mtutiger

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Trump did handle COVID seriously: i.e., serious about exploiting COVID for political advantage, not about fighting and defeating COVID itself. 

I don't think Trump's handling of COVID redounded to his political advantage, tbh... I think it cost him reelection.

The Brewers are a bit of a cautionary tale.... great pitching, but you need an offense to make noise in the playoffs.

George doesn't want for anything at all, but he's gotta point here.... politics tends to attract the absolute worst people these days.

16 hours ago, ewsieg said:

And this is where you lost me.  IDK, maybe wear a mask, understand and encourage precautions.  Additionally,  don't play politics to the point that when a vaccine comes out (which politically you could claim as a win and tout), your folks decide to become stupid liberal hippy idiots that don't want anything 'unnatural' in your body.

This is the thing I keep going back to: if he would have handled it with even a modicum of the seriousness it required, it would have been a goldmine for him. 

But to quote the dude from the Indiana Jones movie, "he chose poorly"

The precinct that I live in went from Clinton +2 to Biden +16 in four years. 

Change happens,  folks. 

44 minutes ago, oblong said:

What laws?  Electoral laws meant he never should have been on a ballot.  I guess I don’t understand your point.  People here are saying Trump’s got a very good shot at reelection or whatever you’d call it and you appear to agree but want to throw out some “but..”. After the polling disasters we saw in 2016 and 2020 I don’t have much appetite for political analysts who think it’s still 1996.  I’ve unfollowed Nate and the 538 crew and a few others.  I don’t think they know what they are talking about. 

I'm just trying to stick to the facts, no emotion... 

Trump isn't God... not every trend that happened in 2020 redounded to his benefit. 

Reminds me of Vito Corleone dressing down Johnny Fontaine. Calm down.

Randy Arozarena... man

The board won't let me edit my post, so....

Biden got 16M more than Hillary. He (or someone else) could widen in that in four years, believe it or not.

The composition of the electorate changes cycle to cycle.

I legit hate the Trump, you can never underestimate him, I get it. But while people ascribe an almost God-like status to the guy, Donald Trump is not immune to the changes that happen in any four year cycle. He will have to build a different coalition in 2024 than he did in 2020, just as he did in 2020 versus his coalition in 2016.

I wouldn't count him out, but I just feel like people in this thread are treating the guy a little more like Moses than they should be... he's an existential threat, but the same laws apply to him as any other politician IMO

55 minutes ago, oblong said:

Trump got 9M more votes in 2020 and almost a point higher of the share. 

Biden got 16M more than Hillary.

6 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Also, if TFG is on the ticket, yeah, he needs to add voters. Because he's already lost more votes than he can make up for. He's not getting more than he got in 2020. And the Dems are NOT losing votes in 2024...

I won't say he'll get less voters, but a hypothetical 2024 win is going to be different in demographic composition than his 2016 win and 2020 loss. It just will be.... just as it was for every other President who ran for reelection or, in the case of Cleveland, ran for the office again.

People talk about absolutes with this stuff, but there are changes going on under the hood all the time.

So yeah, he'll need to do some addition... he has avenues to do it, but he will need to do it 

3 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

And back to pfife's point:

Trump may generate high turnout on his side... but he will generate even higher turnout against him. It doesn't matter if Biden or Harris or anyone else is leading the Dem ticket, there will be no lost votes as long as Trump is the Republican nominee.

 

100%.

Trump is a turnout machine... not just in favor, but also in opposition 

15 minutes ago, oblong said:

He doesn’t need to add voters. Just let the other side lose more.  Let the D infighting lead to another Bernie type to run third party.  He could do What Obama did in 2012… Romney lost on turnout. 

I'd have to pull the numbers, but as I recall Obama actually did win over some voters who did not vote for him in 2008 and did turn out additional voters in 2012. And that played a role in his reelection.

I'd also add that Mitt Romney won more votes than John McCain did as well.

Practitioners of this stuff (think people like Murphy and Axelrod and Carville) tend to harp on persuasion as being critical to any candidate looking to win reelection... you need to add some new voters in to offset any losses you have from the previous election. Trump is not immune to that... how he kept it close (ie. More low propensity voters, doing better with POC) is proof.

36 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don’t think Jan 6 will sway one Trump voter from 2020. I really don’t. The GOP will  get behind him.  Always have. 

My question is whether / how Trump actually adds voters. Part of how he kept the last one close is two-fold: he managed to find more low-propensity voters and he did better with Hispanics and (to a lesser extent) black voters. He needed that given how much worse he did in the suburbs.

Winning reelection, or winning the office back in this case, requires addition. Especially if trends in the suburbs continue.

I could see him adding with non-college POC, but it is hard to see him turning out more low propensity voters than he did last time. But you never know.

1 hour ago, Archie said:

With all of the polling these people do how come they can't figure out that Trump has lost a lot of Republican voters.  We've figured it out from our living rooms.

Part of the issue is that the Republicans Trump lost now call themselves "Independents" or "Democrats".

At the end of the day, there's just a big trade going on under the surface where some contingent of old D voters (generally blue collar whites, some non-college POC) are leaning more R and some contingent of voters in suburban areas are leaning more D. And there is little evidence that this is changing.

One reason, at least in Texas, why I can tell the dynamic in the suburbs isn't changing much is how the Republican legislature is drawing Congressional districts for redistricting... moves like cutting Denton out of its current district and putting it into a district with the Panhandle counties, cutting Plano/Frisco out from the rest of Collin County and putting it in a district with Texarkana.... these are all things you do when you are concerned with the trends in the existing district as-drawn.

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

Trump might have been reelected if he had won Republican voters in the suburbs.  

His struggles in the suburbs aren't going to get any easier either.

1 minute ago, pfife said:

I'm quite sure the polling on Trump isn't predictive of trumps Performance in elections and I offer the last two elections as evidence 

Sure. He drives turnout in a way that the likely voter models don't capture. I get it.

In and of itself, though, that doesn't mean that there isn't 53% of GOP voters who would prefer a different candidate. And even if it was off, most polling misses are off by 5-10%, not 40. (ie. He'd still only be at 57% or so with primary voters)

My only point is that while I believe the poll may very well be accurate, its functionally meaningless in a primary process with "winner take all" contests and with an electorate who will still suck it up and vote for him if he's on the ballot against a D

50 minutes ago, pfife said:

 

Fox "News"

30 minutes ago, pfife said:

That 30% number was the same number I was hearing before he went and got the second most votes for president in history

There are a lot of people who voted for Trump who did not like him but felt that he was the lesser of two evils.

I suspect that has not changed in the last 8 mos or so.

30 minutes ago, pfife said:

If polling is meant to predict election results, the accuracy in polling Trump has been lackluster at best.  

I'm not sure that a poll asking GOP voters if who they would like to see be nominated in 2024 is predictive of elections. Just as polls on approval alone aren't necessarily predictive either.

2 hours ago, Archie said:

I read that the school shooter was released on a $75,000 bond.  That sends a heck of a message. 

You'll have to take that up with the judge.

1 hour ago, Dan Gilmore said:

Leaving Correa aside for the moment for various reasons, what is “or bust”? Looking at the defensive ratings, ages and guessing as to dollars/length of contract, would Story having an off year compared to past performance be a case buying lower (not low). I am aware of Coors effect concerns. He’s young enough that I think he is less likely to decline soon. What are the numbers to get him likely to be?

Most of the other top names seem flawed for various reasons. Story might not produce great O numbers at Comerica, but good ones coupled with good D sounds okay. And if he signs for a lot less than Correa, put that $ on a good SP. SS has been such a hole. 
 

So, 4/90 for Story? Would that be both a reasonable guess and a good value, or is it way off? I could see the Tigers making serious overtures to Correa, but not sticking around if the numbers get too high/long. And being ready with a plan B.

I would be fine with Seager or Story.... 9r even Semien if the contract isn't too long.

The reality is that they need a Plan B. Even if they go hard at Correa, there's no guarantee they reel him in.

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

 

One thing that is certain is that Trump will never pass the torch - if ever there was a case of having to pry something from cold dead hands....

The truth is, a lot of folks will not try if he declares.

Whether the polling is accurate or not, the end result of a Trump run, given how heavy the GOP Primary process is with "winner-take-all" contests, is a resounding victory for the former guy.

The political media (ie. Folks like Jonathan Martin) are trying to sell papers and draw eyeballs so they are kinda hanging on this poll result... but even if he's at 47% or whatever among GOP voters, it doesn't challenge the reality that he wipes the field in an open primary.

He'd have to get down to around 20-25% before any drama starts unfolding.

21 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Do you think that number is too high, or too low?

 

Additionally, it might be skewed based on a different "GOP" pool now.   In 2015, I would have answered a poll that I was a republican.  I wouldn't answer that way today and thus, wouldn't have been counted, even though I'm far from a democrat.  My mom, who would vote for Trump again, is even telling us she's an independent now.

As I alluded above, primary support =/= general election support.

I absolutely believe that there's a sizeable contingent in the GOP that would love to see Trump pass the torch of trumpism to someone else. But that those same people will still, push comes to shove, support him in a general election against Biden or any other D

On 10/8/2021 at 7:52 AM, pfife said:

About the 44% support for him running in the GOP, I totally and thoroughly do not believe that number.   I get that polling is probably the best we can do to measure this sort of thing, but before 2020 I was a proponent of the notion that there is hidden support for Trump that is not reflected in polling and that was totally true... by a lot.   I am to the point now here I treat any polling regarding Trump with a huge grain of salt and always assume it is underestimating.

I don't mean to denigrate polling in any way - I spent the beginning of my career at a prestigious survey institute.  I buy into it.   But something clearly isn't right with respect to polling on Trump and it's obvious.

I believe the polling... Trump's hardcore is only about 30% or so of the GOP. His act has wore thin in a lot of places.

The issue is that, even if the polling is accurate and he garners 45-50% support in a hypothetical primary, he still wins, and the remaining 55% or so will fall in line and vote for him anyway

On 10/6/2021 at 8:30 PM, Edman85 said:

 

A few things after a mini Google Rabbit Hole...

He voted for the bathroom bill.

He's running for the House Seat that got overturned due to election fraud a couple years ago.

Don't love the stance on the bathroom bill, but Dems need to be better about running candidates who can win in particular districts. Particularly in a state like NC which will likely end up with a tougher map coming out of redistricting.

2 hours ago, Archie said:

Simmons struggled at the plate this year although he never has been a great hitter.  If they can't get Correa maybe they get a guy like Simmons that's big improvement over what they have but not an All Star. 

Simmons would be OK, but ideally they'd find another bat if they go with someone like him. Maybe an OF bat