"Analysis from Decision Desk HQ based on polling across the country predicts that Trump, the expected 2024 Republican presidential nominee, will win a total of 312 Electoral votes in November, the biggest number a GOP candidate has received since George H. W. Bush's 1988 victory when he received 426 votes."
The quote is from that far right source Newsweek.
I've seen at least a few of these polls where they comically oversampled the rural population, a demographic Trump won by 15 points in 2020.
This kind of right-leaning sampling problem I suspect accounts for the divergence of polling from actual results. For example, Trump seems to have consistently underperformed in the primaries versus what the polls suggest.
In the election for the 3rd District of NY, Suozzi won by eight points even though the average of the polls had him up by only three.
Remember the polls that suggested a massive red wave in 2022?
It all suggests to me that Trump will underperform, perhaps dramatically, any forecast for the 2024 presidential election based on polling.
Didn't drumpf once say "7.8% unemployment number is a complete fraud as evidenced by the jobless claims number released yesterday.Real unemployment is at least 15%". So, out of power, he made the numbers up off the top of his head. Surely he would do so if in office and his cronies would find a way to support his lie.
Trump wasn't making up numbers, and he wasn't' lying. He was referring to the U-6 unemployment rate.
If the U-3 at the time was 7.8%, the U-6 was at least twice as high.
The U-3 and the U-6 unemployment rates are both released by the BLS each month, but the media prefers to focus on the U-3 because it looks better.
‘True unemployment’ is a lot higher than you think
The U-3 unemployment rate released by the BLS counts anyone who has worked at least one hour during the month as employed. It accounts for unemployed, but not underemployed and discouraged workers who have given up looking for work.
The U-6 is the truest measure of unemployment. Currently around 8%.
"The U-6 (Unemployment) rate measures the percentage of the U.S. labor force that is unemployed, plus those who are underemployed, marginally attached to the workforce, and have given up looking for work. The U-6 rate is considered by many economists to be the most revealing measure of the true state of the nation's employment situation."
The U-6 number was 7.0 in February, 2020. It was 7.2 in February, 2024.
U-3 for the same periods were 3.5 and 3.7.
No one could have stopped the economic impact of COVID. It is possible it could have been lessened with fewer restrictions or other differing polices, but most were not willing to try out things that would possibly increase their risk of more exposure to COVID.
I guess you could suspend reality and think Clinton would have done a lot better but no matter how you stack it up we are in the same place for unemployment as we were before COVID.
The U-6 number was 7.0 in February, 2020. It was 7.2 in February, 2024.
U-3 for the same periods were 3.5 and 3.7.
No one could have stopped the economic impact of COVID. It is possible it could have been lessened with fewer restrictions or other differing polices, but most were not willing to try out things that would possibly increase their risk of more exposure to COVID.
I guess you could suspend reality and think Clinton would have done a lot better but no matter how you stack it up we are in the same place for unemployment as we were before COVID.
A more rational President, following the advice of learned scientists and experts, could have dealt with COVID differently, Would it have made a difference? Maybe. Or maybe not. But, that would have been the better bet than the leadership Donnie gave.
Member since: Aug 15, 2019 Threads: 27 Posts: 4256
Quote: OnceDear
Seems a reasonable point.
Your procedures created by your founders were designed for a different age, where slavery had an impact.
When choosing a president, where is the logic in giving extra votes to less populous states. What's wrong with giving the presidency to the candidate that gets the most individual votes?
The 'Winner takes All' system in some states also seems an unreasonable cludge. Why should Winner take all electors in a state?
Besides, your House and Senate seats are a separate electoral process, giving (broadly) proportional representation. I'm not advocating a UK way of doing it where the house majority party elects the leader.
Also, ironically designed when there were much less States (IE the overall weight was less impactful.) An electoral college with 13-15 States (not looking up when it was actually implemented,) where the populations were more balanced, is far less impactful than 50 States where almost the whole population lives in like 8-12 States (also not calculating the current population breakdowns, but it should be around here.) But, again it really does not matter where people happen to live. If I live in the middle of Oklahoma or in downtown SF, my vote for President should be a single vote.
The idea that 40 States with like two people living there deserve equal protection to where almost everyone lives is silly. Actually the idea of "protection of States" is silly. This is a Federal Election. Electoral College is simply a terrible system. It should be popular vote or Parliamentarian. The electoral college has not benefited the Democrats since like the 1870s (when the parties were essentially reversed,) it is an outdated system that does not represent the true will of the majority.
Member since: Apr 21, 2016 Threads: 29 Posts: 12536
Quote: alteredstates93
I've seen at least a few of these polls where they comically oversampled the rural population, a demographic Trump won by 15 points in 2020.
This kind of right-leaning sampling problem I suspect accounts for the divergence of polling from actual results. For example, Trump seems to have consistently underperformed in the primaries versus what the polls suggest.
In the election for the 3rd District of NY, Suozzi won by eight points even though the average of the polls had him up by only three.
Remember the polls that suggested a massive red wave in 2022?
It all suggests to me that Trump will underperform, perhaps dramatically, any forecast for the 2024 presidential election based on polling.
Whachu talkin bout? Polls are always right, especially many months out from the election:
5/18/88, Dukakis led by 10.
“A straight man will not go for kids.” - AZDuffman
Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147
Quote: Mission146
Quote: Gandler
Quote: Mission146
Quote: Gandler
Quote: Mission146
This is so ridiculous! The Democrats truly deserve whatever they get, at this point. I know they're floating the ability for individual states to remove Trump from the ballot, but Biden won Colorado by 13.5% and Illinois by 17%; the only thing they are doing is continuing to make Trump a sympathetic figure.
He had a fair trial, with a fair result. The Supreme Court may overrule it, but the State assessed their requirements against Trump's actions. Personally I am getting more sympathetic with the argument that he was engaged in insurrection. Will this change the mind of magas? No, but nothing will, that is not the point. If you think being nice to Trump will change the mind of magas, you are living in an alternative reality. It is not a matter of political expedience, it is a matter of holding him responsible for his actions (or inactions.)
It's about not making Trump a sympathetic figure and causing fence-sitters or supporters he might have otherwise lost to vote for him; it's not about trying to sway hardcore MAGA folks the other way. The Democrats would be more effective, in this regard, by doing nothing.
But, it is not the Democrats doing this, it was an independent judicial decision.
Yeah, sure.
I apologize for the flippant response, but the point is that something doesn’t have to be coordinated to be politically, or personally, motivated.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
Member since: Jan 26, 2023 Threads: 30 Posts: 2506
Quote: Tanko
The only way to pay down the debt is to increase tax revenues. Cutting social programs can kill people and destroy the quality of life for millions of Americans.
The current administration is trying to increase tax revenues by bringing in more than four million illegals every year at the expense of local governments and quality of life and standard of living for the middle and lower classes.
The number of US born people working today is lower than it was in 2019.
'US-born employment is lower now than it was in January of 2020. Foreign-born workers make up over 100 percent of the employment gains.'
Good post.
But even long ago, Big Tech were importing folks from India instead of hiring us.
Now it's obvious.
With DEI, it's likely worse if a person is a white American male software programmer.
Maybe the persons could be Walmart greeters and move to the ghetto where it's cheaper.
I got a kick out of Bill: :)
Something tells me that Bill Maher could be walking with a full diaper in about 20 years.
Member since: Oct 28, 2012 Threads: 154 Posts: 5112
Quote: GenoDRPh
A more rational President, following the advice of learned scientists and experts, could have dealt with COVID differently, Would it have made a difference? Maybe. Or maybe not. But, that would have been the better bet than the leadership Donnie gave.
Dems were at their most effective when it came to making sure Trump really paid for being president when Covid hit. It's one thing Conservatives really puzzle over, "what was Trump supposed to do that he didn't?"
when you ask for details what you get is things like public comments. He could have been better at optics ... he could have gone around wearing a mask sooner. He could have 'not downplayed' Covid like he did in public, instead I guess he should have pushed for more public panic. He could have quit saying screwy things like with the bleach and the ultraviolet [I agree] although the MSM misrepresented what he actually said. He called it the China virus and that sort of thing is passe now
What could he have actually done different *that would have mattered?* Fauci was his guy, he screwed up there. He could have prevented people from traveling from China sooner, though the Libs howled at that when it was done. What else that would have really mattered?
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18762
Quote: odiousgambit
Dems were at their most effective when it came to making sure Trump really paid for being president when Covid hit. It's one thing Conservatives really puzzle over, "what was Trump supposed to do that he didn't?"
when you ask for details what you get is things like public comments. He could have been better at optics ... he could have gone around wearing a mask sooner. He could have 'not downplayed' Covid like he did in public, instead I guess he should have pushed for more public panic. He could have quit saying screwy things like with the bleach and the ultraviolet [I agree] although the MSM misrepresented what he actually said. He called it the China virus and that sort of thing is passe now
What could he have actually done different *that would have mattered?* Fauci was his guy, he screwed up there. He could have prevented people from traveling from China sooner, though the Libs howled at that when it was done. What else that would have really mattered?
Quote:
Ronald Klain, the White House Ebola response coordinator from October 2014 to February 2015, tweeted out a link to a document titled “Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents.”
The document, originally unearthed in March by Politico, is a 69-page National Security Council guidebook developed in 2016 with the goal of assisting leaders “in coordinating a complex U.S. Government response to a high-consequence emerging disease threat anywhere in the world.” It outlined questions to ask, who should be asked to get the answers and what key decisions should be made.
Nicole Lurie, another Obama administration official, confirmed to us the existence of the NSC pandemic playbook and also said similar documents were created for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“To say there was no playbook was ridiculous,” said Lurie, who served as the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at HHS during both terms of the Obama administration.
“We absolutely did leave a plan. It was called a playbook.” The playbook lists types of infectious disease threats that could emerge. “Novel coronaviruses” were among pathogens flagged as having potential to cause heightened concern.
Lurie said that there were tabletop exercises, which included planning for a pandemic-like situation, during the transition between the Obama and Trump administrations. (The Trump administration also conducted an exercise — known as “Crimson Contagion” — in 2019.)
Other Obama-era officials offered similar stories in interviews this week with CNN:
“They were extensively briefed, to the extent that they paid attention to these things during the transition,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, who directed USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance.
“We absolutely did leave a plan. It was called a playbook,” said Lisa Monaco, former homeland security adviser to President Obama. The goal, she said, was to share the lessons learned during the Ebola and Zika outbreaks.
Meanwhile, Peter Loge, who served as a senior adviser within Obama’s Food and Drug Administration, told KHN he remembered a very clear message from the HHS secretary regarding the presidential transition.
“Our job was to set up the Trump political staff for success, and we took that mandate very seriously,” said Loge. He and his colleagues wrote memos to inform the Trump staff about priority issues. “But nobody called me and asked what I was doing in my job,” said Loge.
However, the Trump administration has maintained that the coronavirus sneaked up on the U.S., and Trump himself has even said it was a “very unforeseen thing.”
