Saturday, February 18, 2017

Trump Misrepresents Polls

Here is what I think is an important diagram, especially since the Trump folks are trying to say they are trusted more than the media.  It is a bit like when the GOP would use polls to say that people did not approve of ACA, and implied that they all thought it went "too far".  When in reality many of those folks really thought it did not go far enough...

Same in this case, the reality is that there are many people on the Far Left who do not trust the Mainstream Media because they think it is controlled by the Conservative Corporate interests. (ie it is too Conservative)  And many on the Far Right who think all those journalists are Liberals...

Where as who trusts Trump is much more one sided, it is his True Believer voters.  And everyone else distrusts him, including myself.



73 comments:

Anonymous said...

No one knows what polls mean, because they don't mean much. At best they are raw data, on which anyone can put any interpretation they like. I distrust Trump, but then I distrusted Hillary too. What does that tell you about anything? And the fact is, people lie to pollsters. Many people trust Donald Trump, we are told, but would they buy a bond in the Trump organization? If it was a question of getting a good grade on a research paper, would they tell their kids to rely on facts given by Trump at a press conference as being truthful?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Here is an example of a poll, and how it can be interpreted:

http://www.sarahpalin.com/results-new-poll-leave-democrats-stunned/

The poll shows that most Democrats want to work with Trump. Ms. Palin suggests that that result is out of tune with Democratic leadership. But is it? If asked the question, I would say, sure let's work with Trump when we can. No, let's not oppose everything he does. Are either of those two responses surprising? Especially from a member of a party that believes government can and should work? The poll is simply telling us a little bit about the Democratic approach to governance issues that we knew already.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram's Poll

John said...

Well here is the The Hill's Actual Artice and it is pretty interesting.

It is pretty well aligned with my upper image shown above. The Moderates and the Conservatives want the Democrats to work with Trump, and the Far Left wants to fight him tooth and nail.

And The Moderates and the Liberals want Trump to work with the Democrats, and the Far Right wants to fight him tooth and nail.

SNAFU

Anonymous said...

To some extent, we have the same problem Republicans have. We have people who were elected by heavily gerrymandered districts who are very comfortable in taking extreme positions. But we also have and want to represent people who need things like health care.

Bear in mind also, that Trump is taking positions which Democrats should favor and want to support. The other day, he talked about using the power of government to drive down defense costs. Why weren't we doing that when we were in poser?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Really, there is no rational basis for believing Trump's premises, or promises? Do you need a stepladder to get on that high horse?

John said...

I don't need a stepladder, we have fact checkers.
Politifact Trump News Conf
Politifact Trump Rally
USA Today Trump News Conf
AP Trump News Conf

John said...

One of my my favorite recent WHOPPERS was that the White House is running well.

They implemented a Exec Order terribly.
They fired the NSA Director because he lied to the VP.
Their Labor nominee had nasty skeletons.
POTUS and his mouth pieces keep saying incorrect things.

That does not seem like a well operating machine.

John said...

And here is a new one...

What Happened in Sweden?

John said...

FOX Trump Clarifies Sweden Comment

John said...

More regarding the smooth running machine.

Anonymous said...

Trust. I trust a good man to be good; I trust a bad man to be bad. I trust trump to be...Trump (more bad than good in my opinion, but none the less I trust him to do what he does) Trump is reasonably predictable. I would say that his strong supporters don't believe him to do everything, but that he will be directionally "correct" He lies...a lot. But in a very predictable way.

jmoe

John said...

Remember my old saying, learned from my personal experience... If certain beliefs and behaviors have led one to great success, it is likely they will need to be hit in the head with a baseball bat to make them seriously consider changing... Or there is the following.

"The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter and published in 1969. It states that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence." Wiki Peter Principle

In this case Trump spent his coddled wealthy person life being a flamboyant braggart, liar and a bully who attacked anyone who questioned him. He also ran loose with the rules and walked away from his debts/ marriages. And it seems that those behaviors worked well for him in the past. Though of course we really have no idea what he started with, what he has today and/or what he owes to whom.

Well on the other hand, instead of still being married to old wrinkly old Ivana who is now 67... He has upgraded twice and Melania is now only 46 yrs old. I wonder if he has one more upgrade in him? Maybe another 30 something model, I mean with Melania approaching 50, I think she would be getting nervous...

John said...

But I digress, my point is that I keep hoping that he will learn humility, professionalism, honesty, commitment, collaboration, etc... And yet he is showing absolutely no sign of learning or reaching beyond his base...

Maybe he is up against the Peter Principle and simply can not make the necessary improvements.

Anonymous said...

To start with, Trump has shown no understanding of the issues, either substantively, or procedurally. He wants to make things better, as I am sure we all do, but he has no idea of what better is, or how to get there. In his business dealings, those were matters he delegated to underlings. What he is in process of learning now is that he has no underlings.

One example is attitude toward senate confirmation of his cabinet picks. In the business world, when Trump hired a guy, he came to work the next day. But in the world of government, he finds that his hires have to be confirmed and what has never seemed to occur to him is that the people in charge of confirming them, don't work for him. The senators owe their jobs to an entirely different article of the constitution, and if you notice the framers put it first in the document. It's a free country, and like any citizen Trump can say whatever he wants, but as a constitutional officer, it's not really his job to tell a collateral and equal branch of government how to go about it's duties. That was just as true for President Obama as it is for President Trump.

By the way, that's equally true in the relationship between state and federal governments. It isn't the federal government's job to tell the states how to govern, when the states are within their authority as governments. And it is most emphatically not the job of the federal government to punish United States citizens, because the feds don't like what state or municipal officials do or don't do.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Hmmm. Back to what I think is the original topic, is it possible to say that "Polls Misrepresent Trump"? I think the polls and all of this babble about Trump's "misstatements" is just the Left's attempt to distract and discourage-- their usual playbook. What is important here is what Trump is actually doing and trying to do. The rest is just salesmanship.

jerrye92002 said...

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? They are becoming as unreliable as the news.
fact-check

Anonymous said...

is it possible to say that "Polls Misrepresent Trump"?

It's possible to say anything. And polling itself is problematic for a number of reasons. Most polls are manipulated in various ways. If you give raw poll result to different pollsters and ask them process them according to their models, they will report different numbers. There isn't anything wrong with that, it's standard practice in the polling industry, but it does suggest that poll numbers don't quite mean what the average person thinks they mean. This is similar to the concept "margin of error" which the average person would think means the margin a poll might be in error, which it does not.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Given polls tend to skew different ways. I think it is a mistake to think that is necessarily the result of bias or prejudice. There simply is no way to construct a poll without incorporating assumptions which have an impact on results, and there is nothing necessarily nefarious about that. And there are ways to negate the impact of assumptions. For one thing, it's better to look at polls for trends as opposed to looking at them for absolute results. It's always risky to compare different polls with different methodologies, that sort of thing.

Right now, I don't think Trump is popular, and I don't need a poll to tell me that. But I don't know whether he is unpopular in a way that matters. I also think people want him to succeed, and want to give him a chance to succeed. Even I want those things for Trump.

--Hiram

John said...

Jerry,
I understand that you have swallowed the Trump Kool aid and are striving for ways to believe everything he says. That's okay, though you may end up a bit delusional if you try too hard.

Maybe I will try to evaluate the True North Truth vs the Politifact Truth in a future post.

Politifact Trump News Conf

Anonymous said...

I find it hard to believe that Trump supporters, believe what Trump says. I don't think Trump believes what Trump says. Donald is a negotiator, and as a negotiator, he doesn't say true things, he takes positions. If you want to know what the policy of this administration is, it's best to look at it's various cabinet officials. And what we tend to find is that this administration is pretty much the same as the Bush administration, although perhaps slightly more conservative. Also, my guess is that despite Trump's claim to be a disruptor, I think in practice you will find this administration far more cautious, far less bold than the Bush administration tended to be. For negotiators, the cheapest thing they offer is talk.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

I don't think Trump supporters take what Trump says literally. They believe that he speaks plainly and off-the-cuff about basic underlying truths that "we all know." The media wants to take him literally so they can prove him "wrong," e.g. "there were no terror attacks in Sweden Friday," when that isn't what he said, not what he meant, and not what his supporters heard. So when the news media report that "no attacks" line, they lose credibility and Trump goes up a notch just by comparison with the "Fake news" press.

John said...

Jerry,
Rationalize Trumps errors and lies as much as you want, but when Obama did similar on the rare occasion you were the first to vilify him.

Now you are correct that the Trump True Believers continue to be excited by his "non-literal" error filled fear mongering comments... However the majority of us just see someone who is lying or making mistakes in an attempt to manipulate the citizens of the USA.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Trump supporters take what Trump says literally.

I have never thought they do either. Trump speaks in metaphors, and for effect. The thing to remember is that Trump is a deal maker, a negotiator. He doesn't speak the truth, he takes positions.

If you want to know what the what the policy of this administration, you will find it on the cabinet level where policy is set.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

So when the news media report that "no attacks" line, they lose credibility and Trump goes up a notch just by comparison with the "Fake news" press.

It's important to bear in mind the distinction between credibility and truthfulness. In mythological terms, think of it as the Cassandra effect. It's was Cassandra's curse to say the truth but not to be believed. She was truthful, but not credible. Trump is the anti-Cassandra; he is credible but not truthful.

--Hiramhttp://finance.yahoo.com/mb/forumview/?&v=m&bn=b4d168b4-8157-3623-bbd0-95b4a565b5bb

John said...

Hiram's Link

John said...

I assume that link was by accident....

jerrye92002 said...

"Rationalize Trumps errors and lies as much as you want, but when Obama did similar on the rare occasion you were the first to vilify him."

I doubt you can prove that allegation, and if you try I will point out that the media were climbing all over themselves to prove what he said was NOT a lie and NOT an error, and I was the one pointing at the underlying truth of the matter. Now the situation is reversed, at best. Tell me, what is gained by painting Trump as untruthful? Is he not still pursuing the correct policies even if his rhetoric is a bit excessive? At least he hasn't promised you can "keep your plan" yet.

John said...

How would one know which policies he is pursuing giving all of his conflicting comments?

Apparently our friends at Politifact are trying to keep track...
Trumps 102 Promises

Not Started Yet List

Anonymous said...

what is gained by painting Trump as untruthful?

When we make our decisions, we need to base them on facts, on what is true. I think we all understand that we can't accept what Trump says is truthful, so we have to look elsewhere for the facts that we need. This isn't limited to republicans, by the way. I think everyone has to be careful about what Democratic politicians say as well. But the fact is, there aren't any Democrats at the federal level who are in charge of anything. In terms of their impact on policy, they are totally irrelevant.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

I'll accept that truth is where you find it, but I have to disagree with Democrats not having relevancy. It is their constant barrage of criticism, distortions and outright lies about what Trump is doing or why he is doing it (a difference of opinion, no doubt) that pollutes the "information environment" in which us ordinary folks are trying to discern the truth of things. And when the media echo those spurious tales, it gives them some political power over the agenda that is unwarranted and unwise. Trump would do well to steamroll them, slowly if necessary. And that is what he seems to be doing.

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with Democrats not having relevancy.

I hope you are right.

--Hiram

John said...

Steam Roll them?

You seem to forget that Trump just BARELY won, and only on a technicality.

Are you now saying emperor Trump should roll over the wishes of over half of the American citizens and their preferred representatives?

For 8 years you complained about Emperor Obama and now you praise and cheer on Emperor Trump. I will never understand folks on the Far Left and Far Right... They are so certain that they have all the correct answers, and that the other side is seeking to destroy America.

Anonymous said...

It is their constant barrage of criticism, distortions and outright lies about what Trump is doing or why he is doing it (

I think it will be a mistake to think that it's Trump who will be doing much of anything. Policy will come from his underlings; if anything gets done, they will be ones doing it. What we have seen so far is Trump saying outlandish, even ridiculous things, which are then reshaped into pretty much conventional Republican policy by others in his administration. Trump doesn't like the EU but Pence goes to Europe and says the EU is just fine. Trump says he wants Iraqi oil, and then Mattis goes to the middle east and says we don't. We are going to be seeing a lot of this sort of thing.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

You seem to forget that Trump just BARELY won, and only on a technicality.

I fully expect to raise the fact that Trump lost by 2.8 million votes, particularly when it's relevant to Republican hypocrisy. With respect to the Supreme Court nomination, Republicans told us the nomination should wait until the people had a chance to speak. They did, and they voted for Hillary. But the political reality is that we lost in the ways that matter, and that means we will have no role in governing for the next two to four years. Very sad, but very true.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I talk to a lot of people about legislative politics and what I am often told is that they vote for the person, not the party. I smile, and make my case, but the fact is, on a legislative level, it's party, not the individual that matters.

It's my opinion, by the way, that this belief in the disconnect between person and party, is mostly a Republican invention. They have had a lot of success in persuading voters that the local Republicans on their ballot are not the same Republicans they tend to dislike on the national scene.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Another thing about voters is how many of them search for strategies to distance themselves from policy issues. The model I would think most voters would follow is that if I agree with Republican policies I will vote for Republicans, if I agree with Democratic policies, I will vote for Democrats. But many people don't think this way. What they seem to say is that I will vote for the guy from the party whose policies I disagree with, because for various reasons I like that guy more. I don't really understand that logic, but it certainly does exist out there. There are other, in my view more illogical ideas out there. Many people tell me they are going to vote against all incumbents. This really is inexplicable to me. It not only ignores both the merits of policy or of individuals, it's relationship to politics is entirely disrupted. In the last election, in Minnesota, Democrats controlled the senate, Republicans the house. In my district we had both legislators on the ballot were of one party. So anti incumbent voters were essentially voting to maintain the status quo, a divided legislature. Could that really have been the point of anti incumbent voting?

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Don't start that again. Trump won by the rules that matter... The people have spoken.

But he sure should not be strutting around like he overwhelmed the opposition and that everyone backed him. That is just silliness that will doom the GOP to disaster in 2018.

Anonymous said...

Trump won by the rules that matter..

He lost by rules that matter too, just in a different way. They certainly mattered to Senate Republicans when they refused to consider the nomination of Judge Garland.

Republican voters don't really connect to Republican presidents. Not very many Republican congressmen in Minnesota publicly supported Trump in 2016 and they will distance themselves from him in 2018, and I expect Republicans will do just fine in the mid terms. The mistake we made in 2016 is one we will have to live with for many years going forward, especially if we allow the unpopularly elected Trump to make judicial nominations.

--Hiram

John said...

"He lost by rules that matter too, just in a different way."

Please explain these rules, you have me puzzled...

Anonymous said...

It seemed mattered to a lot of people who went to some lengths to explain to me that in a matter as important to our future as a Supreme Court nomination, it was important to hear from the people. They explained to me that while President Obama had been elected by a substantial plurality in both the popular vote and the electoral college, just three years before, nevertheless the people'e voice needed to be heard from again. That argument mattered to the people who made it then, and I think it matters now, particularly since this nomination is made by a president who might well not fill out his term.

--Hiram

John said...

Well, we did hear from the people and based on the rules of our country they elected Trump for better or worse.

Anonymous said...


Well, we did hear from the people and based on the rules of our country they elected Trump for better or worse.

We also heard that they wanted Hillary Clinton to select the nominees based on the rules of arithmetic. You know, I thought Senator McConnell was so eloquent on the subject. Such a pity is eloquence is going to waste.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Hiram, all of your speculation is predicated on the notion that Hillary won the popular vote, but she won it based on only two states. In our "United States" is it right and proper for two states to dictate who controls our government? Also, since you cannot prove that her popular vote majority was not built entirely from fraudulent or miscast votes, you cannot even say that she won the popular vote at all.

Anonymous said...

all of your speculation is predicated on the notion that Hillary won the popular vote, but she won it based on only two states. In our "United States" is it right and proper for two states to dictate who controls our government?

Of course it is. "State" is just an arbitrary concept, a function of a line drawn on a piece of paper. A state is not a person. It isn't born, it doesn't go to school. It doesn't earn a living. It doesn't fight or die for us in America's wars. It never, ever pays taxes. With all those things being indisputably true, why should states influence the choice of a leader who has impact on all those things?

In terms of states dictating who controls out government, on election night, I knew Trump had won because he had won three critical states. Votes everywhere else were totally irrelevant. It didn't matter, for example how many voters in California voted for Hillary, there votes had, literally, no impact on the outcome of the election. What is it about Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida that should give them the huge impact on the choice of our president? Did the reasons the founders chose them in 1787 apply today? Espeically, given the fact that two of those states didn't even exist in 1787?

--Hiram

John said...

Jerry, You are as silly as Hiram, but on the other side...

Hiram,
States are no more arbitrary than the USA is... Our system was set up with a GREAT DEAL of thought to ensure all regions of the country had some power. This was to ensure that the less populated areas did not get bullied by the highly populated areas. Critical to ensuring peace across our large land mass.

And more importantly the rules have been set for a very long time. Unfortunately for the Liberals, they have been ignoring many people outside of the city centers and they lost fair and square. Therefore Trump gets to nominate judges and the legislature gets to confirm them.

Anonymous said...

States are no more arbitrary than the USA is

Are you saying the USA should have an impact on where and how votes matter? How exactly would you work that?

"Our system was set up with a GREAT DEAL of thought to ensure all regions of the country had some power."

What exactly did the founders think about the impact living in Ohio should have on elections? Why did they think voters in the Ohio region should have more power than the voters living in the California region? What impact should their rationale have on the present day?


they have been ignoring many people outside of the city centers and they lost fair and square.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida? Big rural states are they? In comparison to Minnesota?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

A lot of people tell me their vote doesn't count. I assure them that of course it does, that every vote matters. But did the founders make me a liar? When I know for a fact that one more presidential vote in Minnesota doesn't have the slightest impact on who is elected president? What do they teach in high school civics in Texas, in California? "you can vote all you want kids, but it doesn't matter, because a collection of white males some of whom held their fellow human beings in bondage, 230 years ago decided, after thinking a lot about it, decided your votes shouldn't matter. And you should accept that because those rules made by distant ancestors have been in place an awfully long time."

==Hiram

John said...

Of course you know my answer. We should accept those rules not because they are old, we should accept them because they make sense.

I don't want the city / coast voters to be able to dictate terms to all of the other regions and population centers. We need the voice of every region being heard.

And we need the politicians to work for solutions that are acceptable across the whole country, not just for the urban centers.

Anonymous said...

We should accept those rules not because they are old, we should accept them because they make sense.

So it makes sense that when a person, maybe someone who grew up on a farm moves from Cleveland to Bakersfield, his vote should count less. On what day was that discussed at the constitutional convention, a gathering of people who didn't think individuals should be allowed to vote for president at all?

So why should midwestern voters dictate terms? But midwestern voters who live in Ohio, but not Minnesota? If every region should be heard, Why shouldn't we hear from California, Texas and New York? Where people actually live as compared to Wyoming where people mostly don't? Why exactly did the framers think that empty spaces should be so well represented in elections for the presidency?

--Hiram

John said...

Well life isn't fair... I vote for Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney & Trump in MN and my vote doesn't matter because all the delegates get assigned to the Democratic Candidate... So what?

We are not a National Democracy, we are a Republic of United States...

If you want to be part of a National Democracy move to France or some other such country.

John said...

For your consideration.

NYT States Matter

Anonymous said...

If you want to be part of a National Democracy move to France or some other such country.

No, since I want to bring National Democracy to this country, why do you think it makes sense for me to move to France or another such country? I just don't follow your logic.

While it may be true that life isn't fair, I don't see that as a particularly strong argument for not trying to make it fairer.

" I vote for Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney & Trump in MN and my vote doesn't matter because all the delegates get assigned to the Democratic Candidate."

I think your vote should matter. Feel free to make the argument why your vote shouldn't matter.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"People own property in states."

So does that mean, that you can own property in one state but another. Do you own your house in Minnesota but does your ownerhship cease when you happen to be in Wisconsin? Or do you own property nationally? Is your ownership rights over your stuff independent of what state you happen to be at any given time?

"People get married and raise families in states."

So does it follow that the validity of your marriage depends on the state where you are located. If you are married in Minnesota, will you be living in sin if you move to Wisconsin? While it is true that people get married in states, does it then follow that they don't get married in the United States? Where exactly is the border between Minnesota and the United States? Is it somewhere near Duluth, maybe?

--Hiram

John said...

My vote does matter or I would not continue to cast it.

Maybe someday my fellow Minnesotans will agree with me and our delegates will go to the GOP candidate. We got closer this time. :-)


So I voted against Dayton and he won...

Does that also mean that my vote did not matter from your perspective?
Do only the people who vote for the winner matter?

Anonymous said...

"My vote does matter or I would not continue to cast it."

Certainly with respect to Dayton it did. But it doesn't matter for presidential elections in the sense that it helps to pick a president, unless you happened to be a member of the electoral college. The founders, at Philadelphia it seems, were on some sort of vision question; they knew one day there would be such a thing as Minnesota, and that Minnesotans were to be cursed with poor football and basketball teams and an inability to participate meaningfully in presidential elections.

Does that also mean that my vote did not matter from your perspective?

Yes, it did.

"Do only the people who vote for the winner matter?"

No, only votes that are counted matter.

--Hiram

John said...

Come now... "only votes that are counted matter"

Now I am most certain that the Californian votes were counted... Just as mine were...

And I am certain the Californian electoral votes were counted... Just as mine were.

jerrye92002 said...

Interesting data point. If we are talking about "representation" in the Electoral College, there is a movement to allocate Presidential Electors as prescribed in the Constitution-- 1 for each Congressional District and two statewide for the Senators. New Hampshire (or is it Maine) already does it that way. Had Minnesota done it that way last year, Hillary would have received FIVE electoral votes, not ten, and the other five would have gone to Trump.

http://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

Anonymous said...

Interesting data point. If we are talking about "representation" in the Electoral College, there is a movement to allocate Presidential Electors as prescribed in the Constitution-- 1 for each Congressional District and two statewide for the Senators

What does that mean for Congressional apportionment? Since the proposal implicitly assumes that how we draw congressional districts is relevant to how we elect presidents, how would that affect, under the constitution, how we draw congressional boundaries?

Under previous rulings of the Supreme Court, election of at large representatives was held to violate the constitution. Would the logic of those rulings apply to a winner take all approach to the choice of the senatorial electors?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

The Congressional and Senate model of choosing electors is entirely constitutional and does not depend upon how district or even state lines are drawn. Yes, Congressional district boundaries are often "gerrymandered" to suit the party in power at the time of redistricting. Unfortunately, in Minnesota, the DFL tends to get to draw the lines whether they hold power or not, through the courts. That is why I and others have proposed a completely mathematical solution to the drawing of districts. The math exists, but of course it is opposed because it doesn't offer political advantage to either side.

Anonymous said...

Congressional district boundaries are often "gerrymandered" to suit the party in power at the time of redistricting.

So do you think value of your vote for president should depend on how it is gerrymandered?

the DFL tends to get to draw the lines whether they hold power or not, through the courts.

If Republicans retain control of the legislature in 2020, and win the governorship next year, they will decide how the congressional districts are apportioned. Democrats won't be consulted.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I don't generally have an objection to apportioning electoral votes on the basis of popular vote, but it must be done in such a way that it doesn't discriminate against parties.

Since it has been the Republican Party that has benefited from rules that allow non plurality candidates to get elected, I think they should be given some credit for supporting measures that would have resulted in the defeat of Republicans Bush and Trump. I don't know if my party would have been so generous.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"So do you think value of your vote for president should depend on how it is gerrymandered"

I don't think it makes much difference. The federal government required Mississippi to "gerrymander" two districts, back when, so that one of them was a black majority district and the other was a white majority district. The idea was to avoid "watering down" the black vote so that a black candidate could be elected to Congress. It worked. The white district elected a black man and the black district elected a white man. They voted, it seems, based on the issues critical to their district, so no, I think it makes more sense then deciding "my electoral vote" by what a Keith Ellison voter did.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it makes much difference

It changed the outcome of the 2000 and 2016 presidential election. I my view, that makes a difference. In 2000, I made a point for myself of accepting the legitimacy of an unpopularly elected president. I bought in to the arguments made here and elsewhere for the validity of the constitution and what not. But the result was the worst presidency of my lifetime, one that engaged in pointleess foreign wars while wrecking the economy at home. I do, on occasion, try to learn from history, and what I learned from that history is that people are a whole lot smarter than the political hacks that make up the electoral college. And I also learned that the system can't be trusted, that the "let's give him a chance" argument only gives incompetent leadership more time to do damage.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

I'm not following. The drawing of Congressional district lines currently has almost negligible impact on the Electoral college (only Maine (2) and Nebraska (3)). Under the proposed constitutional scheme, all states would allocate by popular vote within the congressional district, with the statewide popular vote winner getting the two electoral votes representing the state's two senators.

As for "incompetent leadership," let's remember that Bush's college grades were higher than Gore's. And while Bush often misspoke, Gore often misthought.

Anonymous said...

As for "incompetent leadership," let's remember that Bush's college grades were higher than Gore's. And while Bush often misspoke, Gore often misthought.

While we can never know what kind of president Gore would have been, we do know that Bush was one of the worst presidents in history. No president combined foreign and domestic disasters in the way Bush did. As low an opinion as I have of Trump, I don't think he would have committed anything like Bush's horrible error in manufacturing a war in middle east. Certainly Gore wouldn't have.

Although Bush was a terrible president, I also think he was a great leader, and that should serve as a cautionary tale. In leadership terms, Trump is remarkably weak and given his world view, that's probably for the best.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

You have at least one point, and I think you miss it by a mile. The notion that Trump is "a remarkably weak leader" just isn't true, from where I sit. I find he is a different KIND of leader, a kind with which I am very familiar. He is a /collaborative/ leader. He gathers together the best people he can find, often with differing views, sets out an objective and lets them thrash out how to make it happen. You can see it at work; it looks messy but it gets to the objective in the best way.

John said...

Sorry but collaborative leaders are nothing like Trump, otherwise he would be communicating much more effectively with all Americans and the Press.

And he would be communicating high level goals instead of spouting off about the tactical details... (ie move embassy to Jerusalem) Which requires his staff to keep backing the administration away from. (ie maybe not)

He seems more like a top down leader who is in over his head, grabbing for any ideas that will save him and unable to close his mouth... And as he flounders the attention of the press causes him to flounder more. How would he say it... "So Sad..."

jerrye92002 said...

I think you have the wrong measuring stick(s). A collaborative leader works collaboratively with his STAFF, not the wider world. And as I keep telling Republicans of all stripes, you may as well do what you think is right because the major media and Democrats are NEVER going to tell the truth about you, and certainly aren't going to support what you are doing. So just do what is right and let them fume and fulminate.

John said...

Sorry, but collaborative Leaders may focus on their staff... However they are usually good communicators and bridge builders... The opposite of Trump.

It seems to me that Obama and the Democrats followed your advice in 2009 & 2010... And look where they are today.

On the upside, that pendulum I always talk about will just continue to swing back and forth as long as people keep pulling Hard Left and then Hard Right...

jerrye92002 said...

We now have scientific and convincing evidence that Trump is a great communicator and bridge-builder, but that Democrats absolutely refuse to listen or work with him. And it's not for good reasons, but simply to obstruct in every way possible. For example, why are Dems so up in arms about the enforcement of US law?

John said...

Are you talking about their resistance to breaking up working families to deport the non-citizen Mother (or Father)? I think many Liberals have been against that since long before Trump entered office.

I excitedly waiting to see that proof that Trump is a great communicator and bridge builder...

jerrye92002 said...

I believe Trump is a great communicator if you want to understand and a great bridge builder if folks on the other side didn't keep blowing it up. There's our proof.

As for "breaking up families" Trump has specifically said he wants to avoid that, but if it should happen, why is Trump to blame for following the law, and not those who broke the law and created the situation? Liberals have been in favor of law-breaking and law-breakers for a long time, I will grant you that. What I will not grant is that somehow this is the moral high ground.