Politico poll released 8/22/18 shows Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden leading Donald Trump by 12 pt, 13 pt

1 is what the whole discussion was about. 2 is here:

"It's not much of a victory, considering the competition. Left-wingers are hardly a satisfying meal."

"I understand that people like you missed the signs, because you get your data from polls and talking points from MSNBC headlines, but actual, real Americans like myself were predicting this for a long, long time."

3 is here (among other places--I can't believe you would fail to notice this point being made):

"At the start of Obama's presidency, Democrats controlled both chambers of 27 state legislatures. By the end of his presidency, Democrats controlled both chambers in only 13 states.

The Democrat Party lost a net total of 13 Governorships in addition to 816 state legislative seats under Obama, the most of any president since Dwight Eisenhower.

Under Obama the Democrats also went from a 60 seat majority in the Senate and 257 seat majority in the House, to a 48 seat minority in the Senate and 194 seat minority in the House -- a net loss of 12 and 64 seats respectively.

The corroborating evidence of an American shift to the right is well-documented and long coming."
I didn't see him make point (1) in that post. Does that mean (total popular vote) - (total California vote) will always be won by the Republicans from now on? I think that's probably true, but remember that I think rapid technological change is going to cause dramatic political realignment within the next 20 years. I think it's quite likely that one or both of these parties fails to exist at some point in that time frame.

As for comments about "left-wingers"...my view is that anyone who self-identifies as "left-wing", "right-wing", "Democrat" or "Republican" is probably intellectually inferior, so I'll have to agree with that as well.

I don't think he wrote what you allege ("not real Americans") with regard to left-wingers. He seemed to be referring to those who get their election analysis from MSNBC headlines and mainstream polls as not-"actual, real Americans". It's kind of a strange construction and I don't know what he meant by it.

As for point (3), I disagree that this shift was "long coming". I attribute this shift to (1) the electoral pendulum swinging from Republican to Democrat and back (2) better organization by the Republicans.

Anyway, I thought he made good points in his long post. I don't think that makes me a tribalist. I also like some of your posts even when I disagree with parts.
 
No. I'm making it based on quite a bit of corroborating evidence. But you must be forgiven for your lack of wisdom and objective reasoning. A man can be intelligent and be on the left, but he cannot be wise and be on the left.

A couple of facts for you. Just the facts.

Clinton won California with 61.73% of the vote and a 30.11% margin. That's the highest margin of victory since Roosevelt in '36. Though California was once a competitive state, shifting demographics have put it firmly in the Democrat win column, and by increasingly wider margins.

The rest of the country, however, (like most of Europe) seems to be shifting center-right, which is much more in line with American values historically. (More on that later.)

While Hillary Clinton was performing well in Democrat strongholds like California, Mr. Trump was also performing well... in Democrat strongholds. For example, Trump was the first Republican to win Wisconsin since 1984. He was also the first Republican to win Pennsylvania since 1988.

In states like Ohio (which Mr. Trump also won), he also slashed into Democrat strongholds like Mahoning County, which Obama carried with 63% of the vote. Trump cut it to an essentially 50-50 tie with Clinton.

Now this leaves us with the question, was Trump's performance a one-off? Trump had the best electoral performance for any Republican candidate since Reagan. Was he the best candidate since Reagan?

I like Mr. Trump and think he's done an excellent job. He's far exceeded what I expected from him. But I don't think he was the best candidate since Reagan. His unfavorables were high, not just nationally, but even amongst Republicans. It wasn't just Trump that was going to gut the Democrat party. (Almost) any Republican would have done it. In fact, the Democrats had already begun the process themselves.

http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Statevote/StateVote_Combined Presentation.pdf

At the start of Obama's presidency, Democrats controlled both chambers of 27 state legislatures. By the end of his presidency, Democrats controlled both chambers in only 13 states.

The Democrat Party lost a net total of 13 Governorships in addition to 816 state legislative seats under Obama, the most of any president since Dwight Eisenhower.

Under Obama the Democrats also went from a 60 seat majority in the Senate and 257 seat majority in the House, to a 48 seat minority in the Senate and 194 seat minority in the House -- a net loss of 12 and 64 seats respectively.

The corroborating evidence of an American shift to the right is well-documented and long coming. I understand that people like you missed the signs, because you get your data from polls and talking points from MSNBC headlines, but actual, real Americans like myself were predicting this for a long, long time.



I mentioned earlier a shift right in the political landscape. This isn't just happening in the United States. It's happening throughout Europe, see Brexit, or the election results in countries from Italy to Hungary to Poland.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-europe-populist-right/
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/revival-central-europe-180103135901606.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...usconi-5-star-movement-luigi-di-a8240861.html

Since you like polls so much, you might be interested to know that President Trump has approval ratings far higher than those of the leftwing leaders still in power like Merkel, Macron, and May. (And save your breath when you say May is a conservative. In Britain there is no such thing as a right-wing party. Calling May and her party "right-wing" just means they are to the right of the far left Labour Party. It's left vs. hard left.)

Europe's Merkel, Macron, May less popular than Trump
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/europes-merkel-macron-may-less-popular-than-trump

MERKRON FALLS: Support for Merkel and Macron drops to RECORD LOWS - new poll
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/996161/eu-angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-ratings-drop

Merkel support falls to all-time low as ruling bloc damaged by migrant row
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...lls-all-time-low-ruling-bloc-damaged-migrant/

END OF MERKEL: Backing for chancellor CRUMBLES as Germany demands change
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/942294/angela-merkel-poll-support-germany-news-csu-cdu

Angela Merkel Is Fighting for Her Political Life. Here's What to Know
http://time.com/5314776/angela-merkel-germany-crisis-migration/

So... yeah. In the United States in particular, and Europe in general, you are seeing a large backlash against the leftwing elitists who have decimated their people with the false song of globalism and multiculturalism. Trump isn't the engine of this, he is simply one of the vehicles.

I haven't touched on other reasons yet why I think this rightwing renaissance will continue in the United States, such as a complete loss of faith by the American public in the media, or Mr. Trump's approval ratings among blacks hovering right at 30%. Because I don't think it matters at this point. But a big tent party like the Democrats who haven't won the white vote since WWII can't afford to hemorrhage those kinds of numbers and hope to succeed nationally.

The rejection and repudiation of identity politics has been swift and brutal. Until Democrats figure that out, they can expect to lose at the ballot box, regardless of how many Californians come out to vote.



It's not much of a victory, considering the competition. Left-wingers are hardly a satisfying meal.
This is going to be a great post to refer back to in the future after we see these predictions fail badly.

Trotsky responded to most of this but I'll just respond to your point about identity politics, which is incomplete. Did you mean to say that the country is embracing right wing identity politics and rejected left wing identity politics? Or are you ridiculously claiming the right doesn't engage in identity politics?
 
I didn't see him make point (1) in that post. Does that mean (total popular vote) - (total California vote) will always be won by the Republicans from now on? I think that's probably true, but remember that I think rapid technological change is going to cause dramatic political realignment within the next 20 years.

Wow, that seems pretty extreme and extraordinarily unlikely. I'd certainly be willing to be on it, though it'll be a long time before it's settled. I'd say that it's better than even that 2020 will disprove it.

As for comments about "left-wingers"...my view is that anyone who self-identifies as "left-wing", "right-wing", "Democrat" or "Republican" is probably intellectually inferior, so I'll have to agree with that as well.

The guy obviously considers himself to be right-wing so this seems like a weasel answer. Additionally, you're almost certainly very wrong. The less-intelligent half of the population is far less likely to have a political or ideological affiliation.

I don't think he wrote what you allege ("not real Americans") with regard to left-wingers. He seemed to be referring to those who get their election analysis from MSNBC headlines and mainstream polls as not-"actual, real Americans". It's kind of a strange construction and I don't know what he meant by it.

You don't think that those specifics are just part of a caricature of left-leaning Americans?

As for point (3), I disagree that this shift was "long coming". I attribute this shift to (1) the electoral pendulum swinging from Republican to Democrat and back (2) better organization by the Republicans.

You're weaseling again. He was using the election results as evidence for his case.

Anyway, I thought he made good points in his long post. I don't think that makes me a tribalist. I also like some of your posts even when I disagree with parts.

His post was either devoid of real content or wrong where it could be checked, and was just a statement of tribalism. You liked it because you're also very tribalist.
 
Wow, that seems pretty extreme and extraordinarily unlikely. I'd certainly be willing to be on it, though it'll be a long time before it's settled. I'd say that it's better than even that 2020 will disprove it.



The guy obviously considers himself to be right-wing so this seems like a weasel answer. Additionally, you're almost certainly very wrong. The less-intelligent half of the population is far less likely to have a political or ideological affiliation.



You don't think that those specifics are just part of a caricature of left-leaning Americans?



You're weaseling again. He was using the election results as evidence for his case.



His post was either devoid of real content or wrong where it could be checked, and was just a statement of tribalism. You liked it because you're also very tribalist.
This is why I don't enjoy engaging with you as much as before. These days you are turning everything into a personal attack. At the same time, the quality of your arguments has appeared to decline. I think these two are linked. I think you are capable of better based on past experience.
 
This is why I don't enjoy engaging with you as much as before. These days you are turning everything into a personal attack. At the same time, the quality of your arguments has appeared to decline. I think these two are linked. I think you are capable of better based on past experience.

That complaint makes no sense. The post you liked so much was nothing more than a childish, tribalist attack on anyone left of center, defending a ridiculous prediction. I asked you if you were really willing to co-sign it, and you deflected in some cases, and did in others, and then you react if my simply noting that fact is an attack. You're trying to have it both ways with tribalism, while I'm trying to promote clarity, which is where the conflict is.
 
Yo

You wrote that Trump's approval rating among blacks is hovering around 30%.

It is, according to the poll I cited.

Fair to say that was an overstatement?

By Rasmussen? Perhaps.

Averaging the polls would probably get you closer to 10%, right?

It depends on which polls you average. And if you believe polls are accurate.

EDIT: Latest Economist/YouGov has 14%. CNN only has "nonwhite", and it's at 23%. That suggests the number for blacks is in the teens or worse. FOX/Monmouth/Gallup don't seem to break it down by race.

Has any poll that you've seen suggested that Trump's support among "non-whites" has dropped since his election? All that I've seen have shown an increase to varying degrees.
 
So your argument of an irreversible trend is the documentation of a single event, and corroboration of vaguely similar events in completely different countries (where, despite what you say, that trend is both spurious and not unanimous, regardless) and of current political buzzwords.

1.) My argument is based on the most recent trends, which is a far more valid argument than yours, where you combat my claim of saying "If not for X, Y would never happen again" with "Wrong, because Y happened in the past." But kudos that you at least researched the second conditional and understood it sufficiently enough to stop arguing your initial (and completely baseless) rebuttal.

And this is despite the fact that other, much much more persuasive Republican electoral landslides (see Reagan's reelection in 1984) occurred, and yet the Democrats went on to win the popular votes in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, and 2016, and win it regardless of the California vote in all of them other than 2000 and 2016.

The demographics were different in California in the past, and the Democrat Party was far more to the center as well. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of time and tense.

You posted a mountain of conjecture

Specify.

and pontificating about the longstanding and irreversible nature of the Western political landscape, using buzzwords that are completely fleeting and recent in discourse (liberals "elites," multiculturalism, muh fake news, etc.)

Buzzwords? I never used the phrase "liberal elites." If you are going to quote me, get it right. And multiculturalism is your buzzword, not mine. Nor did I use the word "fake news." Again, at least get your quotes right if you want to be taken seriously.

Your statement is stupid, and so are you. It would be a Republican miracle if Democrats didn't win a popular vote without the help of California within the next three cycles. Additionally, it would be a miracle if the Republican Party itself ever won the popular vote again without a radical redefinition of the party.

Mr. Trump will almost certainly win the popular vote in his re-election campaign. Again, not that this matters, as the popular vote means exactly zero. Nor should it.

"I don't put much stock in polls, but I'll lie about them showing a 30% figure while I know that in actuality the figure is about 14%."

I didn't lie about the polls. Those were the numbers.

Trump approval rating with blacks now at 36%, Rasmussen poll says
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/

So do you believe the polls or not? Or do you only believe them when they suit your narrative?
 
This is going to be a great post to refer back to in the future after we see these predictions fail badly.

Be my guest. You seem to have a pretty good memory when it comes to me. Feel free to bump this thread any time you have the urge.

Trotsky responded to most of this but I'll just respond to your point about identity politics, which is incomplete. Did you mean to say that the country is embracing right wing identity politics and rejected left wing identity politics? Or are you ridiculously claiming the right doesn't engage in identity politics?

How do you want to define identity politics? If you want to include "American" as a prong of identity politics, then I suppose they would meet your personal definition. Identity politics are most traditionally understood to be particular to race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion to a lesser extent.

The idea is that one would place the specific interests of one of these groups above the concerns or interests of society as a whole. That's why nationality typically doesn't fall under the umbrella of identity politics, at least not as the definition is generally understood.

Not that this matters. You'll assume whatever definition runs contrary to mine to make your argument, so have at it. Left-wingers are great at making up new definitions for old words (racism), and inventing completely new words (gender fluid) to promote their warped ideologies.

Oh, I know, you're the party of science. My apologies. Boys can be girls if they feel like it, and anyone who disagrees is a homophobe, right?
 
1.) My argument is based on the most recent trends, which is a far more valid argument than yours, where you combat my claim of saying "If not for X, Y would never happen again" with "Wrong, because Y happened in the past."

Lol, you can't even reduce this conversation to its appropriate logical values. No wonder you're having such a hard time understanding why your proposition was completely bunk.

Your claim was (correctly, bravo) "If not for X, Y would never happen again."
My rebuttal was "Without X happening, Y would have happened in each of the last four times that Y happened."

Therefore, in those instances, Y was completely independent of X. In fact, there hasn't been a Democratic win in the past century that hinged on winning California.

But kudos that you at least researched the second conditional and understood it sufficiently enough to stop arguing your initial (and completely baseless) rebuttal.

I didn't research the second conditional: and apparently you've never done so either. If you had, you'd realize that you citing to it does absolutely nothing to support your argument. The distinction you're trying to distinguish but can't (which is super strange since you claim to be an English professor at a distinguished university, right?) is that your initial "if/would" was meant to set toward the future with the implicit discounting of all past events. You could have used the exact same language structure to say the (patently untrue, instead of just stupid) proposition that Democrats wouldn't have won the popular vote without California.

https://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/second-conditional

A moronic posture, yes, but I broke it down for your introspection. But, as i said before, I applaud you for merely saying something stupid and against all inference and likelihood, instead of saying something verifiably false (would have, etc.). While I would not applaud an intelligent person for that distinction, I will applaud that when done by someone whose own movement is led by a moron who constantly says things that are verifiably false.

Buzzwords? I never used the phrase "liberal elites." If you are going to quote me, get it right. And multiculturalism is your buzzword, not mine. Nor did I use the word "fake news." Again, at least get your quotes right if you want to be taken seriously.

Why do you lie? Here's your quotes:

leftwing elitists who have decimated their people with the false song of globalism and multiculturalism. Trump isn't the engine of this, he is simply one of the vehicles.
I think this rightwing renaissance will continue in the United States, such as a complete loss of faith by the American public in the media
You mentioned the GOP's gained momentum, and the declining popularity of the Democrats, as having to do with dissatisfaction with "leftist elitists." Maybe you didn't say "liberal elites," but that was the inference for a person of average intelligence.

Setting aside how moronic that "elitists" language is, given that the GOP only legislates in favor of the very rich, does so to the tangible detriment of non-rich persons, and is disproportionately composed of wealthy voters and supporters, you nevertheless used the term. Likewise, you referenced dissatisfaction with news (/information in general that conflicts with fictional worldviews) and mentioned multiculturalism specifically.

Mr. Trump will almost certainly win the popular vote in his re-election campaign. Again, not that this matters, as the popular vote means exactly zero. Nor should it.

Firstly, thank you for not doing what you did in your last post and posting a compendium of irrelevant links to popularity of international figures (at least two of which were frankly more right-wing than left).

You haven't provided any reason to believe the Democrats will never win the popular vote/electoral college without California, but your assertion about Trump is merely a matter of opinion. After all, even Bush won the popular vote in 2004.

So, since the scales should be weighed a bit in your favor given Trump will be the incumbent and, in the case that you haven't been shamed off this board within the next couple years for pretending to have certain education or professional experience that you do not, would you be interested in an account bet on the popular vote?

I didn't lie about the polls. Those were the numbers.

Trump approval rating with blacks now at 36%, Rasmussen poll says
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/

So do you believe the polls or not? Or do you only believe them when they suit your narrative?

LOL, even a guy from your side (@waiguoren) who would usually go to battle for any right-associate cause no matter the shame, called you out for citing to one poll that is diametrical to all other polling on the issue.
 
Last edited:
Trump only has a 12% chance of winning guys! It's real this time!
 
Be my guest. You seem to have a pretty good memory when it comes to me. Feel free to bump this thread any time you have the urge.

Will do.

How do you want to define identity politics? If you want to include "American" as a prong of identity politics, then I suppose they would meet your personal definition. Identity politics are most traditionally understood to be particular to race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion to a lesser extent.

You used the term so why don't you define it as you meant it in your post.

The idea is that one would place the specific interests of one of these groups above the concerns or interests of society as a whole. That's why nationality typically doesn't fall under the umbrella of identity politics, at least not as the definition is generally understood.

Not that this matters. You'll assume whatever definition runs contrary to mine to make your argument, so have at it. Left-wingers are great at making up new definitions for old words (racism), and inventing completely new words (gender fluid) to promote their warped ideologies.

Oh, I know, you're the party of science. My apologies. Boys can be girls if they feel like it, and anyone who disagrees is a homophobe, right?

I'm ignoring your generalizations. I asked about identity politics and will just wait for your definition. If you're referring to this "The idea is that one would place the specific interests of one of these groups above the concerns or interests of society as a whole." the right is certainly guilty of it.
 
This is going to be a great post to refer back to in the future after we see these predictions fail badly.

Trotsky responded to most of this but I'll just respond to your point about identity politics, which is incomplete. Did you mean to say that the country is embracing right wing identity politics and rejected left wing identity politics? Or are you ridiculously claiming the right doesn't engage in identity politics?
"The far left labour party" <36>
 
Now we all know that polls and math in general are fake news that are concocted arbitrarily to further narratives by George Soros: this much was proven after polls in 2016 rendered the most accurate popular vote total projections in modern history, considerably more accurate than in 2012. But this is interesting.

It honestly makes me sick to my snowflake stomach, though, thinking of how much good that could be prevented by a now-staunchly conservative Supreme Court - that otherwise could have been passed through had the Court not been taken over by Republicans.




https://www.politico.com/story/2018...00159-745e-d507-abdf-7e7f55750000&nlid=630318
In my small anecdotal area I can't find anyone that's not a President Trump supporter. Bernie and Biden are jokes. You guys need to come up with something better than those two fools or it's going to be Trump in 2020.
 
We need a populist left figure who can talk sense and has likeable policies to win the nomination. Also, one who isn't loathe by half the population. Bernie seems to be the strongest nominee for me, but the DNC are a bunch of oblivious fuck ups, and i don't trust them to get out of their own way.

Affordable universal healthcare
Affordable college
Get rid of for profit prisons
Take money out of politics
Invest in our infrastructure (more jobs)
Protect our environment
Decrease bloated military budget
Strong unions
Legalize certain drugs
Liveable wage

All policies most people are in favor of. He should win on substance alone

All good issues. Did you intentionally leave out immigration and trade?
 
All good issues. Did you intentionally leave out immigration and trade?

Well he's against NAFTA and TPP, because according to him it undercuts American workers and sends more jobs overseas. And cadet bone spurs tariff wars are hurting American workers more than its helping them.



Regarding immigration, democrats and Republicans have co sponsored and funded an increase in border patrol, customs, and reinforcing old segments of the wall. Bernie doesn't spend 90% of his time on this issue like Republicans do because he realizes we actually have lot of pressing issues that actually merit spending time to. There's been a net outflow of Mexicans immigrants and illegal immigration had been trending down ever since obama was in office

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/...uthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/

Rather put my capital on issues that actually affect us citizens like education, healthcare, money out of politics, economy, stagnant wages etc

If you go policy by policy most of Americans agree with populist solutions to issues plaguing this country.
 
In my small anecdotal area I can't find anyone that's not a President Trump supporter. Bernie and Biden are jokes. You guys need to come up with something better than those two fools or it's going to be Trump in 2020.

You live in bumfuck alabama? In my area trump is considered a joke, and an embarrassment. That really doesn't mean much when you look at overall polls
 
Well he's against NAFTA and TPP, because according to him it undercuts American workers and sends more jobs overseas. And cadet bone spurs tariff wars are hurting American workers more than its helping them.



Regarding immigration, democrats and Republicans have co sponsored and funded an increase in border patrol, customs, and reinforcing old segments of the wall. Bernie doesn't spend 90% of his time on this issue like Republicans do because he realizes we actually have lot of pressing issues that actually merit spending time to. There's been a net outflow of Mexicans immigrants and illegal immigration had been trending down ever since obama was in office

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/...uthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/

Rather put my capital on issues that actually affect us citizens like education, healthcare, money out of politics, economy, stagnant wages etc

If you go policy by policy most of Americans agree with populist solutions to issues plaguing this country.


Populism or Nationalism? There is a difference. Anything not related to the status quo can be populist.
Well he's against NAFTA and TPP, because according to him it undercuts American workers and sends more jobs overseas. And cadet bone spurs tariff wars are hurting American workers more than its helping them.



Regarding immigration, democrats and Republicans have co sponsored and funded an increase in border patrol, customs, and reinforcing old segments of the wall. Bernie doesn't spend 90% of his time on this issue like Republicans do because he realizes we actually have lot of pressing issues that actually merit spending time to. There's been a net outflow of Mexicans immigrants and illegal immigration had been trending down ever since obama was in office

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/...uthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/

Rather put my capital on issues that actually affect us citizens like education, healthcare, money out of politics, economy, stagnant wages etc

If you go policy by policy most of Americans agree with populist solutions to issues plaguing this country.


So you want to increase spending on social welfare programs and sell them to immigrants from south of the border?

Sounds like a great plan. Let's keep importing poor people from central america so we can spend more money on them.

I thought republicans were terrible about deficits these days but I guess they're not the only ones.
 
I remember when this happened last time. Hillary had a 90% chance of beating Trump...

Don't trust the polls. Don't trust the media. When the time comes, go to vote despite what they say.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the polls. The math, the numbers. All from our very trusted sources.

Elizabeth warren, for sure man, can beat Trump. Absolutely. LOL.

You'll be banned again before 2020 when Trump wins again.
<Goldie11>

This is what happens when people get their information from proven liars.

Biden? He is about to face the firing squad after his military tribunal just like McCain.
 
Back
Top