[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2017-November-06, 21:17, said:

In particular:

I think the most important stat in that entire article by far is the 91% approval rate amongst Trump voters with only a 7% disapproval rate. I think his campaign team will feel confident of being able to bring this 7% back once an opposition candidate is in place to attack. Anyone that sees these numbers as negative for DT probably does not understand his strategy here. The whole point is to divide the electorate so deeply that his voting base remains strong no matter how inept he does the job. These statistics seem to me to suggest that this strategy is working well for now. I think Democrats should be looking at making inroads into key demographics of this base rather than worrying about the whys and wherefores of the election and other internal matters. 3 years to break the bubble, the clock is ticking!

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-November-06, 22:11, said:

What's the spread?

I think the guess of Y66 reflects the average polls, or something like that. The D was well ahead but the R has explained that the D is an MS-13 recruiter (not really, but that's the general style) so now it is close in the polls. People who know more about this than I do claim that both candidates, historically, have been middle-of the road workhorses. We could hope the voters would look at which person, over the years, has done a better job addressing problems but instead it has become a referendum on Trump. It's getting so that you cannot order a meal at a restaurant without someone analyzing how this relates to Trump.

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-November-07, 00:56, said:

I think the most important stat in that entire article by far is the 91% approval rate amongst Trump voters with only a 7% disapproval rate. I think his campaign team will feel confident of being able to bring this 7% back once an opposition candidate is in place to attack. Anyone that sees these numbers as negative for DT probably does not understand his strategy here. The whole point is to divide the electorate so deeply that his voting base remains strong no matter how inept he does the job. These statistics seem to me to suggest that this strategy is working well for now. I think Democrats should be looking at making inroads into key demographics of this base rather than worrying about the whys and wherefores of the election and other internal matters. 3 years to break the bubble, the clock is ticking!

I think you are looking at the wrong numbers. Trump's base tends to be rabid, yet 7% of them are out from under his spell. That is enough to lose Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Then there is the plummeting support among Republicans and Independents.

I think it is impossible for Democrats to win over the base - Trump will have to lose them. It is more critical for Democrats to win independents and rally their own base out to vote.

[Zelandakh]

 Winstonm, on 2017-November-07, 09:22, said:

I think you are looking at the wrong numbers. Trump's base tends to be rabid, yet 7% of them are out from under his spell. That is enough to lose Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Then there is the plummeting support among Republicans and Independents.

I think it is impossible for Democrats to win over the base - Trump will have to lose them. It is more critical for Democrats to win independents and rally their own base out to vote.

But it does not say Trump's base, it says Trump voters. That bucket contains an awful lot of independents and floating voters that went for DT over HC. That only 7% disapprove after such a year as the last one? You cannot possibly be happy with that as a Democrat! The point here is that every government loses some support during their tenure. Trump is at his best when he has a target. At present this target is somewhat lacking - he is essentially still using Hillary but that is already a stretch and will get more so in the coming months. Once the primaries start though, he can get back to what he does best. At that point I would expect him to start reclaiming some of the support back -
after all, no matter how bad he is, he's not one of the hated political class and will get the same support from conservative media and foreign powers as a year ago. The Republicans will also probably put out some sort of tax rebate bill around the start of the primaries too, forcing Democratic candidates either to support it (potentially alienating their base, which they need to win the nomination) or come out against it (giving DT an easy line of attack later).

I think that if Democrats just lie back and think "Trump is so bad he has to lose the next election easily" they are potentially in for another shock come 2020. Combined with increased voter suppression strategies that you absolutely know will happen in the coming years, he probably only needs to win the same voters again as he did the last time. So someone on the Dems side needs to make sure that at least some of those do not vote for him. The real base I agree are untouchable, but all of those that voted for Trump because they could not stomach Hillary or because they had lost faith in traditional politics and saw him as an alternative solution? These should not be difficult to win back. But 7%? Sorry but that is just not good enough.

[barmar]

 rmnka447, on 2017-November-06, 16:56, said:

That's right. They gained power by being freely voted into office by the people. If the people are dissatisfied with what they are doing, then the people have the power to vote them out of office.

Guess what, that's exactly what the people did with the previous holders of the executive branch last fall. They lost power because enough people were dissatisfied with their policies and the direction they were taking the country that they voted for change.

Have you forgotten that the majority voted for Clinton? It's only due to the weirdness of the Electoral College that Trump won the election -- not enough of the Clinton voters were in the swing states.

And the election was hardly a referendum on Obama's policies. Trump basically played to the base emotions of the Republican base, making promises that he couldn't possibly keep (like restoring coal jobs). There was very little rationality in their voting for him, it was all just due to frustration with the way society has been moving for decades, through numerous administrations of both parties.

Not to mention that a huge number of his voters were probably racist and/or sexist. They didn't like Obama because he was black, not because of his polcies (I'll bet quite a few of them make use of Obamacare, and wouldn't like to see it repealed), and they voted against Clinton because she was a woman. They also bought into Trump's racist rhetoric against Muslims and Mexicans.

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-November-07, 09:49, said:

But it does not say Trump's base, it says Trump voters. That bucket contains an awful lot of independents and floating voters that went for DT over HC. That only 7% disapprove after such a year as the last one? You cannot possibly be happy with that as a Democrat! The point here is that every government loses some support during their tenure. Trump is at his best when he has a target. At present this target is somewhat lacking - he is essentially still using Hillary but that is already a stretch and will get more so in the coming months. Once the primaries start though, he can get back to what he does best. At that point I would expect him to start reclaiming some of the support back -
after all, no matter how bad he is, he's not one of the hated political class and will get the same support from conservative media and foreign powers as a year ago. The Republicans will also probably put out some sort of tax rebate bill around the start of the primaries too, forcing Democratic candidates either to support it (potentially alienating their base, which they need to win the nomination) or come out against it (giving DT an easy line of attack later).

I think that if Democrats just lie back and think "Trump is so bad he has to lose the next election easily" they are potentially in for another shock come 2020. Combined with increased voter suppression strategies that you absolutely know will happen in the coming years, he probably only needs to win the same voters again as he did the last time. So someone on the Dems side needs to make sure that at least some of those do not vote for him. The real base I agree are untouchable, but all of those that voted for Trump because they could not stomach Hillary or because they had lost faith in traditional politics and saw him as an alternative solution? These should not be difficult to win back. But 7%? Sorry but that is just not good enough.

I think you are over-emphasizing the 91%. If you look closer, you will notice that of Trump voters only 69% strongly approve. Independents and Republicans are even less enamored at 22% and 59% in the strongly approve category.


It takes time for people to change their viewpoints. It is telling that in one year this big of negative change has occurred with the very people that put him in office.

Just the other day I read that a group of coal miners had refused retraining because they thought Trump would bring back the coal industry jobs. Well, someday those people will come to realize that Trump lied to them, and they will be angry - and that anger will no longer be pointed at Clinton and Obama.

[kenberg]

I guess I will accept my own challenge and predict/guess that the governor's race in Virginia will go to the Gillespie, the Republican rather than Northam, the Democrat. This is slightly but not greatly contrary to the evidence from the polls.
I live in Maryland, not Virginia so I don't much follow this, and nobody should place a bet based on my guess, but I think it will be Gillespie.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-November-07, 10:45, said:

I guess I will accept my own challenge and predict/guess that the governor's race in Virginia will go to the Gillespie, the Republican rather than Northam, the Democrat. This is slightly but not greatly contrary to the evidence from the polls.
I live in Maryland, not Virginia so I don't much follow this, and nobody should place a bet based on my guess, but I think it will be Gillespie.

It would help if the Democrats would eliminate their negative publicity just prior to elections.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2017-November-07, 10:45, said:

I guess I will accept my own challenge and predict/guess that the governor's race in Virginia will go to the Gillespie, the Republican rather than Northam, the Democrat. This is slightly but not greatly contrary to the evidence from the polls.
I live in Maryland, not Virginia so I don't much follow this, and nobody should place a bet based on my guess, but I think it will be Gillespie.

Absentee voting in Northern Virginia thru Sunday hit record highs for a non presidential election year. Election officials in Northern Virginia are reporting higher than usual turnout today. The weather is not the best and could affect turnout this evening.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2017-November-07, 14:06, said:

Absentee voting in Northern Virginia thru Sunday hit record highs for a non presidential election year. Election officials in Northern Virginia are reporting higher than usual turnout today. The weather is not the best and could affect turnout this evening.

NYT is estimating 48.8% for Gillespie and 48.8% for Northam..And just to check their arithmetic, 2.4% for other. They assure us that "Our estimates will improve as results are reported".

https://www.nytimes....llespie-northam


Here in Maryland it's 39 degrees, raining, and the vision is not so good for driving. I just got home and I can see why some might not want to go out again.

[cherdano]

Right now, the NYT Virginia election predictor is indicating that there is a 45% chance that Northam is an evil member of MS-13, and a 55% chance that Gillespie is a failed racist demagogue.

[kenberg]

I gather Northam wins. I do not mind at all being wrong!

https://www.nytimes....llespie-northam

I see that I copied the link wrong before. I will fix it.

Of course this is according to the failing New York Times. I await the tweets.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-November-07, 19:32, said:

I gather Northam wins. I do not mind at all being wrong!

https://www.nytimes....llespie-northam

I see that I copied the link wrong before. I will fix it.

I had heard a report earlier that 39% asked said they came out to vote as a repudiation of Trump whereas only 16% were supportive of Trump.

[cherdano]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-November-07, 00:56, said:

I think the most important stat in that entire article by far is the 91% approval rate amongst Trump voters with only a 7% disapproval rate. I think his campaign team will feel confident of being able to bring this 7% back once an opposition candidate is in place to attack. Anyone that sees these numbers as negative for DT probably does not understand his strategy here. The whole point is to divide the electorate so deeply that his voting base remains strong no matter how inept he does the job. These statistics seem to me to suggest that this strategy is working well for now. I think Democrats should be looking at making inroads into key demographics of this base rather than worrying about the whys and wherefores of the election and other internal matters. 3 years to break the bubble, the clock is ticking!

I agree with the rest of your post but I don't buy the 91% approval rate among Trump voters. It's a well-known phenomenon that voters don't report their past votes accurately; that is why no polling firms use the question "How did you vote in [the last election]?" to weigh their samples.
91% of those who say they voted for Trump approve of his job performance.

[Winstonm]

For those who might wonder, this is what I consider a rational electorate:

Quote

Democrat Danica Roem ousted longtime incumbent Del. Robert G. Marshall ® Tuesday, becoming the first openly transgender elected official in Virginia — and one of very few in the nation.

The race between Roem, 33, and Marshall, 73, focused on traffic and other local issues in Prince William County but also exposed the nation’s fault lines over gender identity. It pitted a local journalist who began her physical gender transition four years ago against an outspoken social conservative who has referred to himself as Virginia’s “chief homophobe” earlier this year introduced a “bathroom bill” that died in committee.

Congratulations to Danica Roem.

[y66]

Looks like the Dems have a shot at taking back the Virginia House for the first time since 1998. That would be something.

[Winstonm]

 y66, on 2017-November-07, 20:35, said:

Looks like the Dems have a shot at taking back the Virginia House for the first time since 1998. That would be something.

Last I saw was pickup of 14 with 8 still in play. 17 needed.

[y66]

It looks like the Dems will win 50 of the 100 seats in the Virginia House if Turpin can hold on to her narrow lead over "Rocky" Holcomb with one precinct left to be counted. Wow.

[Winstonm]

Donald Trump may turn out to be the best thing that could have happened to the Democratic party.

[y66]

From Virginia Rejects Your Hateful Politics, Mr. Trump by NYT Editorial Board:

Quote

Ralph Northam’s election as Virginia governor amid reportedly high turnout on Tuesday is a stinging and welcome rebuke to President Trump and white nationalism.

Mr. Northam’s Republican rival, Ed Gillespie, an establishment operative, chose to dog-whistle himself breathless in pursuit of the state’s pro-Trump white voters, and the president attested to his make-America-great-again credentials. By late Tuesday, though, Mr. Trump was trying to sidle away from Mr. Gillespie, claiming that a candidate who sacrificed his own reputation to adopt the president’s style and positions in fact “did not embrace me or what I stand for.” Mr. Gillespie did, and he lost.

Virginia and New Jersey, where Democrat Phil Murphy easily won the governor’s race, were the first statewide general elections since Donald Trump won the presidency a year ago, and Virginia, the only southern state Hillary Clinton won in 2016, was by far the more consequential of the two. Late Tuesday Democrats were also registering gains in the Virginia House of Delegates, suggesting strong disapproval of Mr. Trump at the grass roots.

Having been nearly vanquished in the primary by Corey Stewart, an anti-immigrant conspiracy theorist who played on issues like preserving Confederate monuments, Mr. Gillespie, at the advice of Republican leaders, took up race-baiting. His ads, featuring menacing tattooed men, accused Mr. Northam of being “weak on MS-13,” the gang formed by Central American immigrants in Los Angeles that now threatens Virginia suburbs. They contained some of the darkest appeals in Tuesday’s off-year contests — and that’s saying something, given the Republican candidate ads that aired in places like Nassau County, N.Y., and New Jersey.

Mr. Trump, who is traveling in Asia, waged one of his familiar Twitter smear campaigns against Mr. Northam on Tuesday, calling the pediatric neurologist and former Army doctor “weak on crime, weak on our GREAT VETS.”

Democratic A-listers from President Barack Obama on down labored to put Mr. Northam over the bar. Mr. Northam was a lackluster campaigner in his own right. Despite mountains of post-2016 evidence that Democrats need to present voters with an inclusive and compelling economic message, he didn’t hone his own until late in the race.

Then he lost support from the progressive wing of his party after he seemed to suggest he’d oppose sanctuary cities and, at the request of unions, omitted Justin Fairfax, his African-American running mate in the lieutenant governor’s race, from some campaign pamphlets.

Mr. Gillespie’s choice to lay his principles on the altar of Trumpism made Mr. Northam’s win doubly important, as a triumph over the politics of racial division, and as a lesson for other Republicans tempted to adopt Mr. Trump’s vile tactics as their own.