Blue Waves and Red Waves

[carpedm9587]

Yes, pretty good synopsis of Carp's response.

Well, pretty much anyone's response to anything potentially positive regarding Trump if that person's suffering from TDS. He's worse than Hitler! He's evil incarnate!

I have not actually said any of those things. He is a demonstrable liar. And this is just another of the lies he and his administration have told. The numbers, gents. Look at the numbers, and refute them if you can. If not, the rest is just distracting noise.

[carpedm9587]

Carpe gave excuses as to why gains couldn't be attributed to Trump. His economic positions were quite clear leading up to the election, and his win allowed those who had been waiting for the outcome to start implementing change immediately. That's going to happen with any election signifying a material change in economic policy.

Most of those implementing changes came forward publicly to say those changes were in progress long before Trump won the election, and he was merely taking credit. Many of the deals that WERE related to Trump inserting himself never actually materialized - so the deal was broadly reported, but not the subsequent failure of the deal. And for the rest, I provided numbers. So far, all I've seen in response to hard numbers is a lot of...what does Rogue call it... handwaving?

I can find no other place where a prior president-elect took credit for the job growth (or loss) numbers of a sitting president. Usually, a new president is credited with the numbers beginning in February, following their inauguration. There are clear economic reasons for this. A president elect cannot make policy - a sitting president can. And given the rate at which candidates fail to follow through on campaign promises, businesses are normally loath to commit business decisions before policies have been enacted. I certainly would not base my key business decisions on the promises of a politician on a campaign trail.

[Sparko]

Honestly, have you read Sparko's response. CarpM gave good reasoning for the contrary, and he denied it, and refused to engage with it. Silence would have been better. Sparko's response just comes off as childish.

He gave his reasons, I gave mine. I have learned that continuing to debate certain things with Carp is a complete waste of my time. So after I state what I believe, I am done. He can ignore me if he wishes. No amount of me posting articles or statistics is going to change his mind. And he isn't likely to change mine.

[carpedm9587]

He gave his reasons, I gave mine. I have learned that continuing to debate certain things with Carp is a complete waste of my time. So after I state what I believe, I am done. He can ignore me if he wishes. No amount of me posting articles or statistics is going to change his mind. And he isn't likely to change mine.

Sparko - the problem is you usually don't actually post any statistics/data that refute what I post. You commonly link opinion pieces, usually with little or no data, or you post data/statistics that have little or nothing to do with what I have actually posted.

This happens a lot around here. It's happening again in a separate thread, where a comment I made about the congressional voting record continues to be responded to with "what people thought." In this case, I provided data and history, and you responded with a single example, which has been shown to never have actually happened as claimed, and then cling to your position that attributing all of the job growth between 11/1/2017 (a day when Trump wasn't even elected yet) and 1/31/2018 (10 days after his inauguration) is perfectly justified.

I am not the one ignoring the data here.

[Sparko]

I am not the one ignoring the data here.

finalironymeter_zps9935014f.gif

[carpedm9587]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30356[/ATTACH]

[carpedm9587]

If Trump seriously expects a "red wave" this fall, the numbers are not working in his favor. For the first time in several months, he is underwater by 11.9 points, as an aggregate of the various approval polls. And his disapproval is climbing at the same time his approval is dropping.

Meanwhile, no further slippage in the house projections, but both parties have seen a seat slip form leans/likely/solid to toss-up in the Senate projections, for a total of 9 toss-ups. The Dems need 7 of them to take the Senate, and the Reps need two. Believe it or not, that actually gives the Dems a bit more wiggle room. Before they had to take 6 of 7 (86%), now they need to take 7 of 9 (78%). Still a slim chance, but slightly improved. Even the governor's mansions and many state houses are in play, introducing the possibility that there will be a better Dem/Rep balance by the end of the mid-terms. Hopefully, it won't OVER balance, but that is a distinct possibility.

[rogue06]

If Trump seriously expects a "red wave" this fall, the numbers are not working in his favor. For the first time in several months, he is underwater by 11.9 points, as an aggregate of the various approval polls. And his disapproval is climbing at the same time his approval is dropping.

Meanwhile, no further slippage in the house projections, but both parties have seen a seat slip form leans/likely/solid to toss-up in the Senate projections, for a total of 9 toss-ups. The Dems need 7 of them to take the Senate, and the Reps need two. Believe it or not, that actually gives the Dems a bit more wiggle room. Before they had to take 6 of 7 (86%), now they need to take 7 of 9 (78%). Still a slim chance, but slightly improved. Even the governor's mansions and many state houses are in play, introducing the possibility that there will be a better Dem/Rep balance by the end of the mid-terms. Hopefully, it won't OVER balance, but that is a distinct possibility.

Of course the polls, media and pundits were all forecasting an all but inevitable Hillary landslide, and we see how that worked out. Still, I seriously doubt that there will be any red wave.

[Mountain Man]

Of course the polls, media and pundits were all forecasting an all but inevitable Hillary landslide, and we see how that worked out.

I remember a few weeks before the election, The CBS Evening News top story was about the latest polling data and the inevitability of a Hillary win followed immediately by a several-minute long feature pontificating about what Hillary's first hundred days were going to be like. And they weren't the only ones acting like Hillary's victory was assured, and that the election itself was nothing more than a formality. That attitude was pervasive throughout the mainstream media.

It reminds me of the joke that if liberals could have their way, they would get rid of elections and pick winners based on their sketchy opinion polls.

[carpedm9587]

I remember a few weeks before the election, The CBS Evening News top story was about the latest polling data and the inevitability of a Hillary win followed immediately by a several-minute long feature pontificating about what Hillary's first hundred days were going to be like. And they weren't the only ones acting like Hillary's victory was assured, and that the election itself was nothing more than a formality. That attitude was pervasive throughout the mainstream media.

It reminds me of the joke that if liberals could have their way, they would get rid of elections and pick winners based on their sketchy opinion polls.

Of course the polls, media and pundits were all forecasting an all but inevitable Hillary landslide, and we see how that worked out. Still, I seriously doubt that there will be any red wave.

Is this the only response you guys have? The reality is that the polls were almost all within their margin of error. Only in 3 states that I know of were they outside, and those were the three states Trump won by 100,000 votes total, to put him over the top. The RCP and 538 aggregates were actually within the margin of error across the board. The pundits, however, were definitely over confident and it was one of the many factors that led to Clinton's loss.

Right now we are 2 months out, so there is still time for a shift, but things are currently shifting in the wrong direction for the GOP. And I see most of the GOP doing the same thing you guys are doing. Laughing about how everyone got it wrong last time, so no big deal.

I suspect November 7th is going to be a good day...

[Cow Poke]

Is this the only response you guys have? The reality is that the polls were almost all within their margin of error. Only in 3 states that I know of were they outside, and those were the three states Trump won by 100,000 votes total, to put him over the top. The RCP and 538 aggregates were actually within the margin of error across the board.

Right now we are 2 months out, so there is still time for a shift, but things are currently shifting in the wrong direction for the GOP.

I don't think it's insignificant that the "news media" (which was supposed to report the news, not make it) were all in the tank for Hillary, and Trump won in spite of that. Did you actually watch the media election night, and watch the countenance of the talking heads drastically change as it became evident that "their guy" was going to lose?

[carpedm9587]

I don't think it's insignificant that the "news media" (which was supposed to report the news, not make it) were all in the tank for Hillary, and Trump won in spite of that. Did you actually watch the media election night, and watch the countenance of the talking heads drastically change as it became evident that "their guy" was going to lose?

It's not insignificant. Most of the left and most of the media (even Fox) thought a Clinton win was "in the bag." It was one of the contributing factors to her loss. Many voters, afterwards, reported not having voted because they thought it was "in the bag."

As for the demeanor of the "talking heads," many people were dismayed that our country had just elected a man like Mr. Trump. Many of us still are. We don't like having the highest office in the land defiled by such a person. It's one of the primary reasons the midterms are going to go so heavily to the left, and Trump is going to lose bigly in 2020.

That's my prediction. I guess we'll just have to wait to see if it plays out.

But I have to say that the 87% approval rating he has from Republicans, 2/3 of which is "strongly approve" is a sad commentary on how low the GOP has sunk. Trump should be an embarrassment to the party, and instead he has taken it over and the GOP is lining up willingly to participate in his childishness. Instead of "draining the swamp" he's filled it with his own brand of cronyism, and the GOP just nods and smiles at every fresh revelation.

[Cow Poke]

It's not insignificant. Most of the left and most of the media (even Fox) thought a Clinton win was "in the bag." It was one of the contributing factors to her loss. Many voters, afterwards, reported not having voted because they thought it was "in the bag."

As for the demeanor of the "talking heads," many people were dismayed that our country had just elected a man like Mr. Trump. Many of us still are. We don't like having the highest office in the land defiled by such a person. It's one of the primary reasons the midterms are going to go so heavily to the left, and Trump is going to lose bigly in 2020.

That's my prediction. I guess we'll just have to wait to see if it plays out.

But I have to say that the 87% approval rating he has from Republicans, 2/3 of which is "strongly approve" is a sad commentary on how low the GOP has sunk. Trump should be an embarrassment to the party, and instead he has taken it over and the GOP is lining up willingly to participate in his childishness. Instead of "draining the swamp" he's filled it with his own brand of cronyism, and the GOP just nods and smiles at every fresh revelation.

I think those who still support Trump are capable of compartmentalizing his accomplishments from his conduct - those who hate him can't quite do that.

[carpedm9587]

I think those who still support Trump are capable of compartmentalizing his accomplishments from his conduct - those who hate him can't quite do that.

First of all, many people do not see his "accomplishments" as beneficial, so we will vote against those policies. Second, he boasts of more accomplishments than he actually has achieved, and often takes credit for the accomplishments of others. Finally, this argument of yours only makes sense under one condition: that there is no other capable member of the GOP who could achieve the desired accomplishments without Trump's boorish (and possibly illegal) behavior. If that is the status of the GOP, then the GOP is in bad shape indeed.

What you call "compartmentalizing" I call giving a politician a pass on activities and behaviors that would NEVER be tolerated if they were engaged in by a member of the opposition. I try to imagine Obama tweeting, talking, or acting like Trump, and I cannot imagine a silent GOP in the face of it. I cannot imagine a GOP tolerating Obama hiding his financial situation and possibly profiting while he is president. I cannot imagine Obama spending 8 times as much as any previous president on his weekend excursions to his properties, and playing golf 25% of the days he has been in the White House without being blasted (that one is ironic, given the blasting he gave Obama for golf, and the campaign declarations that he wouldn't have time to play golf).

Face it, CP - if Trump is the best the GOP has - the GOP is a very sad party indeed.

[rogue06]

I think those who still support Trump are capable of compartmentalizing his accomplishments from his conduct - those who hate him can't quite do that.

With the exception of the Never Trumpers nearly all those who passionately hate him also are against his accomplishments as well. No need to compartmentalize for them.