King Lear's concern trolling megathread

[Sestak]

That is certainly an interesting take, but you have to remember that not all Democrats are going to be exactly like Hillary Clinton and not all Republicans are going to be exactly like Donald Trump. Same goes for whatever the candidates in a given congressional race were in 2016

You make a accurate point, however I think we all know that due to the rapidly increasing polarization (this is mainly caused by both parties drifting towards the ideological extremes), House and Senate Races are getting more Nationalized then ever before. Perfect evidence for this is that 2016 was the first time in American history, every senate race was won by the same party that won the presidential race in the respective state (I understand that a Democrat won a special election in Alabama last year, but everyone knows that was mainly because his opponent was a pedophile), and it's pretty reasonable to assume this trend will get stronger over the next few cycles.

Even if every senate race went to the same party as the presidential, the numbers are vastly different. Remember, Missouri almost flipped even as Trump won it by almost 20 points, and Steve Bullock got reelected in deep red Montana despite an overwhelming Trump win. And while Republicans now will be tied to Trump, Democrats will not be nearly as tied to Hillary, giving them a better shot at states like Ohio (where Sherrod Brown is a lot better if a fit than Hillary).

[Sestak]

Is King Lear just a Krazen sock account?

I mean, he's always seemed more like ahugecat to me...

[Sestak]

Nate Cohn just sent out a tweet saying he miscalculated the congressional districts and that Clinton actually won PA-08 by .7, he also shows that Clinton won PA-07 by 10 points instead of 14 points, and most of the other margins are different but not by significant margins (less then 2-3 points at most). Basically, the map preserves the 12-6 split of Trump to Clinton districts, but strengthens the Democratic lean of PA-07, and exchanges PA-06 for PA-08. Taking all this into consideration, I don’t get why Democrats shouldn’t adopt this map, it gives them a free seat in PA-07, and significantly improves their outlook in PA-08 and PA-15, if they thought they where going to get a map that gives them 9 seats, they should know that’s basically impossible due to Urban Clustering.

WE COULD AT LEAST TRY FOR, YOU KNOW, 7 OR 8 INSTEAD OF GETTING ONE F**KING THIRD OF THE SEATS IN A DEM LEANING SWING STATE.

[Sestak]

Nate Cohn just sent out a tweet saying he miscalculated the congressional districts and that Clinton actually won PA-08 by .7, he also shows that Clinton won PA-07 by 10 points instead of 14 points, and most of the other margins are different but not by significant margins (less then 2-3 points at most). Basically, the map preserves the 12-6 split of Trump to Clinton districts, but strengthens the Democratic lean of PA-07, and exchanges PA-06 for PA-08. Taking all this into consideration, I don’t get why Democrats shouldn’t adopt this map, it gives them a free seat in PA-07, and significantly improves their outlook in PA-08 and PA-15, if they thought they where going to get a map that gives them 9 seats, they should know that’s basically impossible due to Urban Clustering.

WE COULD AT LEAST TRY FOR, YOU KNOW, 7 OR 8 INSTEAD OF GETTING ONE F**KING THIRD OF THE SEATS IN A DEM LEANING SWING STATE.

Breaking News: Pennsylvania is not a Democratic-leaning Swing State anymore
Sorry to be dramatic, but Pennsylvania voted 2.8 points more Republican then the nation in 2016, if anything, it's probably a Republican-leaning Swing state, just like Florida, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Changing my avatar to R-NE. Might as well flee the sinking ship. Democrats are dead in Pennsylvania (as they are elsewhere), as evidenced by Republicans only holding one statewide office. As good as dead.

Remember folks, 2016 *was * the only election. It's the only thing that determines future voting behavior, and anything that happens after Nov 8, 2016 doesn't matter either.

Why am I being treated like a pariah for prioritizing the results of the most recent presidential election over past ones? Am I spose to dig up the results of the 1992 and 1996 elections, when Democrats were winning White rural states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, and say that Trump will lose most of those states in 2020? or am I spose to look at the 1988 results, and deduce that Diane Feinstein will be facing a tight race this year because Bush senior won her state 30 years ago? Or should I look at Bush juniors win in Virginia, and assume Tim Kaines going to lose reelection? Sarcasm aside, Im trying to point out the fact that ignoring the results of the most recent presidential election (2016), because you don't like the fact that most of the critical swing states (FL, OH, IA, WI, MI, and PA) are trending against the Democrats (I don't like it either), and instead focusing on recent elections (2012 and 2008) where you were still winning those states, is putting your head in the sand and setting you up to be shocked and disappointed when Democrats keep losing elections in these states.

DID NORTH CAROLINA BECOME A DEM LEANING STATE AFTER 2008?

WHAT ABOUT INDIANA?

[Sestak]

King Lear, it's because they are liberals and don't like what you are saying, even though you are a Democrat too. These liberals can't see how their attitude turns people off. They would rather sit around and call names and act superior, even to people who agree with them, if we don't toe the line.

Sestask: North Carolina/Indiana went for Obama in a 7% popular vote landslide. Trump won PA despite losing the NPV. That suggests the state's swing could be more durable. But Dems can win it back. No one's saying it's not possible.

Someone is.

[Sestak]

Nate Cohn just sent out a tweet saying he miscalculated the congressional districts and that Clinton actually won PA-08 by .7, he also shows that Clinton won PA-07 by 10 points instead of 14 points, and most of the other margins are different but not by significant margins (less then 2-3 points at most). Basically, the map preserves the 12-6 split of Trump to Clinton districts, but strengthens the Democratic lean of PA-07, and exchanges PA-06 for PA-08. Taking all this into consideration, I don’t get why Democrats shouldn’t adopt this map, it gives them a free seat in PA-07, and significantly improves their outlook in PA-08 and PA-15, if they thought they where going to get a map that gives them 9 seats, they should know that’s basically impossible due to Urban Clustering.

WE COULD AT LEAST TRY FOR, YOU KNOW, 7 OR 8 INSTEAD OF GETTING ONE F**KING THIRD OF THE SEATS IN A DEM LEANING SWING STATE.

Breaking News: Pennsylvania is not a Democratic-leaning Swing State anymore
Sorry to be dramatic, but Pennsylvania voted 2.8 points more Republican then the nation in 2016, if anything, it's probably a Republican-leaning Swing state, just like Florida, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Changing my avatar to R-NE. Might as well flee the sinking ship. Democrats are dead in Pennsylvania (as they are elsewhere), as evidenced by Republicans only holding one statewide office. As good as dead.

Remember folks, 2016 *was * the only election. It's the only thing that determines future voting behavior, and anything that happens after Nov 8, 2016 doesn't matter either.

Why am I being treated like a pariah for prioritizing the results of the most recent presidential election over past ones? Am I spose to dig up the results of the 1992 and 1996 elections, when Democrats were winning White rural states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, and say that Trump will lose most of those states in 2020? or am I spose to look at the 1988 results, and deduce that Diane Feinstein will be facing a tight race this year because Bush senior won her state 30 years ago? Or should I look at Bush juniors win in Virginia, and assume Tim Kaines going to lose reelection? Sarcasm aside, Im trying to point out the fact that ignoring the results of the most recent presidential election (2016), because you don't like the fact that most of the critical swing states (FL, OH, IA, WI, MI, and PA) are trending against the Democrats (I don't like it either), and instead focusing on recent elections (2012 and 2008) where you were still winning those states, is putting your head in the sand and setting you up to be shocked and disappointed when Democrats keep losing elections in these states.

DID NORTH CAROLINA BECOME A DEM LEANING STATE AFTER 2008?

WHAT ABOUT INDIANA?

Of course they didn't, because 2008 was a fluke election, driven by a economic crisis, two unnecessary wars, and a host of other black swan events. If the economy was strong, and their was no Iraq war going on, I can assure you McCain would have beat Obama for obviously reasons (White America was sadly not ready for a Black President, as evidenced by the Racist backlash exemplified by the Tea Party movement and the election of Donald Trump) with a map similar to 2004.

If we 'were not ready for a black president', WHY DID WE RE-ELECT HIM?

ALSO, FRIENDLY REMINDER: PA ELECTED A DEM GOVERNOR IN A RED WAVE.

[Sestak]

Also, Florida voted 3 points to the right of the US in both 2012 and 2016, how is that "trending away from the Democrats"?

And btw, even if we do assume that PA is a "lean R swing state", we can do better than a 12-6 map.

Also, yes, Democrats are currently at an electoral college disadvantage, but that could change once Trump's out of the picture or the Sun Belt liberalizes.

[Sestak]

If we 'were not ready for a black president', WHY DID WE RE-ELECT HIM?

The main reason Obama won reelection is because Romney destroyed his campaign with the 47% gaffe. I remember that Election really well and Obama was trailing throughout most of the Election (TBH, I was shocked that he won reelection), if the 47% gaffe never happened Romney would have definitely won Florida and Ohio, and he would have had a good shot at Virginia and Colorado as well.

The 47% gaffe was not that big a deal electorally, and Romney would have needed ALL FOUR of those states to win the election.

[Sestak]

This poll cannot be accurate because the Tennessee Senate Race is Safe Republican in my Ratings.

Um.

Ratings are supposed to be based on polls.

Not the other way around.

[Sestak]

This poll cannot be accurate because the Tennessee Senate Race is Safe Republican in my Ratings.

Um.

Ratings are supposed to be based on polls.

Not the other way around.

I wouldn’t put any faith in polls if I were you, because if you do, you’ll be destined to be disappointed. Many studies conducted in the aftermath of the massive polling miss in 2016 (and 2014 to be honest), show that statistically significant numbers of White Conservatives lie to pollsters about who they plan on voting for, hence the fact polling in 2016 showed Clinton losing the White vote by 10-15 points, while on Election Day she lost the White vote by 21 points (the largest margin any Democrat has lost them since Walter Mondale). This tendency of White Conservatives to lie about supporting Far-Right candidates is called “The Bradley effect”, while in England a similar circumstance is referred to as “The Shy-Torie effect”.

Shy-Tory is not at all a consistent effect. It happens some years, doesn't others, and sometimes (like 2017) we actually see a Shy Labor Effect instead. It's not a pattern, and those who try to label it as one are just grasping.

Second, for the love of Dave,

THERE WAS NO MASSIVE POLLING MISS IN 2016. THE POLLS SAID CLINTON BY 2 PERCENT AND THE FINAL RESULT WAS CLINTON BY 2 PERCENT. THE MISS OCCURRED IN ONLY A COUPLE OF STATES AND THE LARGEST STATE ERROR WE SAW WAS LIKE 5 PERCENT.

Also. Conservatives DID NOT lie about supporting Roy Moore, even though you, IceSpear, and others insisted they were lying throughout the AL-Sen campaign. The same thing happened with Gillespie. (And also Akin in 2012). YOU WERE WRONG THEN. WHAT MAKES THIS DIFFERENT?

[Sestak]

I ask the moderators to reject this idea due to the user's past history of misbehavior.

[Sestak]

MacBeth YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 774

UT-Sen: Bennett unseats Elbert B. Thomas « on: November 8, 1950, 05:11:09 am »This election result cannot be accurate because the Utah Senate Race is Safe Democratic in my Ratings

[Sestak]

Lear, in all of those scenarios except for 2002 the opposition already held at least one house of Congress.

2002 was fueled by war fervor coming off of 9/11. I suppose it could happen again, but I don't find it too likely. GWB would have been in the high 70s on approval now and in the 60s on Election Day.

Also we're sweeping through special and off-year elections.

[Sestak]

Lear, in all of those scenarios except for 2002 the opposition already held at least one house of Congress.

2002 was fueled by war fervor coming off of 9/11. I suppose it could happen again, but I don't find it too likely. GWB would have been in the high 70s on approval now and in the 60s on Election Day.

Also we're sweeping through special and off-year elections.

Such brazen intellectual dishonesty

What? GWB was in the 70s in Feb 2002 and in the 60s in November.

[Sestak]

Shakespeare's King Lear is an idiot who fixates on recent trends which make him feel good (Goneril and Regan gushing about how much they adore him) while he ignores long term historical patterns (Cordelia being an actually loving daughter who showed it through her actions). As a username for a troll who salivates over the Republican victories of the past 8 years but doesn't believe they as the incumbent government with a controversial president could lose a single voter, it's really quite apt.

I've just been trying to figure out if it's on purpose. If you tell me I'll get you Limo's number?

This is a good post

[Sestak]

DONG DONG, THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!