. The party in power has to do something just not talk about doing something which is, so far, all the Dems have been able to come up with. They are so self interested that they don't seem to have the time to take care of business and that isn't helping them even a little bit.

Their real problem seems to be that they just don't get it and they better start getting over that.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/14/21 08:07 PM
First, let me throw this out there.

Anti-Trump Republicans to back vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 2022 congressional races

https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-trump-republicans-back-vulnerable-115315092.html

Greger, Coach potatoes, yes. Independents, yes. swing voters to a certain extent. Swing voters are the ones out of that bunch that actually vote. Who and why most of the time goes unknown. Unless they're actually angry at the party in power, then everyone knows why.

Presidential election and who independents, swing voters vote for is fairly easily to determine. They vote most of the time for the candidate they like as a person the most. This holds True with Biden over Trump, Trump over Clinton, Obama over Romney and McCain, Bush II over Kerry and Gore, Bill Clinton over Dole and Bush I, Bush I over Dukakis, Reagan over Mondale and Carter etc.

Swing voters went for all the winners, sometimes it was close, other times not so close. But going back, independents have for the most part gone to the candidate they liked best as a person.The more likable candidate.

Midterms are difficult to figure. There's no easy category or number to refer to to figure out how'll swing voters, independents, coach potatoes will vote. Although if one looks at the anger level, that usually works.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/15/21 04:44 PM
While doing my morning walk, I was thinking about the anomaly of the Democrats still holding a 3-point advantage in the generic congressional ballot while Biden and the Democrats have dropped an average of 10 points in almost all issue related categories. Below water in all. Anti-Trump Republicans forming an organization to support Democratic congressional candidates could be some of the cause of this anomaly. Some I say, not all. Here it is again in case you missed it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-trump-republicans-back-vulnerable-115315092.html

I realize when it comes to Trump traditional political conventional wisdom doesn’t apply. There is no historical context when it comes to Trump. 2016 and 2020 were so unique, they amplify that there is nothing conventional or traditional to place them in. Although 2018 was a normal election with normal historical norms and traditions. 2022 seems to be shaping up as another unique election with no historical context, norms or wisdoms.

2016 provided us with the two most disliked major party candidates in our history. Their 36% and 38% favorable set the records for the lowest ever while those two with a 56% and 60% unfavorable and unwanted to become our next president, they were the only two over 50% in this category. Not even Barry Goldwater in 1964 had that low or high in the like and dislike categories. His was 43% favorable, 47% unfavorable.

2020, unique in the fact the Republicans lost the presidency by 7 plus million votes, yet gained 13 house seats, 2 state legislatures and a governor. That just doesn’t happen. It did once, Grover Cleveland in 1884, but he won the presidency by just 56.000 votes and beat Blaine by just 00.6%. 6/10ths of a single percentage point. Not the 4.5% Biden won by.

I suppose one can only chalk all of this up to the Trump factor.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/15/21 05:16 PM
Just one little thing. I believe that the independents don't so much vote for the winners as decide the winners - every time. I think I read that there are more independents than members of each party. I also suspect that the do nothing Dems are not exactly charming the independents.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/15/21 05:30 PM
The main difference between Trump and Clinton was that one of them would have been a capable and compassionate president and the other was obviously a crook.

Madame Clinton is a lot more progressive than folks gave her credit for...or perhaps that's why they hated her. America was robbed of another great president when Al Gore was defeated.
Bernie Sanders was another who never quite got on the ticket.

One day the right person will be in the right place at the right time and we'll get another FDR.

Until then we will suffer with mediocre presidents and weak leaders.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/15/21 05:50 PM
Quote
the do-nothing Dems are not exactly charming the independents.

You complain when the Dems try to do things and you complain when they do nothing!

President Biden's agenda is an over-reach, like I said elsewhere...compromise with Manchin and Sinema, pass sh*t and get things rolling. It's the stalemate that has his numbers down. Pass anything at all and they will rise.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/15/21 06:43 PM
Quote
.compromise with Manchin and Sinema, pass sh*t and get things rolling
I don't know if it is over-reach. Could be in a pragmatic sense. Don't know if this caused a numbers dip ... I don't care. What I do care about is getting something done before the Trumpists take control of the House and maybe the Senate.

Basically I agree with the quoted snippet. Compromise now and create the possibility of winning future elections to continue working for the people. If there are no protections for voting rights in the future, I can guarantee Trumpists will win, and install batsheis crazies in all branches of government.

The federal government does not reside in an ivory tower, eloquently discussing policies, but in a landfill trying to grind out a tasty sausage from refuse.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/15/21 07:25 PM
jgw is correct in my mind. Independents don't necessary vote for winners, they decide winners. Especially nationally. Gallup lists the party strength, those who identify them selves as Republicans and Democrats at 29% each as of 17 Sep 2021 with 41% being independents. Here's the link, party affiliation changes constantly, I keep track of it for use in my forecasts. But its interesting how it goes up and down. All depends on what's happening at the moment.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Also interesting is independents which can be broken down into 3 categories, independents lean Republican, independents lean Democrat and no lean or true independents. For the first time since April 2020, independents lean Republican has taken a slight advantage over independents lean Democratic.

44% of those who profess to be independents as of 17 Sep 2021 lean toward the Republicans, 39% lean toward the Democrats with 17% of independents with no leans, true or pure independents as I call them. Now all this will change come the end of the month when Gallup comes out with another party affiliation poll.

I'm not sure it's the infighting that drove Biden and company's approvals down. Although it can't help. That wasn't happening back in August when those numbers began to tumble. I think the first step on recovery would be for the House to pass the compromised, bipartisan infrastructure bill that the senate has already passed. But there may be economics problems out there beyond Biden's and the Democratic controlled congress ability to do much about. Empty store shelves, a dollar rise a gallon in gas, the cost of food rising etc. Perhaps a lot of this has to do with a lot of people refusing to go back to work.

I think folks are just tired of the pandemic, they want things to go back to normal. That the election of Biden was due to or tied to that hope. There was quite a lot of campaigning against how Trump handled the pandemic, Biden and company said they could do better. But better may not be enough. People in my opinion had way too high expectations in this regard. The end of the pandemic in 6 months. Or so it seemed or was perceived is what Biden and company were offering. Reality is different, but reality, truth etc. really doesn't reverberate in politics. It all boils down to perceptions and expectations. possible or not.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/15/21 07:41 PM
When you have only an incremental majority then incremental change is about all you are going to affect. Pass popular bills, even if they are small ones, to boost your numbers so you can increase your majority and pass bigger bills. Spend too much time arguing over gigantic bills and you will lose your audience.

This is an interim government. It was never meant to do great things.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Winning - 10/15/21 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
It's the stalemate that has his numbers down. Pass anything at all and they will rise.
You think you're pretty goddam smart.... well, I agree.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/15/21 08:53 PM
Quote
I think folks are just tired of the pandemic, they want things to go back to normal. That the election of Biden was due to or tied to that hope.

That's true...but without the pandemic Trump would have been reelected.

Republicans are doing everything in their power to keep it going because it is their path back into power.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/15/21 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Quote
I think folks are just tired of the pandemic, they want things to go back to normal. That the election of Biden was due to or tied to that hope.

That's true...but without the pandemic Trump would have been reelected.

Republicans are doing everything in their power to keep it going because it is their path back into power.
As a numbers guy, I'll have to disagree that without the pandemic, Trump would have won reelection. Following the numbers since Trump was first was elected, they were never there for his reelection. At least in winning the popular vote. Independents constantly gave Trump a 58-61% dislike or unfavorable rating. That's from day one of his presidency to the Nov 2020 election. All the democrats had to do was to avoid nominating another Hillary Clinton which they succeeded.

54% of independents voted for Biden, another 5% voted against both Biden and Trump because they disliked both major party candidates adding up to 59% voting against Trump which happened to be the exact number who viewed Trump unfavorably. I was never worried about Trump winning in 2020, it was a case of just how bad he would lose. Trump actually received a bump due to the pandemic in March, April, May, going up to 47% approval before dropping back to his normal 44%.

You're probably right about Republicans trying to keep the pandemic going, Trump supporters anyway. On the reverse the Democrats are trying to use Trump, keep him front and centered in order to boost their election prospects. It's no secret independents don't like Trump, but as time goes by more and more independents are placing Trump into the past history column. The time where independents were kept happy just because Biden and company weren't Trump is gone. It ended in August. Now it's up to the democrats to prove they deserve reelection and just telling the voting public, independents in particular they're not Trump. That I don't think will be enough anymore.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/15/21 09:52 PM
Here's something else that will be working against the Democrats in 2022. Something they have no control over. But something quite a lot of folks will blame them for. It's all about perceptions and the ability to link this to Biden and company by the Republicans. That it is Biden's fault.

From the article.

And that means two things Americans hate: longer waits for products and higher prices once they finally arrive in stores.

How the global supply chain crisis is posing a political problem for President Biden

https://www.yahoo.com/news/global-supply-chain-crisis-posing-192443673.html

Which brings me back to reality having no place in politics or elections, it's all about perceptions.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/15/21 11:05 PM
Trump outperformed the polls due to his cultlike following.

If the supply chain snarl gets worse Democrats will likely eat it. If it gets better they are the heroes.

There's also a general workers strike going on right now. Not sure how the worker shortage is gonna play into the elections...but it will.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/15/21 11:42 PM
Yes Trump did, by about 3 points whereas Biden's polling numbers were right on.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

Part of the problem was around 5% were telling pollsters they're going to vote third party. In the final results only 2% did. Trump received most of those who didn't vote third party. Maybe the stigma of saying they're voting for Trump was too much, so saying they're voting third party eliminate that knowing full well they're going to vote Trump all along. Still you had a MOE of plus or minus 3 points which most folks never take into consideration. Both did fall within the MOE. Trump's barely at plus 2.9. The polls were actually telling those who understand them Biden would receive between 48.2-54.2, Trump between 41.0-47.0.

I too have wondered about all these people not going back to work. Down here almost every business has signs out in the window, Hiring now. We've got a year to go, things can change and they will change, for the good or for the worst, no one knows.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/16/21 03:46 PM
There were NO viable 3rd party candidates to vote for, perhaps they only found out when they got the ballot in front of them....

Or were voters so ashamed of supporting Trump that they lied about it?

It's all spilt milk under the bridge now and we can assign whatever reasons we want for it.

It's almost Halftime...Dems are behind by a field goal: A field goal will tie it, a touchdown put them ahead.

They've got the ball.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/16/21 05:00 PM
I have been giving some thought as to the popularity of Trump. First, he has convinced a pile of people that he was a great president. He inherited a growing economy and claimed it for himself and they were easily convinced as they also didn't much care for the black guy (and still don't) When Covid came along Trump proudly pointed out that it really wasn't his problem and stuck to the economy and actually got away with that. When it started going bad he had already set everybody but himself as the reason. His base bought it all. I think that also convinced others because they were so enthused about it all.

Trump is really good at lying and blaming and hating and he sticks to it and knows all the buttons. The Dems, on the other hand, can't even seem to get their story straight. Hell, they can't even seem to have a Democratic story to tell. Instead they seem to have little that they even agree on amongst each other. There are a lot of voters who just want gov to function and do its job. Trump did that and, when it didn't it was simply not his fault and somebody got throwed under the bus. What really stuns that even those throwed under the bus wants to support the guy who did that (his vice president is one of those).

All the Dems have to do to turn it around is to have a story and explain it and stick to it. Their problem is that they can't seem to even do that much. Its really quite amazing. Virtually ALL the talking heads of TV, especially those who support the Dems are crying out for the Dems to DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING!

They must be, obviously, saving it all up for something?
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/16/21 05:32 PM
Quote
the popularity of Trump
Do not believe any of the pundits who continue to say Trump is losing popularity. These folks are either delusional, like Rep Schiff, or baldly lying in a con. The Republican Base continues to support Trump, regardless of what any poll says. No Trump sign or flag has come down, and they all continue to believe he is the son of god ..... o and Biden stole the election.

Use that as the lens to peek into the future.


I am already practicing my personal Trumpian genuflection .... praise be to the one and only savior of America .... it's still early, and of course things may change

Greatest con in American history .... and you thought tulips were a thing
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/16/21 06:49 PM
How popular was and is Donald Trump. I like using the very favorable percentages to determine that. If one wants, you can add the somewhat favorable. I’m still trying to figure that one out. Maybe I like him a little, but not much. He’s better than an alternative perhaps? Anyhow, look at the numbers from Nov 2020, just before the election. Republicans, 78% viewed Trump very favorable, 24% of independents viewed him very favorable. I think you could call these folks avid Trumpers. The some what’s are wishy washy. But feel free to add them if you like. Question 89A

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/nzc8dt85gn/econTabReport.pdf

Today or as of 12 Oct 2021, 63% of Republicans view Trump very favorable. That’s a 15-point drop, but still is the largest faction of the GOP. More than enough to make the Republicans to bow down and kiss his butt. You want to win in the Republican Primary, you better be or at show you’re an avid Trump supporter. 21% of independents view Trump very favorably. Not much change from Nov, just a 3-point drop. Question 57G.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/h2rgoa7a3x/econTabReport.pdf

Trump hasn’t lost much popularity among Republicans and independents from what it was back in November. He has lost some though. Now I wonder if the Democrats aren’t too focused on Trump and not enough on getting things done and governing. That in 2022, Trump won’t be on the ballot much like Hillary Clinton wasn’t on the ballot in 2018. I’m sure most Democratic candidates will try to tie their opponents to Trump. But that might not work. At least when it comes to independents who are more worried about today, what has the Democrats who control government, the presidency, the house and the senate done to make my life better or are things getting worse. Independents aren’t all that worried about Trump, most I would say assigned him to past history if not ancient history. He's gone, no longer president. Independents want stuff on the shelves in stores, gas and food at reasonable prices, the economy to get going, COVID to be solved, and much more concerning their daily lives. Worrying about Trump, I doubt that makes their top 10 list.

Independents, swing voters, they know who’s in charge and which party isn’t.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/17/21 04:41 PM
The simple fact is that Trump does SOMETHING! I think Biden is trying but, so far, he has done nothing of note that would pump up his base. Oh, his base, in congress, also is trying to do something but isn't quite there yet. We tend to like our presidents to do something! We have a president who is used to working outside of the media so it can't be covered so, as far as everybody else is concerned he does nothing. Oh, he does go places and shake hands and claim things are just dandy but ................

The whole damned bunch of Dems, from the President on down seriously needs a story and they just don't get it.

It dawns on me that I am starting to think that the Dems have committed the second worst mistake: They think that they know EVERYTHING! (there are two major political sins. The first is to only talk to each other and the second is to actually believe they know everything)
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/17/21 05:57 PM
If one looks at the 2020 election results more as a political strategist and not a partisan, one would find it was more a rejection of Trump than an endorsement or acceptance of Biden and Democratic Party ideals and their agenda. That is looking at the whole election result and not just the presidential. Trump lost by 7 plus million votes, yet down ballot, people voted Republican, not Democratic. The GOP picked up 13 house seats, 2 state legislatures and a Governorship. You had totally mixed results ballot wide. A ton of ticket splitters voting for Biden, then Republican for other offices. Hence my conclusion 2020 was a rejection of Trump, but no endorsement for either political party agenda.

You also had a six-month period, between inauguration day through July, until August where Biden and company maintained an overall approval rating of between 52-55% when Biden and the democratic congress didn’t try to do a thing. Just rode the benefit of Biden not being Trump. Now they’re trying to do things, a 10-point drop across the board on almost every issue category has occurred. Are they related, who knows? Whatever reason, it’s dissatisfaction with the party in power.

Maybe doing something will change that, maybe not. Or maybe on many issues a majority of Americans don’t agree with Biden and company. Or maybe folks have just realized Trump is gone, honeymoon over for the party in power. Not being Trump is no longer good enough. Your guess is as good as mine. I just follow the numbers, they tell me where people stand on the issues and the president, but they don’t tell me why.

Biden’s base, Democrats, their approval of Biden is at where it always has been. Around 92% give or take a point. Republicans at 8%, where it also always has been give or take a point or two. It’s independents which has dropped Biden’s approval down, they’re not happy with Biden or the Democratic controlled congress. From 55% in July, to 47% in August, to 43% in September to 37% today.
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Winning - 10/17/21 11:47 PM
You are a good numbers man Pero and I appreciate your efforts. And I think your assessment is pretty much spot on. I voted for Biden because I think Trump is a despicable human being and a clear and present danger to our republic. I am simply astonished he has the popularity he does amongst his base and the majority of Republicans. I suppose they are both in favor of an authoritarian dictatorship and long for one.

It’s “funny” though. I think many people are in favor of an authoritarian dictatorship as long as that dictator is their guy doing their bidding. Then it’s all fine and dandy.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/18/21 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by Ken Condon
It’s “funny” though. I think many people are in favor of an authoritarian dictatorship as long as that dictator is their guy doing their bidding. Then it’s all fine and dandy.
I've thought that for a long time now. Not so much in dictator terms, but being able to use the power and force of government.

I'm astonish to see the huge number of Republicans following Trump. I keep asking myself are those folks interested in winning elections? Apparently not. That's not to say the GOP might win elections in spite of Trump. What I can't understand, if one really likes the ideals, the philosophy, the policies Trump had, has. Why not move on to another who has basically those same ideals and philosophy, but without the baggage of being uncouth, rude, childish even. Someone with a bit of tact and being able to at least act presidential instead of like a WWE wrestler in a pre-fight interview.

Then again, Trump never had a political ideology or philosophy of his own. The 7 time party switcher has always adopted the philosophy of the party he belonged to at the time. So go figure. Figure or make sense of it all, I can't.
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Winning - 10/18/21 12:42 AM
I think you answered your own question. Trump has, nor has he ever had, a political philosophy of his own. It’s all transactional in his book. He will give his followers everything they want as long as they love, worship, and adore him. It doesn’t matter if any of it is beneficial to the nation as a whole, it only matters if it’s beneficial personally to Donald Trump.

The adoration and love is all he seeks. If it takes giving them what they want so be it. That’s why he could never accept his defeat by Biden and insists on calling the election stolen. The fact that the majority of United States voters rejected Trump is beyond his comprehension so in his mind it could not possibly have happened. Only problem is I think there’s a very real chance he could get reelected if his health holds out.
Posted By: olyve Re: Winning - 10/18/21 01:17 AM
Originally Posted by Ken Condon
I think you answered your own question. Trump has, nor has he ever had, a political philosophy of his own. It’s all transactional in his book.

He will give his followers everything they want as long as they love, worship, and adore him. It doesn’t matter if any of it is beneficial to the nation as a whole, it only matters if it’s beneficial personally to Donald Trump.


The adoration and love is all he seeks.

If it takes giving them what they want so be it. That’s why he could never accept his defeat by Biden and insists on calling the election stolen. The fact that the majority of United States voters rejected Trump is beyond his comprehension so in his mind it could not possibly have happened. Only problem is I think there’s a very real chance he could get reelected if his health holds out.

Ken, I agree with that completely.
I would add he also does it for money so that he can continue.
He on his own has no business sense to make money. He's always lived, "for free".
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Winning - 10/18/21 01:53 AM
Quote
as that dictator is their guy doing their bidding. Then it’s all fine and dandy.

You would think they would notice that Trump throws EVERYBODY under the bus, eventually. Like maybe the thousandth time he did it? That's the problem with authoritarian dictators: They get paranoid because everything has to go their way, and inevitably reality does not permit that. Then it's them against everyone else, and they start rounding up and imprisoning or murdering their former supporters. Ultimately, the only person left to kill is themselves.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/18/21 02:08 AM
Yeah Ken, I never envisioned the republicans would nominate someone who's been a Democrat much longer than a republican, who donate huge sums to democrats in his recent past as their nominee in 2016. That completely caught me off guard. A 7-time party switcher who basically believed in nothing but himself, no political ideology or philosophy. He only became a Republican for the third time in 2012. He then won their nomination in 2016. Trump never had much of a history as a Republican.

What you both say is true, but Trump is still a political enigma to me. Which brings me to 2024. The Democrats would really have to blow it for Trump to win. They would have to make independents so angry at them that they would forget their dislike of Trump and vote for him out of anger at the democrats.

Making independents angry at you is a sure way to lose elections. Bill Clinton and the Democrats did that in 1994, Bill lost 54 house seats and 9 senate seats. Obama did it in 2010 losing 63 house seats and 6 senate seats. But the anger was policy related passing things independents didn't want passed. Both recovered nicely to win reelection. But both were well liked as a person, Trump wasn't and isn't. It isn't his policies that independents were against, they were fairly evenly split on those. It was Trump the man. They disliked him as a person. Hence Trump failed to recover after 2018 when independents spanked him with a 44 seat loss in the House and followed that up voting for Biden 54-41.

Then there's always the possibility of the Democrats nominating another Hillary Clinton, a candidate independents disliked more than Trump back in 2016. They didn't like her as a person either.

With independents, strange things can happen. They can vote for Obama 52-44 over McCain and then 2 years later vote 56-37 for republican congressional candidates. That's a 27 point swing, from plus 8 to a minus 19 for the democrats in just 2 years.Then reelect Obama.

.
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Winning - 10/18/21 02:28 AM
The problem is that only consists of his cabinet members. It does not consist of the public in general. So for Trumps fans he can throw everybody and anybody under the bus as long as he promises to keep their desires on the stage. His promotional desires that is.

He is absolutely without a doubt the most brilliant politician ever….at least in my lifetime.
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Winning - 10/18/21 10:47 AM
Although I do not get his suggestion that Republicans should not vote if Biden’s election is not proven to be fraudulent. What’s with that?
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 10/18/21 10:50 AM
Originally Posted by Ken Condon
Although I do not get his suggestion that Republicans should not vote if Biden’s election is not proven to be fraudulent. What’s with that?
Trump logic and a good suggestion if you ask me. smile
Posted By: logtroll Re: Winning - 10/18/21 01:10 PM
Originally Posted by Ken Condon
He is absolutely without a doubt the most brilliant politician ever….at least in my lifetime.
Uhhhh... Ken-san, I would like to argue with that, but I think it's just a matter of defining what a politician is.

I wouldn't disagree with an assessment of him as a grately successful con man, a superior manipulator of a certain class of gullible people, a person who is unabashedly dishonest and unethical, etc.

Are those all characteristic of brilliance in a politician?
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/18/21 02:05 PM
There's an old joke that been around forever, How do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

Politicians rank below used car salesmen in the trustworthy, honest category. At the bottom of the list.

This first one is old

Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institutions

https://news.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspx

This second one is new, 2021 as it shows only 12% of all Americans have a great deal or Quite a lot of confidence in congress.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

I'll also throw this in for the heck of it.

Why Americans Don’t Fully Trust Many Who Hold Positions of Power and Responsibility

https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...d-positions-of-power-and-responsibility/

As for Trump, his about as political blind as one can get. He was one lucky SOB to be matched up against Hillary Clinton in 2016. I'm positive almost any other Democrat would have trounced him. But as a friend of mine described the 2016 election, it was an election between the devil we didn't know, Trump, a businessman, TV show host, no one had any idea how he would govern vs. the devil we knew, Hillary Clinton. Everyone knew exactly how she would govern. Perhaps Hillary was too well known.

We chose the devil we didn't know over the devil we did. I think he summed up 2016 acturately. 2016 just matched up the two most unliked, unwanted candidates in our history. Here.take a look at the presidential candidates favorable/unfavorable ratings.

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
Favorable/unfavorable
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 70/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/43%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 53/42%
2020 Biden 52/46%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2020 Trump 43/56%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/18/21 03:44 PM
So Trump's numbers actually improved during his first term.

His standing with the Republican Party has risen even more. He is the defacto party leader even though he is currently out of power. The more Dems fight among themselves the lower they will sink in the polls.

Trump is currently the presumptive candidate for 2024. Harris the presumptive Democrat.

Trump isn't a politician. He's an opportunist. Politicians have careers in politics. It's rather like calling Jeff Bezos an astronaut.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/18/21 06:26 PM
The rule by fiat that the presidency has been doing since Obama is interesting. Obama did it because the Republicans owned the congress, second time around, so that is the only way he could get anything done. I also found it interesting that only once did the Republicans get after him for running with fiats. I think that was because the Republicans didn't want to be painted as a group that was anti legislation and had been responsible for not passing any legislation. Whoever has the presidency is the one that is responsible for what happens whatever that might be. I think one of the main problems that Biden has is that he doesn't accept that simple fact and so he just denies and that is never a really good idea.

Now we have Biden. The Republicans have him pretty much shut down except for the one exception which they used at the beginning of Biden and not since. Now they think they are going to do it again except that they have problems within their party which will, if they keep it up, assure that they lose EVERYTHING in the next general election. The Dems don't buy that because they only talk to one another and they all agree they are doing a great and wonderful job. That being the case Biden isn't even doing a lot of fiat legislation. The Congress, which, in theory, the Democrats own is basically doing nothing as far as legislation is concerned although they are doing a lot of talking, and arguing, and whining but little else because the Republicans have, again, pretty much shut them down.

So, we now are experiencing inflation. I think that will go down when they clear up the goods lines so that we don't have, literally, hundreds of ship waiting to discharge what America has bought but doesn't seem to know how to get it off the ships and into their stores. When that happens I expect that prices will go down as dramatically as they have gone up.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/18/21 07:03 PM
An Egotistical opportunist at that greger. Certainly no politician. But correct, the defacto leader of the GOP. The GOP elected leaders are scared to death of Trump. Although I'm sure they know that Trump caused the loss of the 2 Georgia senate seats and might cause them not taking control of the house next year.

As for supply and demand. With a year to go, that may indeed work itself out. But my question is, is supply and demand the reason for inflation or is it all those trillions printed up in COVID relief with nothing to back up all those the dollars the cause. I plain don't know, I'm no financial guru. Just someone who follows the numbers and trends.
Posted By: rporter314 Re: Winning - 10/19/21 07:37 PM
Quote
I'm positive almost any other Democrat would have trounced him. But as a friend of mine described the 2016 election, it was an election between the devil we didn't know, Trump, a businessman, TV show host, no one had any idea how he would govern vs. the devil we knew, Hillary Clinton. Everyone knew exactly how she would govern. Perhaps Hillary was too well known.
another example of how I am right.

The American electorate is stupid.

I am not positive any other candidate would have won .... "easily" .... as you suggest. The numbers tell the story. 2016 Trump had 62M votes, in 2020 he had 74M votes. It tells me a sizeable chunk of Americans didn;t actually care whether he was an unknown quantity. It didn't matter in 2016, and it sure didn't matter in 2020, and it doesn't matter now or will matter in 2024. The voice of nasty ad hominems appeals to the cretins who make up the Republican Base. These folks are so dumb they don't realize their own hypocrisy nor their own cognitive dissonance.

Professional pollsters, and political pundits can do all the rationalizations they want, and clothe it in numbers which prove their case, but the reality is Trump is head of a religious/political cult. Psychologists can tell people why some folks would be easily manipulated into believing lies, but it has nothing to do with qualifications for governance. Clinton was far more qualified to run the federal government than almost everyone who ran.

Of course Clinton was titular head of the Satanic Democrat Party of Pedophiles, so maybe that had something to do with it. Look .... Trump is still president and continues to ride AF 1 ..... just ask Trump supporters. It's like pundits who contrive all manners of rationalizations for why people are not getting vaccinated, when the answer is rather simple ... the vast majority are either Republicans who have lost all sense or blacks who are justifiably (at least initially) wary of "another" threat to black folks.

The point is don't look for extraordinary reasons a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole, when the reason is intuitively obvious.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/19/21 08:41 PM
Originally Posted by Pero
no one had any idea how he would govern

Baloney! We knew exactly how he would govern. We knew how Clinton would govern too. The sad part is that American voters chose Trump. Yes, they are stupid. No, there's nothing to be done about it.

Word on the street is that Biden plans to run again. Polls show that Trump would beat him.

But both these guys are nearing their expiration date. Have you noticed the Great Resignation going on? Workers are demanding to be treated better by employers. Is it too big a stretch to think that maybe they will also demand more from the government?

Maybe both these old farts will get their asses primaried.

Or maybe Biden will pull a rabbit out of his ass and get his numbers up, he vowed to be the most pro-union president in history...labor unions are also demanding more from corporations.

There might be a new ballgame brewing and we're so focused on Trump we aren't seeing it.

Meantime Manchin wants any mention of climate taken out of all legislation. The Coal Barons of West Virginia are demanding it! So the rest of us have to go along...it's maybe a bridge too far.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Winning - 10/19/21 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
...Meantime Manchin wants any mention of climate taken out of all legislation. The Coal Barons of West Virginia are demanding it! So the rest of us have to go along...it's maybe a bridge too far.

I started an entire thread about that, but you'd never know it, because it doesn't show-up on the leftside of the page where Current Topics are...

coffee
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/19/21 09:32 PM
You may have seen and knew how Trump would govern. But I don't think independents, swing voters did. Remember these are the great unwashed, coach potatoes. The ones who don't pay any attention to politics until an election nears. They're certainly not political junkies. It's more important to them if their favorite sports team wins or loses than who become president or controls congress. Still, a majority of independents didn't want neither Trump nor Clinton to become their next president. 54% of independents if Gallup is correct.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...ans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

Fact is 25% of all Americans disliked both and didn't want neither on to become president. It boiled down to who you wanted to lose the least, not win, but lose the least. But that is water under the bridge.

I don't know what the future holds. I'm no seer or oracle. The one thing that won't change is that we'll still have the best government money can buy.

Money Floods the Race for Control of Congress, More Than a Year Early

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/16/us/politics/midterm-elections-campaign-financing.html
Posted By: Ken Condon Re: Winning - 10/20/21 04:59 AM
What do you make of this Pero?

Republicans very much in favor of Trump as the Republican nominee
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/20/21 12:22 PM
Originally Posted by Ken Condon
I've seen numerous polls stating that. But I've been much more concerned with 2022 than 2024. Whatever happens in 2022 will directly effect 2024 whichever way it goes. I don't think Trump will run in 2024. That's just a gut feeling. No numbers to back it up.

I do think it should be noted that those Republicans who viewed Trump very favorably in Nov 2020 was at 78%, that has dropped to 63% as of 12 Oct. These are your avid Trumpers. The somewhat favorable/somewhat unfavorable I overlook as they're wishy washy. But if one adds the somewhat favorable 23% to the very favorable that brings Trump's overall favorable's to 86% among Republicans.That's also down from 92% in Nov 2020.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/h2rgoa7a3x/econTabReport.pdf

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/nzc8dt85gn/econTabReport.pdf

I view Trump as a gift to the Democrats as independents don't like him. That is as long as the democrats don't nominate the wrong candidate. They did that in 2016 with Hillary Clinton, 70% of independents disliked her vs. 57% who disliked Trump enabling Trump to win independents 46-42 with 12% voting third party against both. 60% of independents disliked Trump in 2020, but only 48% disliked Biden. Biden won independents 54-41 with 5% voting third party against both. The dislike of Trump has been constant at around 60% give or take a point or two since he came on the scene back in 2015 vying for the GOP nomination.

By the wrong candidate, I'm referring to Harris, for some reason 60% of independents don't like her. But personality plays an important role in independents likes and dislikes. Hillary came across as aloof, an elitist, a know it all, independents didn't like her personality. Trump, rude, obnoxious, childish, independents didn't like him either. I haven't seen or heard anything on why the dislike of Harris. All I know it's there.

Biden came across as an adult. Really devoid of personality, but acted and behaved like an adult and presidential candidate should. Independents didn't have a strong dislike of him. They voted for him. Although one could say Biden was bland, old, uninspiring, lacking in charisma. That just goes to show you how much independents don't like and didn't like Trump.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/20/21 04:27 PM
So apparently no independents ever voted for Trump? They always disliked him?

Who exactly elected him then? I've been assured that independents always decide the elections so I can only assume it was them.

In an election where neither Trump nor his opponent is popular, he has a perfect record.

Biden beat him by not campaigning in 2020, he won't have that luxury again. As far as Harris goes...not even Democrats like her. If a POC hopes to bring something to the table she has to first be liked by POCs. She is neither liked nor trusted. A prosecutor who made a career of jailing POCs
She delivered California to the Democrats...a state they already had.

Manchin has won. There will be no major legislation in regards to Biden's much-touted agenda. We will not build back at all and certainly not better than before. Democrats will continue disappointing voters as they have for decades. Promising much and delivering little.

The best Dems can hope for in 2022 is hanging on to the Senate, the house is likely lost already, and as Biden's numbers go south so do their chances of keeping the Senate.

Things might change. But I ain't gonna count on it.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/20/21 05:14 PM
2016 46% of independents did vote for Trump, 54% against him. Actually the numbers were 42% voting for Hillary, 12% voting against both Hillary and Trump, hence 54%. 2020, 41% did vote for Trump, 59% against him. The 54% who voted for Biden and the 5% who voted against Trump and Biden.

One can vote against one major party candidate while not voting for the other major party candidate if one dislikes and doesn't want neither one by officially registering a vote for a third party candidate or write in vote.\

Looking at the numbers available today, I'd say you're correct. The house will probably revert to the Republicans. All they need is a net gain of 5 seats. It' looks like 7-15 with some retirements of House democrats making open seats which the GOP could swing. But no wave election is likely. At least not yet. I expect the Democrats to pick up PA and WI from the GOP, have a 50-50 shot at NC. But the GOP has a 50-50 shot at NH and GA. AZ is closing. But a 1-3 Democratic seat pickup looks like the best bet at this time for the senate.

The democrats made gains last week by gerrymandering two Republicans in Oregon and 2 more in Illinois. A plus 4 in the gerrymandering wars for the Democrats so far. Actually Oregon gained a seat, so the Democrats gerrymandered one republican out of his seat along with ensuring the newly added seat would go to the Democrat. Still a plus 2.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/20/21 05:45 PM
I am tending to believe that the voting public want candidates that are actually going to do something. The public view of the Democrats is that they are a do nothing group of politicians and only seem interested in fighting with one another and accomplish NOTHING! The other night I noticed somebody actually had a Democrat being interviewed who was actually doing something! (he was a member of the house actually working on something) The Dems are a very strange group of politicians. Most of which they are doing is a secret. Their big multi-trillion dollar, whiz bang, super give-away also seems to be a secret. Now the secret is being pared down but, still, they are telling the voters not a damned thing as they seem to prefer talking about the stuff that may, or may not be something or other. Hell, they still haven't even written the legislation that they are now claiming they are going to pass in a week or two. The problem is that we have all heard it before (again and again).

What I am trying to say is that the Dems are great at doing absolutely nothing and, if they are, nobody really knows what that might be. They have now been "in charge" for almost a year. They did get the covid help thing done for starters but nothing more in, now, months - just blah, blah, blah, over and over again. Why wouldn't their numbers be down. What amazes me is that they simply don't seem to be capable of telling anybody anything that might be of real interest.

Now they are down to the end of their thing. They decided that they just wouldn't setting for anything but they would actually try and pass two huge pieces of legislation. One has to give them credit for guts but now they gotta produce or they have gifted the Republicans with a huge win next year. I think they got something like two weeks to get it done. i truly hope they pull it off but, if their ability, so far, doesn't exactly inspire.

Its gonna get interesting. I have hope but not a whole lot. I suspect that there are many that find themselves in the same place. I will vote Democratic as I can't bring myself to support the other side that tends to lies, fantasies, scare tactics and meanness and, I believe, trying to change the entire nation into something I really don't want to see. I also continue to hope that our government will, eventually drag Trump into court and convict him of a felony - thereby removing him from running for president again. (sorry, couldn't resist a little demonstration of wishful thinking)
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/20/21 06:16 PM
I don't know. Biden and the Democrats rode high from inauguration day until the beginning of August. Part of that was, I'm sure, Biden not being Trump. Biden's overall approval rating stayed between 52-55%. Neither Biden nor the Democrats in congress as far as I remember actually tried to do anything.

Now we know about the 3.5 trillion agenda, the House stalled infrastructure Bill along with the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan pretty much took place during or after August. There could be more, but that's just off the top of my head. Biden's approval has remained steady among democrats since inauguration day until today at 92% give or take a point, Republicans have given Biden a 8% approval over the same time frame, give or take a point or two. So it's independents that have dropped Biden's and the Democratic Party's approval and favorable numbers. Biden's approval dropped among independents from 53% in July down to 37% today for Biden. The Democratic Party's favorable's from 41% in July down to 24% today.

Why? For not doing anything or for trying to do something or is it something else? Just a SWAG, but perhaps it's the Trump factor. Independents were happy that Trump was gone and they gave both Biden and the Democrats high marks just because they weren't Trump or affiliated with him. Then the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan brought their focus from Trump to Biden and company. That after 6 months of giving Biden and company a honeymoon just for not being Trump came to an abrupt end.

I think most independents have assigned Trump to the dust bin of history. Not so with the current president or democratic controlled congress. I do think getting off their butts and passing the infrastructure bill would help, it certainly wouldn't hurt. Perhaps a compromised 3.5 trillion bill would also fall into this category.

Then again there's the supply and demand problem now, rising prices and inflation. Not much if anything can Biden and company do about this. But it seems independents are holding them responsible.

The bottom line is your SWAG is as good as my SWAG. I will make a prediction, the more Trump stays out of the news, out of the limelight, the worse it will seem the democrats are doing. If Trump starts getting headlines and burst back on the scene for any length of time, Biden and the democrats will improve and get better. At least with independents.
Posted By: TatumAH Re: Winning - 10/20/21 09:33 PM
Biden's 37-38% is generally regarded as a mistaken outLIAR, that should not be used to formulate an analysis that should be disregarded. Remember GIGO!
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/20/21 10:13 PM
Okay, Gallup independents 37%, YouGov independents 33%, Politico/Morning consult, independents 34%, Reuters 34%. Trafalgar 27.5%. Quinnipiac and Rasmussen didn't break approval/disapproval down by party.

https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/h2rgoa7a3x/econTabReport.pdf

https://assets.morningconsult.com/w...2110084_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v1_SH.pdf

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...0Approval%20Tracker%2010%2014%202021.pdf

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/TRF-Biden-Approval-10-07-Poll-Report.pdf

I used Gallup's as I'm kind of fond of them showing 37% approval among independents. But you do have a range in all these polls from 27.5% up to Gallup's 37%.

As for overall average, all adults, I use RCP

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

42.3% approve/51.2% disapprove. But I was talking independents as both Republicans and Democrats have remained steady at around 92% approval give or take from democrats since inauguration day and 8% from Republicans. It's independents that are moving the needle as the numbers show. If it's GIGO, then all of them are wrong.
Posted By: TatumAH Re: Winning - 10/21/21 02:59 AM
I looked back and I still cant tell what the subject of this thread was actually supposed to be!
So, everything here may actually be offtopic, or just multiply Hijack. I just cant be sure.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/21/21 01:02 PM
Originally Posted by TatumAH
I looked back and I still cant tell what the subject of this thread was actually supposed to be!
So, everything here may actually be offtopic, or just multiply Hijack. I just cant be sure.
I don't know either. I answer questions that arise in any thread I'm interested in answering or replaying to. I think this was at one time winning elections or so I thought, think. It could have been about something entirely different.

But regardless of the thread title, whenever someone posts something I'm interested in and I want to reply, I do. It could be totally off the original topic, but I go where ever the posts lead.

I think this actually was once about the prospects of the 2022 and 2024 elections, winning them. Maybe it wasn't, but that is basically where all the posts led to which approval ratings on all the issues are germane to that. But I could be completely wrong as to what the Winning was originally intended to be. Your guess is as good as mine.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/21/21 02:12 PM
This thread is about Winning elections.

The OP determined that progressives of all stripes need to shut their mouths and go along with moderate and conservative Democrats rather than endorsing change of any sort.

This in order to win elections. Once they have a supermajority they can begin expressing desires for programs that help people instead of corporations. Until then, sit down and shut up.

Manchin and Sinema know what's best for the party!
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/21/21 03:31 PM
Thanks Greger, I thought so. I do think the progressives with their Defund the Police rhetoric cost the Democrats 13 house seats in 2020. I don't think the in-fighting between progressives and moderates concerning the infrastructure bill and the 3.5 trillion one is what is hurting the democrats this time. For 2022 midterms.

I think it's the appearance of empty shelves in stores, the rise in prices for what is there like gas going from 2.50 a gallon to 3.50 and a loaf of bread from 2 dollars to 3 dollars along with cleaning supplies meat, etc. That those who will decide who controls what next year, aren't paying any attention to the in-fighting as most swing voters aren't political junkies like us. Passing the infrastructure bill certainly wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it would help much. Getting stuff back on the shelves in stores would help much more.

It's swing voters, independents that has caused the drop in Biden and company's approval ratings over the last 2 1/2 months. It's not legislation that has got their dander up nor is it the in-fighting among progressives and moderates. I would wager at least half if not more independents don't even realize that is going on. They don't care, but they do care when they fill up their car it costs them 40 dollars instead of 30. They care when they buy their weeks groceries, it cost them 130 dollars instead of a 100. Examples here. It's like Bill Clinton stated, it's the economy stupid. Today it's the lack of things and the rising prices.

Still, there's no wave election on the horizon. I'll stick with my 7-15 GOP pick up in the House until redistricting is completed where I can go district by district. I'll stay with my 1-3 senate seat pick up for the Dems. PA and WI are two, NC is another possibility while depending on who the candidates are, NH and GA may fall to the Republicans.
Posted By: Greger Re: Winning - 10/21/21 04:56 PM
I'm totally down with your predictions as they pretty much mirror my own.

Democrats will lose the Senate and the Whitehouse in 2024. Biden is going to be another Jimmy Carter and there are a huge number of Democratic senators up for elections.

Oddly, I'm getting a weird feeling that the House might fall to Dems in 2024. It's counter-intuitive but those are local races and universal so you get a more clear picture of public concern on the issues.

While voters in 2024 might politely reject another Biden and/or Harris administration, they might not be willing to give rock-ribbed republicans free rein to do as they please.

Now...if something really good happens in the next six months...prices drop, wages rise, a mild winter with plenty of snow, no new pandemic surges, the passage of Manchin's $1.75 Trillion dollar legislation, and a quiet fire and hurricane season, things of that sort...then the picture might change.

Mostly we're sitting on our hands in an off-year watching politicians make fools of themselves at the expense of the poor.

Same as it ever was.
Posted By: jgw Re: Winning - 10/21/21 05:17 PM
Since I started this thing I guess I should remind that the initial beginning involved my disgust with the Dems, particularly the progressives who either don't understand about winning votes or just don't give a damn.

I am always amazed, and entertained, as to how subjects can just get completely ignored or changed.
Posted By: perotista Re: Winning - 10/21/21 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
I'm totally down with your predictions as they pretty much mirror my own.

Democrats will lose the Senate and the Whitehouse in 2024. Biden is going to be another Jimmy Carter and there are a huge number of Democratic senators up for elections.

Oddly, I'm getting a weird feeling that the House might fall to Dems in 2024. It's counter-intuitive but those are local races and universal so you get a more clear picture of public concern on the issues.

While voters in 2024 might politely reject another Biden and/or Harris administration, they might not be willing to give rock-ribbed republicans free rein to do as they please.

Now...if something really good happens in the next six months...prices drop, wages rise, a mild winter with plenty of snow, no new pandemic surges, the passage of Manchin's $1.75 Trillion dollar legislation, and a quiet fire and hurricane season, things of that sort...then the picture might change.

Mostly we're sitting on our hands in an off-year watching politicians make fools of themselves at the expense of the poor.

Same as it ever was.
2022 if far from being set in stone, 2024 might as well be 50 years into the future.With my predictions, they could change tomorrow based on new numbers. With me the House is just a SWAG, based mostly on the Generic Congressional Ballot along with retirements. Without redistricting, a SWAG is about all one can give. The Senate on the other hand is based on polls. Some new, some old. But at least the senate is based on numbers.

With a year to go before the midterms, anything can happen. All it take is for one unforeseen event to upset the whole apple cart, to turn this election upside down. On Biden's downturn, I placed the blame on Afghanistan and expected a quick recovery. That didn't happen. I overlooked supply and demand and the rise in prices. Paying too much attention to the minutia and not seeing the whole or big picture.

It happens. The good news is the Democrats have jumped out front in the money race. Following the money is a good indication as to what will happen in future elections as are retirements. Retirements are one indication about the Dems retaining the senate while retirements point to a GOP take over of the house. It's much easier to win or switch an open seat than to beat an incumbent.
© ReaderRant