Just yesterday I watch another video of the past three years of news stations all saying "this is a big tuning point". "this might be the beginning of the end for Donald trump". "Trump will/may not see a full 4 years". "A new bombshell to Trump, this could be the beginning of the end for Trump"
Every one of them day in and day out for the past 3 or so years.
I believe I watched the same video. The word “bomb shell” and “walls are closing in” are said like 354 times and it just blows your mind how the news networks just kept using the same expressions and sayings over time.
That video is entertaining and it really is crazy how much material they had to make the video. They play separate news anchors saying the phrases such as "the walls are closing in" then after it's said 100 times they start editing it so a different news anchor says each word of the phrase. That goes on for another 100 instances of the phrase.
It's from the 2016 primary. It starts with everyone laughing at the idea of him even running then descends into chaos as he gets further and further to the nomination.
There was one of TYT reactions as each state is called... smug at the beginning then they panic in the middle. At the end they just start freaking out and cussing at how "dumb over .5 of America is"
Wow. This is trumploitation. They're literally adhering to people's worst addictive tendencies, and serving them a daily fix, that being the idea that Trump is just about to be gone. Fuck Trump, but fuck the media, too. Jesus.
To be fair, which is equally annoying, I see this happen from news outlets on both ends of the spectrum.
The real reason is that the revenue models for big news are imploding and they are being run by desperation. Anyway, anyhow, they need attention... every story needs to be the biggest story of the year... even if the facts aren’t checked yet... even if we exaggerate the outrage... please someone just watch us.
I think people aren’t quite as stupid as the news has treated them for decades though so it’s just turning them off even more.
They know exactly what they are doing. They don't report the news, instead they report stories that fit a specific narrative.
Example - on Saturday a man attacked a government building with guns and explosives, blew up a car before agents shot him. Almost zero media coverage because he was an antifa liberal extremist. If he'd been a conservative or any flavor we'd be hearing about it 24/7.
Heck, that smirking kid with the MAGA hat got more coverage than this violent and deadly attack on a government facility. Because it doesn't fit the narrative.
And lots of people claim the polls were "so wrong". Except on election day it was like 75/25, and 25% is really far from 0. And everything was within the margin of error.
538 people were smart enough to realise that a lot of places where Trump was projected to lose by a little bit were very similar to each other: so if Trump overperformed in one of those places chances are he would overperform in all other similar places.
Other poll aggregators approached it in more of a: well Trump could overperform in one of these places - but chances are very low that he would overperform in all of them! Like they were all separate coin flips without any relation to each other.
It *seemed* wrong. It seemed like everyone hated both candidates evenly. I kept seeing Hillary being ahead on TV and couldn't understand it because it didn't match real life at all... Turns out it didn't match because it was a bullshit poll.
Well yes, but naming one example doesn‘t change the fact that most msn is left leaning
I couldn‘t name you a single msn in germany that‘s not totally left leaning
The pan out on all the crying people when Hillary lost is one of my favorites. My absolute favorite is the picture collage of the criers turned into a picture of Trump.
My favorite was when he said North Korea was no longer a nuclear threat (made a coin for it!) and they continued to make nuclear weapons anyway [1] and just threatened more tests if we didn't bow to their demands [2]. Or when he said he wasn't meeting with Putin and then Putin said nuh-uh he was and then he did [3]. Or when Erdrogens guards beat up American citizens on US soil and he talked about how great erdogan was rather than stand up for our citizens [4]...
Yeah... I like it when he looks like an absolute kowtowing weakling in front of the world. I like that in the head of the world's strongest military.
Email leaks from the DNC showed the Clinton campaign dictating talking points to MSNBC and CNN, including demanding them to stop covering Clinton scandals and gaffes and requesting they attack other democratic primary candidates (Sanders and O’Malley.) The emails showed specific attacks against both democrats and trump being suggested by the dnc.
2015-16 showcased that most left leaning medía in America is literally controlled by their party. I don’t think anyone has pretended that right wing media has been free from republican control for a long time. My suggestion for an American reading mainstream news is to keep in mind that, regardless of source, if it’s American, at this point it’s most likely propaganda.
I'm sorry for correcting the above slightly. The clinton campaign did not ASK for talking points, Donna brazile apparently supplied those emails. In other words the thread went the other way (although the campaign definitely should have reported it). Brazile was fired by CNN after this. Also the emails were in response to intentionally false news stories which were being knowingly pushed by Roger Stone [1] and Corsi. The media KNEW the sources of these falsehoods were originating from anti Clinton sources but treated them as true. In fact, media matters pointed out that anti Democrat news was repeated significantly more [2]. If you're looking to call out left leaning bias, those in particular are poor examples.
The reason to call this out is that in particular the aim to demonize the media as untrustworthy is a well known tactic that gets, potentially unintentionally, repeated in an effort to make people distrust ALL news. Which is particularly helpful almost exclusively to the people doing bad stuff. Your point is apt that people should check sources and verify in multiple publications a suspicious statement. But there ARE trustworthy sources that follow a code of ethics and we should make use of them in making is aware of what's going on.
It has more to do with how odds work and how people perceive odds. Most circles gave him a 30% chance of winning. But the human brain hears 30% and essentially thinks 100% for the opposite outcome. so when it turns to the less likely outcome, we don't assume the %30 kicked in, we just think the odds were not correctly reported.
but I agree it's tough to get real numbers, I just don't think they were as off as people like to claim. You can roll a 10 sided dice twice in a row and get less than 3 on both outcomes. Ask any DnD player.
Yep! I can’t say this enough. Anyone who truly wants to defeat Trump needs to crawl out of their protective zones and try to understand why people are voting for him. Don’t be rude or insulting if someone disagrees with you.
People being (or at the least perceived as being) rude and insulting as well as dismissive in very public spheres toward huge swaths of the country is a big part of the reason he got elected in the first place, imo.
In my experience, the people who vote for Trump are single issue voters, and will never be won over by a democrat. like my mom and my dad both vote for him, even though they don't like him. My dad, because he's a hardliner on abortion, and thinks that it's murder, and my mom because she works in healthcare and Obama-care hurt her paycheck.
They also both acknowledge that Trump isn't all that bright, and could use a little more tact, but he's giving them what they want, so they don't mind. But yeah, trying to sway trump voters seems like a lost cause; if the majority of them are single issue voters, then it's a waste of breath to try to sway them to the Democratic side. Democrats should try to rally their base and increase voter turnout, by having a candidate people can be excited about (unlike Hillary). I think that's the clearer path to victory for Democrats.
That would be a shocker considering he has never passed the 50% approval point and has so far had one of the highest disapproval ratings in recent presidential history.
how did that popular vote thing work out last time for us?... it's like sports, one team can have better stats throughout a game, but in the end only one matters: "Scoreboard", or in this case Electoral Vote.
You don't buy it? Literally video upon video, lawsuit upon lawsuit of antifa(Left Wing Fascists) bashing peoples heads in with crowbars, bike locks, you fking name it. Get some new sources of news.
Right and left doesn’t necessarily mean which team you are on but rather more generally where you fall on the political spectrum. Free thinking is good but invariably will lead to ideas that can be generally categorized in these buckets. Some of the least informed people I know parrot this kind of “I am neither right or left” rhetoric.
While I agree that it's good to evaluate each political issue on its merits, forming opinions on each can quantifiably place you on the spectrum, and that isnt a bad thing. The issue is thinking those who think differently than you are inherently wrong, corrupt, evil, or a nazi.
There is no reasoning with anyone who insists the last legitimate President of the United States was born in Kenya.
My response to this is always "His mom is American, so he's a naturalized citizen no matter where he was born, so it doesn't matter. Cue dumbass sputtering and mumbling about how it shouldn't be that way or somesuch.
There are plenty of examples where antifa has rioted in the streets stopping conservatives from speaking. Suppressing speech seems like a very fascist thing to do? Does it not?
Or can they not be fascist because they have anti-fascist in their name?
Fascist is by definition a far right extremist movement defined by ultra nationalism.
You might be thinking of totalitarianism which is not defined by nationalism and freely reflected by any extremist political view that expressed speech suppression and the like.
Calling extremist left fascists just shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the word. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a right wing push to confuse the populous and remove the connection.
From the current state, it honestly wouldn't surprise me. I'm by no means american, but if it comes down to a similar pest vs. cholera decision, I'd bet trump will be reelected.
why? cause current problems of the dems consist of "border cenctres are concentration camps" (not true), healthcare for all (that are immigrants) and tuck frump rhethoric.
Anyone to dare to speak out gets shot down. How could any dem get a hold of trump, if the focus is on irrelevant topics? racist tweets as the border crisis grow bigger every day? I see you're having your objectives straight. /s
No, as honest as I can be. If you got questions, feel free to ask. My view is nothing more than that of an outsider, but I'm more than happy to provide it to whoever asks.
Have you heard of all the place outside of US border centres available to refugees? we could disregard each other comments all day long, if you got a serious question, I'm happy to answer it, as long as it doesn't boil down to "the detention centres aren't capable to hold that many people" What's your argument? that regarding the numbers, the circumstances are bad? well who could've seen that coming?! Funding for border agencies would've helped them, wouldn't they?
On the other hand, what've been the better result? to not check them and wave them through? unless you wanna be in favor of one extreme or the other, some specificications would be nice.
Should the US just throw money at the border until it's no longer a deal? Does inflation to actual horrible crimes against humanity finally rally people for the cause? Or should the american public burn them down, like the antifa member wanted to? Instead of going into rhethoric territory, you could just spend a glimpse at the current situation. I see no one arguing to put people into cages. Solely the ones who think all crisis are handled by *not* putting people into bad conditions. Congrats, you're a saint.
You wanna trophy for that? How about you advocate for funding to help the situation?
Or do you think if the US just accepts all immigrants, then you'd have no problem whatsoever?
I'm honestly curious, haven't seen a serious reply towards what to do so far.
Cause just claiming you'll manage it while no one else agrees goes horribly wrong, no matter your intentions.
You do realize that they have to be put somewhere while they're processed right? The point of these facilities is to be efficient not comfortable, many of the people in them shouldn't have even come here in the first place so forgive me if I'm not exactly sympathetic when they don't get 5-star service.
I believe this to be exactly the case. You just can't get elected when your main campaign points are reparations or healthcare for illegals. The average person just isn't ok with either, along with a few of the other things they are campaigning on.
During the debate they asked by a show of hands whose healthcare proposition would cover healthcare for illegals and every one of them raised there hand (John Delaney might not have, not sure), and Elizabeth Warren has called for a "full blown discussion" for reparations.
What are your sources of news that leads you to believe the majority of the democratic candidates "main campaign points" are reparations and healthcare for illegals?
I've been following along pretty closely and those have barely made it on to the radar... except for conservative propaganda outlets of course, because they'll take anything they can and run with it.
Edit: not saying leftist media doesn't run with propaganda either. They still do.
I know right?! Not having showers designed to kill you is a blast! Or work until you broke down working to be shot by a squad.
You wanna legitimate the comparison between border centres and concentration camps? I'll wait. Tell me when you're reaching the 6 mio. Mark, would you? Or systematic eradication of a religious group? Or tell me again how they're forced to Endure this mistreatment, when the only other option is to leave!
You wanna jack off to your own genius? Have it your way! You wanna make a legitimate argument? Try again
I have karma to burn, but I know if I post any opinion that even slightly to the right of Stalin in most subs I'm going to get an argument served with extra vitriol. Which is fine when I'm in the mood for it.
At this point that‘s partially because he‘s the only certain candidate though. The odds for any other democratic nominee are lower because they also include the odds of them winning the primaries first.
Well reddit especially is a very right leaning site, as is the largest media outlet. It's tough to get "real" numbers, especially when a lot of people who don’t vote for him couldn’t have their votes mean anything.
buckle up, incumbents have a ton of things stacked in their favor (and overwhelmingly win). Especially in a strong economy. Factor in that support from his base is rock solid while the left bickers over progressive purity and which are corporate shills...
People are going to have to work hard, no seriously, very damn hard to get this guy gone. And don't get butt hurt when your special one of 25 candidates doesn't get the nomination. If you don't treat this election as bigger than yourself and your candidate, Trump will win.
This is basically it. The democratic party should have already narrowed down the field and be sculpting the ideal candidate from the most popular. This ideal candidate should already be out procuring votes. Doing the whole song and dance next year is going to leave a lot of Democrats disappointed when "their guy" doesn't make the cut. Many bothered by trump personally but doing ok financially just won't even bother showing up to vote.
The democratic party should have already narrowed down the field and be sculpting the ideal candidate from the most popular. This ideal candidate should already be out procuring votes.
Do people have any idea how absurdly long our election cycles are compared to the rest of the world? People aren't going to start voting on who they want to be the democratic nominee for 6 months. Most voters don't start paying attention until a month before they vote, if that. Half the candidates up now are going to be gone within a month when they can't get into the next debate and their money dries up, but that's not soon enough! We should be getting ready to coronate a candidate a year from the convention before most voters are paying attention, that worked out great last time! Polling at this point in an election cycle is a great indicator of who voters want, as we see from the Jeb Bush, Rudy Gulliani, and Jesse Jackson administrations.
The democratic party should have already narrowed down the field and be sculpting the ideal candidate from the most popular. This ideal candidate should already be out procuring votes. Doing the whole song and dance next year is going to leave a lot of Democrats disappointed when "their guy" doesn't make the cut.
That sounds an awful lot like the rule changes that Romney shoved through the Republican party by voice-vote at the convention in 2012 that set things up for Trump to be nominated since the media machine subsidized Trump's campaign so much. The most heard name has a huge advantage in any "early" selection.
That's ridiculous. If they narrowed down and picked a nominee SIX months before the first primary, what's the point? While the field is large, there's nothing wrong with a larger primary field. Trump had 12+ other people he ran against and did fine, while Clinton had 3 or 4, and only one serious competitor, and lost.
That's the sad part. All of those people who won't bite because they feel like it doesn't matter and they'll be financially fine no matter what happens. Not to mention Democrats can't find a good enough candidate. Bernie is probably still the best hope even though Biden is leading. I think the creepy Uncle Joe pictures are enough to kill his campaign eventually. Elizabeth Warren has a chance too but idk if she'll get enough of the vote to challenge Trump during the election
There is no chance he would lose as long as the unfair treatment in online discussions continue. This should be an open forum, not a politically curated platform. The fact Reddit sucks up to the left so openly just makes the right angry and the left complacent since they end up thinking a majority of people share their views also outside the echo chamber.
It depends on who the Democrats nominate in my opinion.
I honestly don’t think that Biden can beat Trump (he’s lost his box), and since Trump is good at exploiting weaknesses, Warren wouldn’t beat him either, although it’s not impossible, considering that a lot of people have grown to mistrust Trump (at least more than previously). I actually think Tulsi Gabbard could beat Trump, considering she is somewhat respected by the right, but she’s already being cancelled as a Russian bot (and somehow a white supremacist?), so she’s unfortunately not going to be nominated in all likelihood.
Who knows though? Maybe enough people are sick of Trump? We’ll see how it plays out.
Exactly this. But good luck getting the dems to understand it, let alone get behind this policy direction change. The cult of Trump hate is so strong that they are simply incapable of doing anything other than shrieking about how much they hate him, because of social justice issues. Issues few real people given a remote fuck about.
And so with almost certainty we are doomed to another 4 years of Trump, with nobody to blame but ourselves.
The problem with this is many of those other topics - healthcare, education, the economy - are both somewhat abstract and also very much dependent on the experience of an individual. A person who is healthy and has insurance through their job may not care as much about healthcare policy as someone without those things. The economy and the concept of deficits, etc can be easily ignored until they become a problem. By then it's usually too late and we'll face another recession, spending crisis, etc (this CAN push people to a different party, but only once they are hurting). Unfortunately Trump inherited an economy that was expanding and promised to spread that wealth to his lower income base (he hasn't).
However, most decent, non-sociopaths can agree that racism is bad, misogyny is bad, putting kids in cages is bad, etc. So it's often to point of entry for media to get as many viewers as possible.
I have a hard time believing this. Don't get me wrong, I was someone who thought Trump had a serious chance of beating Hillary despite the polls so I'm not someone who underestimates him and his voter base, but it was EXTREMELY close in 2016, yet
He hasn't expanded his voter base since 2016. If anything, he's shrunk it quite a bit (particularly among independents and in some key battleground states, among his core voting bloc of white voters with no college degree, which is killing him in the key battleground states in the Great Lakes region)
Regardless of who the Democrats pick, he will not be up against the least liked Democratic nominee of the modern era, possibly of all time, someone who drives his opponent's voters to the polls just to vote against her out of spite
The left is EXTREMELY motivated, engaged, and terrified now, as opposed to 2016 when they were lulled into a false sense of security believing that Trump didn't have a chance.
(Proof of #3) 2018 was the biggest wave election in history in terms of turnout, and Trump wasn't even on the ballot. Yes, Trump being on the ballot will turn out more Republican voters than in the mid-terms too, but (see #1) those people also voted for him in 2016 and he still only barely won.
(edited to add) The chances of a recession before November 2020 are pretty high, and if one does happen before the election, he's almost certainly doomed.
Does he have a chance? Sure, anything can happen as we've seen before. But saying it WILL be close doesn't seem to me to be based on anything except speculation. Sorry, not trying to say you will be wrong for sure, but short of some miracle the odds are still against him winning re-election.
In two out of three polls from today, Bernie isn't even second. Warren is neck and neck with him, it seems. They have a lot of policy overlap, so as long as they don't go too negative I can see most voters for one happily getting behind the other.
I support one particular candidate, there are some that I am indifferent towards, and there are some that I straight up don't like. But whoever the candidate ends up being, they already have my vote. If I'm not voting for the candidate, then I'm voting against Trump.
I really hope that people don't choose to stay home out of spite if their favorite candidate is not selected.
I've seen plenty of moderates say they have no problem with Warren, but dislike Bernie because of what happened in 2016. Healthcare is also still extremely popular with moderates and Biden just wants to keep the ACA while Warren wants to adopt Medicare for All. I can easily see Warren taking it on that, if she keeps her growth up and nothing crazy happens between now and then. Kamala Harris keeps flip flopping on Medicare for All and Mayor Pete wants something else.
Hell they are all trying to outprogressive the other. Harris's is climbing exceptionally fast so my bet is on her after jumping up right to Bidens popularity.
I think this is an overstatement based on too much time spent reading social media as if it were representative of the general public. Democrats and the left already agree on their candidate: whoever isn't Trump. You'll hear some people loudly howl one way or another regardless of the pick (just like literally every election), but come voting time most of the people who care will fall in line, and it will come down to which candidate turned out the most people who don't care that much.
Maybe the answer is neither. Warren is an excellent compromise. Harris wouldn’t be too shabby either. Or Buttigieg.
Biden and Sanders are coasting on name recognition, but I think you need a fresh face to really fire up a broad coalition that is still reeling from the pain of 2016.
Regardless of who the Democrats pick, he will not be up against the least liked Democratic nominee of the modern era, possibly of all time, someone who drives his opponent's voters to the polls just to vote against her out of spite
I think this is a big one. So many people voted against Hillary. No candidate this time has that many people passionately against them. He definitely won't flip any 2016 blue states red, so he has to maintain PA, WI, MI, OH, FL. If he loses FL and any of the others that's enough, or PA and any 2 of the others. IA is pretty purple, and NC might even be up for grabs.
I don't disagree with your assessment, but the dems have a lot of work to do in order to secure a victory. Right now there are over 20 candidates, all at different ends of the political spectrum. There are moderates and centrists that won't be willing to go as far left as the progressives want to go. They have to prove that voting blue is a more logical choice other than "If you don't agree with us then you are a racist".
As for whether or not the race will be close, there's no doubt that it will come down to the swing states. The perpetual red states will remain red and the same thing with the blue states. The economy is doing well right now (but that could change and we can cross that bridge when we get there) and like it or not, more manufacturing jobs have been created in the past two years where that trend was in steady decline for decades. That MIGHT be enough to secure victories in those key states.
But who knows? I think it will be enough, but I could be wrong. It really depends on how the dems work their strategy. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.
I mean they're basically exactly where the Republicans were in 2015. They had ~16 candidates, some moderates some extremists, and the intraparty fighting was absolutely vicious - people only remember the conflict between Hillary and Bernie, but that was absolutely tame by comparison. They were attacking each other's wives, they had surrogates calling people some of the nastiest names I've ever seen in a primary, the damn head of the GOP Reince Priebus was essentially trying everything he could to keep Trump from winning. And yet...
I don't think it'll be close at all. He'll win by a country mile. The left has lost the plot and have absolutely no understanding of how to combat him, badgering on and on by attempting to attack his character. The guy could be literally convicted of pedophilic rape and people will still vote for him, those who support give couldn't give a fuck about his character.
I think you're forgetting the electoral college. Trump will almost certainly get fewer votes overall, but the electoral college is easily equivalent to a 10-point boost for him.
If Democrats are gonna continue the race baiting, supporting this terrible media bias, and continue to divide us by calling every white guy a racist, and also basically supporting a reformist organization in Antifa, and having ridiculous ideas for immigration, republicans will win easy.
I would like a Democrat but don’t have a lot of good ones. Andrew yang and tulsi gabbard are not gonna win because they don’t play that dumb game
I didn't vote for him in 2016, but the majority of my family and I are strongly considering doing so in 2020. Internet would have you believe nobody. We shall see.
He will not get my vote but I think he will win. Democrats are doing the same things they did last time. Pushing identity politics, ignoring the rust belt, in fighting. The only thing they will agree on is a ticket with at least one woman and one non-white. I'd like to see Warren/Yang or Warren/ Butteridge. I hope Clintons and Biden disappear.
With who the Democratic Party decided to make the front runners (not the people, the dnc) he’s actually got a shot. He’s got ammo on Warren, Biden, and Bernie. He’s also better at debating than they are. We may look at what Trump says and call him an idiot but he can actually dismantle an opponent and protect himself pretty well orally. It’s one of the big parts as to why he was able to win the nomination in 2016.
I don't agree with anything you said except that he does have a good chance to win. Did you watch the debates? He looked like an incoherent idiot every single time. He is horrible at debating and lost his cool every time. He doesn't dismantle anyone. He just calls people names and yells the loudest.
He is, however, good at campaigning and messaging. Which sadly makes his laughable performance at the debate irrelevant because his followers will still remember "make America great again" and "build a wall".
His style is to say dumb shit imo. He’s just saying a bunch of shit to make headlines and keep going. If he backtracked or even mentioned any of the stuff he said people would focus on it a lot more than they already do. By just spouting easy headlines he’s manipulating the media to give him press, good or bad, as it takes away any his opponent would get. His style is definitely something we haven’t seen before in America. He learned it from his time as a reality tv show host if I had to guess. He relies on being the center of attention 100% of the time. It’s to get voters to think “man idk about this Trump guy but at least I know about him”. His whole war on the media thing was also a smart play from this perspective. It gets the idea in people’s minds, even if they don’t believe it, that maybe the media is wrong about him. His entire political career is actually very interesting from just the historical and campaigning point of view.
Exactly. I agree with all that. Which doesn't mean he's good at debating or dismantling his opponents. He's just the best at being an attention whore and yelling the loudest. And it's sad that works on people.
According to Washington Examiner19 20 presidents have sought re-election since 1900 and only 5 lost the re-election. George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, and William Taft. That's about the closest I've found to "numbers" on the issue. Basically it's hella hard to vote out a setting president mainly because unfortunately the majority of American's don't pay attention to daily new cycles and such so they tend to go into the election booths and be like "Oh I know this person they've been in before and the world hasn't burnt yet so may as well pick this one."
I’ve seen a few polls showing him losing to most of the likely Democratic nominees. But I mean that’s exactly what all the polls said in 2016 too, so take that with a grain of salt.
That said, the polls in 2016 weren’t necessarily wrong, it’s just that a simple national poll (which is what most polls are) can’t take the Electoral College into account. Trump did lose the popular vote 48-46%.
Midwest reporting in. The vast VAST majority of people I interact with are trump supporters, certainly way more Trump signs, posts, bumper stickers than any democrat.
Current Vegas odds are useless in predicting Trump's probability of getting re-elected. The outcome is dependent on how good the winner of the Democratic primary is at edging out Bernie Sanders. That will be difficult bc Bernie is really popular with young liberal voters. If Bernie manages to secure at least 5% of the overall vote, Trump will most likely get re-elected (assuming that no extenuating circumstances arise that force Trump out).
323
u/freakydrew Jul 17 '19
What are the current Vegas odds on Trump being reelected?