[cherdano]

If Trump goes from 46% to 44%, he would lose in something close to a land slide. But if you polled 10 Trump voters, you wouldn't expect to find anyone who wouldn't vote for him again. (And that doesn't even account for that fact that people don't like to admit that they are changing their mind.)

Edit: even if Trump gets the exact same number of votes in 2020 as in 2016, he would likely lose, as more Democrats may turn out, and some of the Ron Johnson/Jill Stein voters will reconsider their stance of promoting liberty/advancing leftist causes by not doing anything against electing an authoritarian racist to be president.

[y66]

From Pennsylvania’s gerrymandered House map was just struck down — with huge implications for 2018 by Andrew Prokop at Vox:

Quote

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Monday that the state’s US House maps were based on a Republican partisan gerrymander that violated the state’s constitution — and struck them down.

If the ruling holds, it will be an enormous help to Democrats’ efforts to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2018 — because Pennsylvania’s House map was one of the most wildly biased toward Republicans in the country.

The ruling states that Pennsylvania’s government has until February 15 to get a new map through the legislature and signed into law. If they fail to do so — a likely prospect, since the state has a Republican-controlled legislature and Democratic governor — the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will take over the process and institute a new map. (The court has a Democratic majority.)

Republicans have appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court, but it is unclear whether the justices will get involved with a matter of state law.

[y66]

From Democrats didn't cave on the shutdown by Ezra Klein at Vox:

Quote

There’s a rollicking debate on Twitter over whether Democrats “caved.” I’ll confess that I’m mystified by this argument. For the moment, this seems like a good deal — but it’s impossible to say anything definitive without knowing what happens over the next three weeks.

The central political problem in American life, for years now, has been that the Republican Party is a dysfunctional institution that has abandoned principles of decent governance in order to please an ever more extreme base. I don’t have an answer for fixing that. But it would be doubly bad if their outrageous behavior drives Democrats to use the same tactics in response. American politics is, hopefully, an infinite game, not a finite game, and that means doing everything possible to steer away from retaliatory loops that clearly lead to the system crumbling.

Caved schmaved. The NYT Editorial Board gets this exactly right: "Shutdowns may make good partisan theater, but they don’t make any winners". This is about "putting the spotlight where it should be: on the failure of President Trump and Republicans in Congress to protect 700,000 so-called Dreamers, immigrants who were brought to this country illegally as children — legislation that almost nine in 10 Americans support".

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on 2018-January-22, 19:21, said:

Are you sure? Trump got an election boost and is now down about the same level as he was before the election. He has increased his ratings slightly recently although the government shutdown might have been a setback. This is the normal pattern: almost every president has been significantly less popular after one year than immediately after his election. Trump had a lower baseline and still he has low approval. There's also a long term trend that presidents get less and less popular. Here in New Zealand, everybody loves our PM because she is our PM, just like Danish people love their queen (OK, I exaggerate a little bit). This is probably how USA was a generation ago but nowadays the climate is so partisan that appr. half of the electorate is bound to dislike the president.

But of course you are right, the democrats will have to field a pretty bad-looking candidate to lose next time. Unless Trump does something to unify the nation behind him, such as starting a nuclear war. He must be tempted. Another possibility is that the democrats actually find a very reasonable candidates but that the facebook trolls manage to make him/her toxic. We have seen that happening before .....

Although presidents typically drop in popularity, Fredo started below historical norms and has continued to plummet to new historical lows. Women and minorities have thus far shown themselves to be activated to participate, and that is bad news for Fredo and his family business.

The odd thing is that a healthy economy may actually be Fredo's undoing, as the wind will come out of the sails of many angry voters. Once the anger subsides, reality strikes - what the hell have we done! - and then we shall see who is right or wrong about the true Fredo base.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2018-January-22, 19:55, said:

Winnie, the problem might be finding and NOMINATING a "reasonable alternative". If the Dems go much further left, they'll have to replace donkey as a party symbol with a hammer and sickle.

Assuming MSNBC didn't pack the piece with Trump diehards (which is highly unlikely), the surprising thing was none had flipped because of Trump's flaws. So while progressive zealots are myopic about how unacceptable Trump is and Russian collusion, they may be a lot less of an issue for most everyday people. They're more worried about living paycheck to paycheck than anything else.

But then again there was a Dem President whose mantra was "It's about the economy, stupid." President Trump has certainly kept his word and concentrated on jobs and the economy. It'll be interesting to see where his approval ratings go when the full effect of the tax cuts kick in.

The only thing Fredo has concentrated on is his family business and his tv ratings.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-22, 22:16, said:

The only thing Fredo has concentrated on is his family business and his tv ratings.

Do you have any actual evidence to back up your assertion?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-January-23, 09:45, said:

Do you have any actual evidence to back up your assertion?

1. "Executive time"

2. The fact that Trump doesn't actually know any of the specifics of the policy discussions happening around him

3. The fact that he is spending a quarter of his time golfing

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-January-23, 10:54, said:

1. "Executive time"

2. The fact that Trump doesn't actually know any of the specifics of the policy discussions happening around him

3. The fact that he is spending a quarter of his time golfing

so, no actual evidence. That is what I thought.

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2018-January-23, 12:48, said:

so, no actual evidence. That is what I thought.

http://www.politifac...r-barack-obama/

Trump made an issue of how much time Obama golfed while in office but remains woefully quiet about his own golf time relative to Obama. This doesn't prove President Trump's motives, but highlights his short sightedness and hypocrisy.

Is Trump's excessive amount of golf time while in office a non-issue because of moral superiority or executive privilege? Trump pointed the guilty finger at Obama and forgot there are three fingers pointing back at him for similar offenses.

Fair is foul and foul is fair in our alternative Macbeth universe.

[ldrews]

More bonuses:

https://www.cnbc.com...on-program.html

[ldrews]

RedSpawn, on 2018-January-23, 13:37, said:

http://www.politifac...r-barack-obama/

Trump made an issue of how much time Obama golfed while in office but remains woefully quiet about his own golf time relative to Obama. This doesn't prove President Trump motives, but highlights his short sightedness and hypocrisy.

Is Trump's excessive amount of golf time while in office a non-issue because of moral superiority or executive privilege? Trump pointed the guilty finger at Obama and forgot there are three fingers pointing back at him for similar offenses.

Fair is foul and foul is fair in our alternative Macbeth universe.

What winstonm posted was:

Quote

The only thing Fredo has concentrated on is his family business and his tv ratings.

I asked for evidence of that assertion.

How does your comment relate to that?

[rmnka447]

hrothgar, on 2018-January-23, 10:54, said:

2. The fact that Trump doesn't actually know any of the specifics of the policy discussions happening around him

Well, it seems the President has some feel for what the American people want.

The latest Harvard/Harris poll conducted 1/17-1/19 contained a section on immigration policy (before the shutdown). Here are the results

DACA --

78% think Dreamers should be given work permits.
77% think Dreamers should have a path to citizenship.
60% oppose letting the Dreamers bring their parents to the US. 40% support it.

Other immigration issues --

79% want merit based immigration based on the contribution the individual can make to the US.

81% favor 1 million or less immigrants per year. 19% favor more 1 million per year.

61% think border security is inadequate.

79% want secure borders.

54% support electronic or physical barriers at the border.

68% oppose the immigration lottery.

58% oppose a government shutdown for DACA

65% are for a DACA deal that includes a path to citizenship, ending chain migration, ending the immigration lottery, and providing funding for border security.

[jjbrr]

ldrews, on 2018-January-23, 14:46, said:

More bonuses:

https://www.cnbc.com...on-program.html

while ldrews focuses on princesses and fairy tales, no doubt the rest of us see the bigger picture.

Quote

Kimberly-Clark plans to cut up to 5,500 jobs — about 13 percent of its workforce — and get rid of 10 manufacturing plants, releasing a restructuring plan along with its year-end results that showed net sales rose to $18.3 billion, up slightly from 2016.

Quote

As it announced financial results and layoff plans, Kimberly-Clark's board of directors also approved a 3.1 percent increase in the company's quarterly dividend for 2018, which it says is the 46th consecutive annual dividend increase for shareholders.

It's almost like these companies are doing exactly what they threatened with the tax cuts -- invest in automation, buybacks, and dividends.

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2018-January-23, 14:48, said:

What winstonm posted was:


I asked for evidence of that assertion.

How does your comment relate to that?

President Trump presented his brand of leadership as better than Obama's. The jury is still out on the final assessment of that assertion.

Great leadership and hypocrisy don't make great bedfellows.

One should not condemn his opponent for having character flaws that he himself possesses. This honestly makes me wonder how self-aware President Trump is of his own character traits.

We know he loves the man in the mirror, but does he really know the man in the mirror when the red light on the camera goes off? Does he dismiss his hypocrisy as "fake news"? Does he ignore his hypocrisy hoping nobody will notice? Is he oblivious to his own hypocrisy? Does he own his bad outcomes or resort to playing the victim to rally his base? Does he even care about accountability and transparency or is he annoyed by it?

Is diversion, distraction, (unintentional) deception, and disinformation his modus operandi? Is this the new standard of leadership and damage control?

His charisma can influence people to demonstrate outrageous loyalty despite the fact pattern, but charisma can never camouflage the truth of the matter.

[jjbrr]

redspawn, ldrews asked for supporting evidence of hyperbole. you're being trolled.

[jjbrr]

rmnka447, on 2018-January-23, 15:34, said:

Well, it seems the President has some feel for what the American people want.

The latest Harvard/Harris poll conducted 1/17-1/19 contained a section on immigration policy (before the shutdown). Here are the results

DACA --

78% think Dreamers should be given work permits.
77% think Dreamers should have a path to citizenship.
60% oppose letting the Dreamers bring their parents to the US. 40% support it.

Other immigration issues --

79% want merit based immigration based on the contribution the individual can make to the US.

81% favor 1 million or less immigrants per year. 19% favor more 1 million per year.

61% think border security is inadequate.

79% want secure borders.

54% support electronic or physical barriers at the border.

68% oppose the immigration lottery.

58% oppose a government shutdown for DACA

65% are for a DACA deal that includes a path to citizenship, ending chain migration, ending the immigration lottery, and providing funding for border security.

I suppose I don't understand your post about Trump specifically, but these Harvard/Harris polls always seems very poorly conducted to me to the point of being meaningless. Do I want secure borders? Of course I do. Do I want physical barriers? Maybe, if the borders are unsafe without them. Do I oppose a government shutdown? I think so in most cases. Do I oppose a government shutdown for DACA? I didn't realize DACA had anything to do with government shutdowns except in Trump's government, but when was that context provided? And if that's the context, there are other things besides DACA that contribute to my answer. Similarly, if that's the context, do I want physical barriers at the border? No, of course I don't want Trump's borders, but that wasn't the question.

[ldrews]

RedSpawn, on 2018-January-23, 15:36, said:

President Trump presented his brand of leadership as better than Obama's. The jury is still out on the final assessment of that assertion.

Great leadership and hypocrisy don't make great bedfellows.

One should not condemn his opponent for having character flaws that he himself possesses. This honestly makes me wonder how self-aware President Trump is of his own character traits.

We know he loves the man in the mirror, but does he really know the man in the mirror when the red light on the camera goes off? Does he dismiss his hypocrisy as "fake news"? Does he ignore his hypocrisy hoping nobody will notice? Is he oblivious to his own hypocrisy? Does he own his bad outcomes or resort to playing the victim to rally his base? Does he even care about accountability and transparency or is he annoyed by it?

Is diversion, distraction, (unintentional) deception, and disinformation his modus operandi? Is this the new standard of leadership and damage control?

His charisma can influence people to demonstrate outrageous loyalty despite the fact pattern, but charisma can never camouflage the truth of the matter.

Again, you have not addressed the question.

winstonm said:

Quote

The only thing Fredo has concentrated on is his family business and his tv ratings.

So what specific actions has Trump taken that has focused on his family business or his tv ratings. Please be specific with cited evidence.

[ldrews]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-23, 15:36, said:

while ldrews focuses on princesses and fairy tales, no doubt the rest of us see the bigger picture.





It's almost like these companies are doing exactly what they threatened with the tax cuts -- invest in automation, buybacks, and dividends.

Yes, businesses do fluctuate. But consider:

Lowest unemployment rate in 17 years

Lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded.

GDP growth 3%+ for last 3 quarters, projected to be 3+% for 2018.

Thousands of employees receiving bonuses.

Several companies announcing major investments in US.

Apple repatriating over 200 billion dollars to invest in US.

Consumer confidence at record highs.

Stock markets at record highs.


Why do you flippantly ignore all of the above?

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2018-January-23, 15:34, said:

Well, it seems the President has some feel for what the American people want.

The latest Harvard/Harris poll conducted 1/17-1/19 contained a section on immigration policy (before the shutdown). Here are the results

DACA --

78% think Dreamers should be given work permits.
77% think Dreamers should have a path to citizenship.
60% oppose letting the Dreamers bring their parents to the US. 40% support it.

Other immigration issues --

79% want merit based immigration based on the contribution the individual can make to the US.

81% favor 1 million or less immigrants per year. 19% favor more 1 million per year.

61% think border security is inadequate.

79% want secure borders.

54% support electronic or physical barriers at the border.

68% oppose the immigration lottery.

58% oppose a government shutdown for DACA

65% are for a DACA deal that includes a path to citizenship, ending chain migration, ending the immigration lottery, and providing funding for border security.

I am going to applaud you for trying to present something as evidence. But what people think or feel about these issues - is that really germane? We do not live in a pure democracy but a republic. As for myself, I personally have no idea what the proper number of immigrants should be, so an arbitrary number like 1 million is meaningless to me and should be to anyone other than an expert or some other well-learned-on-that-subject person.

It is pretty well known that immigration is a net plus to a country, and an established country like the U.S. with an older population benefits from more not less immigrants. But how many? I have no idea.

We elect representatives who have the ability to hire experts to help them find these kinds of answers. For a poll to ask uninformed like me his opinion about the number of immigrants that should be allowed into the U.S. is about as meaningful and helpful to immigration policy as a poll about whether or not we like the Kardashians.

[ldrews]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-23, 16:54, said:

I suppose I don't understand your post about Trump specifically, but these Harvard/Harris polls always seems very poorly conducted to me to the point of being meaningless. Do I want secure borders? Of course I do. Do I want physical barriers? Maybe, if the borders are unsafe without them. Do I oppose a government shutdown? I think so in most cases. Do I oppose a government shutdown for DACA? I didn't realize DACA had anything to do with government shutdowns except in Trump's government, but when was that context provided? And if that's the context, there are other things besides DACA that contribute to my answer. Similarly, if that's the context, do I want physical barriers at the border? No, of course I don't want Trump's borders, but that wasn't the question.

It is legitimate to question any poll. Do you have a better poll to offer?