NationStates

Tarsonis wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
You really need to get some new material.

Really don't because the point stands. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. To the point that Donald Trump's election was virtually impossible. And yet here we are. It's very early in the 2020 campaign. Next fall when we actually have a democratic challenger, we'll be able to get an accurate measurement of Trumps chances.

And right now everyone is going on about how Trump is guaranteed a landslide too.

Valrifell wrote:

Vassenor wrote:Also looks like Trump considers having involvement in the Mueller probe to be treason.

This is why the Founding Fathers made treason the only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution.

It's heavy handed, but it's what I've been saying. The Republican move here is to now hang the Democrats with the mueller report, as people who are out not to govern but to remove Trump from office by any means necessary. Essentially, the Democrats are attempting to engage in a legal Coup. May or may not be true, but that's not what politics is about.

Tarsonis wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Everyone also thought Dewey would win, yet Truman still kicked ass.

Unlikely elections happen in spite of projections and pundits, I hate seeing people use a statistical anomaly (which was hinted at in polls if not predictive models) as a slamdunk. Math isn't supposed to be this political

The problem isn't the math, it's how the math was aggregated. All the Polls told us Hillary would win. All the analysis told us Clinton would win in a land slide. Shit I think the only person who knew otherwise was Robert Mook, who straight up told Clinton that she would lose if she ignore the rust belt, but was told to shove it by Clinton.

What also goes with this is that Clinton did win more votes. Those votes were just not distributed in a manner that favoured here. This puts the polls in some context.

Vassenor wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Really don't because the point stands. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. To the point that Donald Trump's election was virtually impossible. And yet here we are. It's very early in the 2020 campaign. Next fall when we actually have a democratic challenger, we'll be able to get an accurate measurement of Trumps chances.

And right now everyone is going on about how Trump is guaranteed a landslide too.

The mainsream media isn't doing it so it's perfectly fine.

Valrifell wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
1860: Abraham Lincoln

Nah, he won both.

Sure, not the majority, but he won both in the way we think of it.

Abraham Lincoln did not win the popular vote in 1860 (tbf no one did), and the total votes for the Democrats was greater than total votes for him. He only won because the Democrat vote split. Douglas would've whooped him if Breckinridge didn't peel off the South.

Vassenor wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Really don't because the point stands. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. To the point that Donald Trump's election was virtually impossible. And yet here we are. It's very early in the 2020 campaign. Next fall when we actually have a democratic challenger, we'll be able to get an accurate measurement of Trumps chances.

And right now everyone is going on about how Trump is guaranteed a landslide too.

By everyone do you mean a few people on nationstates? Because that's certainly not the case IRL.

What are your thoughts on this obstruction charge? As far as I can tell no efforts were made to sabotage the investigation; the worst Trump did was call it a witch hunt or suggest it was some conspiracy against him.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Nah, he won both.

Sure, not the majority, but he won both in the way we think of it.

Abraham Lincoln did not win the popular vote in 1860 (tbf no one did), and the total votes for the Democrats was greater than total votes for him. He only won because the Democrat vote split. Douglas would've whooped him if Breckinridge didn't peel off the South.

It's a horse race, he won because he got the most votes of any individual candidate and the most EVs.

I think you'd struggle to find a historian that agrees with your take.

Tarsonis wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
You really need to get some new material.

Really don't because the point stands. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. To the point that Donald Trump's election was virtually impossible. And yet here we are. It's very early in the 2020 campaign. Next fall when we actually have a democratic challenger, we'll be able to get an accurate measurement of Trumps chances.

You are on poiny here, even if your exact numbers were off (Most places were in thr 80-90% range; I don't recall any predictiond in the 99%).

That said, we are still just far too early to accurately assess whether Trump will or won't win his 2020 reelection campaign. Without knowing who his challenger will be, or what may come in a year or so it is impossible to determine one way or the other.

I will say that Trump won by barely a sliver in 2016. All indications do point to his support base effectively stagnating, and won't really gain much more support without drastic shifts in his approach. This should be worrisome, as a particularly energized Democratic voting bloc could meet his numbers rather readily. Elections aren't so much won or lost by convincing people to vote for you over the other guy, but rather convincing you people to get out and vote. Very few "true" seing votes exist, and when they do they largely vote 3rd party rather than for the other guy (A phenomena that was apparent in 2016, where Republican votes went up marginally in most states, Democrats didn't go up.much, akd third party sored).


In the end, we will see how well Trump will keep his base engaged. The Mueller probe ending is both good and bad for him in some ways; he will have less to rile people up with otherwise.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
And right now everyone is going on about how Trump is guaranteed a landslide too.

By everyone do you mean a few people on nationstates? Because that's certainly not the case IRL.

As well as too many comment section when it was announced that no clear collusion was discovered.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Is that not what you said?

That's exactly what I said, because that's exactly what happened. Doesn't make your attempt to cast it doubtfully any less obstinate. Trump never would have called this investigation on himself if he had a choice. But he didn't. If he says no, it looks like he has something to hide. So instead he acquiesces to the Democrats call for a special investigation, and he gets to bitch about it every day until it turns up right.

If the Trump Admin had squashed the investigation, the political fallout would have been catastrophic.

Trump didn't call this investigation on himself. The deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, appointed Mueller and authorized the investigation. Trump never gave his approval.

Rezmaeristan wrote:What are your thoughts on this obstruction charge? As far as I can tell no efforts were made to sabotage the investigation; the worst Trump did was call it a witch hunt or suggest it was some conspiracy against him.

And fire an FBI director before announcing on live TV he did it to end the investigation.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Is that not what you said?

That's exactly what I said, because that's exactly what happened. Doesn't make your attempt to cast it doubtfully any less obstinate. Trump never would have called this investigation on himself if he had a choice. But he didn't. If he says no, it looks like he has something to hide. So instead he acquiesces to the Democrats call for a special investigation, and he gets to bitch about it every day until it turns up right.

If the Trump Admin had squashed the investigation, the political fallout would have been catastrophic.

That doesn't sound like the Democrats made Trump do anything. It sounds like Trump was made to allow the investigation go ahead by his campaign looking so shady.

Gormwood wrote:

Rezmaeristan wrote:What are your thoughts on this obstruction charge? As far as I can tell no efforts were made to sabotage the investigation; the worst Trump did was call it a witch hunt or suggest it was some conspiracy against him.

And fire an FBI director before announcing on live TV he did it to end the investigation.

I would imagine this was probably the closest Trump came to "Obstructing Justice". However, this would have been proven difficult as the President does have the Constitutional Duty to fire the FBI Director he/she views them as incompetent (their way around this was due to Comey's mishandling of the Clinton Investigation). But Mueller couldn't established probable cause likely and only had circumstantial evidence. We have to remember, proving obstruction of justice is very difficult, which is why we don't see this kind of crime that often.

Seangoli wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Really don't because the point stands. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. To the point that Donald Trump's election was virtually impossible. And yet here we are. It's very early in the 2020 campaign. Next fall when we actually have a democratic challenger, we'll be able to get an accurate measurement of Trumps chances.

You are on poiny here, even if your exact numbers were off (Most places were in thr 80-90% range; I don't recall any predictiond in the 99%).

That said, we are still just far too early to accurately assess whether Trump will or won't win his 2020 reelection campaign. Without knowing who his challenger will be, or what may come in a year or so it is impossible to determine one way or the other.

I will say that Trump won by barely a sliver in 2016. All indications do point to his support base effectively stagnating, and won't really gain much more support without drastic shifts in his approach. This should be worrisome, as a particularly energized Democratic voting bloc could meet his numbers rather readily. Elections aren't so much won or lost by convincing people to vote for you over the other guy, but rather convincing you people to get out and vote. Very few "true" seing votes exist, and when they do they largely vote 3rd party rather than for the other guy (A phenomena that was apparent in 2016, where Republican votes went up marginally in most states, Democrats didn't go up.much, akd third party sored).


In the end, we will see how well Trump will keep his base engaged. The Mueller probe ending is both good and bad for him in some ways; he will have less to rile people up with otherwise.

My prediction is that it won't help him. A year-and-a-half from now is a very long time in this political climate, and the Mueller report will most likely be forgotten by the time the Democrats have picked a candidate. Well, forgotten by all except his base who'll probably bring it up at every turn, relevant or not.

"No collusion" is not a winning rallying cry among independents and moderates.

Gravlen wrote:

Seangoli wrote:
You are on poiny here, even if your exact numbers were off (Most places were in thr 80-90% range; I don't recall any predictiond in the 99%).

That said, we are still just far too early to accurately assess whether Trump will or won't win his 2020 reelection campaign. Without knowing who his challenger will be, or what may come in a year or so it is impossible to determine one way or the other.

I will say that Trump won by barely a sliver in 2016. All indications do point to his support base effectively stagnating, and won't really gain much more support without drastic shifts in his approach. This should be worrisome, as a particularly energized Democratic voting bloc could meet his numbers rather readily. Elections aren't so much won or lost by convincing people to vote for you over the other guy, but rather convincing you people to get out and vote. Very few "true" seing votes exist, and when they do they largely vote 3rd party rather than for the other guy (A phenomena that was apparent in 2016, where Republican votes went up marginally in most states, Democrats didn't go up.much, akd third party sored).


In the end, we will see how well Trump will keep his base engaged. The Mueller probe ending is both good and bad for him in some ways; he will have less to rile people up with otherwise.

My prediction is that it won't help him. A year-and-a-half from now is a very long time in this political climate, and the Mueller report will most likely be forgotten by the time the Democrats have picked a candidate. Well, forgotten by all except his base who'll probably bring it up at every turn, relevant or not.

"No collusion" is not a winning rallying cry among independents and moderates.

Wait until he puts it on a hat.

enjoyable now that the Mueller Report supposedly "exonerates" Trump, all of his supporters recognize his report as legitimate, not apart of the Deep State or any other evil conspiracies they've been throwing around
i guess we'll have to wait out for the full report to have a real, unbiased assessment
but either way, the investigation has been fruitful, as in, criminals got indicted and are going to jail

Bahktar wrote:enjoyable now that the Mueller Report supposedly "exonerates" Trump, all of his supporters recognize his report as legitimate, not apart of the Deep State or any other evil conspiracies they've been throwing around
i guess we'll have to wait out for the full report to have a real, unbiased assessment
but either way, the investigation has been fruitful, as in, criminals got indicted and are going to jail

I wonder how the Q Anon crawd are going to spin this. They've been telling themselves that Mueller is secretly investigating Democrats.

Ifreann wrote:

Bahktar wrote:enjoyable now that the Mueller Report supposedly "exonerates" Trump, all of his supporters recognize his report as legitimate, not apart of the Deep State or any other evil conspiracies they've been throwing around
i guess we'll have to wait out for the full report to have a real, unbiased assessment
but either way, the investigation has been fruitful, as in, criminals got indicted and are going to jail

I wonder how the Q Anon crawd are going to spin this. They've been telling themselves that Mueller is secretly investigating Democrats.

Either some spiel about a long term chess game or a sudden and completely absence of acknowledgement that is usually a symptom of time travel shenanigans.

Valrifell wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
Abraham Lincoln did not win the popular vote in 1860 (tbf no one did), and the total votes for the Democrats was greater than total votes for him. He only won because the Democrat vote split. Douglas would've whooped him if Breckinridge didn't peel off the South.

It's a horse race, he won because he got the most votes of any individual candidate and the most EVs.

I think you'd struggle to find a historian that agrees with your take.

He did not have the most votes, but the largest amount of votes. Nobody had a majority.

Ifreann wrote:

Bahktar wrote:enjoyable now that the Mueller Report supposedly "exonerates" Trump, all of his supporters recognize his report as legitimate, not apart of the Deep State or any other evil conspiracies they've been throwing around
i guess we'll have to wait out for the full report to have a real, unbiased assessment
but either way, the investigation has been fruitful, as in, criminals got indicted and are going to jail

I wonder how the Q Anon crawd are going to spin this. They've been telling themselves that Mueller is secretly investigating Democrats.

I remember there being something about that like 6 months ago, but quickly turned out to be nothing.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Nah, he won both.

Sure, not the majority, but he won both in the way we think of it.

Abraham Lincoln did not win the popular vote in 1860 (tbf no one did), and the total votes for the Democrats was greater than total votes for him. He only won because the Democrat vote split. Douglas would've whooped him if Breckinridge didn't peel off the South.

Actually, that's not true. Lincoln got 180 electoral votes. If all of Breckenridge's votes and states (72 EC votes) had gone to Douglas (12 EC votes), he would still have lost, 180 to 84.

Vassenor wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Really don't because the point stands. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. To the point that Donald Trump's election was virtually impossible. And yet here we are. It's very early in the 2020 campaign. Next fall when we actually have a democratic challenger, we'll be able to get an accurate measurement of Trumps chances.

And right now everyone is going on about how Trump is guaranteed a landslide too.

I highly doubt it, and I haven't heard that from any real source. Trump still has a tough war to finish in 2020, but he took this battle.

Farnhamia wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
Abraham Lincoln did not win the popular vote in 1860 (tbf no one did), and the total votes for the Democrats was greater than total votes for him. He only won because the Democrat vote split. Douglas would've whooped him if Breckinridge didn't peel off the South.

Actually, that's not true. Lincoln got 180 electoral votes. If all of Breckenridge's votes and states (72 EC votes) had gone to Douglas (12 EC votes), he would still have lost, 180 to 84.

You're ignoring votes in Northern states that went to Breckinridge that would have gone to Douglas.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Actually, that's not true. Lincoln got 180 electoral votes. If all of Breckenridge's votes and states (72 EC votes) had gone to Douglas (12 EC votes), he would still have lost, 180 to 84.

You're ignoring votes in Northern states that went to Breckinridge that would have gone to Douglas.

Yes, I was, but having checked Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio on Wiki's map for the 1860 election, I don't see Breckenridge's numbers adding to victory for Douglas in those states. Those four states add up to 98 EC votes. Check it out yourself.

Edit: I took out New York because Douglas and Breckenridge ran together on a fusion ticket. That takes the 98 EC votes down to 63. Not enough.