Clinton derail from Mueller thread

[PyramidHead]

Best take I've heard yet is that Dems were hoping the Mueller investigation would uncover evidence that Hillary was a good candidate

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Best take I've heard yet is that Dems were hoping the Mueller investigation would uncover evidence that Hillary was a good candidate

Don't worry. We already have the fact that she won by almost three million ballots cast (and many many millions more if you factor in those whose preference is now known, but for various non-partisan reasons were not able to or simply did not bother to vote). But thanks for the concern.

 

[PyramidHead]

Best take I've heard yet is that Dems were hoping the Mueller investigation would uncover evidence that Hillary was a good candidate

Don't worry. We already have the fact that she won by almost three million ballots cast (and many many millions more if you factor in those whose preference is now known, but for various non-partisan reasons were not able to or simply did not bother to vote). But thanks for the concern.

Still an disliked candidate that people voted for because they hated Trump, not because of any positive qualities she may have had, and that clearly wasn't enough. A better candidate would have beaten the most hated presidential contender in modern history, is all I'm saying.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Still an disliked candidate that people voted for because they hated Trump

Some, but by no means the majority. This is an oft repeated narrative, but not nearly as impactful as those who did in fact vote for her because of her positive qualities.

A better candidate would have beaten the most hated presidential contender in modern history, is all I'm saying.

Another oft-repeated fallacy instantly dismissable due first to the fact that obviously Trump was hated primarily among Democrats, not among Republicans (at least not in large enough numbers), but also due, once again, to the fact that she (a) won and (b) subsequent PEW research on the 2016 election--the largest ever conducted, no less--found that among non-voters (who were registered to vote, but just did not for various non-partisan reasons) their preference was for Clinton:

Among members of the panel who were categorized as nonvoters, 37% expressed a preference for Hillary Clinton, 30% for Donald Trump and 9% for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein; 14% preferred another candidate or declined to express a preference.

There were some 100 million registered voters in 2016 who nevertheless did not cast a ballot. If you just factor in the 7% preference differential, that means an additional 7 million votes--had the voters cast their ballots--would have gone to Hillary, for a total voting differential between her and Trump of around 10 million votes. A clear and unmistakable landslide that would have easily overcome the 40,000 vote differential that resulted in a gross miscarriage of voter preference.

There is also this from PEW that was conducted before the election (published September 2, 2016):

In a recent Pew Research Center survey, 53% of Clinton supporters say they consider their vote more in support of her, while 46% say their vote is more against Trump. Negative voting is somewhat more prevalent among Trump supporters: 53% say their vote is primarily against Clinton. Fewer (44%) say their vote is in support of Trump.

Iow, the majority of Clinton voters (polled at least three months before the actual election) affirmed a positive preference. It was a slim majority, compared to others like Obama and Gore and the like, but a majority nonetheless and even more notable in that she had decades of GOP attacks to overcome; misogyny (which evidently played a not insignificant role) and, perhaps most importantly, a bitterly divisive primary civil war that at the point of the PEW polling was pretty much all over every Democrats social media feed and coming to what some called a violent climax.

Which brings us to the following (also from the same pre-election piece from PEW):

Today, there are differences by age, gender, party identification and education among both Trump and Clinton backers when it comes to whether voters are motivated more by support of their own candidate or dislike of the opponent.

But among Clinton supporters, younger voters are much less likely than older ones to say their vote is in favor of Clinton. Just 29% of Clinton supporters ages 18-29 say their vote is more a vote for Clinton (71% view theirs more as against Trump). By comparison, majorities of Clinton backers in older age groups view their vote primarily as a vote for Clinton.

Among Trump supporters with college degrees, more say their vote is against Clinton than say it is for Trump (59% vs. 40%). But those with less education are more divided: 50% say it is a vote against Clinton, while 46% say it is for Trump.

Among Clinton supporters, the pattern is reversed: 60% of those with college degrees view their vote as for Clinton rather than against Trump. A smaller share (49%) of those with less education say this.

In short, preference was clearly tied to both education and age, an important factor because the influence of social media effects the younger, less educated far more than it does the older, better educated voters.

Again, we saw the same misguided enthusiasm among the so-called "Millennial revolution" (i.e., the new, younger generation of voters just entering into the political arena for the first time in their lives in 2015/2016) that never actually materialized in the Sanders Civil War. But you'd never know it from all the noise that Sanders bots generated online.

The younger you were--and the less education you had under your belt--the more likely you were to fall for idealism (Sanders) over practicalism (Clinton). Plus, as was abundantly clear in just about every single post here and everything I saw ad nauseam in my own social media feeds was a profound and willingly ignorance when it came to any of the age-old GOP tropes about Hillary Clinton, most notably the "super-predator" paraphrase she never made, her anti-gay marriage comment that wasn't anti-gay marriage and her Iraq vote, which was explicitly not a vote to go to war.

Few Sanders bots shouted about Benghazi, but there were numerous ones that railed about her emails, parroting idiotic GOP talking points as if they were simply GOP bots.

But now consider how radically different all of that would have been if Sanders had done the correct course of action when it was a mathematical certainty that he could not win the primaries way back in March of 2016 (some eight months before the general). There would have been no Civil War divisiveness in the party; not Russian-fueled negativity and refurbished GOP attacks; no focus taken off of going after Trump at every turn and rally he ever held.

It would have been nothing but Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump for eight months leading up to the general.

Even if you still factor in a percentage of voters that will say their vote was for "not-the-other-guy" we have these comparisons of recent popular candidates to guide by:

In both the 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain and the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, clear majorities of each candidate’s supporters said their vote was mainly for their candidates.

In July 2008, 68% of Obama supporters and 59% of McCain supporters said their vote was more in favor of their respective candidates. Smaller shares in both groups said they were voting more against the opposing party’s candidate (25% of Obama supporters and 35% of McCain supporters).

Similarly, in September 2000, 64% of Gore supporters said their vote was more for Gore than against Bush. A similar share of Bush supporters (60%) said their vote was for Bush, rather than against Gore.

Bush, too, at that time, was "the most hated presidential contender in modern history." So, again, if you were to remove just the primary civil war from the record and speculate--even conservatively--on how eight months of Clinton vs. Trump in the lead up would have impacted the general, it's no great stretch to argue Clinton would have wiped the floor with Trump, but certainly would have had numbers closer to Gore at the very least.

Based, once again on the facts that she won by almost three million votes (ten if you count preference) in spite of the civil war and all of the other baggage that has been dumped on her unjustifiably for literally thirty years by the GOP propaganda machine precisely because they always feared her inevitable presidential bid.

Regardless, it was still a majority of people who voted for Clinton because they wanted Clinton, not because they hated Trump.

 

[PyramidHead]

Another oft-repeated fallacy instantly dismissable due first to the fact that obviously Trump was hated primarily among Democrats, not among Republicans (at least not in large enough numbers), but also due, once again, to the fact that she (a) won and (b) subsequent PEW research on the 2016 election--the largest ever conducted, no less--found that among non-voters (who were registered to vote, but just did not for various non-partisan reasons) their preference was for Clinton:

Sure, but their preference was for Clinton because they didn't like Trump. If it was because they loved Hillary, they would have voted for her. If she were a better candidate, then those reported preferences would have translated into actual motivation instead of remaining private opinions. Anybody with a lick of sense would prefer Hillary to Trump, but that doesn't make her a good candidate.

Iow, the majority of Clinton voters (polled at least three months before the actual election) affirmed a positive preference. It was a slim majority, compared to others like Obama and Gore and the like, but a majority nonetheless and even more notable in that she had decades of GOP attacks to overcome; misogyny (which evidently played a not insignificant role) and, perhaps most importantly, a bitterly divisive primary civil war that at the point of the PEW polling was pretty much all over every Democrats social media feed and coming to what some called a violent climax.

lol. You're reaching, and I love the erotic undertones.

Today, there are differences by age, gender, party identification and education among both Trump and Clinton backers when it comes to whether voters are motivated more by support of their own candidate or dislike of the opponent.

But among Clinton supporters, younger voters are much less likely than older ones to say their vote is in favor of Clinton. Just 29% of Clinton supporters ages 18-29 say their vote is more a vote for Clinton (71% view theirs more as against Trump). By comparison, majorities of Clinton backers in older age groups view their vote primarily as a vote for Clinton.

My point exactly. She couldn't inspire young, politically minded, socially conscious voters, who are by definition the future of the party (as well as the country and the fucking world) to vote for her other than as a hedge against the opposition. You're not helping your case by linking to the same study I took my picture from, dude.

Few Sanders bots shouted about Benghazi, but there were numerous ones that railed about her emails, parroting idiotic GOP talking points as if they were simply GOP bots.

But now consider how radically different all of that would have been if Sanders had done the correct course of action when it was a mathematical certainty that he could not win the primaries way back in March of 2016 (some eight months before the general). There would have been no Civil War divisiveness in the party; not Russian-fueled negativity and refurbished GOP attacks; no focus taken off of going after Trump at every turn and rally he ever held.

It would have been nothing but Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump for eight months leading up to the general.

A candidate that was strong enough, likeable enough, and effective enough at communicating her policies would have been able to conduct a general election within the constraints of the primary timeline, the convention, and the electoral college to beat fucking Donald Trump. Reality is just not as complex as you're making it out to be here.

In both the 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain and the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, clear majorities of each candidate’s supporters said their vote was mainly for their candidates.

In July 2008, 68% of Obama supporters and 59% of McCain supporters said their vote was more in favor of their respective candidates. Smaller shares in both groups said they were voting more against the opposing party’s candidate (25% of Obama supporters and 35% of McCain supporters).

Similarly, in September 2000, 64% of Gore supporters said their vote was more for Gore than against Bush. A similar share of Bush supporters (60%) said their vote was for Bush, rather than against Gore.

Bush, too, at that time, was "the most hated presidential contender in modern history." So, again, if you were to remove just the primary civil war from the record and speculate--even conservatively--on how eight months of Clinton strictly vs. Trump in the lead up would have impacted the general, it's no great stretch to argue Clinton would have wiped the floor with Trump.

If the only way to elect someone is to have a primary where nothing is at stake because the party refuses to acknowledge its left wing, then that someone is--and I include anyone you may have listed above in this category, in case you're wondering--a shit candidate. Political parties exist to further the politics and policies that the people want for themselves. Political policies do not exist to further political parties. An internal schism within an established party, resulting in heated disagreements over the actual stances represented on each side is what we need in a democratic republic.

A candidate that represents what the public actually, positively wants in their government could win on that basis after withstanding a robust primary where each of her ideals were tested and strengthened. Clinton clearly was not able to withstand a primary challenge from the left wing of her party, and was not able to convince the general population to vote FOR her, instead of AGAINST a goddamn reality TV show caricature, without the luxury of an uninterrupted 8-month speaking tour. What part of "I represent your interests more than the race-baiting misogynist billionare" could have required 8 months of debate? What position of hers was left unsaid due to not having 8 months to say it? On what issues, name a single one, did her position relative to Trump's need 8 months of clarification? He's Donald Trump! You run on a platform of being a genuine person who cares about others and doesn't want to go to war or impoverish citizens, doesn't want to bankrupt people with medical bills, and you can beat Donald Trump.

Based, once again on the facts that she won by almost three million votes (ten if you count preference) in spite of the civil war and all of the other baggage that has been dumped on her unjustifiably for literally thirty years by the GOP propaganda machine precisely because they always feared her inevitable presidential bid.

Cry more. If I brag about almost being able to bake a cake by counting the ingredients I couldn't afford to buy and couldn't convince my neighbor to let me borrow on faith, I haven't baked a cake, and if I lose a baking competition to a toddler with a Play-Doh kitchen set then I'm a shit baker, and all my shitty sycophant friends will endlessly make excuses for why the Play-Doh kid won because he had help from Paul Hollywood and Mary Berry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So can we skip to the part where Hillary Clinton won the most primaries, and that Sanders simply didn't win enough of them? Are we supposed to say Clinton shouldn't be the nominee because a small wing of the party didn't want her as the nominee?

Yes, the DNC didn't want Sanders as the nominee. The GOP would have eviscerated him... and the thread would be about how we should have stuck with Clinton... after all, she did win the most primaries. Trump's victory, both in itself and regarding the EC v Popular vote was extraordinarily unusual. Few people including Wall Street thought Trump would win. It wasn't apparent how many people were good with trading their cows for some magic beans in rural and rusty industrial areas.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Sure, but their preference was for Clinton because they didn't like Trump.

False. The choices were given and 37% preferred Clinton to only 30% preferring Trump.

If it was because they loved Hillary, they would have voted for her.

Again, they did by expressing their preference, if not their ballot.

If she were a better candidate, then those reported preferences would have translated into actual motivation instead of remaining private opinions.

As I previously noted, there were numerous non-partisan reasons why certain people were not able to actually cast their ballots. Do you understand what "non-partisan" means in this context? That's the whole point behind asking about preference in a poll of those who were eligible but nevertheless and for various non-partisan reasons were not able to or didn't bother to cast their ballots.

If not, just check these PEW numbers. Spoiler, 75% of registered non-voters did not cast a ballot for reasons like, felt their vote wouldn't matter (15%); too busy or schedule conflicts (14%); illness or disability (12%); etc.

In fact, only 25% did not vote expressly because they did not like either candidate or campaign issues.

Anybody with a lick of sense would prefer Hillary to Trump

Again, this is an oft repeated confirmation-bias fallacy that the actual numbers disprove.

but that doesn't make her a good candidate.

She won. That alone makes her a "good" candidate.

Today, there are differences by age, gender, party identification and education among both Trump and Clinton backers when it comes to whether voters are motivated more by support of their own candidate or dislike of the opponent.

But among Clinton supporters, younger voters are much less likely than older ones to say their vote is in favor of Clinton. Just 29% of Clinton supporters ages 18-29 say their vote is more a vote for Clinton (71% view theirs more as against Trump). By comparison, majorities of Clinton backers in older age groups view their vote primarily as a vote for Clinton.

My point exactly. She couldn't inspire young, politically minded, socially conscious voters,

Wrong. She couldn't overcome a bitterly divisive primary civil war that clearly demonstrated a lack of political understanding in favor of ignorance-based idealism, but among the higher educated young voters, her approval--even after the bitterly divisive civil war primar--was among her highest (60%).

You're not helping your case by linking to the same study I took my picture from, dude.

Irony. Big fan.

Few Sanders bots shouted about Benghazi, but there were numerous ones that railed about her emails, parroting idiotic GOP talking points as if they were simply GOP bots.

But now consider how radically different all of that would have been if Sanders had done the correct course of action when it was a mathematical certainty that he could not win the primaries way back in March of 2016 (some eight months before the general). There would have been no Civil War divisiveness in the party; not Russian-fueled negativity and refurbished GOP attacks; no focus taken off of going after Trump at every turn and rally he ever held.

It would have been nothing but Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump for eight months leading up to the general.

A candidate that was strong enough, likeable enough, and effective enough at communicating her policies would have been able to conduct a general election within the constraints of the primary timeline, the convention, and the electoral college to beat fucking Donald Trump.

Once again, your confirmation bias does not make a compelling argument, nor does it negate the actual evidence disproving your opinion.

If the only way to elect someone is to have a primary where nothing is at stake

Sanders was not ever ahead and could not possibly have won. This was known--KNOWN--in March. This is not my opinion or just wishful thinking; this was an inescapable fact that was just ignored for no legitimate reason. Had he bowed out gracefully at that point and then worked to support Clinton then we would have had eight months of nothing but focus on Trump at every turn.

Instead, he inexplicably stayed in the primaries and acted as an exponential, GOP and Russian fueled attack dog--along with his squeaky-wheel idealist base that had their primary (pun intended) influence on young newbies into politics. Iow, kids, primarily, who had no experience with politics; no understanding of exactly who Hillary Clinton was (or Bernie Sanders, for that matter); no understanding of what secondary research and seeking out primary sources entails, in spite of being born into the digital age, apparently; and who only resonated with Sanders' magical ponies idealism, always vehemently objecting to any argument regarding practical application, like it was a fairy tale curse made up by "corporate whore establishment centrist war hawks."

A candidate that represents what the public actually, positively wants in their government

She did and she won because of it, again as the PEW percentages unquestionably prove, but don't let facts ruin your DK snarcasm.

Cry more.

Grow the fuck up more.

But thank you for perfectly demonstrating precisely what the problem was and evidently still is; ludicrous defense of self-righteous ignorance in twitter form.

ETA: The even bigger irony in you perfectly demonstrating exactly what is wrong with political newbies that don't know shit about the things they nevertheless spew endlessly about is that one of the biggest reasons why registered voters didn't cast their ballots was because they either believed--like you--that Trump couldn't possibly win, so why bother, or that Clinton couldn't possibly lose, so why bother.

It was the blue states that fucked us, after all and then only by the tiniest of less than 1% slivers (and those primarily among uneducated white males), conditions that Nate Silver gave only a 10.6% chance of occuring. To put that into perspective in Nate Silver terms, that's the equivalent of saying, "It's not possible."

Confirmation bias and Dunning Kruger as amplified by social media evidently drove much of 2016 and it sadly hasn't abated.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So can we skip to the part where Hillary Clinton won the most primaries, and that Sanders simply didn't win enough of them? Are we supposed to say Clinton shouldn't be the nominee because a small wing of the party didn't want her as the nominee?

Yes, the DNC didn't want Sanders as the nominee. The GOP would have eviscerated him... and the thread would be about how we should have stuck with Clinton... after all, she did win the most primaries. Trump's victory, both in itself and regarding the EC v Popular vote was extraordinarily unusual. Few people including Wall Street thought Trump would win. It wasn't apparent how many people were good with trading their cows for some magic beans in rural and rusty industrial areas.

Agreed, but more importantly, it's necessary to properly parse 2016 because it proves that there is no way for Trump to win a second term. He never won a first term, but because this country is evidently so programmed to think only in binary, two-dimensional terms, even Dems can't wrap their heads around the fact that you can win something and still lose it at the same time.

What we won was the popular vote, of course and by millions of votes (again, adding in preference and Clinton won by a landslide). Those numbers haven't gone away. Indeed, they have only shrunk considerably further for Trump.

I previously posted a YouGov poll that had Trump at only 60% "strong approval" rate among his supporters. That was before Mueller's report. Well, the most recent YouGov poll only bumped him 2 points (to 62%, an apparent 8 point drop from 2016):



And, again, that's 62% of only 23% that constitutes the entire Republican voting bloc that "strongly approve" of his presidency. So unless there is going to massive voter fraud--on the order of Russians or the GOP changing the actual vote tallies after the fact--there simply is no way for him to win in 2020, particularly in light of the equally massive return to sanity that happened in the midterms among the blue states that gave us Trump to begin with.

And I'd dearly like to find out what that 10% strong-to-somewhat approve in the Dem column is all about, because that's truly a wtf.

 

[PyramidHead]

False. The choices were given and 37% preferred Clinton to only 30% preferring Trump.

37% preferred Clinton, but that number says nothing about whether they preferred her because the alternative was Trump, or because of her positions and character.

As I previously noted, there were numerous non-partisan reasons why certain people were not able to actually cast their ballots. Do you understand what "non-partisan" means in this context? That's the whole point behind asking about preference in a poll of those who were eligible but nevertheless and for various non-partisan reasons were not able to or didn't bother to cast their ballots.

I don't know why you keep emphasizing that their reasons were non-partisan as if that refutes what I'm saying. A huge swath of the country had a non-partisan "meh" reaction to both candidates and decided to stay home instead of voting. A better candidate would have made it worth their perceived effort to vote.

Anybody with a lick of sense would prefer Hillary to Trump

Again, this is an oft repeated confirmation-bias fallacy that the actual numbers disprove.

but that doesn't make her a good candidate.

She won. That alone makes her a "good" candidate.

Among candidates who win by that definition, there are those who go on to be inaugurated as president and those who don't, and those who don't are blocked from using their victory as a measure of how good their candidacy was. The point of being a presidential candidate is to become the president. She didn't do that, and the person who did is a senile casino developer who hugs flags and thinks Tim Apple is a person.

Wrong. She couldn't overcome a bitterly divisive primary civil war that clearly demonstrated a lack of political understanding in favor of ignorance-based idealism, but among the higher educated young voters, her approval--even after the bitterly divisive civil war primar--was among her highest (60%).

Tomato, to-mah-to. you said it right there, she couldn't overcome it. What you call ignorance-based idealism is what the people who disagreed with her called their view of where the country should go. If what she represented was where more people wanted the country to go, then the primary wouldn't have been so bitterly divisive.

A candidate that was strong enough, likeable enough, and effective enough at communicating her policies would have been able to conduct a general election within the constraints of the primary timeline, the convention, and the electoral college to beat fucking Donald Trump.

Once again, your confirmation bias does not make a compelling argument, nor does it negate the actual evidence disproving your opinion.

Would you say that facts do or do not care about my feelings? I always get the two mixed up.

If the only way to elect someone is to have a primary where nothing is at stake

Sanders was not ever ahead and could not possibly have won. This was known--KNOWN--in March. This is not my opinion or just wishful thinking; this was an inescapable fact that was just ignored for no legitimate reason. Had he bowed out gracefully at that point and then worked to support Clinton then we would have had eight months of nothing but focus on Trump at every turn.

Instead, he inexplicably stayed in the primaries and acted as an exponential, GOP and Russian fueled attack dog

lol That damn Bernie, so EXPONENTIAL! Hillary couldn't withstand a sustained criticism from the left. The concerns Bernie raised until the convention--corporate and banker influence, dismissal of universal health care, superdelegates in the primary process--have all been vindicated since 2016: all the Dem contenders have adopted the language (if not the substance) of "Medicare for All", are scrambling to prove who is the most grassrootsy, and changed the rules regarding superdelegates. Hillary was completely oblivious to any of these coming trends, and what today is a growing left wing that has found reason to show up and support avowed socialist candidates in Virginia, Chicago, and NYC was dismissed by her campaign and her supporters rather than engaged in any meaningful way. It'll get you no traction to argue that Hillary's failure to garner the support of the left was somehow the fault of the left's standard-bearer having the audacity to continue pressuring her until the convention.

ETA: The even bigger irony in you perfectly demonstrating exactly what is wrong with political newbies that don't know shit about the things they nevertheless spew endlessly is that one of the biggest reasons why registered voters didn't cast their ballots was because they either believed--like you--that Trump couldn't possibly win, so why bother, or that Clinton couldn't possibly lose, so why bother.

I voted for Clinton and would vote for her again if she ran against Trump. You know, an awful lot of her supporters withheld their votes from Obama in 2008, but for some reason (probably "non-partisan" and not at all related to any relative strength or weakness as a candidate) Obama won in a landslide against a well-respected statesman who is held in high regard by many Democrats to this day. Almost 1 in 4 Clinton primary voters went on to vote for McCain, and McCain still lost. Only 1 in 10 Sanders supporters voted for Trump.

What the Mueller investigation represented for many mainstream Democrats was a way of rationalizing this upheaval of normalcy. The guy was held up as a literal superhero, a Santa-like figure, someone to reverse the nightmare of their loss of certainty and return everything to the predictable politics they could understand. It was a free pass to avoid confronting the institutional problems that actually led to Trump, and now they are beginning to realize that a large part of that landscape was the failure to channel the most energized, radical component of their base into a popular opposition movement. As a result, everyone in the Democratic primary is suddenly a progressive, where a couple of terms ago that was a label relegated to the likes of Kucinich, Gravel, and the like. It happened later than it could have, but the left is coming together. The party has shifted in the direction of its supposed saboteurs. If the movement ignites and spreads, and there is a genuine working-class push to remake the Democratic party that succeeds in defeating Trump and ushering in a new crop of representatives from among those ignorant ideologues, nobody will be able to locate the start of that movement anywhere other than the 2016 primaries, and it won't be when Hillary declared the utter impossibility of universal health care to rapturous applause.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So can we skip to the part where Hillary Clinton won the most primaries, and that Sanders simply didn't win enough of them? Are we supposed to say Clinton shouldn't be the nominee because a small wing of the party didn't want her as the nominee?

Yes, the DNC didn't want Sanders as the nominee. The GOP would have eviscerated him... and the thread would be about how we should have stuck with Clinton... after all, she did win the most primaries. Trump's victory, both in itself and regarding the EC v Popular vote was extraordinarily unusual. Few people including Wall Street thought Trump would win. It wasn't apparent how many people were good with trading their cows for some magic beans in rural and rusty industrial areas.

Agreed, but more importantly, it's necessary to properly parse 2016 because it proves that there is no way for Trump to win a second term. He never won a first term, but because this country is evidently so programmed to think only in binary, two-dimensional terms, even Dems can't wrap their heads around the fact that you can win something and still lose it at the same time.

What we won was the popular vote, of course and by millions of votes (again, adding in preference and Clinton won by a landslide). Those numbers haven't gone away. Indeed, they have only shrunk considerably further for Trump.

I previously posted a YouGov poll that had Trump at only 60% "strong approval" rate among his supporters. That was before Mueller's report. Well, the most recent YouGov poll only bumped him 2 points (to 62%, an apparent 8 point drop from 2016):

View attachment 20700

And, again, that's 62% of only 23% that constitutes the entire Republican voting bloc that "strongly approve" of his presidency. So unless there is going to massive voter fraud--on the order of Russians or the GOP changing the actual vote tallies after the fact--there simply is no way for him to win in 2020, particularly in light of the equally massive return to sanity that happened in the midterms among the blue states that gave us Trump to begin with.

And I'd dearly like to find out what that 10% strong-to-somewhat approve in the Dem column is all about, because that's truly a wtf.

I'm reading this post and wondering what happened to PyramidHead and where this optimism just sprang up from. And then I realized it was Koy posting.

One thing is clear about 2020, no one knows what will happen. It is still technically possible Trump won't even be President. Of course, Trump could win re-election too. Trump simply has this undeserved ability to survive cataclysms. Every time he should sink, he just doesn't, in fact, sometimes it doesn't even seem to phase him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I voted for Clinton and would vote for her again if she ran against Trump. You know, an awful lot of her supporters withheld their votes from Obama in 2008, but for some reason (probably "non-partisan" and not at all related to any relative strength or weakness as a candidate) Obama won in a landslide against a well-respected statesman who is held in high regard by many Democrats to this day. Almost 1 in 4 Clinton primary voters went on to vote for McCain, and McCain still lost. Only 1 in 10 Sanders supporters voted for Trump.

There is no indication your claim is true regarding Clinton primary voters. There was a poll indicating dissatisfaction well before the election, but the exit polls indicated no higher Democrat support for McCain than W in '04. source

What the Mueller investigation represented for many mainstream Democrats was a way of rationalizing this upheaval of normalcy. The guy was held up as a literal superhero, a Santa-like figure, someone to reverse the nightmare of their loss of certainty and return everything to the predictable politics they could understand. It was a free pass to avoid confronting the institutional problems that actually led to Trump, and now they are beginning to realize that a large part of that landscape was the failure to channel the most energized, radical component of their base into a popular opposition movement. As a result, everyone in the Democratic primary is suddenly a progressive, where a couple of terms ago that was a label relegated to the likes of Kucinich, Gravel, and the like. It happened later than it could have, but the left is coming together. The party has shifted in the direction of its supposed saboteurs. If the movement ignites and spreads, and there is a genuine working-class push to remake the Democratic party that succeeds in defeating Trump and ushering in a new crop of representatives from among those ignorant ideologues, nobody will be able to locate the start of that movement anywhere other than the 2016 primaries, and it won't be when Hillary declared the utter impossibility of universal health care to rapturous applause.

FYI, the GOP got their asses handed to them in '18.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

One thing is clear about 2020, no one knows what will happen.

In the strictest of senses, that is obviously always the case and should go without saying.

Of course, Trump could win re-election too.

Well, again, he never won election and his numbers have only plummeted from there, so it's highly implausible. But, due to the above, evidently that must always be qualified, since 2016's outcome was likewise highly implausible.

The difference being, however, that 2016 only happened because of the smallest of percentiles in three key blue states that are now--since the midterms--firmly blue once again.

Trump simply has this undeserved ability to survive cataclysms.

Yes, well, again, that has actually only happened once so far and then only because of conditions that had very little to do with Trump, except for his open appeal to racism (both overt and dormant). But, again, that only had an effect on a very small percentage of whites in blue states that have abundantly shown that window has closed in the midterms.

Every time he should sink, he just doesn't

Well, again, an 8 point drop in "strong approval" (with 4% evidently switching to "strongly disapprove" and 4% to "somewhat disapprove") among Republicans argues otherwise. That's a 16 point total differential shift of approval among Republicans, who, once again only make up 23% of the voting population.

So, yes, Trump certainly seems to be living a charmed life, but whenever anyone scratches the surface they find the putrescence underneath. That's why getting our hands on the full report is so necessary and, again, why I believe Mueller took this tack. The only snippets that are verbatim quotes that we have seen so far are very carefully worded in legalese that clearly indicate that Mueller was not able to establish Russian collusion, not that none took place. Mueller certainly knew Trump wouldn't be able to help himself but to declare it "exonerated him"--against the advice of his cabal, no less, who probably saw through the trick to no avail--and thus destroy any argument anyone else can ever make to have any of it sealed from public scrutiny.

Mueller has exhibited this kind of complex, three-dimensional chess thinking throughout the investigation, so it's not a stretch to hope this is the case here. As I argued previously, the probability that his report would just be buried surely had occurred to him and was likely always uppermost in his mind throughout.

That essentially left him two options; full speed ahead and take actions guaranteed to trigger a reaction from the AG (and the President) and likely exceed all former guidelines (and thus be at a high risk of backfire), or find another way that hopefully would ensure the report went public. This would appear to be another such way.

But, yes, always caveats.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the strictest of senses, that is obviously always the case and should go without saying.

The uncertainty has never been greater, since it was greater. Trump's victory in 2016 has muddied the waters, making turnout impossible to gauge.

Well, again, he never won election and his numbers have only plummeted from there, so it's highly implausible.

His election itself was highly implausible. His ability to rise above Trump University and PussyGate was unprecedented. Gary Hart buried himself so he could roll in a grave!

But, due to the above, evidently that must always be qualified, since 2016's outcome was likewise highly implausible.

The difference being, however, that 2016 only happened because of the smallest of percentiles in three key blue states that are now--since the midterms--firmly blue once again.

SHOULD be. But Trump is very popular still in rusty areas. The GOP might not be, but Trump is.

Trump simply has this undeserved ability to survive cataclysms.

Yes, well, again, that has actually only happened once so far...

His entire career! From the race issues in his buildings, to the USFL, to his failed casinos, to his University scam, to Pussygate, to apparently some extent the Mueller Investigation... it just doesn't stop. He mocked a Fox News personality about menstruating, and it didn't even create a blip in his support... among Republican Women! We have a thread of "A Day Without Stupid that is littered with a nearly endless array of stupid statements, stupid actions, and stupid whatevas. His approval rating doesn't seem to budge much at all.

Every time he should sink, he just doesn't

Well, again, an 8 point drop in "strong approval" (with 4% evidently switching to "strongly disapprove" and 4% to "somewhat disapprove") among Republicans argues otherwise. That's a 16 point total differential shift of approval among Republicans, who, once again only make up 23% of the voting population.

But in general, while his approval among Republicans wobbles, it isn't anywhere as bad as it should be. He lost support during the shutdown... but then it came right back.

So, yes, Trump certainly seems to be living a charmed life, but whenever anyone scratches the surface they find the putrescence underneath. That's why getting our hands on the full report is so necessary and, again, why I believe Mueller took this tack. The only snippets that are verbatim quotes that we have seen so far are very carefully worded in legalese that clearly indicate that Mueller was not able to establish Russian collusion, not that none took place. Mueller certainly knew Trump wouldn't be able to help himself but to declare it "exonerated him"--against the advice of his cabal, no less, who probably saw through the trick to no avail--and thus destroy any argument anyone else can ever make to have any of it sealed from public scrutiny.

Mueller has exhibited this kind of complex, three-dimensional chess thinking throughout the investigation, so it's not a stretch to hope this is the case here. As I argued previously, the probability that his report would just be buried surely had occurred to him and was likely always uppermost in his mind throughout.

Trump broke convention and now we await to see if convention can be fixed.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Redux...

The uncertainty has never been greater, since it was greater. Trump's victory in 2016 has muddied the waters, making turnout impossible to gauge.

2016 turnout was huge, beating 2012 and coming to within 2% of the record breaking turnout for Obama in 2008.

The turnout for 2018 was one of the biggest ever as well: 2018’s record-setting voter turnout, in one chart. And here's Nate Silver's analysis, which goes even deeper into why Trump's base isn't enough.

His election itself was highly implausible.

Yes, I already noted that.

His ability to rise above Trump University and PussyGate was unprecedented.

Not for Republicans.

Gary Hart buried himself so he could roll in a grave!

Gary was a Democrat. Different standards.

But Trump is very popular still in rusty areas. The GOP might not be, but Trump is.

Not where it matters (i.e., blue states):

Donald Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million in the 2016 presidential election, yet narrow victories in three Democratic-leaning Great Lakes states gave the Republican the majority he needed to prevail in the Electoral College. The three states were Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump won Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes) and Pennsylvania by 0.7 points (44,292 votes). These 77,744 votes put him in the White House.

The headline from the conservative Weekly Standard read: “The Election Came Down to 77,744 Votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.” The Washington Post announced: “Donald Trump will be president thanks to 80,000 people in three states.” A year after the election, Democrat Hillary Clinton—the winner of the popular vote—devoted a section of her book on the campaign to addressing “what happened” in these three states of the “industrial Midwest.”

So Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were kind of a big deal on November 8, 2016. And, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were also kind of a big deal on November 6, 2018. The three states had Senate races in which prominent conservatives were challenging supposedly vulnerable Democratic incumbents. The three states also had gubernatorial contests. That’s six major races in the three states that gave Trump the presidency.
...
Democrats won all of them. Three Democratic senators—Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow, and Pennsylvania’s Robert Casey—all won with ease. Three Democratic gubernatorial candidates—Tony Evers in Wisconsin, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, and Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania—were also winners. In Michigan, where there was an open-seat race to fill the position being vacated by the state’s Republican attorney general, a progressive Democrat (civil-rights lawyer Dana Nessel) won. In Wisconsin, the incumbent Republican attorney general was beaten by a progressive Democrat (voting-rights advocate Josh Kaul).

The shift in Wisconsin was particularly dramatic. Republican Governor Scott Walker, the anti-labor zealot who in many senses initiated the scorched-earth “divide-and-conquer” politics that Trump took national in 2016, was bidding for reelection to a third full term. Walker has since 2011 been a favorite of right-wing Republican strategists. Indeed, after the presidential election, conservative political guru Grover Norquist wrote: “Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in 2016 did not lay the groundwork for Republican political dominance. But the March 2011 signing of ACT 10, a dramatic reform of public sector labor laws, by Wisconsin’s Scott Walker certainly did. To understate it: If Act 10 is enacted in a dozen more states, the modern Democratic Party will cease to be a competitive power in American politics. It’s that big a deal.”

Trump became a fan of Walker. The two worked together on boondoggle projects—like the state’s $4.1 billion subsidy scheme for the scandal-plagued Taiwanese corporation Foxconn—and the president swept into Wisconsin just days before the 2018 election to talk up “One of the most capable members of government: Governor Scott Walker.” The president even attacked Walker’s challenger, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers, charging that the Democrat—whose name Trump mispronounced—wanted “illegal aliens to flood Wisconsin.”

As part of a fiercely negative and wildly expensive campaign attacking Evers, Walker echoed Trump’s anti-immigrant demagoguery in a campaign ad that derided immigrants as “illegals.”

In other words, in a state that gave Trump the presidency in 2016, Walker ran a Trump-style campaign in 2018. And he lost to Evers, a former school teacher who ran with the support of the unions the governor had conspired to crush.

So, there's that. And also, again, see Nate Silver's analysis linked to above, but note this from same:

This high turnout makes for some rather unusual accomplishments. For instance, Democratic candidates for the House will receive almost as many votes this year as the 63 million that President Trump received in 2016, when he won the Electoral College (but lost the popular vote). As of Tuesday midday, Democratic House candidates had received 58.9 million votes, according to the latest tally by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. However, 1.6 million ballots remain to be counted in California, and those are likely to be extremely Democratic. Other states also have more ballots to count, and they’re often provisional ballots that tend to lean Democratic. In 2016, Democratic candidates for the House added about 4 million votes from this point in the vote count to their final numbers. So this year, an eventual total of anywhere between 60 million and 63 million Democratic votes wouldn’t be too surprising.

There isn’t really any precedent for the opposition party at the midterm coming so close to the president’s vote total. The closest thing to an exception is 1970, when Democratic candidates for the House got 92 percent of Richard Nixon’s vote total from 1968, when he was elected president with only 43 percent of the vote. Even in wave elections, the opposition party usually comes nowhere near to replicating the president’s vote from two years earlier. In 2010, for instance, Republican candidates received 44.8 million votes for the House — a then-record total for a midterm but far fewer than Barack Obama’s 69.5 million votes in 2008.

More in the link.

Trump simply has this undeserved ability to survive cataclysms.

Yes, well, again, that has actually only happened once so far...

His entire career!

He has never had a "career." He has only ever been a marketing prop for his father's empire as the NYT expose plainly revealed, who likewise always bailed him out every time he failed. There's a difference between actually being bulletproof and simply wearing a bulletproof vest.

His only actual career--that he did all by himself--was as a reality TV star on the Apprentice.

He mocked a Fox News personality about menstruating, and it didn't even create a blip in his support... among Republican Women! We have a thread of "A Day Without Stupid that is littered with a nearly endless array of stupid statements, stupid actions, and stupid whatevas. His approval rating doesn't seem to budge much at all.

Well, again, you're talking about Republicans here, not Democrats. And, as I just showed, among Republicans who approve of Trump, his numbers have in fact dropped significantly (a differential swing of some 16% since the election).

So, once again, that's a "strong approval" rating of only around 60% and that's only among the 24% that make up the Republican portion of the electorate. So, 60% of 24%. If we assume 200 million registered voters, that means Republicans only make up 48 million of them. Out of that portion, 60% who strongly approve of Trump (i.e., the most fanatic in the lot), amounts to only around 29 million.

That would mean he'd need to somehow pick up around 37 million Independents to even approach Clinton's 65.8 million, let alone surpass it. And if, as others claim, Clinton was such a terrible candidate, then that must mean her numbers are really low (even though they were not), but let's stick with hers as a standard to measure against.

According to Gallup:

As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent.[3] Additionally, polling showed that 46% are either "Democrats or Democratic leaners" and 39% are either "Republicans or Republican leaners" when Independents are asked "do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?"

Using the same 200 m total, that breaks down to about 33 million Independents that could lean Republican, but again, look at the YouGov numbers. Only 17% of Indies "strongly approve" of Trump. That's only about 6 million. Even if you factor in the "somewhat approve" as a swing potential, that's just another 19% or 6.2 million, for a total of 12.2 million.

Combine them and you have only 41.2 million votes that might "strongly favor" Trump. So that leaves a huge 24.6 million vote gap between where Trump evidently is now (more or less) among "strongly approve" and Clinton's final tally.

So, now, factor in the percentage of Republicans who "somewhat approve" (22%), and that's only 6.3 million additional votes. That's 18.3 million votes short of Clinton's total and 15.4 million short of his own final tally from 2016.

Where the hell is he going to get 15 million votes--let alone 18.3--if not from Republicans or right-leaning Independents? Even if we factor in the 10% dems that bizarrely approve of Trump in that poll, that's only 6.2 million more.

That leaves a gap of between 10-12 million votes that don't exist.

Every time he should sink, he just doesn't

Well, again, an 8 point drop in "strong approval" (with 4% evidently switching to "strongly disapprove" and 4% to "somewhat disapprove") among Republicans argues otherwise. That's a 16 point total differential shift of approval among Republicans, who, once again only make up 23% of the voting population.

But in general, while his approval among Republicans wobbles, it isn't anywhere as bad as it should be.

Again, that's from a Dem perspective.

Trump broke convention and now we await to see if convention can be fixed.

Again, it was never broken to begin with (Clinton won the vote) and was "fixed" regardless with the outcome of 2018 (midterms). I understand it's difficult to wrap one's head around the fact that Trump did not win the election in spite of the fact that the EC made him President.

The overwhelming choice for the American people--again, on the order of some 10 million preferential votes, if not more--was for Hillary Clinton. It was a once-in-lifetime set of unique circumstances that shortchanged that preference and resulted in the clear loser nevertheless becoming President.

Iow, no act of voter preference resulted in Trump being President. That means, of course, that there never was a "red wave" and all of the noise surrounding such claims and that 2018 was likewise not a sea change of any nature at all; it was instead an overwhelming affirmation of where the country had always been were it not for a less than 1% technical (archaic) glitch in the system.

Yes, I know ALL of the arguments about the EC. Not a one of them apply to this particular matter; the matter of American voter preference. Clinton won; America never shifted "red"; 2018 corrected the glitch; Trump does not have either the circumstances or the numbers for 2020.

And that's NOW, even after the "nothing burger" Mueller report came out that Trump claimed "exonerated him." So exactly how is he going to possibly increase his popularity by some 10-18 million votes in light of the sixteen other investigations still ongoing?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If Clinton had campaigned in the mid-West instead of running up the score in California, you'd have a much stronger case that she won. She thought she had it wrapped up so decided to make her victory "historic" by running up the score.

I don't think Mueller's report is being buried. The whole thing, not just the summary, will be released to congress - absent any parts that must by law be redacted. If they find the summary is in stark contrast to the report, there will be trouble. Barr knows that too, which is why his summary is probably accurate - in fact, it is probably a summary.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If Clinton had campaigned in the mid-West instead of running up the score in California, you'd have a much stronger case that she won. She thought she had it wrapped up so decided to make her victory "historic" by running up the score.

I don't think Mueller's report is being buried. The whole thing, not just the summary, will be released to congress - absent any parts that must by law be redacted. If they find the summary is in stark contrast to the report, there will be trouble. Barr knows that too, which is why his summary is probably accurate - in fact, it is probably a summary.

If it wasn't for GOP voter suppression she would have won.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No amount of tap dancing changes that Hillary Clinton is the biggest failure of a political candidate in modern American history. He not only lost, but t TRUMP. She lost to Trump That's really that that ever needed to be said.

But we had excuses trotted out for her. It was because of racism, except a black guy had just won back to back presidencies. It was because he colludd with Russia and rigged te election, except now we see there as no collusion. So what excuse is next? The people were too sexist and wouldn't com out to vote for a woman?

No, the fact is that in this election campaign Hillary came across as everything people hate about politicians. She was a Washington insider with all the typical false platitudes and shifty shit working behind her. Trump was just guy who came in and said "fuck the system". He was the protest candidate, Hilliary is such a bad politician that trump somehow actually won. I doubt even he thought he would.

The silver lining of his presidency is that it has woken so many up to being politically activated, and it got the Democrats realizing they can't run the insider same old shit and win in 2020. So bring on the outsiders. The end result could be a shakeup of how politics is done. And that could be fore the better, or for the worse

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No amount of tap dancing changes that Hillary Clinton is the biggest failure of a political candidate in modern American history. He not only lost, but t TRUMP. She lost to Trump That's really that that ever needed to be said.

Except that, she didn’t lose to Trump. No amount of “tap dancing” is ever going to change that fact. She beat the shit out of him, in fact, by millions of votes, but the deep state establishment feared her so much they had to take away her trophy and give it to the loser who got his ass throughly beaten by a girl.

Hey, what do you know? Lowering myself waaaay the fuck down to your vapid level is fun!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If Clinton had campaigned in the mid-West instead of running up the score in California, you'd have a much stronger case that she won. She thought she had it wrapped up so decided to make her victory "historic" by running up the score.

I don't think Mueller's report is being buried. The whole thing, not just the summary, will be released to congress - absent any parts that must by law be redacted. If they find the summary is in stark contrast to the report, there will be trouble. Barr knows that too, which is why his summary is probably accurate - in fact, it is probably a summary.

If it wasn't for GOP voter suppression she would have won.

Imagine if all those Trump votes had gone to Hillary, her election would have been nearly unanimous.

No amount of tap dancing changes that Hillary Clinton is the biggest failure of a political candidate in modern American history. He not only lost, but t TRUMP. She lost to Trump That's really that that ever needed to be said.

Except that, she didn’t lose to Trump. No amount of “tap dancing” is ever going to change that fact. She beat the shit out of him, in fact, by millions of votes, but the deep state establishment feared her so much they had to take away her trophy and give it to the loser who got his ass throughly beaten by a girl.

Hey, what do you know? Lowering myself waaaay the fuck down to your vapid level is fun!

The deep state supported her, not Trump. She was so convinced she would win she forgot to campaign in the mid-west and ran up the vote count in California instead, so that her election would be more "historic".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Imagine if all those Trump votes had gone to Hillary, her election would have been nearly unanimous.

No amount of tap dancing changes that Hillary Clinton is the biggest failure of a political candidate in modern American history. He not only lost, but t TRUMP. She lost to Trump That's really that that ever needed to be said.

Except that, she didn’t lose to Trump. No amount of “tap dancing” is ever going to change that fact. She beat the shit out of him, in fact, by millions of votes, but the deep state establishment feared her so much they had to take away her trophy and give it to the loser who got his ass throughly beaten by a girl.

Hey, what do you know? Lowering myself waaaay the fuck down to your vapid level is fun!

The deep state supported her, not Trump.

No, the deep state absolutely hates Hillary Clinton. She was constantly attacked in their super secret Deep State Memos for decades.