I am a Republican

[Perotista]

I don't disagree with anything you posted.

I suppose we'll just have to sit back and enjoy the 5th out of 5 straight Predicted Blue Wave Elections.

4 or 5 months is a life time in American politics.

It seems amazing to me that the outcome of a team effort between Trump, Kim and Dennis Rodman may be what decides our next President. We live in an amazing world.

Major events do effect elections. Especially if they happen close to the election. Will there be a blue wave, two months ago I would have said yes. Last week, I would say color me uncertain. There seems to have been a backlash to all the anti-trump rhetoric and actions. The question is, is that backlash the beginning or has it run it course and the tide have reverted back to a blue wave. Only time will tell.

 

[Perotista]

Rasmussen's daily rolling polls--since Gallup dropped out of that they are the only ones doing them--shows a different picture. And Rasmussen was the closest in getting it right in several preceding elections. For sure most polling organizations sure got the 2016 election wrong.

And I was encouraged that maybe every media source has not lost the ability for objective, intellectually honest journalism/commentary. Take this article in March in "Time":

. . .That is not to say his supporters like everything about him. Many wish he would calm down with the tweeting, the boasting, the undignified lashing out at detractors. But they tolerate these things because they see a president doing what they want done, just as they are prepared to overlook stories like the Stormy Daniels saga: you wouldn’t want to be married to him, they say, but “we didn’t elect him to be a saint, we elected him to be a leader.” . . .

. . .Meanwhile, most of those who chose him see President Trump doing his best to keep his promises with precious little help from the professional political class. His actions may be worthy or wicked, and might lead to triumph or disaster — but anyone who thinks he doesn’t know what he’s doing is 180 degrees wrong.​

Don'''t Doubt Donald Trump. He Could Get Reelected in 2020 | Time

Like many, I think you're confusing polls to political pundits and the media. If you look at the RCP averages, they had Clinton winning the popular vote by 3 points, she won it by two. That in my opinion is pretty accurate as polling goes.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Even in Michigan and Pennsylvania, if one paid attention to the late polls one would see them trending Trump's way. Wisconsin was where they missed it. But Wisconsin wasn't polled in ten days leading up to the election. Trafalgar had Trump winning by one on the 7th of November and had trump winning by two also on the 7th, the day prior to the election.

The polls weren't really wrong, when taking into the count of the margin of error which I don't think hardly anyone does.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yes, that they did. They did that in November of 2016 though. As time have passed, Trump continues to make his base extremely happy. But Trump is losing the one group that made November 2016 possible. I highly doubt if we had a redo election today that independents, the non-partisan which made a Trump presidency possible, would go his way as they did in 2016. What was hoped for in 2016, that one group, independents aren't happy with Trump. They moved on. Support isn't static, it is dynamic. Hope comes and goes. That may be what you're missing.

Don't think independents didn't for hope and a vision as much as anybody else did. I don't want to think independents, of which I am one, are as partisan or ideologically fanatic as most Democrats and a lot of Republicans are.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Like many, I think you're confusing polls to political pundits and the media. If you look at the RCP averages, they had Clinton winning the popular vote by 3 points, she won it by two. That in my opinion is pretty accurate as polling goes.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Even in Michigan and Pennsylvania, if one paid attention to the late polls one would see them trending Trump's way. Wisconsin was where they missed it. But Wisconsin wasn't polled in ten days leading up to the election. Trafalgar had Trump winning by one on the 7th of November and had trump winning by two also on the 7th, the day prior to the election.

The polls weren't really wrong, when taking into the count of the margin of error which I don't think hardly anyone does.

All I know is that the odds makers were giving Hillary huge odds to win even as the returns started coming in. And news pundit after news pundit went into obvious shock and dismay when it became obvious that Trump could very well win.

 

[Perotista]

Don't think independents didn't for hope and a vision as much as anybody else did. I don't want to think independents, of which I am one, are as partisan or ideologically fanatic as most Democrats and a lot of Republicans are.

They're not. In fact many whom are now independents left one or the other major parties. I like to refer to independents as non-affiliated and basically non-partisan. Although most do lean one way or the other. We have seen the two major party affiliation or identification fall from around 75% of the total electorate from FDR to Reagan down to roughly 65%. Then from Reagan to Obama the two party strength continued to fall down to 55%. Of course independents filled the gap.

More and more people, voters are becoming dissatisfied with the two major parties. Most I think want to see the two parties worked together for the betterment of America. Not just for their political parties. You don't find the two major parties working together for anything these days. That might be another reason independents went for Trump, the hope he would work with both parties while they knew Clinton wouldn't work with Republicans, period!

 

[Perotista]

All I know is that the odds makers were giving Hillary huge odds to win even as the returns started coming in. And news pundit after news pundit went into obvious shock and dismay when it became obvious that Trump could very well win.

A lot of it was the misreading of the polls or ignoring the later polls because they showed a trend most in the media didn't want to hear. I'm a big fan of Nate Silver and his 538. Nate caught hell for giving Trump a 30% chance of winning. That was a bit conservative since most polls was showing Hillary winning the national vote by 3 points with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points. That mean most polls were showing the final results between a tie and Hillary winning by six. Unfortunately, most pundits and the media ran with the high end of the margin of error. Thus giving accurate polls for the most part a bum rap.

This is why I usually go deep inside the polls to find out who they are polling and to see what else or questions are being asked instead of just looking at the horse race numbers.

 

[AlbqOwl]

They're not. In fact many whom are now independents left one or the other major parties. I like to refer to independents as non-affiliated and basically non-partisan. Although most do lean one way or the other. We have seen the two major party affiliation or identification fall from around 75% of the total electorate from FDR to Reagan down to roughly 65%. Then from Reagan to Obama the two party strength continued to fall down to 55%. Of course independents filled the gap.

More and more people, voters are becoming dissatisfied with the two major parties. Most I think want to see the two parties worked together for the betterment of America. Not just for their political parties. You don't find the two major parties working together for anything these days. That might be another reason independents went for Trump, the hope he would work with both parties while they knew Clinton wouldn't work with Republicans, period!

Well they weren't wrong. President Trump was more than willing to work with both parties, but it's pretty hard to do when the Democrat leaders are trashing him day after day after day, some have drawn up impeachment papers, and nobody reprimands anybody who gets on camera and hollers impeach him.

But IMO Trump supporters are those who voted for an agenda, a vision, a hope of how things could be. And how he went about accomplishing it, so long as it was legal, was not any kind of issue.

 

[Perotista]

Well they weren't wrong. President Trump was more than willing to work with both parties, but it's pretty hard to do when the Democrat leaders are trashing him day after day after day, some have drawn up impeachment papers, and nobody reprimands anybody who gets on camera and hollers impeach him.

But IMO Trump supporters are those who voted for an agenda, a vision, a hope of how things could be. And how he went about accomplishing it, so long as it was legal, was not any kind of issue.

Perhaps in a general sense. But we know thanks to CNN and their exit polling of approximately 25,000 people that 12.5% of Trump's 46% of the total were anti-Clinton voters. That's 28% of Trump's total votes went to him because they detested Hillary, they weren't necessarily for Trump, but against Hillary. You had another 15.4% of Trump's 46% voted for him with reservations. In other words, they weren't enthralled with Trump. Perhaps viewing him as the lesser of two evils. Who know's the exact definition of with reservations means. That's a total of 27.9% of Trump's 46% or 60% of Trump's total votes that were either anti-Clinton or with reservations.

Not that the reason matters, he won. What the numbers shows is that there were a lot more people who voted for Trump for other reasons than just hope or an agenda. Perhaps those with reservations were part of the 25% of all Americans who disliked both candidates and didn't want either major party candidate to become our next president. That included 54% of all independents which 12% out of that 54% voted third party. That left 42 out of that 54 who disliked both candidates to choose their lesser of two evils, Trump or Clinton. I'd say more chose Trump since he won the independent vote 46-42.

The fact is 2016 was an unique election where the two major party candidates were the most disliked candidates going back to FDR when Gallup and Pew Research started keeping track of these things. Both Trump 36% and Clinton 38% set the record for the lowest favorable ratings on record for any major party candidate. The previous record for the lowest was 43% held by Barry Goldwater back in 1964 and the second lowest by G.H.W. Bush in 1992 at 46%. No other major party candidate except those four had an overall favorable rating of 50% or below.

There's no doubt many people voted for Trump because of the hope and vision he presented. But there were a lot more, a majority who voted for Trump for other reasons. One could actually say that Trump is president because he received more anti-Clinton votes, 28% of his total to Clinton receiving anti-Trump votes, 21% of Hillary's total were anti-Trump voters. This I think says a lot more about Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Independents definitely didn't like Hillary, only Democrats did. In fact 70% of Independents disliked Hillary to 57% who disliked Trump. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Hence, Trump is sitting in the Oval Office instead of Hillary, thanks to the non-partisan, non-affiliated voters.

 

[code1211]

Major events do effect elections. Especially if they happen close to the election. Will there be a blue wave, two months ago I would have said yes. Last week, I would say color me uncertain. There seems to have been a backlash to all the anti-trump rhetoric and actions. The question is, is that backlash the beginning or has it run it course and the tide have reverted back to a blue wave. Only time will tell.

Unemployment down. Wage rates up and rising. Taxes down. Manufacturing jobs up. Consumer optimism up.

The only thing that's really bad is the coverage of the President by the NeverTrumpers Press.

I am disappointed that the traditional media's biased, slanted, hate filled, edited-for-effect bile is still accepted by so many as truth.

We need to ask this question on every story they weave: If this is true, what else must be true?

 

[Perotista]

Unemployment down. Wage rates up and rising. Taxes down. Manufacturing jobs up. Consumer optimism up.

The only thing that's really bad is the coverage of the President by the NeverTrumpers Press.

I am disappointed that the traditional media's biased, slanted, hate filled, edited-for-effect bile is still accepted by so many as truth.

We need to ask this question on every story they weave: If this is true, what else must be true?

All well and good. The question is, can the voters get past Trump's in your face persona. That grates on quite a lot of people who aren't either pro-Trumpers or anti-Trumpers. The avid Trumpers love it, the anti-Trumpers hate it and those in the middle, you can call them independents, the non-affiliated, mostly non-partisan are rubbed the wrong way by his personality. Keep in mind most of this group aren't politically active, they don't pay much attention to the goings on in Washington. Most still see this country headed in the wrong direction by at 35-49 right/wrong even with all the indicators you cited. Independents still have an unfavorable view of Trump by a 35/52 favorable/unfavorable margin.

Why then if things are going so good, the non-affiliated still basically don't care for Trump? It boils down to his obnoxious personality. How this will effect the midterms is hard to say, independents dislike both congressional parties with a passion. Only 20% of all independents view the Democrats in congress favorably vs 53% who view them unfavorably. As for Republicans in congress, that's 17/56 favorably/unfavorably. Not much difference. Who will independents vote for in November, Democrats or Republicans in congress? Independents will probably go with the party in congress they dislike the least.

This is what is sad about our politics today, most folks aren't voting for a candidate, they're voting against one or a party. Or they are against both, choosing the candidates and party they dislike the least at this time. Very few are for these days.