Dem Party

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

JC29856 said:

Democrats would rather scream Russia Russia Russia and continually lose to Republicans.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley hesitated when asked about his party’s core message to voters.

“That message is being worked on,” the New York congressman said in an interview this past week. “We’re doing everything we can to simplify it, but at the same time provide the meat behind it as well. So that’s coming together now.”

https://apnews.com/5e40c99aeb7c410ab3890e6ad4303e3c

Yep.  And the Democrats are going to get absolutely smacked around in 2018.  Maybe that'll wake us up to the fact that we do have a popular (polarizing, but popular) president.

#onepartysystem

Why do you think he's popular?  He is 30 some % approval.  He lost the popular vote by 3MM.  His victory was by mere basis points in three key states.  He hasn't actually accomplished anything of note.  There isn't much empirical evidence to say he's popular.  

The left still believes polls...

I think his supporters know that he's a jackass.  And they'll tell a pollster they don't like what he's doing.  Then they'll vote for him.  This is roughly why we were so surprised last fall.  While he has a loud and proud hard core base, he has a silent army of lovers as well. Donald Trump is President and the American People are happy about it...and you're talking to one of the few people on here that saw his win coming.

2018's silver lining is going to be that it'll be a wake up call.  Of course, I'm not sure what the impotent Democratic Party will do about it. It's "their" country now.

The polls were basically correct.  The national results were in line with the MOE.  So yeah, we still believe in math, statistics and sampling. 

National polls only measure the popular vote. Clinton did, in fact, win the national popular vote by 2.1 points. The average of the 13 final national polls had Clinton ahead by 3.1 points, which was only a point off the actual result.

Ironically, all 12 polls that had Clinton ahead turned out to be closer to the final outcome than the poll that had Trump ahead. While that may seem crazy — since Trump, not Clinton, is headed to the White House — it's true. The poll that put Trump ahead (by 2 points) was off by 4.1 points, while polls that gave Clinton the lead were off anywhere from only one-tenth of a point to less than 4 points.

National polling did much better in 2016 than in 2012, when the average of the final polls in the contest between President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney was off by more than 3 points. Polls showed Obama winning the popular vote by only seven-tenths of a point, and on Election Day he captured a wider 3.9-point vote margin.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/315145-one-last-look-2016-polls-actually-got-a-lot-right

JC29856

what I think people will remember is not a 4 way poll one week before the election but the Trump vs Clinton polls leading up to election day (remember the daily 538 polls and graphics posted here?) and specifically the chances of Trump winning percentages leading up to and including on election day.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

what I think people will remember is not a 4 way poll one week before the election but the Trump vs Clinton polls leading up to election day (remember the daily 538 polls and graphics posted here?) and specifically the chances of Trump winning percentages leading up to and including on election day.

That's fair, but that doesn't mean his 36% approval rating today is inaccurate.  It's even 43% on Rasmussen which heavily over samples Republicans historically.  Whatever the 538 analysis was, or the media talking points, or whatever, has nothing to do with the efficacy of the actual data.  It doesn't mean we can no longer draw assessments from the data.  

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

what I think people will remember is not a 4 way poll one week before the election but the Trump vs Clinton polls leading up to election day (remember the daily 538 polls and graphics posted here?) and specifically the chances of Trump winning percentages leading up to and including on election day.

That's fair, but that doesn't mean his 36% approval rating today is inaccurate.  It's even 43% on Rasmussen which heavily over samples Republicans historically.  Whatever the 538 analysis was, or the media talking points, or whatever, has nothing to do with the efficacy of the actual data.  It doesn't mean we can no longer draw assessments from the data.  

I don't disagree but what do approval ratings actually tell us? Do they matter? 

I think what trump is saying is approval ratings don't really matter, although I think they do to him.

Ws approval ratings soared
Congress, a majority are career politicians have approval ratings just above single digits

fife

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

what I think people will remember is not a 4 way poll one week before the election but the Trump vs Clinton polls leading up to election day (remember the daily 538 polls and graphics posted here?) and specifically the chances of Trump winning percentages leading up to and including on election day.

That's fair, but that doesn't mean his 36% approval rating today is inaccurate.  It's even 43% on Rasmussen which heavily over samples Republicans historically.  Whatever the 538 analysis was, or the media talking points, or whatever, has nothing to do with the efficacy of the actual data.  It doesn't mean we can no longer draw assessments from the data.  

I don't disagree but what do approval ratings actually tell us? Do they matter? 

I think what trump is saying is approval ratings don't really matter, although I think they do to him.

Ws approval ratings soared
Congress, a majority are career politicians have approval ratings just above single digits

I would say some rating matter and some don't.  for example, i never take the polls that talk about congress approval rating seriously.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

what I think people will remember is not a 4 way poll one week before the election but the Trump vs Clinton polls leading up to election day (remember the daily 538 polls and graphics posted here?) and specifically the chances of Trump winning percentages leading up to and including on election day.

That's fair, but that doesn't mean his 36% approval rating today is inaccurate.  It's even 43% on Rasmussen which heavily over samples Republicans historically.  Whatever the 538 analysis was, or the media talking points, or whatever, has nothing to do with the efficacy of the actual data.  It doesn't mean we can no longer draw assessments from the data.  

I don't disagree but what do approval ratings actually tell us? Do they matter? 

I think what trump is saying is approval ratings don't really matter, although I think they do to him.

Ws approval ratings soared
Congress, a majority are career politicians have approval ratings just above single digits

First, they are important.  The POTUS approval rating is a direct reflection on that individual.  And when they are strong, that gives the POTUS leverage.  The congressmen/senators feel more pressure to bend to the POTUS in those situations.  The converse is true today.

Second, you can never quote the congressional approval number.  The whole thing is a giant misnomer.  Everyone hates Congress because they always hate the other side, whatever the other side is to that person.  There's a reason that the re-election rate is so high.  People hate Congress, but like their congressman.  

JC29856

centrist democrats is the winning strategy?
talk about tripling down.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-17/democrats-see-conservative-blue-dogs-as-key-to-winning-house

JC29856

dem party plan (amt as evidence)
1. rally cold warriors with Russia Russia Russia
2. talk about how dumb and incompetent Trump is
3. take another giant step to the right
4. ahhh??? ahhh? we're working on it

here is another powerfully worded Caitlin Johnson piece, this time about the democrats not John McCain.


https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/dem-leaders-reiterate-that-theyll-be-changing-absolutely-nothing-561bb12f2ca3

For the first time in my life, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer got my hopes up. He then immediately dashed them to the floor and had Nancy Pelosi pee on them for good measure.

I know, I know — I should have known better. But what’s a girl to do? He pushed all my buttons, like a salsa dancer with a Communist Manifesto between his teeth.

“When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself,” Schumer told the Washington Post in an interview yesterday.

Oh God. Melt. Maybe I’ve been wrong about this guy? Maybe this could work out? Maybe my whole life has been one big mistake up until this point! I’m sorry for all those times I called you “Amy Schumer’s creepy uncle,” Chuck!

PJfanwillneverleave1

Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.

rgambs

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.

So you don't like the dismissal of a consensual adult (inappropriate) relationship but you are groovy with dismissing admitted sexual assaults?

cincybearcat

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.

So you don't like the dismissal of a consensual adult (inappropriate) relationship but you are groovy with dismissing admitted sexual assaults?

Which are you ok with?

Both seem pretty awful to me....an I personally don't think a president can have a real consensual relationship with an intern in his office. He shoulda been fired...of course the government doesn't work like the real world. 

JC29856

democrats are going after big business...lmfao
I can't wait to see when and how. Liz Wharren in 3...2...1

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1A913M

U.S. Democrats are unveiling an economic platform on Monday that they call "A Better Deal" for working Americans by announcing plans to address unfair market competition, rising pharmaceutical costs and stagnant wages.

rgambs

cincybearcat said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.

So you don't like the dismissal of a consensual adult (inappropriate) relationship but you are groovy with dismissing admitted sexual assaults?

Which are you ok with?

Both seem pretty awful to me....an I personally don't think a president can have a real consensual relationship with an intern in his office. He shoulda been fired...of course the government doesn't work like the real world. 

I'm not really ok with either, but I generally prefer consensual scandals to non-consensual scandals.
I wholeheartedly disagree that a Democratically elected leader can have consent from an intern, he's not some dictator that will execute her if she refuses.  She was a fully capable adult who made a choice, gave consent, so to speak.
Yes, he should be shitcanned for that, but that doesn't take away consent, that's actually sort of a ridiculous notion.

cincybearcat

rgambs said:

cincybearcat said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.

So you don't like the dismissal of a consensual adult (inappropriate) relationship but you are groovy with dismissing admitted sexual assaults?

Which are you ok with?

Both seem pretty awful to me....an I personally don't think a president can have a real consensual relationship with an intern in his office. He shoulda been fired...of course the government doesn't work like the real world. 

I'm not really ok with either, but I generally prefer consensual scandals to non-consensual scandals.
I wholeheartedly disagree that a Democratically elected leader can have consent from an intern, he's not some dictator that will execute her if she refuses.  She was a fully capable adult who made a choice, gave consent, so to speak.
Yes, he should be shitcanned for that, but that doesn't take away consent, that's actually sort of a ridiculous notion.

My point being, a subordinate having a relationship with a boss or higher up....might not always really be consensual.  Sometimes people feel the need to do things......and putting an intern in that position is awful.

I think both Bill and Donald's transgressions are awful and beneath the office of the president.  That's why I didn't vote for either.

JC29856

JC29856 said:

democrats are going after biig business...lmfao
I can't wait to see when and how. Liz Wharren in 3...2...1

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1A913M

U.S. Democrats are unveiling an economic platform on Monday that they call "A Better Deal" for working Americans by announcing plans to address unfair market competition, rising pharmaceutical costs and stagnant wages.

Dems are going after big business with a vengeance!
On behalf of low wage earners they plan to tax credit the hell out of big business! (no mention of raising min wage)

Halifax2TheMax

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

democrats are going after biig business...lmfao
I can't wait to see when and how. Liz Wharren in 3...2...1

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1A913M

U.S. Democrats are unveiling an economic platform on Monday that they call "A Better Deal" for working Americans by announcing plans to address unfair market competition, rising pharmaceutical costs and stagnant wages.

Dems are going after big business with a vengeance!
On behalf of low wage earners they plan to tax credit the hell out of big business! (no mention of raising min wage)

As if you really care, right? Funny, Jared dear boy testifies to a shit boat full of lies and the 3D goes into overtime mode. I wonder if the republicans have an economic plan other than cutting taxes for the wealthy?

OnWis97

cincybearcat said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.

So you don't like the dismissal of a consensual adult (inappropriate) relationship but you are groovy with dismissing admitted sexual assaults?

Which are you ok with?

Both seem pretty awful to me....an I personally don't think a president can have a real consensual relationship with an intern in his office. He shoulda been fired...of course the government doesn't work like the real world. 

Actually, that's exactly how the real world works.  Important executives be it in government or private can get away with stuff like that.

That said, while Bill Clinton was more equipped to be President than Trump (by a lot) and while his relationship is far less wrong than an actual sexual assault, he absolutely should have been removed from office.  As should anyone in any organization that does that.  Not jailed (unlike sexual assault) but fired.  

And yes, the left does give him a pass.

JC29856

the curious case of imran awan
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/25/debbie-wasserman-schultz-aide-arrest-240960

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

the curious case of imran awan
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/25/debbie-wasserman-schultz-aide-arrest-240960

An IT staffer getting arrested on bank fraud vindicates your vote for Trump.  Good to see a liberal like you make the right call. 

JC29856

http://disobedientmedia.com/2017/06/awan-brothers-scandal-creates-fears-about-scope-of-data-leak/

awan brothers have been paid quite well over the past 14 years or so by many democrats including wass-Schultz. they had all access passes. interesting to say the least.