Hey dems, do you actually believe the polling?

Because most Democrats study the issues and analyze them intelligently, therefore they don't understand how any person with common sense can vote against them, and so don't believe most people will. I think that is the best lesson of this last election. We have the facts on ours side but the Republicans have fear and ignorance and those can be powerful tools over many people; now the elections of 2018 and 2020 may well be the last honest elections we will ever have should Republicans remain in charge after them. We have to VOTE if we want to win and save our way of life.

Why do YOU suppose many Dems don't vote?

 

Well, some dems believe in the polling that dems will win seats, I don't believe it, that's why I started this thread. Polling was wring in 2016 and it will be wrong in 2018.

 

Exactly, the dems sure want it their way all the time don't they? Luckily, their is an electoral college.

 

The EC has only given the Presidency to the loser in the popular vote 5 times in 45 elections, please go right ahead and count on it.

In this last election we thought we were going to win and so many of us stayed home, particularly if we lived in rural areas where the polls may have been some distance away. The Republicans, OTOH had their dream candidate who they wanted to win very badly and so ALL of them came out, no matter where they lived. In the next election ALL of the Democrats are going to get to the polls, even if they're several counties over.

 

My guess, the Dems that don't vote aren't enamored with Dem policies and rather than vote for Republicans they stayed home. In the last Presidential election I believed they stayed home because they believed it was Hillary in a landslide and didn't bother not thinking about the down ticket issues or candidates.

 

Dems when more than 50% of America disapproved with Obama:
Polls are rigged! Who trusts those anyways? BIGOTS!

Dems when more than 50% of America disapproves with Trump
Polls are accurate

 

Everyone hates Trump and wants the democrats to fundamentally transform America into a global socialist police state run by European oligarchs.

 

Nothing to do with that. The main thing is that the party that has the Presidency historically loses seats in the House. We lost several seats the last election cycle, I don't see the next one being good for Republican gains.

 

Yeh, we're all really staunch conservatives, we just don't vote that way for some reason, nor do we communicate that to our politicians. Y'see, in our heart of hearts we really WANT to give everything we have to the ultra rich, we desperately hope the .01% will one day wake up and do us the great service of just taking off their pants and ******** right on our heads because we realize that's the American Way. This patent absurdity is the hard core of Rush Limbaugh's "beliefs" and about the silliest thing he says but cons just eat it with a spoon for some reason despite the fact that most of them will be **** on right along with the rest of us..

 

No no, we love Trump, and we desperately want to see America be a Nationalistic and Fascist Plutocracy hermit kingdom run by gangsters on the Russian model

 

so hitler and the nazis weren't a christian movement?

strange how their church help them escape after WWII

How the Vatican Helped Nazis Escape Justice
Hundreds, maybe thousands, of Nazi war criminals were able to live out their lives in South America

http://historybuff.com/how-vatican-clerical-errors-helped-nazis-escape-justice-OgNXD70Wq8lB

 

Certainly seems that way, otherwise you wouldn't have nominated Hillary: Handmaiden of the Global Capitalists.

 

"In this last election we thought we were going to win and so many of us stayed home, particularly if we lived in rural areas where the polls may have been some distance away."

Who basically said that besides me? That's right you. I said " In the last Presidential election I believed they stayed home because they believed it was Hillary in a landslide " I might add with mail in ballots the polls could be a thousand miles away and you can still have your vote counted. What's with the Rush Limbaugh rant? He wasn't mentioned or quoted. That aside, rich envy is not very becoming, there are no restrictions on any American to become as rich as they can.

 

The major thing to remember about the Nazis is that we must never repeat what they did, which, unfortunately, we seem to be in the first stages of doing.

 

I've heard Limbaugh say that several times. It's the myth of the Silent Majority, which goes back to Spiro Agnew.

Saying Hillary is a "Handmaiden of the Global Capitialists" is a baseless calumny. Saying Trump is a Global Capitalist himself is a demonstrable and irrefutable fact. Conservatives are utterly beyond belief.

 

My old party is out of step with what happened in America, and the representation that our non elites, working americans have lacked for decades. The last primaries and general revealed a sea change, as evidenced by the sanders supporters and trump supporters. Add both groups together, which were americans who were fed up with the two party establishment treason, as evidenced by the Princeton Study, and you have a group here, which is growing, that could change our political system in a really big way. What we are seeing is a reaction against the madness and treason imposed upon working americans, and who received zero representation from the people they put into office.

There are common interests and beliefs between sanders supporters and trump supporters, which MSM, and both parties are ignoring. And as James "Cueball" Caraville once said, "it's the economy stupid". Great changes come when enough people endure economic suffering, and get fed up with it, as they realize their politicians are to blame. When they realize as americans did in the era of the Gilded Age, and the election of FDR, that this suffering, this poverty, is due to economic and trade policy that destroys all but the upper middle and upper class, and in fact, only enriches the upper class evidenced in the growth in disparity in income and wealth, which is directly attributed to a change in economic and trade policy. Eventually, average americans understand they have been duped with clever, contrived, economic double speak, in order to enrich the upper class, by taking it away from the working class. And this is nothing new, but cycles as the amnesia of the average guy allows the same confidence game to be pulled once again on the masses. Only the device used might change, but the principle never changes. You take from labor, and allow it to go to the top, the exact opposite of what creates a large middle class. You drop the economic philosophy of a reasonable profit for the top, and move into the philosophy that capitalists should only be concerned with the maximization of profits, and forget about responsibility to your workers, your society, and your nation. And you forget that a middle class would not exist if the only goal of our economic model is to minimize, as much as possible the wages paid to the people who do the actual work to create the income for the owners.

In this environment, the destruction of labor, the economic model relying upon slave labor overseas, and allowing illegal immigration as a tool to keep down wages for our citizens, what the dems have to offer, the continuation of not representing the majority of americans has no relevancy and unless they move back to the traditional democratic party, those principles, they will continue to go down the toilet as a party. The only thing that might allow them to continue on with the treason is the fact that trump is not changing the GOP into a party that represents americans either. For the GOP are open borders, anti working American, slave labor globalists just like the democrats. Trump does not reflect the GOP, unless he continues to flip flop into the neoconism and neoliberalism which defines the GOP as it defines the democrat party. Both are parties of the elites, and despise working americans and will never represent them.. But if the democrat party would simple move back to what they once were the party of the people, the GOP would become irrelevant and be relegated to the minority once again as they were from FDR til Reagan ended democratic rule. And then turned our economy over again to the banking cabal, giving us what we have today which devastates the non elites.

 

Ever read "Clinton Cash?" Many examples of Clinton and Clinton doing favors for Global capitalists.

Clinton's ties with Wall St. Banksters and other assorted Global capitalists is well known and is independent of Donald Trump.

Here is just one story

http://nypost.com/2016/10/15/clinton-foundation-more-concerned-with-bills-pal-than-colombias-poor/

 

Here the historical record when it comes to midterms and presidential approval ratings.

1970 Nixon 58% Minus 2 senate Plus 12 House seats

1974 Ford 42% Minus 5 senate Minus 48 House seats

1978 Carter 49% Minus 3 senate Minus 5 House seats

1982 Reagan 43% Plus 1 senate Minus 26 House seats

1986 Reagan 47% Minus 8 senate Minus 5 House seats

1990 Bush I 54% Minus 1 senate Minus 8 House seats

1994 Clinton 41% Minus 9 senate Minus 54 House seats

1998 Clinton 66% Senate no change Plus 4 House seats

2002 Bush II 63% Plus 1 senate Plus 8 House seats

2006 Bush II 37% Minus 6 senate Minus 33 House seats

2010 Obama 44% Minus 6 senate Minus 63 House seats

2014 Obama 41% Minus 9 senate Minus 13 House seats

Just something to think about. On the house, those who keep close track of these things such as Charlie Cook, Stuart Rothenberg, Larry Sabato, EP, and others have the Republicans having 27 or 28 seats at risk of switching in the next midterm to 10 or so for the Democrats. That would translate in an average election year to your 10 or so seat net gain for the Democrats. But throw into the mix Trump approval rating, party affiliation numbers, Congressional approval, direction of the country, the mood of the country, political party favorbility vs. unfavorbility etc. you could be looking at around a 30 or more seat swing if those numbers remain where they are at today vs. November of next year.

In the senate with 25 seats up for re-election for the Democrats vs. only 9 for the Republicans, you are probably looking at the status quo. The Democrats have two seats at risk, Indiana and Missouri as do the Republicans, Nevada and Arizona. Keeping the status quo in the senate would be viewed as a huge victory for the Democrats.. Even losing a seat or two would still be a victory when the numbers are against you 25-9.

Keep in mind, it is much too early for any fairly accurate predictions. All the numbers are very dynamic and change constantly. But the stars seem to be aligning in the Democrats favor. That shouldn't be a surprise considering the party what holds the white house has lost seats in the first midterm going back to FDR with the exception of G.W. Bush in 2002. But he had 9-11 happen which united the country behind him and his party. His first midterm was actually his second where he lost 33 seats.

 

This comparison to Nazism, like so much coming from the dem tribe is so false, and absurd. And you guys are doing this, while ignoring the Princeton Study evidencing that your party along with the GOP have by only serving our elites, given us oligarchic fascism, which is at this point self evident. Never has the dem tribe been so disconnected from reality. For anytime anyone, or any group, tries to equate people looking out for their own families, first, to Nazism, you are witnessing the ludicrous side of **** hitting the fan.

 

Can the incumbent president's party keep congress in a midterm if say his approval rating is over 50%, but still lose some seats, because it's the incumbent presidents party?

 

I mean why did Barry's party lose 63 seats in the house in 2010? I knew the opposition party gained seats, but I didn't know his party would get trashed that bad.

 

I was talking first midterm. Now Bush I or Bush the elder in 1990 did just that. His approval rating was 54% and his party still lost 8 seats in the house and 1 senate seat. Bill Clinton was at 66% approval in his second midterm, not his first and his party gained 4 house seats. LBJ in 1966 was at 49% approval, about as close as one can get to 50%, he lost 4 senate and 47 house seats. JFK in 1962 was at 74% approval rating, right after the Cuban missile crisis. He gained 3 senate seats, lost 4 house seats. The losses were kind of irrelevant as the Democrats dropped from 262 down to 258.

Eisenhower in 1954 was at 56%, he lost 1 Senate and 18 House seats and in his second midterm, Eisenhower was at 52%, no senate seats lost or gained, but IKE lost 2 House seats

 

Is this a crystal ball, or wishful thinking?

 

Neither. Just answering a question concerning history. Here is that history if you're interested. Comparing a president's approval rating with the midterm results.

1954 Eisenhower 56% Minus 1 Senate Minus 18 House

1958 Eisenhower 52% 0 senate Minus 2 House seats

1962 JFK 74% Plus 3 senate seats Minus 4 House seats

1966 LBJ 49% Minus 4 senate Minus 47 house seats

1970 Nixon 58% Minus 2 senate Minus 12 House seats

1974 Ford 42% Minus 5 senate Minus 48 House seats

1978 Carter 49% Minus 3 senate Minus 5 House seats

1982 Reagan 43% Plus 1 senate Minus 26 House seats

1986 Reagan 47% Minus 8 senate Minus 5 House seats

1990 Bush I 54% Minus 1 senate Minus 8 House seats

1994 Clinton 41% Minus 9 senate Minus 54 House seats

1998 Clinton 66% Senate no change Plus 4 House seats

2002 Bush II 63% Plus 1 senate Plus 8 House seats

2006 Bush II 37% Minus 6 senate Minus 33 House seats

2010 Obama 44% Minus 6 senate Minus 63 House seats

2014 Obama 41% Minus 9 senate Minus 13 House seats

The data is there, make of it as you will.

 

I would give you a one word answer, ACA. Close to 60% of all Americans opposed it, but Obama and the Democrats went ahead with it. The Democrats basically told the majority of Americans to stick it where the sun don't shine. America bit back in the 2010 midterm elections. Here are the polls when the ACA was passed.

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the Senate passed it in November of 2009

CNN/Opinion Research 12/2-12/3 36% for 61% Against/Oppose +25

Rasmussen Reports 11/29 - 11/29 41% for 53% Against/Oppose +12

Gallup 11/20-11/22 44% for 49% Against/Oppose +5

Ipsos/McClatchy 11/19 - 11/22 34% for 46% Against/Oppose +12


Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 38% for 56% Against/Oppose +18

FOX News 11/17 - 11/18 35% for 51% Against/Oppose +16

PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12


Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the House passed it in March of 2010

Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 38% for 50% Against/Oppose +12

CNN/Opinion Research 3/19 - 3/21 39% for 59% Against/Oppose +20

CBS News 3/18 - 3/21 37% for 48% Against/Oppose +11

Rasmussen Reports 3/19 - 3/20 41% for 54% Against/Oppose +13

Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 36% for 54% Against/Oppose +18

Democracy Corps (D) 3/15 - 3/18 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12

FOX News 3/16 - 3/17 35% 55% Against/Oppose +20


Clearly a political party agenda going against the wishes and want of the majority of Americans at the time. As a side note, it is interesting to see where independents in 2006 voted for the Democratic Party congressional candidates by a 57-39 margin. They were mad at Bush and the GOP congress. Then in 2010 being mad at Obama and the Democratic congress for not listening to them, independents switch their voting habits to Republican congressional candidates by a 57-41 margin.

Independents are the only group of voters who can have this type of huge swings from one party to the other. History has shown those who affiliate or identify themselves with either major party will vote for their party's candidate around 90% of the time regardless of who that candidate is.