Fox News

15,928 Views | 198 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by concordtom
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

bearister said:

A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.
I looked up Obama's presidential approval ratings for 2016 (Gallup poll). His approval was 50-60% the entire year and disapproval was 40-45%. If people wanted to "repudiate" the Obama years, I think it would have been apparent in those numbers. I think you have to look elsewhere for why Clinton lost the election. I can think of a few better reasons but I won't do your homework for you.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

By the way, MAGA45 would kill somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue for those approval numbers.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

LMK5 said:

bearister said:

A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.
I looked up Obama's presidential approval ratings for 2016 (Gallup poll). His approval was 50-60% the entire year and disapproval was 40-45%. If people wanted to "repudiate" the Obama years, I think it would have been apparent in those numbers. I think you have to look elsewhere for why Clinton lost the election. I can think of a few better reasons but I won't do your homework for you.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

By the way, MAGA45 would kill somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue for those approval numbers.
If you're going to trust polls to bolster your case, look up HRC's pre-election poll numbers in those swing states I cited. They're as trustworthy as Obama's poll numbers were, obviously.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

bobo808 said:

LMK5 said:

bearister said:

A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.
2016 Election Results:
Popular vote
Trump: 62,984,828
Clinton: 65,853,514
Percentage
Trump: 46.1%
Clinton: 48.2%

For some it seems that the electoral college wasn't a factor. "Repudiation" of the Obama years? "The only way she could've lost?"
You need the votes where it counts as you very well know. The founders weren't stupid. Dig up the data on Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where lots of the Dems base of "working people" is supposed to be. Those are the voters that flipped on Obama.
I would have bet any amount of money that if Obama had been able to run against Trump he would have won. Those voters flipped because they didn't like Hillary.
They didn't like Hillary to the extent they would vote for someone who rejected all of Obama's policies instead? Oh come on.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

bobo808 said:

LMK5 said:

bearister said:

A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.
2016 Election Results:
Popular vote
Trump: 62,984,828
Clinton: 65,853,514
Percentage
Trump: 46.1%
Clinton: 48.2%

For some it seems that the electoral college wasn't a factor. "Repudiation" of the Obama years? "The only way she could've lost?"
You need the votes where it counts as you very well know. The founders weren't stupid. Dig up the data on Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where lots of the Dems base of "working people" is supposed to be. Those are the voters that flipped on Obama.
I would have bet any amount of money that if Obama had been able to run against Trump he would have won. Those voters flipped because they didn't like Hillary.
They didn't like Hillary to the extent they would vote for someone who rejected all of Obama's policies instead? Oh come on.
1. It's not safe to assume that most voters make decisions based on policy. A lot of it is personality driven.

2. Trump promised a lot of stuff during that campaign (like not touching health care) that he didn't follow through on. I figured most of what he said was a lie, but if you took him at his word he wasn't necessarily a complete rejection of Obama's policies.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

bobo808 said:

LMK5 said:

bearister said:

A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.
2016 Election Results:
Popular vote
Trump: 62,984,828
Clinton: 65,853,514
Percentage
Trump: 46.1%
Clinton: 48.2%

For some it seems that the electoral college wasn't a factor. "Repudiation" of the Obama years? "The only way she could've lost?"
You need the votes where it counts as you very well know. The founders weren't stupid. Dig up the data on Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where lots of the Dems base of "working people" is supposed to be. Those are the voters that flipped on Obama.
I would have bet any amount of money that if Obama had been able to run against Trump he would have won. Those voters flipped because they didn't like Hillary.
They didn't like Hillary to the extent they would vote for someone who rejected all of Obama's policies instead? Oh come on.
1. It's not safe to assume that most voters make decisions based on policy. A lot of it is personality driven.

2. Trump promised a lot of stuff during that campaign (like not touching health care) that he didn't follow through on. I figured most of what he said was a lie, but if you took him at his word he wasn't necessarily a complete rejection of Obama's policies.
He didn't say "repeal and replace" in reference to Obamacare? His personality was a driving factor in his election? If that's the case, what chances are you giving Biden?
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

LMK5 said:

bearister said:

A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.
I looked up Obama's presidential approval ratings for 2016 (Gallup poll). His approval was 50-60% the entire year and disapproval was 40-45%. If people wanted to "repudiate" the Obama years, I think it would have been apparent in those numbers. I think you have to look elsewhere for why Clinton lost the election. I can think of a few better reasons but I won't do your homework for you.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

By the way, MAGA45 would kill somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue for those approval numbers.
If you're going to trust polls to bolster your case, look up HRC's pre-election poll numbers in those swing states I cited. They're as trustworthy as Obama's poll numbers were, obviously.
What swing states? You don't mention any states at all in your post.

As for polling accuracy, I checked this link: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

An average of 11 polls had Clinton 45.5% Trump 42.2%, a margin of 3.3%. The actual vote was Clinton 48.2% Trump 46.1%, a margin of 2.1%. That's certainly well within the statistical margin of error. I would say they generally overstated the vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidates but not outrageously so. Trump won despite losing the popular vote by over 2 percent because the electoral college is skewed in favor of smaller and more rural states. The national polling data was actually fairly accurate.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

bobo808 said:

LMK5 said:

bearister said:

A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.
2016 Election Results:
Popular vote
Trump: 62,984,828
Clinton: 65,853,514
Percentage
Trump: 46.1%
Clinton: 48.2%

For some it seems that the electoral college wasn't a factor. "Repudiation" of the Obama years? "The only way she could've lost?"
You need the votes where it counts as you very well know. The founders weren't stupid. Dig up the data on Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where lots of the Dems base of "working people" is supposed to be. Those are the voters that flipped on Obama.
I would have bet any amount of money that if Obama had been able to run against Trump he would have won. Those voters flipped because they didn't like Hillary.
They didn't like Hillary to the extent they would vote for someone who rejected all of Obama's policies instead? Oh come on.
1. It's not safe to assume that most voters make decisions based on policy. A lot of it is personality driven.

2. Trump promised a lot of stuff during that campaign (like not touching health care) that he didn't follow through on. I figured most of what he said was a lie, but if you took him at his word he wasn't necessarily a complete rejection of Obama's policies.
He didn't say "repeal and replace" in reference to Obamacare? His personality was a driving factor in his election? If that's the case, what chances are you giving Biden?
First off, Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid and then supported budgets that would have. He promised to replace Obamacare with "something great." That latter part never really materialized.

Secondly, yes, Trump's personality was a driving factor in the election (he was a TV star -- his whole brand is based on personality). People found both him and Hillary Clinton objectionable on that score (I might not agree with that, but a lot of folks felt that way). People who disliked both tended to swing to Trump. As for Biden, he doesn't seem to have the same problem Hillary had with being personally disliked so I'd put his chances as better.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

bobo808 said:

LMK5 said:

bearister said:

A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.
2016 Election Results:
Popular vote
Trump: 62,984,828
Clinton: 65,853,514
Percentage
Trump: 46.1%
Clinton: 48.2%

For some it seems that the electoral college wasn't a factor. "Repudiation" of the Obama years? "The only way she could've lost?"
You need the votes where it counts as you very well know. The founders weren't stupid. Dig up the data on Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where lots of the Dems base of "working people" is supposed to be. Those are the voters that flipped on Obama.
I would have bet any amount of money that if Obama had been able to run against Trump he would have won. Those voters flipped because they didn't like Hillary.
They didn't like Hillary to the extent they would vote for someone who rejected all of Obama's policies instead? Oh come on.
1. It's not safe to assume that most voters make decisions based on policy. A lot of it is personality driven.

2. Trump promised a lot of stuff during that campaign (like not touching health care) that he didn't follow through on. I figured most of what he said was a lie, but if you took him at his word he wasn't necessarily a complete rejection of Obama's policies.
He didn't say "repeal and replace" in reference to Obamacare? His personality was a driving factor in his election? If that's the case, what chances are you giving Biden?
First off, Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid and then supported budgets that would have. He promised to replace Obamacare with "something great." That latter part never really materialized.

Secondly, yes, Trump's personality was a driving factor in the election (he was a TV star -- his whole brand is based on personality). People found both him and Hillary Clinton objectionable on that score (I might not agree with that, but a lot of folks felt that way). People who disliked both tended to swing to Trump. As for Biden, he doesn't seem to have the same problem Hillary had with being personally disliked so I'd put his chances as better.
Establishment Democrat Hillary wasn't trusted. Trump, a Washington outsider, came out and said, what do you have to lose? Business as usual at worst or something different. Securing borders, ending bad deals with other countries, draining the swamp and waste in government. Democrat impeachment and the coronavirus have been obstacles. Biden, on the other hand, is Hillary-lite, still part of the establishment and continually exposed during the impeachment process and Democrat debates.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:



1. It's not safe to assume that most voters make decisions based on policy. A lot of it is personality driven.
Then why is half the country shocked Trump has mass appeal? Trump has mass social-cultural political appeal, through his rhetoric and personality, almost as much as Obama. He talked to people not like a politician but like somebody who doesn't give a *****what you think (i.e. principled), which is how MOST people behave. Not liking him I get, but dismissing his appeal as that which is only reserved for the worst examples of his followers is just arrogance and self-righteousness. Or it's not honest.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



1. It's not safe to assume that most voters make decisions based on policy. A lot of it is personality driven.
Then why is half the country shocked Trump has mass appeal? Trump has mass social-cultural political appeal, through his rhetoric and personality, almost as much as Obama. He talked to people not like a politician but like somebody who doesn't give a *****what you think (i.e. principled), which is how MOST people behave. Not liking him I get, but dismissing his appeal as that which is only reserved for the worst examples of his followers is just arrogance and self-righteousness. Or it's not honest.
I guess Trump's mass social-cultural political appeal explains his persistent 40-45% approval ratings.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



1. It's not safe to assume that most voters make decisions based on policy. A lot of it is personality driven.
Then why is half the country shocked Trump has mass appeal? Trump has mass social-cultural political appeal, through his rhetoric and personality, almost as much as Obama. He talked to people not like a politician but like somebody who doesn't give a *****what you think (i.e. principled), which is how MOST people behave. Not liking him I get, but dismissing his appeal as that which is only reserved for the worst examples of his followers is just arrogance and self-righteousness. Or it's not honest.
I guess Trump's mass social-cultural political appeal explains his persistent 40-45% approval ratings.
Pretty weak, bro.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



1. It's not safe to assume that most voters make decisions based on policy. A lot of it is personality driven.
Then why is half the country shocked Trump has mass appeal? Trump has mass social-cultural political appeal, through his rhetoric and personality, almost as much as Obama. He talked to people not like a politician but like somebody who doesn't give a *****what you think (i.e. principled), which is how MOST people behave. Not liking him I get, but dismissing his appeal as that which is only reserved for the worst examples of his followers is just arrogance and self-righteousness. Or it's not honest.
I guess Trump's mass social-cultural political appeal explains his persistent 40-45% approval ratings.
He did say said half the country. Democrats and the mainstream media are still scratching their heads trying to explain the fiasco that was election night. And no, personality isn't the real answer now and it wasn't back then either.

Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Both parties are unpopular. Republicans at 40% approval ; Democrats at 35%-probably an impeachment de-bump. Few outside this board care about these imposters and criminals.

Gun sales are surging-more popular than toilet paper and a lot more useful

With Biden and Trump there are no policies, no change - only one crazy and one demented senior citizen. One selling MAGA, the other a return to the normalcy that has f$Cked all. Who will you choose? The one with less dead bodies than projections? Don't vote. Just wait.

Whoever wins will wish they lost. I suspect both Biden and Trump will be dead in two years.

Things are looking up.


Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



1. It's not safe to assume that most voters make decisions based on policy. A lot of it is personality driven.
Then why is half the country shocked Trump has mass appeal? Trump has mass social-cultural political appeal, through his rhetoric and personality, almost as much as Obama. He talked to people not like a politician but like somebody who doesn't give a *****what you think (i.e. principled), which is how MOST people behave. Not liking him I get, but dismissing his appeal as that which is only reserved for the worst examples of his followers is just arrogance and self-righteousness. Or it's not honest.
I guess Trump's mass social-cultural political appeal explains his persistent 40-45% approval ratings.
Pretty weak, bro.
Mass appeal suggests well over 50%.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

LMK5 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

LMK5 said:

bearister said:

A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.
I looked up Obama's presidential approval ratings for 2016 (Gallup poll). His approval was 50-60% the entire year and disapproval was 40-45%. If people wanted to "repudiate" the Obama years, I think it would have been apparent in those numbers. I think you have to look elsewhere for why Clinton lost the election. I can think of a few better reasons but I won't do your homework for you.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

By the way, MAGA45 would kill somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue for those approval numbers.
If you're going to trust polls to bolster your case, look up HRC's pre-election poll numbers in those swing states I cited. They're as trustworthy as Obama's poll numbers were, obviously.
What swing states? You don't mention any states at all in your post.

As for polling accuracy, I checked this link: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

An average of 11 polls had Clinton 45.5% Trump 42.2%, a margin of 3.3%. The actual vote was Clinton 48.2% Trump 46.1%, a margin of 2.1%. That's certainly well within the statistical margin of error. I would say they generally overstated the vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidates but not outrageously so. Trump won despite losing the popular vote by over 2 percent because the electoral college is skewed in favor of smaller and more rural states. The national polling data was actually fairly accurate.
The swing states that I mentioned earlier: Wisconsin; Pennsylvania; Michigan; and Ohio. Are you saying that the polls didn't show Clinton would win all those?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

GBear4Life said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



1. It's not safe to assume that most voters make decisions based on policy. A lot of it is personality driven.
Then why is half the country shocked Trump has mass appeal? Trump has mass social-cultural political appeal, through his rhetoric and personality, almost as much as Obama. He talked to people not like a politician but like somebody who doesn't give a *****what you think (i.e. principled), which is how MOST people behave. Not liking him I get, but dismissing his appeal as that which is only reserved for the worst examples of his followers is just arrogance and self-righteousness. Or it's not honest.
I guess Trump's mass social-cultural political appeal explains his persistent 40-45% approval ratings.
Pretty weak, bro.
Mass appeal suggests well over 50%.
Don't be a pedant.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tRump has grown weary with Fox News. Here he is at a Mar a Lago event with his new favorite reporter, Chanel Rion, of OANN (One America News Network):



Rion's question to tRump at the March 30 Task Force pressie:

Rion said:

"2,405 Americans have died from [the virus] in the last 60 days. Meanwhile, you have 2,369 children who are killed by their mothers through elective abortions each day. That's 16 and a half thousand children killed every week. Two states have suspended elective abortion to make more resources available...Should more states be doing the same?"
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

LMK5 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

LMK5 said:

bearister said:

A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.
I looked up Obama's presidential approval ratings for 2016 (Gallup poll). His approval was 50-60% the entire year and disapproval was 40-45%. If people wanted to "repudiate" the Obama years, I think it would have been apparent in those numbers. I think you have to look elsewhere for why Clinton lost the election. I can think of a few better reasons but I won't do your homework for you.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

By the way, MAGA45 would kill somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue for those approval numbers.
If you're going to trust polls to bolster your case, look up HRC's pre-election poll numbers in those swing states I cited. They're as trustworthy as Obama's poll numbers were, obviously.
What swing states? You don't mention any states at all in your post.

As for polling accuracy, I checked this link: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

An average of 11 polls had Clinton 45.5% Trump 42.2%, a margin of 3.3%. The actual vote was Clinton 48.2% Trump 46.1%, a margin of 2.1%. That's certainly well within the statistical margin of error. I would say they generally overstated the vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidates but not outrageously so. Trump won despite losing the popular vote by over 2 percent because the electoral college is skewed in favor of smaller and more rural states. The national polling data was actually fairly accurate.
The swing states that I mentioned earlier: Wisconsin; Pennsylvania; Michigan; and Ohio. Are you saying that the polls didn't show Clinton would win all those?
I don't think any polls showed her winning Ohio. But for the other states, they did show as close enough that a roughly 2-point polling error in Trump's favor could swing it.

I acknowledge that many in the media were too confident she'd win. But sharper poll analysts like 538 were saying that Trump had about 1 chance in 3.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Both parties are unpopular. Republicans at 40% approval ; Democrats at 35%-probably an impeachment de-bump. Few outside this board care about these imposters and criminals.

Gun sales are surging-more popular than toilet paper and a lot more useful

With Biden and Trump there are no policies, no change - only one crazy and one demented senior citizen. One selling MAGA, the other a return to the normalcy that has f$Cked all. Who will you choose? The one with less dead bodies than projections? Don't vote. Just wait.

Whoever wins will wish they lost. I suspect both Biden and Trump will be dead in two years.

Things are looking up.



Anarchy is unpopular.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

tRump has grown weary with Fox News. Here he is at a Mar a Lago event with his new favorite reporter, Chanel Rion, of OANN (One America News Network):



Rion's question to tRump at the March 30 Task Force pressie:

Rion said:

"2,405 Americans have died from [the virus] in the last 60 days. Meanwhile, you have 2,369 children who are killed by their mothers through elective abortions each day. That's 16 and a half thousand children killed every week. Two states have suspended elective abortion to make more resources available...Should more states be doing the same?"

That's right, f u k you unborn babies! I know you have a nervous system, beating heart, a unique genetic profile, but f u k you and Trump durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's right, we'll force you to be born into a terrible situation that puts you behind the 8 ball immediately after you enter the world! After that, though, you're on your own. No help for you! What do you think we are, socialists? We're Christians and, in many cases, we don't believe in a helping hand. If you do become well-adjusted enough to get out of the foster care system, we'll stack the deck more. Now, you are living paycheck to paycheck. At the same time, rich people may become obscenely rich, in part due your blood, sweat, and tears. But don't forget that every life is sacred and precious.
95bears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

Anarchistbear said:

Both parties are unpopular. Republicans at 40% approval ; Democrats at 35%-probably an impeachment de-bump. Few outside this board care about these imposters and criminals.

Gun sales are surging-more popular than toilet paper and a lot more useful

With Biden and Trump there are no policies, no change - only one crazy and one demented senior citizen. One selling MAGA, the other a return to the normalcy that has f$Cked all. Who will you choose? The one with less dead bodies than projections? Don't vote. Just wait.

Whoever wins will wish they lost. I suspect both Biden and Trump will be dead in two years.

Things are looking up.



Anarchy is unpopular.

I dunno, that seemed to be the most sensical post in this thread.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chazzed said:

That's right, we'll force you to be born into a terrible situation that puts you behind the 8 ball immediately after you enter the world! After that, though, you're on your own. No help for you! What do you think we are, socialists? We're Christians and, in many cases, we don't believe in a helping hand. If you do become well-adjusted enough to get out of the foster care system, we'll stack the deck more. Now, you are living paycheck to paycheck. At the same time, rich people may become obscenely rich, in part due your blood, sweat, and tears. But don't forget that every life is sacred and precious.
This might be one of the worst retorts/arguments defending abortion I have ever seen. They're all pretty bad, but at least use the best ones.

Invoking the "hey its life was going to suck anyways (imagine making such a claim about an unborn child's life! lol), so the moral thing to do is to let the mother, whose choices led to the pregnancy, unilaterally decide to kill it " LMAO.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
95bears said:

BearForce2 said:

Anarchistbear said:

Both parties are unpopular. Republicans at 40% approval ; Democrats at 35%-probably an impeachment de-bump. Few outside this board care about these imposters and criminals.

Gun sales are surging-more popular than toilet paper and a lot more useful

With Biden and Trump there are no policies, no change - only one crazy and one demented senior citizen. One selling MAGA, the other a return to the normalcy that has f$Cked all. Who will you choose? The one with less dead bodies than projections? Don't vote. Just wait.

Whoever wins will wish they lost. I suspect both Biden and Trump will be dead in two years.

Things are looking up.



Anarchy is unpopular.

I dunno, that seemed to be the most sensical post in this thread.
I agree. But Force2 is also right, anarchism is profoundly unpopular. Because anarchism is stupid.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

bearister said:

tRump has grown weary with Fox News. Here he is at a Mar a Lago event with his new favorite reporter, Chanel Rion, of OANN (One America News Network):



Rion's question to tRump at the March 30 Task Force pressie:

Rion said:

"2,405 Americans have died from [the virus] in the last 60 days. Meanwhile, you have 2,369 children who are killed by their mothers through elective abortions each day. That's 16 and a half thousand children killed every week. Two states have suspended elective abortion to make more resources available...Should more states be doing the same?"

That's right, f u k you unborn babies! I know you have a nervous system, beating heart, a unique genetic profile, but f u k you and Trump durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


I wasn't trying to start a moral debate about abortion. My point is tRump sees the role of the press as being his advocate like RT is for Putin. The point of Rion's question was to offer a total pivot away from tRump's mishandling of the federal government's pandemic preparedness and response.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:



I wasn't trying to start a moral debate about abortion. My point is tRump sees the role of the press as being his advocate like RT is for Putin. The point of Rion's question was to offer a total pivot away from tRump's mishandling of the federal government's pandemic preparedness and response.
Yes he likes people who are on his side. Since he hates the media and they hate him, he really likes media that favors him (there are so few).

Rion is a partisan, similar to clowns like Acosta who admits he grandstands to make a political point, and of course favors Trump (as others disfavor him).

Thank you for your insight into a political dynamic that precedes DT.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

GBear4Life said:

bearister said:

tRump has grown weary with Fox News. Here he is at a Mar a Lago event with his new favorite reporter, Chanel Rion, of OANN (One America News Network):



Rion's question to tRump at the March 30 Task Force pressie:

Rion said:

"2,405 Americans have died from [the virus] in the last 60 days. Meanwhile, you have 2,369 children who are killed by their mothers through elective abortions each day. That's 16 and a half thousand children killed every week. Two states have suspended elective abortion to make more resources available...Should more states be doing the same?"

That's right, f u k you unborn babies! I know you have a nervous system, beating heart, a unique genetic profile, but f u k you and Trump durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


I wasn't trying to start a moral debate about abortion. My point is tRump sees the role of the press as being his advocate like RT is for Putin. The point of Rion's question was to offer a total pivot away from tRump's mishandling of the federal government's pandemic preparedness and response.
If you think the Feds' response was not up to par, then you'll also have to include lots of other countries that are so often held up as model societies by the left: Germany; France; UK; Italy; Spain; Canada; and on and on. You should also expose New York for being not only unprepared, but poo-pooing the coronavirus threat quite recently. Here's Bill de "Blahsio" on March 10th, yes March 10th, telling New Yorkers to just go about their business during an MSNBC interview.

So New York City, the target of the 9/11 attacks and the number one terrorist target in America, was not prepared for a medical emergency. The governor, the newly-annointed future Dem presidential candidate, has been at the helm since 2011, yet also didn't prepare, but instead criticizes the federal branch. So New Yorkers, despite being the highest taxed people in the Union, did not get their money's worth from these clowns, despite their recent General Patton-like portrayals in the media.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Go!Bears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:


If you think the Feds' response was not up to par, then you'll also have to include lots of other countries that are so often held up as model societies by the left: Germany; France; UK; Italy; Spain; Canada; and on and on. You should also expose New York for being not only unprepared, but poo-pooing the coronavirus threat quite recently. Here's Bill de "Blahsio" on March 10th, yes March 10th, telling New Yorkers to just go about their business during an MSNBC interview.

So New York City, the target of the 9/11 attacks and the number one terrorist target in America, was not prepared for a medical emergency. The governor, the newly-annointed future Dem presidential candidate, has been at the helm since 2011, yet also didn't prepare, but instead criticizes the federal branch. So New Yorkers, despite being the highest taxed people in the Union, did not get their money's worth from these clowns, despite their recent General Patton-like portrayals in the media.
Well, in their defense, they may have just been listening to the President.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Go!Bears said:

LMK5 said:


If you think the Feds' response was not up to par, then you'll also have to include lots of other countries that are so often held up as model societies by the left: Germany; France; UK; Italy; Spain; Canada; and on and on. You should also expose New York for being not only unprepared, but poo-pooing the coronavirus threat quite recently. Here's Bill de "Blahsio" on March 10th, yes March 10th, telling New Yorkers to just go about their business during an MSNBC interview.

So New York City, the target of the 9/11 attacks and the number one terrorist target in America, was not prepared for a medical emergency. The governor, the newly-annointed future Dem presidential candidate, has been at the helm since 2011, yet also didn't prepare, but instead criticizes the federal branch. So New Yorkers, despite being the highest taxed people in the Union, did not get their money's worth from these clowns, despite their recent General Patton-like portrayals in the media.
Well, in their defense, they may have just been listening to the President.
Not sure what you mean. NYC was attacked in 2001. Cuomo has been governor since 2011 and de Blasio has been mayor since 2013. Are you saying they were listening to Obama?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

bearister said:

GBear4Life said:

bearister said:

tRump has grown weary with Fox News. Here he is at a Mar a Lago event with his new favorite reporter, Chanel Rion, of OANN (One America News Network):



Rion's question to tRump at the March 30 Task Force pressie:

Rion said:

"2,405 Americans have died from [the virus] in the last 60 days. Meanwhile, you have 2,369 children who are killed by their mothers through elective abortions each day. That's 16 and a half thousand children killed every week. Two states have suspended elective abortion to make more resources available...Should more states be doing the same?"

That's right, f u k you unborn babies! I know you have a nervous system, beating heart, a unique genetic profile, but f u k you and Trump durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


I wasn't trying to start a moral debate about abortion. My point is tRump sees the role of the press as being his advocate like RT is for Putin. The point of Rion's question was to offer a total pivot away from tRump's mishandling of the federal government's pandemic preparedness and response.
If you think the Feds' response was not up to par, then you'll also have to include lots of other countries that are so often held up as model societies by the left: Germany; France; UK; Italy; Spain; Canada; and on and on. You should also expose New York for being not only unprepared, but poo-pooing the coronavirus threat quite recently. Here's Bill de "Blahsio" on March 10th, yes March 10th, telling New Yorkers to just go about their business during an MSNBC interview.

So New York City, the target of the 9/11 attacks and the number one terrorist target in America, was not prepared for a medical emergency. The governor, the newly-annointed future Dem presidential candidate, has been at the helm since 2011, yet also didn't prepare, but instead criticizes the federal branch. So New Yorkers, despite being the highest taxed people in the Union, did not get their money's worth from these clowns, despite their recent General Patton-like portrayals in the media.
There is no question that Cuomo and De Blasio made a huge mistake in not shutting down NYC earlier and nothing they can do now will make up for that failure.

This is similar to and does not in any way abrogate Trump and his administration from their many and well-documented failures.

The idea that the states are on their own and that they shouldn't rely on the federal government for aid is ludicrous. Could they have done more? Sure. By way of example, we all know Ahnold built up a california stockpile in preparation for something like this, and that when the state ran a massive deficit after George Bush wrecked the country, the state government chose to stop maintaining the stockpile. However, the federal government is better suited than any state for emergencies like this. That's why FEMA exists and the only reason you are hearing conservatives claim otherwise is to defend Trump for his continuing unconscionable failure.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:

bearister said:

GBear4Life said:

bearister said:

tRump has grown weary with Fox News. Here he is at a Mar a Lago event with his new favorite reporter, Chanel Rion, of OANN (One America News Network):



Rion's question to tRump at the March 30 Task Force pressie:

Rion said:

"2,405 Americans have died from [the virus] in the last 60 days. Meanwhile, you have 2,369 children who are killed by their mothers through elective abortions each day. That's 16 and a half thousand children killed every week. Two states have suspended elective abortion to make more resources available...Should more states be doing the same?"

That's right, f u k you unborn babies! I know you have a nervous system, beating heart, a unique genetic profile, but f u k you and Trump durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


I wasn't trying to start a moral debate about abortion. My point is tRump sees the role of the press as being his advocate like RT is for Putin. The point of Rion's question was to offer a total pivot away from tRump's mishandling of the federal government's pandemic preparedness and response.
If you think the Feds' response was not up to par, then you'll also have to include lots of other countries that are so often held up as model societies by the left: Germany; France; UK; Italy; Spain; Canada; and on and on. You should also expose New York for being not only unprepared, but poo-pooing the coronavirus threat quite recently. Here's Bill de "Blahsio" on March 10th, yes March 10th, telling New Yorkers to just go about their business during an MSNBC interview.

So New York City, the target of the 9/11 attacks and the number one terrorist target in America, was not prepared for a medical emergency. The governor, the newly-annointed future Dem presidential candidate, has been at the helm since 2011, yet also didn't prepare, but instead criticizes the federal branch. So New Yorkers, despite being the highest taxed people in the Union, did not get their money's worth from these clowns, despite their recent General Patton-like portrayals in the media.
There is no question that Cuomo and De Blasio made a huge mistake in not shutting down NYC earlier and nothing they can do now will make up for that failure.

This is similar to and does not in any way abrogate Trump and his administration from their many and well-documented failures.

The idea that the states are on their own and that they shouldn't rely on the federal government for aid is ludicrous. Could they have done more? Sure. By way of example, we all know Ahnold built up a california stockpile in preparation for something like this, and that when the state ran a massive deficit after George Bush wrecked the country, the state government chose to stop maintaining the stockpile. However, the federal government is better suited than any state for emergencies like this. That's why FEMA exists and the only reason you are hearing conservatives claim otherwise is to defend Trump for his continuing unconscionable failure.
Well said Unit2. Isn't it unfortunate that, from what I've seen here, you are the first Dem on this board to even elude to the massive missteps of New York's leadership? I mean, NYC was the target of 9/11 and remains the number one target in America for Christ sake. Why were they so unprepared?

I do agree the feds could have been more aggressive and yes, they are in a better position to mobilize after a disaster. It seems we haven't learned as much as we thought after Katrina. At the same time, you'd have to also question the response of France, Canada, UK, Italy, Spain, and others as their coronavirus numbers, relative to their size, mirrors ours, but I'm not hearing much discussion of these comparisons on this board nor in the media.
Grigsby
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fox is toast. They are going to be sued into oblivion.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

Well said Unit2. Isn't it unfortunate that, from what I've seen here, you are the first Dem on this board to even elude to the massive missteps of New York's leadership? I mean, NYC was the target of 9/11 and remains the number one target in America for Christ sake. Why were they so unprepared?
Most of us live in California, not New York, so would be less likely to criticize the local leaders in NY. Our own local leadership seems to have been much quicker to act and probably saved the state from being in NY's predicament.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.