Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 243: Kurd, I Stan

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Wow what an amazing model

Um, duh? Lol.

---

No Im just laughing at how basic it is.

Of course Trump wins if people vote based on the economy. You dont need science to tell us that.
---

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1184502366588035072

lmfao fact-checking Bernie calling climate change an "existential threat"
---

Like its basically a whole article saying if most of the voters are happy with Trump he will win
---

Jakyl25 posted...

No Im just laughing at how basic it is.

Of course Trump wins if people vote based on the economy. You dont need science to tell us that.

It turns out that people mostly vote based on the economy. The simplicity of the model is a feature.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

No Im just laughing at how basic it is.

Of course Trump wins if people vote based on the economy. You dont need science to tell us that.

It's considered a very accurate prediction model.

---

btw the number of Giuliani associates arrested in the past week or so is apparently up to four.

Grimlyn posted...

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1184502366588035072

lmfao fact-checking Bernie calling climate change an "existential threat"

"Senator Sanders, scientists aren't convinced it will lead to a TOTAL extinction, and those last remnants of civilization will take great offense that you said they'd cease to exist.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Like its basically a whole article saying if most of the voters are happy with Trump he will win

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Like its basically a whole article saying if most of the voters are happy with Trump he will win

That's not what it said. It said based on average turnout, the financial markets, and the favorability polls and pockets of voters that Trump should win the election.

That it would take almost maximum historical turnout for the Dems to closely beat him.

I mean, whew boyyyy! You can't handle anything that isn't what you wanna hear can ya!

---

...In hindsight, I should have used the reverse one where he puts the glasses back on.

Luckily, I'll be able to continue having that hindsight since Schmuck Sanders was wrong on climate change being an existential threat, booyah!
---

Corrik7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Like its basically a whole article saying if most of the voters are happy with Trump he will win

That's not what it said. It said based on average turnout, the financial markets, and the favorability polls and pockets of voters that Trump should win the election.

That it would take almost maximum historical turnout for the Dems to closely beat him.

I mean, whew boyyyy! You can't handle anything that isn't what you wanna hear can ya!

No, my point is we already know all this
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Like its basically a whole article saying if most of the voters are happy with Trump he will win

That's not what it said. It said based on average turnout, the financial markets, and the favorability polls and pockets of voters that Trump should win the election.

That it would take almost maximum historical turnout for the Dems to closely beat him.

I mean, whew boyyyy! You can't handle anything that isn't what you wanna hear can ya!

No, my point is we already know all this

So, given this knowledge, what do you think the Democrats' chances are of taking the Presidency in 2020?
---

Corrik7 posted...

I mean, whew boyyyy! You can't handle anything that isn't what you wanna hear can ya!

Isn't Jakyl literally one of the people who thinks Trump has a higher chance of winning than not?

Corrik what are you saying?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

No, my point is we already know all this

So you alrdy know Trump is likely to win re-election?

---

Seems a little silly to predict the election based only on the economy when a typical president with the current economy would probably have an approval rating in the 50s or 60s

---

If the Dems don't turn out the vote? Yes.
---

https://www.ign.com/articles/blizzard-bans-college-hearthstone-team-who-supported-hong-kong-for-six-months

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

If the Dems don't turn out the vote? Yes.

Not turning out makes it landslide. Average is a trump win.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Seems a little silly to predict the election based only on the economy when a typical president with the current economy would probably have an approval rating in the 50s or 60s

Yeah but approval rating for Trump has already been proven to be basically meaningless. His approval rating has hardly budged since he took office. Obama wearing a tan suit probably had a bigger impact on his approval rating than this Ukraine scandal has had on Trump's. On the day he was elected, Trump already had the lowest favorability rating of any presidential candidate ever.

A ton of people don't like Trump but think he's the best person for the job.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

No, my point is we already know all this

So you alrdy know Trump is likely to win re-election?

Yes!
---

Corrik7 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

If the Dems don't turn out the vote? Yes.

Not turning out makes it landslide. Average is a trump win.

That to me makes no sense given every metric I've looked at, but we won't know for another 13 months.
---

Corrik7 posted...

See the reset thread on Hillary being a TERF? Lol

I think I've been to resetera twice and its made me sad both times so I just stay away now.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

No, my point is we already know all this

So you alrdy know Trump is likely to win re-election?

Yes!

Sometimes I get confused between different people. What's your take on how aggressive the Democrats should be? Are you concerned about retribution if you take an aggressive stance and lose?
---

Trump has always been likely to win re-election. He is an incumbent with a good economy and voters didn't care about his myriad of scandals last time when they were already known pre-election.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

No, my point is we already know all this

So you alrdy know Trump is likely to win re-election?

Yes!

Sometimes I get confused between different people. What's your take on how aggressive the Democrats should be? Are you concerned about retribution if you take an aggressive stance and lose?

What do you mean by retribution? Like Trump is gonna have Dems rounded up and imprisoned?
---

I mean, it's never been a secret that given the general fundamentals that Trump "should" have an easy reelection. I put should in quotes there because what I mean is, if it was a normal GOP candidate, like a President Kasich, they would coast to re-election.

The whole thing though is that Trump is unique(ly terrible) where his approval ratings are absolute ****, like historically ****.

There's also the "wild card" where the economy's warning lights are all flashing red that we're recession-bound but it's up in the air if that "hits" before the election. After all, the Trump administration has basically played all the emergency cards that are played when we're actually in one in an attempt to delay it so god help us when it finally does come. He might get "lucky" and it hits after the election though, who knows. If we go into recession before it though the bottom will fall out like it did to Bush 43 in 2008.

tl;dr: It's been common knowledge for literally years that the fundamentals support a GOP reelection in 2020 but just ending the conversation there and refusing to look at the unique factors Trump brings is lol.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

That to me makes no sense given every metric I've looked at, but we won't know for another 13 months.

If you zoom out to the broad view of "economic indicators, unemployment, etc." then it's always been the case that a second term would be coming for the average President.

It's just... stopping there and not analyzing the conditions to this particular race and what make it different than those before it is... dumb, but it's not surprising that certain people would want to present it that way.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

No, my point is we already know all this

So you alrdy know Trump is likely to win re-election?

Yes!

Sometimes I get confused between different people. What's your take on how aggressive the Democrats should be? Are you concerned about retribution if you take an aggressive stance and lose?

What do you mean by retribution? Like Trump is gonna have Dems rounded up and imprisoned?

Like Trump is going to do to liberals what Hillary promised to do to the coal miners. Take away their jobs and their livelihoods, ostracize them from society, and tax them to kingdom come.
---

No because then who would he have as scapegoats?
---

ftr, because the fundamentals are what they are is why Democrats/liberals/the left/the resistance/whatever can't get complacent (again, even though it's hard to imagine how they could after 2016 but people are dumb.)

It's not going to just be some cakewalk. It's going to be tougher than expected and people need to show the **** up this time.
---

xp1337 posted...

ftr, because the fundamentals are what they are is why Democrats/liberals/the left/the resistance/whatever can't get complacent (again, even though it's hard to imagine how they could after 2016 but people are dumb.)

It's not going to just be some cakewalk. It's going to be tougher than expected and people need to show the **** up this time.

That IS the complacency though. Believing that you have enough voters to win if you just all show up. That's why Hillary's efforts to win over swing voters was woefully inadequate and the Democrats are showing every sign of making the exact same mistake again, thinking that turnout will save them.
---

xp1337 posted...

ftr, because the fundamentals are what they are is why Democrats/liberals/the left/the resistance/whatever can't get complacent (again, even though it's hard to imagine how they could after 2016 but people are dumb.)

It's not going to just be some cakewalk. It's going to be tougher than expected and people need to show the **** up this time.

This is basically how I feel about it. I don't think he has a better chance than he did in 2016, there's too much uniquely weird stuff about both the 2016 election and where we are now, but repeating 2016 is how he wins. He did it once and he could do it again.

---

red sox 777 posted...

That IS the complacency though. Believing that you have enough voters to win if you just all show up. That's why Hillary's efforts to win over swing voters was woefully inadequate and the Democrats are showing every sign of making the exact same mistake again, thinking that turnout will save them.

I thought dems lost because of emails

---

Also, the Democrats appear to be unable to recognize that there are swing voters across all races. Trump beat Romney's numbers with every single major racial group. His percentages went up from Romney's numbers MORE with minorities than with white voters!

And that's because Romney believed what the Democrats believe, that there are virtually no swing voters. That's why he gave his speech saying that 47% of voters were guaranteed to vote for President Obama no matter what. Trump didn't believe that. He tried to win minority votes. And he won a lot of Obama voters over.
---

https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/1184559361638748161

Trump's letter to Erdogan.

This...this can't be real life. Someone tell me this is fake.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That IS the complacency though. Believing that you have enough voters to win if you just all show up. That's why Hillary's efforts to win over swing voters was woefully inadequate and the Democrats are showing every sign of making the exact same mistake again, thinking that turnout will save them.

I thought dems lost because of emails

I talk about the emails thing as a joke. I mean they do reflect the bigger picture but they were a relatively minor thing themselves.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

This...this can't be real life. Someone tell me this is fake.

I am... not sure I believe it. May need more than a Fox Business Anchor here.

it is believable though, if that's what you mean
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/1184559361638748161

Trump's letter to Erdogan.

This...this can't be real life. Someone tell me this is fake.

Don't be tough guy! Don't be a fool!

...I'll call you later, boo.

---

(But yeah that looks like a fake so I would wait for additional confirmation until I believe that, as funny as it is)

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/1184559361638748161

Trump's letter to Erdogan.

This...this can't be real life. Someone tell me this is fake.

Thank God Trump is coming to his senses. Although I kind of feel the fact that the Syrian government and Russia responded so quickly to help the Kurds may put more pressure on Turkey than Trump is actually doing.
---

https://twitter.com/justinsink/status/1184567270208671744

According to a Bloomberg reporter, the White House has confirmed that letter is real.

what the fuck lmao
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

what the fuck lmao

wow don't be a tough guy
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/justinsink/status/1184567270208671744

According to a Bloomberg reporter, the White House has confirmed that letter is real.

what the fuck lmao

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/justinsink/status/1184567270208671744

According to a Bloomberg reporter, the White House has confirmed that letter is real.

what the fuck lmao

Lol

---

huh
---

I dunno it double quoted. I was lolling because if that letter is real, it's hilarious lol.

---

Uh, that letter is classic Trump style. I don't see what's strange about it.
---

It's classic rambling, 3rd grade internet commenter, Twitter Trump.

In an official letter to a world leader, on official stationary from the President of the United States.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It's classic rambling, 3rd grade internet commenter, Twitter Trump.

In an official letter to a world leader, on official stationary from the President of the United States.

Trump's letter to the First Minister of Scotland before he was running demanding that they cancel their windmill project was very similar. Maybe slightly longer sentences.

It included claims like (paraphrasing):

If you build the windmills, at least you won't have to worry about making tourists happy, because there will be zero tourists to Scotland.

My mother was born in Scotland and she would be ashamed of what you are doing to her country.
---

still no fan but I gotta say I lol'd

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1184597281808498688
then
https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi
---