Don't trust the polls dems

While Nat Silver does warn us that internal polls are usually bunk this one strikes me as worthy of posting.

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/0...-they-believe-the-blue-wave-is-fake-news.html

Regardless of the validity of the internal poll this is way too much of a coincidence given the recent "anonymous" NYT op-ed.

In BOTH instances we see attempts to convince GOP voters that there is an urgent need to continue to support the party in spite of the BLOTUS.

Nate Silver's warning about internal polling being released says that there is usually some agenda behind the release of this data. In the instance of this internal poll we see the same agenda as was behind the NYT op-ed.

When internal polls reflect a greater margin of winning than the regular polls there is no reason for releasing them. When a candidate is losing in the regular polls then an internal polling showing that it is "still close" is used to motivate the losers supporters to vote. But, as Mr Silver astutely points out, internal polls are USUALLY off by 5 points in favor of the candidate using them.

Given that reasoning the internal GOP polls are probably reflecting a 3 point loss which means that motivating the base now becomes vital if they are going to hold the House. The Senate is still out of reach for the Dems but the House is within their grasp.

As an Independent I want to point out that the Dems have an abysmal history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory so none of the above is indicative of my own position as to what the final outcome will be in November. I do have a preference but I don't have an expectation that it will come to pass given how often it has not happened in the past.

 

I want to know what information the National GOP is reading that has their asses puckered with what Beto is doing to Cruz in Texas.

...."all tiny hands on deck"

 

Question, were the polls wrong on the 2016 election or were everyone expecting Hillary to win regardless of what the polls showed? The polls showed Hillary winning the popular vote by 3.3 points with a margin of error on average of plus or minus 3 points.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

This means that according to the finally polling Hillary led in the popular vote somewhere between 0.3 points to 6.3 points. Anything result in-between those numbers, the polls are considered accurate. Most people don't even know the Margin of Error exists let alone what it means. Hillary won the popular vote by 2.1 points. No, the polls weren't wrong, the media's expectations and most political pundits were wrong. Like most folks who take the headline and the exact number presented, they also didn't take into account the margin of error each and every poll has in them.

As for this November, more than just polling numbers, I look at the trends, a number of different indicators, which all point to a big win for the Democrats in the House. One of the biggest is that 42 current Republican House incumbents decided not to seek reelection or run for office again. That is a record number for the Republicans. Winning an open seat or switching party control of that seat is much easier than having to beat an incumbent with all the incumbency advantages. Another indicator is the money game in which the Democrats have out raised the Republicans. Of current candidates Democrats raised 446 million to 373 million for the Republicans. Perhaps more important is cash on hand, not spent, Democrats 272 million to 230 million for the Republican congressional candidates. When corporations, lobbyists, Wall Street Firms start giving more money to the other party, one should know you're in trouble.

At risks seats in the house is one huge indicator, the Republicans have 58 vs. 7 for the Democrats. At risk doesn't mean you're going to lose the seat, but it is possible. These seats are close to 50-50 either way.

 

Beto is the anti-Cruz!

Beto is being a nice, normal, likable human being to Cruz being a smarmy, unlikable, untrustworthy weasel of a politician.

If that is causing the National GOP to "pucker their asses" then sobeit.

 

Classic class envy. If you got more money, why does it bother you that other do? Worry about yourself. You are too busy worrying about what others get. Perhaps you should center on what you have.

 

Don't trust the polls dems

Polls have been mostly accurate and were even for the last Presidential election. Polls were for votes cast by the population NOT the EC and HillBill indeed had more of the peoples vote. Mid Terms do not use an electoral college so polls should be quite accurate.

 

I would say it may be a wise choice to get ready to trot out their long list of excuses for their election losses.
Things like,
Ballot box stuffing, voter fraud, election tampering by yet to be named countries, electronic voting machines, paper ballots destroyed, early votes not counted, challenged ballots not counted, voter disenfranchisement, and/or my personal favorite, "we shoulda won, they stole the election".
Perhaps these excuses could be numbered and the days following an election loss they could just publich a number instead of the longer explanation thus saving bytes that tend to pollute Al Gores internet.

 

What happened is that something like 95% of MY tax cut was taken away from me and given to people making at least 100x what I will ever even think of and/or corporations, while I was told I can either take a vacation or buy a new car for a thousand dollars. How is my resentment of that "class envy"? My HS class is given a gift of a thousand dollars for all the students. I and everyone else gets twenty five cents while Richey Rich gets $900.00. I should be grateful to have gotten anything?

 

All this "blue wave " bs is yet more Republican bushwa telling us Dems we have this one in the bag and can stay home. We HAVE to VOTE this time, as if we don't it will probably be the last time we will ever get one that matters. If you are liberal then For. God's. Sake. VOTE!!, and none of this stinking feces about not liking anybody and "making a statement" either, You can make a statement after this election, now we have to WIN. Again, it is literally now or never this time, and that is NOT hyperbole

 

I do not believe the Democratic Party leadership or the Democratic Party is capable of being a solid party in Washington. We've already heard their plans to revamp the Trump investigation should they win power. That means this Congress, this god ridden institution will actually get worse, not better with Democratic Leadership.

And if the Democrats were to succeed in making Congress worse, the nation's best interests is keeping the WH in Republican hands, even if non-Trump hands in 2020. I will not reward poor leadership. I didn't reward it when they couldn't work with the minority party at the time and I'm not going to reward it by letting them tantrum their way back to power.

If the country, in the view of the public political disarray were to give such a politically chaotic party power, then they deserve what they got: An ineffectual government with more accusations.

 

Err, huh?

Bork was nominated, had his hearing and was not confirmed. Garland was nominated, but received no hearing.

You consider ignoring the Constitution “winning”?

 

The Democrats have the advantage going into the midterms. History has not been kind to a President and Congress of the same party. Both D and R administrations have taken hits throughout the years. The question will be how many seats are lost or will this be a rare exception to the rule.

Imho

 

Show me where the constitution says anything about it. You guys often incorrectly THINK what the constitution says, instead of reading it and KNOWING what it says. Nowhere does it say you must have either. Do all of you work for CNN?

You were simply outplayed with Garland. There are no time limits in the constitution for such matters. Read the damn constitution, and maybe you will educate yourself that what your are saying is incorrect.

 

But they also said there was no path for Trump in the Electoral College, no way for him to get 270 votes.

 

Actually, there were two polls which said he would win in Electoral College votes:


the USC/LA Times tracking poll and the Investor's Business Daily/TIPP tracking poll


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/09/how-two-polls-predicted-trumps-surprise-victory.html


In truth, I thought there was another one as the Democrats simply refused to do anything about gerrymandered districts. I recall posting about the problem in Florida and Ohio though I did not think it would be a problem in Michigan. Pennsylvania's vote for Trump came as a surprise to me.

Had the DNC troubled itself to fix the mess and won just those 4 states, they and the USA would have won the election and things would not be in such a mess as they are today.

 

Thank you for reducing the Senate's role in the continuation of the third branch of government an optional game to play.

Your claim is inherently absurd, dangerous to our republic, and treats the Senate's obligations under the Constitution as a punchline.

The Constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution does not qualify the obligation of advice and consent as optional, nor does it state that this obligation does not need to be fulfilled within one year of a general election. To permit the Senate to forgo its obligations might one day lead to the ridiculous result that there is no Supreme Court, because the Senate has refused to perform its role of advice and consent.

 

Those were before the Russian hacking and the famous Comey memo. But if false memories give the Republicans comfort that is a good thing and who knows Trump may invade Venezuela and pull it out for the Republicans.

 

That is just the shuck they feed the rubes to convince them that their mythical democracy is secure. Do remember when they claimed there were no attacks on the polling places before the attacks came out and the story changed to well yes there were Russian attacks but they weren't successful.

 

Ok then. Russia tried to hack the GOP but I guess Republicans are better at cyber security.

 

Maybe although we do have Putins assurance that the Russian government which was responsible for the hacks was comitted to a Trump win so the supposed hacks on the Republicans was probably not anything more than cover for the real goal which was a Trump presidency.

And given the real Russian goal which was dividing America and weakening our Democracy we can be certain that by aiding the election of Trump they have suceeded probably beyond their widest expectations.

 

Even when it is explained, you still want to live in your own little world. There is no time limit, maybe if I shout it you might listen, THERE ARE NO TIME LIMITS IN THE CONSTITUTION. Now repeat this to yourself. YOU want to change the meaning of the constitution, you are the danger to our republic. Rather than ignorant blather, show me where I am wrong. SHOW ME THE GARLAND!!!!

 

Kook opinion.

The constitution requires the Senate to "advise and consent". What about that don't you understand?

What about the fact that, if the Senate refuses to carry out that obligation, the third branch of the government could cease to exist?

 

Listen to this dude Nemesis, he knows what he's talking about.

 

I'd say the main issue is that polls can't predict who will turn up to vote or how they will actually choose to vote when the moment comes. They're perfectly trustworthy as an indication of public sentiment and how an election is likely to go accordingly, but they can't really predict who will win an election in a race that is pretty close.

I trust the polls that Trump is as appealing to most today as a case of hemorrhoids.

 

Follow up:

GOP-appointed Michigan justice says she was intimidated, shunned for anti-gerrymandering decision





One of the Republican-appointed Michigan Supreme Court justices who voted in favor allowing the anti-gerrymandering Proposal 2 on the Nov. 6 ballot says she was bullied by "outside interests" before her decision and shunned by the GOP afterward. The court was split on a 4-3 vote.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Clement made the revelations to The Detroit News in an article published Monday, saying there has "absolutely been an effort at bullying and intimidation" to influence her decision. (Somewhat ominously, she declined to identify exactly what these "outside interests" were.) Justice David Viviano, another Republican-appointed justice who also sided with Clement on the anti-gerrymandering decision, said it was a breach of legal protocol to use such tactics on a member of the court while a case was being decided.

"I would hope that people would look at me as an example and have faith in the judicial system that we stand up to it," Clement told the paper. "I swore an oath to the people, not to special interests to do their will. ... People expect that we won’t be swayed or intimidated by outside groups."

This is significant because gerrymandering in Michigan — or the undemocratic rigging of legislative districts by redrawing maps in such a way so as to pick winners and losers — is owned by Republicans, who redrew the maps in 2010. Emails obtained by Bridge Magazine indicate Republicans actively re-drew the maps to favor their party and disadvantage "Dem garbage."



https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hit...unned-by-gop-for-anti-gerrymandering-decision





This illustrates the real problem as I have pointed out several times on this forum - the failure of Democrats to correct the gerrymandering cheating that the Republicans engage in every year. Republicans will continue to steal election after election until the Democrats stand up to this problem.

As far as both parties are concerned, democracy be dàmned.