Impotus sliding into polling abyss
Campaign reshuffling
Spending $$$ in states he won
Senate candidates in AZ doing poorly
Iowa Ernst now questionable
SC Lindsey pushed back on Impotus on SDNY
Impotus going under in polls
Pence, McConnell now wearing masks
Pence being more public
Inklings that Impotus will pull an LBJ
Legal jeopardy at federal level if Impotus loses
Impotus sinking in polls
CONCLUSION: Impotus will resign before the convention. Pence will take over and pardon Impotus and everybody else. Pence be soundly defeated in November, but will never have another financial worry since he will be well recompensed for his pardons.
INTERIM: Impotus will go out in a blaze of rage, potentially fomenting stark civil unrest.
CAVEAT: Pence could not pardon for state crimes, so NY would still be an issue.
THANKS TO: A friend who's even more cynical and diabolical than I am.
There were just a couple of articles on this lately.
Either resignation or just not running for 2020/November were mentioned.
I'll have to look for it later, have to teach in just a bit.
M.
We can hope, but I doubt it. Not least because when he ceases to potusify, he loses his giant Justice Department force field.
'course, if he does do it, then we also lose the entire rationale for Biden.
The GOP will push for resignation if they think dumping Trump will save the Senate. Watch what happens in Kentucky folks. Moscow Mitch will find a way to save his neck.
Quote from: nebo113 on July 01, 2020, 12:06:35 PM
Pence will . . . never have another financial worry since he will be well recompensed for his pardons.
As a former Vice President (i.e., as president of the Senate), Pence will receive a lifetime pension of well over $200,000 a year. Presumably they'll pay him to give at speech at Bob Jones from time to time. God knows there will be a book. And since he has looked like a professional lobbyist since he was thirteen years old, there will probably be some of that, as well. (Note: This doesn't take into account that American politicians regularly fall ass-backwards into, e.g., really good cattle-futures tips.)
The lesson: Pence probably doesn't need the money.
Quote from: nebo113 on July 01, 2020, 12:06:35 PM
INTERIM: Impotus will go out in a blaze of rage, potentially fomenting stark civil unrest.
What, you don't like rioting? Cancel-warriors, here's your new target.
Im not convinced.
How many times was the campaign shuffled in 2016?
The Great Pumpkin does not believe in polls anyway (IF he did, he would not be Prez). The polls are 'fake news', and his Great Followers will vote for him anyway.
Quote from: nebo113 on July 01, 2020, 12:06:35 PM
Impotus sliding into polling abyss
Campaign reshuffling
Spending $$$ in states he won
Senate candidates in AZ doing poorly
Iowa Ernst now questionable
SC Lindsey pushed back on Impotus on SDNY
Impotus going under in polls
Pence, McConnell now wearing masks
Pence being more public
Inklings that Impotus will pull an LBJ
Legal jeopardy at federal level if Impotus loses
Impotus sinking in polls
CONCLUSION: Impotus will resign before the convention. Pence will take over and pardon Impotus and everybody else. Pence be soundly defeated in November, but will never have another financial worry since he will be well recompensed for his pardons.
INTERIM: Impotus will go out in a blaze of rage, potentially fomenting stark civil unrest.
CAVEAT: Pence could not pardon for state crimes, so NY would still be an issue.
THANKS TO: A friend who's even more cynical and diabolical than I am.
Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me.
The latest version of reality consists of riots and defunding the police. Scares one hell of a lot of people. The newly scared, too, will vote for Trump, not Uncle Joe.
He won't resign. His pride won't let him.
Remember during the campaign all the times the GOP told him he needed to step off the campaign trail, the game was over, because voters won't tolerate grabbing, paying off mistresses, not showing one's taxes...
He did it his way the first time and it worked. Why change?
I'd love it, but seems almost unfathomable. Trump does look likely to lose at the moment, but that could change and there is some reason to expect his numbers to revert to the mean (which is still not great for him).
One thing I still haven't figured out about him. Does he, did he ever believe he could be good for the USA? He might have. Has to know he is seen as vain, pompous, spiteful, etc. but none of that means he couldn't also believe he is good for the USA.
Hmmm... I don't want him to resign or even just decide against running, as he is the worst possible candidate the GOP could put forth, and there would be an outside chance that Pres. Pence could get reelected.
DT seems increasingly divorced from reality. He is surrounded by advisors who kowtow to his ego.
The only chance that he will resign is if Sean Hannity recommends he resign.
It hard to understand people who actually want this kind of power. Not just Trump, who is terrible, but anybody. It just doesn't translate to the way most of us live our lives. Like suppose I had a term limit for teaching my classes and effectively couldn't be removed and there's this decision on my renewal in a year. In this scenario I'm independently wealthy, so the money isn't an issue. Maybe my teaching is controversial, but some people like me. However, as my term starts coming to an end, increasingly nothing seems to go well. The students hate me more and more, everyone says I've lost touch, there's increasing criticism, noises that I won't be renewed etc etc. I probably would just quit, because who needs this.
Maybe college professor is a bad example because nobody is paying that much attention, but lots of people basically do this all the time in other sorts of high profile jobs. High level athletic coaches are a good example. When they hit the point where the whole thing seems to be falling apart, they often just quit. Even at local levels things often work like this. When these stories come out about some school board official or local mayor who writes some appalling racist thing on facebook, the person often resigns. Whatever feelings of importance or satisfaction you get from being the mayor of a 10k person town, probably go away real quickly when everyone thinks you're a racist.
Politicians at higher levels obviously just don't think this way and the higher you go the less likely people are to quit it seems like.
He won't resign. Resignation is too injurious to his fragile psyche. He will just go through the motions of campaigning so that his ego is assuaged by cheering MAGA-wearing idiots at a few rallies. Then he will say "I did a tremendous job" but blame everyone else for an election loss.
My wife and I just finished watching the four-part series Trump: An American Dream on Netflix. I highly recommend it. During one early scene, I said to my wife, "Look at his facial expressions and his body language. No one else in the room matters but him. He's a sociopath." Then literally a few minutes later someone in the documentary said "He's a sociopath."
Lindsey Graham is a spineless self-serving Quisling.
Mitch McConnell won't do a damn thing against Trump as long as his wife is Trump's Secretary of Transportation.
I could see Trump getting re elected pretty easily in the present environment, and with the help of minorities. If someone says for example 'your school ought to be able to change your child's gender without telling you' and Joe Biden fails to say 'sorry...that's crazy' then he's finished. All Trump would have to say at that point is 'you may not love me, but at least I'm not batshit crazy.'
Mahoganny is not wrong. The Demos have a decided ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Social issues are essentially the only potential winning point Trump has, if the Demos decide to give into the secular fringe of their party, so convinced of their inevitable victory. Like it or not, take the hypothetical example mahoganny cites-- most Americans would agree that such behavior is not what public schools should espouse. Like it or not. Whether people from Cambridge and Berkeley like that. Maybe that will change, one day, but one day is not Nov 3, 2020. There are other issues that could be cited, of course, and Biden, no lefty extremist, will have to make sure he takes the responsible position on them, or else we could be stuck with four more years of the Drumpfist abyss.
Quote from: mahagonny on July 02, 2020, 10:18:34 AM
If someone says for example 'your school ought to be able to change your child's gender without telling you'
...what does that even mean? I can't make sense of it. What are you talking about?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 02, 2020, 12:42:58 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 02, 2020, 10:18:34 AM
If someone says for example 'your school ought to be able to change your child's gender without telling you'
...what does that even mean? I can't make sense of it. What are you talking about?
It's one of those things that doesn't have to make sense, as long as it makes the speaker feel some kind of way. In this instance, I think that way is "aggrieved."
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 02, 2020, 12:42:58 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 02, 2020, 10:18:34 AM
If someone says for example 'your school ought to be able to change your child's gender without telling you'
...what does that even mean? I can't make sense of it. What are you talking about?
Ha, ha, ha, the familiar sequence. Today: "The thing you fear doesn't exist." Tomorrow: "It exists, and you're fired for opposing it."
Quote from: nescafe on July 02, 2020, 12:46:33 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 02, 2020, 12:42:58 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 02, 2020, 10:18:34 AM
If someone says for example 'your school ought to be able to change your child's gender without telling you'
...what does that even mean? I can't make sense of it. What are you talking about?
It's one of those things that doesn't have to make sense, as long as it makes the speaker feel some kind of way. In this instance, I think that way is "aggrieved."
You would do well to stop trying to escalate or create tension on the thread. I was merely pointing out that voters are not ready to endorse 'gender dysphoria awareness' initiatives in public grade school, and most especially not sneaky ones. And if the democrats fail to grasp this, they will lose. It's fun to speculate. That's all we're doing.
You really think Trump will resign? Of course not. Its your wishful thinking. The polls do not matter now, wait until November. Biden is wasting time.
At the risk of being unpopular, I hate to say but I think he will win a second term.
His supporters probably don't care about the corruption, lies, impeachment and malfeasance. Everyone misunderstands and underestimates them, especially liberals.
I wish Pelosi was running for it.
+1 for Pelosi.
I said somewhere last fall that my dream ticket would be Pelosi/Warren.
I still think so.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on July 02, 2020, 04:05:53 PM
+1 for Pelosi.
I said somewhere last fall that my dream ticket would be Pelosi/Warren.
I still think so.
M.
The horror.
Quote from: mahagonny on July 02, 2020, 02:37:26 PM
Quote from: nescafe on July 02, 2020, 12:46:33 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 02, 2020, 12:42:58 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 02, 2020, 10:18:34 AM
If someone says for example 'your school ought to be able to change your child's gender without telling you'
...what does that even mean? I can't make sense of it. What are you talking about?
It's one of those things that doesn't have to make sense, as long as it makes the speaker feel some kind of way. In this instance, I think that way is "aggrieved."
You would do well to stop trying to escalate or create tension on the thread. I was merely pointing out that voters are not ready to endorse 'gender dysphoria awareness' initiatives in public grade school, and most especially not sneaky ones. And if the democrats fail to grasp this, they will lose. It's fun to speculate. That's all we're doing.
What I mean is, we are probably on the same team. I want Joe to win, but I think he needs to do it as plain old Joe, not by updating himself.
Interesting discussion. What if Impotus does finally think he will lose and fears all the legal issues that he would face in Jan. 2020 and beyond? Would he resign in order to be pardoned by Pence?
Quote from: nebo113 on July 03, 2020, 04:51:58 AM
Interesting discussion. What if Impotus does finally think he will lose and fears all the legal issues that he would face in Jan. 2020 and beyond? Would he resign in order to be pardoned by Pence?
Or how about if he thinks he will win, and would have four more years, then could resign at the last minute and get the pardon?
I don't see Trump shrinking from the challenge of winning another term. Speaking is his forte, such as it is. He revels in it, he fills up the stage and the screen well and effectively and he gains momentum the longer he goes. It's an endorphin or dopamine thing.
The Democatic party is in disarray. The major issue now is the Caronavirus curing and the personal physical and economic recoveries of U.S. citizens. There have been few attempts to better the situations from national democratic party leaders. A presidential candidate for the party may yet emerge from a governorship that shows good management skills and innovative leadership in this crisis. However, he or she would have to build a team that would convince the general public that it could handle the ongoing international and domestic issues in, about, and beyond our borders, pronto.
For now, Mr Trump's opposition seems to be attacking him and his administration with SCUTTLEBUTT.
Actions and quick response will not result. Information must be substantially verified. To react otherwise would be foolhardy for any administration, in any country. If the President were to resign, I can think of only one reason, and that would be dismay at progress in defeating "the Chinese Flu". This guy ain't going to do that though. If any of the Democrats have direct knowledge of better ways to tackle our daunting disease problem they better risk stepping forward with it. The concern is a heck of lot BIGGER than politics!
Quote from: Economizer on July 03, 2020, 08:31:48 PM
If any of the Democrats have direct knowledge of better ways to tackle our daunting disease problem they better risk stepping forward with it. The concern is a heck of lot BIGGER than politics!
Here's the thing about current politics.
None of the possible solutions to our problems - any of the problems - are actually acceptable to voters.
The majority of Americans believe that some fantasy perfect solution is possible, and anyone who dares deflate their bubble promptly loses.
People will vote for the guy who promises to square the circle, not the guy who points out circle-squaring isn't possible.
Quote from: quasihumanist on July 03, 2020, 09:09:35 PM
Quote from: Economizer on July 03, 2020, 08:31:48 PM
If any of the Democrats have direct knowledge of better ways to tackle our daunting disease problem they better risk stepping forward with it. The concern is a heck of lot BIGGER than politics!
Here's the thing about current politics.
None of the possible solutions to our problems - any of the problems - are actually acceptable to voters.
The majority of Americans believe that some fantasy perfect solution is possible, and anyone who dares deflate their bubble promptly loses.
People will vote for the guy who promises to square the circle, not the guy who points out circle-squaring isn't possible.
That is pretty much why I wrote " risk steppng forward...".
To deal with a pandemic, you need government and health care infrastructure. You need to be able to provide care for the ill, and quarantine those at risk. We have seen that work well in many European nations.
The current administration has been very active for the last 3.5 years dismantling government infrastructure and undermining Obamacare, which had done something to expand health care coverage. The US health care system has been a mess for decades, expensive, inefficient, and anarchical. It had long been clear that the US was very vulnerable to a pandemic. Now we see that many nations are on the road to recovery while the US is floundering.
It is likely that a competent national leadership could have made some difference this year despite the major structural flaws in the system. The recovery of NY state gives an example of what difference moderately competent leadership could achieve.
I never understand claims that some things are more important than politics. Politics is about the policies that are for the social good. In most cases, they are about preventing death, discrimination, and enabling people to lead good lives.
After reading this I am convinced he's going for a second term. He's not wrong about one thing. He is a fighter at heart.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/08/in_interview_trump_vows_to_counter_the_lefts_culture_war_143653.html
Quote from: mahagonny on July 08, 2020, 06:41:52 AM
After reading this I am convinced he's going for a second term. He's not wrong about one thing. He is a fighter at heart.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/08/in_interview_trump_vows_to_counter_the_lefts_culture_war_143653.html
It is fun to speculate, but I don't know why anyone would seriously think he's going to withdrawal. Look, Trump is in a tough spot, but he's not out of it. Incumbents have lots of advantages in politics and things could change between now and November. Democrats would probably win if the election were today, but it isn't, so they need to be careful not lose momentum or create voter apathy by declaring victory (I knew people in 2016 who stayed home or voted 3rd party because they were sure Clinton would win anyway).
Yes, and Gore, Kerry and Hilary all thought they'd win, too. Reminds me of the story of the tortoise and the hare. The tortoise won.
Or another analogy, Trump is an ace pitcher who will strike out Biden on curve balls.
Quote from: Myword on July 08, 2020, 08:35:54 AM
Yes, and Gore, Kerry and Hilary all thought they'd win, too. Reminds me of the story of the tortoise and the hare. The tortoise won.
Or another analogy, Trump is an ace pitcher who will strike out Biden on curve balls.
Yes, although Trump is far from an ace pitcher.
Quote from: Myword on July 08, 2020, 08:35:54 AM
Yes, and Gore, Kerry and Hilary all thought they'd win, too. Reminds me of the story of the tortoise and the hare. The tortoise won.
Or another analogy, Trump is an ace pitcher who will strike out Biden on curve balls.
Dukakis. The last republican to win who was predicted to was Reagan. The last landslide democratic win was 1964. Republican landslide wins in '72, '80, '84, almost again in '88. It's not my hope that Trump wins again, but it does look like being underestimated in presidential elections has been a pattern for the republicans.
Trump is a Narcissist...he has a grandiose view of himself. Others might resign in this situation, but Trump has no shame.
He also has some kind of dementia or something and is decompensating at an alarming rate...but his enablers (children, wife) don't want to give up the power they have.
I definitely think that Biden will win, probably in an electoral college landslide. On the other hand, if I were a Trump supporter, I definitely wouldn't admit it to a pollster in this political climate. Food for thought.
If you just follow the data, we're in for a landslide 2020: Polls put Biden up in swing states and far enough up in the popular vote that he should win electoral college; Democrats had landslide year in 2018; Democrats have cleaned up in special elections; Trump unpopularity is highest of any president in my lifetime; Republicans way down in congressional polls (comparable to 2018); economy is in terrible shape and Trump handling of pandemic and race relations poll terribly.
But, again, a lot can happen between now and the election, and it is also likely that Trump's numbers will come up a little as the election approaches and people go to their corners. Democrats should feel pretty good right now, but they should probably keep that feeling to themselves and campaign as though it is a close race.
Thoughts?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/professor-doubles-down-on-prediction-model-showing-trump-having-91-percent-chance-of-winning-election-despite-polls
Quote from: nebo113 on July 10, 2020, 06:13:50 AM
Thoughts?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/professor-doubles-down-on-prediction-model-showing-trump-having-91-percent-chance-of-winning-election-despite-polls
I'm always awake to the possibility that I am just dumb. But I have never understood these percentage-based predictions. Trump has a 91% chance of winning? Not a 90% chance? Not a 92% chance? Since a model like that is not testable after the fact (even if Trump wins, how do we know that he had a 91% chance of winning?), it's not clear to me how the model's veracity can ever be proven.
Quote from: writingprof on July 10, 2020, 06:25:01 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on July 10, 2020, 06:13:50 AM
Thoughts?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/professor-doubles-down-on-prediction-model-showing-trump-having-91-percent-chance-of-winning-election-despite-polls
I'm always awake to the possibility that I am just dumb. But I have never understood these percentage-based predictions. Trump has a 91% chance of winning? Not a 90% chance? Not a 92% chance? Since a model like that is not testable after the fact (even if Trump wins, how do we know that he had a 91% chance of winning?), it's not clear to me how the model's veracity can ever be proven.
Completely agree, but I'll take it a step further. The veracity CAN'T be proven. The pollsters who make such claims are the political equivalents of Jean Dixon.
Quote from: nebo113 on July 10, 2020, 06:13:50 AM
Thoughts?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/professor-doubles-down-on-prediction-model-showing-trump-having-91-percent-chance-of-winning-election-despite-polls
Interesting, but reductionist and also raises some questions: What about a situation where one primary has 17 or 18 candidates and the other has one incumbent? With the second primaries being in a red state, does it really matter how well Biden did?
Bottom line: These predictive models are interesting and fun to look at, but should be taken with a lot of of salt.
Quote from: writingprof on July 10, 2020, 06:25:01 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on July 10, 2020, 06:13:50 AM
Thoughts?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/professor-doubles-down-on-prediction-model-showing-trump-having-91-percent-chance-of-winning-election-despite-polls
I'm always awake to the possibility that I am just dumb. But I have never understood these percentage-based predictions. Trump has a 91% chance of winning? Not a 90% chance? Not a 92% chance? Since a model like that is not testable after the fact (even if Trump wins, how do we know that he had a 91% chance of winning?), it's not clear to me how the model's veracity can ever be proven.
Fivethirtyeight have talked about how to interpret these numbers quite a lot. It works best if you use your model to make predictions about a lot of races---like, the congressional races and governor races as well as presidential for the last ten years. They went back and looked at how many of the races with an X% chance for a given candidate actually had that candidate won. So for those races in which their model predicted a 25% chance of Susie Stevenson winning, Susie won about 25% of the time. Here's their work, including downloadable data that you can check for yourself: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/us-house-elections/ (the link goes to house elections, but they have lots of separate forecast models available.)
Quote from: ergative on July 10, 2020, 07:59:53 AM
Quote from: writingprof on July 10, 2020, 06:25:01 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on July 10, 2020, 06:13:50 AM
Thoughts?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/professor-doubles-down-on-prediction-model-showing-trump-having-91-percent-chance-of-winning-election-despite-polls
I'm always awake to the possibility that I am just dumb. But I have never understood these percentage-based predictions. Trump has a 91% chance of winning? Not a 90% chance? Not a 92% chance? Since a model like that is not testable after the fact (even if Trump wins, how do we know that he had a 91% chance of winning?), it's not clear to me how the model's veracity can ever be proven.
Fivethirtyeight have talked about how to interpret these numbers quite a lot. It works best if you use your model to make predictions about a lot of races---like, the congressional races and governor races as well as presidential for the last ten years. They went back and looked at how many of the races with an X% chance for a given candidate actually had that candidate won. So for those races in which their model predicted a 25% chance of Susie Stevenson winning, Susie won about 25% of the time. Here's their work, including downloadable data that you can check for yourself: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/us-house-elections/ (the link goes to house elections, but they have lots of separate forecast models available.)
Thank you. This is helpful.
538 is good- if you check Nate Silver went above and beyond in 2016 to explain why Trump actually had a "good" chance as compared to the networks' silly statements.
My Jean Dixon comment was aimed specifically at single poll probability statements. By way of contrast, the Covid case/death models always provide a confidence interval.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on July 10, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
538 is good- if you check Nate Silver went above and beyond in 2016 to explain why Trump actually had a "good" chance as compared to the networks' silly statements.
My Jean Dixon comment was aimed specifically at single poll probability statements. By way of contrast, the Covid case/death models always provide a confidence interval.
Yes, their podcast has a recurring feature where they talk about specific poll results that garner a lot of news attention, and ask, 'good use of polls? or bad use of polls?' The general consensus is that the best possible use of a single poll would be for political messaging in a volatile news cycle to get your name to the top, or as a particularly salient example of a trend that's also present in lots of other polls. Otherwise, obsessing over a particular surprising poll result---especially if it contradicts lots of others---is almost always a bad use of polls.
In their election forecasts they also always provide not just confidence intervals but what looks like distributions of possible outcomes over many many simulations of their forecasting model. I really enjoy their data-driven approach--not just because it's accurate, but because they talk about how it works, what assumptions they make, and how it should be updated in light of its previous performance accuracy.