" 5 points, left or right in an National election is not bad. Nobody hits it dead on. Usually if within margin of error, you are doing pretty good."

5 points off will often miss the outcome. in Presidential elections, for example, the margin of Popular Vote percentage between the Republican and Democrat this century was within 5% every time except for 2008.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

AP is pretty benign. AP, Reuters are pretty much news-centric. Bloomberg is data-centric. Those three are the only mainstream i would listen to.

Believe it or not, Bloomberg has been pretty balanced on Trump, defending his decisions. They are business data oriented, so money talks.

Their pills have jim at historic lows. Polls dont matter, elections do. 6 months we see.

---

all of those polling units have been 5pts or so left of actual outcome in the last several elections.

News units don't poll to determine status. They poll to make news.......

---

I agree with the opinion piece ones like CNN, FOX, BREIDBART, NewsMax, MSNBC. 100%. The are editorials, not news.

Bloomberg is data centric, although they do run some pieces. I would suspect left leaning. But, they have been complementary to Trump and defended several of his actions. So I give them the benefit of the doubt.

AP and Reuters are as new oriented as you get in today's world. Maybe C-SPAN, let's you see and make a determination. I use those.

5 points, left or right in an National election is not bad. Nobody hits it dead on. Usually if within margin of error, you are doing pretty good.

---

Actually, every cycle there are a handful of polling units that hit things dead on, a point or less off. Tends to be RasReports, Insider Advantage, Trafalgar, etc…..

And below the hood, it's even worse. Vast majority of polling units are wildly off DURING the election and then converge (usually rightward) in the closing days. That affects news, which affects earned media, which affects fundraising, etc….almost always to Democrat advantage. Case in point: 2026, where Kamala's internal polling never showed her ahead, yet most public polling showed an enormous bounce in her favor after she entered the race.

They are polls. They show a trend. You guys are expecting precision from an accuracy tool.

5 points on either side shows a stalemate that can go either way. That is all, it is not predictive, although the media wants you to believe it. It is all based on stats, the difference between 1500 taking a survey and 300,000 is not that much with a population of 365M.

Trends. That is all.

True, but you can't know that until AFTER the fact. There is no stat that is going to say- this one is dead on a week before. There will always be a few right, how do you pick them before? History? History is an awful indicator of the future.

We do transportation modeling. Billions each year go into data collection and "validation" through traffic counts. If the model is within 10 to 20% it is a good model. In 1996, a model 40% off was good. Surveys are skewed no matter what you do. Hell the type of person that actually responds skews it. The way you ask the question. The population you use. Where. They identify trends and an indication of a snapshot in time. Anyone that wants you to believe they are more accurate is selling something.

FLBear5630 said:

---

They are polls. They show a trend. You guys are expecting precision from an accuracy tool.

5 points on either side shows a stalemate that can go either way. That is all, it is not predictive, although the media wants you to believe it. It is all based on stats, the difference between 1500 taking a survey and 300,000 is not that much with a population of 365M.

Trends. That is all.

---

No, there's more to it than that.

For one thing, polls are created for the target audience. If you look at polls seven months prior to an election and compare them to polls from the same groups just prior to elections, there is often a much wider range of opinion between polls in April while late October polls have a much tighter grouping.

And no, Gallup proved in 1936 that respondent pool size does not change the accuracy much, as long as you have a statistically valid respondent pool.

Trends are the story told to keep interest in a spring and summer poll.

Snapshot in time. Not very good predictors and even if they are right it is a crap shoot that you chose the right one. Any of this predictive stuff is a leap of faith.

FLBear5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

🚨 TRUMP HAS STUNNED THE "EXPERTS" AGAIN!

US Steel is officially REOPENING its tin mill at Gary Works, Indiana — which got "indefinitely idled" under Biden due to foreign imports

LFG! 🔥

US Steel CEO David Burritt: "This strengthens national security, economic security, job… pic.twitter.com/wYPFTlcXmy

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 20, 2026

---

whom is the Eric D. randofella always getting posted? Not familiar with his fine work. Sounding very Maga

---

good news for the country usually does sound MAGA.

---

oh, you mean the new AP poll that came out today that has Gold Jesus approval at. drummmb rooooll. 33%. Me not thinks that the majority of the country are behind Piggy by those numbers. Facts are your friend.Obviously you are an Outlier and what is wrong with you with this country. Viva la Donnie!

---

Rasmussen is at 44% approval for Trump today. They are the only ones that do a daily approval tracking and constantly ask large groups.

Facts are your friend. Stop using information from innacurate pollsters and use the info from a polling company that has a proven track record for accuracy for this type of data.

---

An AP poll is a fact, son. Just one that you and the rest of the Maggots don't like.

---

As President Thomas Dewey could tell you, polls aren't "facts" in the sense that they aren't necessarily an accurate reflection of opinion at all given time.

Even though one would expect Trump's ratings to be very low, it is a whole lot harder to get accurate polling today than in years past.

---

Has nothing to do with how he has acted or what he has done???? It has to be the polling. Consistent...

---

Reading comprehension not your strong point?

---

Read this sentence and tell me I have a reading comprehension issue???


"Even though one would expect Trump's ratings to be very low, it is a whole lot harder to get accurate polling today than in years past."

This is typical, your thought as posted indicates that it is a polling error, the qualifier on the end changes the context. Typical, DC BS.

---

I can see how you would think I was saying the polls were inaccurate. It is not an unreasonable interpretation, but it is not an accurate one.

Here is the "amplified version" of it:

While one would expect Trump's approval numbers to be quite low given the economy, the war, and the general pattern seen in previous administrations, developing accurate polls is extremely difficult today compared to previous years because it is so hard to get a good random sample. It is not a good idea to look at polls as "facts" that accurately reflect the views of the people they are trying to measure.

D. C. Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

🚨 TRUMP HAS STUNNED THE "EXPERTS" AGAIN!

US Steel is officially REOPENING its tin mill at Gary Works, Indiana — which got "indefinitely idled" under Biden due to foreign imports

LFG! 🔥

US Steel CEO David Burritt: "This strengthens national security, economic security, job… pic.twitter.com/wYPFTlcXmy

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 20, 2026

---

whom is the Eric D. randofella always getting posted? Not familiar with his fine work. Sounding very Maga

---

good news for the country usually does sound MAGA.

---

oh, you mean the new AP poll that came out today that has Gold Jesus approval at. drummmb rooooll. 33%. Me not thinks that the majority of the country are behind Piggy by those numbers. Facts are your friend.Obviously you are an Outlier and what is wrong with you with this country. Viva la Donnie!

---

Rasmussen is at 44% approval for Trump today. They are the only ones that do a daily approval tracking and constantly ask large groups.

Facts are your friend. Stop using information from innacurate pollsters and use the info from a polling company that has a proven track record for accuracy for this type of data.

---

An AP poll is a fact, son. Just one that you and the rest of the Maggots don't like.

---

As President Thomas Dewey could tell you, polls aren't "facts" in the sense that they aren't necessarily an accurate reflection of opinion at all given time.

Even though one would expect Trump's ratings to be very low, it is a whole lot harder to get accurate polling today than in years past.

---

Has nothing to do with how he has acted or what he has done???? It has to be the polling. Consistent...

---

Reading comprehension not your strong point?

---

Read this sentence and tell me I have a reading comprehension issue???


"Even though one would expect Trump's ratings to be very low, it is a whole lot harder to get accurate polling today than in years past."

This is typical, your thought as posted indicates that it is a polling error, the qualifier on the end changes the context. Typical, DC BS.

---

I can see how you would think I was saying the polls were inaccurate. It is not an unreasonable interpretation, but it is not an accurate one.

Here is the "amplified version" of it:

While one would expect Trump's approval numbers to be quite low given the economy, the war, and the general pattern seen in previous administrations, developing accurate polls is extremely difficult today compared to previous years because it is so hard to get a good random sample. It is not a good idea to look at polls as "facts" that accurately reflect the views of the people they are trying to measure.

---

We actually agree. I made the similar argument that polls can give us a snapshot look at trends. Too many variables to take as fact. I view polls as accuracy tools versus precision. They tell us Trump is underwater, nit can't tell us how much. or vice versa.

FLBear: " They tell us Trump is underwater"

Well, let's check that claim.

Comparing RCP Job Approval averages today compared to the same point in 2018 (his first term):

President Trump Job Approval | RealClearPolling

Real Clear Polling

FOX News: 42% approve 58% disapprove (RV only) 44% in 2018 [down 2]

CNBC: 40% approve (RV only) 46% in 2018 [down 6]

Marquette: 41% approve (RV only) not done in 2018

Rasmussen Reports: 43% approve (LV) 46% in April 2018 [down 3]

Morning Consult: 44% approve (RV only) 44% in April 2018 [no change]

Economist/YouGov: 41% approve (RV only) 44% in April 2018 [down 3]

Echelon Insights: 41% approve (LV) not done in 2018

AP/NORC: 33% approve (adults only not voters) not shown for 2018

Reuters/Ipsos: 36% approve (adults only not voters) 42% in 2018 (but RV not same type of respondents)

Quinnipiac: 38% approve (RV only) 42% in 2018 [down 4]

RMG Research: 45% approve (RV only) not done in 2018

CBS News: 39% approve (adults only not voters) 40% in 2018 [down 1]

Daily Mail: 43% approve (RV only) not done in 2018

Of these thirteen polls then, the lowest three only asked adults, not even registered voters. Six of the 2026 polls were not taking job approval polls in 2018 so cannot be compared, and the change in four of the remaining polls are within a standard 3 point margin of error.

Not much evidence except for story-telling.

As i said, trend. Underwater, didnt quantify how much.

FLBear5630 said:

---

As i said, trend. Underwater, didnt quantify how much.

---

And I just showed you there is no evidence for that claim. You can say it, but the numbers are inconclusive.

You can say Trump has not been shown to improve on his first term numbers, but for some reason you don't want to go by what the numbers actually support.

Also, note how few of the polls are even contacting likely voters. Just saying, there's no there, there.

every poll has his disapprove higher than his approve. The trend shows he is underwater.

May not be exact in the amount, hence the term trend. It is not inconclusive! All are negative, underwater, drowning, don't like him, don't think he is doing a good job... Get it?

But keep spinning. Your identities are tied up in Trump, so tough to come to grips. Get it.

Inconclusive... I hope you read your financial analysis better... : )

FLBear5630 said:

---

True, but you can't know that until AFTER the fact. There is no stat that is going to say- this one is dead on a week before. There will always be a few right, how do you pick them before? History? History is an awful indicator of the future.

We do transportation modeling. Billions each year go into data collection and "validation" through traffic counts. If the model is within 10 to 20% it is a good model. In 1996, a model 40% off was good. Surveys are skewed no matter what you do. Hell the type of person that actually responds skews it. The way you ask the question. The population you use. Where. They identify trends and an indication of a snapshot in time. Anyone that wants you to believe they are more accurate is selling something.

---

you know the answer to this. The guys who have been within a point or two of actual outcome the last several cycles are probably the best guys at the moment; while the guys who are consistently going back decades always 4-6pts off are probably not objective polling units. Those two subsets are not hard to figure out at this point in time.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Snapshot in time. Yes. Not very good predictors and even if they are right it is a crap shoot that you chose the right one. Not really hard to figure out the ones that will give you the best odds. Any of this predictive stuff is a leap of faith.

---

It is true that polling this far out should not be taken as instructive. No one knows yet, regardless of bias, exactly what will be the issues driving the upcoming election. No one knows yet, for sure, what will be the enthusiasm levels driving the upcoming election. Ergo, it's very, very difficult to pose the right questions to the universe of voters who are ultimately going to show up.

but, again.......the guys who got it right the last cycle or two tend to have an edge over the others in understanding the electorate at this particular moment in time. So it's not hard to figure out which polling units are more likely to be closer, and which are not.

That has always been true. What's changed in the Trump era is the politicization of the polling industry itself. All but a very small handful of polling units showed Harris ahead of Trump for most of the 2024 election. We learned afterwards that Harris internal polling never had her ahead at any time. So how can that be? The ones who've been consistently closest in the Trump era had it right. So how could all the others have seen it so profoundly otherwise? being 4-6pts off is total incompetence level error. How could the legendary Ann Seltzer be off by double digits in a very small polling universe she's spent her whole life reporting on? Answer is pretty simple, if damning = most of the polling units were partisan, trying to push public opinion rather than illustrate it.

I work with lobbyist and order surveys for use. It all depends on the cohorts they use. I have yet to see in 35 years real survey firms (Gallup, Pew, Zogby, Mich, Quinipec) using their personal bias to impact outcome. Why? This is how they make a living and real people that control real money want the truth. You don't get investment grade funding with skewed data, at least the real finance people.

Which is why I get so mad when the Bannon's to discredit what they do not agree.

I look at different polls for different things, everyone excels at some things and struggles in others. Not a value, judgement. I just like to use people in their strengths.

For example, University of Michigan is a leader in surveying/polling for consumer information, been doing it for 70 years. Those guys are data geeks, they could give a **** less for politics. But, Michigan is considered a liberal University, so the far right says it "fake news" if they don't like the outcome. I take their Consumer info as reliable, politics I wouldn't go with them.

For politics,

Gallup been doing forever. Sorry guys, but JR is right. Gallup is not skewing anythng.

Pew Research is pretty much considered objective in their analysis, I have not had issues with Pew.

Zogby has been the standard for politics. They are not going to risk their reputation playing politics for a 4 year cycle.

My general rule of thumb, if Wall Street will use it to lend money, it is as good as your going to get. Univ of Michigan is used by Morningside, Moody's, S&P and will stand up to investment grade analysis. No data analysis is perfect, but that is a pretty good indicator that they are as reliable as you are going to get. (outside of illegal activity).

No one is going to be right all the time. Trump is especially difficult as many do not want people to know they support him. We are seeing a switch this time, many don't want Trump to know they don't! Gonna be interesting. As I said, he is trending underwater. You can spin it comparing to past mid-terms or different cohorts. But, it is pretty unanimous he is under the Mendoza Line...

FLBear5630 said:

---

I work with lobbyist and order surveys for use. It all depends on the cohorts they use. I have yet to see in 35 years real survey firms (Gallup, Pew, Zogby, Mich, Quinipec) using their personal bias to impact outcome. Why? This is how they make a living and real people that control real money want the truth. You don't get investment grade funding with skewed data, at least the real finance people.
Not criticizing their private sector work. Just noting the demonstrable obvious fact that those units traditionally spend most of the election cycle 4-6 points to the left of where election results land, only converging in the final days to get barely within the margin of error. Meanwhile, there are a handful of other units that are consistently closer.

Which is why I get so mad when the Bannon's to discredit what they do not agree.
Your error is in presuming their political polling is as objective as their non-political polling.

I look at different polls for different things, everyone excels at some things and struggles in others. Not a value, judgement. I just like to use people in their strengths.

For example, University of Michigan is a leader in surveying/polling for consumer information, been doing it for 70 years. Those guys are data geeks, they could give a **** less for politics. But, Michigan is considered a liberal University, so the far right says it "fake news" if they don't like the outcome. I take their Consumer info as reliable, politics I wouldn't go with them.
Exactly my point.

For politics,

Gallup been doing forever. Sorry guys, but JR is right. Gallup is not skewing anything.

Pew Research is pretty much considered objective in their analysis, I have not had issues with Pew.

Zogby has been the standard for politics. They are not going to risk their reputation playing politics for a 4 year cycle.
John Zogby is a Democrat. He nailed one election a couple decades ago. Since then, his political polling has consistently leaned blue, usually on the bluest end of the range.

My general rule of thumb, if Wall Street will use it to lend money, it is as good as your going to get. Univ of Michigan is used by Morningside, Moody's, S&P and will stand up to investment grade analysis. No data analysis is perfect, but that is a pretty good indicator that they are as reliable as you are going to get. (outside of illegal activity).

No one is going to be right all the time. Trump is especially difficult as many do not want people to know they support him. We are seeing a switch this time, many don't want Trump to know they don't! Gonna be interesting. As I said, he is trending underwater. You can spin it comparing to past mid-terms or different cohorts. But, it is pretty unanimous he is under the Mendoza Line...
Rasmussen Reports, Insider Advantage, Trafalgar, Atlas Intel, etc....have consistently been closer than the polling units you look to. And RR polls a D+2 universe.

---

This is data we're talking about. You've got a small group of units that are usually 1-2pts off, and a bunch of other polling units that are typically 3-5 off. It's "statistically significant."

I think the reason it leans blue is because the Democrat/Liberals against someone are more active than the GOP. And it is getting worse. Latest are the Democratic Socialist. In the last 2 years, all of a sudden in public input we have people introducig themselves as Social Democrats. Didn't happen before, rarely would someone give the Political party.

Just look at public hearings, almost everyone there is a libera against something. For the conservatives, usually we see the Chamber speaking for an area.

FLBear5630 said:

---

I think the reason it leans blue is because the Democrat/Liberals against someone are more active than the GOP. And it is getting worse. Latest are the Democratic Socialist. In the last 2 years, all of a sudden in public input we have people introducig themselves as Social Democrats. Didn't happen before, rarely would someone give the Political party.

Just look at public hearings, almost everyone there is a libera against something. For the conservatives, usually we see the Chamber speaking for an area.

---

it leans blue because they make their money doing real polling for the private sector all day every day, freeing them up engage as partisans during the election.

I really think you are giving the conspiracy too much credit. All these pollsters are all doing this? There are no Independent or even Red pollsters? I think you are looking for something that doesn't exist to the level you believe, maybe an odd pollster. They would have to be small not to be ratted out and if they are small they don't have the influence to make a difference.

The other item is that you are putting too much into people either staying home or voting based on a CNN or Gallup poll.

You know conspiracies, people can't keep their mouth shut for 10 minutes, especially for a buck.

It could be that Trump is pissing people off and he is not very likable. Nah, a conspiracy of pollsters across the industry is much more likely...

FLBear5630 said:

---

every poll has his disapprove higher than his approve. The trend shows he is underwater.

May not be exact in the amount, hence the term trend. It is not inconclusive! All are negative, underwater, drowning, don't like him, don't think he is doing a good job... Get it?

But keep spinning. Your identities are tied up in Trump, so tough to come to grips. Get it.

Inconclusive... I hope you read your financial analysis better... : )

---

You mentioned trends. Trump has always outperformed polls in actual elections, demonstrating the polls are missing something.

And his polls now are about the same as his polls then, demonstrating Trump is where he was then.

You like to say polls are a snapshot. In Trump's case the snapshot is blurry and does not prove what you say. Call him the Loch Ness President, maybe

I don't disagree with your assessment, he has overperformed the polls.

His poll trends show him underwater, only election is going to answer the question.

I don't think it is a left-wing bias in the polling that is trying to push Trump's competitor. I think it is people don't want to admit they vote for him.

BREAKING: Consumer sentiment in the US officially hits its lowest level on record amid the Iran War.

This marks the weakest consumer sentiment since data collection began in 1978. pic.twitter.com/jwyuXlSvNl

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 24, 2026

FLBear5630 said:

---

I don't disagree with your assessment, he has overperformed the polls.

His poll trends show him underwater, only election is going to answer the question.

I don't think it is a left-wing bias in the polling that is trying to push Trump's competitor. I think it is people don't want to admit they vote for him.

---

I think it's more complex than that.

Just as polling has had to largely abandon the classic RDD system, demographics have changed. There used to be a general interest in polls, now a number of groups have lost interest, trust, or both in polls.

I will go there. I agree.

Similar to the guys I met from JPL and NASA, the data scientist that do this polling are data geeks. They are interested in the how and why, not really who is running. I have not met many that would risk career over fixing election polls. They are not wired that way.

Now, the people that show up at public hearings, they would. No doubt.

FLBear5630 said:

---

I really think you are giving the conspiracy too much credit. All these pollsters are all doing this? There are no Independent or even Red pollsters? I think you are looking for something that doesn't exist to the level you believe, maybe an odd pollster. They would have to be small not to be ratted out and if they are small they don't have the influence to make a difference.

The other item is that you are putting too much into people either staying home or voting based on a CNN or Gallup poll.

You know conspiracies, people can't keep their mouth shut for 10 minutes, especially for a buck.

It could be that Trump is pissing people off and he is not very likable. Nah, a conspiracy of pollsters across the industry is much more likely...

---

Pissing people off and not being likeable while doing a bang up job.
When the frick are you going to quit elevating form over function?

🚨 BREAKING: In a stunning turnaround, the founder of HOME DEPOT, who did not want to vote for President Trump, is shocking the business world.

He also opposed tariffs.

Now?

"I am SOLD on Trump."

"I think he's got a good shot at going down in history as one of our best… pic.twitter.com/d3HQVT37kO

— Pascal Najadi (USSF)🇺🇸 (@JfkPascalNajadX) April 24, 2026

A CBS News poll finds that over 70% of Americans say they are having difficulty affording essentials like food, housing, and health care. pic.twitter.com/UULZMveeZF

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 24, 2026

just an interesting antidote from across the world. I got a text from my water deliver company stating that due plastic, transpiration and additional costs borne by the ME war, the price of water will increase immediately. Only a couple bucks, but still. Thailand rationing oil. Not good. This thing has global tentacles.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I really think you are giving the conspiracy too much credit. All these pollsters are all doing this? There are no Independent or even Red pollsters? I think you are looking for something that doesn't exist to the level you believe, maybe an odd pollster. They would have to be small not to be ratted out and if they are small they don't have the influence to make a difference.

The other item is that you are putting too much into people either staying home or voting based on a CNN or Gallup poll.

You know conspiracies, people can't keep their mouth shut for 10 minutes, especially for a buck.

It could be that Trump is pissing people off and he is not very likable. Nah, a conspiracy of pollsters across the industry is much more likely...

---

Pissing people off and not being likeable while doing a bang up job.
When the frick are you going to quit elevating form over function?

🚨 BREAKING: In a stunning turnaround, the founder of HOME DEPOT, who did not want to vote for President Trump, is shocking the business world.

He also opposed tariffs.

Now?

"I am SOLD on Trump."

"I think he's got a good shot at going down in history as one of our best… pic.twitter.com/d3HQVT37kO

— Pascal Najadi (USSF)🇺🇸 (@JfkPascalNajadX) April 24, 2026

---

well, I was about to pull the trigger on a Home Depot gift card for my daughter's new home. Hello Lowes!

Come on, you are smarter than that.

We are talking elections and polling. How logical is the typical person? How many follow this stuff enough to know the difference? How many care?

Form matters when you are an elected official. All the way back to Kennedy winning a debate on looks he really lost on substance. Clinton beating a better candidate in Bush on charm. Reagan? The great communicator? All used form to overrule function.

You know better. You are pissed because you know you are right on substance and Trumps form is going to blow it. I am pissed because there is no one keeping Trump on the rails just feeding his self destructive mannerisms

FLBear5630 said:

---

Come on, you are smarter than that.
LOL no, I'm just smarter than you. (you did serve up a hanging curve....)

We are talking elections and polling. How logical is the typical person? How many follow this stuff enough to know the difference? How many care?
That's the presumption of the news polling....that the typical person is not logical and does not follow politics much at all. That's why the skewed polling has effect.

Form matters when you are an elected official. All the way back to Kennedy winning a debate on looks he really lost on substance. Clinton beating a better candidate in Bush on charm. Reagan? The great communicator? All used form to overrule function.
Ok. let's run with that. Trump has been incredibly successful, not just in winning elections but in policy achievements. Ergo his "form" cannot be as bad you insist.

You know better. You are pissed because you know you are right on substance and Trumps form is going to blow it. I am pissed because there is no one keeping Trump on the rails just feeding his self destructive mannerisms
LOL. He's going to cram thru as much of his agenda as he can while he has power to do so. It's his most redeeming quality.

---

The premise of your worldview here is that centrism is inherently morally superior and that one should eschew excessive partisanship, to the point that one should not push one's agenda too quickly so as not to incite resistance that would require defense, ultimately inflaming voters in ways that might motivate them to vote against you next election.

Problem is.....that is a prescription to accomplish nothing. it is most certainly NOT how Democrats govern. They have power, they cram thru Obamacare, Green New Deal, etc.....incredibly harmful policies which cost them elections. They know that GOP'ers like you will come in and assume the burden of fixing things. Dems can be counted up on to obstruct every fix, making you spend your political capital to do so (i.e. make your opponent spend all this time/effort undoing what you did rather than enacting their own agenda). And of course once you've touched it....you own it. Dems will completely absolve themselves of having any agency in the mess at all. Upshot of it all: they get what they want, and we make it work. And the reality of mid-term elections supersedes all that - the party holding the WH almost always loses anyway. So why the hell not just enact your agenda come hell or high water? If your going to probably lose the next election anyway, why not go ahead and cram your agenda thru while you can?

Trump understands that.
You don't.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Come on, you are smarter than that.
LOL no, I'm just smarter than you. (you did serve up a hanging curve....)

We are talking elections and polling. How logical is the typical person? How many follow this stuff enough to know the difference? How many care?
That's the presumption of the news polling....that the typical person is not logical and does not follow politics much at all. That's why the skewed polling has effect.

Form matters when you are an elected official. All the way back to Kennedy winning a debate on looks he really lost on substance. Clinton beating a better candidate in Bush on charm. Reagan? The great communicator? All used form to overrule function.
Ok. let's run with that. Trump has been incredibly successful, not just in winning elections but in policy achievements. Ergo his "form" cannot be as bad you insist.

You know better. You are pissed because you know you are right on substance and Trumps form is going to blow it. I am pissed because there is no one keeping Trump on the rails just feeding his self destructive mannerisms
LOL. He's going to cram thru as much of his agenda as he can while he has power to do so. It's his most redeeming quality.

---

The premise of your worldview here is that centrism is inherently morally superior and that one should eschew excessive partisanship, to the point that one should not push one's agenda too quickly so as not to incite resistance that would require defense, ultimately inflaming voters in ways that might motivate them to vote against you next election.

Problem is.....that is a prescription to accomplish nothing. it is most certainly NOT how Democrats govern. They have power, they cram thru Obamacare, Green New Deal, etc.....incredibly harmful policies which cost them elections. They know that GOP'ers like you will come in and assume the burden of fixing things. Dems can be counted up on to obstruct every fix, making you spend your political capital to do so (i.e. make your opponent spend all this time/effort undoing what you did rather than enacting their own agenda). And of course once you've touched it....you own it. Dems will completely absolve themselves of having any agency in the mess at all. Upshot of it all: they get what they want, and we make it work. And the reality of mid-term elections supersedes all that - the party holding the WH almost always loses anyway. So why the hell not just enact your agenda come hell or high water? If your going to probably lose the next election anyway, why not go ahead and cram your agenda thru while you can?

Trump understands that.
You don't.

---

I am glad to see you can still hit a hanging curve...

You are mistaking form and function. All those achievements, are function. Yet, because of his behavior, his bullying behavior and self-promoting he is not liked outside of his shrinking base.

Once again, we are talking elections not actual production. Elections in the US are won by the Independents, not the base. He has his base, no doubt. Just like the Dems have their base, which is traditionally larger. The Independents will be the make or break. His behavior in his first term cost him and he was well behaved as Kelly had him on a leash. This term he is off the rails, I venture most of the Independents don't want a US that is a bully and more in line with Putin. (I was going to say Xi, but he comes off more moderate and professional than Donald). We are heading into another 2020.

Trump is electrifying the Dem's like never before. Michelle Obama is saying they have to run a white, straight man to win and they should do it. If the Obama's are moving to the middle, they are serious. Right now we are seeing the opening salvos in the Gerrymandering and State Legislatures. Most States don't have a DeSantis that keeps it together for the GOP AND is willing to stand up to DC bringing some moderates over (drilling in the Gulf).

You are 100% correct in the rush to get the agenda out and going. I get it and feel it. The foreign policy is what doesn't make sense, there is more to it than we know. Seriously, I would not be surprised if Putin and Bibi have something on the Trumps (maybe not Donald, but Donald Jr seems the type). His actions don't add up based on past actions and his self stated believes.


Side note. I think Trump believed Mattis would act like Hegseth based on him "Mad Dog" nickname. He was disappointed to get a cerebral Marine, not George C Scott as Patton. Just a one off.

This, basically everywhere https://t.co/MbACPWUPlc pic.twitter.com/y4mYXqqXA6

— Seed Oil Disrespecter™️ (@SeedOilDsrspctr) April 24, 2026

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Come on, you are smarter than that.
LOL no, I'm just smarter than you. (you did serve up a hanging curve....)

We are talking elections and polling. How logical is the typical person? How many follow this stuff enough to know the difference? How many care?
That's the presumption of the news polling....that the typical person is not logical and does not follow politics much at all. That's why the skewed polling has effect.

Form matters when you are an elected official. All the way back to Kennedy winning a debate on looks he really lost on substance. Clinton beating a better candidate in Bush on charm. Reagan? The great communicator? All used form to overrule function.
Ok. let's run with that. Trump has been incredibly successful, not just in winning elections but in policy achievements. Ergo his "form" cannot be as bad you insist.

You know better. You are pissed because you know you are right on substance and Trumps form is going to blow it. I am pissed because there is no one keeping Trump on the rails just feeding his self destructive mannerisms
LOL. He's going to cram thru as much of his agenda as he can while he has power to do so. It's his most redeeming quality.

---

The premise of your worldview here is that centrism is inherently morally superior and that one should eschew excessive partisanship, to the point that one should not push one's agenda too quickly so as not to incite resistance that would require defense, ultimately inflaming voters in ways that might motivate them to vote against you next election.

Problem is.....that is a prescription to accomplish nothing. it is most certainly NOT how Democrats govern. They have power, they cram thru Obamacare, Green New Deal, etc.....incredibly harmful policies which cost them elections. They know that GOP'ers like you will come in and assume the burden of fixing things. Dems can be counted up on to obstruct every fix, making you spend your political capital to do so (i.e. make your opponent spend all this time/effort undoing what you did rather than enacting their own agenda). And of course once you've touched it....you own it. Dems will completely absolve themselves of having any agency in the mess at all. Upshot of it all: they get what they want, and we make it work. And the reality of mid-term elections supersedes all that - the party holding the WH almost always loses anyway. So why the hell not just enact your agenda come hell or high water? If your going to probably lose the next election anyway, why not go ahead and cram your agenda thru while you can?

Trump understands that.
You don't.

---

I am glad to see you can still hit a hanging curve...

You are mistaking form and function. All those achievements, are function. Yet, because of his behavior, his bullying behavior and self-promoting he is not liked outside of his shrinking base.

Once again, we are talking elections not actual production. Elections in the US are won by the Independents, not the base. He has his base, no doubt. Just like the Dems have their base, which is traditionally larger. The Independents will be the make or break. His behavior in his first term cost him and he was well behaved as Kelly had him on a leash. This term he is off the rails, I venture most of the Independents don't want a US that is a bully and more in line with Putin. (I was going to say Xi, but he comes off more moderate and professional than Donald). We are heading into another 2020.

Trump is electrifying the Dem's like never before. Michelle Obama is saying they have to run a white, straight man to win and they should do it. If the Obama's are moving to the middle, they are serious. Right now we are seeing the opening salvos in the Gerrymandering and State Legislatures. Most States don't have a DeSantis that keeps it together for the GOP AND is willing to stand up to DC bringing some moderates over (drilling in the Gulf).

You are 100% correct in the rush to get the agenda out and going. I get it and feel it. The foreign policy is what doesn't make sense, there is more to it than we know. Seriously, I would not be surprised if Putin and Bibi have something on the Trumps (maybe not Donald, but Donald Jr seems the type). His actions don't add up based on past actions and his self stated believes.


Side note. I think Trump believed Mattis would act like Hegseth based on him "Mad Dog" nickname. He was disappointed to get a cerebral Marine, not George C Scott as Patton. Just a one off.

---

lol

why didn't Reagan get Nato members to honor their 2% commitment? (He did poke them hard. I saw it).
why didn't Bush 41 get Nato member to honor their 2% commitment? (He did poke them hard. I saw it).
why didn't Clinton get Nato members to honor their 2% commitment?
why didn't Bush 43 get Nato member to honor their 2% commitment?
Why didn't Obama get Natio members to honor their 2% commitment?
(you can insert Iran and North Korea and a not-short list of other stuff in place of the Nato 2% issue).

Why is it that Trump got all this stuff done?
How did the big bad self-defeating meanie Trump fix the Panama Canal?
How did the big bad self-defeating meanie Trump fix our relations with Venezuela?
We will be able to add Iran to this list in a week or three.
And it all isolates China.
We now have our fingers around the throat of China's oil supply routes.

We have won the battle for Taiwan before it started.
Just like Sun Tzu recommended.

neverTrumpism has rotted your brain, friend. That stuff you hate is why Trump has been successful.

There is a lot of short term proclamations.

You really think the status quo is the way it will always be.

I have no issues with the China moves. Alienating Europe is where I have an issue. When we got hit in 911, they were there. One thing to guilt them into paying more. Other thing to threaten and alienating when the other option is China. There seems to be no thought out plan here no matter how much 3D chess you say Trump is playing.

The future is being integrated, not being a one off.

The Current Economic Conditions Index is the worst it’s ever been in 75 years 😳

This UMich Index measures how U.S. households perceive their present financial situation and the economy pic.twitter.com/W1uozM0dHO

— Amy Nixon (@texasrunnerDFW) April 25, 2026