Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, November 30, 2019

The orderly subdivisions and kid-friendly communities that ring the nation's cities have become a deathtrap for Republicans, as college-educated and upper-income women flee the party in droves, costing the GOP its House majority and sapping the party's strength in state capitals and local governments nationwide.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

forcing Trump to redouble efforts to boost rural turnout to offset defectors who, some fear, may never vote Republican so long as the president is on the ballot.

Posted by reinheitsgebot at 04:57 AM | 0 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

The problem with this being there are only a limited number of people living in rural areas because, well, it's in the country.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-30 08:12 AM | Reply

Next on Fox, computer generated Trump rally crowd generates excitement!

#2 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-11-30 07:35 PM | Reply

Here's how suburban moms will be turned against Trump:
-constant visual reminders Trump put kids in cages
-copies of Trumps foul tweets about any female
-reminders of the misogynistic comments made by Trump judges
-in certain markets, the reminders about how Trumps administration and judges are bent on the criminalization of abortion and the subordination of the female gender
-Michelle Obama on the campaign trail

Beating Trump will not be easy, but it can be done...

#3 | Posted by catdog at 2019-11-30 09:14 PM | Reply

-Michelle Obama on the campaign trail

This is Mackris's second goto for the election, Beto/Harris didn't pan out ... but Michelle she's a definitive given this lackluster cluster clown car.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-30 09:41 PM | Reply

but Michelle she's a definitive given this lackluster cluster clown car.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris

You're a Trump cultist.

You define lackluster.

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-30 11:15 PM | Reply

"If you had any doubt that Trump was a human repellent spray for suburban voters who have a conservative disposition, Republicans getting wiped out in the suburbs of New Orleans, Louisville and Lexington should remove it," said Tim Miller, a Republican strategist and outspoken critic of the president.

www.nytimes.com

The deplorables love to bask in the stench of the putrid orange jizzfart.

#6 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-12-01 12:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Michelle she's a definitive given this lackluster cluster clown car.

#4 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

We should be so lucky!

You can tell when the Trumpets are afraid. They lash out and insult people ravenously.

You know she would make a great president. And that though alone scares you to half to death!

You Poor dear!

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-01 01:38 PM | Reply

The people that write these articles must have gnat like brains incapable of remembering any history more than 2 years prior. What nearly always happens in the party in power, when they control all 3 branches, will lose 1 of those branches in the midterm elections because voters are forced to admit that government is incapable of doing anything even when they have majorities in all three branches. Happened to Obama, Happened to W Bush, Happened to Clinton.

But, because Trump's also had this happen (despite it being to a lesser degree) - it is the sign of some voter apocalypse. No, it was well within historical trends. Trump's popularity has stayed constant and his hardcore supporters are even more hardcore now - with a big section of those voters cross over democrats that will NEVER vote democrat again. Included among those are the black voters in the Emerson and Rasmussen polls showing support for Trump at 30%+.

#8 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 01:22 AM | Reply

"Included among those are the black voters in the Emerson and Rasmussen polls showing support for Trump at 30%+. "

Do you have a link to that Emerson poll?

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 01:52 AM | Reply

"Do you have a link to that Emerson poll?"

I ask because I found the claim, but the poll it linked to didn't back up that claim at all.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 02:06 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

costing the GOP its House majority and sapping the party's strength in state capitals and local governments nationwide.

This must be a phenomenon that has taken hold only in the last 2.5 years. During 8 years of Obama Republicans picked up roughly 1000 House/Senate seats, state and local seats and governor's mansions.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-02 08:57 AM | Reply

"the Emerson and Rasmussen polls showing support for Trump at 30%+"

Link, please, to the Emerson poll. It looks like you fell for a con.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 01:50 PM | Reply

The Emerson poll is an outlier....

drudge.com

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-02 01:55 PM | Reply

"This must be a phenomenon that has taken hold only in the last 2.5 years. During 8 years of Obama Republicans picked up roughly 1000 House/Senate seats, state and local seats and governor's mansions."

From Pew, regarding the 2018 midterms:
In at least seven states, Democratic governors succeed Republicans. And the party flipped at least 350 state legislative seats from red to blue. During the eight-year Obama administration, the Democrats lost nearly 900 state legislative seats

This was before the special elections in the meantime, where Dems won in places like KY, LA, and VA.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 01:55 PM | Reply

"The Emerson poll is an outlier...."

Worse, the Emerson poll is nonexistent. The claim remains, but the link to the poll shows no such numbers.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 01:56 PM | Reply

"Worse, the Emerson poll is nonexistent. The claim remains, but the link to the poll shows no such numbers.
#15 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Once again, it is because you are too lazy and or stupid to read the source materials. In the case of the Emerson poll, the link to the highlights
also has a download link for the full results in the right hand column.

The 34.5% is clearly shown in the excel file.

So let us know, is it that you are stupid or lazy that you continue to make these ridiculous claims? You always want to be spoon fed the information and wail like a child with a spoiled diaper when people don't give in. Sorry, not playing the linking game for you. You can go dig through the results file yourself and see EXACTLY what has been reported is accurate - I did, not too hard to find. So, I suspect you will switch to whining about it being an outlier again as it shows my prediction of Trump getting 20%+ of the black vote is a low estimate.

#16 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 08:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"the link to the highlights. also has a download link for the full results in the right hand column."

What link? You've proffered none. I've asked several times.

"The 34.5% is clearly shown in the excel file."

Link, please.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 08:46 PM | Reply

"Sorry, not playing the linking game for you."

You don't get how these inter-tubes work, do you? When YOU make the claim, the responsibility to provide the proof is YOURS.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 08:47 PM | Reply

"You don't get how these inter-tubes work, do you? When YOU make the claim, the responsibility to provide the proof is YOURS.
#18 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

You don't understand how arguments work. The 34.5% stat is stated in multiple articles. The raw data is available exactly as I stated. The 34.5% stat is 100% validated as I stated I have looked at the data myself. Yet you - too lazy and/or dumb to look at the source material wail like a child with a dirty diaper because someone is unwilling to spoon feed you the exact link to the data you question.

So Douchefroth - you think the entire world is lying in some vast, rightwing conspiracy about the results of a survey where they invite you to look at the source data yourself as a bluff or, could it maybe, possibly be that you are just too damn dumb to understand how to read source materials yourself before calling other people liars? I am curious given this seems to be a pattern for you.

#19 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 09:01 PM | Reply

"The 34.5% stat is stated in multiple articles. "

I found one, but the poll it linked to didn't back the claim.

"You don't understand how arguments work."

I do on the internet. If you make a claim, and are asked for a link, it's up to you to provide the link. It would certainly be less labor intensive than posting two paragraphs on why you can't/won't back you claim with proof.

"The 34.5% stat is 100% validated"

Then posting a link should be easy.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 09:04 PM | Reply

" you are just too damn dumb to understand how to read source materials yourself before calling other people liars?"

I won't call you a liar until you post again without a link.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 09:05 PM | Reply

"I found one, but the poll it linked to didn't back the claim.
#20 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Did that article link to the actual Emerson press release on the poll? I would bet dollars to donuts it did as that is how I verified the claim. From the press release, you can get the link the source data. In the source data, the claim is validated - just as I and the articles state.

So, at which point did you throw your hands in the air and state that the 34.5% number we fake? When you were asked to click a link? When you were asked to download the source data? When you needed to actually read the source data?

I really want to know how far you made it in the process before your stupidity and/or laziness kicked in.

#22 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 09:10 PM | Reply

"Did that article link to the actual Emerson press release on the poll? "

It "reported" the 34.5% number, and then the words this poll was linked.

I clicked the link, and there was no proof.

I'm sure you're eager to correct me, in some other way than simple repetition of your claim. Do you have a link, or not?

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 09:21 PM | Reply

"So, at which point did you throw your hands in the air and state that the 34.5% number we fake? "

When you refused to provide a simple link. As you'll see if you page up, I requested a link multiple times, before ever suggesting it might not exist.

Again...do you have the link, or not?

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 09:23 PM | Reply

"I clicked the link, and there was no proof.
#23 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
...........
Again...do you have the link, or not?
#24 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Yes, of course I have a link - but I am not going to give it to you because that will just encourage more of your wailing, whining behavior. As a compromise, I will tell you exactly how to get the data so you will know for next time.

Here is the link to the Emerson press release
emersonpolling.reportablenews.com

On the righthand side under "Files - Full Result", there is a link to the source data.

In the source data file, under the Tables Tab, go to cell T85 and there is your validation.

Now, let's see if you have the ability to actually perform the steps as stated. Hopefully you can so you can do it for yourself in the future. In this one, I am not even telling you to read the source data - you just need to access it.

So, how dumb/lazy are you? Let me know if you can find the cell or not.

#25 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 09:35 PM | Reply

"#24 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

No response? Looks like baby had his diapers changed.

#26 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 09:47 PM | Reply

"On the righthand side under "Files - Full Result""

I downloaded and opened it.

"In the source data file, under the Tables Tab, go to cell T85 and there is your validation."

In the Excel source data file from that link, entitled "ECP_National_November2019", cell T85 is blank. Also, "Black" and "African American" only appear once, in cell B145, regarding ethnicity of respondents.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 09:51 PM | Reply

"27 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Did you switch to the tables tab? You want people to believe you are an accountant when you can't use excel?

#28 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 09:54 PM | Reply

"Did you switch to the tables tab?'

I did; thanks for that.

You were right.

It's still an outlier poll, but you were correct, and I was wrong.

Thanks for providing the link.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 09:59 PM | Reply

Important to note:

The data was weighted based on 2016 voter model of age, mode, party registration, ethnicity, and region. It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age, party breakdown, ethnicity and region carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced.

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-02 11:36 PM | Reply

#30 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Like I said, you need to start whining that it is not representative as the data is exactly as stated - you are a good little DNC talking point minion.

#31 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 11:40 PM | Reply

"Thanks for providing the link.
#29 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

I am glad I could be of assistance in teaching you how to access source data. You will find it helpful in life.

#32 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 11:41 PM | Reply

I'm glad you learned if you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide a link if requested. You will find it helpful in life...and on the internet.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 11:46 PM | Reply

"Like I said, you need to start whining that it is not representative as the data is exactly as stated - you are a good little DNC talking point minion."

That is a direct quote from the poll. Scroll down to the end of the article:

Caller ID

The National Emerson College poll was conducted November 17-20, 2019 under the Supervision of Assistant Professor Spencer Kimball. The sample consisted of registered voters, n=1,092, with a Credibility Interval (CI) similar to a poll's margin of error (MOE) of +/- 2.9 percentage points. The data was weighted based on 2016 voter model of age, mode, party registration, ethnicity, and region. It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age, party breakdown, ethnicity and region carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced. Data was collected using both an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only (n=713) and an online panel provided by Amazon Turk (n=379).

#34 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-02 11:50 PM | Reply

"I'm glad you learned if you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide a link if requested
#33 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

It is a one time thing. The purpose in teaching a man to fish is so that they can provide for themselves in the future.

#35 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 11:53 PM | Reply

"#34 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

Yeah, that is called statistics. Your whine is legitimate when n is less than 30. Until then, it is just whining.

#36 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-02 11:55 PM | Reply

"Your whine"

You must be projecting. I said "It is important to note" and then quoted from the poll:

"It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age, party breakdown, ethnicity and region carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced."

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-03 12:01 AM | Reply

"The purpose in teaching a man to fish is so that they can provide for themselves in the future."

I hope you've learned not to make a claim unless you're ready to provide proof. Certainly an improvement over the last time.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:56 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort