Take all these polls with a big grain of salt. Quinnipiac poll a few weeks before the election had

[WVPATX]

Hillary up by 7. So much depends on the methodology of the poll, the working of the questions, the mix of the respondents, etc.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2390

 

[op2]

Hillary up by 7. So much depends on the methodology of the poll, the working of the questions, the mix of the respondents, etc.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2390

Here are the polls on or before election day. They're mostly accurate to within a few points. The Trump approval polls have been fairly consistent so while I wouldn't say any single on is completely accurate it's safe to say his approval is around 40% right now. Not that it really matters since it's a marathon not a sprint. I think in the long term what might work for Trump is people are going to get protest fatigue. If people keep protesting (and protestors are the minority of people) the masses may get tired of it, especially if the country is doing okay in the meantime.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/#!

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Hillary up by 7. So much depends on the methodology of the poll, the working of the questions, the mix of the respondents, etc.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2390

Most polls had her up large a few weeks out. The FBI letter distracted the Clinton camp, Trump closed and won the EC. It's a pretty silly argument, the polls were accurate AND Trump won. It's that simple.

 

[WVPATX]

Most polls had her up large a few weeks out. The FBI letter distracted the Clinton camp, Trump closed and won the EC. It's a pretty silly argument, the polls were accurate AND Trump won. It's that simple.

Based on the Real Clear Politics summary, the polls were not accurate. IBDD, Trafalgar, and LA Times were accurate (LA Times used a brand new methodology). Take those out and Hillary wins almost all the others.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

One thing I noticed this that Trump's twitter feed this week is more sane sounding than it has been. Think someone finally got to him and toned it down?

 

[WVPATX]

One thing I noticed this that Trump's twitter feed this week is more sane sounding than it has been. Think someone finally got to him and toned it down?

God, I hope so. Stick to policy. But his thin skin, narcissism and lack of self control will soon rear its ugly head again.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Based on the Real Clear Politics summary, the polls were not accurate. IBDD, Trafalgar, and LA Times were accurate (LA Times used a brand new methodology). Take those out and Hillary wins almost all the others.

LA Times had Trump +3. Hillary won by around 2. They missed. The polls were accurate

 

[WVUCOOPER]

One thing I noticed this that Trump's twitter feed this week is more sane sounding than it has been. Think someone finally got to him and toned it down?

I think they hired a very good comms director last week.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

God, I hope so. Stick to policy. But his thin skin, narcissism and lack of self control will soon rear its ugly head again.

I hope not. I kind of like it when there are no ridiculous statements. It actually makes it easier to focus on what he puts forth on policy changes when you don't have to sift through the noise he creates himself.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I think they hired a very good comms director last week.

Yep, could be he is having a very positive influence.

 

[WVPATX]

LA Times had Trump +3. Hillary won by around 2. They missed. The polls were accurate

LA Times had Trump +3. Hillary won by around 2. They missed. The polls were accurate

Take out NY and CAL and Trump wins big. By 4 points, I believe. Also, look at the swing state polls. Again, Trafalgar was pretty accurate. The rest were not. That's why the NY Times gave Hillary a 85% chance of winning.

 

[atlkvb]

God, I hope so. Stick to policy. But his thin skin, narcissism and lack of self control will soon rear its ugly head again.

He will come to realize (if he hasn't already) that the only thing he needs to worry about is doing what he was hired to do. Fix the economic environment, so good paying jobs can be created by the private sector.

Once that happens, and as long as he keeps the country safe, he won't need to worry about the whining & yapping from the ankle biters on the Left.

 

[WVPATX]

He will come to realize (if he hasn't already) that the only thing he needs to worry about is doing what he was hired to do. Fix the economic environment, so good paying jobs can be created by the private sector.

Once that happens, and as long as he keeps the country safe, he won't need to worry about the whining & yapping from the ankle biters on the Left.

I agree. Just do what you promised.

 

[atlkvb]

I agree. Just do what you promised.

A growing economy will make any and all arguments against Trump mute. No one will have legitimate complaints if economic growth is exceeding 3.5%, jobs are plentiful, wages are rising, economic activity is increasing, and Federal debt is shrinking.

He needs to stay focused on that, forget all the rest of the noise and be judged on his results. Unlike the Left which only considers good "intentions" ...results be damned.

 

[op2]

"No one will have legitimate complaints if economic growth is exceeding 3.5%, jobs are plentiful, wages are rising, economic activity is increasing, and Federal debt is shrinking."

As disliked as Trump is overall, I agree with the above. But what you wrote is very difficult to achieve.

Basically you're saying "If Trump does an absolutely fantastic job on the economy his other shortcomings will be overlooked." I agree but doing an absolutely fantastic job on the economy is pretty hard.

 

[WVPATX]

"No one will have legitimate complaints if economic growth is exceeding 3.5%, jobs are plentiful, wages are rising, economic activity is increasing, and Federal debt is shrinking."

As disliked as Trump is overall, I agree with the above. But what you wrote is very difficult to achieve.

Basically you're saying "If Trump does an absolutely fantastic job on the economy his other shortcomings will be overlooked." I agree but doing an absolutely fantastic job on the economy is pretty hard.

Very hard. We have not achieved 3.5% GDP growth since the 90's. Post recession in 1982, Reagan achieved 4.9% GDP growth over this remaining term that ended in 1989.

We have been told slow growth is the new normal. I hope the economists that believe this are wrong.

 

[atlkvb]

"No one will have legitimate complaints if economic growth is exceeding 3.5%, jobs are plentiful, wages are rising, economic activity is increasing, and Federal debt is shrinking."

As disliked as Trump is overall, I agree with the above. But what you wrote is very difficult to achieve.

Basically you're saying "If Trump does an absolutely fantastic job on the economy his other shortcomings will be overlooked." I agree but doing an absolutely fantastic job on the economy is pretty hard.

I'd agree with your statement highlighted too Op2. However do you know how infrequently we've given the private sector a chance to perform? We essentially live under the edicts of Leviathan.

They act as if all that money they collect belongs to them. But targeted tax cuts expand economic growth, increase revenues and as long as Washington doesn't spend the extra money and instead uses it to pay down debt are more than stimulative...they are restorative.

The problem as I said will come from the battle against the bureaucracy that exists to grow itself instead of the private sector. Politicians get off on spending money, and wielding power. This is Trump's challenge for leadership. To get around those Dudes, and win the people to his vision of economic growth without the heavy hand of income redistribution from Leviathan.

Can he do it? I think so because the people are behind him. You're right it won't be easy for him and if he fails he can kiss his re-election goodbye.

 

[atlkvb]

Very hard. We have not achieved 3.5% GDP growth since the 90's. Post recession in 1982, Reagan achieved 4.9% GDP growth over this remaining term that ended in 1989.

We have been told slow growth is the new normal. I hope the economists that believe this are wrong.

PAX this honestly is our last chance. If we can't do it (and I really see no reason why we can't) our economy is going to tank because of the huge bubble that's going to pop if we're not generating enough revenue to pay off this massive debt. (20+ trillion)

This economy is ready to explode--but it can go either way. The private sector can explode with a new rush of capital and job creation, or the Federal debt could explode from crushing deficit spending and costs associated with entitlement spending and unfunded mandates.

We need courage and leadership to manage which explosion we shall see, but we're on a powder keg that's going to blow one way or the other.

Trump has a huge job to manage which boom we get.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

PAX this honestly is our last chance.

What if over the next four years the economy tanks, but after a new socialist-mind administration takes office a US company develops a new technology immediate worldwide application requiring the hiring of hundreds of thousands of Americans?

 

[atlkvb]

What if over the next four years the economy tanks, but after a new socialist-mind administration takes office a US company develops a new technology immediate worldwide application requiring the hiring of hundreds of thousands of Americans?

What if we find African Wildebeasts wondering around on the Moon?

WVU82 has this ongoing thread about a Constitutional convention among the States. That's the next step if Trump fails. It might even happen despite him.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

What if we find African Wildebeasts wondering around on the Moon?

WVU82 has this ongoing thread about a Constitutional convention among the States. That's the next step if Trump fails. It might even happen despite him.

Never heard of wildebeest on the moon, but I pretty much described the 90’s. As a conservative you should know economic booms are more the result of new technologies than governmental tinkering.

 

[atlkvb]

Never heard of wildebeest on the moon, but I pretty much described the 90’s. As a conservative you should know economic booms are more the result of new technologies than governmental tinkering.

Agreed, and I posted I see no reason why we can't get back to 3.5% or even 4% or more growth. We have the capacity as well as the technology to sustain that, but Americans have to be left free to keep what they generate and earn from it.

Enter Mr. Trump.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

Agreed, and I posted I see no reason why we can't get back to 3.5% or even 4% or more growth. We have the capacity as well as the technology to sustain that, but Americans have to be left free to keep what they generate and earn from it.

Enter Mr. Trump.

Unless Mr. Trump invents something we won’t see a huge boon. He can certainly bring improvements, but not a boon.

 

[WVPATX]

What if over the next four years the economy tanks, but after a new socialist-mind administration takes office a US company develops a new technology immediate worldwide application requiring the hiring of hundreds of thousands of Americans?

Hundreds of thousands gets us nowhere near 3.5% GDP growth and more importantly, socialist policies will erode growth, not generate it.

 

[WVPATX]

Unless Mr. Trump invents something we won’t see a huge boon. He can certainly bring improvements, but not a boon.

I disagree. There was no unnatural or one time technological boom under Reagan and after 1982, he generated 4.9% GDP growth. Clinton did benefit from the .com bubble. I think lower taxes, lower regulations, a very positive business environment including repatriation of overseas profits, an explosion of growth in energy, etc. can get us to that level of growth.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

Hundreds of thousands gets us nowhere near 3.5% GDP growth and more importantly, socialist policies will erode growth, not generate it.

That’s hundreds of thousands in one industry. Supporting industries hire hundreds of thousands more.

Clinton admin. was more socialist and had a much hire tax rate than the Bush admin. Yet the 90’s were far better economically than the 2000’s. How’d that happen?

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

I disagree. There was no unnatural or one time technological boom under Reagan and after 1982, he generated 4.9% GDP growth. Clinton did benefit from the .com bubble. I think lower taxes, lower regulations, a very positive business environment including repatriation of overseas profits, an explosion of growth in energy, etc. can get us to that level of growth.

As I said governments can have a some effect. However, Trump won’t have the opportunity to take the top personal income tax rate down from 70% to 28%.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

That’s hundreds of thousands in one industry. Supporting industries hire hundreds of thousands more.

Clinton admin. was more socialist and had a much hire tax rate than the Bush admin. Yet the 90’s were far better economically than the 2000’s. How’d that happen?

Al Gore

 

[WVPATX]

That’s hundreds of thousands in one industry. Supporting industries hire hundreds of thousands more.

Clinton admin. was more socialist and had a much hire tax rate than the Bush admin. Yet the 90’s were far better economically than the 2000’s. How’d that happen?

How did the Reagan administration generate 4.9% GDP growth from 1982 to 1989? Clinton had the .com bubble. He also benefitted greatly from the peace dividend. Clinton raised income taxes to today's level of 39.6% (which he later claimed was too high).

"Second, Messrs. Carville and Greenberg are contradicted by their former boss. Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."

He signed the GOP welfare reform act putting many more people back to work and paying taxes. He along with the GOP balanced the budget. He lowered capital gains tax rate from 30% to just 21% which greatly improved capital formation. He increased the estate tax exemption. Annual growth in government spending was kept below 3% based on his agreement with Newt. And a strong dollar policy kept inflation at just 2.4%. All stimulative.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

How did the Reagan administration generate 4.9% GDP growth from 1982 to 1989? Clinton had the .com bubble. He also benefitted greatly from the peace dividend. Clinton raised income taxes to today's level of 39.6% (which he later claimed was too high).

"Second, Messrs. Carville and Greenberg are contradicted by their former boss. Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."

He signed the GOP welfare reform act putting many more people back to work and paying taxes. He along with the GOP balanced the budget. He lowered capital gains tax rate from 30% to just 21% which greatly improved capital formation. He increased the estate tax exemption. Annual growth in government spending was kept below 3% based on his agreement with Newt. And a strong dollar policy kept inflation at just 2.4%. All stimulative.

Then how did Bush lower taxes, send money from the Treasury back to the people, and still manage to tank the economy.

 

[WVPATX]

As I said governments can have a some effect. However, Trump won’t have the opportunity to take the top personal income tax rate down from 70% to 28%.

Clinton achieved growth during his second term in excess of 3.5% even with very bad tax policy on individuals and corporations. We had no energy boom under Clinton. I think you are drastically underestimating the potential boom we can have in energy. We have the world's largest reserves of oil, gas and coal. Huge export opportunities as well as domestic use. Lots of high paying jobs. Much lower corporate taxes helping greatly to fuel growth.

 

[op2]

Clinton achieved growth during his second term in excess of 3.5% even with very bad tax policy on individuals and corporations. We had no energy boom under Clinton. I think you are drastically underestimating the potential boom we can have in energy. We have the world's largest reserves of oil, gas and coal. Huge export opportunities as well as domestic use. Lots of high paying jobs. Much lower corporate taxes helping greatly to fuel growth.

But relying more on oil and coal increase global warming and push the costs to pay for it into the future?

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

Clinton achieved growth during his second term in excess of 3.5% even with very bad tax policy on individuals and corporations. We had no energy boom under Clinton. I think you are drastically underestimating the potential boom we can have in energy. We have the world's largest reserves of oil, gas and coal. Huge export opportunities as well as domestic use. Lots of high paying jobs. Much lower corporate taxes helping greatly to fuel growth.

Primary industries are highly competitive. The US may have more than other countries, but not more than all other countries. Many other countries have full access to their natural resources and will make it difficult for the US to dominate. Historically, economic boons follow revolutionary events--industrialization, new discoveries, new technologies. True, successive administrations increased the tax rate to an incredible 70% top tax rate which Reagan cut to 28%. That had the effect of a new technology because it introduced so much cash into the economy. But that’s not available to Trump. He can certainly improve the economy.

You mention Clinton cut welfare. Remember, Reagan increase welfare, Medicaid, and other social spending by billions.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

But relying more on oil and coal increase global warming and push the costs to pay for it into the future?

Prove it.

 

[WVPATX]

Then how did Bush lower taxes, send money from the Treasury back to the people, and still manage to tank the economy.

First of all, don't fall for this canard that Bush caused the 2008 crash. There were an enormous number of hands on that wheel, both public and private. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton as the .com bubble burst. We then had something I refer to as 9/11. The Bush economy was not great but not the disaster that libs claim.

Bush GDP by year:

2001 (recession inherited by Clinton) - 0.21%
2002 - 2.1%
2003 - 4.4%
2004 - 3.12%
2005 - 3,1%
2006 - 2.4%
2007 - 1.9%
2008 - -2.77% (Financial crisis

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

 

[op2]

First of all, don't fall for this canard that Bush caused the 2008 crash. There were an enormous number of hands on that wheel, both public and private. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton as the .com bubble burst. We then had something I refer to as 9/11. The Bush economy was not great but not the disaster that libs claim.

Bush GDP by year:

2001 (recession inherited by Clinton) - 0.21%
2002 - 2.1%
2003 - 4.4%
2004 - 3.12%
2005 - 3,1%
2006 - 2.4%
2007 - 1.9%
2008 - -2.77% (Financial crisis

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

So the bust of 2008 wasn't W's fault but the boom in the mid to late 1980s was all to Reagan's credit? Gotcha.

Also, you act like 9/11 and whatever reaction we had to it were acts of God. 9/11 happened because we didn't stop it (W admin was in power at the time) and whatever happened after it was a function of our response.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

9/11 happened because we didn't stop it (W admin was in power at the time).

That’s possibly the least tenable assertion you’ve ever made on this boards, and you’ve made some doozies. Are you suggesting the Bush administration had convincing evidence before September 11, 2001, that on that day terrorists would hijack planes and use them as missiles?

 

[WVPATX]

Primary industries are highly competitive. The US may have more than other countries, but not more than all other countries. Many other countries have full access to their natural resources and will make it difficult for the US to dominate. Historically, economic boons follow revolutionary events--industrialization, new discoveries, new technologies. True, successive administrations increased the tax rate to an incredible 70% top tax rate which Reagan cut to 28%. That had the effect of a new technology because it introduced so much cash into the economy. But that’s not available to Trump. He can certainly improve the economy.

You mention Clinton cut welfare. Remember, Reagan increase welfare, Medicaid, and other social spending by billions.

A couple of points. First Reagan wanted a massive military build-up. Tip O'Neill did not. They compromised. Reagan got his money for the military and Tip got his for social programs. Revenues to the treasure more than doubled under Reagan but unfortunately government spending outpaced even that amazing growth. The good news is that our build-up helped bring down the Soviet Union and paved the way for Clinton's peace dividend.

Secondly, let me give you an example an of enormous growth opportunity. Europe is almost solely dependent on Russia for natural gas. Other parts of the world have no natural gas. We have an extraordinary opportunity to export LNG to Europe (providing a second source of a crucial fuel) and to the Middle East, South America, Asia and even sub-saharan Africa. Demand could become enormous helping to lift some of these countries out of poverty. We also have a great growth opportunity to rebuild our semi fleet to burn nat gas. Opportunities abound with the right entrepreneurial spirit and a government promoting business.

 

[op2]

That’s possibly the least tenable assertion you’ve ever made on this boards, and you’ve made some doozies. Are you suggesting the Bush administration had convincing evidence before September 11, 2001, that on that day terrorists would hijack planes and use them as missiles?

When the enemy successfully attacks us then that's kinda on the Commander In Chief.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

Secondly, let me give you an example an of enormous growth opportunity. Europe is almost solely dependent on Russia for natural gas. Other parts of the world have no natural gas. We have an extraordinary opportunity to export LNG to Europe (providing a second source of a crucial fuel) and to the Middle East, South America, Asia and even sub-saharan Africa. Demand could become enormous helping to lift some of these countries out of poverty. We also have a great growth opportunity to rebuild our semi fleet to burn nat gas. Opportunities abound with the right entrepreneurial spirit and a government promoting business.

We’ll see.