The reason why I ask is in the context of Trump’s treatment of vets like J McCain; his dubious track record with respect to his bone spurs or whatever they were; the lies about WMDs and the continuing involvement in Afghanistan.
Is that for me? Hard to tell…
But if so, did I say they had any prediction in 2016?
Those issues will not have much effect, IMHO. Meaning I don’t think anyone (pro or anti Trump) will have their opinion changed by them in sufficient numbers to make a difference.
To accuratley gage how well they predict, it would be good to know if they predicted 2016 correctly or if like everyone else was completely wrong.
Oh, I never said they accurately predicted this. Just that the got the last one right, so I’m hopeful. They could be completely wrong, And I’ve already question NE being purple. ')
Clincking through a link in your link . . . looks like the person who came up with this “new way of modeling” has a 1 for 1 record.
Yep. All I’ve said was that they predicted 2018, and that I like their prediction for 2020. Nowhere did I say they have a proven track record.
And she didn’t win it on Trump backlash, amazingly.
I was always told that GDP is a better indicator of the health of the economy. And latest estimates have the GDP for 2Q19 at an Obama-like (just so you have a comparison) 1.6%. That, my friend, is #sad.
Oh, I think the ardent worshippers already see an attack on Donald is an attack on them.
2 Likes
The usual suspects. Oregon and California mostly. They seem to get out of hand regularly in Oregon.
