Fox News Poll of potential 2020 matchups

[KCfromNC]

The government spending part of economics is trickle down.

The Democrats don't have a lock on ideological voting. I voted for Trump on the basis of his agenda, not my wallet.

That's great, good for you. The only problem - it has nothing to do with what I asked.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's great, good for you. The only problem - it has nothing to do with what I asked.

What exactly was the question?

 

[Albion]

I think Biden & Harris or Biden & Warren would make a good team. I'd love it if Romney & Weld were to primary Donald.

Actually, the dream ticket for the Democrats might be Hickenlooper & Weld. That way, either one of the two could go to speak to a campaign rally, give interviews to local TV, appear in debates or etc. and the people would always think it was the presidential nominee.

The audiences would, of course, mainly be dozing off after a few minutes, but the Hickenlooper-Weld/Weld-Hickenlooper ticket could cover a lot more ground and make more appearances this way than is usual.

 

[Pommer]

The audiences would, of course, mainly be dozing off after a few minutes...

Entertainer-in-Chief?

 

[mark46]

The national POLLS had Clinton ahead by an average of 3%. The final margin for Clinton in the popular vote was 2.2%.

Are you suggesting that there were lots of polls that polled all the states (or at least all the close states) and among them only predicted that Trump would win the electoral vote?

Many, many polls were a couple of weeks old. Lots happened in the last two weeks. Polls are relatively accurate within what they do. They predict on the day that they were taken, within a certain range.

When Election Day came, one might have looked at the state polls in the 10 close states. Presuming that they were only one day old, everything depended on whose people showed up. Trump got out his people in WI, MI and PA. As I recall, the Clinton count in PA was about what they expected.
======
MY BOTTOM LINE
The national polls correctly predicted the Clinton win in the popular vote, although they overestimated her margin by 1%.

The state polls were inaccurate in projecting the huge voter turnout in rural white areas, especially in the MidWest.

There are 3 problems with current polls, although they have their uses. First, the polls are national polls. Trump can certainly win with less than 50% of the popular vote. Secondl, it is early. Lots will happen in a year and half. Finally, the situation changes radically when the opposition party actually chooses a candidate. The negatives of such a candidate will be HUGELY more negative than today, after a long primary season and after a year of attacks by the Republicans. I would expect that Biden's positives would be much less then they are now.
========
THE ECONOMY
If the economy is anywhere near where it is now, Trump will win easily. 4 years of growth after the Obama start would be truly amazing. If there is a recession, Trump will blame the Fed and everyone else.

No, they were not. Only two, I think it was, out of a dozen or more had the winner correct. And those two were often ridiculed in the weeks leading up to election day. As for the fact that the electoral college chooses rather than the popular vote, most of the polls you are referring to had Hillary much further ahead in the popular vote than it turned out to be.

 

[mark46]

Trump would love campaigning against Romney and Weld. Romney would be a much better target than Weld.

I also believe the Biden-Harris would be good ticket.

I think Biden & Harris or Biden & Warren would make a good team. I'd love it if Romney & Weld were to primary Donald.

 

[KCfromNC]

What exactly was the question?

You quoted it in post 59

 

[KCfromNC]

THE ECONOMY
If the economy is anywhere near where it is now, Trump will win easily. 4 years of growth after the Obama start would be truly amazing. If there is a recession, Trump will blame the Fed and everyone else.

How do you explain 2018 in this context? The economy was strong and Trump-endorsed candidates took a beating.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That would be a bad idea - More Still Disapprove Than Approve of 2017 Tax Cuts
Again, you seem to confuse "understand" with "uncritically accept GOP talking points".

Many still don't 'understand' that they actually got a tax cut, thus the 'disapproval'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You quoted it in post 59

You mean trickle down? Picture a backyard pond with a waterfall. The government sucks up the money from the pool at the bottom (taxation) and pumps it out at the top (spending), thus "trickle down". Of course you have to imagine the water flowing down through a jumble of rocks to get the visual effect of trickle down.

The same holds true with private business. Large amounts of money are collected through sales, then 'trickled' back into the economy through wages and other spending.

 

[Desk trauma]

Many still don't 'understand' that they actually got a tax cut, thus the 'disapproval'.

I am not obligated to approve of an administration because they lowered tax rates. The resulting deficit certainly don’t get my approval.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am not obligated to approve of an administration because they lowered tax rates. The resulting deficit certainly don’t get my approval.

I was against the Bush tax cuts as well. We need to pay our bills. Now if the majority actually is concerned by debts and deficits that's a good thing and the government should pay attention. Much of our debt is held by countries not friendly to us. This is not good.

It's a bit disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to complain about foreign competition when we are helping to finance them. Of course much of that can be laid at the feet of American investors whose portfolios contain very little of these instruments.

We should issue "America First" bonds at attractive interest rates, for American citizens only. That way the interest paid would return to the domestic economy.

 

[Desk trauma]

I was against the Bush tax cuts as well. We need to pay our bills. Now if the majority actually is concerned by debts and deficits that's a good thing and the government should pay attention.

Neither party is, unless they are in the minority but of the recent administrations and congress critters the republicans have done the worst.

Much of our debt is held by countries not friendly to us. This is not good.

Nor is it true. Only 39% of us debt is held by foreign powers.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nor is it true. Only 39% of us debt is held by foreign powers.

39% is still 'much'.

 

[Desk trauma]

39% is still 'much'.

In common usage much tends to indicate a majority or close to it. How are you defining the term?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In common usage much tends to indicate a majority or close to it. How are you defining the term?

A large or significant amount.

Consider that we pay out $126Billion (annualized) in interest to foreign investors. That's a significant amount. The good news is that interest rates are still low, and foreign investment has declined in recent years.

 

[mark46]

Many, many presidents have poorly in their first off election. There is absolutely no trend set when the president's party loses, even when he loses big. For those without long memories, you might simply consider Obama's easy re-election after the Republicans won big in the off election.

The factors that determine the presidency is very different than what determines house seats in an off election.

How do you explain 2018 in this context? The economy was strong and Trump-endorsed candidates took a beating.

 

[KCfromNC]

You mean trickle down? Picture a backyard pond with a waterfall. The government sucks up the money from the pool at the bottom (taxation) and pumps it out at the top (spending), thus "trickle down". Of course you have to imagine the water flowing down through a jumble of rocks to get the visual effect of trickle down.

The same holds true with private business. Large amounts of money are collected through sales, then 'trickled' back into the economy through wages and other spending.

That's great you feel this way and all, but none of this has anything to do with my question about how well this sort of right-wing rhetoric polls with undecided voters.

 

[KCfromNC]

Many, many presidents have poorly in their first off election. There is absolutely no trend set when the president's party loses, even when he loses big. For those without long memories, you might simply consider Obama's easy re-election after the Republicans won big in the off election.

People with long memories will remember how different the economy was in 2010 vs 2018. I seem to remember you writing that was significant a few posts ago.

The factors that determine the presidency is very different than what determines house seats in an off election.

Yes, such as having an approval rating on par with Ford or Carter at this point in their respective administrations.

 

[KCfromNC]

Many still don't 'understand' that they actually got a tax cut, thus the 'disapproval'.

Where are you getting this idea from? And is there any significance to the quotes?