• Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

American Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
What do polls even mean after the 2016 election? I just can't trust anything I see anymore.
Final national poll average on Election Day 2016 (according to RCP) were Hillary +2. The final popular vote count was...Hillary +2.
 
If for any reason ya don't trust polls, then you can instead look at what the bookmakers are saying. They put their money where their mouth is.



Elizabeth Warren has overtaken Joe Biden as favorite to win the Democratic Party's 2020 primary, according to a leading British bookmaker. Biden, a former U.S. vice president and senator for Delaware, is leading the polls, but has generated headlines recently for repeated gaffes, a foible of his.

Warren, the current U.S. senator for Massachusetts, is polling around third or fourth place depending on the survey in a wide and diverse field of more than 20 candidates.

The bookmaker Ladbrokes said it now has Warren at 9/4 favorite to win the Democratic nomination in 2020. Biden slipped to 11/4. Joint third are Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent socialist, and the party's California Senator Kamala Harris. Both are on 6/1.

"It looks like the betting market is going a little cold on Biden despite his general lead in the polls," Matthew Shaddick, head of political betting at Ladbrokes, told Newsweek. "Warren seemed to get a boost after the last set of debates and, in particular, seems to be performing well in Iowa."
 

After once again accusing Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar of hating Israel on Tuesday, President Trump told reporters that “any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”

Whether Trump meant disloyalty to himself or to the state of Israel — which he claims to be a great friend of — is unclear, though the betting money is on Israel. Either way, accusing Jews of failing to show fidelity to the proper country carries an obviously terrible history. And viewing a whole religion as an undifferentiated mass that should vote solely based on tribal affiliation isn’t exactly appropriate either.

Jews have voted overwhelmingly Democratic for decades — a CNN exit poll showed that 79 percent went for Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections — and, by and large, can’t stand the president. Trump accusing several million people of disloyalty is unlikely to do much for his party’s long-shot attempt to wrest back some of the Jewish vote.

When Ilhan Omar implied that some Jews were loyal to more than one country back in March, she caused a furor, including from many Republicans who have tried to make her the face of a supposedly anti-Semitic Democratic Party. President Trump, who once tweeted out a Star of David superimposed on a pile of cash and told a Jewish crowd that “You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money,” has been her harshest critic. Now that he has invoked Jews and the loyalty trope, he should be subject to the same sort of denunciations from his Republican colleagues. But, of course, he won’t be.
 

A report from the Pentagon inspector general found that President Donald Trump's decision to rapidly pull troops out of Syria and divert attention from diplomacy in Iraq has inadvertently aided the Islamic State's regrouping in Syria and Iraq.

The Department of Defense's quarterly report to Congress on the effectiveness of the US Operation Inherent Resolve mission said that "ISIS continued its transition from a territory-holding force to an insurgency in Syria, and it intensified its insurgency in Iraq" — even though Trump said ISIS was defeated and the caliphate quashed, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Many officials and experts have repeatedly warned that a rapid US withdrawal from Syria would enable ISIS to regroup into an insurgency after their battlefield defeats by the US-led coalition.

The IG's report also explicitly said the troop drawdown in Syria, which Trump announced at the end of last year, contributed to instability in the region. The drawdown, which prompted the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, left the US's Syrian partners in the lurch, without the training or support they needed to confront a resurgent ISIS. In Iraq, the Iraqi security forces lack the necessary infrastructure to fight off ISIS for sustained periods.

ISIS is estimated to have 14,000 to 18,000 combatants, according to the report, who are carrying out assassinations, suicides, crop burnings, and ambushes in Iraq and Syria — different from the large-scale attempts to seize territory since 2014 but a violent threat to civilians in both countries nonetheless.

Perhaps more importantly, ISIS is again generating revenue by extorting civilians in both countries, kidnapping for ransom, and skimming money from rebuilding contracts. This decentralized method of income generation — unlike the detailed tax and revenue system ISIS employed during its caliphate — makes the income more difficult to track.

The al-Hol refugee camp in Syria seems to be a perfect storm for ISIS recruitment — thousands of internally displaced people, security forces unable to guard the area against insurgents, and little US support to maintain safe conditions or counter ISIS propaganda.

The Trump administration's decision to focus its attention on Iran reduced its capacity to effectively counter ISIS in Iraq and Syria, according to Brett McGurk, the former special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS who served under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.
 
Glad to see joe Walsh jumping in to try and primary trump. Think that’s a great idea
 
Even if Walsh has no chance, his primary run could damage Trump if it drags out long enough.
 

The latest 2020 national poll from Monmouth University doesn't look good for former Vice President Joe Biden.

Monmouth's poll released on Monday shows Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tied at 20 percent, with Biden behind them at 19 percent. Given the poll's margin of error, that means the three candidates are effectively tied thanks to Biden taking a serious dive since a previous poll released by Monmouth in June.

In that June poll, which was released prior to the first two presidential debates, Biden was polling at 32 percent, but he has since plunged 13 points. Sanders and Warren, meanwhile, have improved by six percentage points and five percentage points, respectively. After Biden, there's a large gap before the next candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who polls at eight percentage points with no change from June.


President Trump's net approval rating has plunged in every key battleground state since taking office in January 2017, according to Morning Consult's tracking poll.
 
Last edited:
Don’t get too excited over the Monmouth poll just yet. Morning Consult also released a new poll yesterday showing Biden still ahead by double digits.

Also,

Talk about misplaced priorities. We’re about to hit the peak of hurricane season.
 
Last edited:
Though it's not going to go anywhere. Trump has like over 80% approval among registered Republicans.
Weld's also in the race. Two established former Republican officeholders going against Trump will give him headaches, especially in the challengers' home turf - I can see Weld winning the Massachusetts primary.
 
Truth be told I would vote for Bernie but after the last election how he caved to Hilary.... I just feel he is too weak to lead a country which is a shame because I really liked him. I would never vote for Hilary or Biden.
 
Truth be told I would vote for Bernie but after the last election how he caved to Hilary.... I just feel he is too weak to lead a country which is a shame because I really liked him. I would never vote for Hilary or Biden.
In what way did he “cave”?
 
In what way did he “cave”?
Hilary has her way making sure she gets her way. What happened with Bernie is that the democratic party went behind Hilary to support her and her wants though she was doing worse than Bernie. Bernie had a way better chance anyway. Because of all the pressure from not just scary Hilary but the whole democratic party he decided to step down instead of press forward and tell Hilary no. Because this happened many of Bernie's supporters went over to Trump because, on paper, his things were closer to Bernie's than Hilary's. Plus most people have seen and noticed the questionable and ethical concerns of the actions and choices of Hilary throughout many years. Thus refuse to vote for Hilary and find her more appalling than most politicians.
If Bernie could not say no to Hilary while doing better than her and the democratic party would be forced to get behind him at that point anyway, how could he say no to a foreign leader who may be threatening us? This is how I feel that he is too weak to lead a country which is a shame. And it surprises me he is trying to run again esp since they tried to throw him under the bus (and they did with his permission). I could be wrong, but I think he is still running under the democratic party. And for the 2020 election I think it is just as important to make sure we have a strong leader.
 
There's a lot of in your post that I disagree with, but I'll for now concentrate on this one point:

Because this happened many of Bernie's supporters went over to Trump

Do you have any proof whatsoever for this claim? Because all of the polling that I've so far seen says that a vast majority of Bernie's voters held their nose and voted for Hillary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom