Everything Is Great and Amazing

[Big Magilla]

This is probably something any one of us could write, but worth reading anyway.

https://forwardprogressives.com/forget- ... piece-sht/

[Bog]

I invoked Tim Ryan's name purely because of his recent opposition and blah milquetoast seemingly 'Democrat A' nature. I will not speak ill of Pelosi period...here or anywhere. I think it will be a real shame if Pelosi is pushed aside as well...and echo all Tee's sentiments to be honest. That said, it was apparently way too easy to play some nasty shit ads with Ossof and Pelosi and resonate with voters even more than tying Handel to Trump. More good done than not by a landslide and still throwing her face on a commercial and saying "X' isn't your voice in Congress...it's her voice" seems to be about the most effective strategy to get re-elected or even moreso swipe a seat from a Dem.

Hopefully not delving into disparage territory here with this analogy, since I don't want to and vowed I would noy: Tee, if the pitching stays this bad and going into the 2018 season Girardi still has exactly zero playoff wins since 2012 with only one appearance in that same timeframe...how much leeway should he get based upon '08-'12 from you to lead the pinstripes back to prosperity?

[Mister Tee]

Bog wrote
Well Sabin...I'm with ya...so I guess agree to disagree.

That said, Allan Litchmann's keys strongly favored a challenger that year. Bush lost the Midterm, Third Party, Short and Long Term Economy, Policy Change, Incumbent Charisma, and possibly Social Unrest. So that's seven keys against him.

...not to mention challenger charisma, which was at least debatable. Lichtman was very generous in ascribing charisma to past candidates (both Roosevelts, JFK, Reagan) but holds back on granting it to anyone in the present. (It took him forever to credit Obama with it in '08, and he withheld it in '12.) Clinton was always described in terms of his personal magnetism; it at least might have counted.

Social unrest is a very interesting one to note, because the LA riots in May of '92 were a real turning point in that cycle. Bush's numbers had been poor from late '91 -- and he'd struggled to fight off Buchanan in the NH primary -- but the media assault on Clinton through the early Spring (coupled with Jerry Brown's kamikaze charge in the lead-up to the NY primary) had given Bush an illusorily-decent position in head-to-head polling. But, the week after the riots, Bush's numbers collapsed. Perot's rise in the polling was actually Bush's collapse -- suddenly Bush/Perot/Clinton all had numbers in the 30s. This lasted until the Democratic convention, when Clinton was able to show his best face (unfiltered by hostile press). His numbers soared, and, when Perot dropped out of the race (temporarily, as we now know), Clinton took all of his support, running off to leads of 25-30%. In fact, when Perot returned in October, it was Clinton he hurt the most. (Which Bush seemed to know, as he loudly advocated for Perot to be invited to the debates.)

My circuitous point here is, Bush was in big trouble before Perot emerged -- Perot was a symptom of Bush's problems, not the cause of them.

I'd like to say a few words in support of Nancy Pelosi (and in fact am surprised I need to, here). Pelosi is responsible for a ton of progressive legislation making it through the House (as well as stopping evils like Social Security privatization under Bush). What is it with the Democratic willingness to shove her overboard? (And for Tim Ryan? He's one of those guys who thinks Democrats need somebody like Evan Bayh as their figurehead.) I understand that Pelosi is demonized by the right-wing press, but 1) that's because of what her party stands for, not who she is and 2) it would take them about 10 minutes to do the same to whoever replaced her, reality be damned. At some point of course she'll stand aside, but not for someone like Ryan -- more likely for an Adam Schiff or Ted Lieu. (Ryan's support amounts to a small portion of the caucus, and hardly the representative one.) It'd be nice if Democrats could at least show some appreciation for all the lady's accomplished, rather than seeming to give her this bum's rush.

[danfrank]

[quote="Bog"]

I think Tim Ryan and Chuck Schumer will be in charge soon/quote]

So you think the Dems are really going to dump Pelosi? She has made it clear that she's staying in the game, and it's a really small group of Dems making noise that the party needs to move past her. She may have a crappy public persona but too many Dems are beholden to her for what she does best: consolidating votes (aka herding cats, a tough skill) and especially for raising huge amounts of money. This ability to raise money is what got her into Congress in the first place despite never holding office. I worked actively for her more progressive opponent back in the day. I think Tim Ryan would be a more effective face for the Democrats, especially in winning back some of those white, non-urban voters, but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

[Sabin]

Bog wrote
Well Sabin...I'm with ya...so I guess agree to disagree.

That said, Allan Litchmann's keys strongly favored a challenger that year. Bush lost the Midterm, Third Party, Short and Long Term Economy, Policy Change, Incumbent Charisma, and possibly Social Unrest. So that's seven keys against him.

[Bog]

Well Sabin...I'm with ya...so I guess agree to disagree. I definitely think at the least it is more open to be used as a "goosing" than as the apparent objective conclusion about Perot using the same type polling data that showed Trump as a double digit loser.

Just suggested you were goosing your case a bit by using extraneous data to exclude years that didn't support the hopelessness premise.

The word re-election literally doesn't apply to Gerald Ford...so 2 outta 3 ain't bad? Again...I'm not hopeless and I think Tim Ryan and Chuck Schumer will be in charge soon...but candidate sight unseen and Russia sight unseen hard to get lock step in with Trump's going down hard.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
There was extensive polling done in 1992 about the Perot voters, and the unanimous conclusion was that Perot drew equally from Clinton and Bush. Had he not been in the picture, the final tally would have been about 53/47 Clinton. Bush was REALLY unpopular, and really unpopular incumbents don't get re-elected.

I've never entirely bought that argument. I understand that the polling suggests that Perot drew equally from Clinton and Bush, but what it doesn't take into account is the toll that Perot's third party run did to Bush's candidacy, the impact it had on the entire race. What would a George H.W. Bush candidacy look like if he didn't have to defend himself from Clinton AND Perot? If he only had to contrast himself with Bill Clinton? I understand that the numbers favored a challenger, but Bill Clinton was an inexperienced candidate with baggage. Not great. The fact that he was in a race with somebody less experienced with weirder baggage (Perot) possibly helped to make him look more stable. Maybe he wouldn't win but I don't think it was a foregone conclusion because George H.W. Bush had to defend against one candidate who was all about cultural change and another that was about economic change and he had an impossible time making a case for himself...and today, man, he doesn't seem that bad, does he?

Big Magilla wrote
2008 and 2012 - happy that Obama won, but not happy that it took so long for him and the Dems in congress to realize the Repubs weren't gong to compromise on anything. I always had the nagging suspicion that a Hillary win in 2008 would mean a 16-year era of Hillary followed by Obama that would establish a more stable Dem reign than Obama and whoever followed him

I'd give anything. I'd. Give. Anything.

[Mister Tee]

I mean come on guys...Ford was never elected by anyone..bully for you guys!, Taft + TR = ~5% greater than Wilson and Debs...and while we will just never know for sure who Perot took his 19% from and evidence may point to possibly more Clinton...1/5 is just a shit ton of votes to just assume I'm an idiot because maybe HW couldn't pull 2 out of 3 of the voters for the other uber rich Texan.

Whoa, buddy! -- nobody used the word idiot. Just suggested you were goosing your case a bit by using extraneous data to exclude years that didn't support the hopelessness premise.

There was extensive polling done in 1992 about the Perot voters, and the unanimous conclusion was that Perot drew equally from Clinton and Bush. Had he not been in the picture, the final tally would have been about 53/47 Clinton. Bush was REALLY unpopular, and really unpopular incumbents don't get re-elected.

[Sonic Youth]

His favorability rating is 10 points lower now than it was on Election Day.

Where do you get that information? According Huff's tracker, Trump's favorability rating was in mid-30s for a long time prior to the election. Then, after he got elected, it spiked, presumably because there were people willing "to give him a chance". It has since dropped back close to where it was before.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... ble-rating

You're right. I was looking at the numbers on Inauguration Day.

[Big Magilla]

I'd prefer to see the glass half full rather than half empty, too, but I've been disappointed more than I've been happy with presidential elections and their ramifications in my lifetime.

Prior to 1960 - too young to have an opinion

1960 - happy that Kennedy won, but shattered by his assassination and the later assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy and the infliction of salt on the wounds that was the election of Nixon and the despicable Agnew.

1964 - happy that Johnson won and what he accomplished on the domestic front, but disappointed that he couldn't end the Vietnam War

1968 and 1972 - dark days

1976 - happy that Carter won

1980 and 1984 - I still don't get the veneration of Ronald Reagan who acted his way through two terms and who was able to sell the country on his voodoo economics

1988 - didn't dislike George H.W. Bush, but didn't much care for him either

1992 and 1996 - years of hope and frustration thanks to the rise of the Gingrich led Republican congress in 1994

2000 - a stolen election

2004 - a sad outcome

2008 and 2012 - happy that Obama won, but not happy that it took so long for him and the Dems in congress to realize the Repubs weren't gong to compromise on anything. I always had the nagging suspicion that a Hillary win in 2008 would mean a 16-year era of Hillary followed by Obama that would establish a more stable Dem reign than Obama and whoever followed him

2016 - the unthinkable happened

[Heksagon]

His favorability rating is 10 points lower now than it was on Election Day.

Where do you get that information? According Huff's tracker, Trump's favorability rating was in mid-30s for a long time prior to the election. Then, after he got elected, it spiked, presumably because there were people willing "to give him a chance". It has since dropped back close to where it was before.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... ble-rating

[Bog]

I mean come on guys...Ford was never elected by anyone..bully for you guys!, Taft + TR = ~5% greater than Wilson and Debs...and while we will just never know for sure who Perot took his 19% from and evidence may point to possibly more Clinton...1/5 is just a shit ton of votes to just assume I'm an idiot because maybe HW couldn't pull 2 out of 3 of the voters for the other uber rich Texan.

[OscarGuy]

Also remember that the most vocal folks are often the minority. They are the far right and the far left. They have never held a consistent moderate viewpoint and get loud to drown out dissent (after all, wouldn't dissent possibly open them up to logical or evaluated thinking?). The people who are most vocally proud Trump supporters are in that incredibly vocal minority that shouts so loud that people think they are a majority.

[Mister Tee]

True story: the Monday after the Saturday Night Massacre, I had lunch at my job with multiple die-hard Democrats, and to a man (it was all guys) they shrugged it off, saying Nixon would survive it. Democrats have a long history of doom-crying. Some of them (not saying that about people here) EMBRACE the loser position, prefer it. I've probably noted this here before, but I think it's no accident that so many liberals adore To Kill a Mockingbird. To them, it's a beautiful story where Atticus loses his case and his client gets killed, but in so doing he proves himself the most moral man in town.

To address many of the points argued below, in scattershot fashion:

Presidential approvals and candidate favorables are NOT the same thing. Bill Clinton, thanks to relentless phony scandal reporting, had relatively poor favorables throughout his presidency. But his job approvals were always strong, which is why he was re-elected, and why his chosen successor got more votes than his GOP opponent. Trump and Hillary both had poor favorables during the campaign, but Obama's approvals were strong, which is why Hillary won the popular vote by a comfortable margin. (Again: please understand what a bloody fluke it was for Trump to win those three key states in the Electoral College by such laser-thin margins -- and that only because the Comey intrusion changed the trajectory of the election in a way we haven't ever seen.) Trump's approval numbers -- averaging to mid/high 30s, unless you include the transparently phony Rasmussen -- are well below his election day numbers, and that is very definite evidence he's lost ground since then. At a time when presidents are usually still in honeymoon mode.

Bog: Bush's approvals went to mid/low 40s briefly in early 2004 -- around the time of Abu Ghraib -- but by election day had returned to 48-49-ish territory, which made his margin-of-error win possible. On the other hand, by 2006, he was in the high 30s, at which time the Dems picked up 30+ House seats and 6 Senate seats. And by 2008, he was below 30, setting up the sweeping Obama/Dem victory.

And I think BJ rightly tweaks you for the slightly-weasly "elected incumbents in a 1-on-1", since your qualifier excludes three losses (Taft, Ford & Bush) and makes your precedent seem way more impressive. The reason Perot did so well in 1992 is because Bush had become so unpopular that one opposition candidate wasn't enough to hold all those who wanted to vote against him. Which is to say, the third party vote didn't create his loss; it reflected his unpopular incumbent position.

I'd also like to clear up the "well, who can trust the polls, they were so far off last time?" mis-impression. Polls on Election Eve had Hillary winning by about 3%, and she won by 2% -- margin of error stuff. What changed were the polls from October 28th -- the day of the infamous Comey letter -- to Election Day. Had Hillary held her 6-12 point leads from October 28th -- had Comey not said a word -- she'd have won, easily. It wasn't some hidden Trump vote emerging from the shadows. The change happened out in the open. (And we may yet find out there was more Russian influence on that final outcome than we know to date.)

As far as "You guys don't listen to Rush and Hannity every day" -- well, it's true, I don't (I don't do Rachel and Lawrence all that much, either -- not since Aaron Judge and Gary Sanchez started brightening my baseball world). But I also didn't listen in 1996, 2008, or 2012, when Clinton and Obama were running off to thumping Electoral College victories. The whole Fox/talk radio nexus will keep the country toxic among the dedicated 25-35% of Trump storm-troopers, but they're irrelevant to the outcome of future elections. What made Trump president (barely -- never forget, BARELY) was people who mistakenly thought on Election Day that 1) Trump wasn't so bad/was sort of for the little guy and 2) one candidate was under serious FBI investigation, only they had the wrong one. These people -- the 10% who voted for him, but now don't approve of his performance (and many of whom actively disapprove) -- HAVE had their eyes opened. Oddly, they don't seem to get interviewed by the Times.

[Sonic Youth]

Sorry if I sounded in a state of despair or incite panic...I feel pretty positive in gains in the house and probably getting the Senate back by January of 2021...and that feels like it might be plenty to not pull our hair out over. Sight unseen I would simply not place any money down on him NOT winning re-election were he the nominee/president at that point.

No, I don't think you sound that way at all. But a lot of people are, here and elsewhere. (You should have celebrated Passover with my family if you wanted to see hopelessness.) I was speaking more generally. It seemed particularly bad last week, probably because of the outcomes of the special elections and the health care bill looming again. I just can't go along with it. As horrible as some things have been in the short term - and yes, there will be more horrible things to come, with a lot of misery for many people - I'm feeling very encouraged that this will be more temporary than I was fearing. When Trump said the "Deep State" is against him, he was absolutely right. Simply put, the "Deep State" is nothing more than "The State". Trump is not bigger or more powerful than our already-entrenched institutions, or the opposition, or the media, or the courts, or the Constitution. If anything, these past few months have been an object lesson of what "checks and balances" are.