Blue Wave 2018

[kalm]

I'm a little weary of this poll as it's a) an unscientific online poll and b) it says 11,000 of 16,000 (68%) of millennial respondents were white when millennial demographics are 56% white. It also says the GOP gained 1% point of support while Democrats lost 9%...so if the poll is accurate, it may be that millennials don't like how the DNC is being run (I certainly don't), but aren't necessarily running to the GOP.

Agree. I hate polls. But I love low unemployment and a strong economy and believe that it is a far more important issue than many people under 25 realize. 25-30 is the enlightenment age for many.

Millenials:

Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 22-37 in 2018) will be considered a Millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward will be part of a new generation.Mar 1, 2018

Where Millennials end and post-Millennials begin | Pew Research ...
http://www.pewresearch.org/.../defining ... t-millenni...

[CAA Flagship]

Agree. I hate polls. But I love low unemployment and a strong economy and believe that it is a far more important issue than many people under 25 realize. 25-30 is the enlightenment age for many.

Millenials:

Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 22-37 in 2018) will be considered a Millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward will be part of a new generation.Mar 1, 2018

Where Millennials end and post-Millennials begin | Pew Research ...
http://www.pewresearch.org/.../defining ... t-millenni...

Thanks, Fogdog.

You got a point?

[kalm]

Millenials:

Thanks, Fogdog.

You got a point?

Most millenials are older than you think and fit your age definition of enlightened.

[GannonFan]

Thanks, Fogdog.

You got a point?

Most millenials are older than you think and fit your age definition of enlightened.

Enlightement isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Sounds great, but for some it never gets brighter than a low wattage bulb. Just saying.

[UNI88]

Thanks, Fogdog.

You got a point?

Most millenials are older than you think and fit your age definition of enlightened.

Part of reaching enlightenment is living on your own and paying all of your own bills (including taxes).

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Most millenials are older than you think and fit your age definition of enlightened.

Part of reaching enlightenment is living on your own and paying all of your own bills (including taxes).

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

It was Flaggy’s point not mine.

I want even trolling yet, and two fish jumped in the boat while I was selecting a fly.

It’s gonna be a good day!

[CAA Flagship]

Part of reaching enlightenment is living on your own and paying all of your own bills (including taxes).

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

It was Flaggy’s point not mine.

I want even trolling yet, and two fish jumped in the boat while I was selecting a fly.

It’s gonna be a good day!

[Pwns]

I was hoping that Trump's administration might remove the notion many have that the president is the guy responsible when the economy is bad or good, but maybe not.

[kalm]

Most millenials are older than you think and fit your age definition of enlightened.

Enlightement isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Sounds great, but for some it never gets brighter than a low wattage bulb. Just saying.

Speaking of low wattage bulbs, see post above.

[CAA Flagship]

I was hoping that Trump's administration might remove the notion many have that the president is the guy responsible when the economy is bad or good, but maybe not.

Trump? You're kidding right? He will take credit for all things "good" and blame others for all things "bad".

But that being said, I think any administration as an effect on the economy. The amount of influence obviously varies depending on current conditions and actions taken. Let's face it, Obama teed it up for Trump in several key areas (regulation rollback, corporate taxes, etc.). But yeah, in many cases, the admin has to work in concert with Congress, if that is what your point was.

[93henfan]

Most millenials are older than you think and fit your age definition of enlightened.

Part of reaching enlightenment is living on your own and paying all of your own bills (including taxes).

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Nailed it. It’s always easier to be a socialist when living in mommy’s basement.

[Pwns]

I was hoping that Trump's administration might remove the notion many have that the president is the guy responsible when the economy is bad or good, but maybe not.

Trump? You're kidding right? He will take credit for all things "good" and blame others for all things "bad".

But that being said, I think any administration as an effect on the economy. The amount of influence obviously varies depending on current conditions and actions taken. Let's face it, Obama teed it up for Trump in several key areas (regulation rollback, corporate taxes, etc.). But yeah, in many cases, the admin has to work in concert with Congress, if that is what your point was.

The President has some effect on the economy, but he is behind:
1. The Fed (basically the fourth branch of government)
2. Natural business cycles
3. congress
4. Stuff going on in other countries that POTUS has no control over.

The crisis in 2008 was at least ten years in the making and two administrations and both parties in congress helped to make it. Yet so many idiots will say 'durrrrrrr Bush wrecked da economy'!

And in the case of Obama, a president would've had to work hard to keep the economy in the toilet for long, especially when you consider the low stock market mean lots of people were investing.

[kalm]

Trump? You're kidding right? He will take credit for all things "good" and blame others for all things "bad".

But that being said, I think any administration as an effect on the economy. The amount of influence obviously varies depending on current conditions and actions taken. Let's face it, Obama teed it up for Trump in several key areas (regulation rollback, corporate taxes, etc.). But yeah, in many cases, the admin has to work in concert with Congress, if that is what your point was.

The President has some effect on the economy, but he is behind:
1. The Fed (basically the fourth branch of government)
2. Natural business cycles
3. congress
4. Stuff going on in other countries that POTUS has no control over.

The crisis in 2008 was at least ten years in the making and two administrations and both parties in congress helped to make it. Yet so many idiots will say 'durrrrrrr Bush wrecked da economy'!

And in the case of Obama, a president would've had to work hard to keep the economy in the toilet for long, especially when you consider the low stock market mean lots of people were investing.

Agree 100%.

Nice post pwnsie!

[CAA Flagship]

Trump? You're kidding right? He will take credit for all things "good" and blame others for all things "bad".

But that being said, I think any administration as an effect on the economy. The amount of influence obviously varies depending on current conditions and actions taken. Let's face it, Obama teed it up for Trump in several key areas (regulation rollback, corporate taxes, etc.). But yeah, in many cases, the admin has to work in concert with Congress, if that is what your point was.

The President has some effect on the economy, but he is behind:
1. The Fed (basically the fourth branch of government)
2. Natural business cycles
3. congress
4. Stuff going on in other countries that POTUS has no control over.

The crisis in 2008 was at least ten years in the making and two administrations and both parties in congress helped to make it. Yet so many idiots will say 'durrrrrrr Bush wrecked da economy'!

And in the case of Obama, a president would've had to work hard to keep the economy in the toilet for long, especially when you consider the low stock market mean lots of people were investing.

Don't forget natural disasters. Hurricanes, drought, freezing in the south, wild fires, etc. all have some effect on the overall economy.

[UNI88]

Trump? You're kidding right? He will take credit for all things "good" and blame others for all things "bad".

But that being said, I think any administration as an effect on the economy. The amount of influence obviously varies depending on current conditions and actions taken. Let's face it, Obama teed it up for Trump in several key areas (regulation rollback, corporate taxes, etc.). But yeah, in many cases, the admin has to work in concert with Congress, if that is what your point was.

The President has some effect on the economy, but he is behind:
1. The Fed (basically the fourth branch of government)
2. Natural business cycles
3. congress
4. Stuff going on in other countries that POTUS has no control over.

The crisis in 2008 was at least ten years in the making and two administrations and both parties in congress helped to make it. Yet so many idiots will say 'durrrrrrr Bush wrecked da economy'!

And in the case of Obama, a president would've had to work hard to keep the economy in the toilet for long, especially when you consider the low stock market mean lots of people were investing.

You could argue about the order but overall it's a reasonable list. You also need to add time. IMO the true impact of a president's policies aren't felt for several years, typically after they've left office.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Democrats lose ground with millennials - Reuters/Ipsos poll



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... op+News%29

I'm a little weary of this poll as it's a) an unscientific online poll and b) it says 11,000 of 16,000 (68%) of millennial respondents were white when millennial demographics are 56% white. It also says the GOP gained 1% point of support while Democrats lost 9%...so if the poll is accurate, it may be that millennials don't like how the DNC is being run (I certainly don't), but aren't necessarily running to the GOP.

I don't know exactly how IPSOS polling works but I think it is "scientific" in at least a sense. 538 gives it an A- rating, which is pretty good, and the bias is very small. Having said all that the bottom line for the last overall generic congressional ballot IPSOS poll posted at the RealClearPolitics site had the Democrats up by 11 percentage points (45% to 35%). It's a little dated in that the polling period was April 20 - 24. But among the polls listed it paints one of the rosier pictures for Democrats.

I do agree with being a little cautious about the IPSOS poll though just based on the fact that there is no effort to get a probability sample. Here is a little discussion on that:

https://www.aapor.org/Publications-Medi ... -it-d.aspx

[JohnStOnge]

Well, I wish it weren't the case but I think the latest Monmouth poll has something in it that contradicts the "Blue Wave" expectation. You can see it by going to the full poll results at https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... 50318.pdf/.

The breakdown of concern, to me, is one involving looking at Districts that went strongly for Trump, Districts that were kind of "swing", and Districts that went strongly for Clinton.

The poll estimates that in Districts Trump won by 10 or more percentage points Republicans are up by 53% to 41%. It estimates that in Districts Clinton won by 10 or more percentage points Democrats are up by 64% to 28%. But in Districats where neither Trump nor Clinton won by at least 10 percentage points Republicans are up by 47% to 34%. To me that's good news for Republicans.

Most people do not want a Republican President but we have a Republican President. Most people do not want Republicans in control of Congress but Republicans may keep control of Congress. It is what it is. It's our system.

[AZGrizFan]

Most people do not want a Republican President but we have a Republican President. Most people do not want Republicans in control of Congress but Republicans may keep control of Congress. It is what it is. It's our system.

Wha?

I get how an uninformed shill could make your first statement, given your limited understanding of our constitutional republic and the purpose of the electoral college, but the SECOND statement? Come on...senators and congressmen are elected by popular vote, thus to say most people do not want republicans in control of congress is just stupid or disingenuous....

[Gil Dobie]

Well, I wish it weren't the case but I think the latest Monmouth poll has something in it that contradicts the "Blue Wave" expectation. You can see it by going to the full poll results at https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... 50318.pdf/.

The breakdown of concern, to me, is one involving looking at Districts that went strongly for Trump, Districts that were kind of "swing", and Districts that went strongly for Clinton.

The poll estimates that in Districts Trump won by 10 or more percentage points Republicans are up by 53% to 41%. It estimates that in Districts Clinton won by 10 or more percentage points Democrats are up by 64% to 28%. But in Districats where neither Trump nor Clinton won by at least 10 percentage points Republicans are up by 47% to 34%. To me that's good news for Republicans.

Most people do not want a Republican President but we have a Republican President. Most people do not want Republicans in control of Congress but Republicans may keep control of Congress. It is what it is. It's our system.

How do you get most people don't want a Republican President out of these numbers? I see most Democrats don't.

[Ibanez]

Well, I wish it weren't the case but I think the latest Monmouth poll has something in it that contradicts the "Blue Wave" expectation. You can see it by going to the full poll results at https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... 50318.pdf/.

The breakdown of concern, to me, is one involving looking at Districts that went strongly for Trump, Districts that were kind of "swing", and Districts that went strongly for Clinton.

The poll estimates that in Districts Trump won by 10 or more percentage points Republicans are up by 53% to 41%. It estimates that in Districts Clinton won by 10 or more percentage points Democrats are up by 64% to 28%. But in Districats where neither Trump nor Clinton won by at least 10 percentage points Republicans are up by 47% to 34%. To me that's good news for Republicans.

Most people do not want a Republican President but we have a Republican President. Most people do not want Republicans in control of Congress but Republicans may keep control of Congress. It is what it is. It's our system.

Um...do we need the Count to come teach you about numbers? Those numbers look to favor the GOP.

[Ivytalk]

Well, I wish it weren't the case but I think the latest Monmouth poll has something in it that contradicts the "Blue Wave" expectation. You can see it by going to the full poll results at https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... 50318.pdf/.

The breakdown of concern, to me, is one involving looking at Districts that went strongly for Trump, Districts that were kind of "swing", and Districts that went strongly for Clinton.

The poll estimates that in Districts Trump won by 10 or more percentage points Republicans are up by 53% to 41%. It estimates that in Districts Clinton won by 10 or more percentage points Democrats are up by 64% to 28%. But in Districats where neither Trump nor Clinton won by at least 10 percentage points Republicans are up by 47% to 34%. To me that's good news for Republicans.

Most people in my housedo not want a Republican President but we have a Republican President. Most people in my house do not want Republicans in control of Congress but Republicans may keep control of Congress. It is what it is. It's our system.and I fvcking hate it

You left all the good subliminal stuff out, Dr. Phil.

[JohnStOnge]

Well, I wish it weren't the case but I think the latest Monmouth poll has something in it that contradicts the "Blue Wave" expectation. You can see it by going to the full poll results at https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... 50318.pdf/.

The breakdown of concern, to me, is one involving looking at Districts that went strongly for Trump, Districts that were kind of "swing", and Districts that went strongly for Clinton.

The poll estimates that in Districts Trump won by 10 or more percentage points Republicans are up by 53% to 41%. It estimates that in Districts Clinton won by 10 or more percentage points Democrats are up by 64% to 28%. But in Districats where neither Trump nor Clinton won by at least 10 percentage points Republicans are up by 47% to 34%. To me that's good news for Republicans.

Most people do not want a Republican President but we have a Republican President. Most people do not want Republicans in control of Congress but Republicans may keep control of Congress. It is what it is. It's our system.

Um...do we need the Count to come teach you about numbers? Those numbers look to favor the GOP.

First let me say that when this poll says "Congress" it means the House of Representatives.

While neither Party crosses the 50% threshold that would allow us to say most people WANT either one, the Democrats do have a fairly solid edge in the overall poll. Overall, among registered voters in the poll, 49% said they would vote for the Democrat candidate in their district and 41% said they'd vote for the Republican.

[JohnStOnge]

Well, I wish it weren't the case but I think the latest Monmouth poll has something in it that contradicts the "Blue Wave" expectation. You can see it by going to the full poll results at https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... 50318.pdf/.

The breakdown of concern, to me, is one involving looking at Districts that went strongly for Trump, Districts that were kind of "swing", and Districts that went strongly for Clinton.

The poll estimates that in Districts Trump won by 10 or more percentage points Republicans are up by 53% to 41%. It estimates that in Districts Clinton won by 10 or more percentage points Democrats are up by 64% to 28%. But in Districats where neither Trump nor Clinton won by at least 10 percentage points Republicans are up by 47% to 34%. To me that's good news for Republicans.

Most people do not want a Republican President but we have a Republican President. Most people do not want Republicans in control of Congress but Republicans may keep control of Congress. It is what it is. It's our system.

How do you get most people don't want a Republican President out of these numbers? I see most Democrats don't.

I was not thinking of this particular poll when I referred to the Presidency. Also, I should have said most people don't want the particular Republican President that we have now. I think it's reasonable to say that at this point. I think it's very reasonable to believe that if you just asked people in a poll something like this:

"Would you rather Donald Trump not be President?"

You'd get a solid majority answering "Yes."

I do believe that, as of this moment, most people in this country would prefer not to have the Republicans in Control of Congress and most people in this country would prefer not to have Donald Trump as President. I don't think I can absolutely prove that. But I think when one looks at the polling overall it's a very reasonable belief.

[JohnStOnge]

Most people do not want a Republican President but we have a Republican President. Most people do not want Republicans in control of Congress but Republicans may keep control of Congress. It is what it is. It's our system.

Wha?

I get how an uninformed shill could make your first statement, given your limited understanding of our constitutional republic and the purpose of the electoral college, but the SECOND statement? Come on...senators and congressmen are elected by popular vote, thus to say most people do not want republicans in control of congress is just stupid or disingenuous....

I think I generally I understand our constitutional republic and the idea behind the electoral college. I also think understanding those things facilitates understanding how we could have one Party in power when more people actually prefer the other Party. It's obviously very possible to have the majority of the people in the country overall want and even vote for Senators and Congressmen of one Party and have the other Party end up in control of both Houses of Congress.

It's especially easy for that to happen with the Senate because each State gets two Senators regardless of population.

Scenarios in which it could happen with the House are more complicated but obviously there. In fact you can see the potential in those poll results I cited. The Democrats have a fairly solid 8 point edge overall. But their support is concentrated in Districts that Hillary Clinton won by at least 10 points. They have a 36 percentage point edge in those Districts. That's a lot bigger than the edge Republicans have in Districts Trump won by 10 or more points. That edge is 12 percentage points. And the big one is Republicans having a 13 percentage point edge in what the pollsters designate as "swing" districts.

Given those numbers a scenario in which Democrats could have a solid edge in the overall combined vote while Republicans end up with more seats is VERY plausible.

During the 2016 election more people voted for the Democrat Presidential candidate than voted for the Republican candidate and more people voted for Democrat Senate candidates than Republican Senate candidates. But guess which Party controls the Presidency and the Senate. We all know Donald Trump got a lower percentage of the popular vote than Mitt Romney did but he's President. And the Democrats got 51 million votes in Senate races to the Republicans' 40 million but the Republicans won 22 Senate Races to the Democrats' 12.

It didn't quite happen in the House but one can still see how the overall vote results can differ from the "control" results. Republicans had a 1.1 percentage point edge in the overall combined vote but they ended up with a 5.7 percentage point edge in terms of House seats.

Bottom line is that if control of government was proportional to how people voted overall in the 2016 election Hillary Clinton would be President, the Democrats would control the Senate, and the Republican edge in the House would be smaller than it is now. The fact that the Republicans are in control right now should not be construed as meaning that "The People" prefer the Republican Party.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I'm fine with the way the Senate works. I think that's a good balancing factor for smaller States. But I think the Electoral College is obsolete and needs to go. In today's day and age the President should be the popular vote winner. There's no justification for having a system where a vote in one State means more than a vote in another one when the President is a single officer representing the entire country.

The House system is OK in concept but we really do need to do something about the gerrymandering.