• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indications Trump's re-election odds are "tanking"

One must remember that Trump's odds of winning in 2016 were said to be slim to none based on polls. Based on the any demorat will (surely?) win in 2020 polling data - why not run Hillary again?

Red:
That's not so.
  • Polls don't provide odds of winning. The attempt to identify the behavior/thinking of a population of people at a given point in time. Yes, poll readers will make inferences about "odds of winning" based on poll results, but doing so is an adulteration of what poll results actually "say."
  • Look at the polls of November 2016. While many of them had Clinton as the winner of the poll, when one looks at the margin of error for those polls, one finds that their doing so was nothing other than a function of identifying the absolute "winner" of the raw count feedback the polls obtained.

    Margin of error is critical to interpreting any poll's results. Quite simply when the separation between any given answer options is equal to or less than the margin of error (i.e., within the margin of error), the actual behavior that one will observe (if a vote is what's polled) is "anybody's guess."

Political polls vs betting markets: Here's why they conflict
 
Last edited:
Yeah, fake poll, I think the Easter Bunny is actually polling ahead of the pack, because that's what makes me feel good.

Pay him no mind. He clearly didn't look at the weighting. Moreover, he has no idea what party affiliation weighting "baseline" Harris used.
 
The night before the election based on final polling it was like 80/20.
The vote percentages were also practically dead on matching the polls.

According to NYT, Clinton was favored 85-15 on Nov 8.
 
Donald's problems fall into three major categories IMO. Overarching all of that is the whole Russia investigation. But that investigation will likely get buckets or Trumpets tossed in jail but won't likely get Donald Impeached AND Removed.

The three buckets of issues that really hurt him in a re-election bid are:
- His lack of communication skills including his use of twitter. He insists on campaigning 100% of the time and runs his Executive office 0% of the time. Most recent example of disregarding the responsibilities of his Executive office for campaigning, the disgusting display of the Iraq troop visit. How in God's name do you screw up a holiday troop visit in the field? Ask Donald. He knows all about it.
- His utter incompetence in the job and the incompetence of those that have been left standing since Trump decided that he could remove the guardrails
- The massive corruption of this administration, beyond anything we have seen in the modern era...way beyond it....from Trump's emoluments issues through the missing $40M from his inauguration through to the most corrupt bunch of cabinet heads ever assembled by anybody!

And then there is the mountain of issues Trump will face for the next two years with a Dem run Congress which will pick him apart like a Thanksgiving turkey mainly over issues of Donald's own creation built out of his own corrupt and criminal composition.

Though I think the problems you've identified are extant, I also think that all Trump's overarching problem is that he's, through and through, a degenerate.
 
My game console, which I probably shouldn't be using to post on this board, does not like the link. You wouldn't by chance know the average ages of people sampled, would you? Or whether or not this poll neglected cell-phones?

From the first page:

"This survey was conducted online within the United States from December 24-25, 2018
among 1,473 registered voters by The Harris Poll.
The results reflect a nationally representative sample."
 
One must remember that Trump's odds of winning in 2016 were said to be slim to none based on polls. Based on the any demorat will (surely?) win in 2020 polling data - why not run Hillary again?

Because she's damaged goods, only partly due to her own words and deeds.
 
It’s all according to who they ask those questions, some collage full of liberals?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Those mean old liberals are stacking the deck! They didn't ask MEEEE! Waaahh!"

You should get some cheese to go with that whine. An aged, sharp cheddar would pair nicely, since that's a really OLD whine.
 
Well, to be fair, I am on record as admitting repeatedly that Twitter is not Trump's friend, and he would have been better served staying off it. It only adds meat to the MSN feeding frenzy.

But he is a 70+ year old "populist" and doesn't seem to understand the social dynamics have changed (IMHO) thanks to the Progressive-Left's 30+ years domination of American Education. :coffeepap:

"... the Progressive-Left's 30+ years domination of American Education."

I've been hearing conservatives whine about that for decades, and not one has been able to see the obvious: if you want more conservatives in academia, TEACH! If you're not willing to put up with the low wages, thankless tasks, irritating and lazy parents, lack of systemic funding and support, neverending bureaucratic nonsense, and an ever-changing government mandate about what you should be teaching, then please shut your pie hole and be grateful that ANYONE is willing to try to educate your whiny, unruly children.

One of the biggest travesties in America is the way we treat those who teach. The most important job on the planet is parent; the second most important is teacher. Yet we pay janitors more.
 
Well let me respond one point at a time.



1. I've already addressed his Twitter problem. However, I agree with you on the constant campaigning. Yet I understand it based on how he thinks. As stated, he is a populist of the old school. The best examples would be Huey (Kingfish) Long, and perhaps John Lindsay (Mayor of NYC 1966 -1973). He is not supported by the establishment so he goes directly to the people for reinforcement. His constant "campaign stops" while a seated President are his way of countering Media negativity, being revitalized by the apparently strong "grass roots" support. His problem (like many other people Left and Right who seek echo chamber affirmation) he is limiting this to only those areas when he KNOWS people agree with him.



2. He was not elected to be another highly polished political insider.


3. There is no "massive corruption." This is a complete exaggeration on your part. It is based wholly in the TDS reaction fostered by the establishment's control over the MSN. The Mueller investigation promulgated (IMHO) by the "Insurance Policy" Strzok and Co. were planning has created this miasma of criminality. Yes, Manafort (who served a couple of months as campaign manager) was found to have launder money years prior to his service. Yes, Cohen was also found to be a corrupt lawyer involved in Taxi medallion fraud of his own businesses. I am sure that if Trump's businesses are subject to scrutiny, there will be some shenanigans discovered. NONE of this has anything to do with his election and service in office.

I am not going to elaborate on any of the Flynn, Papadopoulos, et. al. issues because I have done so ad nauseam in other threads.

I will say that Trump's problems stem mostly from his old school ways of thinking that new school graduates like yourself simply don't agree with. It's all in how one looks at it. (Forgive me for an short-cuts...I am going to be late for work ;) )

he is limiting this to only those areas when he KNOWS people agree with him.
Hmmm..so what genius light bulb of campaigning went over Donald's head and told him that troops on deployment were so much a part of those that "agree with him" that he could lie to their faces?

He was not elected to be another highly polished political insider.

What does being a "highly polished political insider" have to do with being competent in his office? The PR before he got to DC was that his successful business background, itself a LIE, would serve him well, a FANTASY! All that is left competent as a cabinet head is Pompeo and well.... Pompeo. Mnuchin is a little competent....just a little. Give a minute and I will not even give him that much.
- Perry is laughably incompetent as Energy Sec. Does not even know the status of Nuclear in his own state
- Bolton as NSA is very much a part of 43's Iraq disaster
- Nauert as UN Ambassador is another TV clueless TV personality, chosen AND demoted in one fell swoop in a Pompeo power play
- Carson, is he still breathing? Where did this guy go!
And then the Actings
- Shanahan is not a military man of any sort. Has no background in defense strategy. His only qualification...Boeing exec!
- Whitaker is another of those "you have got to be kidding me choices
- Mick the quick, now Acting CoS AND head of OMB. Sure you are Mick....Sure you are.

There is no "massive corruption
- Price forced out on corruption
- Pruitt forced out on corruption
- Zenke getting out ahead of HANDCUFFS for God sake
- Devos clearly attempting to game the system for her personal financial benefit. Why not, that is what Donald is doing.
- Carson trying to keep his head down only spared by how far down the totem he is in this regard
- Ross.....ROSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have got to be kidding me

Trump himself has his emoluments issues, his inauguration campaign missing funds, his abuses of power many of those struck down in the courts thank God.

To deny the massive corruption in this admin is simply sticking fingers in ones ears...."LaLaLaLaLaLa...I don't hear any of that." You go with that. See how that works out for you.

I noticed that you picked topics in the corruption category that I purposefully avoided in making my argument. I said nothing about Cohen or Manafort, avoided the Russia investigation and Trump Org plus the rather obvious issue of the Trump Foundation.
 
Last edited:
One must remember that Trump's odds of winning in 2016 were said to be slim to none based on polls. Based on the any demorat will (surely?) win in 2020 polling data - why not run Hillary again?

The ****ed up thing is she might win. Most of us preferred Bernie, the DNC rigged it for Hillary and many of us voted anti Trump for reasons which are now even more obvious to those who aren't fooled (his base). So that should be good enough reason, what if she beat him 2nd time around? The way he's gone, she likely would, why would anyone but the Clintons and her hardcore supporters, which is only probably a slightly larger group than Trump's most rabid followers want that?

Let that sink in, cuz I know so many on the right don't want to believe it, but she would almost certainly win a re-match and not through anything she did, but because Trump has done nothing but throw red meat to the base, while alientaing everyone else, most importantly the vast majority of the independents that took a chance on him in 2016. Who knows, but honestly I think he A, is literally so insane he is ignoring the polling and actually believes most of America loves him, or B, maybe he really wants to make sure he doesn't win in 2020 for some reason. If he doesn't of course there will be some excuse why it's not his fault.:roll:
 
Last edited:
According to Harvard's Center for American Political Studies (CAPS) and pollster Harris' December 2018 poll results, Americans responded as noted to the following questions:
  • When you think of Donald Trump do you like or dislike him personally?
    • Like him personally 26%
      Dislike him personally 58%
      Unsure / Don't Know 15%

      Xelor Comment:
      It's quite surprising to me that the "unsure" rate is as close as it is to the "like him" rate.
  • If Donald Trump runs for reelection in 2020 as the Republican candidate, will you...?
    • Definitely vote for Trump 22%
      Probably vote for Trump 11%
      Probably vote for the Democratic candidate 11%
      Definitely vote for the Democratic candidate 33%
      I will vote for an Independent or Other Candidate 11%
      Not Sure / Other 13%

      Xelor Comment:
      Trump's starting with a full 10% deficit comparing the "definitely" and "probably" responses for him vs. an generic Democratic candidate.

      That's astounding! Folks who don't even know who the Dem candidate will be, yet, extrapolating the poll's results to the population at large, one must infer that 44% of voters are likely, today, to vote for whoever be the Dem. That implies that a Dem whose name such voters have never heard before would likely obtain (not figuring in the poll's margin of error) between 33% and 44% of the vote.
  • Now we will show you some names and groups. Please indicate if you have a favorable or unfavorable view of that person or group - or if you've never heard of them.
    • Barack Obama 59%
      Joe Biden 54%
      Bernie Sanders 49%
      James Mattis 40%
      Mike Pence 39%
      Hillary Clinton 38%
      Donald Trump 37%
      Robert Mueller 36%

      Xelor Comment:
      I don't know what the margin of error is for the poll, but I know that Barry, Bernie and Joe fall outside of it, Jim may fall outside of it, the other above shown persons are in a "dead heat" with trump as goes favorability. Also, even though Trump isn't the worst on favorability, he is the worst on unfavorability (page 37). Interestingly, Bob has roughly equal rates on favorability and unfavorability, whereas there's a huge chasm between Trump's two rates on those two qualities. The Trump negative rating's prodigious primacy over his positive rating portends that profoundly puissant and persistent be the polity's preponderant pique with and misprision for him.
  • Do you think Donald Trump should give in and withdraw his demand for 5 billion for the border security?
    • Trump should give in 58%
      Should not give in 42%

      Xelor Comment:
      Trump isn't the giving-in sort. I hazard that if he doesn't give in, he'll exacerbate the above noted metrics that augur poorly for his re-election prospects.

      Asked whether the Dems should compromise, respondents were split 51% to 49% on whether they should or should not. My personal stance on that is that Dems compromise in any number of ways so long as none of those ways includes appropriating money for a southern border wall/fence.

The poll has other interesting questions and responses. Read it for yourself, but please keep in mind this thread's discussion topic is about the noted poll questions, responses to them and the implications of those responses. Responses of any sort should be made based on the assumption that the poll is representationally faithful of the US voting population. (That proviso is simply to avoid foiks having to bog down in methodological and statistics analysis.)1



Notes:
  • General info, crosstabs, and other CAPS/Harris polls here.
  • I have not calculated the std. dev and MoE for the poll. For my comments above, I've assumed the MoE is somewhere between (inclusive) ±3% to ±5% because that's typical.
  1. That said, if you want to rail about the poll itself and its intrinsic validity, please have the decency to support your remarks to that effect with specific claims based on the poll's stated methodology and data collected for the noted poll questions.

You must recall that similar polls gave Trump about a 16% chance of winning the 2016 election pretty much all the way up to the election. The only poll that counts will be the one where all eligible votes have the opportunity to vote. Opinion polls nearly two years out are biased and weighted for a desired result. My bet is Trump wins re-election.
 
"3. There is no "massive corruption."

Price, Ross, Pruitt, Zinke, Carson, Shulkin, Long, Mnuchin, and Trump's own family ... all are involved in corruption of one form or another. That seems pretty massive to me.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/149202/meanwhile-trumps-cabinet-corruption-central

Red:
I know, right. I saw that remark in the other member's post and decided it was just too "effing" preposterous to even bother responding to it. Good on you for having the patience and to do so.
 
The ****ed up thing is she might win. Most of us preferred Bernie, the DNC rigged it for Hillary and many of us voted anti Trump for reasons which are now even more obvious to those who aren't fooled (his base). So that should be good enough reason, what if she beat him 2nd time around? The way he's gone, she likely would, why would anyone but the Clintons and her hardcore supporters, which is only probably a slightly larger group than Trump's most rabid followers want that?

Let that sink in, cuz I know so many on the right don't want to believe it, but she would almost certainly win a re-match and not through anything she did, but because Trump has done nothing but throw red meat to the base, while alientaing everyone else, most importantly the vast majority of the independents that took a chance on him in 2016. Who knows, but honestly I think he A, is literally so insane he is ignoring the polling and actually believes most of America loves him, or B, maybe he really wants to make sure he doesn't win in 2020 for some reason. If he doesn't of course there will be some excuse why it's not his fault.:roll:

Frankly, so long as (1) he loses in 2020 and (2) he doesn't have access to a pc while he's in jail, I'll be quite content.
 
"... the Progressive-Left's 30+ years domination of American Education."

I've been hearing conservatives whine about that for decades, and not one has been able to see the obvious: if you want more conservatives in academia, TEACH! If you're not willing to put up with the low wages, thankless tasks, irritating and lazy parents, lack of systemic funding and support, neverending bureaucratic nonsense, and an ever-changing government mandate about what you should be teaching, then please shut your pie hole and be grateful that ANYONE is willing to try to educate your whiny, unruly children.

One of the biggest travesties in America is the way we treat those who teach. The most important job on the planet is parent; the second most important is teacher. Yet we pay janitors more.

Actually, I was a Life Science and History teacher at Middle/High School level for three years, while I worked on a second under-graduate degree, then a college level teaching assistant for 2 more while working in my first graduate degree.

I'd like to point out that at the Grade School level Teacher's are subject to Administrators. Administrators answer to School Boards. School boards are interested in test scores and graduation rates.

At college level, Instructor's are answerable to Administrators, who are answerable to Boards of Trustees.

I could go into great detail on Grade Schools about supplies, support, pressure to pass kids regardless of knowledge attainment levels, and to graduate them no matter what. That's not even touching no how parents act.

I could point also out how at college levels Administrator's prefer "progressive" instructors to "conservative" ones and so hire them while disposing of those who don't conform.

Instead I will leave it at this. I've watched schools change over 50 years from when I was a student and later a teacher. I've seen how in the last 30 we have been producing a bunch of entitled brats who know more social justice ideology than they do actual science, math, literature, philosophy, or even good common sense.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom