advertisement


Trump Part 12

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bernie might be the most liked and trusted politician in the U.S., but that's not the same thing as a willingness to vote for him.

that is what recent polling is measuring. what you are leaving out is the polling back during the 2016 primaries that showed sanders vs. trump better than clinton vs. trump. that is a measure not just of willingness to vote, but the specific/real voting context (that's a really big deal when measuring intended behaviour). not sure why your speculation, which i actually think is very reasonable, should take precedence over evidence. yes, of course, we don't know how everything would play out once it got down to an actual sanders/trump face-off, but we have a starting point at least.

i think some people here are discounting the rise of progressivism and the questioning of capitalism in the USA, certainly among younger people. it has taken me by surprise. on top of that, we seem to be forgetting just how hated hillary clinton was by a lot of democrats. to me, that was the only way somebody as hated as trump could win.

finally, when i say i think sanders would have won, i don't mean that i am 100% certain, more that i would estimate a 70% probability of it knowing what we now know -- that trump actually did win, which we all thought was only 5% likely the night before the election.
 
1*GAZ35b6OT9gycdFsm6YHZQ.png


https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/...oxers-1-2-punch-to-knock-you-out-edbbefc92bf8
 
Vuk,

I'm basing my opinion — which is all it is, an opinion — on the indisputable fact that you'd be hard-pressed to name any liberal or progressive president, going back several decades. The closest you get is Jimmy Carter — a one-termer who was demolished by Reagan in the 1980 election.

But please don't confuse what is the case with what ought to be the case. I'd be thrilled if someone like Carter, Nader or Sanders were president. I just don't see that happening for the reasons I outlined earlier.

Joe
 
joe.

you are correct, but it would seem that times they are a changin', so the past is possibly not such a great predictor. keep in mind, as some journalists have pointed out, that bernie is really more like harry truman if you look at the facts -- it's just that we have had a crazy shift of the democratic party (as that subjective graph above shows).

hey, analysis of the past told us that america would never elect a president with questionable hair.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...dec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.50e7b24517c3

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
 
What a fvcking moron. The written equivalent of sticking two fingers in the ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA" to block out unwanted truths.This is North Korea/Chairman Mao authoritarian madness. Might as well ban the word 'truth' while we're at it.

Doubleplusungood.

Heh. That last was exactly my comment, elsewhere. That Orwell sure knew his authoritarians, did he not?
 
Sorry, I was just trying on my new Klan outfit to see what it felt like. Almost a year into the moron's presidency and we are seeing what I can only describe as his fascist semi-erection. I dread what he's capable of in another year.
 
finally, when i say i think sanders would have won, i don't mean that i am 100% certain, more that i would estimate a 70% probability of it knowing what we now know -- that trump actually did win, which we all thought was only 5% likely the night before the election.

The quality polls had Trump at nothing like 5% -- 538 was about 70/30 the night before the election and within that indicated there was a larger than usual degree of uncertainty. Predicting Sanders would have beaten Trump on the basis of a few polls months earlier is also *extremely* dubious given that he wouldn't have just shifted the curve but skewed it relative to Clinton in multiple ways both in terms of demographics and turnout.

I mean he might have won but at best it's a wash relative to Clinton who, very likely, would have won if it hadn't been for Comey's late intervention.
 
The quality polls had Trump at nothing like 5% -- 538 was about 70/30 the night before the election and within that indicated there was a larger than usual degree of uncertainty.

yes, i do recall that -- when i said "we", i meant the people here or perhaps i was simply projecting my own expectations: truly thought after the "access hollywood" scandal there was no way he could capture enough of the female (and decent male) vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top