djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 30, 2017 19:10:24 GMT -5
That is how I do the math. Seems pretty straight forward. It is, regardless of what the debt was to start. Percentage increase in the debt is based on the original value of the debt. Percentage decrease in the deficit is based on the original value of the deficit. Completely unrelated mathematically because they have different and unrelated denominators. It just seems so...obvious. if you want to get all sciencey, the deficit is the time rate of change of debt. debt is the summation of all deficit, surplus, and interest over time. but i waited (14) pages to say that because....well, it is pretty academic.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 30, 2017 19:38:49 GMT -5
What else would you call "net increase in public debt over a president's term" in two words or less?"Obama's Debt" "accumulated debt" "debt change" "accrued debt" want ten more? i guess you conservatives need us around for a reason. we can cut some nice holes in your paper bag, so you can escape.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 30, 2017 19:50:13 GMT -5
My view of this "debate": dj - Oranges are orange. Richard - No, apples are red. dj - Okay, yeah, but oranges are orange. And apples can also be green, by the way. Richard - And yellow. dj - Sure, but that doesn't really matter. I didn't say anything about apples. I said that oranges are orange. Richard - But the apples.... dj - We AGREE about the apples.... I didn't say anything about apples here. I said that oranges are orange. Richard - Why are you bringing up oranges? We're talking about apples. dj - Is that about it? Reply #381, right before this, is the first post in the arc where all four points are simultaneously laid out: i) Richard is talking about the cumulative deficit over the term of each President, ii) DJ is talking about the annual deficit in 2009 versus 2016, iii) Richard's definition is reasonable, and DJ's claim of "halving the deficit" is false by this definition, and iv) DJ's definition is reasonable, and his claim of "halving the deficit" is true by this definition. As for me, I'm going to sit the fence for this one. To DJ's credit, "deficit" without qualification strongly implies annual deficit (i.e. oranges are oranges), and Richard should know this. To Richard's credit, a cumulative deficit, "total increase in debt over a president's term", or whatever we want call it is technically still a deficit, and makes more sense as a gauge of a president's performance than using a single year. Hence I'm willing to pronounce both men "correct" in a sense. I guess I'm a relativist after all. But yeah, remind me never to take them out for coffee at the same time. Well, no. For my (hopefully) last word on the subject, the original claim was spelled out specifically referencing the 2009 deficit of $1.2T in the first post (#174) that Richard later quoted in #221 (which gave rise to this argument.) Several attempts were made by multiple posters to clarify exactly where Richard had either misinterpreted or made his mistake, including more than one by me calling attention to the term "deficit" being an annual term of measurement and specifically referencing the $1.2T 2009 deficit as the basis for the claim. The mathematics of the comparison were also explained, clearly proving false Richard's contention on that score. I hope that clarifies it in case you missed some of the posts. Please be comforted that you can avoid the dreaded curse of relativism at least in this particular case. Wise choice on your coffee companions, but somehow I doubt you will need the reminder.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 30, 2017 21:27:01 GMT -5
Reply #381, right before this, is the first post in the arc where all four points are simultaneously laid out: i) Richard is talking about the cumulative deficit over the term of each President, ii) DJ is talking about the annual deficit in 2009 versus 2016, iii) Richard's definition is reasonable, and DJ's claim of "halving the deficit" is false by this definition, and iv) DJ's definition is reasonable, and his claim of "halving the deficit" is true by this definition. As for me, I'm going to sit the fence for this one. To DJ's credit, "deficit" without qualification strongly implies annual deficit (i.e. oranges are oranges), and Richard should know this. To Richard's credit, a cumulative deficit, "total increase in debt over a president's term", or whatever we want call it is technically still a deficit, and makes more sense as a gauge of a president's performance than using a single year. Hence I'm willing to pronounce both men "correct" in a sense. I guess I'm a relativist after all. But yeah, remind me never to take them out for coffee at the same time. Well, no. For my (hopefully) last word on the subject, the original claim was spelled out specifically referencing the 2009 deficit of $1.2T in the first post (#174) that Richard later quoted in #221 (which gave rise to this argument.) Several attempts were made by multiple posters to clarify exactly where Richard had either misinterpreted or made his mistake, including more than one by me calling attention to the term "deficit" being an annual term of measurement and specifically referencing the $1.2T 2009 deficit as the basis for the claim. The mathematics of the comparison were also explained, clearly proving false Richard's contention on that score. If you knew by Reply #364 that the argument was over the definition of "deficit", why didn't you step in to keep the peace? How often do we get to say "You both have reasonable definitions and you're both correct per your chosen definition."? When such rare opportunities present themselves, let's avail ourselves of them. Let's try them. "Pres. Obama didn't halve Pres. Obama's debt." - No. "Pres. Obama didn't halve the accumulated debt." - I'd take this to mean he didn't halve the US's total accumulated debt. "Pres. Obama didn't halve the debt change." - Over what period? "Over his term, relative to the term of his predecessor" isn't implicit. "Pres. Obama didn't halve the accrued debt." - Again I'd interpret this as referring to the US's total accrued debt. "Pres. Obama didn't halve the debit increase." - I'm assuming you mean "debt increase", and again "over his term" isn't implicit. "Pres. Obama didn't halve the increased debt." - No. Hence if nothing else, we've established there's no concise term for the particular kind of deficit we're looking at.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 30, 2017 21:40:09 GMT -5
Well, no. For my (hopefully) last word on the subject, the original claim was spelled out specifically referencing the 2009 deficit of $1.2T in the first post (#174) that Richard later quoted in #221 (which gave rise to this argument.) Several attempts were made by multiple posters to clarify exactly where Richard had either misinterpreted or made his mistake, including more than one by me calling attention to the term "deficit" being an annual term of measurement and specifically referencing the $1.2T 2009 deficit as the basis for the claim. The mathematics of the comparison were also explained, clearly proving false Richard's contention on that score. If you knew by Reply #364 that the argument was over the definition of "deficit", why didn't you step in to keep the peace? Several people tried to explain it. From my #316 (for one):
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 21:44:05 GMT -5
I always acknowledge facts... so... you're welcome(?) Richard- this isn't true. i am sorry, but i really can't let this go. earlier you stated that debt and deficit always change "by the same percent". that is totally false. in a sense, deficit is actually "the first derivative" of debt. if debt is speed, then deficit is acceleration. your statement is the equivalent of saying "the acceleration is always the same as the speed". it makes no sense and is veritably false. you failed to acknowledge that. your failure to acknowledge that tells me that you are insisting on conflating the term deficit to mean debt. It's absolutely true if you include the whole claim that I made. My claim was "debt and deficit always change by the same percentage when measured over corresponding periods of time." Obviously if you compare one year's deficit against the change to the total debt, there will be a difference. BUT, if you compare the deficit for one time period to the debt added in the same exact time period and compared with the deficit & debt added for the time period you are comparing to to show the increase or reduction, the percentages should be identical. They are identical becauase the debt added is literally the deficit itself. My statement is actually the equivalent to "the acceleration is always the same as the increase in speed, over the same time period." (which it is... because... what is acceleration? It's the increase in speed over a specific period of time)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 21:52:50 GMT -5
My view of this "debate": dj - Oranges are orange. Richard - No, apples are red. dj - Okay, yeah, but oranges are orange. And apples can also be green, by the way. Richard - And yellow. dj - Sure, but that doesn't really matter. I didn't say anything about apples. I said that oranges are orange. Richard - But the apples.... dj - We AGREE about the apples.... I didn't say anything about apples here. I said that oranges are orange. Richard - Why are you bringing up oranges? We're talking about apples. dj - Is that about it? While that was humorous and got a from me... it's unfortunately not accurate. Accurate would be: dj - Oranges look smooth. Richard - Oranges are actualy dimpled... like a golf ball, but not quite as uniform on pattern. dj - Okay, yeah, but oranges are smooth if you look at them from far enough away that you can't see the dimples. Richard - But the dimples are still there, whether you can see them or not. dj - Sure, but that doesn't really matter because I wasn't dealing with how they actually are, I was taking about how they look... from far away. Richard - But the dimples exist regardless of how they look from far away. dj - We AGREE about the dimples.... I didn't say anything about the dimples here. I said that oranges look smooth. Richard - It doesn't matter how they look, they are what they are... dimpled. If you want to talk about something that's smooth and a fruit... how about apples? dj -
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 30, 2017 22:04:31 GMT -5
Richard- this isn't true. i am sorry, but i really can't let this go. earlier you stated that debt and deficit always change "by the same percent". that is totally false. in a sense, deficit is actually "the first derivative" of debt. if debt is speed, then deficit is acceleration. your statement is the equivalent of saying "the acceleration is always the same as the speed". it makes no sense and is veritably false. you failed to acknowledge that. your failure to acknowledge that tells me that you are insisting on conflating the term deficit to mean debt. It's absolutely true if you include the whole claim that I made. My claim was "debt and deficit always change by the same percentage when measured over corresponding periods of time." Obviously if you compare one year's deficit against the change to the total debt, there will be a difference. BUT, if you compare the deficit for one time period to the debt added in the same exact time period and compared with the deficit & debt added for the time period you are comparing to to show the increase or reduction, the percentages should be identical. They are identical becauase the debt added is literally the deficit itself. My statement is actually the equivalent to "the acceleration is always the same as the increase in speed, over the same time period." (which it is... because... what is acceleration? It's the increase in speed over a specific period of time) the cumulative deficit and the change in debt are indeed the same. but nowhere during the course of the argument was it clear to me that is what you were trying to say. what i was trying to say had nothing to do with that, which is WHY i got confused. so, as i have already said, you were talking about the CUMULATIVE DEBT, which we both agree on. i was talking about the rate of change of the debt. let me just ask you: do you even care about that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 22:05:10 GMT -5
DJ: If all else fails you can always accuse your adversary of libel and threaten to turn him in to management for CofC violations. Only if he's being libelous could he do that, as I never libeled him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 22:06:55 GMT -5
So if I get this right....if the deficit last year was $1 and this year it is $.50 then the deficit has been halved but the debt goes up by $.50. Is that right? Yes... BUT... the amount the debt went up compared to the amout it went up last year has also been halved.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 30, 2017 22:12:19 GMT -5
If you knew by Reply #364 that the argument was over the definition of "deficit", why didn't you step in to keep the peace? Several people tried to explain it. From my #316 (for one): My $0.02: - When two posters are quibbling over a definition, don't introduce yet another definition (i.e. GDP-normalized annual deficit) unless you enjoy confusing people.
- When two posts are quibbling over a definition and haven't converged an inch in 80 posts, if you must say something, for all our sakes let it be something to the effect of "You're not going to agree and you can both be right."
Finally, I'll point out that it's misleading to cite GDP-normalized debt across periods where GDP is calculated in significantly different ways, which is the case between FY 2009 and FY 2016. I realize you may not have been aware of this.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 30, 2017 22:16:35 GMT -5
confusing the basis also doesn't help the discussion. just sayin'.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 22:19:17 GMT -5
It's absolutely true if you include the whole claim that I made. My claim was "debt and deficit always change by the same percentage when measured over corresponding periods of time." Obviously if you compare one year's deficit against the change to the total debt, there will be a difference. BUT, if you compare the deficit for one time period to the debt added in the same exact time period and compared with the deficit & debt added for the time period you are comparing to to show the increase or reduction, the percentages should be identical. They are identical becauase the debt added is literally the deficit itself. My statement is actually the equivalent to "the acceleration is always the same as the increase in speed, over the same time period." (which it is... because... what is acceleration? It's the increase in speed over a specific period of time) the cumulative deficit and the change in debt are indeed the same. but nowhere during the course of the argument was it clear to me that is what you were trying to say. what i was trying to say had nothing to do with that, which is WHY i got confused. so, as i have already said, you were talking about the CUMULATIVE DEBT, which we both agree on. i was talking about the rate of change of the debt. let me just ask you: do you even care about that? I care about accuracy. And using that as my standard, Obama didn't reduce the deficit by 50%. He increased it by something like 33%, over his entire term. You can't compare his final year to Bush's final year as "absolutes". If you want to compare one year to one year, you have to compare each year to the year that preceded it... not pick a year that's separated by numerous years, and many changes in all kinds of situations worldwide. And if you compare Obama's last year (2017), with the year that preceded it (2016)... he actually had a deficit INCREASE. FY 2017 - $666 billion. FY 2016 - $585 billion. www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 30, 2017 22:31:16 GMT -5
We should turn this into an Energizer commercial. You gentlemen have a good night. Try to get at least a bit of sleep in, eh?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 30, 2017 22:31:28 GMT -5
the cumulative deficit and the change in debt are indeed the same. but nowhere during the course of the argument was it clear to me that is what you were trying to say. what i was trying to say had nothing to do with that, which is WHY i got confused. so, as i have already said, you were talking about the CUMULATIVE DEBT, which we both agree on. i was talking about the rate of change of the debt. let me just ask you: do you even care about that? I care about accuracy. And using that as my standard, Obama didn't reduce the deficit by 50%. wrong, and we are done. good night. edit: i thought we were making progress. but rather than building on that, you basically rewound to yesterday. #disappointing
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 0:48:42 GMT -5
I care about accuracy. And using that as my standard, Obama didn't reduce the deficit by 50%. wrong, and we are done. good night. edit: i thought we were making progress. but rather than building on that, you basically rewound to yesterday. #disappointing It's not wrong... But I shall wish you good night as well (even though you may already be signed off by now).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 31, 2017 2:27:26 GMT -5
i think it is funny that more articles are being written about the generic ballot, and how stable it tends to be over time. and that is true. i would argue that the generic ballot is more like MARKETING than it is like campaigning. why? because really you are selling brands. it is the Republican brand -vs- the Democratic brand. and it really doesn't matter if you dislike them both. you are in a market where there are generally only two brands that are competitive, and you are going to have to choose between Coke and Pepsi.
unless something catastrophic happens to one of those brands, like say it is discovered that part of the secret formula for Coke causes cancer, the movement between them is quite slow over time. let's take 2014 as an example.
in Jan of 2013 (yes, 23 months before the election), Dems were +5%. that trend declined for 7 months until the GOP caught up. then, the Democrats got a huge pop in October, and were back +6.5%. i think this was either a government shutdown or a threatened one. you can look it up. (11) months before the election, the GOP were +2.5%. this would indicate a 5.9% victory the following November. that lead vascillated during the first nine months, but eventually, the GOP did, in fact, take the lead. by election, the polling showed them +2.4%. the GOP won by 5.7% (within 0.2% of the predicted value) and took a bunch of seats.
the current level of D+12 is almost 5x higher than December 2013. it indicates a +9.5% final lead.
i think it is funny that people bet against the market, and fight statistics. they almost always lose. the gambler thinks that he is going to win at the slots. everyone thinks that they are lucky, or better, or smarter, or simply don't believe in "fate". but at a certain point, it is not really fate. it is just math. it is statistics and probability. you can fight it all you like. and who knows? you might get lucky playing the long odds. but i will play the short odds any day of the week, thanks.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 31, 2017 12:30:43 GMT -5
It's the kind of thing where, if I could look at an advanced generic ballot and bet $1.00 for free in a double-or-nothing gamble on the election winner, I'd expect to make money on the bet. If the bet cost even $0.10 to place, I wouldn't.
Hence I'll admit: I don't consider 10-month advance data "worthless" in the strictest sense of the word. "Of appreciably little value, and of diminishing value as they age" is more appropriate. Or perhaps "of such little value that, unless one enjoys poring over poll data for its own sake, doing so ten months in advance of an election is an unwise investment of one's time and emotions".
Now, correct me if I'm wrong DJ, but I believe you do enjoy poring over poll data for its own sake, which is an admirable (if unusual) academic hobby.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 31, 2017 17:28:46 GMT -5
Hence I'll admit: I don't consider 10-month advance data "worthless" in the strictest sense of the word. "Of appreciably little value, and of diminishing value as they age" is more appropriate. some data doesn't age at all, though. when Mme Curie detected radioactive decay, her data was fairly accurate, and was used for decades. when Newton came up with his gravitational constant G, it was unchanged, and considered sacrosanct for centuries. is polling data like that? of course not. i just don't like the blanket statement. i will assert again: because of the NATURE of the generic ballot, it is a fairly slow moving ship, barring any dramatic event. so, here is what i have to say about it: unless something more dramatic and POSITIVE than has happened to Trump in the last (11) months happens in the NEXT (11) months, the GOP is very likely to lose significant seats in Congress. in fact, since the AVERAGE gain for the party out of power is MORE than the number of seats needed for a majority, NONE of this analysis is necessary: just history. we have people argue that Trump is changing history, and that is true- but i don't think it is in a way that is favorable to the GOP, and the polls show it. i am actually being quite conservative in my analysis here. privately, i am putting much higher odds on the GOP losing the House. but since the betting lines are currently holding about 60:40, i will freely admit that i am probably slightly "too certain". unlike many, i can rely on experts to quell my own private feelings.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 1, 2018 12:41:54 GMT -5
Hence I'll admit: I don't consider 10-month advance data "worthless" in the strictest sense of the word. "Of appreciably little value, and of diminishing value as they age" is more appropriate. some data doesn't age at all, though. when Mme Curie detected radioactive decay, her data was fairly accurate, and was used for decades. when Newton came up with his gravitational constant G, it was unchanged, and considered sacrosanct for centuries. is polling data like that? of course not. i just don't like the blanket statement. i will assert again: because of the NATURE of the generic ballot, it is a fairly slow moving ship, barring any dramatic event. so, here is what i have to say about it: unless something more dramatic and POSITIVE than has happened to Trump in the last (11) months happens in the NEXT (11) months, the GOP is very likely to lose significant seats in Congress. in fact, since the AVERAGE gain for the party out of power is MORE than the number of seats needed for a majority, NONE of this analysis is necessary: just history. we have people argue that Trump is changing history, and that is true- but i don't think it is in a way that is favorable to the GOP, and the polls show it. i am actually being quite conservative in my analysis here. privately, i am putting much higher odds on the GOP losing the House. but since the betting lines are currently holding about 60:40, i will freely admit that i am probably slightly "too certain". unlike many, i can rely on experts to quell my own private feelings. You seem to be appealing to the martingale property of the stochastic process that is pre-election polling, which is reasonable. In layman's terms, you're positing that at any given point in time the best estimate of the election outcome is given by the outcome of the most recent poll, since future positives and negatives have the same probability of occurring. At least this is my best tack on your reasoning. If we believe the polls are unbiased, I agree this is the most sensible approach. Even so, I put the probability of your "greater future drama" proposition at 98% and the probability that it will be regarded as a positive for Pres. Trump at 50%, making 60:40 odds a pretty agreeable spread. Of course, if the Democrats take either the House or the Senate, or both, I suspect 2019 will forever be known as "The Year of a Million EOs". Have I ever remarked on how phenomenally screwed up your system is down there?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2018 17:10:50 GMT -5
What is the Democrat's agenda that Americans are going to hurry out and vote for? Is it:
1. Anti-Trump? No. The #Resistance and #NeverTrump are fringe positions that don't motivate- especially in notoriously low-turnout mid-term elections.
2. Higher Taxes? Are Americans so outraged by their now larger paychecks that they're willing to vote OUT the party that gave them to them and vote IN those that liked the tax code the way it was?
3. More regulation?
4. Perhaps they want the ObamaCare mandate back?
5. Maybe they like ISIS and long for a return of the "JV Team"?
6. War with Russia?
7. A festering North Korean and Iranian nuclear program?
I am genuinely curious-- before I list about 100 other things- what is it that will motivate voters in the midterms-- and as I've stated, and am 100% correct about: Trump's low favorability / popularity is not a motivation for voters in a midterm election to run out and vote for Democrats.
Let me make an unequivocal statement: There is no "blue wave". And I'll make another unequivocal statement: the polls are largely meaningless.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jan 1, 2018 18:00:36 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,687
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 1, 2018 18:36:21 GMT -5
What is the Democrat's agenda that Americans are going to hurry out and vote for? Is it: 1. Anti-Trump? No. The #Resistance and #NeverTrump are fringe positions that don't motivate- especially in notoriously low-turnout mid-term elections. 2. Higher Taxes? Are Americans so outraged by their now larger paychecks that they're willing to vote OUT the party that gave them to them and vote IN those that liked the tax code the way it was? 3. More regulation? 4. Perhaps they want the ObamaCare mandate back? 5. Maybe they like ISIS and long for a return of the "JV Team"? 6. War with Russia? 7. A festering North Korean and Iranian nuclear program? I am genuinely curious-- before I list about 100 other things- what is it that will motivate voters in the midterms-- and as I've stated, and am 100% correct about: Trump's low favorability / popularity is not a motivation for voters in a midterm election to run out and vote for Democrats. Let me make an unequivocal statement: There is no "blue wave". And I'll make another unequivocal statement: the polls are largely meaningless. You were quite sure Roy Moore would win for all sorts of reasons. Moore lost..
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 1, 2018 18:57:41 GMT -5
Not by much.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 1, 2018 19:01:18 GMT -5
Well, considering that in the 2014 Alabama Senate race the Democrats didn't even field a candidate I'd say that ANY win was a huge change from before.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 1, 2018 19:04:03 GMT -5
True that
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 21:26:08 GMT -5
What is the Democrat's agenda that Americans are going to hurry out and vote for? Is it: ... 2. Higher Taxes? Are Americans so outraged by their now larger paychecks that they're willing to vote OUT the party that gave them to them and vote IN those that liked the tax code the way it was? ... If they are smart... yes, they will vote out Republicans because they understand that putting the country in more financial crisis is NOT a good thing... even if they get a few bucks out of it... ... ... ... Oh... wait... we're talking about voters... not people intelligent (on average) enough to actually pick someone that's actually qualified to be in positions of power and responsibility (if they were, we wouldn't have Democrats OR Republicans in office!). Never mind.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 2, 2018 1:59:42 GMT -5
unimportant...one either wins or loses these things...here the man lost. [end of story] we move on...
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 2, 2018 7:07:04 GMT -5
unimportant...one either wins or loses these things...here the man lost. [end of story] we move on... Truer words were never spoken. Now if only everyone felt the same way about Trump winning the election.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,985
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 2, 2018 8:05:54 GMT -5
What is the Democrat's agenda that Americans are going to hurry out and vote for? Is it: 1. Anti-Trump? No. The #Resistance and #NeverTrump are fringe positions that don't motivate- especially in notoriously low-turnout mid-term elections. Popular presidents have the ability to help their party candidates win on their coat tails. Because Trump is historically unpopular, at this point in his presidency, he has no coat tails. GOP candidates in solid red areas may declare themselves Trump allies, but in swing states, GOP candidates are most likely not going to want his help. 2. Higher Taxes? Are Americans so outraged by their now larger paychecks that they're willing to vote OUT the party that gave them to them and vote IN those that liked the tax code the way it was? Some Americans no doubt are thrilled to have a couple hundred extra bucks, but there are also significant numbers of Americans who understand how much more the corporations and higher tax bracket individuals 'won' from the tax bill, and understand the fiscal irresponsibility that will impact future generations because we awarded fat tax cuts during a period of economic growth. 3. More regulation? Trump just repealed the changes that went into effect after the BP Gulf disaster. Not everyone will think a repeat oil platform disaster is a good thing. 4. Perhaps they want the ObamaCare mandate back? Or perhaps they realize the paltry tax break they got will not make up for the increase in health insurance payments they're going to have to start paying - or go back to doing without. 5. Maybe they like ISIS and long for a return of the "JV Team"? Pretty sure Obama was going after the terrorists pretty hard - didn't he kill Bin Laden, when Bush JR failed to do that? 6. War with Russia? What's worse, war with Russia or war with NK and Iran? 7. A festering North Korean and Iranian nuclear program? So instead of a festering program, we need to have an all out war with them? I am genuinely curious-- before I list about 100 other things- what is it that will motivate voters in the midterms-- and as I've stated, and am 100% correct about: Trump's low favorability / popularity is not a motivation for voters in a midterm election to run out and vote for Democrats. Let me make an unequivocal statement: There is no "blue wave". And I'll make another unequivocal statement: the polls are largely meaningless. Yes, we're familiar with your unequivocal statements and being 100% right.
|
|