Trump's approval rating in all 50 states converted into Electoral College

I won't believe it until a Democrat is sworn in .

Latest MSN poll:

Who do you trust more: Trump or Mueller?

24% -> President Trump

67% -> Robert Mueller

3% -> I trust both equally

5% -> I distrust both equally

2% -> No opinion

R1, it's just one projection at the moment, but I posted it because I thought it was interesting.

It indicates that winning Florida & Ohio may be tough for the Democrats, but that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are in play. And possibly Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona & Georgia.

It's endlessly embarrassing to me that my home state of Ohio would STILL go for Trump. Ugh. I don't want to believe it. It wasn't like that when I grew up there.

Democrats really need to campaign hard and well in Ohio and Florida.

R4, Ohio & Florida are not lost causes for the Dems, but they have been trending red.

2018 was a good year for the Dems, but Ohio & Florida were setbacks. Whereas the Dems won the Governor's races in Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania, the Republicans (Dewine) won Ohio.

And even Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) won by a smaller margin than expected. And DeSantis won the Governor's race in Florida, plus long-time Democratic Senator Bill Nelson lost.

So Dems have to catch up in both OH & FL.

13 years after this documentary was produced, our government still cannot ensure our votes are safe.

The map needs to plug in the approval rating of the Democratic nominee. The result will change.

He’ll win easily again. It all comes down to the person running against him and Democrats have no one.

Sure, R7 and R8. Sure.

[quote]And DeSantis won the Governor's race in Florida, plus long-time Democratic Senator Bill Nelson lost.

Russia fixed these races. Nelson even announced the issue before the election. There is no way Florida overwhelmingly votes to re-enfranchise former felons without huge Democratic turnout. The proof being that the Repugs in Florida have done everything to stop that new law from taking effect ever since the election. The Russians/Repugs couldn't let the Senate go Democratic. Florida was one of the seats they stole.

Sure, R10. Sure.

Yes, but will Trump and his base accept the results? I read what are now fascist news sources, watch videos online and these people live in an alternate dimension. It is just outright lies and naked projection. It is deeply troubling.

1) Texas is practically a tie 49% to 48% with 3% undecided.

2) [bold]North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin[/bold], and [/bold]Michigan[/bold] are going Blue.

3) The [bold]battleground[/bold] states are [bold]Arizona, Georgia, Texas[/bold], and [bold]Iowa[/bold].

Kansas 50% to 47% with 3% undecided is a potential battleground state too.

I realize this is just a snapshot of a moment in time, but this seems very heavily weighted towards the Dems . . . the only swing states going R are Ohio and Florida. 2016 was 304 to 227; this map predicts republicans losing 93 seats. I'm not sure how useful this map based on one day's worth of data is for any real projection.

Biden beating Trump in Ohio.

Hi Poll Troll!

You know I love you and I'm one of your biggest fans! But, I have a few questions for you... because quite honestly, these polls are getting on my nerves and I now think that they are much more damaging than helpful;

-If polls are supposedly irrelevant at this stage of the election then why is a poll referenced every other 5 minutes on MSNBC--or some other news program. It's simply poll after poll after poll. It's seems as if it is about the horse race rather than the issues.

-Who are paying for all of these polls?

-What is the accuracy of these polls. I think a lot of people are purposely lying in order to throw them off. I think that the great Republican strategist from above has instructed his followers to lie to pollsters. So, what are the true values of polls?

-Have there been any studies that measured the influence of polls--whether positive or negative but I'm mostly concerned with the negative. For example; If I'm a Corey Booker fan, but because of polling my enthusiasm for him is waning. I'm being told that he doesn't have a chance by the polls and so then why should I continue to support him?

I'm not looking to put you out of a job but I'm reaching a point of where I believe the constant polling has and is ruining our politics.

THANKS!

Your true and appreciative fan,

ME!

R10 is full of shit.

Hillary Clinton go more votes than any person to run for President in history, except Obama in 2008. She has been voted "Most Admired Woman In The World" a record 22 times, 16 times in a row. She has NEVER lost the popular vote in ANY election she's ever run in. She's had best selling books and sold out book tours. It's an absolute lie that people hate her or that she doesn't inspire.

Uh no r17. Hillary Clinton was an incredibly unpopular candidate, yes she won the popular vote because Donald Trump was even more unpopular.

The 2016 election was an election between two historically unpopular candidates. I think it is unfair how unpopular Clinton was, but this is the simple truth.

Uh no r17. Hillary Clinton was an incredibly unpopular candidate, yes she won the popular vote because Donald Trump was even more unpopular.

The 2016 election was an election between two historically unpopular candidates. I think it is unfair how unpopular Clinton was, but this is the simple truth.

Trump will benefit from the "Reverse Bradley Effect." When polled people give what is believed to be the socially correct response. Then they go into the polling both and vote their true intent. Trump will ensure another 4 years of Republican government and a near certainty of changing the ideological composition of the SC for the next half century. His racist white nationalism is a bulwark against our nation's rapid, inevitable demographic shift. His willingness to allow evangelical nutjobs to shape policy enables them to overlook his obvious immorality. As we have observed, some people will vote against their economic interest to preserve what is left of their perceived privilege.

Georgia is not going blue. And Iowa and Arizona are very iffy.

[quote]Hillary Clinton was an incredibly unpopular candidate, yes she won the popular vote because Donald Trump was even more unpopular.

Specifically, where it made a difference was in massively vote-rich California.

All that blue in my state has me extremely concerned.

Not just California, Hillary Clinton performed the same in many states r22. Blue states (basically states rich in minorities and college educated whites), in general became slightly bluer, that's why she won the popular vote even while these swing states rich in non-college educated whites became redder. California just followed the same trend, it wasn't really unique.

In fact, California voted for Hillary by a wider margin than anyone since Franklin Roosevelt in 1936.

Trump's results in California were so bad that he became the first Republican to lose Orange County since Roosevelt won it in 1936.

Just goes to show that the election will not be won by appearing in California and New York.

The White House will be won in Michigan, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin. And immigration won't bring in the big chair. Prescription drugs, healthcare, women's choice, trade is the way to win. Whomever is the Democratic Nominee should look into Gov. Whitmer of Michigan as a running mate.

R9: Oh, knock it off. Amendment 4 had wide Republican voter support. People like the idea of voting and give the right back to people who served their time. And then they turned around and voted for DeSatan and BatBoy. Additionally, if the Bitch of Broward, Brenda Snipes, hadn't designed the ballot so poorly (and the residents of Broward weren't such a bunch of blind, senile idiots) Nelson would have won.

Russia changed not one vote in 2016 and 2018, so stop repeating this irresponsible nonsense. Their work was hacking state databases (which hold no votes) which were repelled almost immediately and spreading fake news. THAT'S IT!

Any close state is important, isn’t it? Particularly the big ones. So, in addition to Michigan, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin, I’d add Virginia, Florida, Texas, and Georgia, right? Which else?

Ohio, which put Obama over the top.

Ohio is still a swing state, but it is trending more red these days.

Trump won Ohio by a larger margin in 2016 than Bush did in 2000 & 2004, and the Republicans won the Governor's race last year.

Florida will still be contested by the Dems, and Biden is doing well there against Trump so far, but it's hard to know whether that will hold up given the lower than expected Democratic numbers in 2018 in the Governor's and Senate races.

Georgia has voted Dem in a Presidential election since Bill Clinton won it in the 1990's, but Trump only won it by 5 points in 2016 so the state is potentially winnable in a strong Dem year. The fact that Stacey Abrams only lost the Governor's race by 1 point last year also bodes well for the Dems down the road.

Virginia has been increasingly trending Democratic and after Hillary won it by 5 points in 2016, it is expected to remain Democratic in 2020. Tim Kaine was also re-elected to the Senate by a wide margin in 2018.

Georgia has *not*voted Dem in a Presidential election since Bill Clinton won it in the 1990's

What other states are close?

We don't fucking need Ohio.

Hillary also closed the gap in TEXAS as far as popular vote.

He gained in states where there are more cows than people. She gained in states where there are more people. So, she won the popular vote bigly!

Fuck you Russian trolls.

FL is always razor thin and is NOT trending red.

WI, MI and PA were flukes last time. FLUKES.

Nope 34. They weren't flukes. Trump has tapped into a segment of white folks that have been left behind... Yo, there's prosperity all around, why not us? The Democrat must make a case why things have been so miserable in light of economic gains elsewhere in the world

Georgia and North Carolina won't go blue. Which would mean the "formerly-unassailable-blue-curtain" of PA, MI, and WI will again decide it. Trump will unquestionably lose the popular vote. The unholy three states is why Biden may have to be the candidate (of all the others I think Warren is next most likely to win PA).

R18/R19 you're full of shit. Sorry, you just are.

Yeah, she was "unpopular" with brainwashed sexist misogynist morons, but so fucking what? Obama was "unpopular" with right-wing racist bigoted morons.

I'm sick and tired of even DEMOCRATS mindlessly parroting that "Hillary Clinton is unpopular" lie. It's just propaganda, pushed by right-wingers, Russian bots, and bitter left wingers who use the same goddamned talking points the right-wingers do, because they're practically indistinguishable.

I love Hillary! I saved up and donated $1,200 for her campaign. She's a legend! Her husband shat all over her. And what did Hillary do? She set up her own little thing. We came up short this time, but the seeds have been sowed.

[quote]Hillary Clinton was an incredibly unpopular candidate, yes she won the popular vote because Donald Trump was even more unpopular.

What part of "got more votes than any other presidential candidate ever except Obama in 2008" don't you understand?

And, bullshit, R28. The Repugs DO NOT support giving former felons back their right to vote. You can figure that out by looking at what they've done to impede that law taking effect. Do you really think the Russians broke into all the voting databases in all those states just for the fun of it? Of course they changed votes.

Russians will steal the election (again) by hacking the results.

Start planning for the permanent fascist régime now.

If you can, leave the U.S. If you can’t, start stockpiling meds, paying down debt, and strengthening your family and social relationships.

[quote]Trump has tapped into a segment of white folks that have been left behind.

Why do you think only white folks have been left behind?

And anyway, they're still being left behind: middle-class incomes and lifestyles have not significantly improved despite a booming economy. None of the Democratic candidates will fail to point that out.

R37 I feel your pain, and understand your anger at continuing unwarranted criticism. But a couple things about her and 2016. The Bernie Bros (and all Berniecrats) wouldn't forgive her for what, in their perception, was the DNCs favoritism and cheating to win the nomination. That depressed turnout, which, in a close election, made a difference. Also, 30 years of right wing attacks had an impact - in that sense she was weakened more than a non-Clinton would have been. And last, her campaign made lots of errors. She didn't go to Wisconsin.. WTF was that? Her internal polling was shit. She won the popular vote, but (her people) didn't understand the electoral college map.

I literally linked to one of many sources about this, but facts clearly don't matter to you so work bitch r37. When you keep sticking your head in the sand and refuse to listen to any facts you are no better than the deplorables.

Sure, R43. Share some more links to conservative papers to prove your conservative points. Nelson knew before the election and said as much. You seem to have conveniently forgotten this...

Hillary trusted the word of Podesta over Robby. In any case I'm glad to move forward.

Our current WH resident is not popular at all. No one wants 4 more years of this shit. He will fuck up the economy as he already has the deficit.

Hillary has everything going against her and yes, she made some mistakes but she faced a perfect storm against her and she STILL barely lost the EC.

Votes WERE change they just can't prove it but the Russians have been working on this since 2014. They can get into our machines and erase voters and such. We are being attacked and derrrr dotard just shits and tweets.

[quote]She didn't go to Wisconsin.. WTF was that?

She absolutely fucking DID go to Wisconsin.

She did have to cancel one event there... why? Because she went to Florida to pay her respects after the Pulse Shooting.

So fuck you for mindlessly parroting that stupid talking point. Besides, there's NO scenario where her doing one more visit to Wisconsin would have given her enough electoral votes to win.

REMINDER: "Hillary Clinton Just Delivered the Strongest Speech of Her Campaign—and the Media Barely Noticed"

PLEASE NOTE WHERE THAT SPEECH WAS GIVEN IN THE BELOW ARTICLE/PICTURE. And stop with the whole "She didn't go to Wisconsin" b.s. as any sort of 'reason' for Trump winning. That's utter nonsense.

The House will remain in the hands of Democrats, if anything it seems like Arizona and California will help increase. Unfortunately North Carolina and Texas are too gerrymanded to help in the house, but they will be vital to the Senate.

The ONLY way this will come true is if we nominate Joe Biden. Democrats better stop playing around and get behind him. Every poll shows Biden beating Trump by a bigger margin than Obama beat Romney, so why are some of you still supporting other candidates?

The Presidency will be won in the unsexiness of the Upper Midwest.

If Dems are smart they will use the Russian interference as a yuge FAIL for Trump. He can't keep blaming Obama for it (if Obama wasn't allowed to pick a SCOTUS Judge- then why should he have undertaken a massive investigation during his last "lame duck" months in office?). This is something even Deplorables could get upset about.

The subject makes Bone Spurs batshit enraged. And it's all horrible and true. He can't pursue it because it illegitimatizes his POTUS 'win'- and he's Putin's bitch (see: underaged peeing hookers).

Trump performed above his favorability levels in the '16 election.

[quote]The ONLY way this will come true is if we nominate Joe Biden.

Well it's true that so far Biden is the one that is polling best against Trump.

A new poll was released tonight by Quinnipiac, and Biden was the only top Democrats with a wide lead against Trump.

I am praying for a Biden-Harris ticket.

New piece today by my polling boyfriend Harry Enten:

***

Joe Biden's electability argument is backed up by the numbers (for now)

[quote]Former Vice President Joe Biden's major selling point to Democratic primary voters is that he is in the best position to beat President Donald Trump in 2020. And while electability is difficult to measure, Biden has one thing going for him for now: the polls. Biden continuously beats Trump by a wider margin than his Democratic opponents do.

[quote]A new Ohio Quinnipiac University poll is just the latest example of this phenomenon. Biden leads Trump by a 50% to 42% margin. Remember, Ohio wasn't close in 2016. Even if this is another example of a Midwestern poll underestimating Trump, if Biden wins the Buckeye State by merely a point, he's likely well on his way to an electoral college victory.

[quote]Of course, what I'm more interested in is the comparison between the Democratic candidates. All the non-Biden Democrats are either tied or trailing the President in Ohio.

R16 Got it right. I think Trump supporters are either refusing to be polled or are lying. Don't trust the polls, and since they suppress Democratic turnout they do more harm than good.

r55 = Nate Bronze?

The key takeaway from the current polls is that Biden is the Democrat with the most crossover appeal to Independents (and a small number of Republicans).

This puts Biden ahead of where Hillary was at this point 4 years ago, and also puts Biden ahead of Sanders, Warren, etc.

Harry Enten explains it here:

[quote]The Ohio Quinnipiac poll demonstrates a key facet as to why Biden is currently the strongest against Trump: he does better with non-Democrats. Among Republicans, for example, Biden loses to Trump by 76 points. That doesn't seem good, but it's much better than Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who loses this group by 87 points. Or take a look among independents: Biden wins them by 23 points compared to Warren's 11 points. Among Democrats, Biden's margin over Trump is similar to Warren's (94 points vs. 92 points).

[quote]Biden, simply put, has better crossover appeal than his fellow Democrats at this point.

[quote]You can see this nationally. All the Democratic candidates hold negative ratings among non-Democratic primary voters. (You'd expect that, given this group is mostly Republicans.) Biden, though, has the least negative net favorability rating (favorable - unfavorable) of any of the major Democrats running, according to our latest CNN poll. His net favorability rating among non-Democratic primary voters is over 10 points higher than well-known Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders or Warren, for instance.

[quote]That Biden does routinely better than his fellow Democrats against Trump marks a significant difference from the 2016 race at this point. Back in late July 2015, Hillary Clinton couldn't use the polls to say she did better against Trump than Sanders. In fact, Sanders actually led Trump by 5 points more than Clinton did in CNN's July 2015 poll. Later on in the primary season, Sanders consistently did better than Clinton against Trump.

[quote]Our current WH resident is not popular at all. No one wants 4 more years of this shit. He will fuck up the economy as he already has the deficit.

I normally don't pay attention to this stuff but everyone is once again putting all of their faith and trust in polls. But, I think everyone (in my opinion, anyway) need to keep the following in mind;

[quote] TV viewership for Mueller hearings falls flat: New York (CNN Business)If Democrats were banking on massive viewership of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's televised testimony, they're feeling broke today. The Mueller hearings had a loyal audience, but they didn't break any ratings records. Not by a long shot. Preliminary Nielsen (NLSN) ratings totals — which are subject to adjustment — show an average of 13 million viewers across six major networks Wednesday. This is an average of the audience that was watching at home on TV throughout the two hearings, which together lasted a total of seven hours. Not everyone watched the whole time, so the total audience for the event, known as "reach" in TV lingo, was much higher.

Granted, it's summer etc but people don't care about this. They like Trump. And then, you have this;

[quote]White Woman Caught on Tape Calling 2 Black Women the N-Word Says She's Not Racist, But She'd Do It Again:

Trump is a white male and for many that is all that matters. Everything else is noise. Just look at the how many white women voted for Trump the last time. I mean... no one has yet to explain that. If the hatred for Hillary ran that deeply then I'd be very hurt were I her!

It's very sad but you cannot dismiss the race factor in all of this. I would like to say that Barack Obama wasn't an anomaly but he could of been. I've personally heard more than a few times; "I've never seen that many black people (re the vote) come out!" And, that's why more than a few thought that fraud was involved.

This map makes no sense. Fake news!

[quote]And, bullshit, [R28]. The Repugs DO NOT support giving former felons back their right to vote. You can figure that out by looking at what they've done to impede that law taking effect. Do you really think the Russians broke into all the voting databases in all those states just for the fun of it? Of course they changed votes.

My link at R28 explains the Nelson loss. Deal with it.

Republican VOTERS voted to re-enfranchise former felons. The numbers say so in the 2018 election. We're talking about that, not what the Nazi legislature is doing AFTER the fact. Stay on topic.

For the final God Damn Time, there are no votes stored on ANY of the databases the Russians hacked. Thus no votes could be changed. The fact that anything was hacked was bad and we need more election security. But there is no evidence WHATSOEVER that Russia changed one vote.

You need to accept that Florida is a state filled with horrible and stupid people who did the right thing with Amendment 4 and proceed to be horrible and stupid on the rest of their ballots. This is par for the course for that state and wide swaths of this country.

R47 Thanks for your comments. Clinton did not go to Wisconsin after the convention. Even in her book, where she discussed how and why she lost, "What Happened", she acknowledges "Wisconsin caught us by surprise." I think her campaign made many mistakes (Podesta's fault, not necessarily Hillary's). But Comey and the Russians and 30 years of relentless right wing smear attacks, and Berniecrat disaffection were at least as much the reason she lost as missteps by her campaign. And turnout. Against a horror like Trump, turnout was depressed far more than expected. She should have had Obama's 2008 numbers. Again in "What Happened" Clinton acknowledges this, pointing out that Trump got the same number of votes as Romney, and that the Dem turnout was less than expected.

Yeah, if she had JUST gone to Cheeseconsin and waved at people and held some babies, took some selfies- she would won!

If they changed voter registrations, the end result would have been many of those votes wouldn't be counted. Since the social media campaign by Russia included dissuading people from voting at all, it's reasonable to assume that fewer votes was the goal.

They hacked all 50 states and they're still doing it now. You have to be a special kind of gullible to think that Russia would go to this much trouble and not change a single vote. Just because they didn't hack the voting system directly doesn't mean they didn't change votes.

Biden is literally at the bottom of my list. I mean, I'll vote for him in the general if he's the nominee, but I won't be enthused about it.

Bernie, Tulsi, and that Williamson kook are below the bottom of my list. I'll never vote for any of them under any circumstances.

I will vote for any other actual democrat running if they win, though.

But my favorite will always be Kamala Harris. She's the best of the lot, and we'd be best off with her in charge.

If through some strange set of circumstances Bernie becomes our nominee, then you fucking VOTE FOR BERNIE.

Yeah, he'll be Carter 2.0, but that's better than a second term of Trump by an order of magnitude. Suck it up and vote Bernie if you have to. Hope that you don't, but be prepared to do it if you must.

R64: "The heavily redacted, 67-page report found no evidence that Russia was able to alter vote counts in 2016, when Russia carried out what Mueller’s final report called a “sweeping and systematic” hacking and disinformation campaign."

Read your own link, it does not support what you think it does. The naivete here is you and people like you that think if it wasn't for Russia, Democrats would win 80% of the vote in every election everywhere FOREVA.

Florida sucks and Gillum lost, this should not surprise you that a black man lost in a state filled with racist dead people. Nelson lost because Brenda Snipes simply cannot design a ballot and people in Broward County can't be bothered to carefully check what they're doing. Clinton lost because a few hundred thousand people in 3 states couldn't be bothered to vote, a good portion of it due to Russian and Macedonian rat fucking on social media.

These are the actual facts.

[quote]The key takeaway from the current polls is that Biden is the Democrat with the most crossover appeal to Independents (and a small number of Republicans).

This is why Biden would beat Trump and why Hillary couldn't. All Republicans and many Independents HATED Hillary. They've hated her for decades. That's why Trump was able to get just enough votes in the Midwest to pull off a victory. Someone upthread mentioned that Trump outperformed his approval ratings in 2016. Yes, because Hillary was just as disliked as him, which made the approval ratings meaningless.

I also think that Biden would win Florida. He appeals to all of those retired white seniors living down there. Gillum lost because he made race a big issue in the governor's race and it turned off white voters. Gillum still only lost by a slim margin, so Biden could definitely win, especially in a presidential year.

Hillary was hated because she was a woman, trying to get 'uppity'. You have no idea of the depth of misogyny out there.

Oh well, what's done is done. I happen to think Trump was a gift to the country; he really 'woke' a lot of complacent, deluded people up. The Haters are always out there waiting for their chance. Never let your guard down.

White suburban women will decide this election. White men are a lost cause. Biden suffers too much from foot-in-mouth disease and is completely uninspiring. If you want to get the white suburban women and inspire the younger vote to show up, Warren/Buttigieg is the way to go.

R68: No, HE didn't make race an issue, Ron DeSatan did. And it worked. Because Florida SUCKS!

[quote]Against a horror like Trump, turnout was depressed far more than expected. She should have had Obama's 2008 numbers.

Actually, it was very unlikely that Hillary could have gotten Obama's 2008 numbers, even if she had run a perfect campaign.

A lot of people are forgetting about the impact of the 8-Year Rule -- since the 1950's, no party has held the White House for longer than 8 years except once (when there were 2 Reagan terms followed by 1 of Bush Senior).

Since the end of the Franklin Roosevelt-Harry Truman era when the Democrats held the White House for 20 years from 1932-1952, American voters have not let either party stay in the White House for longer than 8 years except during the one exception in 1980-1992.

It was always going to be more challenging for a Democrat to win in 2016.

[quote]Suck it up and vote Bernie if you have to.

Yes, he would have won if he had gotten the nomination in 2016, but his time has passed. He won't get the nomination and wouldn't be elected in 2020.

[quote] If you want to get the white suburban women and inspire the younger vote to show up, Warren/Buttigieg is the way to go.

White suburban women do not like Warren. She wants to raise their taxes and take away their employer health insurance. Those two issues are very important to suburban women and Warren is on the wrong side of the issues as far as they are concerned.

70% of Americans support Medicare for All. White suburban women are NOT happy with the skyrocketing costs of their health insurance and actually care about the future they are leaving for their children. When their kids go out in the real world and can't afford to go to a doctor anymore, they are the ones that know about it, not the fathers. When their kids approach the age 26 cutoff age for staying on their parents' insurance, they are the ones fretting over junior dying because he can't go to the doctor or their grandkid not having any coverage at all. White suburban women are not suburban white men.

[quote] Gillum lost because he made race a big issue in the governor's race and it turned off white voters. Gillum still only lost by a slim margin, so Biden could definitely win, especially in a presidential year.

Gillum absolutely did NOT do that. The day Gillum won the Democratic primary DeSantis blew his dog whistle telling FL they didn't want to "monkey this up." A purposeful choice of words from an Ivy League grad who is otherwise an imbecile. FL heard him loud and clear.

No, R66. Bernie's just the flip side of Trump... an authoritarian whiney do-nothing medicore old straight white guy who's both racist and sexist as hell, who is completely unfit for the office. Bernie would be a huge disaster.

No, if the choice is Bernie or Trump, I go back out and put a bullet through my head. Because no matter the choice, it's disaster, and everything is over, and we're done.

Fuck Bernie and fuck anyone who supports that asshole. Same for Trump and Tulsi.

[quote]Yes, he would have won if he had gotten the nomination in 2016,

I do not believe how anyone can believe such nonsense. He couldn't even beat Hillary … eh lost in a landslide of 4 million votes, and a thousand delegates, and was mathematically eliminated by March 15th. It wasn't even close. He's a big fat loser, and the GOP would have smeared him harder than they did Hillary. Never mind the GOP and Russian bots were PROMOTING him, because they'd rather have run against him than Hillary, because Bernie would have been so much easier to beat.

[quote]his time has passed.

He's a has-been who never-was.

[quote]He won't get the nomination and wouldn't be elected in 2020.

Damn right he won't, and damn right he wouldn't.

What's interesting about Trump is that practice of speaking for 200,000 dollar checks is now gone (or at least frowned upon) .It was disgusting seeing these people get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 40 minute speech.

R77 The corrosive impact of "false equivalencies" will be central to the story when the history of this era is written.. Trump and Bernie are the same, would be equally horrible? Two words: Supreme Court. Duh.

They're two sides of the same coin. Bernie is the left's Trump. Old dottering incompetent divisive sexist racist... why would anyone want an 80 year old guy who has spent half his life in politics (and the other half being a do-nothing parasite on society) to run things? Especially such a dishonest one. He will discredit Progressive causes for a generation or more.

R81 So you'd be happy with a Supreme Court that delivers The Handmaid's Tale to the white, fascist Christianists. Fine.

"We are blessed in the way no other judiciary in the world is: We have life tenure. The only way to get rid of a federal judge is by impeachment. Congress can't retaliate by reducing our salary," she continued. "So the safeguards for judicial independence in this country, I think, are as great or greater than anyplace else in the world."

As a result, she said a move which would make the court seem overly partisan could damage its credibility and, consequently, the overall authority of the judicial branch.

"The court has no troops at its command, doesn't have the power of the purse," Ginsburg said. "And yet, time and again, when the courts say something, people accept it."

- Salon, 2019

So, that's it. The judiciary is bullshit. They don't have anything. That's what McConnell understands and is hobbling our efforts to move forward as a country.

R82, we already have that, and as I already said, if the choice is Bernie or Trump, this country's already over, and I'll be checking out. It won't fucking matter if that's our choice.

RBG should have retired under Obama. I am totally in favor of stacking the court. The problem is we need a Senate majority to do it.

Yeah, I don't understand why RBG didn't retire when Obama was President and when the Dems had control of the Senate.

By staying on the Court this long, she risks dying and being replaced by a right-winger.

Nobody imagined Trump winning over Hillary, least of not RGB.

Hindsight is 20/20, but realize that Hillary was polling well above Trump all the way until the final week, when she was knee-capped by that nothing-burger Comey letter.

r10 And people will hold their noses and vote for him again now that the Democratic party has gone full batshit commie...

Uh-huh. you just keep telling yourself that, R88.

[quote]White suburban women do not like Warren.

This block is still the unknown. Everyone is talking about this vote and that vote but I rarely hear about the white suburban women's vote. Keep in mind that a LARGE percentage of them voted for Trump. I think that might happen again.

She didn't resign because McConnell was blocking appointments, and she was holding out for a Dem to win in 2016 which would force the GOP's hand. They wouldn't have been able to say "it's too close to the election" as an excuse.

Look. I believe, in reality, we have a lock on about210 votes. I'm talking about no matter who the nominee is. The Democrats have a lock on about 210 votes. Conservative estimate. We need to look at how to get the 60-70 electoral votes necessary to win the White House. Focus on the states who are most likely to give us those votes and pour our resources into fighting voter suppression and fraud, starting right now in those targeted states.

Trump stole 77, 744 to get the electoral college. We can stop him. WE need to plan, be smart , be strategic. Let all our candidates do their thing while we take care of the voting process itself. And yes, in spite of the media hype which we need to ignore, just remember #VoteBlueNoMatterWho.

Look at it this way. If we flip the Senate, hold the House and win the White House, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer can retire.And maybe if we hang on, Clarence Thomas will get pushed out or impeached. He is crooked. Or maybe we'll get Kavanaugh out.

We won't do anything without taking the Senate.

Taking back the Senate is actually MORE important than taking back the White House.

R93 You're high. Taking the Senate is extremely important. Getting rid of Trump is the highest priority. Trump is an existential threat to the American democratic republic.

R94, if we don't take the Senate, nothing changes no matter who is in the White house... the Senate will block everything.

Taking the Senate is more important. If Dems have both the Senate and the House, they can impeach Trump, they can block judges, they can pass legislation and even over-ride vetoes.

Taking back the Senate is actually MORE important than taking the White House. That's not saying it's not vital we that we oust Trump. It's just putting a spotlight on where the real problem is. Trump is the symptom. McConnell is the cause.

Biden is currently leading Trump 50-42, and the only Dem currently winning the state vs. Trump, for what that's worth at this early date.

Also, yes, the Senate is extremely important, but I want Trump out so he can be indicted the moment a Dem takes office.

R95 Just this week the SCOTUS ruled that the President could use appropriated funds anyway he wanted to (military $ for the wall). Contradicting centuries of precedence and explicit Constitutional language assigning the use of public funds to the House. The function of Congress, (so, the Senate), will continue to be eroded. The guardrails, protections, checks and balances are failing, and the Trumpists have continuing plans to shift absolute power to the executive. Cohen's testimony - even if Trump loses the election there will be a challenge to the result - calling it "fake." Legal challenges going to....yup, SCOTUS. This will make Gore v Bush look like nothing.

Leading Trump in Ohio, I mean.

I can't believe there's some histrionic queen on this thread saying he will literally commit suicide if Bernie Sanders is the Dem nominee.

That's either mental illness or someone who isn't very good at the divide-the-libs trolling.

Hope your wrong, R 97, but I can certainly see it.

As I understood that Supreme Court ruling, they said the groups who brought the lawsuit lacked standing. So if the right entity sues about misappropriating the funds they might reconsider. IMO it was a bullshit cop out by Roberts, and shame on him and the majority GOP pigs. Because IMO no matter who brought suit Only the House is Constitutionally empowered to appropriate funds.

R93 and R95 are correct. Without the Senate we a re fucked. With the Senate we can impeach Trump and watch him get frog marched in cuffs out of the WH and over to Rikers.

And all the rest. We may even get rid of Kavanaugh, and get two or three Supremes appointed to restore balance.

I think we're in very good shape.

Certain DLers tend to underestimate the degree to which people voted against Hillary and how widely hated she was and how tepidly supported she was by so many of the people who actually voted for her.

None of the current crop of potential candidates have those sort of negatives. Biden pretty much just has to remain "coherent enough" and he'll win. Warren, Sanders, Harris, Booker, Pete et al just need to stay away from very radical positions (they mostly have thus far) and they'll win.

Trump (and DL) overestimate the size of his base, of people who fervently support him, versus people who'll go in and vote for the Republican senatorial candidate and then the not-Trump presidential candidate because they're tired of all these years of crazy.

Remember, Trump won something like 50% of all college-educated voters. (Exit polling is a VERY inexact science) and I suspect many of them figured he was acting "like that" as a Hail Mary play to win the election and that he'd quickly grow bored with being president and let Ryan, Pence and the GOP Senators run the show.

Now that they see how wrong that assumption was, they will not get fooled again.

Exit polling is only inexact in certain elections in the US, always ones where the Republican is the surprise winner.

It's always inexact R103, especially now where many people don't have landlines, don't answer phones from unknown numbers, don't talk to randos asking them questions as they leave the polling place.

"Inexact" doesn't mean "wildly incorrect" -- it just means that there's a plus/minus of 5% to 10% on every response. So while early exit polls said Trump won white female college educated voters, there have since been other polls indicating that might not be the case.

What we can take away from that though is that he won somewhere close to half of them, somewhere likely between 45% and 55%. And that if most of those women vote for Biden or Warren, he won't win this time.

There should be a massive, comprehensive forensic investigation into the depth of the Russian hacking of the 2016 election, and a giant 'fix' to prevent it from ever happening again (use the money to be spent on The Wall to pay for it).

But there won't be. Trump is going to need all the help he can get in 2020. EVERYone (blacks, Millennials, 3rd partiers, non-voters, Bernie Bros., Hispanics, LGBT, never-Trumpers, #metoos, etc...) will vote- just to get rid of his big fat mouth.

No replacement could ever be worse than Dotard Bonespurs.

Harris wants to give historically black colleges $75 billion. She proposes house-buying assistance only to blacks, without giving a thought to how that promise would be applied: would her tri-racial kids get only 1/4 of the the assistance full-blooded blacks would get? Would Jamaican blacks whose ancestors were never slaves also get assistance?

She's divisive and the vetting has begun, for her it won't get better from here.

Harris has no children R106

She has two white Jewish stepchildren though given she married their father when they were adults, "stepchildren" is a stretch. (Lots of people whose widowed or divorced parents get remarried when they are adults refer to the new spouse as "my mother's husband" because while they may like the guy well enough, there's no sort of parental relationship.)

[quote] R86: Yeah, I don't understand why RBG didn't retire when Obama was President and when the Dems had control of the Senate.

But that’s not how people think. It’s a nice idea, but most people wouldn’t sacrifice themselves like this, especially when the rational is “well, I’ll be dead in 4 years, so I better do this.” Plus, I think the Senate. Outdoor have blocked her replacement anyway. And I’m sure she things she’s doing God’s work, right where she is.

[quote]With the Senate we can impeach Trump and watch him get frog marched in cuffs out of the WH and over to Rikers.

Some of you don't understand how many votes are needed to remove an impeached president. It's not even possible for us to win enough Senate seats to reach 2/3rds.

And, even if we have both the House and Senate, can you imagine the damage this piece of shit will do with executive orders, all upheld by all the unqualified fucking judges McTurtle is cramming through?

But they know the lyrics to every Lady Gaga song R109

So there!

R109, what I am hoping for is that the evidence uncovered by the House, and their report on it, will be so damning that it will shake loose some Republican votes, and carry the day.

Nancy needs to be sophisticated enough to write a dumbed-down report that the public can understand and get angry over. There are two models for this:

Nixon, who lost support of Republican Senators and resigned, rather than face impeachment. The public turned against the Republican Party in the next election.

Clinton, who lost some Democratic Senators, but survived his impeachment. The public thought the Republicans overreached and supported the President. (However, the public turned away from Gore out of scandal overdose.)

If the evidence is bad enough, the Republicans could be swayed. We’ll probably need some whistleblowers, and I don’t think we have enough of that, yet.

Can’t we have an impeachment inquiry without forcing an impeachment vote, if Nancy later decides that the votes are not there to convict?

As of July 2019, there are 18 Senate seats that look competitive, 12 of which are currently held by Republicans. Dens need to pickup 4 too regain control of the Senate.

R113, regaining control of the Senate is not the same as having enough votes for to remove Trump.

[quote][R109], what I am hoping for is that the evidence uncovered by the House, and their report on it, will be so damning that it will shake loose some Republican votes, and carry the day.

There is not one Repug in the Senate who will be the final vote to remove Trump. Not one.

Texas looks pretty in pink, now it just needs to start turning light blue.

[quote] Trump has tapped into a segment of white folks that have been left behind... Yo, there's prosperity all around, why not us?

Lie. Lie. Lie. There was no swing for "economic anxiety." That's a lie. Still and always. They voted for the racist because they are racists.

R116 is exactly right.

R114, how about Susan Collins of Maine? Or Lisa Murkowski of Alaska? There must be others.

4 Republican incumbent Senators are not seeking re-election.

[quote]Lie. Lie. Lie. There was no swing for "economic anxiety." That's a lie. Still and always.

It's the same lie the media told about the Tea Party, who screamed about the deficit when Obama was in office. It's funny how you never hear about them anymore, even though the deficit is skyrocketing under Trump.

Which is why those who still say the economy is driving elections are clueless.

[quote]Also, yes, the Senate is extremely important, but I want Trump out so he can be indicted the moment a Dem takes office.

Do you really believe that's going to happen? Trump and his minions are going to get away with this.

[quote]It's the same lie the media told about the Tea Party, who screamed about the deficit when Obama was in office. It's funny how you never hear about them anymore, even though the deficit is skyrocketing under Trump.

Yes, funny isn't it... Funny, how you hear little from Ted Cruz. Where's Tom Cotton? How come the Freedom Caucus isn't blasted daily about it's silence over the booming debt and deficit?

[quote] Do you really believe that's going to happen? Trump and his minions are going to get away with this.

If Biden is President, I agree. If it's Warren or Harris, Trump and his minions will be prosecuted.

Wow. This is waaaaay too close for comfort, and none of this takes into consideration which voters will stay home, flake and vote for third-party losers (Bernie, watch for it), or lie and will really vote Trump because of their sick suburban racism. I probably won't be comfortable unto the votes are counted, but if Trump's numbers were in the low 100s, I'd feel a little better!

R118, I do think a couple of Repug Senators will vote to convict Trump and remove him. But, I don't think, if it comes down to having to count on a certain number of Repugs to put the vote over the 2/3 mark, that any of them will be that historical vote taking out a president of their own party, even a criminal one. Murkowski would be the most likely but even she switched her vote on something to cover for one of her party that was at a wedding so she wouldn't be the deciding vote.

Trump won PA, MI, and WI by very slim margins. The Dem candidate can win by focusing heavily on these states.

[quote]Trump won PA, MI, and WI by very slim margins. The Dem candidate can win by focusing heavily on these states.

Oh, for heaven's sake! MUST THERE ALWAYS BE A STRATEGY? How about a message that the overwhelming majority of the citizens can coalesce behind and come out and vote for? Yes, I'm naive but I still believe in the baseball, apple pie, Chevrolet, type of America. What we have is awful. Never would I have ever thought I'd see so many hard fought rights under attack and/or reversed.

People think that she's a loon and I don't plan on voting for her but I'd really like to see this Williamson woman somewhere on the national scene in an influential position.

[quote]-If polls are supposedly irrelevant at this stage of the election then why is a poll referenced every other 5 minutes on MSNBC--or some other news program. It's simply poll after poll after poll. It's seems as if it is about the horse race rather than the issues.

Do you not understand how ratings-driven news operates?

R127, she's been a best selling author for decades. Women are already familiar with her and have been following her for a long time. It's too bad men avoid female authors all the time.

Approval rating is not the same as likely voters or turnout. If Amash runs on Libertarian line it may pull votes away from Trump in Michigan tho.

I think if Amash runs as a Libertarian, Trump will win. His 40% that will stick with him no matter what will be enough because a serious Libertarian candidate will pull Independents and some white male Democrats.

The only way Trump can win the next election is by Russia helping him.

R132, it will be a lot easier to hide that interference with a third party thrown into the mix. Why do you think Bernie, Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson were propped up last time. The math becomes infinitely harder to analyze with more variables.

R131. More reason for Dems to run a moderate like Biden.

Change in confidence in US president from Obama in 2016 to Trump in 2018 (Pew)

Germany: -76%

Sweden: -76%

France: -75%

Canada: -58%

Australia: -52%

UK: -51%

Japan: -48%

Russia: +8%

[quote]And turnout. Against a horror like Trump, turnout was depressed far more than expected. She should have had Obama's 2008 numbers.

Aside from James Comey, Russia, Bernie, Jill Stein and rabid racism, the reason Hillary didn't have Obama 208 numbers was that WOMEN HATE OTHER WOMEN, especially WHITE women! Women are hateful and jealous of EVERY woman achieving what they are NOT. Stay at home white women and even college educated white fraus weren't going to let Hillary be the first woman POTUS because in their hearts they don't EVER want a woman to be President!

We start off in the hole if we nominate another woman again. It's just like in pop music--men will not listen to female singers because it's not the cool or macho thing to do. You're considered gay if you listen to girls. And girls are more interested in male pop singers because the boys are hot.

It's the same thing with politics--straight men will not vote for a female Democrat because it makes them look effeminate, and many women won't vote for another woman because they're jealous. Just watch Big Brother or Survivor to see how the women can never sustain an alliance.

Agree, r4. Ohio is a shithole and fast turning into the Alabama of the north.

So many educated people have fled the state in the last 5 years that it just keeps getting more and more racist and bigoted. It's disgusting.

Ohio is a lost cause, just like Florida.

They need to focus most on PA, MI, and WI.

Ohio and Florida aren't lost causes for the Democrats, but they are probably leaning Republican at the moment.

The good news for Dems is that some polls show Biden could beat Trump in both states.

We won't know more until the election is closer.

Tell ya a story. Long ago in another century, the first Black Mayor of Los Angeles was a guy named Tom Bradley. Back then the Mayor didn't have a lot of power.I think the county did. Or maybe the Council did. Whatever. Everybody "loved" Tom Bradley. He was like the mascot of the Liberals. And he was real nice. A good soul. Anyway, in 1982, he was convinced he could be governor of California. He became the Democratic nominee and he ran against a Republican named Deukmajian. He was way ahead in all the polls.....and he lost. Ever since then, they call it "the Bradley effect." It's when people are too embarrassed or cowardly to admit they're racist, so they lie until they get in the voting booth, then they voted for the other guy. It's not really confined to racism. It has been called the "shy Tory" effect too. It's a "discrepancy" between opinion polls and voter outcomes, as Wiki puts it.

Yeah, R141, we know. That was discussed repeatedly in the Obama years. If there ever was a real Bradley effect, it appears to have dissipated a long time ago, as there was no appreciable impact with Obama.

And for those who pretended there was a "reverse Bradley" effect for Trump, the data don't bear that out, either.

R121, yes, I 100% believe if the Dems take the White House in 2020 all the charges against Trump and his crime family, currently being held at bay, will come home to roost. An ex-president has no special immunity to prosecution.

I don't know about that, R143. I would hope so, but...

We, (and I just don't mean Democrats), have to really do all we can to take back our government and country. These are REALLY historical times that we are living in. It will take generations to rectify this mess that basically happened in less than 3 years! What are these Republicans thinking?

I'm currently watching the Henry Louis Gates "Reconstruction" series--EXCELLENT, and the damage that were done by whites (who were mostly Democrats at that time) is a damage that still resonates to this very day. Imagine all of the damage this Trump mess will do for future generations?

We have a group of people who just simply say "NO!" "You are subpoenaed"--NO; "You must turn over these records"--NO; "You are held in contempt"--So, what? How do we deal with this? No one is going to jail. Bank accounts aren't frozen. There are no penalties.

R137, folks. Let’s give it up for him: 👏👏👏. Because you can only get the sophisticated political analysis of “girls are icky, don’t be a fag and vote for one” here at Datalounge.

R137 is a Biden shill. Look at his other posts.

While r137 expressed it crudely, sadly I think there is some truth to his post. I think women candidates for president inherently still have an uphill barrier to overcome in this country that is a lot bigger than media and liberals want to admit. I think Female Democratic candidates have an even Higher Barrier to winning the presidency because many people associate female Democrats as radical feminists. I still hear educated women say they prefer a male president because they think men naturally a better at leading and have a more stable temperament.

All this bullshit ignores the fact that Hillary WON THE FUCKING ELECTION BY NEARLY 3 MILLION VOTES. Why is that conveniently ignored constantly? Trump shaved off, through fraud and treachery, 77,744 votes to grab the Electoral College. Less than 80,000 votes. So stop with the bullshit that men don't vote for women, or that a woman "can't win" or WTF ever you're peddling. Because she did, Blanche. She WON.

It's ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative they want to establish, R148. It's the same thing with the "Clinton won among voters who listed jobs and the economy as their top issues." That doesn't fit the narrative they're trying to establish about how "Trump has tapped into those who feel left behind economically," so it's routinely ignored.

Going through the steps of Impeachment is not going to be injurious to the Democrats. A lot of information will be revealed about Tweety that might not surface otherwise. And the whole process will drive him over the edge; he'll do or say something that will prove dire to his Presidency, reputation and life.

Besides, the public wants a show. They're addicted to excitement, and it would be so entertaining and cathartic to watch Bigmouth get humiliated.

I agree R150, but there is a lot more going on, and it is not being covered. When will the Media have a real, consistent, daily focus on McConnell? What legislation is he holding up besides the Intel legislation? What is in that legislation?

What are the various federal agencies and cabinet level departments doing? There was a blurb in the press for one day about Mulvaney giving the cabinet "marching orders" to change this or that, look for this look for that. They are massively overhauling policies, changing regulations, purging employees, transferring whole government functions. It's huge.

Our entire government apparatus is being overhauls and reshaped while we are busy chasing tweets from a fucking Clown in diapers.

R150 The argument that impeachment will increase Trump's support - well, those who will be MORE supportive of Trump because of an impeachment are already for Trump no matter what scandals emerge. I do think Pelosi's calculation/resistance is two fold: 1) the number of the 2018 class of Dem reps who are from districts that Trump won - she is afraid of losing the House in 2002, and 2) she doesn't have the votes yet for impeachment IN the Dem caucus.

[quote] Because she did, Blanche. She WON.

No, she didn't. She won the popular vote, but lost the election. She's not sitting in the Oval Office right now.

As long as we have the EC, we have to play by the rules if we want to win. That means we have to cater to swing state voters Life is full of compromises, Amber, and this is one of them.

I agree with R149, R152. I disagree with R153. Remember:77, 744. He stole them. And you misinterpret this at your peril. You do not change the direction because of 77,744. You address voter fraud, ballot security and voter suppression. You do a better job of messaging what you are offering, you don't change what your offering. No credibility in tacking to the Right.

I have to agree with r153, sadly. There’s a story about Nixon’s loss to Kennedy in 1960. Apparently, Papa Kennedy saw to it that the ballot boxes in Ohio were stuffed with Kennedy votes, giving him the state and the Presidency. When Nixon was asked if he would contest the election, he replied, “No, Kennedy stole the election, fair and square.” Well, they played by different rules then, later leading Nixon to go too far, and get caught.

Trump is the President, and will be until we remove him, one way or another. I prefer feet-first.

you're...not your.

I was typing too fast

Russians changed the vote totals in crucial districts to give Trump his narrow win*.

In 2016 a lot of people didn't approve of Trump, but unfortunately they voted for him anyway.

R158, my sister “held her nose” and voted for Trump. She was completely Foxwashed and it was a victory for the liars on that channel.

R148, you're correct that Hillary won the popular vote -- and she did so by a much wider margin than Al Gore did in 2000. But as R153 points out, the problem for Hillary is that she won a lot of votes in blue states like California were it didn't help her, and she underperformed in several other regions where she needed the electoral votes.

The election in 2016 does show that Americans are open to voting for a woman President, however, there may be some resistance to the idea of a woman President in some regions, such as the Midwest. Up until recent years, the Midwest has not had many female Senators or Governors, so that could be one factor.

The problem for Hillary was that she lost in states that even losing Democrats had won for the past 30 years -- eg. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. She also lost an electoral vote to Trump in Maine, the first time I think that's happened to a Democrat since Dukakis in 1988.

Hillary even had a narrow win in Minnesota, which has been the most reliably Democratic state since the 1970's -- the one state Ronald Reagan didn't win in his 49 state landslide in 1984.

R160, please read R157. R158 is right. And I agree. Trump is President. He is President because the Electoral College did not reflect the popular vote. But that does not alter what R157 said.

And please remember that close elections are easier to steal. Wisconsin, Michigan, and PA were tight.Once the GOP successfully weakened the unions, it made everything a lot easier for them. If you can believe it, the Michigan Legislature is extreme conservative GOP and it is now a right to work state.

Nate Silver and every other true Analyst agree that the Comey letter was like the killing blow. It was almost a signal to Steve Bannon, Cambridge Analytica, Brad Parscale, and their RUssian cronies to go for it. Russia could not have infiltrated so successfully without support here in the USA. I'm not speculating. This is all verifiable information from credible sources. It seems like a long time ago because so much more has gone wrong. But it was three years ago. And sadly, I remember every thing.