|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 16 2019 03:22 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 01:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 16 2019 01:18 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 16 2019 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
SF Homeless issue stuff: Based on my time there, there is no way to half ass that problem. If you haven't been in some of the worst areas of SF's homeless stuff, you can't understand. I didn't either. There is an enormous number of people who are mentally not quite right. These shelters give people food and water, but the people remain fundamentally broken and wreak havoc on the surrounding area. These people do not have their qualities of life improved by these shelters. All it does is serve as a meeting ground for people who literally throw their own bloody shit at people walking by.
Consider this: When I was in SF, I was walking by a bus that shuttles people to Facebook's campus. In this area, where FB people work, there were multiple homeless people who were straight up bad. A couple of them would sexually harass anyone woman who got near him. One of the dude's *ENTIRE LEGS WERE BOTH BLOODY* because he was scratching all the skin off of it. He was just sitting there DESTROYING the skin on his legs and it looked like he'd been doing it for days. Imagine watching a dude aggressively scratching flesh that is already bloody. Then there was actual human shit on the sidewalks. You needed to look down as you walk because you will otherwise very likely walk on poop. actual human poop.
I forget the name, but there was this 1 street where it was like all the super messed up homeless people took over in some weird dystopian madmax scenario. It was entirely not safe to walk through that area.
In SF, it is like these 2 entirely distinct populations living side by side. And there are so, so, so many of these people I am describing. It is NOTTTTTTTT some people down on their luck who happened to not quite pay rent, but also had no friends nearby, so here they are sleeping on a bench. No. These people need to be committed to a mental facility. I can't emphasize enough how completely past the point of return a LARGE number of these people were.
You know how in most cities, you see homeless people just kinda mumble to themselves as they look through trash cans, sometimes asking for money? Not in SF. In SF, it is a totally different world. And again: there are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many.
In order for SF to solve their homeless issue, it will require full on billion dollar facilities to house these people, commit them to years of therapy/medication, on-site job training, on-site job counseling, a fleet of psychologists and psychiatrists...there's nothing you can do that is less than that while still doing anything at all. It is so hopeless.
If someone proposed a $100/year tax on me to spend $10M building homeless shelters, I would vote no. If they proposed a $1000/year tax on me to spend $1B on some super-shelter that expects each resident to spend at least 2 years recovering/coping with their mental illnesses, I would vote yes. The current approaches to homelessness do not come close to being sufficient for SF. It is a totally different world. If you have homeless people where you live, the situation looks nothing like SF. Portland is getting pretty bad lately too, but SF was like an actual state of emergency. On July 16 2019 01:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Right, there basically 2 different groups:
1. Homeless without mental illness or drug addiction
2. Homeless people WITH mental illness or drug addiction
They need entirely different solutions. If someone has advanced schizophrenia, a bed, a meal, a temporary address and some job leads won't help. We need to have a solution for the people who are downright broken as humans. In Portland and SF, there are a ton of support networks for people who are down on their luck. We don't have ANY method of dealing with the people who are fundamentally non-functional as humans. We just give them some bread, socks and say "nice, I defeated homelessness". I think you're missing how your kind of "nice homeless" rummaging through trash cans without destructive or extremely noticeable mental illness aren't a separate creature from "SF and Portland homeless." It's social evolution and hard nights with the catalyst of their high population in certain inner cities. They're literally the same people at different stages of a growing homeless community, that you won't see transitioning unless the community gets large enough. I include access to drugs and development of a separate culture as more people stay away from the areas. You can see it in the expanding Skid Row areas of Los Angeles. Two years ago, there were a couple trendy areas with studios to 2bedroom apartments running for $3-5,000 a month. Now, there's lines of tents and tarps on the sidewalk for a half mile surrounding. Stench in the air, needles on the ground, trash everywhere. This second area a little ways away you see regular disinfecting crews in white hazmat outfits trying to manage the growing typhus and Hep a by spraying the areas down and carting away trash. I'll probably see them and vermin control somewhere in the city while driving at work today. There isn't a SF poop-everywhere stage right now, but it's getting there quickly. What is your proposed or preferential solution? I'm not danglers but here's what I'd do: Liberalise zoning laws to increase supply of housing. Levy a land value tax to encourage development and raise money. Legalise drug use and levy a pigouvian tax on it. Use the proceeds of both these taxes to increase mental health coverage, fundprogrammes to reduce homelessness (such as getting them into permanent housing until they can get on their feet again) and to treat substance abuse. This way you fight homelessness on multiple fronts. By increasing housing supply and development you make housing more affordable and by treating drug use, increasing mental health coverage and funding programmes you fix (some of) the root causes of homelessness.
Thanks RvB. Always interesting to hear proposed solutions. I was asking danglars specifically since he seems to be sprinking attacks on other forum members' thoughts without offering any solutions of his own, but yours is a welcome opinion to read in any case.
|
On July 16 2019 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Omar is probably my favorite from "The squad" I haven't seen any reporting on it yet but watching their response to Trump live and they are giving Trump a thorough dragging.
Just hilarious seeing people recoil at someone simply repeating things Trump says.
Found some reporting on it.
Reporting from Politico on the progressive congresswomen Trump attacked explaining in their own words why they won't be detoured by his inability to defend his policies.
The four progressive congresswomen at the center of President Donald Trump's racist tweet controversy tore into the president on Monday, ripping him on everything from his "inhumane" policies at the border to his "weak" mind and the "bile of garbage" that comes from his mouth.
Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib didn't mince words as they confronted the president head on in the 20-minute press conference, their response coming after Trump has repeatedly disparaged the group since Sunday, starting with a tweet saying they should "go back" to where they came.
"Weak minds and leaders challenge loyalty to our country in order to avoid challenging and debating the policy," said Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). "He does not know how to defend his policies so what he does is attack us personally. That is what this is all about."
The four lawmakers, all women of color, said it was obvious Trump’s tweets and further comments escalating his attack on them was meant to distract from the lengthy list of controversies that continue to envelop his administration, from the inhumane conditions of migrants being held at the border and mass deportation raids to continued fallout from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
"This is simply a disruption and a distraction from the callous, chaotic and corrupt culture of this administration," Pressley (D-Mass.) said. "I encourage the American people and all of us in this room and beyond to not take the bait."
The only recourse, the quartet argued, was immediately beginning impeachment proceedings.
"We can either continue to enable this president and report on the bile of garbage that comes out of his mouth. Or we can hold him accountable for his crimes," Omar (D-Minn.) said. "It is time for us to stop allowing this president to make a mockery out of our constitution. It is time for us to impeach this president."
Pelosi is working on another fruitless resolution.
The powerful response from the four freshmen comes as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of Democratic leadership are drafting a resolution condemning Trump's comments.
www.politico.com
I don't think impeachment is going to get past the house and I think Republicans will use it as a reason to oppose Democrats but I think if the House Democrats want to maintain any credibility for putting what's right ahead of their own political expediency they have to impeach.
|
That resolution somehow makes us look both unreasonable and neutered at the same time. Bravo.
|
Interesting article by the elections guys at the NYT, I'll post the whole thing, but click the link for graphs. Besides the fact that midterms are not predictive of presidential elections (something some here refuse to come to terms with), Trump's coalition, which in some states looks somewhat like the old Democrat's composition, means that a higher turnout in 2020 could work to his benefit.
Huge Turnout Is Expected in 2020. So Which Party Would Benefit?
Democrats typically gain from a broader electorate in presidential races, but that pattern is not assured in the Trump era.
The 2020 presidential election is poised to have the highest turnout in a century, with the potential to reshape the composition of the electorate in a decisive way.
But perhaps surprisingly, it is not obvious which party would benefit. There are opportunities and risks for both parties, based on an Upshot analysis of voter registration files, the validated turnout of 50,000 respondents to The New York Times/Siena College pre-election surveys in 2018, census data, and public polls of unregistered voters.
It is commonly assumed that Democrats benefit from higher turnout because young and nonwhite and low-income voters are overrepresented among nonvoters. And for decades, polls have shown that Democrats do better among all adults than among all registered voters, and better among all registered voters than among all actual voters.
But this longstanding pattern has become more complicated in the Trump years. The president is strong among less educated white voters, who are also overrepresented among nonvoters. And Democrats already banked many of the rewards of higher turnout in the midterm elections, when the party out of power typically enjoys a turnout advantage and did so yet again, according to 2018 Times/Siena data.
Nationwide, the longstanding Republican edge in the gap between registered and actual voters all but vanished in 2018, even though young and nonwhite voters continued to vote at lower rates than older and white voters.
At the same time, the president’s white working-class supporters from 2016 were relatively likely to stay home. Voters like these are likeliest to return to the electorate in 2020, and it could set back Democrats in crucial battleground states.
Democrats have an opportunity to gain by tapping into another group: the voters on the sidelines of American politics, who haven’t voted in recent elections or aren’t registered to vote at all.
This group, by definition, does not usually factor into electoral analysis, but a high enough turnout would draw many of them to vote. Analysts have speculated about a 70 percent turnout among eligible voters next year, based on the very large 2018 turnout — the highest in a midterm since 1914 — and on polls showing unusually strong interest in the 2020 election.
These adults on the periphery of American politics are probably more favorable to Democrats than registered voters are, but the story here is complicated as well.
They are not quite as favorable to Democrats as often assumed, in part because polls of adults include noncitizens, who are ineligible to vote. A large increase in voter registration would do much more to hurt the president in the national vote than in the Northern battleground states, where registration is generally high and where people who aren’t registered are disproportionately whites without a college degree.
[The registered voters who stayed home in 2018
The voters who stayed home in 2018 were not much more or less likely to approve of the president than those who
actually turned out, based on data from nearly 100 Times/Siena surveys, linked to records indicating who did or did not vote.
Over all, the president had a 47 percent approval rating among Times/Siena respondents who voted, excluding those who did not offer an opinion about the president. But he had a higher approval rating (48 percent) among all registered voters in the nearly 60 battleground districts and a handful of Senate contests surveyed ahead of the midterms.
The Republicans lost their typical midterm turnout advantage, even though they didn’t give up some of their traditional demographic advantages. Young and nonwhite turnout was markedly higher than it had been in 2014, but still lower than that of older and white voters. Registered Republicans were likelier to turn out than registered Democrats, according to data from L2, a nonpartisan political data firm.
These traditional Republican demographic advantages were canceled out, and in some cases reversed, by two new Democratic advantages. The low turnout among whites without a college degree bolstered Democrats in much of the country, allowing college-educated whites to make up a larger share of the electorate.
As a result, the voters who turned out in 2016 but stayed home in 2018 were more likely to approve of the president: He had around a 50 percent approval rating among those nonvoters in Times/Siena data.
The increase in turnout among the young in 2018 came overwhelmingly from anti-Trump voters, giving the Democrats a wide advantage among voters under age 45. The advantage was largest among those 18 to 24: The president’s approval rating was 28 percent for voters in that group, and 45 percent among those who stayed home.
It’s important to emphasize that the Times/Siena data is not representative of the country. The 2018 battleground districts were disproportionately white, well educated and Republican-leaning. Urban areas were almost entirely unrepresented, and black voters were underrepresented as well.
After accounting for the differences between the battlegrounds and the country, the Republicans held a narrow turnout advantage on a national scale. The fundamental turnout shifts were similar, but the lower turnout among nonwhite voters hurt the Democrats more nationwide than it did in the relatively white battleground districts.
Over all, the president’s approval rating was 45.3 percent among registered voters and 45.7 percent among likely voters, according to our estimates, based on national voter file data, the Times/Siena polling and a district-by-district estimate of the president’s approval rating based on national election surveys.
The opportunity for Democrats, however small, is fairly clear here: It’s reasonable to assume higher turnout would draw from a pool of voters who are relatively likely to disapprove of the president.
The opportunity for Republicans is somewhat more subtle, but clear as well. The voters who turned out in 2016, but stayed home in 2018, were relatively favorable to Mr. Trump, and they’re presumably more likely to join the electorate than those who turned out in neither election. In a high-turnout election, these Trump supporters could turn out at a higher rate than the more Democratic group of voters who didn’t vote in either election, potentially shifting the electorate toward the president.
Those who aren’t registered but still might vote
A high-turnout election would draw from another group of voters: those who aren’t yet registered.
These voters are hard to measure. They are underrepresented in public opinion surveys, and there’s reason to wonder whether those who do take surveys are representative of those who don’t. They are also less likely to hold opinions on current events, including on the president. (For ease of comparison, those without an opinion of the president have been excluded from measures of the president’s approval rating.)
With those caveats in mind, the president’s approval rating among nonregistered voters stood at just 37 percent in an Upshot compilation of 12 surveys, conducted between December 2017 and September 2018, by the Pew Research Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Mr. Trump’s approval rating was at 43 percent among registered voters in the same collection of surveys.
The data includes over 14,000 registered voters and nearly 3,200 voters who aren’t registered, allowing for a fairly detailed analysis and comparison of the groups.
The president’s weakness among nonregistered voters is consistent with a long record of polling showing Democrats fare better among all adults than among registered voters, including in today’s FiveThirtyEight averages.
The potential for Democrats is obvious. But in general, these figures — and other polls comparing the adult and registered voter populations — exaggerate the opportunity available to Democrats because they include noncitizens, who aren’t eligible to vote.
People who aren’t citizens represent 22 percent of the nonregistered adult population, according to the Current Population Survey, and they’re very different demographically from citizens who aren’t registered to vote.
Just 11 percent of noncitizens are white and non-Hispanic, compared with 59 percent of eligible but nonregistered voters. This means that the pool of potential but not-yet-registered voters is more white and non-Hispanic than it might appear.
And because the Pew/Kaiser data indicates that almost all President Trump’s weakness among nonvoters is attributed to demographics — that is, nonwhite people tend to like him less — the political difference between registered and nonregistered voters shrinks considerably without noncitizens.
The uncertain consequences of higher turnout
Of course, not all eligible voters, or even all registered ones, will vote in 2020. It’s impossible to guess just who will; either side could draw a relatively favorable group of voters to the polls.
Even if every single citizen were to turn out, the effect on the presidential race would not be clear. The president’s approval rating would probably sink by around a point, compared with the 2018 electorate. But the effect on individual states could vary widely.
The major Democratic advantage among nonvoters, their ethnic diversity, would do little for Democrats in the Midwest, where the population is more white and where nonvoters are likelier to be working-class whites who appear to view the president relatively favorably. Democrats would gain more in the diverse but often less competitive states.
In the Times/Siena-based estimates, Democrats appeared to be at a turnout advantage in the Rust Belt in the midterms but at a disadvantage in the Sun Belt. The difference between the groups of states might seem small, but it is not. A hypothetical full-turnout election among registered voters would cut this difference in half, and a full-turnout election among all eligible voters might eliminate it entirely.
This is consistent with state-by-state surveys of adults, like a 2019 compilation of Gallup polling data that showed the president’s approval ratings in Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all crowded together between 41 percent and 43 percent, a few points higher than the 40 percent he held nationwide in the poll.
The danger for Democrats is that higher turnout would do little to help them in the Electoral College if it did not improve their position in the crucial Midwestern battlegrounds. Higher turnout could even help the president there, where an outsize number of white working-class voters who back the president stayed home in 2018, potentially creating a larger split between the national vote and the Electoral College in 2020 than in 2016.
There’s nothing about the composition of nonvoters that means a higher-turnout election would invariably make it easier for Democrats to win the presidency, or for Republicans to keep it.
edit: sorry if the formatting is screwed up, on the plus side it's fewer words than than it appears.
|
Gotta love the desperate spin by conservatives in this thread. Keeps on being entertaining.
How is increased voter turnout good for Trump? It has basically always been good for Democrats and a large part of Trump's win in 2016 was due to low turnout.
|
On July 16 2019 09:35 Introvert wrote:Interesting article by the elections guys at the NYT, I'll post the whole thing, but click the link for graphs. Besides the fact that midterms are not predictive of presidential elections (something some here refuse to come to terms with), Trump's coalition, which in some states looks somewhat like the old Democrat's composition, means that a higher turnout in 2020 could work to his benefit. Show nested quote +Huge Turnout Is Expected in 2020. So Which Party Would Benefit?
Democrats typically gain from a broader electorate in presidential races, but that pattern is not assured in the Trump era.
The 2020 presidential election is poised to have the highest turnout in a century, with the potential to reshape the composition of the electorate in a decisive way.
But perhaps surprisingly, it is not obvious which party would benefit. There are opportunities and risks for both parties, based on an Upshot analysis of voter registration files, the validated turnout of 50,000 respondents to The New York Times/Siena College pre-election surveys in 2018, census data, and public polls of unregistered voters.
It is commonly assumed that Democrats benefit from higher turnout because young and nonwhite and low-income voters are overrepresented among nonvoters. And for decades, polls have shown that Democrats do better among all adults than among all registered voters, and better among all registered voters than among all actual voters.
But this longstanding pattern has become more complicated in the Trump years. The president is strong among less educated white voters, who are also overrepresented among nonvoters. And Democrats already banked many of the rewards of higher turnout in the midterm elections, when the party out of power typically enjoys a turnout advantage and did so yet again, according to 2018 Times/Siena data.
Nationwide, the longstanding Republican edge in the gap between registered and actual voters all but vanished in 2018, even though young and nonwhite voters continued to vote at lower rates than older and white voters.
At the same time, the president’s white working-class supporters from 2016 were relatively likely to stay home. Voters like these are likeliest to return to the electorate in 2020, and it could set back Democrats in crucial battleground states.
Democrats have an opportunity to gain by tapping into another group: the voters on the sidelines of American politics, who haven’t voted in recent elections or aren’t registered to vote at all.
This group, by definition, does not usually factor into electoral analysis, but a high enough turnout would draw many of them to vote. Analysts have speculated about a 70 percent turnout among eligible voters next year, based on the very large 2018 turnout — the highest in a midterm since 1914 — and on polls showing unusually strong interest in the 2020 election.
These adults on the periphery of American politics are probably more favorable to Democrats than registered voters are, but the story here is complicated as well.
They are not quite as favorable to Democrats as often assumed, in part because polls of adults include noncitizens, who are ineligible to vote. A large increase in voter registration would do much more to hurt the president in the national vote than in the Northern battleground states, where registration is generally high and where people who aren’t registered are disproportionately whites without a college degree.
[The registered voters who stayed home in 2018
The voters who stayed home in 2018 were not much more or less likely to approve of the president than those who
actually turned out, based on data from nearly 100 Times/Siena surveys, linked to records indicating who did or did not vote.
Over all, the president had a 47 percent approval rating among Times/Siena respondents who voted, excluding those who did not offer an opinion about the president. But he had a higher approval rating (48 percent) among all registered voters in the nearly 60 battleground districts and a handful of Senate contests surveyed ahead of the midterms.
The Republicans lost their typical midterm turnout advantage, even though they didn’t give up some of their traditional demographic advantages. Young and nonwhite turnout was markedly higher than it had been in 2014, but still lower than that of older and white voters. Registered Republicans were likelier to turn out than registered Democrats, according to data from L2, a nonpartisan political data firm.
These traditional Republican demographic advantages were canceled out, and in some cases reversed, by two new Democratic advantages. The low turnout among whites without a college degree bolstered Democrats in much of the country, allowing college-educated whites to make up a larger share of the electorate.
As a result, the voters who turned out in 2016 but stayed home in 2018 were more likely to approve of the president: He had around a 50 percent approval rating among those nonvoters in Times/Siena data.
The increase in turnout among the young in 2018 came overwhelmingly from anti-Trump voters, giving the Democrats a wide advantage among voters under age 45. The advantage was largest among those 18 to 24: The president’s approval rating was 28 percent for voters in that group, and 45 percent among those who stayed home.
It’s important to emphasize that the Times/Siena data is not representative of the country. The 2018 battleground districts were disproportionately white, well educated and Republican-leaning. Urban areas were almost entirely unrepresented, and black voters were underrepresented as well.
After accounting for the differences between the battlegrounds and the country, the Republicans held a narrow turnout advantage on a national scale. The fundamental turnout shifts were similar, but the lower turnout among nonwhite voters hurt the Democrats more nationwide than it did in the relatively white battleground districts.
Over all, the president’s approval rating was 45.3 percent among registered voters and 45.7 percent among likely voters, according to our estimates, based on national voter file data, the Times/Siena polling and a district-by-district estimate of the president’s approval rating based on national election surveys.
The opportunity for Democrats, however small, is fairly clear here: It’s reasonable to assume higher turnout would draw from a pool of voters who are relatively likely to disapprove of the president.
The opportunity for Republicans is somewhat more subtle, but clear as well. The voters who turned out in 2016, but stayed home in 2018, were relatively favorable to Mr. Trump, and they’re presumably more likely to join the electorate than those who turned out in neither election. In a high-turnout election, these Trump supporters could turn out at a higher rate than the more Democratic group of voters who didn’t vote in either election, potentially shifting the electorate toward the president.
Those who aren’t registered but still might vote
A high-turnout election would draw from another group of voters: those who aren’t yet registered.
These voters are hard to measure. They are underrepresented in public opinion surveys, and there’s reason to wonder whether those who do take surveys are representative of those who don’t. They are also less likely to hold opinions on current events, including on the president. (For ease of comparison, those without an opinion of the president have been excluded from measures of the president’s approval rating.)
With those caveats in mind, the president’s approval rating among nonregistered voters stood at just 37 percent in an Upshot compilation of 12 surveys, conducted between December 2017 and September 2018, by the Pew Research Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Mr. Trump’s approval rating was at 43 percent among registered voters in the same collection of surveys.
The data includes over 14,000 registered voters and nearly 3,200 voters who aren’t registered, allowing for a fairly detailed analysis and comparison of the groups.
The president’s weakness among nonregistered voters is consistent with a long record of polling showing Democrats fare better among all adults than among registered voters, including in today’s FiveThirtyEight averages.
The potential for Democrats is obvious. But in general, these figures — and other polls comparing the adult and registered voter populations — exaggerate the opportunity available to Democrats because they include noncitizens, who aren’t eligible to vote.
People who aren’t citizens represent 22 percent of the nonregistered adult population, according to the Current Population Survey, and they’re very different demographically from citizens who aren’t registered to vote.
Just 11 percent of noncitizens are white and non-Hispanic, compared with 59 percent of eligible but nonregistered voters. This means that the pool of potential but not-yet-registered voters is more white and non-Hispanic than it might appear.
And because the Pew/Kaiser data indicates that almost all President Trump’s weakness among nonvoters is attributed to demographics — that is, nonwhite people tend to like him less — the political difference between registered and nonregistered voters shrinks considerably without noncitizens.
The uncertain consequences of higher turnout
Of course, not all eligible voters, or even all registered ones, will vote in 2020. It’s impossible to guess just who will; either side could draw a relatively favorable group of voters to the polls.
Even if every single citizen were to turn out, the effect on the presidential race would not be clear. The president’s approval rating would probably sink by around a point, compared with the 2018 electorate. But the effect on individual states could vary widely.
The major Democratic advantage among nonvoters, their ethnic diversity, would do little for Democrats in the Midwest, where the population is more white and where nonvoters are likelier to be working-class whites who appear to view the president relatively favorably. Democrats would gain more in the diverse but often less competitive states.
In the Times/Siena-based estimates, Democrats appeared to be at a turnout advantage in the Rust Belt in the midterms but at a disadvantage in the Sun Belt. The difference between the groups of states might seem small, but it is not. A hypothetical full-turnout election among registered voters would cut this difference in half, and a full-turnout election among all eligible voters might eliminate it entirely.
This is consistent with state-by-state surveys of adults, like a 2019 compilation of Gallup polling data that showed the president’s approval ratings in Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all crowded together between 41 percent and 43 percent, a few points higher than the 40 percent he held nationwide in the poll.
The danger for Democrats is that higher turnout would do little to help them in the Electoral College if it did not improve their position in the crucial Midwestern battlegrounds. Higher turnout could even help the president there, where an outsize number of white working-class voters who back the president stayed home in 2018, potentially creating a larger split between the national vote and the Electoral College in 2020 than in 2016.
There’s nothing about the composition of nonvoters that means a higher-turnout election would invariably make it easier for Democrats to win the presidency, or for Republicans to keep it. edit: sorry if the formatting is screwed up, on the plus side it's fewer words than than it appears.
I would agree if Clinton was running again but she's not. This idea of Trump's "coalition" is based on the worst possible outcome for Democrats
|
Did you, like, read the piece? Did you check who wrote the piece? Or is your intent from now on any time a conservative posts something to just ignore the substance of it (which seems to be your M.O. recently).
On July 16 2019 09:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 09:35 Introvert wrote:Interesting article by the elections guys at the NYT, I'll post the whole thing, but click the link for graphs. Besides the fact that midterms are not predictive of presidential elections (something some here refuse to come to terms with), Trump's coalition, which in some states looks somewhat like the old Democrat's composition, means that a higher turnout in 2020 could work to his benefit. Huge Turnout Is Expected in 2020. So Which Party Would Benefit?
Democrats typically gain from a broader electorate in presidential races, but that pattern is not assured in the Trump era.
The 2020 presidential election is poised to have the highest turnout in a century, with the potential to reshape the composition of the electorate in a decisive way.
But perhaps surprisingly, it is not obvious which party would benefit. There are opportunities and risks for both parties, based on an Upshot analysis of voter registration files, the validated turnout of 50,000 respondents to The New York Times/Siena College pre-election surveys in 2018, census data, and public polls of unregistered voters.
It is commonly assumed that Democrats benefit from higher turnout because young and nonwhite and low-income voters are overrepresented among nonvoters. And for decades, polls have shown that Democrats do better among all adults than among all registered voters, and better among all registered voters than among all actual voters.
But this longstanding pattern has become more complicated in the Trump years. The president is strong among less educated white voters, who are also overrepresented among nonvoters. And Democrats already banked many of the rewards of higher turnout in the midterm elections, when the party out of power typically enjoys a turnout advantage and did so yet again, according to 2018 Times/Siena data.
Nationwide, the longstanding Republican edge in the gap between registered and actual voters all but vanished in 2018, even though young and nonwhite voters continued to vote at lower rates than older and white voters.
At the same time, the president’s white working-class supporters from 2016 were relatively likely to stay home. Voters like these are likeliest to return to the electorate in 2020, and it could set back Democrats in crucial battleground states.
Democrats have an opportunity to gain by tapping into another group: the voters on the sidelines of American politics, who haven’t voted in recent elections or aren’t registered to vote at all.
This group, by definition, does not usually factor into electoral analysis, but a high enough turnout would draw many of them to vote. Analysts have speculated about a 70 percent turnout among eligible voters next year, based on the very large 2018 turnout — the highest in a midterm since 1914 — and on polls showing unusually strong interest in the 2020 election.
These adults on the periphery of American politics are probably more favorable to Democrats than registered voters are, but the story here is complicated as well.
They are not quite as favorable to Democrats as often assumed, in part because polls of adults include noncitizens, who are ineligible to vote. A large increase in voter registration would do much more to hurt the president in the national vote than in the Northern battleground states, where registration is generally high and where people who aren’t registered are disproportionately whites without a college degree.
[The registered voters who stayed home in 2018
The voters who stayed home in 2018 were not much more or less likely to approve of the president than those who
actually turned out, based on data from nearly 100 Times/Siena surveys, linked to records indicating who did or did not vote.
Over all, the president had a 47 percent approval rating among Times/Siena respondents who voted, excluding those who did not offer an opinion about the president. But he had a higher approval rating (48 percent) among all registered voters in the nearly 60 battleground districts and a handful of Senate contests surveyed ahead of the midterms.
The Republicans lost their typical midterm turnout advantage, even though they didn’t give up some of their traditional demographic advantages. Young and nonwhite turnout was markedly higher than it had been in 2014, but still lower than that of older and white voters. Registered Republicans were likelier to turn out than registered Democrats, according to data from L2, a nonpartisan political data firm.
These traditional Republican demographic advantages were canceled out, and in some cases reversed, by two new Democratic advantages. The low turnout among whites without a college degree bolstered Democrats in much of the country, allowing college-educated whites to make up a larger share of the electorate.
As a result, the voters who turned out in 2016 but stayed home in 2018 were more likely to approve of the president: He had around a 50 percent approval rating among those nonvoters in Times/Siena data.
The increase in turnout among the young in 2018 came overwhelmingly from anti-Trump voters, giving the Democrats a wide advantage among voters under age 45. The advantage was largest among those 18 to 24: The president’s approval rating was 28 percent for voters in that group, and 45 percent among those who stayed home.
It’s important to emphasize that the Times/Siena data is not representative of the country. The 2018 battleground districts were disproportionately white, well educated and Republican-leaning. Urban areas were almost entirely unrepresented, and black voters were underrepresented as well.
After accounting for the differences between the battlegrounds and the country, the Republicans held a narrow turnout advantage on a national scale. The fundamental turnout shifts were similar, but the lower turnout among nonwhite voters hurt the Democrats more nationwide than it did in the relatively white battleground districts.
Over all, the president’s approval rating was 45.3 percent among registered voters and 45.7 percent among likely voters, according to our estimates, based on national voter file data, the Times/Siena polling and a district-by-district estimate of the president’s approval rating based on national election surveys.
The opportunity for Democrats, however small, is fairly clear here: It’s reasonable to assume higher turnout would draw from a pool of voters who are relatively likely to disapprove of the president.
The opportunity for Republicans is somewhat more subtle, but clear as well. The voters who turned out in 2016, but stayed home in 2018, were relatively favorable to Mr. Trump, and they’re presumably more likely to join the electorate than those who turned out in neither election. In a high-turnout election, these Trump supporters could turn out at a higher rate than the more Democratic group of voters who didn’t vote in either election, potentially shifting the electorate toward the president.
Those who aren’t registered but still might vote
A high-turnout election would draw from another group of voters: those who aren’t yet registered.
These voters are hard to measure. They are underrepresented in public opinion surveys, and there’s reason to wonder whether those who do take surveys are representative of those who don’t. They are also less likely to hold opinions on current events, including on the president. (For ease of comparison, those without an opinion of the president have been excluded from measures of the president’s approval rating.)
With those caveats in mind, the president’s approval rating among nonregistered voters stood at just 37 percent in an Upshot compilation of 12 surveys, conducted between December 2017 and September 2018, by the Pew Research Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Mr. Trump’s approval rating was at 43 percent among registered voters in the same collection of surveys.
The data includes over 14,000 registered voters and nearly 3,200 voters who aren’t registered, allowing for a fairly detailed analysis and comparison of the groups.
The president’s weakness among nonregistered voters is consistent with a long record of polling showing Democrats fare better among all adults than among registered voters, including in today’s FiveThirtyEight averages.
The potential for Democrats is obvious. But in general, these figures — and other polls comparing the adult and registered voter populations — exaggerate the opportunity available to Democrats because they include noncitizens, who aren’t eligible to vote.
People who aren’t citizens represent 22 percent of the nonregistered adult population, according to the Current Population Survey, and they’re very different demographically from citizens who aren’t registered to vote.
Just 11 percent of noncitizens are white and non-Hispanic, compared with 59 percent of eligible but nonregistered voters. This means that the pool of potential but not-yet-registered voters is more white and non-Hispanic than it might appear.
And because the Pew/Kaiser data indicates that almost all President Trump’s weakness among nonvoters is attributed to demographics — that is, nonwhite people tend to like him less — the political difference between registered and nonregistered voters shrinks considerably without noncitizens.
The uncertain consequences of higher turnout
Of course, not all eligible voters, or even all registered ones, will vote in 2020. It’s impossible to guess just who will; either side could draw a relatively favorable group of voters to the polls.
Even if every single citizen were to turn out, the effect on the presidential race would not be clear. The president’s approval rating would probably sink by around a point, compared with the 2018 electorate. But the effect on individual states could vary widely.
The major Democratic advantage among nonvoters, their ethnic diversity, would do little for Democrats in the Midwest, where the population is more white and where nonvoters are likelier to be working-class whites who appear to view the president relatively favorably. Democrats would gain more in the diverse but often less competitive states.
In the Times/Siena-based estimates, Democrats appeared to be at a turnout advantage in the Rust Belt in the midterms but at a disadvantage in the Sun Belt. The difference between the groups of states might seem small, but it is not. A hypothetical full-turnout election among registered voters would cut this difference in half, and a full-turnout election among all eligible voters might eliminate it entirely.
This is consistent with state-by-state surveys of adults, like a 2019 compilation of Gallup polling data that showed the president’s approval ratings in Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all crowded together between 41 percent and 43 percent, a few points higher than the 40 percent he held nationwide in the poll.
The danger for Democrats is that higher turnout would do little to help them in the Electoral College if it did not improve their position in the crucial Midwestern battlegrounds. Higher turnout could even help the president there, where an outsize number of white working-class voters who back the president stayed home in 2018, potentially creating a larger split between the national vote and the Electoral College in 2020 than in 2016.
There’s nothing about the composition of nonvoters that means a higher-turnout election would invariably make it easier for Democrats to win the presidency, or for Republicans to keep it. edit: sorry if the formatting is screwed up, on the plus side it's fewer words than than it appears. I would agree if Clinton was running again but she's not. This idea of Trump's "coalition" is based on the worst possible outcome for Democrats
Honestly I don't know what this means. We know Trump's strongest demographics, this is more about looking at turnout than flipping voters.
|
On July 16 2019 09:53 Introvert wrote:Did you, like, read the piece? Did you check who wrote the piece? Or is your intent from now on any time a conservative posts something to just ignore the substance of it (which seems to be your M.O. recently). Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 09:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 16 2019 09:35 Introvert wrote:Interesting article by the elections guys at the NYT, I'll post the whole thing, but click the link for graphs. Besides the fact that midterms are not predictive of presidential elections (something some here refuse to come to terms with), Trump's coalition, which in some states looks somewhat like the old Democrat's composition, means that a higher turnout in 2020 could work to his benefit. Huge Turnout Is Expected in 2020. So Which Party Would Benefit?
Democrats typically gain from a broader electorate in presidential races, but that pattern is not assured in the Trump era.
The 2020 presidential election is poised to have the highest turnout in a century, with the potential to reshape the composition of the electorate in a decisive way.
But perhaps surprisingly, it is not obvious which party would benefit. There are opportunities and risks for both parties, based on an Upshot analysis of voter registration files, the validated turnout of 50,000 respondents to The New York Times/Siena College pre-election surveys in 2018, census data, and public polls of unregistered voters.
It is commonly assumed that Democrats benefit from higher turnout because young and nonwhite and low-income voters are overrepresented among nonvoters. And for decades, polls have shown that Democrats do better among all adults than among all registered voters, and better among all registered voters than among all actual voters.
But this longstanding pattern has become more complicated in the Trump years. The president is strong among less educated white voters, who are also overrepresented among nonvoters. And Democrats already banked many of the rewards of higher turnout in the midterm elections, when the party out of power typically enjoys a turnout advantage and did so yet again, according to 2018 Times/Siena data.
Nationwide, the longstanding Republican edge in the gap between registered and actual voters all but vanished in 2018, even though young and nonwhite voters continued to vote at lower rates than older and white voters.
At the same time, the president’s white working-class supporters from 2016 were relatively likely to stay home. Voters like these are likeliest to return to the electorate in 2020, and it could set back Democrats in crucial battleground states.
Democrats have an opportunity to gain by tapping into another group: the voters on the sidelines of American politics, who haven’t voted in recent elections or aren’t registered to vote at all.
This group, by definition, does not usually factor into electoral analysis, but a high enough turnout would draw many of them to vote. Analysts have speculated about a 70 percent turnout among eligible voters next year, based on the very large 2018 turnout — the highest in a midterm since 1914 — and on polls showing unusually strong interest in the 2020 election.
These adults on the periphery of American politics are probably more favorable to Democrats than registered voters are, but the story here is complicated as well.
They are not quite as favorable to Democrats as often assumed, in part because polls of adults include noncitizens, who are ineligible to vote. A large increase in voter registration would do much more to hurt the president in the national vote than in the Northern battleground states, where registration is generally high and where people who aren’t registered are disproportionately whites without a college degree.
[The registered voters who stayed home in 2018
The voters who stayed home in 2018 were not much more or less likely to approve of the president than those who
actually turned out, based on data from nearly 100 Times/Siena surveys, linked to records indicating who did or did not vote.
Over all, the president had a 47 percent approval rating among Times/Siena respondents who voted, excluding those who did not offer an opinion about the president. But he had a higher approval rating (48 percent) among all registered voters in the nearly 60 battleground districts and a handful of Senate contests surveyed ahead of the midterms.
The Republicans lost their typical midterm turnout advantage, even though they didn’t give up some of their traditional demographic advantages. Young and nonwhite turnout was markedly higher than it had been in 2014, but still lower than that of older and white voters. Registered Republicans were likelier to turn out than registered Democrats, according to data from L2, a nonpartisan political data firm.
These traditional Republican demographic advantages were canceled out, and in some cases reversed, by two new Democratic advantages. The low turnout among whites without a college degree bolstered Democrats in much of the country, allowing college-educated whites to make up a larger share of the electorate.
As a result, the voters who turned out in 2016 but stayed home in 2018 were more likely to approve of the president: He had around a 50 percent approval rating among those nonvoters in Times/Siena data.
The increase in turnout among the young in 2018 came overwhelmingly from anti-Trump voters, giving the Democrats a wide advantage among voters under age 45. The advantage was largest among those 18 to 24: The president’s approval rating was 28 percent for voters in that group, and 45 percent among those who stayed home.
It’s important to emphasize that the Times/Siena data is not representative of the country. The 2018 battleground districts were disproportionately white, well educated and Republican-leaning. Urban areas were almost entirely unrepresented, and black voters were underrepresented as well.
After accounting for the differences between the battlegrounds and the country, the Republicans held a narrow turnout advantage on a national scale. The fundamental turnout shifts were similar, but the lower turnout among nonwhite voters hurt the Democrats more nationwide than it did in the relatively white battleground districts.
Over all, the president’s approval rating was 45.3 percent among registered voters and 45.7 percent among likely voters, according to our estimates, based on national voter file data, the Times/Siena polling and a district-by-district estimate of the president’s approval rating based on national election surveys.
The opportunity for Democrats, however small, is fairly clear here: It’s reasonable to assume higher turnout would draw from a pool of voters who are relatively likely to disapprove of the president.
The opportunity for Republicans is somewhat more subtle, but clear as well. The voters who turned out in 2016, but stayed home in 2018, were relatively favorable to Mr. Trump, and they’re presumably more likely to join the electorate than those who turned out in neither election. In a high-turnout election, these Trump supporters could turn out at a higher rate than the more Democratic group of voters who didn’t vote in either election, potentially shifting the electorate toward the president.
Those who aren’t registered but still might vote
A high-turnout election would draw from another group of voters: those who aren’t yet registered.
These voters are hard to measure. They are underrepresented in public opinion surveys, and there’s reason to wonder whether those who do take surveys are representative of those who don’t. They are also less likely to hold opinions on current events, including on the president. (For ease of comparison, those without an opinion of the president have been excluded from measures of the president’s approval rating.)
With those caveats in mind, the president’s approval rating among nonregistered voters stood at just 37 percent in an Upshot compilation of 12 surveys, conducted between December 2017 and September 2018, by the Pew Research Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Mr. Trump’s approval rating was at 43 percent among registered voters in the same collection of surveys.
The data includes over 14,000 registered voters and nearly 3,200 voters who aren’t registered, allowing for a fairly detailed analysis and comparison of the groups.
The president’s weakness among nonregistered voters is consistent with a long record of polling showing Democrats fare better among all adults than among registered voters, including in today’s FiveThirtyEight averages.
The potential for Democrats is obvious. But in general, these figures — and other polls comparing the adult and registered voter populations — exaggerate the opportunity available to Democrats because they include noncitizens, who aren’t eligible to vote.
People who aren’t citizens represent 22 percent of the nonregistered adult population, according to the Current Population Survey, and they’re very different demographically from citizens who aren’t registered to vote.
Just 11 percent of noncitizens are white and non-Hispanic, compared with 59 percent of eligible but nonregistered voters. This means that the pool of potential but not-yet-registered voters is more white and non-Hispanic than it might appear.
And because the Pew/Kaiser data indicates that almost all President Trump’s weakness among nonvoters is attributed to demographics — that is, nonwhite people tend to like him less — the political difference between registered and nonregistered voters shrinks considerably without noncitizens.
The uncertain consequences of higher turnout
Of course, not all eligible voters, or even all registered ones, will vote in 2020. It’s impossible to guess just who will; either side could draw a relatively favorable group of voters to the polls.
Even if every single citizen were to turn out, the effect on the presidential race would not be clear. The president’s approval rating would probably sink by around a point, compared with the 2018 electorate. But the effect on individual states could vary widely.
The major Democratic advantage among nonvoters, their ethnic diversity, would do little for Democrats in the Midwest, where the population is more white and where nonvoters are likelier to be working-class whites who appear to view the president relatively favorably. Democrats would gain more in the diverse but often less competitive states.
In the Times/Siena-based estimates, Democrats appeared to be at a turnout advantage in the Rust Belt in the midterms but at a disadvantage in the Sun Belt. The difference between the groups of states might seem small, but it is not. A hypothetical full-turnout election among registered voters would cut this difference in half, and a full-turnout election among all eligible voters might eliminate it entirely.
This is consistent with state-by-state surveys of adults, like a 2019 compilation of Gallup polling data that showed the president’s approval ratings in Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all crowded together between 41 percent and 43 percent, a few points higher than the 40 percent he held nationwide in the poll.
The danger for Democrats is that higher turnout would do little to help them in the Electoral College if it did not improve their position in the crucial Midwestern battlegrounds. Higher turnout could even help the president there, where an outsize number of white working-class voters who back the president stayed home in 2018, potentially creating a larger split between the national vote and the Electoral College in 2020 than in 2016.
There’s nothing about the composition of nonvoters that means a higher-turnout election would invariably make it easier for Democrats to win the presidency, or for Republicans to keep it. edit: sorry if the formatting is screwed up, on the plus side it's fewer words than than it appears. I would agree if Clinton was running again but she's not. This idea of Trump's "coalition" is based on the worst possible outcome for Democrats Honestly I don't know what this means. We know Trump's strongest demographics, this is more about looking at turnout than flipping voters.
I was not expecting the New York Times to be regarded as conservative spin, but I guess everything is possible these days.
The most recent top-5 stupidest tweet looks like Trump is intent on surrendering the white house in 2020. It came after a solid three days of Democrats eating their own. He only gets re-elected if Dems out-stupid him, for a long enough time period. I think he has a lower ceiling of support than was true in 2016, primarily due to losing the support of suburban women and across-the-board tiredness at nonstop fighting. The old GOP of Boehner that never fought for anything is a distant memory at this point.
|
On July 16 2019 11:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 09:53 Introvert wrote:Did you, like, read the piece? Did you check who wrote the piece? Or is your intent from now on any time a conservative posts something to just ignore the substance of it (which seems to be your M.O. recently). On July 16 2019 09:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 16 2019 09:35 Introvert wrote:Interesting article by the elections guys at the NYT, I'll post the whole thing, but click the link for graphs. Besides the fact that midterms are not predictive of presidential elections (something some here refuse to come to terms with), Trump's coalition, which in some states looks somewhat like the old Democrat's composition, means that a higher turnout in 2020 could work to his benefit. Huge Turnout Is Expected in 2020. So Which Party Would Benefit?
Democrats typically gain from a broader electorate in presidential races, but that pattern is not assured in the Trump era.
The 2020 presidential election is poised to have the highest turnout in a century, with the potential to reshape the composition of the electorate in a decisive way.
But perhaps surprisingly, it is not obvious which party would benefit. There are opportunities and risks for both parties, based on an Upshot analysis of voter registration files, the validated turnout of 50,000 respondents to The New York Times/Siena College pre-election surveys in 2018, census data, and public polls of unregistered voters.
It is commonly assumed that Democrats benefit from higher turnout because young and nonwhite and low-income voters are overrepresented among nonvoters. And for decades, polls have shown that Democrats do better among all adults than among all registered voters, and better among all registered voters than among all actual voters.
But this longstanding pattern has become more complicated in the Trump years. The president is strong among less educated white voters, who are also overrepresented among nonvoters. And Democrats already banked many of the rewards of higher turnout in the midterm elections, when the party out of power typically enjoys a turnout advantage and did so yet again, according to 2018 Times/Siena data.
Nationwide, the longstanding Republican edge in the gap between registered and actual voters all but vanished in 2018, even though young and nonwhite voters continued to vote at lower rates than older and white voters.
At the same time, the president’s white working-class supporters from 2016 were relatively likely to stay home. Voters like these are likeliest to return to the electorate in 2020, and it could set back Democrats in crucial battleground states.
Democrats have an opportunity to gain by tapping into another group: the voters on the sidelines of American politics, who haven’t voted in recent elections or aren’t registered to vote at all.
This group, by definition, does not usually factor into electoral analysis, but a high enough turnout would draw many of them to vote. Analysts have speculated about a 70 percent turnout among eligible voters next year, based on the very large 2018 turnout — the highest in a midterm since 1914 — and on polls showing unusually strong interest in the 2020 election.
These adults on the periphery of American politics are probably more favorable to Democrats than registered voters are, but the story here is complicated as well.
They are not quite as favorable to Democrats as often assumed, in part because polls of adults include noncitizens, who are ineligible to vote. A large increase in voter registration would do much more to hurt the president in the national vote than in the Northern battleground states, where registration is generally high and where people who aren’t registered are disproportionately whites without a college degree.
[The registered voters who stayed home in 2018
The voters who stayed home in 2018 were not much more or less likely to approve of the president than those who
actually turned out, based on data from nearly 100 Times/Siena surveys, linked to records indicating who did or did not vote.
Over all, the president had a 47 percent approval rating among Times/Siena respondents who voted, excluding those who did not offer an opinion about the president. But he had a higher approval rating (48 percent) among all registered voters in the nearly 60 battleground districts and a handful of Senate contests surveyed ahead of the midterms.
The Republicans lost their typical midterm turnout advantage, even though they didn’t give up some of their traditional demographic advantages. Young and nonwhite turnout was markedly higher than it had been in 2014, but still lower than that of older and white voters. Registered Republicans were likelier to turn out than registered Democrats, according to data from L2, a nonpartisan political data firm.
These traditional Republican demographic advantages were canceled out, and in some cases reversed, by two new Democratic advantages. The low turnout among whites without a college degree bolstered Democrats in much of the country, allowing college-educated whites to make up a larger share of the electorate.
As a result, the voters who turned out in 2016 but stayed home in 2018 were more likely to approve of the president: He had around a 50 percent approval rating among those nonvoters in Times/Siena data.
The increase in turnout among the young in 2018 came overwhelmingly from anti-Trump voters, giving the Democrats a wide advantage among voters under age 45. The advantage was largest among those 18 to 24: The president’s approval rating was 28 percent for voters in that group, and 45 percent among those who stayed home.
It’s important to emphasize that the Times/Siena data is not representative of the country. The 2018 battleground districts were disproportionately white, well educated and Republican-leaning. Urban areas were almost entirely unrepresented, and black voters were underrepresented as well.
After accounting for the differences between the battlegrounds and the country, the Republicans held a narrow turnout advantage on a national scale. The fundamental turnout shifts were similar, but the lower turnout among nonwhite voters hurt the Democrats more nationwide than it did in the relatively white battleground districts.
Over all, the president’s approval rating was 45.3 percent among registered voters and 45.7 percent among likely voters, according to our estimates, based on national voter file data, the Times/Siena polling and a district-by-district estimate of the president’s approval rating based on national election surveys.
The opportunity for Democrats, however small, is fairly clear here: It’s reasonable to assume higher turnout would draw from a pool of voters who are relatively likely to disapprove of the president.
The opportunity for Republicans is somewhat more subtle, but clear as well. The voters who turned out in 2016, but stayed home in 2018, were relatively favorable to Mr. Trump, and they’re presumably more likely to join the electorate than those who turned out in neither election. In a high-turnout election, these Trump supporters could turn out at a higher rate than the more Democratic group of voters who didn’t vote in either election, potentially shifting the electorate toward the president.
Those who aren’t registered but still might vote
A high-turnout election would draw from another group of voters: those who aren’t yet registered.
These voters are hard to measure. They are underrepresented in public opinion surveys, and there’s reason to wonder whether those who do take surveys are representative of those who don’t. They are also less likely to hold opinions on current events, including on the president. (For ease of comparison, those without an opinion of the president have been excluded from measures of the president’s approval rating.)
With those caveats in mind, the president’s approval rating among nonregistered voters stood at just 37 percent in an Upshot compilation of 12 surveys, conducted between December 2017 and September 2018, by the Pew Research Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Mr. Trump’s approval rating was at 43 percent among registered voters in the same collection of surveys.
The data includes over 14,000 registered voters and nearly 3,200 voters who aren’t registered, allowing for a fairly detailed analysis and comparison of the groups.
The president’s weakness among nonregistered voters is consistent with a long record of polling showing Democrats fare better among all adults than among registered voters, including in today’s FiveThirtyEight averages.
The potential for Democrats is obvious. But in general, these figures — and other polls comparing the adult and registered voter populations — exaggerate the opportunity available to Democrats because they include noncitizens, who aren’t eligible to vote.
People who aren’t citizens represent 22 percent of the nonregistered adult population, according to the Current Population Survey, and they’re very different demographically from citizens who aren’t registered to vote.
Just 11 percent of noncitizens are white and non-Hispanic, compared with 59 percent of eligible but nonregistered voters. This means that the pool of potential but not-yet-registered voters is more white and non-Hispanic than it might appear.
And because the Pew/Kaiser data indicates that almost all President Trump’s weakness among nonvoters is attributed to demographics — that is, nonwhite people tend to like him less — the political difference between registered and nonregistered voters shrinks considerably without noncitizens.
The uncertain consequences of higher turnout
Of course, not all eligible voters, or even all registered ones, will vote in 2020. It’s impossible to guess just who will; either side could draw a relatively favorable group of voters to the polls.
Even if every single citizen were to turn out, the effect on the presidential race would not be clear. The president’s approval rating would probably sink by around a point, compared with the 2018 electorate. But the effect on individual states could vary widely.
The major Democratic advantage among nonvoters, their ethnic diversity, would do little for Democrats in the Midwest, where the population is more white and where nonvoters are likelier to be working-class whites who appear to view the president relatively favorably. Democrats would gain more in the diverse but often less competitive states.
In the Times/Siena-based estimates, Democrats appeared to be at a turnout advantage in the Rust Belt in the midterms but at a disadvantage in the Sun Belt. The difference between the groups of states might seem small, but it is not. A hypothetical full-turnout election among registered voters would cut this difference in half, and a full-turnout election among all eligible voters might eliminate it entirely.
This is consistent with state-by-state surveys of adults, like a 2019 compilation of Gallup polling data that showed the president’s approval ratings in Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all crowded together between 41 percent and 43 percent, a few points higher than the 40 percent he held nationwide in the poll.
The danger for Democrats is that higher turnout would do little to help them in the Electoral College if it did not improve their position in the crucial Midwestern battlegrounds. Higher turnout could even help the president there, where an outsize number of white working-class voters who back the president stayed home in 2018, potentially creating a larger split between the national vote and the Electoral College in 2020 than in 2016.
There’s nothing about the composition of nonvoters that means a higher-turnout election would invariably make it easier for Democrats to win the presidency, or for Republicans to keep it. edit: sorry if the formatting is screwed up, on the plus side it's fewer words than than it appears. I would agree if Clinton was running again but she's not. This idea of Trump's "coalition" is based on the worst possible outcome for Democrats Honestly I don't know what this means. We know Trump's strongest demographics, this is more about looking at turnout than flipping voters. I was not expecting the New York Times to be regarded as conservative spin, but I guess everything is possible these days. The most recent top-5 stupidest tweet looks like Trump is intent on surrendering the white house in 2020. It came after a solid three days of Democrats eating their own. He only gets re-elected if Dems out-stupid him, for a long enough time period. I think he has a lower ceiling of support than was true in 2016, primarily due to losing the support of suburban women and across-the-board tiredness at nonstop fighting. The old GOP of Boehner that never fought for anything is a distant memory at this point.
I think his tweets mean less this time around. What the Dems are currently doing is far more important. I am one of those people who wishes he'd shut up, but I do recognize that many voted for him to bludgeon their enemies. I haven't thought this all the way through, but I think the suburbs will be determined by how crazy the Democrats get, and the more rural areas will be determined by how much Trump can show that he has done for them, even if much of that is just "fighting."
The fight the Democrats are having is far more important. If they run to the left and Trump moderates his tone (which I don't think requires changing his message) it'd be a blowout. Example: most people think the Census should ask about citizenship. Trump really wanted it, but he caved. he fought at and lost, but it might be good enough for some. People don't want immigration of the levels the Democrats are pushing for without saying it. But don't go blasting a "Mexican judge" or whatever, like he did in 2016. Go ahead, talk about the border, talk about abortion, talk about Democrats wanting more government control over healthcare. Hammer them for it.
ugh, writing this out makes me sad because there was a candidate in 2016 who would exactly as I described. but he lost, lol.
But yes, it may be that the election is lost by whoever screws up last. So fewer tweets=fewer screw ups.
|
You guys are completely missing the gift that Trump has given Republicans. He has so polarized the debate with rhetoric that he is forcing Democrats to expose to the country their radical open borders policies that they have tried so hard to conceal from the public. We just had a presidential debate where damned near every candidate raised their hand when asked whether they would provide government health care benefits to illegal immigrants. That is a suicidal, leftist position. Furthermore, Trump’s rhetoric has the added benefit of liberating Republicans from the Democrats’ framing of these issues. The biggest mistake that Republicans make is letting Democrats frame sane policy has “racism” (or whatever other identity politics slur might apply). By matching the ferocity of Democrat rhetoric, Trump is compelling people to actually look at the substantive issues. Given that Trump has the more popular position on immigration, this is a battle that he is destined to win despite the pathetic handwringing of the RINO class.
|
United States41470 Posts
There are no secret radical open border policies that the Democrats are concealing. They exist only in your lunatic imagination.
|
"Trump is making people look at the substantive issues" is amazing. Trumps whole platform is making people NOT care about issues or policy, but about talk and tribalism.
|
On July 16 2019 12:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 11:29 Danglars wrote:On July 16 2019 09:53 Introvert wrote:Did you, like, read the piece? Did you check who wrote the piece? Or is your intent from now on any time a conservative posts something to just ignore the substance of it (which seems to be your M.O. recently). On July 16 2019 09:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 16 2019 09:35 Introvert wrote:Interesting article by the elections guys at the NYT, I'll post the whole thing, but click the link for graphs. Besides the fact that midterms are not predictive of presidential elections (something some here refuse to come to terms with), Trump's coalition, which in some states looks somewhat like the old Democrat's composition, means that a higher turnout in 2020 could work to his benefit. Huge Turnout Is Expected in 2020. So Which Party Would Benefit?
Democrats typically gain from a broader electorate in presidential races, but that pattern is not assured in the Trump era.
The 2020 presidential election is poised to have the highest turnout in a century, with the potential to reshape the composition of the electorate in a decisive way.
But perhaps surprisingly, it is not obvious which party would benefit. There are opportunities and risks for both parties, based on an Upshot analysis of voter registration files, the validated turnout of 50,000 respondents to The New York Times/Siena College pre-election surveys in 2018, census data, and public polls of unregistered voters.
It is commonly assumed that Democrats benefit from higher turnout because young and nonwhite and low-income voters are overrepresented among nonvoters. And for decades, polls have shown that Democrats do better among all adults than among all registered voters, and better among all registered voters than among all actual voters.
But this longstanding pattern has become more complicated in the Trump years. The president is strong among less educated white voters, who are also overrepresented among nonvoters. And Democrats already banked many of the rewards of higher turnout in the midterm elections, when the party out of power typically enjoys a turnout advantage and did so yet again, according to 2018 Times/Siena data.
Nationwide, the longstanding Republican edge in the gap between registered and actual voters all but vanished in 2018, even though young and nonwhite voters continued to vote at lower rates than older and white voters.
At the same time, the president’s white working-class supporters from 2016 were relatively likely to stay home. Voters like these are likeliest to return to the electorate in 2020, and it could set back Democrats in crucial battleground states.
Democrats have an opportunity to gain by tapping into another group: the voters on the sidelines of American politics, who haven’t voted in recent elections or aren’t registered to vote at all.
This group, by definition, does not usually factor into electoral analysis, but a high enough turnout would draw many of them to vote. Analysts have speculated about a 70 percent turnout among eligible voters next year, based on the very large 2018 turnout — the highest in a midterm since 1914 — and on polls showing unusually strong interest in the 2020 election.
These adults on the periphery of American politics are probably more favorable to Democrats than registered voters are, but the story here is complicated as well.
They are not quite as favorable to Democrats as often assumed, in part because polls of adults include noncitizens, who are ineligible to vote. A large increase in voter registration would do much more to hurt the president in the national vote than in the Northern battleground states, where registration is generally high and where people who aren’t registered are disproportionately whites without a college degree.
[The registered voters who stayed home in 2018
The voters who stayed home in 2018 were not much more or less likely to approve of the president than those who
actually turned out, based on data from nearly 100 Times/Siena surveys, linked to records indicating who did or did not vote.
Over all, the president had a 47 percent approval rating among Times/Siena respondents who voted, excluding those who did not offer an opinion about the president. But he had a higher approval rating (48 percent) among all registered voters in the nearly 60 battleground districts and a handful of Senate contests surveyed ahead of the midterms.
The Republicans lost their typical midterm turnout advantage, even though they didn’t give up some of their traditional demographic advantages. Young and nonwhite turnout was markedly higher than it had been in 2014, but still lower than that of older and white voters. Registered Republicans were likelier to turn out than registered Democrats, according to data from L2, a nonpartisan political data firm.
These traditional Republican demographic advantages were canceled out, and in some cases reversed, by two new Democratic advantages. The low turnout among whites without a college degree bolstered Democrats in much of the country, allowing college-educated whites to make up a larger share of the electorate.
As a result, the voters who turned out in 2016 but stayed home in 2018 were more likely to approve of the president: He had around a 50 percent approval rating among those nonvoters in Times/Siena data.
The increase in turnout among the young in 2018 came overwhelmingly from anti-Trump voters, giving the Democrats a wide advantage among voters under age 45. The advantage was largest among those 18 to 24: The president’s approval rating was 28 percent for voters in that group, and 45 percent among those who stayed home.
It’s important to emphasize that the Times/Siena data is not representative of the country. The 2018 battleground districts were disproportionately white, well educated and Republican-leaning. Urban areas were almost entirely unrepresented, and black voters were underrepresented as well.
After accounting for the differences between the battlegrounds and the country, the Republicans held a narrow turnout advantage on a national scale. The fundamental turnout shifts were similar, but the lower turnout among nonwhite voters hurt the Democrats more nationwide than it did in the relatively white battleground districts.
Over all, the president’s approval rating was 45.3 percent among registered voters and 45.7 percent among likely voters, according to our estimates, based on national voter file data, the Times/Siena polling and a district-by-district estimate of the president’s approval rating based on national election surveys.
The opportunity for Democrats, however small, is fairly clear here: It’s reasonable to assume higher turnout would draw from a pool of voters who are relatively likely to disapprove of the president.
The opportunity for Republicans is somewhat more subtle, but clear as well. The voters who turned out in 2016, but stayed home in 2018, were relatively favorable to Mr. Trump, and they’re presumably more likely to join the electorate than those who turned out in neither election. In a high-turnout election, these Trump supporters could turn out at a higher rate than the more Democratic group of voters who didn’t vote in either election, potentially shifting the electorate toward the president.
Those who aren’t registered but still might vote
A high-turnout election would draw from another group of voters: those who aren’t yet registered.
These voters are hard to measure. They are underrepresented in public opinion surveys, and there’s reason to wonder whether those who do take surveys are representative of those who don’t. They are also less likely to hold opinions on current events, including on the president. (For ease of comparison, those without an opinion of the president have been excluded from measures of the president’s approval rating.)
With those caveats in mind, the president’s approval rating among nonregistered voters stood at just 37 percent in an Upshot compilation of 12 surveys, conducted between December 2017 and September 2018, by the Pew Research Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Mr. Trump’s approval rating was at 43 percent among registered voters in the same collection of surveys.
The data includes over 14,000 registered voters and nearly 3,200 voters who aren’t registered, allowing for a fairly detailed analysis and comparison of the groups.
The president’s weakness among nonregistered voters is consistent with a long record of polling showing Democrats fare better among all adults than among registered voters, including in today’s FiveThirtyEight averages.
The potential for Democrats is obvious. But in general, these figures — and other polls comparing the adult and registered voter populations — exaggerate the opportunity available to Democrats because they include noncitizens, who aren’t eligible to vote.
People who aren’t citizens represent 22 percent of the nonregistered adult population, according to the Current Population Survey, and they’re very different demographically from citizens who aren’t registered to vote.
Just 11 percent of noncitizens are white and non-Hispanic, compared with 59 percent of eligible but nonregistered voters. This means that the pool of potential but not-yet-registered voters is more white and non-Hispanic than it might appear.
And because the Pew/Kaiser data indicates that almost all President Trump’s weakness among nonvoters is attributed to demographics — that is, nonwhite people tend to like him less — the political difference between registered and nonregistered voters shrinks considerably without noncitizens.
The uncertain consequences of higher turnout
Of course, not all eligible voters, or even all registered ones, will vote in 2020. It’s impossible to guess just who will; either side could draw a relatively favorable group of voters to the polls.
Even if every single citizen were to turn out, the effect on the presidential race would not be clear. The president’s approval rating would probably sink by around a point, compared with the 2018 electorate. But the effect on individual states could vary widely.
The major Democratic advantage among nonvoters, their ethnic diversity, would do little for Democrats in the Midwest, where the population is more white and where nonvoters are likelier to be working-class whites who appear to view the president relatively favorably. Democrats would gain more in the diverse but often less competitive states.
In the Times/Siena-based estimates, Democrats appeared to be at a turnout advantage in the Rust Belt in the midterms but at a disadvantage in the Sun Belt. The difference between the groups of states might seem small, but it is not. A hypothetical full-turnout election among registered voters would cut this difference in half, and a full-turnout election among all eligible voters might eliminate it entirely.
This is consistent with state-by-state surveys of adults, like a 2019 compilation of Gallup polling data that showed the president’s approval ratings in Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all crowded together between 41 percent and 43 percent, a few points higher than the 40 percent he held nationwide in the poll.
The danger for Democrats is that higher turnout would do little to help them in the Electoral College if it did not improve their position in the crucial Midwestern battlegrounds. Higher turnout could even help the president there, where an outsize number of white working-class voters who back the president stayed home in 2018, potentially creating a larger split between the national vote and the Electoral College in 2020 than in 2016.
There’s nothing about the composition of nonvoters that means a higher-turnout election would invariably make it easier for Democrats to win the presidency, or for Republicans to keep it. edit: sorry if the formatting is screwed up, on the plus side it's fewer words than than it appears. I would agree if Clinton was running again but she's not. This idea of Trump's "coalition" is based on the worst possible outcome for Democrats Honestly I don't know what this means. We know Trump's strongest demographics, this is more about looking at turnout than flipping voters. I was not expecting the New York Times to be regarded as conservative spin, but I guess everything is possible these days. The most recent top-5 stupidest tweet looks like Trump is intent on surrendering the white house in 2020. It came after a solid three days of Democrats eating their own. He only gets re-elected if Dems out-stupid him, for a long enough time period. I think he has a lower ceiling of support than was true in 2016, primarily due to losing the support of suburban women and across-the-board tiredness at nonstop fighting. The old GOP of Boehner that never fought for anything is a distant memory at this point. I think his tweets mean less this time around. What the Dems are currently doing is far more important. I am one of those people who wishes he'd shut up, but I do recognize that many voted for him to bludgeon their enemies. I haven't thought this all the way through, but I think the suburbs will be determined by how crazy the Democrats get, and the more rural areas will be determined by how much Trump can show that he has done for them, even if much of that is just "fighting." The fight the Democrats are having is far more important. If they run to the left and Trump moderates his tone (which I don't think requires changing his message) it'd be a blowout. Example: most people think the Census should ask about citizenship. Trump really wanted it, but he caved. he fought at and lost, but it might be good enough for some. People don't want immigration of the levels the Democrats are pushing for without saying it. But don't go blasting a "Mexican judge" or whatever, like he did in 2016. Go ahead, talk about the border, talk about abortion, talk about Democrats wanting more government control over healthcare. Hammer them for it. ugh, writing this out makes me sad because there was a candidate in 2016 who would exactly as I described. but he lost, lol. But yes, it may be that the election is lost by whoever screws up last. So fewer tweets=fewer screw ups.
That's a big ask, for Trump to moderate his tone. I can remember some important moments he hunkered down in the Kavanaugh debate, and a week of bad news for Democrats, and towards the end of the 2016 campaign. I chalk that up to more luck than planning.
It's hard to keep attention on the various dimensions of Dem craziness when Trump dished out reactionary xenophobic tropes. The substance of the Dem debates and despicable behavior by Omar & Tlaib turns into a wash, not a win. AOC's juvenile and woke antics are overshadowed as well.
I agree on the opportunity you spot, it's just that all of my instincts tell me that Trump has missed it and will continue to miss it. Message discipline on Dem's extreme views regarding open borders, socialized healthcare, and post-birth abortion are easy grabs.
On July 16 2019 12:58 xDaunt wrote:
You guys are completely missing the gift that Trump has given Republicans. He has so polarized the debate with rhetoric that he is forcing Democrats to expose to the country their radical open borders policies that they have tried so hard to conceal from the public. We just had a presidential debate where damned near every candidate raised their hand when asked whether they would provide government health care benefits to illegal immigrants. That is a suicidal, leftist position. Furthermore, Trump’s rhetoric has the added benefit of liberating Republicans from the Democrats’ framing of these issues. The biggest mistake that Republicans make is letting Democrats frame sane policy has “racism” (or whatever other identity politics slur might apply). By matching the ferocity of Democrat rhetoric, Trump is compelling people to actually look at the substantive issues. Given that Trump has the more popular position on immigration, this is a battle that he is destined to win despite the pathetic handwringing of the RINO class.
He's good on the "liberating Republicans from the Democrats’ framing of these issues." It's literally his best or second-best contribution. It's been long-missing from the right, who wanted to be Democrats-lite on immigration, health care, and most social issues.
He's recently hurt himself on exposing the "suicidal, leftist position." His recent comments telling progressive congresswomen to "go back" was a blunder along the lines of "basket of deplorables." It smears a larger group with well-known xenophobic language, where the only legitimate critique is specific quotes from two Congresswomen. This behavior distracts from airing leftist positions that are far out of the mainstream.
He's battling fatigue from the reluctant center-right and independents. He's on sure footing when he mocks policies and behavior, as his followups have been. + Show Spoiler [examples] + If he omits the step-on-rake Leeroy-Jenkins reactionary 3 tweets, and keeps the next dozen, he does well. Americans don't like electing Presidents that say a good economy sucks, our nation has white supremacist fundamentals, and we don't get a say on who enters the country to permanently reside here. His latest behavior distracts from a winning message. I really wish Trump earns a re-election, just based on what I'm seeing as the possible alternatives. I think he's got to do much more to push that possibility above 50% again. He can't solely rely on the weakness of his opponents this time around. A couple of them are good enough debaters, and will pivot to the center as people forget their extreme positions from a primary debate so far in the past. I don't think these are easy hurdles. I think Americans need to see much worse from Democratic woke governance to recall why their ideas and cultural hegemony suck ass.
|
On July 16 2019 01:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 16 2019 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 16 2019 00:40 Acrofales wrote:On July 16 2019 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
SF Homeless issue stuff: Based on my time there, there is no way to half ass that problem. If you haven't been in some of the worst areas of SF's homeless stuff, you can't understand. I didn't either. There is an enormous number of people who are mentally not quite right. These shelters give people food and water, but the people remain fundamentally broken and wreak havoc on the surrounding area. These people do not have their qualities of life improved by these shelters. All it does is serve as a meeting ground for people who literally throw their own bloody shit at people walking by.
Consider this: When I was in SF, I was walking by a bus that shuttles people to Facebook's campus. In this area, where FB people work, there were multiple homeless people who were straight up bad. A couple of them would sexually harass anyone woman who got near him. One of the dude's *ENTIRE LEGS WERE BOTH BLOODY* because he was scratching all the skin off of it. He was just sitting there DESTROYING the skin on his legs and it looked like he'd been doing it for days. Imagine watching a dude aggressively scratching flesh that is already bloody. Then there was actual human shit on the sidewalks. You needed to look down as you walk because you will otherwise very likely walk on poop. actual human poop.
I forget the name, but there was this 1 street where it was like all the super messed up homeless people took over in some weird dystopian madmax scenario. It was entirely not safe to walk through that area.
In SF, it is like these 2 entirely distinct populations living side by side. And there are so, so, so many of these people I am describing. It is NOTTTTTTTT some people down on their luck who happened to not quite pay rent, but also had no friends nearby, so here they are sleeping on a bench. No. These people need to be committed to a mental facility. I can't emphasize enough how completely past the point of return a LARGE number of these people were.
You know how in most cities, you see homeless people just kinda mumble to themselves as they look through trash cans, sometimes asking for money? Not in SF. In SF, it is a totally different world. And again: there are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many.
In order for SF to solve their homeless issue, it will require full on billion dollar facilities to house these people, commit them to years of therapy/medication, on-site job training, on-site job counseling, a fleet of psychologists and psychiatrists...there's nothing you can do that is less than that while still doing anything at all. It is so hopeless.
If someone proposed a $100/year tax on me to spend $10M building homeless shelters, I would vote no. If they proposed a $1000/year tax on me to spend $1B on some super-shelter that expects each resident to spend at least 2 years recovering/coping with their mental illnesses, I would vote yes. The current approaches to homelessness do not come close to being sufficient for SF. It is a totally different world. If you have homeless people where you live, the situation looks nothing like SF. Portland is getting pretty bad lately too, but SF was like an actual state of emergency. Sounds to me like San Franciscan exceptionalism. If your city is one of the richest in the world, but has homelessness problems worse than Mumbai, that isn't because you have a larger-than-normal number of deranged people... When we let people camp wherever they want, but don't help people work towards overcoming whatever makes them scratch off every piece of skin on their legs, we don't fix anything. If you give someone a meal, then they throw their shit at some people (yes, they do), then bloody themselves up in a big fight, then get their blood all over the street or within a business, all you did is feed someone. You didn't make the situation better. My entire point is that feeding these people isn't sufficient. They need to be cured of their mental illnesses. Making a homeless shelter is a useless pat on the back and doesn't help anyone. The issue I have with this is that people are becoming homeless all the time. Homeless shelters don't only help the homeless who have been homeless for 25 years and have awful mental and physical health problems as a result - they help people who have just become homeless and have no idea what to do about the situation. They can help those people find the resources they need to get out of their situation before they end up on drugs or with massive PTSD issues. Right, there basically 2 different groups: 1. Homeless without mental illness or drug addiction 2. Homeless people WITH mental illness or drug addiction They need entirely different solutions. If someone has advanced schizophrenia, a bed, a meal, a temporary address and some job leads won't help. We need to have a solution for the people who are downright broken as humans. In Portland and SF, there are a ton of support networks for people who are down on their luck. We don't have ANY method of dealing with the people who are fundamentally non-functional as humans. We just give them some bread, socks and say "nice, I defeated homelessness".
It's a visibility problem for many. Sheltered vs unsheltered homeless, places like Portland, LA and SF have more than half their homeless unsheltered. Where as say new york/DC a twentieth are unsheltered, and places like dallas/houston it's a fourth.
All major cities have homeless issues it's just how bigger populations work, just places like LA, SF, Seattle, Portland have terrible shelter support which has lead to large amounts of unsheltered highly visible homeless. NY is probably unique as they have a right to shelter.
|
On July 16 2019 12:58 xDaunt wrote:
You guys are completely missing the gift that Trump has given Republicans. He has so polarized the debate with rhetoric that he is forcing Democrats to expose to the country their radical open borders policies that they have tried so hard to conceal from the public. We just had a presidential debate where damned near every candidate raised their hand when asked whether they would provide government health care benefits to illegal immigrants. That is a suicidal, leftist position. Furthermore, Trump’s rhetoric has the added benefit of liberating Republicans from the Democrats’ framing of these issues. The biggest mistake that Republicans make is letting Democrats frame sane policy has “racism” (or whatever other identity politics slur might apply). By matching the ferocity of Democrat rhetoric, Trump is compelling people to actually look at the substantive issues. Given that Trump has the more popular position on immigration, this is a battle that he is destined to win despite the pathetic handwringing of the RINO class.
On the other hand, it looks like Trump is also exposing the white supremacist, racist foundation of republican policy by using such overtly racist language to try and energize his base and win over white moderates. The language (telling Americans to go back to their countries because they have different colour skin/family background) goes hand in hand with his policies - some of the most popular (among republicans) policies the republicans have had in decades - which is pretty obvious to any voter who cares to think about it for a second.
|
On July 16 2019 17:32 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 12:58 xDaunt wrote:
You guys are completely missing the gift that Trump has given Republicans. He has so polarized the debate with rhetoric that he is forcing Democrats to expose to the country their radical open borders policies that they have tried so hard to conceal from the public. We just had a presidential debate where damned near every candidate raised their hand when asked whether they would provide government health care benefits to illegal immigrants. That is a suicidal, leftist position. Furthermore, Trump’s rhetoric has the added benefit of liberating Republicans from the Democrats’ framing of these issues. The biggest mistake that Republicans make is letting Democrats frame sane policy has “racism” (or whatever other identity politics slur might apply). By matching the ferocity of Democrat rhetoric, Trump is compelling people to actually look at the substantive issues. Given that Trump has the more popular position on immigration, this is a battle that he is destined to win despite the pathetic handwringing of the RINO class. On the other hand, it looks like Trump is also exposing the white supremacist, racist foundation of republican policy by using such overtly racist language to try and energize his base and win over white moderates. The language (telling Americans to go back to their countries because they have different colour skin/family background) goes hand in hand with his policies - some of the most popular (among republicans) policies the republicans have had in decades - which is pretty obvious to any voter who cares to think about it for a second.
The issue is that the Americans who agree, agree proudly, whereas a lot of Americans who do indeed see what's there to see don't want to admit it.
|
Piggybacking on Cosmic's point from a while back, a lot of american conservatism was reactionary politics pretending to be conservative (this arguably goes all the way back to Burke). Trump isn't fond of all that subtlety, and most people are aware of the mechanism anyway, so the transition to full reactionary is seamless.
|
|
|
only trump can have a whole party try to stop him from getting the nomination, rally the entire party around him afterwards, and in the end of his term turn the same party on him once again. after having half the party sell their soul to defend him no matter what depraved stupidity falls out his mouth or is enacted in his name.
i look forward to more blatantly racist tweets to create in fighting within the GOP after the strong bond they created in defending the aforementioned depravity. i appreciate though that we’ve once again found ‘the line,’ tho i find it odd that it’s here and not a few months back on some of the more insane shit.
i also appreciate Neb’s mentioning Trump’s lack of subtlety. dog whistle racism is all the rage. is trump just trying to cash in but not getting it? that would take the wind out of my sails.
|
Here's a good follow up to the poll posted last page, basically reiterating my initial reactions of the poll:
1. "It shouldn't have been reported on. It violated all the standards for publication...
"...The AAPOR, AP, CNN guidelines etc require -- rightly so -- release of all findings, release of who did the poll and who paid for it, release of question wording."
2: "The questions were unbelievably biased and the cherrypicking of results even more so....
...We know from other polling: Half of Americans don't know what socialism is. What would results have been if you asked a question which is standard wording -- do you have a favorable rating, an unfavorable rating of socialism or don't you know."
It's just so transparent that it's a leaked poll to throw shade at "the squad".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
