Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It is not ridiculous or moot since it speaks to how unpopular Trump truly is; he would soundly lose in a popular contest. 

Hi James:

I agree with this, but what does it mean?  Maybe half of Republicans and 2/3 of Independents disapprove of Trump as a human being.  Most of those disapproving Republicans and maybe half of those independents - many living in swing states - will nonetheless vote for Trump because they prefer R policies, R judges, or they just can't stomach the alternative candidate. 

Also, Trump's approval in California and New York is in the mid to low 20s.  This depresses Trump's national approval rating quite a bit.  Interestingly, Trump's approval rating is better, but still relatively poor in large population states that he is likely to carry, like Texas.  (See my previous post).  

Bottom line - yes, Trump is likely, in my opinion, to lose the irrelevant popular vote.  His polarizing nature all but guarantees it.  What matters though is how many voters in swing states who disapprove of Trump personally will still vote for him (or vote against his adversary.)  If 2016 polling failures are any indication, the answer is, "a lot more than the polling suggests." 

Bottom line, I think that a "job" approval poll question is easily interpreted by a poll respondent as a  "DJT personal" approval question when we are 11 months out from an election.  There will be an entirely different set of considerations when many of those voters are faces with a binary choice between Trump plus a more conservative government and __________ plus a more liberal government.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Given that it's only happened five times in our history, and only twice in modern times (Bush 2000 and Trump 2016), I respectfully disagree. The odds against such an outcome are incredibly high. Never forget that Trump's margin of victory in the rust-belt states was razor-thin. Only 10,000 votes separated Trump and Hillary in PA; the independent got more than 100,000 votes. It's worth noting too that Bush's victory in 2000 hinged entirely on the outcome of the SCOTUS decision about hanging chad in FL. It could have easily gone the other way too. Winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote is not a winning strategy in Presidential elections.

See my previous post for more on this, but I would not be surprised if winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote is the new normal when R's do happen to win, given that CA and NY are significantly more monolithic in their voting than large R states.  

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It's worth noting too that Bush's victory in 2000 hinged entirely on the outcome of the SCOTUS decision about hanging chad in FL.

Yes, Trump's margin in the key swing states was incredibly thin.  This is the only question that matters, as I've noted from time to time.  Can Trump hold enough of OH, FL, PA, WI, and MI to win again?  Time will tell - it is an incredibly tight window for him.

Bush's win did not hinge "entirely" on the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore.  I fondly recall from one of our first AM politics forums discussions ever (maybe 2003?) on this topic.  The FL press and a consortium of experts completed the re-count to the best of their ability and concluded that Bush did in actuality win.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Recount_by_media_organizations   Obviously, it was very close.  J


https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/us/examining-vote-overview-study-disputed-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html

Originally Posted by James Lacey

How is that for a committal non-committal?

A non-committal is the only rational position on the outcome 11 months before the election! 

Originally Posted by James Brown

Yes, Trump's margin in the key swing states was incredibly thin.  This is the only question that matters, as I've noted from time to time.  Can Trump hold enough of OH, FL, PA, WI, and MI to win again?  Time will tell - it is an incredibly tight window for him.

Bush's win did not hinge "entirely" on the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore.  I fondly recall from one of our first AM politics forums discussions ever (maybe 2003?) on this topic.  The FL press and a consortium of experts completed the re-count to the best of their ability and concluded that Bush did in actuality win.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Recount_by_media_organizations   Obviously, it was very close.  J

My first post ever... (sniff)   https://astromart.com/forums/commentary-careful-read-the-terms-of-service/politics/2000-florida-election-question-13769?page=1#post13769

Alas, the many replies are lost to the ravages of time, and Herb's periodic pogroms.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Obama did not have the ceiling Trump has had from day one. Obama was YUGELY above Trump in popular support when he came into office.

Trump has GONE OUT OF HIS WAY to hate those that are not in his GOP.

Yep.  This is why I generally, personally, see Trump losing unless:

A) The D's nominate a socialist or near-socialist scold like Sanders or Warren, or
B) The D's so thoroughly overplay the impeachment that I's move to Trump in disgust.

But, I still think that it is the economy above all else, so sometimes I see Trump winning, particularly if he actually can make inroads with the African American vote.  I'm far less committal than James!

Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

The margin by which he won in the EC was not anything like threading a needle.....it was by a wide margin.....304 to 227 LOL.....thats a pretty big needle Guess both of you forgot that glaring fact to make it sound like it was  close call LOL

Greg, I disagree with your analysis.  Trump won the critical swing states by very thin margins.  The popular vote winner in each of these individual states gets all of the EC votes.  2016 was a very close race when you look at the totals in the tipping point states.  If HRC had not taken these swing states for granted, and otherwise been about the worst candidate possible, she would have won.

Consider an imaginary election where candidate A wins all 50 states by 1 vote only, per state.  The EC margin would be 538 to 0.  But each state was won by a single vote!   50 votes out of 130 million votes. It would be irrational in my view to call that imaginary result a "wide margin."  

Originally Posted by James Brown

Greg, I disagree with your analysis.  Trump won the critical swing states by very thin margins.  The popular vote winner in each of these individual states gets all of the EC votes.  2016 was a very close race when you look at the totals in the tipping point states.  If HRC had not taken these swing states for granted, and otherwise been about the worst candidate possible, she would have won.

Consider an imaginary election where candidate A wins all 50 states by 1 vote only, per state.  The EC margin would be 538 to 0.  But each state was won by a single vote!   50 votes out of 130 million votes. It would be irrational in my view to call that imaginary result a "wide margin."  

Even so, 2016 was nowhere near as close as 2000, where Bush won by 1 EC vote and won the tipping point state by 500 votes or so.   Other than an EC tie, you can't get much closer than that!

Originally Posted by James Lacey

You either don't understand the analogy or don't acknowledge that Trump won the rust-belt states by extremely razor-thin margins. Regardless of the electoral outcome, which by the way, ranked number 46 out of 58, Trump barely won in 2016.

Hi James:

I looked it up, because I had forgotten how close 2016 was.  Ohio was a surprise.  Trump trounced Clinton in Ohio.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

4. Trump continues to be highly unpopular, and he has done little to change his popularity. If anything, he's made it worse, and it's not clear he can do anything else to change this situation.

That's it. No more no less.

Hi James:

Within your #4 lies the rub.    (Apologies to the Bard).  Gallup, who most people respect, is showing a 6 point uptick in Trump's popularity since the impeachment inquiry began.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump-job-approval-weekly.aspx  See also 538: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
RCP average is about the same.

More than one polling outfit shows Trump polling with Blacks and Hispanics at historically high levels for an R.

Are these trends all pie-in-the-sky "malarkey?"  Maybe, but if these trends are real and they continue, it suggests a couple of things that Trump can and is doing to change the situation, in some instances with a little help from Pelosi and Schiff or other Ds:

1.  Continue to stoke, benefit from (and of course take credit for) a robust economy, whether one thinks this is deserved or not. 
2.  Continue to court the minority vote.
3.  Effectively cast himself as the victim of an unfounded impeachment.
4.  Be twice the beneficiary of historically, legendarily, horrible D candidates who run historically, legendarily, bad campaigns.

Trump does not have a lot of control over #4,  but he'll be hitting 1-3 and other factors hard as the campaign winds up.  If those approve/disapprove lines in the Gallup poll (or the nearly identical 538 or RCP poll averages) cross, look for some serious panicking on the left. 

Jim