Trump's lifeline: Democrats' socialism surge

[McRocket]

WRONG. That is only part of the MSM.

You typed:

'The MSM said, as seen in the video "there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes".'

MSM means - Mainstream Media. ALL OF IT.

'Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence a large number of people,and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought.[1] The term is used tocontrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissentingthought as they do not reflect prevailing opinion.'

Mainstream media

So you said - in essence - that ALL of the MSM said 'there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes'.

1) the ENTIRE MSM did not say that.
2) you still have not quoted even one MSM source that said exactly that.

I suggest, in future, that you learn what words/phrases mean before you utter them.


And you still have not answered my question:

True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?

FALSE!! I did not see any "popular vote" predictions before the election. I saw EC projections, I saw that Hillary had between an 85% and 95% chance of winning, and I saw that Hillary was up by 4-points.

You're getting ridiculous about the MSM composition. The MSM can be represented by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC. I'm not sure what "share" of the TV audience their news gets but by adding FXN and MSNBC I probably have more than 95% of viewership. If you have another station that has significant viewership, please list it so I can prove you wrong <again>

Here is Fox News prediction 1-day before the election: Hillary by 4 points
fox news predicts 2016 election - Google Search

"Here's how MSNBC got election prediction so very wrong" Watch this one it has 'splaining
How the media got election predictions so very wrong

Wrong. MSM - by definition - cannot be represented by singular, media sources unless you stipulate as such. You did not.
What you stated was factually wrong...period.
You misused a word/phrase and now you don't like it that someone called you on it.
Get over it.
And you AGAIN avoided my question:
True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?
I will not deal with you on that other nonsense until you answer my question.

The MSM predictions for the election were that Hillary was up by 4-points, that she won the meaningless "popular vote" by 2% is not the point. Is 2% "very close" as you say? Irrelevant. Say NO, because they all missed the actual winner.
The MSM was TOTALLY WRONG in predicting that Hillary would WIN THE ELECTION, which is the purpose of "polls".

Final Popular Vote Total Shows Hillary Clinton Won Almost 3 Million More Ballots Than Donald Trump | HuffPost
"With the presidential election results now certified in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton won a total of 65,844,610 votes ― 48.2 percent ― compared with Trump's 62,979,636 votes ― 46.1 percent ― according to David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.Dec 20, 2016"

"MSM - by definition - cannot be represented by singular, media sources unless you stipulate as such.."
WTF are you talking about? Stop posting nonsense. Voters' main source of news is from the evening news, from many networks, and reliable newspapers. If you are inferring that the MSM includes online sources of "news" you are wrong, online sources are not credible. So yes, I'm stipulating that the MSM consists of the major TV network "news" and major newspapers.

I answered your big font question. Now answer mine. Were the MSM polls all wrong predicting the winner of the 2016 presidential election? From above:
"I saw Electoral College projections, I saw that Hillary had between an 85% and 95% chance of winning"

[just remembered, I worked with a guy who insisted that AlJazerra was the only true unbiased news source, so there are all kinds of opinions out there]

I see you are freaking out over this...in many colors, to boot. Why don't you calm down? It's a chat forum...not real life. Sheesh.

If there were EC predictions and IF they were wrong....then 'yes', they were wrong.

LOL.

But the candidate who wins the popular vote has won the election every time in American history but 2 or 3. And a swing of roughly 88,000 votes in the right districts would have given Clinton the EC victory.

I don't give a shit about the EC. I don't respect it, I don't honor it. And I don't care what the law says about it. As far as I am concerned, Donald Trump is NOT my POTUS. If he tried to tell me what to do, I would laugh in his face (unless he had cops force me at gunpoint to do as he asked).
It means next to NOTHING to me (and if the reverse had happened, I would feel the same way about 'President' Clinton).


So, the major polls said that Clinton would win by 3.2%. And she won the popular vote by 2.1%. And you are saying that their estimates were NOT very close to the real outcome?

And just how close would they had to have been for you to say they were 'very close'?

Ok, I took a nerve pill and washed it down with a beer. Its 12 O'clock somewhere...<g> I'm calmer now....

We're looking at polls from very different perspectives. I look at them as potentially influencing elections, so they need to be as accurate as possible. Then again, Trump disproved that beautiful theory with the ugly little fact that he won in spite of the polls and the MSM's and deep state's one-sided efforts.

We always need to obey the Laws, like them or not, or the democracy devolves into anarchy, and that you would not like, trust me. We didn't like Obama, but we put up with him for 8-years. You may need to put up with Trump for 8-years too. I can't pigeon hole you politically if you don't like Trump or Clinton?

The way you are pushing the poll issue, I'm assuming that you have something to do with polling. Okay, since you're being reasonable, I'll admit that if the margin of error of most polls is ~3.5% that the polls nailed the "popular vote", as irrelevant as they are. However, your spin that she would win the "election" by 3.2% falls flat, because the polls had her winning by a 90% probability and also projected her winning the EC, which was very wrong. So the polls missed the main reason they exist, to project the winner of the election.

I applaud you 'calming down and being more reasonable'. Darn rare thing around here.

All I am saying is the popular vote polls were VERY accurate AND that a swing of only 188,000 (sorry, said 88,000 earlier) in PA and Florida would have given Clinton the EC victory (it was that close)
2016 Presidential Election Results For Each State
AND FINALLY that the winner of the popular vote almost always wins the election. And the only two times in my lifetime (5 overall) that it was not the case (2016 and 2000). The results were INCREDIBLY close.
So I will continue to use the popular vote as the barometer for polling on federal elections. Obviously, you may do as you wish.

And BTW...I think Clinton would have made a LOUSY POTUS. More stable than Trump. But a lot less fun to watch.

As for laws? I do not follow laws that I do not agree with (unless not following them is not worth the hassle that results). Blindly following laws is wrong, IMO.
To me Honor is always above laws.
If a law is honorable or neutral - I will follow it. If it ain't, I ain't following it.

Good day.

 

[gipper]

'Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

• It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
• It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
• The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. '

Democrats' surge of socialism could be Trump's 2020 lifeline

The article is right - Democrats themselves are handing Trump a political lifeline.

There is NO WAY Democrats will win a general election on a socialism-mandate. There simply are not enough American voters to support that platform.

Sure, lots of people love the idea of everything being provided for them by the government - free university, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income, free healthcare and so on.

But when the Republicans (if they are smart) remind people of the INCREDIBLE and unsustainable costs of ALL of these programs (except free healthcare to the needy - so long as it is dual-payer and NOT single payer) AND stay away from the silly moral arguments of it?
Most of these people will shy away from the socialism angle.

The fact remains - not one progressive has REMOTELY explained how all of these pie-in-the-sky programs (especially that Green New Deal) can realistically be paid for.
Why?
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund all of these things in a sustained manner.
Impossible.

The bottom line - if Democrats fully embrace socialism...IMO, THEY WILL COST THEMSELVES FAR MORE VOTERS THEN THEY GAIN.

The article is wrong, as is the thread premise.

Democrats are not ‘flirting with socialism’ – and the article exhibits a comprehensive ignorance as to what ‘socialism’ actually is.

The mistake Democrats are making is to allow Republicans to use rightwing lies about ‘socialism’ as a political weapon.

It doesn’t matter what you think socialism is.. I suspect most Americans know this and don’t want it.

We already have a government owned and controlled by a small elite. Socialism won’t fix it.

" In practice, socialism is tyranny by a small elite"

I'm not a socialist but which countries are you speaking of?

USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba.

 

[bendog]

'Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

• It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
• It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
• The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. '

Democrats' surge of socialism could be Trump's 2020 lifeline

The article is right - Democrats themselves are handing Trump a political lifeline.

There is NO WAY Democrats will win a general election on a socialism-mandate. There simply are not enough American voters to support that platform.

Sure, lots of people love the idea of everything being provided for them by the government - free university, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income, free healthcare and so on.

But when the Republicans (if they are smart) remind people of the INCREDIBLE and unsustainable costs of ALL of these programs (except free healthcare to the needy - so long as it is dual-payer and NOT single payer) AND stay away from the silly moral arguments of it?
Most of these people will shy away from the socialism angle.

The fact remains - not one progressive has REMOTELY explained how all of these pie-in-the-sky programs (especially that Green New Deal) can realistically be paid for.
Why?
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund all of these things in a sustained manner.
Impossible.

The bottom line - if Democrats fully embrace socialism...IMO, THEY WILL COST THEMSELVES FAR MORE VOTERS THEN THEY GAIN.

The article is wrong, as is the thread premise.

Democrats are not ‘flirting with socialism’ – and the article exhibits a comprehensive ignorance as to what ‘socialism’ actually is.

The mistake Democrats are making is to allow Republicans to use rightwing lies about ‘socialism’ as a political weapon.

It doesn’t matter what you think socialism is.. I suspect most Americans know this and don’t want it.

We already have a government owned and controlled by a small elite. Socialism won’t fix it.

" In practice, socialism is tyranny by a small elite"

I'm not a socialist but which countries are you speaking of?

USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba.

Clearly Bernie's end game. LOL

 

[gipper]

'Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

• It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
• It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
• The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. '

Democrats' surge of socialism could be Trump's 2020 lifeline

The article is right - Democrats themselves are handing Trump a political lifeline.

There is NO WAY Democrats will win a general election on a socialism-mandate. There simply are not enough American voters to support that platform.

Sure, lots of people love the idea of everything being provided for them by the government - free university, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income, free healthcare and so on.

But when the Republicans (if they are smart) remind people of the INCREDIBLE and unsustainable costs of ALL of these programs (except free healthcare to the needy - so long as it is dual-payer and NOT single payer) AND stay away from the silly moral arguments of it?
Most of these people will shy away from the socialism angle.

The fact remains - not one progressive has REMOTELY explained how all of these pie-in-the-sky programs (especially that Green New Deal) can realistically be paid for.
Why?
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund all of these things in a sustained manner.
Impossible.

The bottom line - if Democrats fully embrace socialism...IMO, THEY WILL COST THEMSELVES FAR MORE VOTERS THEN THEY GAIN.

The article is wrong, as is the thread premise.

Democrats are not ‘flirting with socialism’ – and the article exhibits a comprehensive ignorance as to what ‘socialism’ actually is.

The mistake Democrats are making is to allow Republicans to use rightwing lies about ‘socialism’ as a political weapon.

It doesn’t matter what you think socialism is.. I suspect most Americans know this and don’t want it.

We already have a government owned and controlled by a small elite. Socialism won’t fix it.

" In practice, socialism is tyranny by a small elite"

I'm not a socialist but which countries are you speaking of?

USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba.

Clearly Bernie's end game. LOL

No, but doesn’t matter. If voters think socialism is tyranny, won’t matter what Bernie’s end game is.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, except for public transportation, public schools, state universities, medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, public highways, etc etc


But yeah, other than a very long list of things that show you are full of shit...you're spot on!

Another person who does not understand the meaning of "socialism" despite the definition being repeatedly provided.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Maybe the radical left isn't paying attention or maybe they only listen to the voices in their heads. The rousing cheer when President Trump condemned socialism during the State/Nation address included high profile democrats. The democrat party's brief swing to socialism is dead.

I hope you're right.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another person who does not understand the meaning of "socialism" despite the definition being repeatedly provided

Actually,its you who doesn't. That's why you call programs like a mentioned, "socialism", same with universe health insurance. I was speaking to you in your language.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If voters think socialism is tyranny

I wonder if that's true? Gee, i guess we will just have to wallow in ignorance and go with the first feeling that fizzles into our colons!

Or, we can just check :

A majority supports the public option: Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: October 2016 ....70% in the most recent polls.

A majority (60%) supports free tuition: https://splinternews.com/turns-out-people-really-like-the-idea-of-medicare-for-a-1828559580

A majority (76%) supports higher taxes on the rich: Most Americans Support Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy: Poll


Well, looks like you guys will have to rely on your tried and true tactic: lying your asses off to scare people.

 

[dudmuck]

If voters think socialism is tyranny

I wonder if that's true? Gee, i guess we will just have to wallow in ignorance and go with the first feeling that fizzles into our colons!

Or, we can just check :

A majority supports the public option: Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: October 2016 ....70% in the most recent polls.

A majority (60%) supports free tuition: https://splinternews.com/turns-out-people-really-like-the-idea-of-medicare-for-a-1828559580

A majority (76%) supports higher taxes on the rich: Most Americans Support Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy: Poll


Well, looks like you guys will have to rely on your tried and true tactic: lying your asses off to scare people.

oh its just horrible

 

[gipper]

If voters think socialism is tyranny

I wonder if that's true? Gee, i guess we will just have to wallow in ignorance and go with the first feeling that fizzles into our colons!

Or, we can just check :

A majority supports the public option: Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: October 2016 ....70% in the most recent polls.

A majority (60%) supports free tuition: https://splinternews.com/turns-out-people-really-like-the-idea-of-medicare-for-a-1828559580

A majority (76%) supports higher taxes on the rich: Most Americans Support Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy: Poll


Well, looks like you guys will have to rely on your tried and true tactic: lying your asses off to scare people.

I have no problem with Medicare for all. The Ds and Rs won’t do it because their bosses won’t allow it. The phony Obama would’t do it, because he is owned. Just like all the rest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If voters think socialism is tyranny

I wonder if that's true? Gee, i guess we will just have to wallow in ignorance and go with the first feeling that fizzles into our colons!

Or, we can just check :

A majority supports the public option: Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: October 2016 ....70% in the most recent polls.

A majority (60%) supports free tuition: https://splinternews.com/turns-out-people-really-like-the-idea-of-medicare-for-a-1828559580

A majority (76%) supports higher taxes on the rich: Most Americans Support Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy: Poll


Well, looks like you guys will have to rely on your tried and true tactic: lying your asses off to scare people.

I have no problem with Medicare for all. The Ds and Rs won’t do it because their bosses won’t allow it. The phony Obama would’t do it, because he is owned. Just like all the rest.

...except democrats in congress are preparing bills for that very thing as we speak. And they will sail through the house.

 

[gipper]

If voters think socialism is tyranny

I wonder if that's true? Gee, i guess we will just have to wallow in ignorance and go with the first feeling that fizzles into our colons!

Or, we can just check :

A majority supports the public option: Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: October 2016 ....70% in the most recent polls.

A majority (60%) supports free tuition: https://splinternews.com/turns-out-people-really-like-the-idea-of-medicare-for-a-1828559580

A majority (76%) supports higher taxes on the rich: Most Americans Support Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy: Poll


Well, looks like you guys will have to rely on your tried and true tactic: lying your asses off to scare people.

I have no problem with Medicare for all. The Ds and Rs won’t do it because their bosses won’t allow it. The phony Obama would’t do it, because he is owned. Just like all the rest.

...except democrats in congress are preparing bills for that very thing as we speak. And they will sail through the house.

We will see.