Election 2020

[Ivytalk]

And I know you’ll do your damnedest to help the Donks do just that, once you and your sainted wife have bitten the bullet and changed your registrations to D.

I would not change my Party registration but I do think the best thing for the long term future of the country at this time would be to have the Republicans crushed in the next few elections. They took a wrong turn during the 2016 election season and they need to be rebuked.

Yes if I could press a button and have the Democrats win both houses of Congress in 2018 then win the Presidency as well as both houses of Congress in 2020 I would do it. And that's not because I like the idea of the Democrats controlling things. It's because I think the Republicans need to be slapped back into their senses.

This post proves that your claims of being a conservative are fraudulent. If you are a registered Libertarian, you are an embarrassment and deserve to be purged.

[Chizzang]

I would not change my Party registration but I do think the best thing for the long term future of the country at this time would be to have the Republicans crushed in the next few elections. They took a wrong turn during the 2016 election season and they need to be rebuked.

Yes if I could press a button and have the Democrats win both houses of Congress in 2018 then win the Presidency as well as both houses of Congress in 2020 I would do it. And that's not because I like the idea of the Democrats controlling things. It's because I think the Republicans need to be slapped back into their senses.

This post proves that your claims of being a conservative are fraudulent. If you are a registered Libertarian, you are an embarrassment and deserve to be purged.

Ivy just got TRIGGERED..!!!

[Ivytalk]

This post proves that your claims of being a conservative are fraudulent. If you are a registered Libertarian, you are an embarrassment and deserve to be purged.

Ivy just got TRIGGERED..!!!

Naw. Ivy is trolling. I’m just not very subtle about it.

[CID1990]

Ivy just got TRIGGERED..!!!

Naw. Ivy is trolling. I’m just not very subtle about it.

I know what time it is on the east coast...

And you’re up and posting

I thought you were retired!

When I’m retired I MIGHT get up at the crack of noon. But if you’re actually just getting ready to go to bed after a night of hookers and blow, then NVM

[Ivytalk]

Naw. Ivy is trolling. I’m just not very subtle about it.

I know what time it is on the east coast...

And you’re up and posting

I thought you were retired!

When I’m retired I MIGHT get up at the crack of noon. But if you’re actually just getting ready to go to bed after a night of hookers and blow, then NVM

Remember, I’m a grad student now! Actually, I’ve always been an early riser, like my dad.

[AZGrizFan]

Demoncrats protesting at the drop of a hat, screaming about getting constitutional amendments reversed, applying identity politics and name calling in EVERY interaction...yet to Jon it’s the republicans who need to be “slapped back to their senses”...

Lol

[houndawg]

We'll see in November

[AZGrizFan]

We'll see in November

No we won’t. Virtually EVERY midterm election turns the tables back the other direction in some form or fashion. It won’t be a “mandate” any more than it was a mandate against Obama in 2010 and 2014.

[houndawg]

We'll see in November

No we won’t. Virtually EVERY midterm election turns the tables back the other direction in some form or fashion. It won’t be a “mandate” any more than it was a mandate against Obama in 2010 and 2014.

Nice tap out.

[AZGrizFan]

No we won’t. Virtually EVERY midterm election turns the tables back the other direction in some form or fashion. It won’t be a “mandate” any more than it was a mandate against Obama in 2010 and 2014.

Nice tap out.

Sure thing, sugartits. I realize facts can be a real bummer in an internet discussion.

[Skjellyfetti]

AZ, you weren't gloating like hell on here in November 2010?

[AZGrizFan]

AZ, you weren't gloating like hell on here in November 2010?

I doubt it. i barely pay attention to presidential elections, let alone midterms...

[Ivytalk]

AZ, you weren't gloating like hell on here in November 2010?

I doubt it. i barely pay attention to presidential elections, let alone midterms...

Brief pause while Analjelly mines all of AZ’s old posts for “evidence”....

[houndawg]

AZ, you weren't gloating like hell on here in November 2010?

You're thinking of McCains political master stroke of choosing Palin for VP

[JohnStOnge]

I would not change my Party registration but I do think the best thing for the long term future of the country at this time would be to have the Republicans crushed in the next few elections. They took a wrong turn during the 2016 election season and they need to be rebuked.

Yes if I could press a button and have the Democrats win both houses of Congress in 2018 then win the Presidency as well as both houses of Congress in 2020 I would do it. And that's not because I like the idea of the Democrats controlling things. It's because I think the Republicans need to be slapped back into their senses.

This post proves that your claims of being a conservative are fraudulent. If you are a registered Libertarian, you are an embarrassment and deserve to be purged.

Think long term. What the Republicans just did in rallying behind an atrocity like Trump needs to be clearly and emphatically rejected. And the sooner the better. Conservatives who took that turn need to be clearly and emphatically shown that it was a mistake to do so.

[JohnStOnge]

It's interesting to watch the way Trump cites polls when he thinks they tell him what he wants to hear. It's like the Rasmussen poll point estimates showed him up in the Approval/Disapproval thing for a couple of days this past week and he was all over it.

https://www.apnews.com/59ef870461a8417daf4ffc71dc331d4c

Well, now he's back down in Rasmussen at -5. Basically what's been happening is that Rasmussen tends to rate him higher than other polls but varies up and down as polls are expected to do. There's a certain "momentum" to the Rasmussen poll because the day by day estimates are not independent. As they go day by day they drop one day off from the older end and add one to the newer end but each day's estimate is based in part on results that were used to derive the previous day's estimate. But what's basically been happening is that the "central tendency" has been showing Trump underwater but the individual daily estimates drift into low positive territory from time to time.

BTW the description of Rasmussen's methodology in the linked article is interesting. Considering it makes the fact that Trump does better in that poll than in others makes perfect since. One would expect, given the methodology, the poll to be subject to bias towards older individuals. And the exit polls showed a definite association whereby likelihood of voting for Trump increased with age.

[JohnStOnge]

Well I do think Trump got a bump from the Korea thing. No way to be absolutely sure but I was thinking he should get a bump out of that and now two polls that I like the watch appear to be consistent with that.

First of all there is the Monmouth poll. It's an A+ rated poll at 538 with minimal bias. Second there is the Gallup poll. It's only rated B- but I like the way they do things. They don't do the running thing where they drop one day at the start and add one at the end of time periods. Each poll covers a Monday through Sunday period. I've been watching it for indications of change because it's been doing exactly what one would expect a poll to do when nothing's really changing. If you look at the results at http://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trum ... sion=print you see that had been kind of bouncing around; with the % Approve not changing by more than 2 percentage points from one week to the next.

This last time it bounced up by 4 percentage points. That may not seem like a big difference but it is. 2 percentage points is within the margin of error. 4 percentage points is about 1.6 times the margin of error. There is only about 1 chance in 588 that random sampling error would cause the % Approve to change by as much as 4 percentage points from one week to the next. One would expect to see a change reach the margin of error limit about once in every 20 week to week comparisons if nothing really changed. 1 in 588 is a lot less likely thatn 1 in 20.

So I think there was a real change last week.

[Ibanez]

Well I do think Trump got a bump from the Korea thing. No way to be absolutely sure but I was thinking he should get a bump out of that and now two polls that I like the watch appear to be consistent with that.

First of all there is the Monmouth poll. It's an A+ rated poll at 538 with minimal bias. Second there is the Gallup poll. It's only rated B- but I like the way they do things. They don't do the running thing where they drop one day at the start and add one at the end of time periods. Each poll covers a Monday through Sunday period. I've been watching it for indications of change because it's been doing exactly what one would expect a poll to do when nothing's really changing. If you look at the results at http://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trum ... sion=print you see that had been kind of bouncing around; with the % Approve not changing by more than 2 percentage points from one week to the next.

This last time it bounced up by 4 percentage points. That may not seem like a big difference but it is. 2 percentage points is within the margin of error. 4 percentage points is about 1.6 times the margin of error. There is only about 1 chance in 588 that random sampling error would cause the % Approve to change by as much as 4 percentage points from one week to the next. One would expect to see a change reach the margin of error limit about once in every 20 week to week comparisons if nothing really changed. 1 in 588 is a lot less likely thatn 1 in 20.

So I think there was a real change last week.

Is this the same 538 you rail against?

[JohnStOnge]

Is this the same 538 you rail against?

I have never railed against 538. I think 538 is very credible. I think sometimes people think they're "off" because they don't how to interpret their output. But I think they are very good.

[SuperHornet]

Meh. I haven't seen the winner in that bracket or in any other post in this thread, either....

[JohnStOnge]

As a reminder, you can see me citing 538 in a 2016 election night post citing the 538 forecast as the basis for this statement:

It's not over by any means. To put it into terms we're familiar with a 70.3% chance of winning is about equivalent to football team being an 8.5 point favorite. So by no means a done deal. I feel better than I would if the probabilities were reversed. But not at ease at all.

The only quibble I have with what 538 is that it tends to use terminology like "chance of winning" (as I did in that post because that's the terminology 538 uses). Technically, I think, the terminology should be something like "Clinton winning confidence level." But I interpret the output as a confidence level and I don't think Trump winning showed 538 to be "wrong" in that context.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW 538 has done a lot of work to assess the quality of polls by looking both at methodology and results. There may be some other entity that has done as much work as they have in that regard but if so I haven't seen it. If anyone knows of one let me know.

And I don't change my mind based on whether I see the results I would like to see or not. Like for instance it does not make me happy to see the Monmouth poll showing Trump at only -3 in the Job Approval/Disapproval area. But I'm not going to claim that it's just a "bad" poll. It is one of only 6 polls among the 373 rated by 538 that's graded A+. It also has a very small bias.

Meanwhile I am not as concerned when the Rasmussen poll shows Trump doing well because it is rated C+ and has the 4th strongest Republican bias among the 373 polls. I don't dismiss it entirely. But I know it is not one of the better polls and that it has a strong bias towards the Republican side.

[Pwns]

Is this the same 538 you rail against?

I have never railed against 538. I think 538 is very credible. I think sometimes people think they're "off" because they don't how to interpret their output. But I think they are very good.

Here's one I like.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/st ... economics/

[Pwns]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/38 ... -hampshire

Get ready for Trump versus Biden in 2020 (what a shitshow). Don't think Fauxcahontas and Burnie are going to run, honestly.

[GannonFan]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/38 ... -hampshire

Get ready for Trump versus Biden in 2020 (what a shitshow). Don't think Fauxcahontas and Burnie are going to run, honestly.

Trump will be 74 in 2020 and Biden will be just about to turn 78 in 2020 come the election. That will be a combined age of 151 years on election night. I'm sure that shatters whatever record there is for the combined age of two candidates for President. You want to blame this on the Baby Boomers and the Millenials they "raised" but heck, Biden is so old he's not even a Baby Boomer since he was born in '42. The debates between these two will be the political real life version of "Grumpy Old Men", just not as funny. Maybe Jill Stein can run again so I can cast my vote there.