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

Blue Waves and Red Waves

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    They? You mean RCP?
    I believe we were talking about Vox.


    Is this another distract and deflect on your part?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      I believe we were talking about Vox.
      There were two links in my post. The first was to RCP. The second to Vox. I have no idea what Vox predicted. My response was about RCP.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        You had the point, and then you missed it. Even with higher than normal turnout, driven primarily by Democratic Party hysteria, the Dems are still losing.
        First of all, I don't see any more "hysteria" on the left in 2018 than I saw on the right in 2016. Second, they are losing in districts where they have never won, but by incredibly narrow margins.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Even when Republican voter turnout is following the historically significantly lower trend, and Dem turnout is amped up from historic precedent. It will be beyond hard to get a higher Dem turnout for the regular election at the rate we are seeing in these special elections. That's why I am saying all of this talk of a "swing" in votes makes no sense.
        You would have to show me data that suggests the historical distinction between the two parties is that extreme. What you provided doesn't really do the deed. Voter turnout in both parties is depressed because it is a mid-term. The primary issue on the table is that the margins in these extremely red districts has narrowed to close contests. In Ohio 12, the previous incumbent last took it by 37 percentage points, and Trump took it by 11 in 2016. Republicans appear to have won it this time by 0.8 percentage points.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        It was an error of too much information, yes, but doesn't change the fact of the other individual counties and their turnout numbers and margin of victory. Forecasting a similar increase in overall democrat turnout for the general elections simply isn't warranted, nor is projecting a blue win because of inflated blue turnout on a non-standard voting day.
        My prediction of a mid-term win is based on the special elections since Trump's election. My prediction of a Trump loss in 2020 is based on the fact that he squeaked through by less than 100,000 votes (total) in 3 states. That is a razor thin margin, which he has since badly eroded. Coupled with the "it's in the bag" Democratic energy of 2016, the "hysteria" (to use your word), of the right to get Trump in, the mobilized Democratic energy to "get him out" and the loss of some of his support among moderates - I doubt he has a prayer. But then again, 2020 is a couple years out.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Depends on who you ask.
        I go largely by polling aggregators to avoid the bias that happens in individual polls. That way I don't have to worry about "who I ask" and the bias that might bring to the table.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Sorry. I forgot who I was talking to. I'll try to be more precise when I talk. Nits picked successfully.
        Nits? I provide data to show your claim is not correct, and it's just "nits?" What an odd way to conduct a conversation...

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Source: https://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/04/new_national_polls_put_black_voters_support_for_trump_very_very_close_to.html


        Aug. 4 2016 9:27 PM

        If the election were held today, here’s the percentage of black voters that said they would cast their ballot for Donald Trump:
        WSJ/NBC News Poll: 1 percent (Clinton, 91 percent)
        Marist Poll: 2 percent (Clinton, 93 percent)
        Fox News Poll: 4 percent (Clinton, 87 percent)

        © Copyright Original Source



        Now, this is likely voters, and not approval rating, but the numbers are telling of where polls put his support and where he is at now is quite a bit
        BtC, I followed the link, and it appears to be a 2016 article about Trump's support among black voters. So where is the data you are using for your claim about today, and what black voters actually did in 2016?

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Comparing RAW numbers of EOs is simply wrong. A majority of EOs are simply declarations of one sort or another - not making significant changes to any law. The ones of SIGNIFICANCE that directly thumbed their nose at Congress are what I am referring to.
        Yeah, I hear that a lot, usually with zero substantiation. So please provide some data that can be used to validate the claim that Trump's EOs were any less "I want it my way" than Obama's, and any less related to issues that involved Congress. I provided the overall numbers which suggest Trump is writing EOs at 150% (approx) the rate of Obama. If your claim is that "Obama wrote more EOs that violated the separation of powers, you need to substantiate the claim.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          First of all, I don't see any more "hysteria" on the left in 2018 than I saw on the right in 2016. Second, they are losing in districts where they have never won, but by incredibly narrow margins.
          Again, due to the difference in turnout.

          Republican turnout for Primary: 68802
          Republican turnout for Special Election: 101574

          Increase: 47.63%


          Democrat turnout for Primary: 45001
          Democrat turnout for Special Election: 99820

          Increase: 121.82%




          You would have to show me data that suggests the historical distinction between the two parties is that extreme. What you provided doesn't really do the deed. Voter turnout in both parties is depressed because it is a mid-term. The primary issue on the table is that the margins in these extremely red districts has narrowed to close contests. In Ohio 12, the previous incumbent last took it by 37 percentage points, and Trump took it by 11 in 2016. Republicans appear to have won it this time by 0.8 percentage points.
          As I said, voter turnout was the key. As the data shows, Democrat turnout increase for the special election compared to the respective primaries was far greater, proving yet again, my point that it can't be said to be a "shift" in votes.


          My prediction of a mid-term win is based on the special elections since Trump's election.
          Unless the Dems can keep their 2:1 increase in voter turnout over primaries and typical election days, you've got nada.

          My prediction of a Trump loss in 2020 is based on the fact that he squeaked through by less than 100,000 votes (total) in 3 states. That is a razor thin margin, which he has since badly eroded.
          No he hasn't. His popularity is pretty much right where it was at on his inauguration day, and about 10 points higher than at his lowest. And he is picking up support from other groups too.

          Coupled with the "it's in the bag" Democratic energy of 2016, the "hysteria" (to use your word), of the right to get Trump in, the mobilized Democratic energy to "get him out" and the loss of some of his support among moderates - I doubt he has a prayer. But then again, 2020 is a couple years out.
          Oh, he's got far more than a prayer.


          I go largely by polling aggregators to avoid the bias that happens in individual polls. That way I don't have to worry about "who I ask" and the bias that might bring to the table.
          And they show a good recovery since his initial plummet the few months after his election and inauguration.


          Nits? I provide data to show your claim is not correct, and it's just "nits?" What an odd way to conduct a conversation...
          When I refer to an increase since he took office, I don't mean the first month or so. I mean the first 6 months, when he had settled into being President and his numbers were down in the 30s. But you picked the nit of when I said "took office" as to mean the day he stepped into the oval office. My mistake for expecting you to read more than hyper-literally.


          BtC, I followed the link, and it appears to be a 2016 article about Trump's support among black voters. So where is the data you are using for your claim about today, and what black voters actually did in 2016?
          His support from then has gone up substantially, has it not? He got 8% of the black vote in the election, and now Rasmussen has him at near 28%.


          Yeah, I hear that a lot, usually with zero substantiation. So please provide some data that can be used to validate the claim that Trump's EOs were any less "I want it my way" than Obama's, and any less related to issues that involved Congress. I provided the overall numbers which suggest Trump is writing EOs at 150% (approx) the rate of Obama. If your claim is that "Obama wrote more EOs that violated the separation of powers, you need to substantiate the claim.
          Source: https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/22/7260059/president-executive-orders-chart


          "With executive orders, the number is less important than the substance," Mayer said. In one of his studies, he drew up a sample of about 1,000 executive orders and tried to determine which actually had substantive importance — and found that only between 15 and 25 percent did.

          © Copyright Original Source

          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Again, due to the difference in turnout.

            Republican turnout for Primary: 68802
            Republican turnout for Special Election: 101574

            Increase: 47.63%

            Democrat turnout for Primary: 45001
            Democrat turnout for Special Election: 99820

            Increase: 121.82%

            As I said, voter turnout was the key. As the data shows, Democrat turnout increase for the special election compared to the respective primaries was far greater, proving yet again, my point that it can't be said to be a "shift" in votes.

            Unless the Dems can keep their 2:1 increase in voter turnout over primaries and typical election days, you've got nada.
            What does the ratio from primary to special election have to do with anything? The point I have been discussing is the comparison of the midterm election with the presidential election (2016, 2018, and 2020).

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            No he hasn't. His popularity is pretty much right where it was at on his inauguration day, and about 10 points higher than at his lowest. And he is picking up support from other groups too.
            You are apparently reading slanted polls. As I noted, I use poll aggregator to avoid the slant of any on poll. Trump is strong in essentially one demographic: Republicans (84% approval). He is down 10% in the approval/disapproval ratio from his initial polling on inauguration day, He is up 10% from his lowest, but his lowest was down 20%.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Oh, he's got far more than a prayer.
            We shall see.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            And they show a good recovery since his initial plummet the few months after his election and inauguration.
            See note above.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            When I refer to an increase since he took office, I don't mean the first month or so. I mean the first 6 months, when he had settled into being President and his numbers were down in the 30s. But you picked the nit of when I said "took office" as to mean the day he stepped into the oval office. My mistake for expecting you to read more than hyper-literally.
            I am pretty sure the term "took office" means the day he took office. If you meant several months later, perhaps you should have said as much? In which case my response would have been, "you are arbitrarily picking his nadir as your starting point, so you are naturally seeing improvement."

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            His support from then has gone up substantially, has it not? He got 8% of the black vote in the election, and now Rasmussen has him at near 28%.
            Rasmussen is one of those polls that is badly skewed to the right, which is why I don't use them explicitly. Their numebrs are incorporated into the aggregator, so their right swing is counter balance by some that have a left swing, providing a better overall result.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Source: https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/22/7260059/president-executive-orders-chart


            "With executive orders, the number is less important than the substance," Mayer said. In one of his studies, he drew up a sample of about 1,000 executive orders and tried to determine which actually had substantive importance — and found that only between 15 and 25 percent did.

            © Copyright Original Source

            This provides the source of your argument for why counting EOs is not a good reflection of presidential power, which is not a point I have disputed. Indeed, it is fairly obvious. A President that issues 2,000 EOs naming federal buildings is not exercising as much executive power as a President that issues 2-3 EOs that foster regulatory or policy changes.

            What you have not provided is the data that Obama issued the latter at a rate higher than Trump. The only data I am finding is "total number." So where is the data that shows that Trump's rate of "substantive" EOs is lower than Obama's? It would seem to me that, if you hold this opinion, you would have that data readily at hand...?
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-14-2018, 01:50 PM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #66
              And another congressional district slips from leaning/likely/solid Republican to "toss-up." As of today, Republicans have 163 "solid" (all currently held by Reps), 13 "likely" (10 currently held by Reps and 3 currently held by Dems), and 18 "leaning" (all currently held by Reps). The Dems have 174 solid (all held by Dems), 13 "likely" (10 currently held by Dems and 3 currently held by Reps), and 12 "leaning" (8 currently held by Dems and 4 currently held by Reps). That leaves 42 toss-ups (2 currently held by Dems and 40 currently held by Reps).

              That pretty much aligns with the projections that were made following the special elections. And the tide keeps shifting to the left as the primaries wrap up. If the Dems take the house despite the incredible level of gerrymandering that resulted from "Operation Red Map," I think it is going to say quite a bit about the reaction to the Trump presidency and the policies that have been implemented in the last year.

              Now, if they can let go of this "impeach" nonsense and just get to the business of containing the damage until 2020.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                That pretty much aligns with the projections that were made following the special elections. And the tide keeps shifting to the left as the primaries wrap up. If the Dems take the house despite the incredible level of gerrymandering that resulted from "Operation Red Map," I think it is going to say quite a bit about the reaction to the Trump presidency and the policies that have been implemented in the last year.
                I don't know if it says anything. As I noted, in almost all cases in the last century or so, the president's party lost seats in the House during the midterms, even in cases where the President in question was popular.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                  I don't know if it says anything. As I noted, in almost all cases in the last century or so, the president's party lost seats in the House during the midterms, even in cases where the President in question was popular.
                  Indeed. And that is likely to happen here as well. It is a reaction that happens, typically when the president is of the same party as the Congressional houses. I don't think anyone is surprised. What IS a bit surprising is that it is possible to retake the house even after the significant gerrymandering that resulted from "Operation Red Map." And the signs are there that this may well be one of the larger swings we've seen, despite that reality. The biggest swing in history, IIRC, was about 70 seats. I have to wonder if that is not possible here as well. The one thing that might mute it (to whatever degree) is the tendency for the Democratic party to swing as far to the left as the Republican party has swung to the right. If extreme left candidates win primaries, it may well rally Republicans to come out and vote. But if they manage moderate candidates in many (most?) races, I think we'll see an interesting outcome.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    This Washington Post article caught my eye. It aligns with some predictions made earlier this year that caught my eye. In Republican primaries, there is a trend for candidates to lose if they did not or do not support Trump. With an 84% approval rating among Republicans (a number that continually stuns me and very sadly reflects on what the Republican party in general has devolved to), I can see why. But with such a low approval rating among Democrats (7%) and with his polls showing he has weakened in all 50 states* since taking office, pundits were predicting (in mid 2017) that Republican candidates for 2018 would be caught in a dilemma: they need to love Trump to win the primaries, but they need to distance themselves to win the general election. However, loving them during the primaries would mean that Democratic candidates could hang every pro-Trump position they voiced during the primaries on them in the general election, and/or make a case for waffling. So far, that appears to be unfolding as predicted. Of course, we will see if that is what actually happens in the general election in November.

                    *The article is from June of this year. If you follow the polling aggregators, Trump's general approval started dead even (45% approve, 45% disapprove) the day he took office, and that lasted a couple days. He then proceeded to tank, hitting his nadir in mid-December (37% approve, 58.1% disapprove). He then started to experience a bounce that peaked in early May (44.4% approval, 52.1% disapproval). Since then, he has dropped a bit, but mostly flattened out, floating around in an approval gap of -8% and -11%. Since early May his aggregated approval has floated between 42.2 and 44.6%. His aggregated disapproval was floated between 51.1% and 53.6%.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      What does the ratio from primary to special election have to do with anything? The point I have been discussing is the comparison of the midterm election with the presidential election (2016, 2018, and 2020).
                      The amount of people willing to come out and vote. The Dems are fired up, for better or worse, and are coming out for the special elections. The Repubs aren't nearly as much. The primaries and special elections are outliers and can't be used to gauge turnout for the mid-term with any degree of certainty. For all we know, the lack of interest by Repubs in an election on a normal work day will not reflect at all on their turnout when their employers let them off to vote on the designated voting day.


                      You are apparently reading slanted polls. As I noted, I use poll aggregator to avoid the slant of any on poll. Trump is strong in essentially one demographic: Republicans (84% approval). He is down 10% in the approval/disapproval ratio from his initial polling on inauguration day, He is up 10% from his lowest, but his lowest was down 20%.
                      Oh horse hockey. Every poll is slanted. We saw just how bad polls really are in 2016. I really TBH don't care what polls say. It's a joke.

                      Capture.JPG


                      According to 538:

                      Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


                      Crazy and not-so-crazy scenarios
                      Here are the chances we’ll see these election outcomes.

                      Clinton wins popular vote but loses Electoral College
                      10.5%

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      I am pretty sure the term "took office" means the day he took office.
                      No it doesn't. The term "the day he took office" means the day he took office.

                      If you meant several months later, perhaps you should have said as much?
                      I'm talking about his first 6 months.

                      In which case my response would have been, "you are arbitrarily picking his nadir as your starting point, so you are naturally seeing improvement."
                      Nope. Just picking when the Anti-Trump hysteria really took off, after the stupid marches on Washington by the pink hatted morons.


                      Rasmussen is one of those polls that is badly skewed to the right, which is why I don't use them explicitly.
                      How so? Do you have evidence that they have a roll of who they call and their political affiliation?

                      Their numebrs are incorporated into the aggregator, so their right swing is counter balance by some that have a left swing, providing a better overall result.
                      And interestingly enough, the "left swinging" ones are rated as better on the aggregators, aren't they?


                      This provides the source of your argument for why counting EOs is not a good reflection of presidential power, which is not a point I have disputed.
                      Uh, yes you did.

                      Source: Carp Post 54


                      Trump had signed 77 Executive Orders by the end of July. He had been in office 1.5 years by then, so that's an average of about 51/year. Obama's average for his entire 8 year presidency was 35/year (note that this site places Trump's average at 54/year, not 51, so he has apparently signed more of them in August).

                      So who exactly is EOing their way into getting their way?

                      © Copyright Original Source




                      Indeed, it is fairly obvious. A President that issues 2,000 EOs naming federal buildings is not exercising as much executive power as a President that issues 2-3 EOs that foster regulatory or policy changes.

                      What you have not provided is the data that Obama issued the latter at a rate higher than Trump.
                      I never said he did. In fact, he probably has a HIGHER rate of important ones because he has had to unravel the garbage Obama EO'd in the first place.

                      The only data I am finding is "total number." So where is the data that shows that Trump's rate of "substantive" EOs is lower than Obama's? It would seem to me that, if you hold this opinion, you would have that data readily at hand...?
                      I never said Trump had less. What I am claiming is that Obama had more that unapologetically circumvented Congress.

                      Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/311608-obamas-curtain-call-a-look-back-on-a-legacy-of

                      As a candidate, President Obama expressed misgivings about executive power. After the 2010 mid-term elections, however, it became clear that Congress would not go along with the president’s sweeping regulatory agenda. So he pledged: “Where they won’t act, I will.”
                      He vowed to pursue “audacious” executive action in his final term. And in his January 2014 State of the Union Address, President Obama promised to “wherever and whenever” possible “take steps without legislation.”
                      President Obama made good on these promises; his use of Executive Orders, Executive Agreements, Agency Guidance, and Agency Rulemaking unilaterally to change domestic policy is unparalleled in modern times. Indeed, according to “The New York Times,” President Obama’s two terms have been characterized by “bureaucratic bulldozing, rather than legislative transparency.”

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      - Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        The amount of people willing to come out and vote. The Dems are fired up, for better or worse, and are coming out for the special elections. The Repubs aren't nearly as much. The primaries and special elections are outliers and can't be used to gauge turnout for the mid-term with any degree of certainty. For all we know, the lack of interest by Repubs in an election on a normal work day will not reflect at all on their turnout when their employers let them off to vote on the designated voting day.
                        We shall see. Voter turnout in midterms is historically lower than in presidential years. Special elections and primaries are all over the map, as far as I can tell. Indeed, voter turn-out in special elections and primaries this year appears to be at historically high levels. And yes, the left is extremely motivated and energized. I predict a significant blue wave in November. We'll have to wait a couple months to see if I'm right.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Oh horse hockey. Every poll is slanted. We saw just how bad polls really are in 2016. I really TBH don't care what polls say. It's a joke.

                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]29942[/ATTACH]

                        According to 538:

                        Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


                        Crazy and not-so-crazy scenarios
                        Here are the chances we’ll see these election outcomes.

                        Clinton wins popular vote but loses Electoral College
                        10.5%

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        And you are making the same mistake Sparko repeatedly made, and I couldn't get him to see it. There is a difference between polling, and predicting outcomes based on polling. The vast majority of the polls in 2016 were actually pretty good. A smaller number of states were outside the margins of error for number of votes cast for which candidate. So if the poll predicts "57% will vote for Clinton and 39% will vote for Trump with a 2% margin of error, the poll is accurate if the votes from Trump are between 55% and 59% and for Clinton between 37% and 41%. It is wrong if and only if the actual vote falls outside that margin. Most polls were well within their margin of error. A few key states were not.

                        Pundits can then take these state-by-state polls and derive an overall probability of a win by either candidate. That is not a poll. The prediction you cite gives Clinton a 71.4% probability of a win and Trump a 28.6% probability. That's pretty close to the probability of flipping a coin twice and getting at least one tail (75%) or getting both heads (25%). If you then actually flip the coin and it comes up heads twice, no one with an understanding of probability would say, "oops...that probability calculation must have been wrong!" The fact is, two heads has a 25% probability. It CAN and WILL happen if you flip the coins often enough. It can happen on the first flip. The probability is basically saying, "if you flip these coins thousands of times, you can expect 75% will have at least one tail and 25% will be two heads." Likewise, if we ran the election thousands of times, the probability says Clinton would win 71% of the time and Trump 29% of the time. We only ran the election once - Trump winning was not "impossible" so the probability was not "wrong." It just means Trump hit on his 29%. Likewise, someone who wins the lottery despite having a 1 in 175M probability does not mean they proved the probability is wrong. They were just lucky enough to win that 1 in 175M chance.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        I'm talking about his first 6 months.

                        Nope. Just picking when the Anti-Trump hysteria really took off, after the stupid marches on Washington by the pink hatted morons.
                        So first, I suspect most people reading "since Trump took office" would interpret that to mean "inauguration day." I'd be curious to hear others weigh in on that. If you mean "beginning with his sixth month," you might want to say that. And the "hysteria" about Trump began the night he won the election, and has continued pretty much since, though much of what Trump does has now indeed become the "new normal," (unfortunately) so the "hysteria" has abated somewhat and become more purposeful action on the parts of many. Finally, Trump's numbers began tanking the day he took office and stopped tanking mid December - so a full 11 months later. They then recovered somewhat between mid-December and early May, and have been essentially flat since then. And they are actually DOWN in all 50 states from the day he took office.

                        And I have to admit I am glad to see you referring to the women marchers as "pink hatted morons." That's pretty much the same mistake the left made with "basket of deplorables" and writing off an entire segment of our country as unimportant. Trump is doing the same thing. I suspect he will see the same results: people ignored (or insulted) tend to eventually get fed up and take action. We saw it in 2016 after years of that kind of left-arrogance. I suspect it will happen a LOT faster in the face of what has now become right-arrogance.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        How so? Do you have evidence that they have a roll of who they call and their political affiliation?
                        I don't need to know who they call and what they ask. I need only look at the outcome of the polls themselves. Most polls are within a few percentage points of the aggregator most of the time, but oscillate around it and occasionally have an outlier. That is what you would expect to see for randomly conducted polls. Rasmussen is consistently 6-10 points right of the aggregation. Random sampling will not produce that result: always significantly different from the mean, and always to the same political side. So I don't discount their data, but I do not look at it separated from the mean.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        And interestingly enough, the "left swinging" ones are rated as better on the aggregators, aren't they?
                        For that reason, I use two aggregators and I look into their methodology and which polls they include and exclude from their aggregation. I see no evidence that RCP or 538 are "left-leaning" or "right-leaning." If you have some, I'd be happy to look at the evidence.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Uh, yes you did.

                        Source: Carp Post 54


                        Trump had signed 77 Executive Orders by the end of July. He had been in office 1.5 years by then, so that's an average of about 51/year. Obama's average for his entire 8 year presidency was 35/year (note that this site places Trump's average at 54/year, not 51, so he has apparently signed more of them in August).

                        So who exactly is EOing their way into getting their way?

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        You are reading this in a way I did not intend, but I will accept responsibility for using language in a sloppy fashion. My focus was on "getting their own way." IMO, ANY EO is issued because the president wants things a certain way - so "getting their own way." Trump is issuing more than Obama, so the case can be made that he is trying to "get his own way" at a faster pace and (more often) than Obama. That does not equate to "presidential power." Clearly (and obviously) EOs can have different weight (as I noted in my previous post).

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        I never said he did. In fact, he probably has a HIGHER rate of important ones because he has had to unravel the garbage Obama EO'd in the first place.
                        OK - so your argument is that Trump is issuing EOs at a FASTER rate than Obama, and probably issuing MORE EOs that exercise high executive power than Obama, but Obama is still the king of "issuing EOs to get his own way" and "issuing EOs with high executive power." Really?

                        And where is the data that all of the EOs with "significant executive power" were simple reversals of Obama EOs?

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        I never said Trump had less. What I am claiming is that Obama had more that unapologetically circumvented Congress.

                        Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/311608-obamas-curtain-call-a-look-back-on-a-legacy-of

                        As a candidate, President Obama expressed misgivings about executive power. After the 2010 mid-term elections, however, it became clear that Congress would not go along with the president’s sweeping regulatory agenda. So he pledged: “Where they won’t act, I will.”
                        He vowed to pursue “audacious” executive action in his final term. And in his January 2014 State of the Union Address, President Obama promised to “wherever and whenever” possible “take steps without legislation.”
                        President Obama made good on these promises; his use of Executive Orders, Executive Agreements, Agency Guidance, and Agency Rulemaking unilaterally to change domestic policy is unparalleled in modern times. Indeed, according to “The New York Times,” President Obama’s two terms have been characterized by “bureaucratic bulldozing, rather than legislative transparency.”

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        OK, I think I'm going to disconnect at this point. You never said Trump had less; you just said Obama had more? Bill, how can "Obama have more" NOT mean "Trump has less?" And your article talks about Obama's about-face on EOs and Executive Power, which pretty much everyone knows he did. Most people also know he did it because there were problems that needed solving and Congress was doing (and is doing) nothing. He was clear that he would have welcomed a Congressional solution, but was going to take action in the absence of one. Trump, as I recall, has taken essentially the same position several times. In any event, it says nothing about comparing the track record of the two men with respect to this issue.

                        Bill, this conversation is jumping the rails badly. Frankly, it's not making much sense to me at this point. You keep linking articles that do not support your arguments, and make contradictory statements. I don't see what is to be gained by continuing. My previous exchanges with you strongly suggest that you are very far out there on the right, and impervious to any suggestion that some of your positions could use some re-examination. So..I'll leave the last word to you, unless you ask me something I have not previously answered.
                        Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-15-2018, 01:31 PM.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          This is the kind misuse of data we see all the time out of this administration. I can accept that Sanders simply made a mistake. But even the data itself is skewed. They begin counting job growth from election day. It's hard to make the case that the president has any significant contribution to the economy and job growth in their first few weeks/months of office, but here they actually add the two months BEFORE taking office, when the president-elect cannot set policy (unless they are the incumbent), to skew the numbers. So Obama's first term is weighed down by a recession that was well under way before he took office, and Trump gets the benefit of the job growth in the last two months of Obama's term.

                          Really...?
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-15-2018, 03:25 PM.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            This is the kind misuse of data we see all the time out of this administration. I can accept that Sanders simply made a mistake. But even the data itself is skewed. They begin counting job growth from election day. It's hard to make the case that the president has any significant contribution to the economy and job growth in their first few weeks/months of office, but here they actually add the two months BEFORE taking office, when the president-elect cannot set policy (unless they are the incumbent), to skew the numbers. So Obama's first term is weighed down by a recession that was well under way before he took office, and Trump gets the benefit of the job growth in the last two months of Obama's term.

                            Really...?
                            1. She apologized and corrected her error.
                            2. Trump DID start creating jobs from election day. Remember Carrier?

                            Really.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              1. She apologized and corrected her error.
                              She apologized, and partially corrected her error. The rest of the error was intrinsic to the data she cited, for which she did not apologize or own having used bad data.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              2. Trump DID start creating jobs from election day. Remember Carrier?

                              Really.
                              Sparko, Carrier was 1,000 jobs and a PR gimmick. Even at that time, it was clear that no president could sustain necessary job growth with one-off, small hit things like that. To be healthy, our economy needs to grow by 150K+ jobs per month. That equates to 5,000 jobs per day. That means the equivalent of 5 "Carrier's" per day every day of the week. Carrier was nothing. And it was especially nothing because it didn't happen. Carrier had five production lines on the day of that announcement at that facility. They now have three. Trump is a master of the media, and he knows how to get news cycles. Follow-through on actual change...? Significantly less so.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                She apologized, and partially corrected her error. The rest of the error was intrinsic to the data she cited, for which she did not apologize or own having used bad data.



                                Sparko, Carrier was 1,000 jobs and a PR gimmick. Even at that time, it was clear that no president could sustain necessary job growth with one-off, small hit things like that. To be healthy, our economy needs to grow by 150K+ jobs per month. That equates to 5,000 jobs per day. That means the equivalent of 5 "Carrier's" per day every day of the week. Carrier was nothing. And it was especially nothing because it didn't happen. Carrier had five production lines on the day of that announcement at that facility. They now have three. Trump is a master of the media, and he knows how to get news cycles. Follow-through on actual change...? Significantly less so.
                                He didn't stop with Carrier, he started with Carrier. He was working with companies from before his inauguration. That is why they used that time period. You can dispute the results or call it a PR Stunt if you want, but your initial objection was him using a time period that included before he took office. He is justified in doing so.
                                Last edited by Sparko; 08-17-2018, 08:13 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 04:38 PM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 11:45 AM
                                4 responses
                                30 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 09:21 AM
                                29 responses
                                97 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 08:34 AM
                                33 responses
                                121 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Roy, Yesterday, 03:52 AM
                                27 responses
                                156 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Juvenal
                                by Juvenal
                                 
                                Working...
                                X