Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But why continue to pander to them when, as you say they are locked in at the expense of planting doubts in the minds of those more moderate?
Because his "base" is bigger than you think it is.
Not everyone who votes voices their opinion on Twitter or throws temper tantrums in the street with black masks and hoodies covering their coward faces.
Some people just quietly go about their daily lives, paying little attention to the rantings of the rabidly stricken TDS sufferers on the CNN.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
Quote:
Donald Trump’s reelection advisers are starting to get very worried about the fact that the President’s support seems to be coming from just his base, and that base isn’t big enough to win in 2020.
This helps explain why he gave his incoherent environmental speech earlier this week, and we can expect more of the President trying to appeal to people who don’t wear crusty MAGA hats all day. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.
Of course there was an ulterior motive for Trump the environmental serial killer to bring up the environment and his base actually had the audacity to post articles that so obviously lie abut his record on the environment.Of course there was an ulterior motive for Trump the environmental serial killer to bring up the environment and his base actually had the audacity to post articles that so obviously lie abut his record on the environment.
As Cousins said, Trump's fond of coal, says GW was a hoax made up by the Chinese, and such. Do you really think he, after investing so much rhetoric in this and encouraging AGW b.s., he's gonna turn around and be less MAGA in his rhetoric than before? No, I agree. Trump's just a master con man, as Cousins said. Texas and Florida both saw the Republican share of their state legislatures shrink since 2014.
What makes you think the polls were inaccurate if you don't understand probabilistic statistical distribution?
Take that mumbo jumbo to where the sun don’t shine. That facts are that the polls were wrong in 2015/2016 right up until 11:00 pm election night. And they will be wrong again until 11:00 pm election night in 2020. And once again the tears will fall from the faces that you will see at CNN....
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Above Average Bear
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
What makes you think the polls were inaccurate if you don't understand probabilistic statistical distribution?
Take that mumbo jumbo to where the sun don’t shine. That facts are that the polls were wrong in 2015/2016 right up until 11:00 pm election night. And they will be wrong again until 11:00 pm election night in 2020. And once again the tears will fall from the faces that you will see at CNN....
zzzSnorlax is right. Polls don't prove anything, they can only suggest something is the case. The 2016 elections remind me so much of the 1991 Louisiana Gubenatorial race (more about that in a minute). The long and short is that the primary polls were wildly off because the polls underestimated support for David Duke and underestimated support for then-incumbent Buddy Roemer (again, more about this in a minute). But after their mistake, the pollsters, determined not to get burned again, overestimated Duke support, namely by putting any caller polled who merelydidn't show contempt for Duke into the Duke voter column. In the general election, Edwin Edwards beat Duke 61-39.
I suspect the pollsters are going to look more closely at the rust belt states this time around:
*Larger sample sizes for each state.
*More accurately representative samples of the voter population for each state.
*More detailed questions and/or more open-ended questions (as appropriate for the particular poll), and such. Not just the rust-belt ones either, but also potential "flippers" like FL, AZ, NC, and GA.
The ones to watch - from west to east: Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and one of Maine's districts. "Maybes" are Texas, one of Nebraska's districts, Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire.
Besides, how are you so sure Trump will win in 2020? How do you know the rust belt flip wasn't a one-off event? What makes you so sure the purplish-red states won't vote for the Democratic candidate? I mean, even two urban-suburban middle class Texas congressional districts flipped to Democrat (I live in one of them). Plus in the state races, the Dems cut deeply into the Rep state house minority. Not to mention that about 10% turnover rate of voters per election cycle. Only about 90% or so of the 2020 voters will have voted in the 2016.
Of course there was an ulterior motive for Trump the environmental serial killer to bring up the environment and his base actually had the audacity to post articles that so obviously lie abut his record on the environment.
Splain to us the massive crowds that attend trump appearance...
US leads the world in reduced emissions and green energy research. Go figure.
zzzSnorlax is right. Polls don't prove anything, they can only suggest something is the case. The 2016 elections remind me so much of the 1991 Louisiana Gubenatorial race (more about that in a minute). The long and short is that the primary polls were wildly off because the polls underestimated support for David Duke and underestimated support for then-incumbent Buddy Roemer (again, more about this in a minute). But after their mistake, the pollsters, determined not to get burned again, overestimated Duke support, namely by putting any caller polled who merelydidn't show contempt for Duke into the Duke voter column. In the general election, Edwin Edwards beat Duke 61-39.
I suspect the pollsters are going to look more closely at the rust belt states this time around:
*Larger sample sizes for each state.
*More accurately representative samples of the voter population for each state.
*More detailed questions and/or more open-ended questions (as appropriate for the particular poll), and such. Not just the rust-belt ones either, but also potential "flippers" like FL, AZ, NC, and GA.
The ones to watch - from west to east: Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and one of Maine's districts. "Maybes" are Texas, one of Nebraska's districts, Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire.
Besides, how are you so sure Trump will win in 2020? How do you know the rust belt flip wasn't a one-off event? What makes you so sure the purplish-red states won't vote for the Democratic candidate? I mean, even two urban-suburban middle class Texas congressional districts flipped to Democrat (I live in one of them). Plus in the state races, the Dems cut deeply into the Rep state house minority. Not to mention that about 10% turnover rate of voters per election cycle. Only about 90% or so of the 2020 voters will have voted in the 2016.
I’m making the same point, that is that the polls dont prove anything. I contend that the election will be decided by the undecided voters. Just look at a lot of the middle, undecided voters on CD who don’t like this hard left turn that the dems are taking and who are drifting towards a Trump. That and a good economy Will put a Trump over the top bigly in 2020.
I’m making the same point, that is that the polls dont prove anything. I contend that the election will be decided by the undecided voters. Just look at a lot of the middle, undecided voters on CD who don’t like this hard left turn that the dems are taking and who are drifting towards a Trump. That and a good economy Will put a Trump over the top bigly in 2020.
Or perhaps as likely the undecided folks are tired of the Trump circus and may vote for a Dem who isn't Hillary.
I do agree that this will be won or lost on the state of the economy over the next 16 months and as I've pointed out upthread, folks who are considerably smarter than I am and have earned a lot of cash for me over the past couple of years are ambivalent at best that the market gains will hold through the election.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
Economy can only get you so far, though. Once a people as a whole are prosperous enough, social issues begin to take more precedence. In short, this may be too strong an economy for Trump's own good. The major Republican takeover of the House in 1994-95 happened during a strong economy - when you'd expect people to like the status quo. The Democrats took over the House, also during a good economy - in large part because of socio-cultural issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
