On the Horns of a Republican Dilemma?

[Bill the Cat]

Demi... I was about to go eat. You ruined my appetite with that pic...

[demi-conservative]

But Trump has dismal approval ratings in the general population, hovering in the high 30s for most of the past several months. The somewhat weak Republican approval ratings coupled with the overwhelming antipathy among the general population make it VERY hard for a candidate with strong ties to Trump to make traction in the general election in anything other than deeply red districts and states.

Since you trust polls:

[carpedm9587]

Since you trust polls:

Rasmussen is a notoriously right-leaning poll, fairly consistently 10 points from the mean for all polls - and always to the right. Monmouth is similar, but to the left. I prefer to use aggregators, like this one: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...oval-6179.html or this one https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo

In general, I have more confidence in an aggregation of the polls than in the outcome of a single poll, especially if they have a dubious methodology.

This shows Trump HAS come up in ratings by almost 6 points since his all-time low just before the holidays.

[demi-conservative]

Rasmussen is a notoriously right-leaning poll, fairly consistently 10 points from the mean for all polls - and always to the right. Monmouth is similar, but to the left. I prefer to use aggregators, like this one: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...oval-6179.html or this one https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo

I can't take hack Silver serious at all after this:

In general, I have more confidence in an aggregation of the polls than in the outcome of a single poll, especially if they have a dubious methodology.

So how is Rasmussen dubious?

[carpedm9587]

I can't take hack Silver serious at all after this:

I have no idea what this means.

So how is Rasmussen dubious?

Demi - I would be more than happy to enter into a discussion about this with you, but your pattern is to simply do hit-and-run flaming. I really have no desire to engage in that kind of exchange. If you're serious about the question, I'll answer. If not, let's not waste one another's time.

So are you serious?

[demi-conservative]

I have no idea what this means.

Silver on election night makes face as glorious Trump victory destroys expectations of his.

Demi - I would be more than happy to enter into a discussion about this with you, but your pattern is to simply do hit-and-run flaming. I really have no desire to engage in that kind of exchange. If you're serious about the question, I'll answer. If not, let's not waste one another's time.

So are you serious?

Was just wondering if you have evidence, or is post of yours hot air like half of them are.

[carpedm9587]

Silver on election night makes face as glorious Trump victory destroys expectations of his.

Was just wondering if you have evidence, or is post of yours hot air like half of them are.

You answered my question. Thanks!

[demi-conservative]

You answered my question. Thanks!

Next time you can save us both time, put in front of post 'I am not LARPing as reasonable centrist in this post. Really!!!'

[Terraceth]

Silver on election night makes face as glorious Trump victory destroys expectations of his.

What expectations? Nate Silver was actually one of the people pointing out that Trump had a reasonable chance to win the election.

[rogue06]

What expectations? Nate Silver was actually one of the people pointing out that Trump had a reasonable chance to win the election.

At the last moment he moved Trump up to having a 35% chance of winning and took a lot of heat for it (for example)

[hedrick]

It's way too early to talk about 2020. A lot depends upon what happens in 2018. Trump will look different depending upon whether he has Congress with him or against him. I'm not sure what the result will be in either case, but it's hard to believe it will be the same.

I'm not ready to predict 2018. You'd think there would be a major shift in favor of Democrats, but since it's mostly Democrats up for election in the Senate and the House is significantly gerrymandered, I'm far from clear that there will be a shift. I'm guessing the total votes for both House and Senate candidates will be majority Democrat, but that doesn't meant Democratic candidates will win. (Both the Presidential and Senate elections were that way in 2016. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-too/93598998/) We've got significant biases in favor of Republicans.

A Democratic Congress with Trump as President would be interesting to watch. I assume it would be largely deadlocked. Probably long government shutdowns, and no court appointees approved. Don't know how people would react to that in 2020.

[carpedm9587]

It's way too early to talk about 2020. A lot depends upon what happens in 2018. Trump will look different depending upon whether he has Congress with him or against him. I'm not sure what the result will be in either case, but it's hard to believe it will be the same.

I'm not ready to predict 2018. You'd think there would be a major shift in favor of Democrats, but since it's mostly Democrats up for election in the Senate and the House is significantly gerrymandered, I'm far from clear that there will be a shift. I'm guessing the total votes for both House and Senate candidates will be majority Democrat, but that doesn't meant Democratic candidates will win. (Both the Presidential and Senate elections were that way in 2016. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-too/93598998/) We've got significant biases in favor of Republicans.

A Democratic Congress with Trump as President would be interesting to watch. I assume it would be largely deadlocked. Probably long government shutdowns, and no court appointees approved. Don't know how people would react to that in 2020.

I think you're being unnecessarily uncertain. Yes, 2020 is out there, but Trump shows no sign of reversing or altering approach - so his unpopularity remains. He is pathologically incapable of admitting error or doing anything other than think of himself, so I do not see that changing. He is also systematically alienating one group after another, chipping away significantly at the very narrow margin by which he won in 2016 (about 80,000 votes in three states). The one thing that I think MIGHT keep Republican control of the WH is a) if he realizes he cannot win and doesn't run (but that requires admitting defeat, so I doubt it), or b) a solid conservative "primaries" him and wins (which I think is a significant possibility). THAT would make for an interesting 2020 contest.

As for 2018, take a look at the Cook PVI stats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_P...n_Voting_Index). We have seen an average 10 (congressional special elections only) to 16 point (all 2016 elections included) to the left. This has happened in both deeply red and more swing districts. Let's just conservatively predict the shift will drop to 5 points (maybe loss of momentum?). There are 52 districts with a PVI above -5 (negative indicating Republican leaning) and only one district in Democratic hands below that number. Democrats only need 23 seats to take control of the House, so less than half the conservative number (5 point shift, 52 districts). If the shift is closer to the 16 mark, another 119 districts (161 total) are in play. So it appears there are somewhere between 52 and 161 districts that have a significant probability of shifting. I do not think we have EVER seen such numbers.

I frankly cannot see a scenario where Democrats do NOT take the house. And if they take is despite the deep gerrymandering of Operation Red Map, Republicans have a serious problem. Another poster (not sure who) pointed out that the gerrymandering usually creates multiple favored districts, but by comparatively narrow numbers (via cracking and packing). That could actually work against Republicans in a serious wave election, and every sign is that this is exactly what we are going to see.

The Senate is a tougher play in 2018. Democrats are defending 25 seats and Republicans only eight. It would take a miracle for them to take the Senate (and we all know how I feel about miracles ). But 2020 is a different story: Republicans are defending 22 seats to 11 for Democrats. So if Democrats can simply hold fast in 2018, they look very good in 2020. I don't really want a trifecta for Democrats any more than I want one for Republicans, but it is looking increasingly likely, IMO.

[Jedidiah]

I am afraid the election of Trump is a last gasp attempt by some voters to change directions. Since he is not doing as much as I would like to see I am afraid that the once great USA is wobbling on it's last legs. Too many Americas wane too much free stuff and morality is falling rapidly. I am not sorry that I will not be around for much of the end, but I am so sorry for my kid, grandkids and great grandkids having to live through those dark days.

[demi-conservative]

What expectations? Nate Silver was actually one of the people pointing out that Trump had a reasonable chance to win the election.

At the last moment he moved Trump up to having a 35% chance of winning and took a lot of heat for it (for example)

Face tells us all we need to know.

Polls in presidential elections is just to manipulate, magically near end some will 'unskew' or change to get closer to results, yes.

[demi-conservative]

I think you're being unnecessarily uncertain. Yes, 2020 is out there, but Trump shows no sign of reversing or altering approach - so his unpopularity remains. He is pathologically incapable of admitting error or doing anything other than think of himself, so I do not see that changing. He is also systematically alienating one group after another, chipping away significantly at the very narrow margin by which he won in 2016 (about 80,000 votes in three states)....

It's almost like you think aggregate of CNN, MSNBC, Buzzfeed, r/pol/, NYT, Bezoz blog helps you unskew bias.