But it could be enough because a person in california has much less to say in the us compared to a person in florida.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
NBC/WSJ Poll: 4 in 10 Americans say they would re-elect Donald J. Trump as President next year
- Thread starter Taki
- Start date
So you're wrong which is actually kind of funny. There's a large volume of literature supporting the theory that strong economic indicators are a predictive force in presidential elections specifically. Look at Ray Fairs work on the topic as it's probably the most comprehensive and referenced literature on the topic.
We could argue about whether that will be relevant to this election cycle or not , and possibly about some counter arguments to that work, but you've demonstrated yourself to be hostile to the topic. So, you can look that up yourself. Not my job to educate folks who don't want to look at facts.
As some of my family members would say, I don't like the person, I like his policy. As long as people think Trump and his party is benefiting their pockets and children's financial health, they'll ignore all the crap that comes out of his mouth.
The division is pretty crazy, like you can get into fist fights over politics again just like racism issues. It's a divided group of states and cities over here thats for sure.
When presented with two choices, the distribution tends to have a natural reversion to the median.
No shit the economy has an impact on elections. Nobody is arguing that it doesn't. Your argument is a 100% if-then statement, which is objectively wrong given the slightest bit of scrutiny. Republicans got fucking roasted in the last election despite the great economy.
Democrats will eat each other while republicans will rally behind Trump. I say he has a legit chance.
It was a midterm election.
It was a midterm election.
Vocal party voters are not going to change their opinion when asked publicly. You have to understand people do not like to be wrong, so they will always back down on who they supported. I
So? Turnout was at record highs on both sides and democrats had millions more votes. To say this offers no insight into the mood of the voting base is silly.
Except the economy was quite good in 2016 and Trump won...so....
Fact is a President usually needs to grow his base for reelection especially when he only won by 80k across three states. Trumps base has shrunk and those three states flipped back to dems. It was also the biggest Dem wave in decades. The economy didnt help him or his party in 2018.
So again, facts matter, emotions dont.
And? It was the biggest Dem wave in decades....it wasn't JUST a normal mid term result.
I can just imagine Lindsey passionately defending acid for blood and how it accidentally cocconed half of the capitol..because it falls under intergallactic immunity and wont happen again. There is no collusion with the queen.
You read that as an if-then statement? You're supposed to have read that as an opinion - specifically my opinion. Which is also backed up by hoards of literature. The incumbents are greatly helped by a strong economy. This model also predicted Trump would win back in 2016 btw. The last elections were midterms which is a totally different climate. Let's say it wasn't though, and this was an anomaly to the model, does that mean the model is broken? No. You understand how statistics work, right?
So don't come at me with "objectively wrong given the slightest bit of scrutiny". Just wait until Trump starts campaigning with good economic metrics while calling all the Dems socialists. This election is not even close to a lock.
The model's error in 2016 was 7.1%. It thought Hillary would receive 44% of the vote and she got over 51%.
The model is a favorite among pessimists.
By the time Trump starts campaigning he may also have had a shitload of terrible crimes exposed by various investigations.
Hmm so what if the economy is good under a democratic incumbency and I cite this model? I don't see how it's a favorite of pessimists... maybe recently it is.
I didn't really plan to defend this model to the last man either. Not particularly invested in it. I'm just pushing back against the snark and dismissiveness to my quick thought on the topic.
I hope so....They need to nail him on something a lot more straightforward and easy to convey to the public. It's kind of backfiring right now in that average joe can't follow these crimes and just digs his heels in and chalks it up to fake news or irrational hatred of Trump.
The economy was doing good under a democratic incumbent in 2016. An assumption built into the model is republicans always have a better chance to win. That's explicitly stated.
Nate SIlver wrote an article about these kinds of models back in 2012. They've never been very good:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-failed-at-predicting-presidential-elections/
Did you find the model before or after you came to your conclusion?
I'll be really surprised if Trump is primaried. It would take one of the dozens of bombshells to actually have fallout within the republican party. There's a few people talking about it, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Anyone who it's backfiring on is a fucking moron who willfully want to hand wave it all away and vote for him anyway. There's no way a rational, critically thinking person can look at what's happened so far and think "fake news."
That model is cited in political science and economic courses quite often. It's been a long while since I've looked into it. The only thing I looked up today was what it thought about the 2016 elections. I'm sure there's plenty of literature refuting the findings as well. Either way, it's still a factor and I think it's an important factor. I mean it's fine to disagree respectfully idc.
But it looks like you came to your conclusion without any evidence first and then went to backfill after the fact with something that supported it. It's literally one cherry picked positive factor in a sea of negative indicators for Trump.
But you're factually wrong. Stop offering opinions if you can't get the simple things right. And it's not something to agree or not agree with. You're just wrong in this instance.
All the Republicans I know hate Trump with a passion but still vote Republican because they believe they have to no matter who the candidate is, sigh... Kind of like that Simpson halloween episode where alien dictators were running on both tickets so one of them gets voted in anyway.
Yeah, and not like it would matter anyway. Trump has 90 percent approval among Republicans. The last chance for Republicans to stop him was at the 2016 Convention.
Governor Bill Weld has an exploratory committee, which is basically an announcement of running.
Exactly this. This should be more disconcerting that people here are arguing.
There were many people who were ashamed to admit publicly that they were voting for him. If this is his floor, we should all be very very concerned.
In fact, if this were closer to the election I'd be preparing for another Trump victory. Luckily plenty can and will happen from now until the 2020 election.
Neither were the votes that elected him president. What's your point?
Yeah, same here. I think there's potentially a lot of Trump supporters who are ashamed to admit they're support, for a myriad of reasons. I thought the government shutdown would tank his support (and I still believe that was at least partially his intention), but it seems not to be the case.
Doesn't mean much. How many voters would vote for Trump? That's the only question that matters. America is too polarized for a lopsided victory of even Obama 2008 proportions. Obama won by 7 points. Trump will lose the popular vote, again, but by less than 5 points. He still, after everything, has a shot at winning the Electoral College again. He's going to win Ohio and Florida. That gives him a path. Disgusting but true.
The polling leading up to the election showed Hillary and Trump basically neck and neck - or close to the margin of error. And Hillary still got the most votes by a large margin. The polling proved to be pretty accurate.
Not if you get out and vote. This can't be stressed enough. VOTE.
As long as there are idiots out there which would rather support Trump than giving their vote to a former cop he still has a chance.
I'm morbidly curious about whether Trump's potential primary challengers will seriously criticize him or if they'll try to be even further right of him, and then of course I'll take bets over how quickly all of them turn into sniveling cowards and urge their supporters to back Trump after he's commented on the sizes of their wives vaginas and how ugly their kids are.
I hope not but i'd bet he's getting re-elected.
However,
i didn't think he had a snowballs chance in hell to even make the primaries in 2016 so...
However,
i didn't think he had a snowballs chance in hell to even make the primaries in 2016 so...
A 10 point spread is bigger than the margin of error. They were way off.