In the key 2018 battlegrounds, Trump's support is as high as ever

[dtownreppin214]

don't worry, mularkey season is upon us.

 

[Dr. Acula]

people conflate disapproval with voting against.... i'm sure trump really has a 33% national approval rating... that doesn't mean only 33% of voters will vote for him in a reelection, it means only 33% approve of him... unlike democrats, republicans have no where else to go... it's either another term of trump or *GASPS* a democrat.... you can't scare democrat voters into voting for you because the alternative is a rabid republican... you can scare the bejesus out of a republican voter if they think a dem might win.... trump could be sporting a 10% approval rating and still coast to reelection.... also, most of the republican voters that disapprove of trump are disagreeing over strategy not goal...

On the same note, I've personally ignored all the approval polls. They mean nothing.. They are a measurement of the here and now and do not predict the future. They do not capture people's feelings in a campaign season when "their guy" is under a serious challenge of not winning. Allegiences and feelings change when campaign season arrives. All of sudden all these Republicans who were shaking their head at Trump, suddenly feel a renewed love for their guy when a Democrat is possibly going to win.

People always feel differently during campaign. Watch his approval ratings start to climb during campaign season even if from now until then they continue to drop.

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

there was a recent poll that came out that stated that the american people dont give a shyt about the Russia thing

They can't excite the base focusing on an issue the american people dont care about

There was also a poll that stated that a majority of americans don't think the democrats have a messge
IN addition, the polls show that the dem party is more disliked than trump

If the dems don't fix themselves, they WILL lose in 2018 and in the 2020 election.

F U C C C K K K K the polls. They are meaningless! Polls showed Hillary was going to be the next president. There are more than enough SANE Democrats, who don't need to be convinced that the modern GOP simply cannot govern. They just need to come out.

 

[Dr. Acula]

F U C C C K K K K the polls. They are meaningless! Polls showed Hillary was going to be the next president. There are more than enough SANE Democrats, who don't need to be convinced that the modern GOP simply cannot govern. They just need to come out.

Many people who voted twice for Obama voted for Trump.

Why is that?
206 Pivot Counties Voted Twice for Obama Then Switched to Trump | RealClearPolitics

We then examined each candidate’s base of support by respondents’ reported 2012 vote. The ANES data show that just over 13% of Trump’s voters backed Obama in 2012, while about 4% of Clinton’s support came from voters who voted for Romney in 2012. Going across the rows in Table 1, we get the breakdown by 2012 vote for those who backed each 2016 vote choice.

Lol @ Clinton relying on Romney voters at one point during the camapign....jesus

Anyways, the point is, that 13% is a LARGE number for people who voted reliably Democrat to all of a sudden to vote Trump. Its worth understanding why and then countering appropriately. To rely on turnout simply based on hate for Trump, seems faulty. I mean the guy was unlikable during the campaign and a lot of the stuff happening now was predicted as happening with Trump being in office. Why would simply "hating trump" result in any significant change in 2020 if it didn't help win in 2016?

 

[Don Homer]

F U C C C K K K K the polls. They are meaningless! Polls showed Hillary was going to be the next president. There are more than enough SANE Democrats, who don't need to be convinced that the modern GOP simply cannot govern. They just need to come out.

no they didn't. She was 2% above trump on election day. That's standard Margin of Error (3 to 4 pct). The polls were pretty accurate. The only people who were dead wrong were 538, WaPo, and the NYTimes. They had ridiculous percentages like Hillary had a 95% chance of winning

 

[Dr. Acula]

no they didn't. She was 2% above trump on election day. That's standard Margin of Error (3 to 4 pct). The polls were pretty accurate. The only people who were dead wrong were 538, WaPo, and the NYTimes. They had ridiculous percentages like Hillary had a 95% chance of winning

Got to correct you there chief.

If anything 538 was more accurate than anyone. In fact, Nate Silver who if you listened to the podcast or read any tweets and stuff like that REFUSED to believe Trump would win on an emotional level but would always be moderated by what his 'models" and data showed. Also his election day forecast was more cautionary than most.

See:
He accurately predicted that there is a growing chance of a popular vote win but electoral college loss for Clinton on October 31st

The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing

We’ve written about this before, but I wanted to call your attention to it again because the possibility of an Electoral College-popular vote split keeps widening in our forecast. While there’s an outside chance that such a split could benefit Clinton if she wins the exact set of states that form her “firewall,” it’s far more likely to benefit Donald Trump, according to our forecast

Here is their election day forecast which shows Hillary with a 71.4% chance of winning which is high but then you put this in contrast with that one asian dude from Princeton (can't remember his name) and others who were giving her a 99% chance of winning .

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

Trump had a 1:3 odd of winning and simply beat the odds if these numbers are to be believed. Granted he did not predict it on a state level that well though . Particularly Wisconsin and Michigan.

 

[Don Homer]

Got to correct you there chief.

If anything 538 was more accurate than anyone. In fact, Nate Silver who if you listened to the podcast or read any tweets and stuff like that REFUSED to believe Trump would win on an emotional level but would always be moderated by what his 'models" and data showed. Also his election day forecast was more cautionary than most.

See:
He accurately predicted that there is a growing chance of a popular vote win but electoral college loss for Clinton on October 31st

The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing





Here is their election day forecast which shows Hillary with a 71.4% chance of winning which is high but then you put this in contrast with that one asian dude from Princeton (can't remember his name) and others who were giving her a 99% chance of winning .

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

Trump had a 1:3 odd of winning and simply beat the odds if these numbers are to be believed. Granted he did not predict it on a state level that well though . Particularly Wisconsin and Michigan.

u right breh

i still maintain my

 

[Don Homer]

Got to correct you there chief.

If anything 538 was more accurate than anyone. In fact, Nate Silver who if you listened to the podcast or read any tweets and stuff like that REFUSED to believe Trump would win on an emotional level but would always be moderated by what his 'models" and data showed. Also his election day forecast was more cautionary than most.

See:
He accurately predicted that there is a growing chance of a popular vote win but electoral college loss for Clinton on October 31st

The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing





Here is their election day forecast which shows Hillary with a 71.4% chance of winning which is high but then you put this in contrast with that one asian dude from Princeton (can't remember his name) and others who were giving her a 99% chance of winning .

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

Trump had a 1:3 odd of winning and simply beat the odds if these numbers are to be believed. Granted he did not predict it on a state level that well though . Particularly Wisconsin and Michigan.

u right breh

i still maintain m point that the polls predicted a very close race but there were some media outlets that were outlandish in their estimates

 

[ezrathegreat]

Got to correct you there chief.

If anything 538 was more accurate than anyone. In fact, Nate Silver who if you listened to the podcast or read any tweets and stuff like that REFUSED to believe Trump would win on an emotional level but would always be moderated by what his 'models" and data showed. Also his election day forecast was more cautionary than most.

See:
He accurately predicted that there is a growing chance of a popular vote win but electoral college loss for Clinton on October 31st

The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing





Here is their election day forecast which shows Hillary with a 71.4% chance of winning which is high but then you put this in contrast with that one asian dude from Princeton(can't remember his name) and others who were giving her a 99% chance of winning .

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

Trump had a 1:3 odd of winning and simply beat the odds if these numbers are to be believed. Granted he did not predict it on a state level that well though . Particularly Wisconsin and Michigan.

Sam Wang
Sam Wang (neuroscientist) - Wikipedia

He said Hilary had 99% chance of winning and that if Hilary lost, he would eat a bug.




















He's at least a man of his word.

 

[coupercoli]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Now the dems will actually have to focus on policy substance! Oh, God, the humanity!

Like you stupid inbred, motherphuckers care about policy. The information is there, yet you continue to vote against your own interests. Oh, God, you people are morons!

 

[Stone Cold]

Sam Wang
Sam Wang (neuroscientist) - Wikipedia

He said Hilary had 99% chance of winning and that if Hilary lost, he would eat a bug.




















He's at least a man of his word.

 

[joeychizzle]

If America allows trump to win a second term... you dumb motherfukkers need to get nuked.

 

[Uncle Hotep]

 

[DaKidFromNoWhere]

Spots where people are hooked on opiates are deciding the direction of this country

 

[the cac mamba]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Now the dems will actually have to focus on policy substance! Oh, God, the humanity!

theres still plenty of high profile celebrities who might chop their dikk off and put on a dress between now and the midterms :jayfdup: