Presidential power

[idhawkman]

More bad news for you I-5. Tell me how this CNN poll is fake news by a Trump sympathizer.

I only post the polls because so many in here have quoted them. I don't trust them as I feel that as the last election showed, they are skewed against Trump. "IF" more of them were accurate during the last election, I might have more faith in them. Now, I just have to add 10% to Trump's numbers to get close to reality.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/politics/cnn-poll-trump-prediction-economy-issues/index.html

[burrrton]

Even Clinton AFTER he was impeached had a 73% approval rating

This is of course true, but your phrasing is odd- the impeachment proceedings *increased* his popularity (due to sympathy, or subconscious acknowledgment removing a sitting POTUS would be bad, or something like that iirc).

[burrrton]

"IF" more of them were accurate during the last election, I might have more faith in them.

National polling was pretty much spot-on, ID. It was the predictions (and confidence in those predictions) based on that polling that were wildly hyperbolic.

[I-5]

Uh oh, its now at 50% approve and 49% disapprove. Enjoy it while you can.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

Still fake news...

In 2018, Rassmussen Reports predicted that Republicans would win the generic ballot by 1 percentage point while the actual election results had Democrats winning by near 9 percentage points. The nearly 10 percentage point error was the largest polling error out of major firms who polled the national generic ballot. Traditionally, such a wide error in polling would lead to a major rethink of methodology, but Rasmussen pushed back against critics after their widely derided miss, falsely claiming that "that the midterm result was relatively poor for Democrats compared to other midterms" - despite the fact that the Democrats scored a historic margin in the popular vote victory. Ultimately, Rasmussen has made no effort since the 2018 midterms to fix their demonstrably flawed polling methodology

I'm sure it's a coincidence that Rasmussen is 45's favorite poll....

Btw, I think Burrrton is totally right about the effect of impeachment raising Clinton's approval rating. It's the sympathy effect. That's why I agree with Pelosi about not wanting Trump to be impeached, but instead put him in prison after he's out of the White House.

[RiverDog]

"IF" more of them were accurate during the last election, I might have more faith in them.

National polling was pretty much spot-on, ID. It was the predictions (and confidence in those predictions) based on that polling that were wildly hyperbolic.

You can eliminate the "pretty much". The national polls nailed it. They were calling for Clinton to win by a small margin and that's exactly what she won by, albeit it the popular vote. Where many of the pundits in the media blew it was on these "chances of winning" percentages, where some had established an 85% or so chance of HRC winning the election. I'd still like to see the math on how they arrived at such high percentages knowing that the national polling was within the margin of error and that the electoral college was a different monster.

I'm also not sure why ldahawkman, who has roundly criticized polling accuracy when it shows his guy with bad numbers, is now turning handsprings because one or two polls show that DJT's popularity has risen slightly. Here's a link from RCP, which uses a composite from a number of polls and is arguably more accurate than any one poll as it utilizes the information gathered from all the polls:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html

As the graph shows, one of the odd things about Trump's presidency is that his job approval/disapproval numbers have remained relatively flat, hovering between the high 30's/mid 40's. It would seem that people have already formed their opinions about him and there's little that can be done one to sway them one way or another.

Unlike Idahawk, I don't see much of a change.

[idhawkman]

"IF" more of them were accurate during the last election, I might have more faith in them.

National polling was pretty much spot-on, ID. It was the predictions (and confidence in those predictions) based on that polling that were wildly hyperbolic.

What you say is true but they were wildly off unitl about a week before the election. Personally, I think they were skewing the polls trying to demoralize the Trump support but had to report the actual number when it got close so that they didn't lose more credibility than they'd already lost.

[idhawkman]

You can eliminate the "pretty much". The national polls nailed it. They were calling for Clinton to win by a small margin and that's exactly what she won by, albeit it the popular vote. Where many of the pundits in the media blew it was on these "chances of winning" percentages, where some had established an 85% or so chance of HRC winning the election. I'd still like to see the math on how they arrived at such high percentages knowing that the national polling was within the margin of error and that the electoral college was a different monster.

Here's a link that might help explain that for you. It seems that Hilliary's electoral polls were skewed but Trumps were never skewed in his favor. Shows a complete bias toward the Dem party.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

[/quote]I'm also not sure why ldahawkman, who has roundly criticized polling accuracy when it shows his guy with bad numbers, is now turning handsprings because one or two polls show that DJT's popularity has risen slightly. Here's a link from RCP, which uses a composite from a number of polls and is arguably more accurate than any one poll as it utilizes the information gathered from all the polls:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html[/quote]
If you read my post you will know why.

As the graph shows, one of the odd things about Trump's presidency is that his job approval/disapproval numbers have remained relatively flat, hovering between the high 30's/mid 40's. It would seem that people have already formed their opinions about him and there's little that can be done one to sway them one way or another.

Unlike Idahawk, I don't see much of a change.

And yet all the models are coming up Trump...

[idhawkman]

Still fake news...

In 2018, Rassmussen Reports predicted that Republicans would win the generic ballot by 1 percentage point while the actual election results had Democrats winning by near 9 percentage points. The nearly 10 percentage point error was the largest polling error out of major firms who polled the national generic ballot. Traditionally, such a wide error in polling would lead to a major rethink of methodology, but Rasmussen pushed back against critics after their widely derided miss, falsely claiming that "that the midterm result was relatively poor for Democrats compared to other midterms" - despite the fact that the Democrats scored a historic margin in the popular vote victory. Ultimately, Rasmussen has made no effort since the 2018 midterms to fix their demonstrably flawed polling methodology

I'm sure it's a coincidence that Rasmussen is 45's favorite poll....

Btw, I think Burrrton is totally right about the effect of impeachment raising Clinton's approval rating. It's the sympathy effect. That's why I agree with Pelosi about not wanting Trump to be impeached, but instead put him in prison after he's out of the White House.

You and River can keep believing it but the results of the Rassmussen poll speak for themselves as a look back at the 2016 election.

https://thehill.com/media/306721-rasmussen-calls-itself-most-accurate-pollster-of-2016

[RiverDog]

You can eliminate the "pretty much". The national polls nailed it. They were calling for Clinton to win by a small margin and that's exactly what she won by, albeit it the popular vote. Where many of the pundits in the media blew it was on these "chances of winning" percentages, where some had established an 85% or so chance of HRC winning the election. I'd still like to see the math on how they arrived at such high percentages knowing that the national polling was within the margin of error and that the electoral college was a different monster.

Here's a link that might help explain that for you. It seems that Hilliary's electoral polls were skewed but Trumps were never skewed in his favor. Shows a complete bias toward the Dem party.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

From your own link: With few exceptions, the final round of public polling showed Clinton with a lead of 1 to 7 percentage points in the national popular vote.

HRC won the popular vote by 2.1%. RCP, the composite poll I feel is more accurate, had Clinton with a 3.3% lead in the final week. That's well within the margin of error, which in most cases is plus/minus 3%. Now if you want to talk about some of the various state polls, yes, there were some that were way off, outside the margin of error.

Besides, I wasn't asking why the polling was off. It was this "chance of winning" percentage that some of the analysts were touting just prior to the election. It's stuff like this that I was talking about:

The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ecast.html

Looking at their statewide polling, most swing states were within the margin for error or just outside it (WI and PA were just outside at 4.1%). Additionally, if you look at the graphs from previous polls, there's a distinct trend showing that Trump was gaining going into the final week as Clinton had a 6 point lead in mid October that had shrunk to 3% in the last poll prior to the election.

I don't understand how they built their model based around the facts that they had at their disposal that would cause them to assign an 85% winning percentage to Hillary. Looking at the information that they had available, it showed that it was going to be a close election. 85% sounds like a slam dunk.

[idhawkman]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

From your own link: With few exceptions, the final round of public polling showed Clinton with a lead of 1 to 7 percentage points in the national popular vote.

HRC won the popular vote by 2.1%. RCP, the composite poll I feel is more accurate, had Clinton with a 3.3% lead in the final week. That's well within the margin of error, which in most cases is plus/minus 3%. Now if you want to talk about some of the various state polls, yes, there were some that were way off, outside the margin of error.

Besides, I wasn't asking why the polling was off. It was this "chance of winning" percentage that some of the analysts were touting just prior to the election. It's stuff like this that I was talking about:

The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ecast.html

Looking at their statewide polling, most swing states were within the margin for error or just outside it (WI and PA were just outside at 4.1%). Additionally, if you look at the graphs from previous polls, there's a distinct trend showing that Trump was gaining going into the final week as Clinton had a 6 point lead in mid October that had shrunk to 3% in the last poll prior to the election.

I don't understand how they built their model based around the facts that they had at their disposal that would cause them to assign an 85% winning percentage to Hillary. Looking at the information that they had available, it showed that it was going to be a close election. 85% sounds like a slam dunk.

I wasn't disputing your assertion that the popular vote was close. I really posted that link because it shows that the Rassmussen poll was the most accurate which refutes the notion that Rassmussen's current poll is an outlyer.

Regarding the polls tightening in the last few weeks, I think they had to and that what I said earlier is probably why.

Regarding them thinking Clinton had up to a 99% chance of winning I think they just never considered the blue wall as vulnerable. I seem to remember MSM laughing at Trump for making trips and spending time in WI, MI and PA toward the end of the campaign. Their biases just plain over powered their brains on this.

[Hawktawk]

Right now trump loses to Biden in TEXAS. He loses to Biden almost anywhere. The only thing he has going for him is Biden’s ability to open mouth insert foot , Biden’s age and mist important the ninnies on the extreme fringe of the party who would rather control the party than control the White House. Note to Democrats . “Electability “ is not a dirty word. It’s the only word that matters in nov 2020. As a lifelong republican conservative I think environmental psychosis like the new green deal , Medicare for all, socialism , attacking business is a loser and a recipe for me going 3rd party. It’s a long time till Election Day but the fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party is key. The fight for the former Republican Party is over as is the party . It’s the trump party. And trump is the worst most foul objectionable jackass ever to dishonor the office and his polls show it. His election had as much to do with Hilary Clinton and Vlad Putin as anything else. Putin will try again but he doesn’t get to face Clinton . But if he gets sanders or warren it might be close enough. All
I got to say is go Bill Weld.

[RiverDog]

I really posted that link because it shows that the Rassmussen poll was the most accurate which refutes the notion that Rassmussen's current poll is an outlyer.

Regarding the polls tightening in the last few weeks, I think they had to and that what I said earlier is probably why.

Regarding them thinking Clinton had up to a 99% chance of winning I think they just never considered the blue wall as vulnerable. I seem to remember MSM laughing at Trump for making trips and spending time in WI, MI and PA toward the end of the campaign. Their biases just plain over powered their brains on this.

According to this, the most accurate poll of the 2016 election in a 2 way race was McClatchy/Marist and IBD/TIPP. But others were also close — including the ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... e956c5c278

The reason Rasmussen isn't on there is because the survey only analyzed the two way race polls where Rasmussen's poll ran a 4 way race which included Johnson and Stein. Here's a link that shows the 4 way polls:

https://checkyourfact.com/2018/04/19/fa ... tion-2016/

The point is that the national polls, including the one that always tells you what you want to hear, were amazingly accurate in the 2016 election, more accurate than they were in the 2012 election. Most were well within the plus/minus 4% margin for error. It was the models showing the chance of winning percentage that had it wrong.

As far as your claim about Rasmussen being so damn accurate, here's what the above link said about it:

Rasmussen has a mixed history of correctly forecasting elections. Its “final poll of the 2008 general election – showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent – closely mirrored the election’s outcome,” wrote Politico.

But in 2010, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight called Rasmussen “biased and inaccurate,” skewing in favor of Republicans. FiveThirtyEight gave Rasmussen a C+ rating for its slight Republican skew. Panagopoulos found that Rasmussen was one of the five least accurate polls in 2012.

[RiverDog]

Right now trump loses to Biden in TEXAS. He loses to Biden almost anywhere. The only thing he has going for him is Biden’s ability to open mouth insert foot , Biden’s age and mist important the ninnies on the extreme fringe of the party who would rather control the party than control the White House. Note to Democrats . “Electability “ is not a dirty word. It’s the only word that matters in nov 2020. As a lifelong republican conservative I think environmental psychosis like the new green deal , Medicare for all, socialism , attacking business is a loser and a recipe for me going 3rd party. It’s a long time till Election Day but the fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party is key. The fight for the former Republican Party is over as is the party . It’s the trump party. And trump is the worst most foul objectionable jackass ever to dishonor the office and his polls show it. His election had as much to do with Hilary Clinton and Vlad Putin as anything else. Putin will try again but he doesn’t get to face Clinton . But if he gets sanders or warren it might be close enough. All
I got to say is go Bill Weld.

I saw the article that had Trump losing to Biden in Texas. He's also in trouble in Florida and the rust belt states. The latest Fox News poll has Trump losing to Biden by 11%. Even Idahawk's favorite Rasmussen has him losing to Biden by 5%. RCP's composite poll has Biden ahead by 8.1%.

But we're still over a year away from the conventions, and a lot can happen between now and then. My sense is that if Biden gets the nomination, he'll trounce Trump by 150 electoral votes and 5-8% in the popular vote. If anyone else gets the nomination, we'll have another close election like we had in 2016.

But as you point out, the far left in the Democratic party seems more interested in controlling their party and advancing their specific agendas which could torpedo the Dems chance of taking back the White House. Versus Trump, I'll vote for Biden every day of the week and twice on Sundays. If Sanders or Warren get the nomination, I'll be joining you in voting for Weld. If some other random Dem gets the nomination, I'll have to examine them a little closer, but it will NEVER result in my voting for Trump.

[burrrton]

I hate saying it, but credit where it's due?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

[RiverDog]

I hate saying it, but credit where it's due?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

Trump's childish temper tantrum might have worked with poor little Mexico, so yea, I'll give him credit. Let's hope that same juvenile behavior works with China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, et al.

[burrrton]

Trump's childish temper tantrum might have worked with poor little Mexico, so yea, I'll give him credit. Let's hope that same juvenile behavior works with China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, et al.

I don't know that I'd call tariffs juvenile, just generally bad economics, and I don't think this (apparently) worked because Mexico's little- I think this (apparently) worked because the resolution is simple and straightforward.

Raising taxes on certain products and not others in a way that doesn't hurt your citizens too badly but extracts the concessions you want? Complex and difficult.

Cracking down on coyotes on your northern border? Easy.

[RiverDog]

Trump's childish temper tantrum might have worked with poor little Mexico, so yea, I'll give him credit. Let's hope that same juvenile behavior works with China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, et al.

I don't know that I'd call tariffs juvenile, just generally bad economics, and I don't think this (apparently) worked because Mexico's little- I think this (apparently) worked because the resolution is simple and straightforward.

He slapped the tariffs on spur of the moment and took nearly everyone in his administration by surprise. He apparently did not consult with anyone, weigh other options, or deliberate very long. That's what I meant by a tantrum. He saw several thousand migrants on their way to the US, got pissed off, and reacted.

Raising taxes on certain products and not others in a way that doesn't hurt your citizens too badly but extracts the concessions you want? Complex and difficult.

Had the tariffs gone into effect, they damn sure would have hurt our citizens, by raising prices, on fruits and vegetables, TV's, and a whole host of things. Additionally, much of the raw materials that Mexico manufactures and sells to us comes from the USA, so had they responded with tariffs of their own, we would have been hit with a double whammy. That's why the stock market plunged when he announced them. Mexico is our 3rd largest trading partner, so a trade war would have hurt us and devastated Mexico, causing even more of their people to yearn to immigrate here. It was a very risky move that could have had huge implications had it backfired.

As far as my calling Mexico "poor", they are relatively poor and hugely dependent on trade with us, more so than any other two countries in the world. 3/4ths of all Mexico's exports are to the United States. Trump had them by the balls. It's very questionable if that kind of negotiating strategy would have been effective with other countries that are more diversified and not as dependent on us.

Cracking down on coyotes on your northern border? Easy.

Huh? Must be an analogy there somewhere.

[burrrton]

I phrased that poorly.

I'm saying that Mexico responding effectively to Trump's threatened tariffs would be a much more complex process than simply telling your policía to quit looking the other way on the human traffickers, etc.

Probably oversimplifying, but it struck me as an easy thing to agree to.

However, they still did agree to it, and for that I think we agree he deserves some credit.

[RiverDog]

I phrased that poorly.

I'm saying that Mexico responding effectively to Trump's threatened tariffs would be a much more complex process than simply telling your policía to quit looking the other way on the human traffickers, etc.

Probably oversimplifying, but it struck me as an easy thing to agree to.

However, they still did agree to it, and for that I think we agree he deserves some credit.

Yes, we can agree that Trump deserves some credit, at least this weekend. If you've ever been to Mexico, or any other 3rd world country for that matter, their officials, police, etc are poorly trained, under staffed, and corrupt. I wouldn't count on them changing their behavior for very long.

If you want to make any kind of sustainable change in deterring the waves of migrants wanting to come to our country, you're going to have to address what's motivating them to come, ie crime and economics.

The other thing to note here is that not all of those thousands wanting to immigrate are a bunch of drug running thieves that want to do us harm or live on our welfare programs. For the most part, they are people wanting for themselves and their families the same thing that you and I want for ourselves and our families. I sometimes get the sense that these 'crisis's' are over exaugurated in order to play into the fears and biases of Trump's base supporters.

[idhawkman]

If some other random Dem gets the nomination, I'll have to examine them a little closer, but it will NEVER result in my voting for Trump.

As if we didn't already know you were part of the 6% Never Trumper crowd.

[idhawkman]

Trump's childish temper tantrum might have worked with poor little Mexico, so yea, I'll give him credit. Let's hope that same juvenile behavior works with China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, et al.

Have your news sources not told you that China came back to the table but Trump is telling them no until after the G-20 meeting when he can personally deliver the message to (I can't spell his name but the China president)?

[Hawktawk]

Just because you play chicken and drive your car in the opposite lane and the other car swerves out of your way it doesn't make this good policy. As a notable republican said "trump is using Tarrifs as a cure for everything but Aids". The proof will be in the pudding whether this is a significant development or not. Remember his threat to close the border to all traffic a month ago then he pulled back and declared victory? A month later its so bad he had to threaten tariffs and now hes backed off and declared victory again.. UMM HMMM As I've said Obamas policies resulted in a 30 year low in crossings and Trumps have led to a 14 year high. lets see.

Ill never support him no matter what he does regardless.

[burrrton]

As I've said Obamas policies resulted in a 30 year low in crossings and Trumps have led to a 14 year high. lets see.

The economy is the primary driver of that. Always has been, always will be.

But yeah, either way Obama did get a lot of sh*t about illegal immigration that was undeserved. It was a small and shrinking problem during his admin.

[idhawkman]

Just because you play chicken and drive your car in the opposite lane and the other car swerves out of your way it doesn't make this good policy. As a notable republican said "trump is using Tarrifs as a cure for everything but Aids". The proof will be in the pudding whether this is a significant development or not. Remember his threat to close the border to all traffic a month ago then he pulled back and declared victory? A month later its so bad he had to threaten tariffs and now hes backed off and declared victory again.. UMM HMMM As I've said Obamas policies resulted in a 30 year low in crossings and Trumps have led to a 14 year high. lets see.

Ill never support him no matter what he does regardless.

So now you admit that he was going to shut the border down and then you claim that his staff was caught off guard? Nope, His staff knew what he was doing - it was congress that does nothing that was caught off guard.

[Hawktawk]

Both Trumps threat to close the border including ports of entry and his more recent threat to impose progressively steeper tariffs were met with surprise and shock by members of his own administration and also rare condemnation and alarm from republican lawmakers.

Closing the border entirely would have cost tens of billions or more per day, an absolute disaster.

Imposing more tariffs would have cost everyone, hurt both economies and really deep sixed the struggling auto industry that is already closing plants and laying off people and in the case of ford cancelled an entire new model line bound for the European market. The main connection to mexico is a few assembly plants south of the border for american bound cars but more important car parts, electronic components etc some of which cross the border up to NINE TIMES before being a finished product shipped to Detroit etc. imagine taxing 5% NINE TIMES!!!Imagine if it goes up to 10%?

Trump has no F@cking clue about any of this. He tweets out some lame brained idea and his handlers at the adult day care scramble to save him from himself, much like when he was suborning obstruction of justice in the Russia probe.

The guys not crazy like a fox, hes just crazy. The emperor has no clothes. That being said a broken clock is right twice a day and even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again so lets just see. My guess is not a lot will change long term because everybody knows how to play trump from rocket man to china to Putin to mexico to whoever.

Lost in all the make america great stuff was politifact rating Ted Cruz far higher on immigration than Trump and its showing right now. With Biden beating the hell out of Trump in Texas in current polls when no Texas poll 2 years out has shown ANY democrat LEADING ANY *republican* in over 30 years it looks like the people who see the chaos up close and personal aren't too impressed.

[idhawkman]

Both Trumps threat to close the border including ports of entry and his more recent threat to impose progressively steeper tariffs were met with surprise and shock by members of his own administration and also rare condemnation and alarm from republican lawmakers.

Closing the border entirely would have cost tens of billions or more per day, an absolute disaster.

Imposing more tariffs would have cost everyone, hurt both economies and really deep sixed the struggling auto industry that is already closing plants and laying off people and in the case of ford cancelled an entire new model line bound for the European market. The main connection to mexico is a few assembly plants south of the border for american bound cars but more important car parts, electronic components etc some of which cross the border up to NINE TIMES before being a finished product shipped to Detroit etc. imagine taxing 5% NINE TIMES!!!Imagine if it goes up to 10%?

Trump has no F@cking clue about any of this. He tweets out some lame brained idea and his handlers at the adult day care scramble to save him from himself, much like when he was suborning obstruction of justice in the Russia probe.

The guys not crazy like a fox, hes just crazy. The emperor has no clothes. That being said a broken clock is right twice a day and even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again so lets just see. My guess is not a lot will change long term because everybody knows how to play trump from rocket man to china to Putin to mexico to whoever.

Lost in all the make america great stuff was politifact rating Ted Cruz far higher on immigration than Trump and its showing right now. With Biden beating the hell out of Trump in Texas in current polls when no Texas poll 2 years out has shown ANY democrat LEADING ANY *republican* in over 30 years it looks like the people who see the chaos up close and personal aren't too impressed.

Wrong. Just like all the "Experts" predicting that the Chinese tariffs (which dwarf the Mexico tariffs) would crash the economy. Yet, here we are with no inflation, soaring stock market, wages going up, etc, etc, etc. The republican lawmakers are ticked because their big corporate sponsors won't get cheap labor anymore. We all know why they are mad. The tariffs wouldn't hurt anyone in the US and the world is now finding out that the lawmakers have been putting their own pocket books ahead of the American people.

[RiverDog]

Wrong. Just like all the "Experts" predicting that the Chinese tariffs (which dwarf the Mexico tariffs) would crash the economy. Yet, here we are with no inflation, soaring stock market, wages going up, etc, etc, etc. The republican lawmakers are ticked because their big corporate sponsors won't get cheap labor anymore. We all know why they are mad. The tariffs wouldn't hurt anyone in the US and the world is now finding out that the lawmakers have been putting their own pocket books ahead of the American people.

What's wrong is how you are characterizing the economy. Inflation is not at zero. It's currently at 2.0%, up from 1.6% in January. It was at zero back in 2015 under Obama. And the market is not "soaring". It closed under 26,000 Friday. It was at 26,800 back in October. That's not "soaring".

You really need to regulate you enthusiasm some if you want to make yourself a little more credible.

[idhawkman]

What's wrong is how you are characterizing the economy. Inflation is not at zero. It's currently at 2.0%, up from 1.6% in January. It was at zero back in 2015 under Obama. And the market is not "soaring". It closed under 26,000 Friday. It was at 26,800 back in October. That's not "soaring".

You really need to regulate you enthusiasm some if you want to make yourself a little more credible.

River, you are smarter than this. You know that the fed wants inflation to be at 3% and they adjust monetary policy to try and get it there. The market is within 2% of its all time high and you say it is not soaring - what world are you living in?

The dems (and you) are not going to be able to talk down this economy. It is booming in all sense of the word. Additionally, the fed has room to lower rates if inflation or the economy starts to falter. It is not me who is losing credibility when talking about the economy. It just amazes me that people hate Trump more than they love the prosperity of the country. Its putting politics ahead of country - something the left often accuses the president of doing. "IF" you want to know what the democrats are doing, look at what they accuse the president of and you'll know exactly what they are doing.

[idhawkman]

One more thing, just remember, the tariffs have been used by this president for over 2 years now considering the lumber and metals tariffs he imposed on Canada and the rest of the world. Claiming that a tariff will harm Americans after having them for 2 years is nonsense. Companies are leaving China and moving to Viet Nam, Thailand, etc. Hasbro the toy company is moving back to America. Who is really hurting from the tariffs? Real question. If answered honestly, it is China.

[RiverDog]

What's wrong is how you are characterizing the economy. Inflation is not at zero. It's currently at 2.0%, up from 1.6% in January. It was at zero back in 2015 under Obama. And the market is not "soaring". It closed under 26,000 Friday. It was at 26,800 back in October. That's not "soaring".

You really need to regulate you enthusiasm some if you want to make yourself a little more credible.

River, you are smarter than this. You know that the fed wants inflation to be at 3% and they adjust monetary policy to try and get it there. The market is within 2% of its all time high and you say it is not soaring - what world are you living in?

You said no inflation. That is false. You said that the stock market was "soaring". My definition of the term "soaring" means going up. With the exception of a big dip in December and a rebound, it's been flat for 9 months.

I was pointing out how you consistently go over the top in you characterizations of how you attempt to frame Trump or his record. It's what makes your comments not credible, more like laughable.

[c_hawkbob]

River, you are smarter than this. You know that the fed wants inflation to be at 3% ...

See now this is an example of the problem with discussing things with you, everything you say I have to fact check and it's almost always exaggerated (I'm used to it because it is always that way with my Dad, who's a hard line R too). The Fed has always targeted 2% inflation, not 3%. And since it's at 2% I don't even understand the reason for the exaggeration, using the real number would have supported you position every bit as well ... What's up with that?

[RiverDog]

River, you are smarter than this. You know that the fed wants inflation to be at 3% ...

See now this is an example of the problem with discussing things with you, everything you say I have to fact check and it's almost always exaggerated (I'm used to it because it is always that way with my Dad, who's a hard line R too). The Fed has always targeted 2% inflation, not 3%. And since it's at 2% I don't even understand the reason for the exaggeration, using the real number would have supported you position every bit as well ... What's up with that?

This.

[idhawkman]

The fed does over longer periods of time targets 2% that is true but if you do your research, the trend since 2010 has been below that and sometimes significantly so the target has to move up to make the mean over time at 2%. Additionally, the inflation rate since 2010 has been below the 2% level while many people have dropped out of the work force and wages have stagnated. A growth rate of 3% will need to be achieved to pull up those who are re-entering the work force along with wage gains. Remember, wages were stuck at the same level since 1998 until just recently under Trump's economy all while inflation kept going up consistently eating into the consumer's budget. As wages go up, so will inflation in order to even out the inflation rate but wages have to go up significantly higher than 3% in order to claw back purchase power on behalf of the workers.

[RiverDog]

The fed does over longer periods of time targets 2% that is true but if you do your research, the trend since 2010 has been below that and sometimes significantly so the target has to move up to make the mean over time at 2%. Additionally, the inflation rate since 2010 has been below the 2% level while many people have dropped out of the work force and wages have stagnated. A growth rate of 3% will need to be achieved to pull up those who are re-entering the work force along with wage gains. Remember, wages were stuck at the same level since 1998 until just recently under Trump's economy all while inflation kept going up consistently eating into the consumer's budget. As wages go up, so will inflation in order to even out the inflation rate but wages have to go up significantly higher than 3% in order to claw back purchase power on behalf of the workers.

From an article published a week ago: The Fed’s current approach - flexible inflation targeting - entails raising and lowering interest rates to keep inflation as close as possible to 2% while making allowances for what it views to be temporary factors affecting prices. They are debating whether there is a better way.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1T30UL

This is the statement that you need to reconcile: River, you are smarter than this. You know that the fed wants inflation to be at 3% and they adjust monetary policy to try and get it there. The market is within 2% of its all time high and you say it is not soaring - what world are you living in?

Now show us where the Fed is targeting 3% inflation like you said it was, indeed, making a smart Alec remark insulting my intelligence.

[idhawkman]

From an article published a week ago: The Fed’s current approach - flexible inflation targeting - entails raising and lowering interest rates to keep inflation as close as possible to 2% while making allowances for what it views to be temporary factors affecting prices. They are debating whether there is a better way.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1T30UL

This is the statement that you need to reconcile: River, you are smarter than this. You know that the fed wants inflation to be at 3% and they adjust monetary policy to try and get it there. The market is within 2% of its all time high and you say it is not soaring - what world are you living in?

Now show us where the Fed is targeting 3% inflation like you said it was, indeed, making a smart Alec remark insulting my intelligence.

Sorry, not going down your rabbit hole. infalation numbers were announced today and the annual (year over year) number came in below expectations of 1.9% at 1.8%. So going back to the original argument, your sky is falling scenario of Tariffs hurting the economy is just wrong. Trump has imposed tariffs now for about 2 years and there is no inflation at all. Now also today, the company that assembles iPhones announced that it is looking for other areas to move their China operations to. Nintendo also announced that they are looking at relocating their China operations and may even move back to the US. Hong Kong is rioting with over 1M of their 6M population albeit over a different issue of criminal justice, Xi won't be able to also handle riots over a recession that they are clearly headed for. NOTE: China has never experienced a recession (I shouldn't have to, but I will clarify at least in their current economic model).

Tariffs are effective and having the desired effect on other countries policies. Hell, even Biden had to flip-flop on his China stance yesterday.

[RiverDog]

infalation numbers were announced today and the annual (year over year) number came in below expectations of 1.9% at 1.8%.

But wait! You said that it was zero inflation, did you not?

It's very Trumpian of you to first claim no inflation when by your own admission that the "real" numbers are closer to 2%. What a flip flop!

[idhawkman]

But wait! You said that it was zero inflation, did you not?

It's very Trumpian of you to first claim no inflation when by your own admission that the "real" numbers are closer to 2%. What a flip flop!

How high did you get in corporate America? Do you not know the difference between inflation and growth?

[RiverDog]

But wait! You said that it was zero inflation, did you not?

It's very Trumpian of you to first claim no inflation when by your own admission that the "real" numbers are closer to 2%. What a flip flop!

How high did you get in corporate America? Do you not know the difference between inflation and growth?

Who said anything about growth? You made the statement that we are at no inflation, and by your own admission, that is categorically false. You were doing the same thing that your boy Trump does all the time, making false or exaugurated claims in order to support your position.

[idhawkman]

Who said anything about growth? You made the statement that we are at no inflation, and by your own admission, that is categorically false. You were doing the same thing that your boy Trump does all the time, making false or exaugurated claims in order to support your position.

When growth (wage gains) outpaces CPI there is considered to be NO inflation.

[idhawkman]

More stats for those that are interested... As shown, any inflation in the US economy is not due to China.

Trump tariffs have not penalized American consumers
The latest set of statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) shows all of the professional pundit claims of higher prices on imported goods due to Trump tariffs are wrong. In actuality the year-over-year prices of import products are actually dropping:

U.S. Import prices fell 0.3 percent in May, the first monthly decline since a 1.4-percent drop in December. The price index for overall imports decreased 1.5 percent over the past 12 months. These were the largest over-the-year declines since the index fell 2.2 percent in August 2016.
Part of the explanation for this is that China is forced to subsidize exporters in order to maintain employment. Most journalists and academics fail to understand the vulnerability of the Communist regime in China to popular unrest. There are tens of thousands of incidents a year of revolt against officials. The sole reason that people put up with an autocratic and corrupt political-economic system is that it has delivered increasing levels of prosperity. If that prosperity falters or crashes, watch out.
And thus, for reasons that eluded the academics and globalist elites but which apparently Donald Trump had some grasp of, the price for his tariffs is being paid by China and oil exporting countries, not US consumers