**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

Well first your prediction was based on the gun debate; now you've thought up a few more reasons. So I'm glad your expert analysis is so well thought out.

Are you suggesting that there are not multiple issues that affect the outcome of elections? Are you suggesting that I believed elections all hinged on one single issue?

Here's another interpretation of the latest trend: Trump finally kept his mouth shut about something (Daniels) and people have been slowly forgetting what an idiot he usually is in public.

Here's another interpretation of that. The left-wing media doesn't want to talk about legislative success so they have instead tried (sadly) to focus the national narrative on a consensual affair that occurred more than a decade ago.

Does your predictive model account for the very high likelihood Trump is going to do something completely idiotic again sometime soon, and likely repeatedly between now and Nov.?

When you describe Trump's actions as "completely idiotic", that usually means he's doing something right. And I said that I am predicting this success to continue. So yes, this is accounted for in my model.

[Poopadoop]

Are you suggesting that there are not multiple issues that affect the outcome of elections?

Where did I suggest that?

Are you suggesting that I believed elections all hinged on one single issue?

Again, where did I suggest that? I only responded to what you wrote. I don't try to put thoughts in other people's mouths like someone we all know.

Here's another interpretation of that. The left-wing media doesn't want to talk about legislative success so they have instead tried (sadly) to focus the national narrative on a consensual affair that occurred more than a decade ago.

Boo hoo.

When you describe Trump's actions as "completely idiotic", that usually means he's doing something right. And I said that I am predicting this success to continue. So yes, this is accounted for in my model.

Then why is he not ahead by 20 points? Oh I know 'cause the media is focusing on porn stars instead of his 'success'. Sounds like a Trump argument to me: when he wins it's cause he's brilliant, but when he loses it's someone else's fault.

[BananaStand]

Where did I suggest that?

You implied quite clearly that my analysis was not well-thought out because it was not committed to one single political issue.

Then why is he not ahead by 20 points?

Because he's not running in 2018.

Oh I know 'cause the media is focusing on porn stars instead of his 'success'. Sounds like a Trump argument to me: when he wins it's cause he's brilliant, but when he loses it's someone else's fault.

Actually it's because Romney was right. 48% of the country will vote democrat no matter what. If Christ himself came down and anointed Trump as the Messiah, and the next thing Trump did was cure all disease and usher in world peace with a wave of his hand...the best he could hope for is a 52/48 win in 2020.

Trump falls slightly short of divinity, and the numbers reflect that.

[Poopadoop]

You implied quite clearly that my analysis was not well-thought out because it was not committed to one single political issue.

Exactly, because you only referenced one political issue. Should I infer you'd thought the other ones were relevant by the fact you DIDN'T include them?

Because he's not running in 2018.

Ok let me put it another way: If he's so successful, why does he have the lowest approval rating ever of a president 1 year in?

Actually it's because Romney was right. 48% of the country will vote democrat no matter what.

Then maybe he should have stayed a democrat.

[BananaStand]

Should I infer you'd thought the other ones were relevant by the fact you DIDN'T include them?

Yes

Ok let me put it another way: If he's so successful, why does he have the lowest approval rating ever of a president 1 year in?

He's right about where Clinton was in 1996

Then maybe he should have stayed a democrat.

The party changed, not him.

[Poopadoop]

Yes

sorry, reductio ad bananum is your style, not mine.

He's right about where Clinton was in 1996

Then I guess 1992-1996 was a span of one year after Clinton got elected. Good point.

The party changed, not him.

Poor baby.

[BananaStand]

sorry, reductio ad bananum is your style, not mine.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Then I guess 1992-1996 was a span of one year after Clinton got elected. Good point.

Shit, you got me on a typo. I mean to say Trump is right about where Clinton was in 1994.

Poor baby.

wut?? Democrats used to serve the middle class, now they don't. Why does it surprise you that if someone's political leanings embrace policies that serve the middle class, then they may want to change parties?