Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump Derangement Is Destroying Political Analysis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump Derangement Is Destroying Political Analysis

    Trump Derangement Is Destroying Political Analysis

    Coverage of a new poll out from Monmouth beautifully illustrates how Trump Derangement destroys what should be simple political analysis. The poll was brutal for impeachment fans in the media, but they didn't report that.

    The last four years of political punditry and analysis have been objectively wretched. Regardless of your feelings about the present political moment, precisely no one can defend the quality of the analysis that dominates the airwaves and pages of our corporate media.

    They told us throughout the 2016 campaign that the notion of Donald Trump winning the presidency was a joke. The mockery increased as election day drew near. From the Washington Post: “Donald Trump’s chances of winning are approaching zero.”

    At 10:20 P.M. on election night, The New York Times assured us that “Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance of winning.” They gave Hillary a 95 percent chance of winning Michigan, a 93 percent chance of winning Wisconsin, and an 89 percent chance of winning Pennsylvania. They declared, in other words, that the probability of Trump winning all three of those states, which he did, was 0.04 percent.

    Their numerical confidence colored their reporting throughout the campaign in ways that materially supported their political cohorts, chiefly Hillary Clinton. Then they responded to their humiliating failure to understand the electorate by rolling into a series of delusional conspiracy theories they claimed explained his victory.

    While failing to understand the country you’re paid big bucks to understand is humiliating, admitting their failure would have been a better alternative to the spiral of Trump Derangement that grips many of our media and continues to make their political analysis a sad joke.

    Our low quality of punditry and analysis is on display in the crime-less impeachment that they are currently pushing to mixed success. Democrats and other Resistance members are absolutely on board. The rest of the country? Not so much.

    Coverage of a new poll out from Monmouth beautifully illustrates how Trump Derangement destroys what should be simple political analysis. The poll was brutal for impeachment fans in the media. Just less than 60 percent of respondents agreed that “people who want Trump out of office should just vote him out next year instead of going through impeachment.” Seventy-three percent have little or no trust in the impeachment process. And 60 percent say Democrats are more interested in bringing down Trump than in learning facts.

    Here’s what much of the Twitterverse pulled out of the poll instead:

    post 1.jpg

    The numbers on that question for Democrats, which many in the media completely ignored, are even worse.

    Trump approvers (43 percent of respondents) were asked if he could do anything that would make them disapprove of him. Of that group, 62 percent said there’s nothing he could do to make them disapprove of his job performance. That’s the question media are focusing on to prove how stupid and tribal those Republican voters are.

    But Trump disapprovers (51 percent of respondents) were similarly asked if Trump could ever do anything aside from resigning that would make them approve of his job performance. Guess what: 70 percent of disapprovers said there’s nothing he could possibly do to earn their approval of his job performance.

    So if one wants to argue that one party is mindlessly tribal, the numbers clearly show that the anti-Trump Resistance is the most mindless and tribal faction in American politics today. And the actions of the Resistance only prove this point, from refusing to accept the election results, to fighting the Electoral College, to fantasizing about ousting Trump via the 25th Amendment, to supporting an unelected and unaccountable resistance in the bureaucracy, to the dangerous and eventually debunked Russia collusion hoax that spawned a damaging special counsel probe, to the most recent incarnation of their multi-year impeachment efforts.

    But wouldn’t a better analysis merely note that people in political parties tend to support their party’s top official and oppose the opposing party’s top official? That’s actually quite normal. For example, Democrats largely supported President Bill Clinton even after he was caught lying under oath, suborning perjury, obstructing justice in an investigation over sexual assault allegations, and impeached and sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    How much less surprising, then, is it that Republican voters are standing by President Trump, who hasn’t been accused by Congress of breaking any law, let alone committing a high crime or misdemeanor warranting removal from office? Is it surprising that Republican voters support President Trump after he has accomplished much of what they elected him to do and has done so in the face of unprecedented resistance operations and years of false accusations of being a traitor to the United States?

    It’s not surprising to anyone who has ever followed any era of politics since the U.S. founding. Failure to treat Republican voters or their president as normal is making a mockery of political analysis.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  • #2
    The Federalist strikes again. If you keep this up, I’m likely to go on the offensive, or blacklist you, or something. This is unacceptable. Please put it away.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      The Federalist strikes again. If you keep this up, I’m likely to go on the offensive, or blacklist you, or something. This is unacceptable. Please put it away.
      I love you, too, ff. And Molly is smarter than Rachel, and doesn't appear to be on speed*.




      *CP does not believe or suggest that Rachel is actually on speed, but it's possible she needs to switch to decaf.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Trump Derangement Is Destroying Political Analysis

        Coverage of a new poll out from Monmouth beautifully illustrates how Trump Derangement destroys what should be simple political analysis. The poll was brutal for impeachment fans in the media, but they didn't report that.

        The last four years of political punditry and analysis have been objectively wretched. Regardless of your feelings about the present political moment, precisely no one can defend the quality of the analysis that dominates the airwaves and pages of our corporate media.

        They told us throughout the 2016 campaign that the notion of Donald Trump winning the presidency was a joke. The mockery increased as election day drew near. From the Washington Post: “Donald Trump’s chances of winning are approaching zero.”

        At 10:20 P.M. on election night, The New York Times assured us that “Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance of winning.” They gave Hillary a 95 percent chance of winning Michigan, a 93 percent chance of winning Wisconsin, and an 89 percent chance of winning Pennsylvania. They declared, in other words, that the probability of Trump winning all three of those states, which he did, was 0.04 percent.

        Their numerical confidence colored their reporting throughout the campaign in ways that materially supported their political cohorts, chiefly Hillary Clinton. Then they responded to their humiliating failure to understand the electorate by rolling into a series of delusional conspiracy theories they claimed explained his victory.

        While failing to understand the country you’re paid big bucks to understand is humiliating, admitting their failure would have been a better alternative to the spiral of Trump Derangement that grips many of our media and continues to make their political analysis a sad joke.

        Our low quality of punditry and analysis is on display in the crime-less impeachment that they are currently pushing to mixed success. Democrats and other Resistance members are absolutely on board. The rest of the country? Not so much.

        Coverage of a new poll out from Monmouth beautifully illustrates how Trump Derangement destroys what should be simple political analysis. The poll was brutal for impeachment fans in the media. Just less than 60 percent of respondents agreed that “people who want Trump out of office should just vote him out next year instead of going through impeachment.” Seventy-three percent have little or no trust in the impeachment process. And 60 percent say Democrats are more interested in bringing down Trump than in learning facts.

        Here’s what much of the Twitterverse pulled out of the poll instead:

        [ATTACH=CONFIG]40734[/ATTACH]

        The numbers on that question for Democrats, which many in the media completely ignored, are even worse.

        Trump approvers (43 percent of respondents) were asked if he could do anything that would make them disapprove of him. Of that group, 62 percent said there’s nothing he could do to make them disapprove of his job performance. That’s the question media are focusing on to prove how stupid and tribal those Republican voters are.

        But Trump disapprovers (51 percent of respondents) were similarly asked if Trump could ever do anything aside from resigning that would make them approve of his job performance. Guess what: 70 percent of disapprovers said there’s nothing he could possibly do to earn their approval of his job performance.

        So if one wants to argue that one party is mindlessly tribal, the numbers clearly show that the anti-Trump Resistance is the most mindless and tribal faction in American politics today. And the actions of the Resistance only prove this point, from refusing to accept the election results, to fighting the Electoral College, to fantasizing about ousting Trump via the 25th Amendment, to supporting an unelected and unaccountable resistance in the bureaucracy, to the dangerous and eventually debunked Russia collusion hoax that spawned a damaging special counsel probe, to the most recent incarnation of their multi-year impeachment efforts.

        But wouldn’t a better analysis merely note that people in political parties tend to support their party’s top official and oppose the opposing party’s top official? That’s actually quite normal. For example, Democrats largely supported President Bill Clinton even after he was caught lying under oath, suborning perjury, obstructing justice in an investigation over sexual assault allegations, and impeached and sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

        How much less surprising, then, is it that Republican voters are standing by President Trump, who hasn’t been accused by Congress of breaking any law, let alone committing a high crime or misdemeanor warranting removal from office? Is it surprising that Republican voters support President Trump after he has accomplished much of what they elected him to do and has done so in the face of unprecedented resistance operations and years of false accusations of being a traitor to the United States?

        It’s not surprising to anyone who has ever followed any era of politics since the U.S. founding. Failure to treat Republican voters or their president as normal is making a mockery of political analysis.
        For someone that is not 'for' Donald Trump, you sure do post a large number of things that support him and denigrate those that are offended by his lawlessness and general trashy behavior.
        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          For someone that is not 'for' Donald Trump, you sure do post a large number of things that support him and denigrate those that are offended by his lawlessness and general trashy behavior.
          Ah... there it is again. Because I'm not totally obsessed and consumed with Trump, Jim, railing on him every chance I get, I absolutely must be "for" him.

          There are two sides to every story, and you daily, hourly, relentlessly pound on one side.

          I'm a conservative - absolutely no doubt about it - and I don't hate Trump, and things are in motion to deal with him without me pitching a wall-eyed fit against with every single post I post.

          My job is to pray for him, and I do that quite often.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            For someone that is not 'for' Donald Trump, you sure do post a large number of things that support him and denigrate those that are offended by his lawlessness and general trashy behavior.
            So, I read this article again, slowly and carefully.

            Now that you have used it to attack my character*, could you please take some time to point out how this article "supports Trump"?
            For extra credit, which part(s) "denigrates" those who are "offended" by his "lawlessness and general trashy behavior**".




            *but, it's OK, I've pretty well come to expect this
            ** I'm quite often offended by his trashy behavior, I'm still waiting for the evidence of his lawlessness
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              So, I read this article again, slowly and carefully.

              Now that you have used it to attack my character*, could you please take some time to point out how this article "supports Trump"?
              For extra credit, which part(s) "denigrates" those who are "offended" by his "lawlessness and general trashy behavior**".




              *but, it's OK, I've pretty well come to expect this
              ** I'm quite often offended by his trashy behavior, I'm still waiting for the evidence of his lawlessness
              By making a mockery of those that oppose him (by dissmissing their protests as evidence of mental illness) the article both supports Trump and denigrates his critics. Or is that to complicated for you to grasp?

              There is no such thing as "Trump Derangement". What exists are people with integrity that are offended by Trumps behavior and actions to the point they are willing to say so.

              The reality is that the issues I and others raise against Trump are legitimate issues. Yet you and others play the "TDS" game to give yourselves the excuse to ignore the problems. That is supporting Trump. It means that you are willing to dismiss legitimate issues on his behalf. The objective person does not dismiss real problems. Nor do the resort to calling people that raise those issues insane.
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-07-2019, 09:19 AM.
              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Ah... there it is again. Because I'm not totally obsessed and consumed with Trump, Jim, railing on him every chance I get, I absolutely must be "for" him.
                Stop lying about me CP. That is not where I hail from, and you know it. And your posts offer SUPPORT for Trump almost continuously - which is in conflict with your stated position on him.
                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  By making a mockery of those that oppose him, you support him. Or is that to complicated for you to grasp?
                  OK, so how, exactly, do I make a "mockery" of those who oppose him? And where is this little nugget of wisdom written down.

                  The reality is that the issues I and others raise against Trump are legitimate issues.
                  You do raise some legitimate issues, Jim, but even a blind hog...

                  Yet you and others play the "TDS" game to give yourselves the excuse to ignore the problems.
                  Absolutely false. And this kind of crap is exactly why you earn the "TDS" label. It is NOT true that I ignore "the problems" - I simply don't go wall-to-wall railing against Trump day in and day out...

                  Sorry, that is supporting Trump.
                  In your mind, with your absolute obsession, I can see why you would believe that.

                  It means that you are willing to dismiss legitimate issues on his behalf.
                  I'm going to be polite, and not accuse you of being a liar, because I believe that in your obsession with Trump, you actually believe that in your head.

                  That is supporting Trump. The objective person does not dismiss real problems.
                  Jim, at this point, you're hardly the one to determine what is "objective".

                  Here are some things for you to totally ignore about I believe....
                  • Trump could not have become President without God allowing it. God is sovereign.
                  • Am I saying God "selected" Trump? Absolutely no way.
                  • It is a Biblical mandate for me to pray for those in authority over us -- I do, every day, often more than a couple times a day.
                  • There is an incredible unified effort among the liberals to get rid of Trump - I'm anxious for this to get into the open - open hearings, public testimony - and for the process to play out. They don't need me spending every waking moment repeating every bit of gossip, rumor, innuendo, accusation.... it's all out there, Jim.


                  So, look what's happening --- because I'm not as obsessed with Trump as you are, I'm a bad guy.

                  That's truly sad.
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    Stop lying about me CP.
                    Wow

                    That is not where I hail from, and you know it.
                    Jim - the ONLY thing you post about is Trump - day in and day out - and you pretty much repeat every rumor, gossip, accusation... So, no, I DON'T "know it" -- the evidence is all over this board that you are singularly focused on Trump.

                    What I do "know" is that you don't seem to be the same person I've known from the past.

                    And your posts offer SUPPORT for Trump almost continuously - which is in conflict with your stated position on him.
                    If by "SUPPORT", you mean I haven't already pronounced a guilty verdict before the trial, I suppose you could manage to twist my position that much.

                    Again....
                    • Trump could not have become President without God allowing it. God is sovereign.
                    • Am I saying God "selected" Trump? Absolutely no way.
                    • It is a Biblical mandate for me to pray for those in authority over us -- I do, every day, often more than a couple times a day.
                    • There is an incredible unified effort among the liberals to get rid of Trump - I'm anxious for this to get into the open - open hearings, public testimony - and for the process to play out. They don't need me spending every waking moment repeating every bit of gossip, rumor, innuendo, accusation.... it's all out there, Jim.
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
                      The Federalist strikes again. If you keep this up, I’m likely to go on the offensive, or blacklist you, or something. This is unacceptable. Please put it away.
                      Allow me to mediate:

                      If you agree to stop quoting Rachael Maddow and Lawfare, then I will appeal to Cow Poke to stop quoting The Federalist.

                      Deal?
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Stop lying about me CP.
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        I'm going to be polite, and not accuse you of being a liar, because I believe that in your obsession with Trump, you actually believe that in your head.
                        See the difference?

                        I'm not going to report this false accusation of lying on your part, Jim, because, like I said, I believe that, in your head, you probably believe I'm a liar.

                        What absolutely amazes me is how you allow Satan to use Trump cause such division as to have you at war with the brethren. He's not worth it, and his day is coming.



                        (for clarity, my quote above is not intended to be represented as a response to Jim's quote - just a comparison of the two approaches)
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Allow me to mediate:

                          If you agree to stop quoting Rachael Maddow and Lawfare, then I will appeal to Cow Poke to stop quoting The Federalist.

                          Deal?
                          I might actually sign on to that treaty!
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Now, could somebody please take a deep breath and point out anything in the article that is not true?
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              See the difference?

                              I'm not going to report this false accusation of lying on your part, Jim, because, like I said, I believe that, in your head, you probably believe I'm a liar.

                              What absolutely amazes me is how you allow Satan to use Trump cause such division as to have you at war with the brethren. He's not worth it, and his day is coming.



                              (for clarity, my quote above is not intended to be represented as a response to Jim's quote - just a comparison of the two approaches)
                              Ah... there it is again. Because I'm not totally obsessed and consumed with Trump, Jim, railing on him every chance I get, I absolutely must be "for" him.
                              That statement is a lie. It is not the truth. And I don't believe that you actually believe it to be true. I think you are just annoyed at my comments and want to attack me for making those comments. but regardless, there is nothing in that statement that is going to encourage peace, or keep the peace. It is an attack on me.

                              Now - if you are actually concerned about 'peace' around here, you will stop doing that sort of thing.
                              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X