Lots of Polls for today 11/1

[vcczar]

Lots of A-grade polls released today. Here they are: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Findings: 

• Despite Biden's low approval, Generic Democrats are still more popular than Generic Republicans.
• Biden's approval isn't necessarily rising but it isn't falling either. One poll even gives him a net positive approval, but that's probably an outlier. 
• Donald Trump is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more unfavorable than Biden still. Two different pollsters have measured his favorability. One gives him a net unfavorable +12 and the better pollster gives him an net unfavorable of +26. Meanwhile, while one recent poll gives Biden a net unfavorable of +12, he is generally around +5 or +6 net unfavorable. That is to say, Biden is unfavorable, but Trump is something else -- detested, perhaps. I should note that Trump is measured on Favorable/Unfavorable, while Biden is measured on Approve/Disapprove. There's a lot of overlap, but there may be some differences. Who knows how this would change if the language was identical for both Biden and Trump.
• Youngkin once again is ahead of McAuliffe. While I do think Youngkin will win, I think it is a little bit of a surprise for one reason: I heard something yesterday that Biden and Democrats still have a noticeably higher approval than both Trump and Republicans in Virginia. As such, one would expect McAuliffe to be polling better. He did have a net approval of +11 on average when he was governor. I think there could be three factors involved: 1) Northam's approval is only +3 net approval and it's been declining. 2) Democrats in Virginia have had to deal with some scandals within the last few years in the state. 3) Opponents of Democrats are probably rallying behind Youngkin, while a fraction of opponents of Youngkin are probably considering 3rd party. There's a subsection of left wing voters that won't vote for someone like McAuliffe, who they see as someone who won't bring change or reform. I think McAuliffe's strategy in the last day should be to go to college campuses and get registered students that haven't voted yet to get out and vote. Youth turnout is low and they might be more prone to vote 3rd party or not at all. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Yeah, I would say "favorable/unfavorable" and "approve/disapprove" are different.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Democrat, Independent, or even normal (not MAGA) Republic who thinks unfavorably of Joe Biden as a person -- even if they might each have their reasons for disaproving of his Presidency so far.  

For example, Jimmy Carter is almost universally revered as a person, but many of us see his Presidency as one of the worst -- not with bad intentions, but with shit execution.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

where a good, ethical, law-abiding, human-life-respecting leader

You have repeatedly decried the fact that Jimmy Carter wasn't arrested with nearly every other President.  Even when I specifically asked "what about Jimmy Carter", you doubled down against him.

[MrPotatoTed]

18 hours ago, Patine said:

Because he campaigned on bringing integrity to the White House, but seemed to cave into it's evil, at least in several notable areas (like the last days of the Shah's regime in Iran, and the continuance of support to the Pinochet regime, etc.). I'll give him Camp David happening under his watch, and the closing down of several notable extraneous luxury facilities for Federal officials on exhorbadent taxpayers' dime. But he didn't oppose them as much as he valiantly claimed he would, and a man like him in the Chief Executive's seat should have confronted, as the political outsider he was touted as, the evils and crimes of Washington. Evils and crimes, in the long-term, that you routinely defend as acceptable and, even on occasion, admirable...

Oh thank god.  

I was worried that maybe your feelings on this were going to start being a little more rational. 

I should not have worried.   ;c)

[Timur]

Whatever may be said of Carter's integrity. His proposal to bring all the troops back from Korea would have been a disaster = except for Kim Il-sung...

[Timur]

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

Personally, I firmly believe in the '70's - and definitely today - South Korea could defeat North Korea militarily without direct foreign intervention. It would be bloody and nasty, yes, but I believe South Korea would win, even with no military intervention. I believe that's a big reason why the Kim Dynasty is so obsessed with bluster and, later, a nuclear arms program. South Korea might not be as a unneeding as of military intervention or aid as Israel, who can easily mop up all of it's neighbours, and their constant demand for more is an outright insult to American and other Western taxpayers, but I believe South Korea has the edge, if not in personnel under arms, in reliable equipment and technology, certainly.

Definitely today, but South Korea doesn't have nukes (though some right wing politicians are calling for nuclear development).

Not sure about the 70s though.  In fact, North Korea's economy was better than the South's as well in the 70s due to Soviet support.

[Timur]

Delete

Edited November 3, 2021 by Timur

[MrPotatoTed]

16 hours ago, Patine said:

Personally, I firmly believe in the '70's - and definitely today - South Korea could defeat North Korea militarily without direct foreign intervention. It would be bloody and nasty, yes, but I believe South Korea would win, even with no military intervention. I believe that's a big reason why the Kim Dynasty is so obsessed with bluster and, later, a nuclear arms program. South Korea might not be as a unneeding as of military intervention or aid as Israel, who can easily mop up all of it's neighbours, and their constant demand for more is an outright insult to American and other Western taxpayers, but I believe South Korea has the edge, if not in personnel under arms, in reliable equipment and technology, certainly.

I spent two years in South Korea, as a member of the US Air Force working directly with the (South) Korean military.

The first thing that has to be understood is that Seoul -- the capital of South Korea -- is about 40 miles from the border.  That is, of course, extremely within North Korea's missile range capability, and so it is largely understood and assumed that step one in a war between the South and the North is that the capital of South Korea would be wiped out.

Now, it's been 15 years since I left South Korea, so hopefully they've been doing a whole lot of brainstorming since then.  But even 50 years after the Korean war (kind of) ended, 90% of the war planning was "How will the US military evacuate as many civilians as we can".  Korea is a peninsula, there's no path out of South Korea that doesn't involve planes or boats.  Or going north, of course.

That said, I do know the US has slowly been drawing down its presence in South Korea.  So hopefully the South is slowly becoming more ready to defend themselves independently -- but even so, the US will undoubtedly defend South Korea, even if they're doing so from Japan or even Honolulu/San Diego/etc.  

One interesting trend I noticed in my time there (again, 15 years ago):  the older folks who were alive during the Korean war or at least had parents who were alive during the Korean war were deeply appreciative of our presence there.  

But the younger generation -- teens, 20-somethings -- were generally pretty deeply opposed to our presence.  There were protests, there were physical fights at bars -- deep opposition to American troops dating Korean girls, etc.  Naturally, those 20-somethings are pushing 40 now, and likely moving into political positions of some significance.  It will be interesting to see what the future holds.
 

[Timur]

9 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I spent two years in South Korea, as a member of the US Air Force working directly with the (South) Korean military.

The first thing that has to be understood is that Seoul -- the capital of South Korea -- is about 40 miles from the border.  That is, of course, extremely within North Korea's missile range capability, and so it is largely understood and assumed that step one in a war between the South and the North is that the capital of South Korea would be wiped out.

Now, it's been 15 years since I left South Korea, so hopefully they've been doing a whole lot of brainstorming since then.  But even 50 years after the Korean war (kind of) ended, 90% of the war planning was "How will the US military evacuate as many civilians as we can".  Korea is a peninsula, there's no path out of South Korea that doesn't involve planes or boats.  Or going north, of course.

That said, I do know the US has slowly been drawing down its presence in South Korea.  So hopefully the South is slowly becoming more ready to defend themselves independently -- but even so, the US will undoubtedly defend South Korea, even if they're doing so from Japan or even Honolulu/San Diego/etc.  

One interesting trend I noticed in my time there (again, 15 years ago):  the older folks who were alive during the Korean war or at least had parents who were alive during the Korean war were deeply appreciative of our presence there.  

But the younger generation -- teens, 20-somethings -- were generally pretty deeply opposed to our presence.  There were protests, there were physical fights at bars -- deep opposition to American troops dating Korean girls, etc.  Naturally, those 20-somethings are pushing 40 now, and likely moving into political positions of some significance.  It will be interesting to see what the future holds.
 

The older generation are more conservative, the middle-age group (the younger group who are in their 40s) are more liberal, and the younger voters don't seem to be particularly on either side.

[MrPotatoTed]

7 hours ago, Timur said:

The older generation are more conservative, the middle-age group (the younger group who are in their 40s) are more liberal, and the younger voters don't seem to be particularly on either side.

Ha, reminds me of the old French adage:  "“Celui qui n’est pas républicain à vingt ans fait douter de la générosité de son âme; mais celui qui, après trente ans, persévère, fait douter de la rectitude de son esprit.”

Or, loosely in English:  "Young people who are conservative have no heart -- and old people who are liberal have no brains."

Of course, I was conservative when I was younger and then became liberal as I got older, so what does that say about me?  ;c)

[vcczar]

11 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Ha, reminds me of the old French adage:  "“Celui qui n’est pas républicain à vingt ans fait douter de la générosité de son âme; mais celui qui, après trente ans, persévère, fait douter de la rectitude de son esprit.”

Or, loosely in English:  "Young people who are conservative have no heart -- and old people who are liberal have no brains."

Of course, I was conservative when I was younger and then became liberal as I got older, so what does that say about me?  ;c)

Yeah, I was more conservative in my teens than I am now. It was mainly because I was in religious a religious household, so a lot of my political views were based on my dad's religion. My household politics was odd. Social conservative on religious questions, pro-Civil Rights for minorities, LW economically, pro-military, pro-labor. Definitely Independent. My dad flip-flopped between parties more than Trump did, and he voted for Perot in 1996 (Clinton in 1992). My first election was 2000 and my dad and I voted for Bush (to my later regret). I don't think I became liberal until 2003. I remember initially supporting the War in Iraq, which was probably my last pro-Republican stance. By the end of 2003, I opposed the war because it seemed clear the US wasn't going to leave. Sometime in 2004, I was about sick and tired of everything the Bush administration was doing. I was tired of the Patriot Act. Also, by 2002, I wasn't religious anymore, so I had released the shackles of Religious-caused-social-conservatism. 

So basically my current politics was set by 2004. Here's my vote history:

2000: Bush (didn't vote in primaries)

2004: Kerry (supported Kucinich and Sharpton during primaries, but didn't vote in primaries)

2008: Obama (voted Obama in primaries, but initially supported Kucinich. Then even considered Hillary Clinton over Obama for a week.)

2012: Obama (didn't vote in primaries)

2016: H Clinton (voted Sanders in primaries)

2020: Biden (voted Sanders in primaries)

[MrPotatoTed]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, I was more conservative in my teens than I am now. It was mainly because I was in religious a religious household, so a lot of my political views were based on my dad's religion. My household politics was odd. Social conservative on religious questions, pro-Civil Rights for minorities, LW economically, pro-military, pro-labor. Definitely Independent. My dad flip-flopped between parties more than Trump did, and he voted for Perot in 1996 (Clinton in 1992). My first election was 2000 and my dad and I voted for Bush (to my later regret). I don't think I became liberal until 2003. I remember initially supporting the War in Iraq, which was probably my last pro-Republican stance. By the end of 2003, I opposed the war because it seemed clear the US wasn't going to leave. Sometime in 2004, I was about sick and tired of everything the Bush administration was doing. I was tired of the Patriot Act. Also, by 2002, I wasn't religious anymore, so I had released the shackles of Religious-caused-social-conservatism. 

So basically my current politics was set by 2004. Here's my vote history:

2000: Bush (didn't vote in primaries)

2004: Kerry (supported Kucinich and Sharpton during primaries, but didn't vote in primaries)

2008: Obama (voted Obama in primaries, but initially supported Kucinich. Then even considered Hillary Clinton over Obama for a week.)

2012: Obama (didn't vote in primaries)

2016: H Clinton (voted Sanders in primaries)

2020: Biden (voted Sanders in primaries)

My mom never talked politics when I was growing up.  My dad didn't like Clinton because he cheated on his wife, and therefore was dishonest...but other than that, the only mention of politics he said was something like "Democrats give you things and Republicans don't.  So I vote for Democrats in local elections and Republican in national elections.  That way I get things, but I'm not paying for other people to get things."

He was joking, in part at least.  But there was definitely a moderate, middle of the line path at my house, and so that's how I grew up and where I still "want" to be, except the Republican side has gotten so insane now that I don't even know what moderate would look like anymore.

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

My mom never talked politics when I was growing up.  My dad didn't like Clinton because he cheated on his wife, and therefore was dishonest...but other than that, the only mention of politics he said was something like "Democrats give you things and Republicans don't.  So I vote for Democrats in local elections and Republican in national elections.  That way I get things, but I'm not paying for other people to get things."

He was joking, in part at least.  But there was definitely a moderate, middle of the line path at my house, and so that's how I grew up and where I still "want" to be, except the Republican side has gotten so insane now that I don't even know what moderate would look like anymore.

My dad always voted for the other party if he wasn't making as much money as he was the four year's previous. My dad was a multi-millionaire way before I was born. He got rich with LBJ, so LBJ was his favorite president. It didn't hurt that LBJ and my dad were from TX. My dad donated enough money to LBJ that he was made "Admiral of the Texas Navy," which is a unit that doesn't exist, but was apparently given out to major donors. My dad lost almost all of his money under Reagan, so Reagan was always his least favorite president. My family was definitely among the poorest (if not the poorest) in my upper-class neighborhood under Bush I. We sometimes couldn't pay bills and things would be shut off for days, including heating during winter. After 9-11, my dad thought we were locked in a holy war vs Islam, and that Obama was a Muslim sorcerer, so he voted Republican for the rest of his life. His died a month and a half after the 2012 election, having voted for Romney. My dad would have voted for Trump. He used to have his Art of the Deal. My dad was in real estate, which was where he made his money in the 1960s and 1970s.

My dad was about 45 when I was born, so I don't think I have a single memory of him at the top of the world. My memories of him are mostly him impatient to get his money back, and falling into get-rich-quick-schemes, and ultimately giving up and going into an end of days religious mindset. I remember when he died, we had to go through things to throw away, and I found a bunch of pictures of him from the 1960s and 1970s. He seemed like a totally different person. I also saw that he used to draw, which is something I never saw him do. It was weird. Money--or the loss of it--just sort of wore him down. He turned into Captain Ahab looking for a white whale. I think part of the issue is that he made his money really easily. He bought up a ton of land where DFW was being built and expanded, and then sold that land. 

 

[MrPotatoTed]

My parents married as teenagers after she got pregnant with me.  My dad joined the Air Force to make a life for us, my mom worked various jobs — I remember she worked at a pizza shop, then as a dog groomer, then as a waitress.

After his active duty time ended, dad got a job working a lightbulb conveyor belt at a General Electric factory.

But then we got two lucky breaks at once:  my mom started a business that really took off (breeding, grooming, boarding, and training dogs)...and our landlords, who already were giving us an insane deal on our rent, gave up on the idea that their own kids were ever going to get their shit together so they offered to pay for my dad to go to college.

So dad went to college in his thirties and thrived there.  Got a job in IT and now manages the IT department at a major university.  And mom continues to be a successful businesswoman.  Neither one has ever or will ever become rich, but they each eventually achieved content middle class lives which is pretty good for a teenaged pregnancy couple.

They got divorced in my teens and eventually remarried others with kids...and somehow all five of us have become more successful than they were in our own ways.  I make six figures as a hospital spokesman.  My sister married a guy who started his own business...they struggled at first; but now it’s a multimillion business.  She stayed at home to take care of their four kids for years, but he just recently hired her as his chief of HR.  My step-brother on my dad’s side works as a paramedic, fireman, and instructor...and married a woman who went on to become a doctor, so their house is even bigger than mine.  My step sister is an art teacher who won Teacher of the Year.  My other step brother has some kind of job in petroleum sales, making about what I do each year.  Other than the Peteoleum guy who is happy single; all of us are happily married and have mostly well adjusted kids.

Again - not the way most “pregnant in high school” stories start.