DogofWar1

Nah, she was leading polls sufficiently enough to suggest she'd win the popular vote by some margin, but that was it. Lots of places took the fact that she was extremely likely to win the popular vote and pushed the analysis much farther than the raw numbers suggested. Like I want to say it was NYT, but I might be wrong, that had her chances of winning at something like 96%. And just based on the raw data that wasn't really reasonable.

It's possible, but the problem isn't really polling, it's distribution of votes. The electoral college is sufficiently out of whack with the popular vote often enough that our system of electing Presidents is really only democratic by accident. 2016 polls were actually pretty good re: raw vote %s. I think they were off by about 2% nationally on average, which is within the margin of error. The problem is popular vote doesn't mean anything so even though polls were accurate and HRC won the popular vote, she lost the electoral college by a lot.

Well, it's not just that you picked the most Trump friendly pollster to make your argument with, it's ALSO that you're citing old Rasmussen numbers. 538 does a nice job compiling polls (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/), and Rasmussen is easily the most pro-Trump pollster. Now, sure it's possible that Rasmussen is right and everyone else is wrong, BUT, considering the mid-terms, that's highly unlikely. But even beyond that, the most recent Rasmussen numbers aren't 52% approval for Trump, but rather 48%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/prez_track_mar15 The Rasmussen poll that had him at 52% was from Feb 6-10 and is the 9th most recent Rasmussen poll. So it's cherry-picked not once, but twice.

Rasmussen is widely considered a very very far right poster insofar as Trump approval is concerned. Their methods are highly suspect and citing to them only demonstrates a lack of willingness to accept the obvious; that Donald Trump is very unpopular.

Someone please find his meds.

Also aren't women more than half the population? But it goes to show just how much headspace white males have in the media. "She's underwater on every demo except these ones that represent the majority of the population in the aggregate."

I mean, if AOC was peddling in racism and fear and endangering people via that, and someone egged her, I'd probably think she had it coming. Getting punched is an occupational hazard of being a racist POS.

Also this: Basically, AOC is out there doing what we generally want reps to do, asking hard questions and conducting strong oversight of abuses, and the media tells us about it very minimally, and instead just sort of runs vapid stories that increase her visibility without demonstrating what she is actually doing as a representative. This, naturally lowers her rating among people (in this case older white people), which only feeds right back into the negative media cycle.

Couple threads this could maybe fit in but here seems most appropriate. Zina maybe still gets a pass but at this stage NO ONE should be given a pass for that symbol. It has been fully adopted by white nationalists and is being used by them for messaging purposes.

That's fair too. I dunno. I just want those kinds of people out of society. Once they're out of society, I guess I'm not too worried about death penalty vs. not.

It's cases like this that keep me from being 100% on the "get rid of the death penalty" bandwagon. The sheer amount of evil to do that. Poor girl.

On the one hand, violence, even in the form of egg slapping, is bad. Counterpoint: Maybe don't stoke racist hate like an asshole, Fraser?

Bob Mueller:

Opinion on what? Depends on what specifically.

Yes but not to conspiracy against the US related to Russian coordination. Not yet.