Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

How's Cory Gardner's campaign going, Jim? A man I actually sent money to in his campaign all those years ago.

Hi Russ:

I think Cory is likely to lose, but not because of Trump.  Our former Gov. Hickenlooper is running against him. (you might have heard of Hick's short-lived presidential campaign a few months ago).  Hick is very popular in Colorado, and,  thanks to your state-mates moving here, we are pretty much a solid blue state.  Not that I mind the soaring property values...  

Glad I'm not a young 1st time home-shopper though...

Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Russ:

I think Cory is likely to lose, but not because of Trump.  Our former Gov. Hickenlooper is running against him. (you might have heard of Hick's short-lived presidential campaign a few months ago).  Hick is very popular in Colorado, and,  thanks to your state-mates moving here, we are pretty much a solid blue state.  Not that I mind the soaring property values...  

Glad I'm not a young 1st time home-shopper though...

Jim

Interestingly, even though Colorado is pretty blue now-a-days, we are still very conservative in some aspects.  The people soundly voted down (2/3 margin) an amendment that would have repealed our urban camping ban.  If that amendment had passed, we would have bums and druggies living in the parks and pooping everywhere, just like good old San Fran, Seattle and Portland.  I live near a nice urban park and I'm damn glad that we Coloradans voted that one down!  I'll wear my elitism proudly on that issue.

Also, we voted to protect the oil and gas extraction opportunities for our robust oil and gas industry.  Again, it was not even close.  Both of these votes occured in an election where we installed the most liberal governor in state history.... Go figure.  He is well financed I guess.

Our D legislature and governor are taking aim at oil and gas again - trying to end-run the will of the people.  I suppose it is possible that the pendulum could swing blue if the Ds in charge overreach - nonetheless, I think Cory is toast, and I'm sorry about that.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

The view of the Republican Party according to Gallup was 43% positive in September.  

Today it is 51% positive.  Dems are in trouble and they don't even know it.  

Oh, I think they know it... Did you see Pelosi last night?  I’m guessing her anger is in part at those who forced her into an ineffective or downright disastrous impeachment she did not want.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It's one poll. The 538 aggregate hasn't moved positive much at all, but I'm not sure 538 incorporated the Gallup poll yet.

I'm guessing her anger was more about all of Trump's baseless boasting and lies in the speech. Trump says he's going to protect patients with pre-existing conditions, while at the same time, his administration is currently in court trying to eviscerate those protections? He claimed that he undid the disastrous economic policies of the previous administration and unleashed an economic boom when, in reality, all he did was inherit an incredible economy from his predecessor. The economy under Trump is not "roaring." GDP growth under his tenure to date ranks 7th among his prior 11 predecessors. Yes, unemployment is low, but that is a trend that started back in 2011 and has continued until today. In Obama's eight years, unemployment went from a high of 10% after the 2008 crash, which was caused by Republican policies, to a low of 4.7%. In Trump's three years, it's gone from 4.7% to 3.5%. His speech was a manifesto of mistruth. I'm sure that had a lot to do with it too.

Hi James:

I know that you are aware of this page, but some forum participants may not be:  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

I think the interactive graphs at the bottom of the page showing Trump compared to every president back to Truman are informative.  Exemplary web page design too.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Once again the 538 poll is put up. They have an adjustment factor which I know that I've dealt with and spoken about in other threads, and the funny thing is they weight polls giving them letter grades based on their biases, which is fine, however they always adjust Trump's numbers far lower than others like Obama.

Why is that Jim.  Do you know??  

Your premise is wrong.  Even when the polls are off, 538 does the best job of aggregating and analyzing the data.  Do you remember the heat Nate Silver took when he only predicted a 65-75% chance of a Clinton win, when everyone else, including Fox, was making predictions in the 99% range?   That guy from the NYT had to eat a live bug on TV because he boasted as much while attacking Silver's conservative and defensible analysis.

538 adjusts the polls based upon purely mathematical models based upon past performance.  It is all detailed on their website, but you have to have a modicum of mathematical skill to follow along.  Are the models wrong?  Yes, to some degree, and occasionally the models are wrong spectacularly as in 2016.  But 538 is the best in the business.  As you probably know, RCP's un-weighted aggregation is nearly identical to 538's.  Are you going to accuse RCP of left bias too?  What a hoot.

Jim

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

It is cool to be aggrieved. It is really cool to be really aggrieved. Nancy is.

Hi Mel

I think there is a lot of truth here.  It is important for a politician to play to their base - Trump and Pelosi are both masters of this.  But at a deeper level, I think Nancy is really PO's because she sensed that impeachment would backfire and was forced into it anyway.

Jim

Originally Posted by Maurice Clark

G'Day Jim,

Thanks for the link.  Interesting website.

Still, polls are only partly useful.  What really matters in the election is turnout; particularly in the battleground states.

Cheers,

Maurice

Hi Maurice:

So true - this is why I am guessing that time will show that the impeachment "backfired."  I think (guess actually) that the impeachment will motivate Trump's battleground state supporters more than it motivates those who would vote against him.  Also, I think (guess) that the rare persuadable voter in the battleground states is more likely to be nudged toward Trump by the impeachment than the other way.  Reasonable minds like James will disagree.  Unreasonable minds like Rich will agree.  What a world!  Time will tell whether the impeachment makes a big difference one way or the other.

Jim 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

A day or two back, I saw you make some absurd accusations such as the one where you claimed that he probably really would grab a woman by the pussy and you stated this assumption with pretty strong conviction.

That assertion seems to me as based in nonsense and hysterics. 

In other words, it is something that Forrest here would believe and assert.

Congratulations on being in such sane company as him.  LOL  

Rich:

We're at the going around in circles phase, so I'll make my own final post on this topic.  You didn't touch my post discussing the obvious credibility differences between Kavanaugh and Thomas on one hand and Trump on the other.  Good move on your part, I am incredulous that anyone, even you, would sincerely argue that it is "nonsense or hysterics" to believe that Trump literally would grab a woman...  

No one is that naive, not even you.  Did you peruse the Wiki page Russ posted?  How about the documentation linked in the one hundred and seventy six (176!) footnotes?  All lies in your estimation I suppose?  Sheesh.

Also, I am proud to be placed into James' company.  Politically, we've drifted apart somewhat over the 15-16 years I've known him, but he has always been a clear and articulate thinker, and someone I admire.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It boils down to this. Trump's base supporters are not enough to re-elect him. Therefore, he needs to attract voters repelled by his disgusting behavior and who voted against Republicans in the 2018 midterms. So far, it looks like Trump is incapable of moderating his behavior, and the chances of him attracting swing or independent voters are minimal at best. 

Hi James:

I generally agree with your post.¹  But, I think that the bit I quoted above is backwards.  Yes, Trump may not attract lots of voters who are not already in his base, these are highly polarized times.  But, the D candidate could be repulsive enough to moderates that they vote Trump as a defensive move.  I'm thinking a socialist or a near socialist for example.  Personally, I think Klobuchar would win in an electoral landslide.  Sanders, not so much.  Like Mel, I think Biden is toast.

Obviously I'm projecting my own personal view here, I'd vote for Trump over Sanders any day of the week.  With Klobuchar, I would currently be "undecided, leans D."  Colorado independents can vote in either primary by the way, this is new this year and so is CO being a Super Tuesday state.  I signed up to vote in the D primary and intend to support Klobuchar, assuming that she is still a viable candidate in a few weeks.

As a conservative registered as independent, I am not sure I like having the D and R primaries open to independents, the largest group in Colorado, but those are the new rules.  4 years ago when I was registered as an R, I got selected from our precinct caucus to go to the city-wide convention as a Rubio delegate.  That was interesting, but by then, Trump was starting to steam-roll the field.

Jim

1.  No doubt Rich will parse your post word by word and pigeonhole me as a commie.  There might be something in your post that I technically do not agree with.  But you know what I mean.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Please, admit that Trump is a childish name-calling bully and a pathological lying toddler. At this point, any other position sounds self-serving and delusional.

Hi James:

I'm not Mel of course, but your inquiry prompted a line of thought.

I'd admit on this forum that Trump is a name-calling bully and liar.  Some of his actions do appear childish as well.  Here is one problem with admitting this - the media, our celebrity/sports culture, and perhaps more importantly, our social media immediately jump to value judgments about us as individuals if we support Trump in any way.  The reasoning that is rained down upon Republicans every day is:

You must be a racist to support a racist.
You must be a hypocrite to support a liar.
You must be a woman-hater to support a misogynist.
You must be a fool to support an incompetent.

To be a Republican in 2020 is to suffer under a relentless, constant barrage of profoundly hypocritical false dilemma fallacy attacks.  It would be impossible for an adult Republican to express his political views on a Facebook account without first having carefully curated a circle of only sycophant friends.   I genuinely pity the college student who is a conservative and expresses herself.

Meanwhile, we Republicans, (like most Ds) contemplate many complicated and important issues:  

Who will have better tax and defense policy, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?  
Who is more likely to advance my preferred policies on gun control or abortion, Clinton or Trump?  
Who will nominate judges I agree with, Clinton or Trump?  
And so much more.

According to the Vegas bookmakers we will soon get to contemplate the choice of socialist Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump.   I resent the fact that my sisters-in-law literally think less of me because I supported Trump last time, when there were many policy reasons for my vote against Clinton that had nothing to do with Trump's personal failings.   Meanwhile, I look at the economy and foreign affairs and I am generally satisfied with my choice on the macro level, even though my candidate is perhaps personally indefensible.  

We all deal with the relentless attacks in different ways.  Some double and triple down and attack those who attack them.  They attack the press. They brawl.  They escalate.  They defend the indefensible.

Others like me rationalize and equivocate, I try to convince this forum that the system is bigger and more robust than Trump.  In real life I lay low and do not talk politics with liberal friends or family.  I'm afraid of the personal backlash.  I might suggest to the sisters-in-law that it is on them if the D party nominates a socialist though!  I always remain confident that the USA will be OK under 4 more years of DJT, and I tell myself that we will do fine under Klobuchar, Bloomberg or hopefully Buttigieg too.

Bottom line, I think it would be easier for Republicans to admit DJT's profound flaws if the press, the celebrities, the politicians, and maybe most importantly social media, did not constantly make horrifically derogatory and fundamentally hypocritical value judgments about all Republicans as individual human beings just because, as Republicans we unsurprisingly support Republican governance. 

I'm sure it cuts both ways.  We are living in the most polarized times since the civil war "they" say.  I suppose that is true, although I was just a child in the 60's and I think there was plenty of polarization then too.  I'm not sure how we transcend the divisions, and unfortunately, it will probably take a crisis.  According to the historical 538 graphs we posted the other day, the last time the nation was very briefly united behind a president was 9/11.   I suppose we are blessed to be living in times where we have the luxury of deep division.  That was not a luxury our grandparents had in the 1940's.

Jim