[Discussion] Hope to Remember The Trump Administration Thread as being 'transparent and honest'

Let's follow and discuss what our newest presidential administration gets up to, the good, the bad, the lawsuits, and the many many indictments.

gewy wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
gewy wrote:

I suspect Biden will win. But all it could take is for BLM protests to fade from memory, people to become numb to the COVID death toll, a bad debate performance, and another sexual assault allegation at just the right time, and we have 4 more years.

I've plugged it a bunch of times so I hope people aren't getting sick of it, but it bears repeating that political researcher Rachel Bitecofer has developed a model of elections in our modern age of Negative Partisanship, and in it Trump's election triggered a fear response in Democratic leaning voters that will not subside while Trump is in office.

By November it may not be the absolute landslide it would be if the election were tomorrow, but according to her model there's little chance of a Trump victory due to a slide in fear-based voting by Democratic leaning voters.

Even a 1% chance of a Trump victory is still significant in my opinion.

Also, Bitecofer's model sounds impressive and makes sense, but I think it's been tested exactly once, correct? I really don't think anyone should take this thing for granted.

I don't think anyone is taking it for granted, though. A 1% chance is still significant, but it's also still 1%

I mean, if you heard Trump had a 99% chance of winning, would you be as hopeful that Biden could pull it out as you are fearful now that Trump will?

I think it's a case of fear of how bad a result could be inflating the feeling that it could happen in the first place.

Stele wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I lean towards thinking that if the Republican Party ever got caught by its base looking like it gave into pressure from the Libs to nominate someone from the swamp and steal Trump's crown from him, you'd have civil war in the Republican Party.

They already had their civil war. The Confederacy (tea party) won. The GOP isn't just about sh*tty policies like trickle down and war on drugs anymore. Now they're full on racists, running on government is broken, while they break it. They've given in to Russia and Trump, lies about elections, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and anything that might keep them in power at all costs.

edit: to be more clear, I mean the kind of civil war that tears the party apart and results in them losing elections if they ever tried to dump Trump, for the reasons I listed.

that's why I'd hesitate to call the tea party a civil war. That was just the Frankenstein's Monster they built deciding to take over, and up until recently the establishment Republicans didn't really fight it, they just went along with it.

Guys, he's not going to tag out for Pence -- or anyone -- before the election to keep the Republicans in office. It is a fundamental axiom that as far as Individual 1 is concerned, he is the Republican party and the Republican party is him. He couldn't give two *%@#s about anyone not-his-kids, and would sell his allies up the river for a cheeseburger. Sacrifice one thimbleful of attention for continued Republican success? Do something that does not directly benefit him in the next five minutes? Think about that for a nanosecond.

When he loses, he will blame literally everyone else in the world for letting him down. And after he fails to invalidate the election and/or have or the Supreme Court intervene, he will eventually leave, but continue right on doing the only part of this job he has ever liked: rallies. Endless rallies.

I think he would tag out if he was guaranteed immunity from current and future investigations, both in terms of his presidency and the criminal activities of his businesses. It would be a win-win as long as he openly supported the new candidate. More time with his family, the wishes of his wife etc. etc. "I did more for this country in 4 years than Clinton and Obama did in 16!". Easy enough to spin.

LouZiffer wrote:

As far as the election is concerned, I was complacent about Trump once. Never again.

Yeah. Trump is a little behind now, and really not that much in the states that matter... it can easily turn around.
Such as by people not going out to vote because they don’t have to with Trump being crushed...

Rat Boy wrote:

Carl Bernstein: From pandering to Putin to abusing allies and ignoring his own advisers, Trump's phone calls alarm US officials.

By far the greatest number of Trump's telephone discussions with an individual head of state were with Erdogan, who sometimes phoned the White House at least twice a week and was put through directly to the President on standing orders from Trump, according to the sources. Meanwhile, the President regularly bullied and demeaned the leaders of America's principal allies, especially two women: telling Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom she was weak and lacked courage; and telling German Chancellor Angela Merkel that she was "stupid."

Trump incessantly boasted to his fellow heads of state, including Saudi Arabia's autocratic royal heir Mohammed bin Salman and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, about his own wealth, genius, "great" accomplishments as President, and the "idiocy" of his Oval Office predecessors, according to the sources.
In his conversations with both Putin and Erdogan, Trump took special delight in trashing former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and suggested that dealing directly with him -- Trump -- would be far more fruitful than during previous administrations. "They didn't know BS," he said of Bush and Obama -- one of several derisive tropes the sources said he favored when discussing his predecessors with the Turkish and Russian leaders.

Too little too late. Everyone knows Trump is a colossal asshole. What's infuriating is the level of complacency by Trump's "advisors." It's criminally negligent.

Shadout wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

As far as the election is concerned, I was complacent about Trump once. Never again.

Yeah. Trump is a little behind now, and really not that much in the states that matter... it can easily turn around.
Such as by people not going out to vote because they don’t have to with Trump being crushed...

Trump is behind by a lot: "And as you can see in the chart below, both Biden’s average support and margin over Trump are historically large — the largest of any contender since Bill Clinton in 1996", including the states that matter. 9.6 in Michigan, 7.6 in Wisconsin, 5.6 in Pennsylvania. With 7.4 in Florida.

It's good not to be complacent, but the numbers are the numbers. There's a difference between complacency, and well-founded optimism.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I don't think anyone is taking it for granted, though. A 1% chance is still significant, but it's also still 1%

I mean, if you heard Trump had a 99% chance of winning, would you be as hopeful that Biden could pull it out as you are fearful now that Trump will?

I think it's a case of fear of how bad a result could be inflating the feeling that it could happen in the first place.

Us XCom players trust a 99% chance NOT ONE WHIT!

Rat Boy wrote:

Arrest warrant issued for Donald Trump... by Iran. Oh well, I guess he's gotta go in hiding like Salman Rushdie now.

~ mod
No wishing death or torture upon people. We don't want our forum to be a place where wishing death or torture upon people is a thing."

mwdowns wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I don't think anyone is taking it for granted, though. A 1% chance is still significant, but it's also still 1%

I mean, if you heard Trump had a 99% chance of winning, would you be as hopeful that Biden could pull it out as you are fearful now that Trump will?

I think it's a case of fear of how bad a result could be inflating the feeling that it could happen in the first place.

Us XCom players trust a 99% chance NOT ONE WHIT!

You know...maybe people who play a lot of video games are less likely to trust the odds because of all those times they were like "oh COME ON! the computer is CHEATING!"

Paleocon wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:

Arrest warrant issued for Donald Trump... by Iran. Oh well, I guess he's gotta go in hiding like Salman Rushdie now.

~ mod
No wishing death or torture upon people. We don't want our forum to be a place where wishing death or torture upon people is a thing."

That wouldn't be too bad of an ending especially since I don't think he's intelligent enough to work out what are real secrets and what isn't.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Trump is behind by a lot: "And as you can see in the chart below, both Biden’s average support and margin over Trump are historically large — the largest of any contender since Bill Clinton in 1996", including the states that matter. 9.6 in Michigan, 7.6 in Wisconsin, 5.6 in Pennsylvania. With 7.4 in Florida.

Just popping in to point out that Hillary was around 12 points over Trump in Michigan in October 2016. Everyone seemed to figure she had a lock on the state until she didn't.

I said it in 2016 and I'll say it again--my anecdotal data from living in Michigan is that the Trump support has not died down at all. If anything, I'm seeing more open support from him around here especially with the quarantine and Whitmer's steps for handling the pandemic. Whether it's flags, lawn signs, or MAGA hats/face masks, these polls do not reflect what I'm seeing in my day to day life.

I'm not saying that we can't be optimistic because Trump has clearly done a lot more obvious damage during his term and has shown himself to be just as bad as we thought and hopefully people see that. However I just want to exercise caution when talking about polling data and expectations.

Lets just ignore polls. They don't do anything useful for regular people. Their best use is for political strategists figuring out where to spend their money.

CptDomano wrote:

Just popping in to point out that Hillary was around 12 points over Trump in Michigan in October 2016. Everyone seemed to figure she had a lock on the state until she didn't.

You can't form a narrative around individual polls. You have to look at the aggregate. Also, a big reason Clinton lost is because of the Comey letter and undecideds breaking for Trump 60/40. Biden has a much larger lead in the aggregate and there's far fewer undecided voters. Given how close it was in 2016, I don't see any path for a Trump victory this year in Michigan.

Djinn wrote:

You can't form a narrative around individual polls. You have to look at the aggregate. Also, a big reason Clinton lost is because of the Comey letter and undecideds breaking for Trump 60/40. Biden has a much larger lead in the aggregate and there's far fewer undecided voters.

All I'm saying is that it's only June and pointing out how much Biden is leading in polls is by no means a reason to declare this as a victory and that Trump will definitely lose in November. There are still plenty of months left and there is always the possibility of a another "Comey letter" incident down the road.

Like I said, I'm glad that numbers seem to be heavily in favor of Trump losing the election, but I'm definitely not ready to declare it as an absolute win in November.

Djinn wrote:

Given how close it was in 2016, I don't see any path for a Trump victory this year in Michigan.

That's my point though--the polls showed Clinton with a very sizable lead going into the election and everyone said that there was no way Trump could win. And then he did, even if it was by a small amount. The polls did not remotely reflect the actual outcome.

CptDomano wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Trump is behind by a lot: "And as you can see in the chart below, both Biden’s average support and margin over Trump are historically large — the largest of any contender since Bill Clinton in 1996", including the states that matter. 9.6 in Michigan, 7.6 in Wisconsin, 5.6 in Pennsylvania. With 7.4 in Florida.

Just popping in to point out that Hillary was around 12 points over Trump in Michigan in October 2016. Everyone seemed to figure she had a lock on the state until she didn't.

That's certainly worth adding to the conversation, but people are saying Biden's lead is slim when it's not. The conversation shouldn't *start* with mischaracterizing the numbers, wherever it goes.

I said it in 2016 and I'll say it again--my anecdotal data from living in Michigan is that the Trump support has not died down at all. If anything, I'm seeing more open support from him around here especially with the quarantine and Whitmer's steps for handling the pandemic. Whether it's flags, lawn signs, or MAGA hats/face masks, these polls do not reflect what I'm seeing in my day to day life.

I'm not saying that we can't be optimistic because Trump has clearly done a lot more obvious damage during his term and has shown himself to be just as bad as we thought and hopefully people see that. However I just want to exercise caution when talking about polling data and expectations.

Remember that polling in 2016 indicated there were a lot more undecideds late in the race compared to 2012, which was why Hillary's numbers were considered softer even though they were bigger than Obama's. Undecideds broke for Trump by a 2-to-1 margin nationally, if I remember correctly.

Everything points to that not being the case this time around. From the article you linked:

Clinton’s lead over Trump is expanding, but it is not because she’s gaining any new support since a Sept. 27-28 poll commissioned by The Detroit News and WDIV-TV found her leading Trump 42 percent to 35 percent after the first debate.

“She’s not adding voters,” Czuba said. “But the problem for Republicans is their candidate is losing voters.”

Everything indicates that the Democratic party has been adding voters since 2016.

That's why the Rachel Bitecofer model shows the confidence it does for Biden: Trump triggered Democratic leaning voters to start showing up. A quick look at the 2018 Michigan elections indicates it was a really good year for Democrats.

I can't give you Michigan specific numbers for this, but I do know that Bitecofer was surprised that *Republicans* also increased their numbers in 2018. In other words, the Democratic victories in 2018 weren't a case of Republicans staying home, they were a case of Democrats turning out. So more Republicans may turn out with Trump on the ballot, but it's not like they dropped off from '16 to '18, and they still lost in '18.

edit: in other words, I don't doubt whether the enthusiasm you're seeing for Trump is real. It's just that it isn't the whole story, because Biden's numbers look like they're coming from enough Democratic enthusiasm that they're solid in a way Hillary's weren't.

I'm certainly not saying that Biden's victory is guaranteed. Nothing is guaranteed in life. What I'm saying is that the numbers are extremely good for Biden and we should all be optimistic about November. Everyone is so gloomy in this thread. It's like someone being worried on their honeymoon that they might die in a car crash. Sure, it could happen, but try to enjoy the moment.

I don't know what to tell you there...It's pretty gloomy in the US right now. Sure, numbers that don't affect anything for anyone right now are something to be happy about, and I'm definitely taking that as a win. However, I'm more interested in the numbers or tangible actions that will start the process of getting Trump out of office. I can be hopeful now and still be cautious about the future, it's not one or the other.

Djinn wrote:

I'm certainly not saying that Biden's victory is guaranteed. Nothing is guaranteed in life. What I'm saying is that the numbers are extremely good for Biden and we should all be optimistic about November. Everyone is so gloomy in this thread. It's like someone being worried on their honeymoon that they might die in a car crash. Sure, it could happen, but try to enjoy the moment.

Yeah, I think about it this way: if the numbers were this bad for *Biden* what would the conversation look like? I feel like the optimism for Biden's numbers being this good is waaay below what the pessimism would be if his numbers were equally bad, which means there's something else going on here.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Yeah, I think about it this way: if the numbers were this bad for *Biden* what would the conversation look like? I feel like the optimism for Biden's numbers being this good is waaay below what the pessimism would be if his numbers were equally bad, which means there's something else going on here.

The "something else" you're referring to is called "2016".

Jonman wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Yeah, I think about it this way: if the numbers were this bad for *Biden* what would the conversation look like? I feel like the optimism for Biden's numbers being this good is waaay below what the pessimism would be if his numbers were equally bad, which means there's something else going on here.

The "something else" you're referring to is called "2016".

I'd say "people's mistaken ideas about 2016" like "all the polls said she was going to win" when they didn't. People *reporting* on the polls did a bad job so I can see where they got that idea, but as I remember it, there was a lot of rancor directed at 538 for giving Trump such a high chance of winning. Criticism that ignored 538's explanations.

In any case, people now have a better idea of what actually happened in 2016 and how it differs from what happened in 2018 and why 2020 looks more like the latter than the former, so that should change some minds, at least a little?

polypusher wrote:

Lets just ignore polls. They don't do anything useful for regular people. Their best use is for political strategists figuring out where to spend their money.

It is very hard to measure a part of human behavior without also changing the behavior, usually in unanticipated ways. Polling is absurd at best.

Also, maybe f*ck optimism. I have no use for it. If someone else needs optimism to get through the day, I get it, they can have mine. Only dropped once.

Interesting article on polling.

Wapo wrote:

How can pollsters estimate how the country feels after talking to only 1,000 people?

The more people you ask, the more accurate your results. To a point.

It seems counterintuitive that you could talk to 600 or even 1,000 people and get a good sense for what a country of 320 million people are thinking. Until you look at it another way: When you go to the doctor, does she have to remove all of your blood to conduct tests, or does she just take a sample?

The answer, assuming you are alive right now, is the latter. She takes a representative sample of your blood and runs the tests. That’s what pollsters do with polls.

A poll’s margin of error depends largely on the number of people you talk to. If you talk to 100 people for a national poll, you’re looking at a nine-percentage-point margin of error (using the stipulations indicated on the graph below). Crank it up to 600, and you’re down to four points. As you add respondents, though, the reduction on margin of error diminishes. At 1,000, it’s 3.1 points. Add another 1,000 people? Down to 2.2 points.

Djinn wrote:
CptDomano wrote:

Just popping in to point out that Hillary was around 12 points over Trump in Michigan in October 2016. Everyone seemed to figure she had a lock on the state until she didn't.

You can't form a narrative around individual polls. You have to look at the aggregate. Also, a big reason Clinton lost is because of the Comey letter and undecideds breaking for Trump 60/40. Biden has a much larger lead in the aggregate and there's far fewer undecided voters. Given how close it was in 2016, I don't see any path for a Trump victory this year in Michigan.

One path to victory in Michigan I see is Barr writes up arrest indictment for Joe Biden and a willing sheriff perp walks him in handcuffs out of a Michigan rally/speech. What the polls simply can't capture is how not normal this election has the potential to be.

I just always assume most white folks won’t admit they are voting for Trump...that’s why the polls always look bad for him until almost 2/3rds of white women vote for Trump.

Djinn wrote:

I'm certainly not saying that Biden's victory is guaranteed. Nothing is guaranteed in life. What I'm saying is that the numbers are extremely good for Biden and we should all be optimistic about November. Everyone is so gloomy in this thread. It's like someone being worried on their honeymoon that they might die in a car crash. Sure, it could happen, but try to enjoy the moment.

Maybe because this isn't the election thread? We got that one shut down remember? This is just about Trump as president and all the awful things he continues to do.

Should be a page of talk about him abandoning our troops to Russia and trying to come up with bullsh*t excuses why nothing is his fault.

Polls don't really belong here, aside from presidential approval polls. And those look pretty bleak for him right now with covid.

Polling, like some psychology, feels pretty pseudoscientific. Ask a homeopath or a chiropractor or acupuncturist how their magic works and they will give you very detailed answers that can make a kind of sense until you step back and see it's all based on nothing but a shared delusion and grift.

Maybe people are constantly revisiting the core assumptions of polling and polling results do actually match up with reality but I wouldn't be surprised to learn the whole industry is built out of cardboard and wishful thinking.

One thing we're learning is that we just have too few elections to be able to statistically predict outcomes. 45 US presidential elections is not enough to learn about patterns or likelihoods. And they happen so infrequently that you could say that only the most recent few even count, that we'll never really be able to statistically analyse presidential elections without a huge grain of salt (that we're currently ignoring)

Robear wrote:

Interesting article on polling.

Wapo wrote:

How can pollsters estimate how the country feels after talking to only 1,000 people?

The more people you ask, the more accurate your results. To a point.

It seems counterintuitive that you could talk to 600 or even 1,000 people and get a good sense for what a country of 320 million people are thinking. Until you look at it another way: When you go to the doctor, does she have to remove all of your blood to conduct tests, or does she just take a sample?

The answer, assuming you are alive right now, is the latter. She takes a representative sample of your blood and runs the tests. That’s what pollsters do with polls.

A poll’s margin of error depends largely on the number of people you talk to. If you talk to 100 people for a national poll, you’re looking at a nine-percentage-point margin of error (using the stipulations indicated on the graph below). Crank it up to 600, and you’re down to four points. As you add respondents, though, the reduction on margin of error diminishes. At 1,000, it’s 3.1 points. Add another 1,000 people? Down to 2.2 points.

Comparing to taking a blood sample is an interesting analogy. But to Guru's point, blood doesn't lie.

Are there any polls done attempt to correlate "3 things you think would improve your situation in life" with "the candidate most likely to make those things happen for you"?

Danjo Olivaw wrote:

Also, maybe f*ck optimism. I have no use for it. If someone else needs optimism to get through the day, I get it, they can have mine. Only dropped once.

I'll take it.

I don't think there's much about the future that I'm as optimistic about as this, which says something about how much I need it to get through the day.

The blood thing is a stupid analogy because my veins don't have a Mississippi and a California.

It's like stepping out on your porch in Anchorage so you can tell me what the weather is like in Miami.