Andrew

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 822 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The impeachment of Donald J. Trump starts today #43261

    Andrew
    Participant

    Yeah, I’m with you on being torn. I do look forward to putting all Senators on the record on his crimes. Let’s hope that leads to a landslide for Democrats next fall. But I’m not counting on that either…

    in reply to: 5G Promises speed and low latency #43249

    Andrew
    Participant

    Well, obviously 5G is five times more deadly than 4G, innit?

    Maybe the best way to fix her 5G issue is to change the name to something else. Maybe call the 5G radio waves “natural health beams” or something.

    in reply to: Trump will win in 2020 #43242

    Andrew
    Participant

    Good points, edselehr.

    in reply to: Trump will win in 2020 #43238

    Andrew
    Participant

    Sure, Paul, and so am I. I am certainly not sitting back confident that Trump is going to lose. I’m quite nervous about it. But I also haven’t completely given up on the Democrats winning in 2020 and resigned myself completely to Trump’s re-election the way you have. I don’t know if Trump will win or lose, but I think it’s obvious he is very vulnerable in 2020.

    in reply to: Trump will win in 2020 #43236

    Andrew
    Participant

    P.S. Anger and fear are huge motivating factors in elections (see: 2018). And I think a lot of people, not just Democrats, are angry at Trump and fearful of what a second term would mean. There was no such anger running against Trump in 2016, because he hadn’t been president to do the awful things yet. Now he has a record.

    in reply to: Trump will win in 2020 #43235

    Andrew
    Participant

    Paul, I don’t think being an “intense media consumer” makes you better informed, no offense; I think it may make you less informed. You’re consuming so much information that it warps how others may see things. More doesn’t mean better. There is an enormous amount of noise and hyperbole in the “media” of all types.

    I suggest instead of constantly consuming so much “immediate media,” step back and read about past campaigns and how quickly things can change in politics and how unpredictable outcomes can be. I know you are familiar with past campaigns, but you may have forgotten the details. Things make a lot more sense in hindsight than they may trying to read about them while they are happening.

    It’s actually a bit of a myth that all the polls assured Clinton would win in 2016. Actually, the national polls showed her winning the popular vote by about 3% and she won it by about 2%. Obviously the national popular vote is meaningless compared to the electoral college. Polls showed her ahead but narrowly in PA, MI,and WI, which she barely lost.

    The truth is that so many of us (me too!) were so sure Clinton would win because we simply could not imagine Trump winning. It was unthinkable. Lots of people made predictions based not on the polls but on subjective ideas about who could be elected president.

    And I think that some, like you, Paul, are doing the same thing now in Trump’s favor: you are so convinced that Trump can’t lose, because his victory was such a shock last time, that you’re overcompensating. He has this motivated base of followers. He seems invincible to you. So I believe you’re ignoring all of his vulnerabilities.

    First – look at his abysmal approval ratings. With the economy doing so well, how can you explain his terrible ratings? And what happens if the economy slows down by next fall?

    Second, look at the elections that have taken place since 2016. Look at the massive, historic turn-out in 2018 that swept Republicans from control of the House. You can’t explain that except for anger and fear of Trump. Look at last week’s Republican loss of the governorship in Kentucky: Trump’s guy lost, after Trump made a big deal of campaigning for him: IN KENTUCKY! Clearly not everything Trump touches politically turns to gold; some of his candidates turn to shit.

    Third: impeachment has definitely hurt Trump (his approval ratings declined again after the scandal started). Sure, it may motivate his base – but there aren’t nearly enough voters in his base to win by themselves. He needs independent swing voters to in, as he did in 2016, when so many hated Clinton.

    Fourth: I believe there was a lot of complacency in 2016 about Clinton winning. Because some voters may have believed she was going to win anyway, but weren’t really big fans of hers, why go out of their way to vote? In states like PA, there is no early voting; you have to go to the polls on election day unless you qualify for an absentee ballot. Friends of mine waited for hours to vote in line in PA in 2016. If you showed up at your polling place seeing a long line and figured Clinton was going to in anyway…why wait three hours in line, especially if you don’t really like her?

    In 2020, I doubt people will be so complacent. People know how awful Trump is now, and they will be less likely to believe rosy projections in the media – everyone will say, “Remember what happened in 2016!”

    I believe the same surge in turnout we saw in 2018 will happen again in 2020. Enough beat Trump? I don’t know. That all depends who the Democrats nominate.

    But, unlike you, I’m just not so pessimistic about the Democrats’s supposed disorganization. Go back and read about Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. He may be remembered now as a beloved Democratic sage by Democrats, but the guy was anything but that in 1992. I remember 1992: it didn’t seem like the Democrats had anyone good. I didn’t care much for Clinton then (or anyone) though I voted for him in the general election. Remembering how rocky his campaign was and how weak he seemed as a candidate, it’s really not hard for me to imagine Biden or even Elizabeth Warren beating Trump in 2020. They both already seem a lot better organized and solid than Clinton was in 1991 and early 1992.

    in reply to: Trump will win in 2020 #43232

    Andrew
    Participant

    Paul, I don’t know if Trump will win again or not. But, I’d be curious to know why you think you are better able to predict an election one year out than people in 1991 (who would have laughed silly had you predicted Bill Clinton would beat George Bush or that he would lose to anyone) or in 1995 (when people were speculating whether Clinton would even be re-nominated)?

    Reagan looked pretty vulnerable in 1983 in the midst of a recession. I doubt many people thought he was going to win 49 states a year later.

    How do you know what the economy will be like a year from now? What if it’s heading toward recession? Presidents usually lose re-election when the economy is poor – ask George Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Herbert Hoover.

    As I said previously, predicting “Trump will win – mark my words!” is a risk-free prediction to make, because if he does, you can boast, “See? TOLD YA SO!” and if you are wrong, you can say, “Well, I hated the SOB – glad I was wrong!” and no one will care about your wrong prediction.

    But if you are sure, you can certainly bet money on the 2020 election. How much money are you putting on Trump? If I was certain Trump would win (or not win), I’d certainly be betting on the election.

    in reply to: Bloomberg May Enter Race #43221

    Andrew
    Participant

    Sounds like good news for Elizabeth Warren: maybe Bloomberg can peel off some of the Biden voters.

    in reply to: Democrats win in KY and VA #43204

    Andrew
    Participant

    The win in Kentucky is nice – a finger in the eye of Trump for sure – but I’m not sure what it means for 2020 if anything. Bevin was not popular, and Kentucky, like other red states, has a recent history of Democratic governors even though they rarely elect Democrats to the Senate. The last Democratic governor was in office just four years ago – Andy Beshear’s father.

    The win in VA is much more significant and a long time in coming. VA hasn’t had full Democratic control in decades. They might be in office long enough to control redistricting after the 2020 Census – not sure…

    in reply to: Google Outbids Facebook for Fitbit: $2.1 billion #43161

    Andrew
    Participant

    No, Dude, they are NOT in office – they LOST in 2018! Wake up! Your “posse” won in lefty-left districts that always elect very liberal reps. If this is your victory, then your movement is doomed.

    in reply to: Google Outbids Facebook for Fitbit: $2.1 billion #43158

    Andrew
    Participant

    Missing: “Last time you said that, we ended up with a handful of good progressives in office.”

    No, you elected progressives in liberal districts – as I said, that’s about as impressive as electing a gun nut in Texas. The candidates you championed in other races lost.

    Same thing I said back then: elect people who support your priorities in more than just liberal areas (which have ALWAYS elected liberal reps) – in swing districts and swing states – and then maybe you’ll be on to something.

    in reply to: Google Outbids Facebook for Fitbit: $2.1 billion #43153

    Andrew
    Participant

    Yeah, bragging about Ocasio-Cortez winning a seat in New York’s 14th – where Trump lost by 55% (I mean, Clinton scored 55 points higher in the general) – is like a gun nut bragging about winning an election in Texas. It’s not exactly big achievement or a sign of anything but the status quo.

    Start winning some MEANINGFUL elections in swing districts. Not just in Congress, either. Start smaller. Need more than a “posse” in Congress to push meaningful change.

    in reply to: Google Outbids Facebook for Fitbit: $2.1 billion #43149

    Andrew
    Participant

    Great – so start winning elections.

    in reply to: Google Outbids Facebook for Fitbit: $2.1 billion #43144

    Andrew
    Participant

    Missing: “Then it will be in the streets, nobody happy, until we see real change.”

    Why aren’t you already out there, if this is so important to you? What are you waiting for?

    Better yet, why aren’t you actually getting candidates who support your agenda elected to Congress in more than a few lefty-left districts?

    in reply to: Trump resigns in DISGRACE!!! #43109

    Andrew
    Participant

    Missing: “Sanders would have won big in 2016 and is currently the strongest candidate against Trump.”

    No he isn’t. Look at these polls

    General Election (CNN):
    Trump vs. Biden: Biden +10%
    Trump vs. Warren: Warren +8%
    Trump vs. Sanders: Sanders +9%

    Wisconsin (Marquette)
    Trump vs. Biden: Biden +6%
    Trump vs. Warren: Warren +1%
    Trump vs. Sanders: Sanders +2%

    General Election (Emerson)
    Trump vs. Biden, Warren, or Sanders: +2

    In which imaginary poll is Sanders doing better against Trump than Biden is?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 822 total)