The Trump Presidency – 2016

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The far left will nominate...

Is a fantasy of the right. The moderate ALWAYS wins in the Dem primary, it's only after they are nominated that they are made into a radical socialist.

Clinton was the moderate. Gore was the moderate. Kerry was the moderate. Obama was the moderate. Clinton was the moderate.

The far left isn't going to pick the nominee.

I agree.

I will note, though, that a lot of Dems I know are frustrated by President Obama having governed as a moderate (and almost obsessed with bi-partisan compromise) to still have the GOP successfully portray him as a far-leftist. There's a sense that if everything a Democrat does is simply going to be seen as far left, then why not actually govern from the far left?

I don't think that its enough to win someone the nomination, though.

[JPhillips]

In general, the far-left hasn't shown an ability to appeal to the non-white parts of the party. That was(is?) certainly Bernie's biggest problem.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Biden is the old guard. I really don't think he can generate enough support to beat Trump. Booker is interesting to me.

But Biden also doesn't generate antipathy like Hillary or a Liz Warren does. And a decent amount of Trump's 2016 appeal/votes was anti-HRC, not pro-Trump.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The far left will nominate...

Is a fantasy of the right. The moderate ALWAYS wins in the Dem primary, it's only after they are nominated that they are made into a radical socialist.

Clinton was the moderate. Gore was the moderate. Kerry was the moderate. Obama was the moderate. Clinton was the moderate.

The far left isn't going to pick the nominee.

Slight quibble - I'd say Obama was the more progressive nominee than Hilary, though obviously not on the level of a Bernie Sanders or Howard Dean, and one who didn't govern that way.

Warren does seem to be laying the groundwork for a 2020 run, and will have a built in base amongst the liberal wing (at least if Bernie doesn't run). I think her shortcomings will quickly become apparent when nationally campaigning, but if it's a very crowded field she might be able to win enough early states.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Lathum

None of it matters, if the economy continues to grow Trump will be reelected.

Continues to grow for whom? Rich? I am not sure things have improved that much for those rust belt people with no college education. Trump promised them to get their glory days jobs and pay back, I'm positive that has not happened. Combine that with the continue increase in healthcare costs and drug use, I feel he can take advantage of that voting block only once.

[SackAttack]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You don't want your ideologues to be your party's candidate.

It fires up the base, sure, but you run the risk of alienating the middle. There's your CW.

The part nobody ever thinks about? You take your ideologue out of the Senate where they can influence legislation and judicial appointments (see: McConnell, Mitch) for a quick 4-8 year endorphin rush in the White House.

If you control the Senate and the White House, anybody the President sends is going to be someone who's going to pass muster with the firebrands, even if the President isn't a firebrand, themselves. They're going to sign the legislation you send them. Etc.

If Republicans control the White House and the Senate, it doesn't matter if the President is ultra-conservative or not - he's going to sign the legislation that comes out of Congress in most cases, and his judicial picks are going to be conservatives much more often than not.

If Democrats control the White House and the Senate, it doesn't matter if the President is ultra-liberal or not. She's going to sign the legislation that comes out of Congress in most cases, and her judicial picks are going to be liberals much more often than not.

What you want out of a Presidential candidate is somebody who's telegenic, empathetic, and (well, until two years ago) articulate. Someone who looks "Presidential," makes voters feel like their concerns are understood, and able expound their message in a way that widens the party's tent.

Your ideologues aren't as bound by the 'middle' unless they're a Senator from a swing state, so they can get away with messaging to the base in most cases, and once in the Senate, they're able to shape legislation in an ideological way.

Trump ran for President like a red-state Senator, which should have been a recipe for defeat. I will never understand how a strategy of "narrow the base" got him elected, but I suspect it's also probably not something that can be replicated on a regular basis.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Combine that with the continue increase in healthcare costs and drug use, I feel he can take advantage of that voting block only once.

It's a nice thought.

The reality is that that voting bloc gets taken advantage of over and over and over. Because they value process over outcome, and because they've been conditioned to believe that "conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed."

So if Trump says what they perceive to be the "right" things, but they don't get the outcome they want, it's not that he was wrong - it's that the Democrats somehow sabotaged everything or a RINO stabbed them in the back or whatever.

And then they'll go vote for Trump again.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Continues to grow for whom? Rich? I am not sure things have improved that much for those rust belt people with no college education. Trump promised them to get their glory days jobs and pay back, I'm positive that has not happened. Combine that with the continue increase in healthcare costs and drug use, I feel he can take advantage of that voting block only once.

At what point do they turn on him, because most of them are hard core supports and fall into the "other" category I listed.

I realize it is a generalization, and perhaps an unfair one, but a lot of those uneducated people in the rust belt are also backwards as fuck, and like being able to hate them brown people. The uneducated ones are also the easiest to strike fear in to that hey are losing their country. Trump will campaign to them that they are losing their country to the mexicans and that the Dems will open the boarders and all their daughters all be raped and sold into the sex trade, and they will lap it up.

My Dad is not rich. He is like a lot of boomers. Worked hard, made decent money, and invested well. HE wants to see that continue and thinks Trump will make that happen. Environment, gay rights, civil rights, free speech, etc...be damned.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Continues to grow for whom? Rich? I am not sure things have improved that much for those rust belt people with no college education. Trump promised them to get their glory days jobs and pay back, I'm positive that has not happened. Combine that with the continue increase in healthcare costs and drug use, I feel he can take advantage of that voting block only once.

Its not all bad.

The article stated a couple times it wasn't all because of Trump. However, its been 2 years now and Trump will get credit in 2020 if it keeps up.

On healthcare, fair or not, Trump & GOP will easily be able to blame that on Obama. re: drug use, don't think that's a big issue for the GOP.

Factor in the other Trump pros - SCOTUS, trade war with China (that is going well right now), de-escalation with NK (for now at least), revision of NAFTA and the optics of Mexico & Canada acquiescing to US demands, stock market doing well, the growth of nationalists support in many other countries (e.g. he's not alone), NRA still going strong, his ability to help GOP win elections (or at least not lose them), his strong support for Israel, his strong stance on illegal and non-desirable immigration (his definition of course), GOP likely retaining the Senate etc. ... I'm sure I missed several more.

Combine that with Dem cons - (I'll let someone else list them)

It's going to come down to (1) the economy or how people think they feel about the economy (2) who the Dems can put up (3) does Trump have a major screwup (e.g. Mueller smoking gun, trade war going south etc.) and I'll add a (4) can the Democrat base get out the vote and increase their % from 2016.

https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/...ump-than-obama

THE LABOR MARKETS IN red-leaning states and for likely Republican voters have slightly outperformed their blue counterparts since President Donald Trump took office, according to a new study that suggests rebounds in mining and manufacturing are among the factors bolstering the economies of traditional Republican strongholds.

The report, released Wednesday by Indeed chief economist Jed Kolko, ultimately found that differences in performance mostly exist "around the edges" and that "these gains represent a continuation of the long recovery that began early in (former President Barack) Obama's first term."
:
But the unemployment rate for likely Trump supporters fell by 0.9 percentage points between January 2017 and July 2018. For those likely to have supported Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton, unemployment was down just 0.7 percentage points.
:
Job growth, likewise, seems to have disproportionately improved in red states under Trump after lagging at the tail end of the Obama presidency. During Trump's first year, states in which Trump won by at least 20 points saw job growth ramp up 1.2 percent, compared with the 0.6 percent growth such states enjoyed during Obama's final year in office.
:
"Among those without a college degree, both non-Hispanic whites, who lean red, and Hispanics and non-whites, who lean blue, have seen strong gains under Trump. But these employment measures have improved little in the past 18 months for college-educated adults, who tended to vote blue in 2016," Kolko wrote. "Educational differences probably explain why improvements in employment have been greater for likely Trump supporters in the past 18 months."
:
Indeed, the national unemployment rate dropped to 3.9 percent in July – having fallen 0.4 percentage points over the course of the past year, according to the BLS.

But that decline has largely benefited those without a bachelor's or advanced degree. Year-over-year, college degree holders have seen their unemployment rate drop from 2.6 percent to 2.2 percent, an improvement of 0.4 percentage points, or roughly 15 percent.

Those without even a high school diploma, meanwhile, have seen their unemployment rate plummet from 6.8 percent to 5.1 percent – an improvement of 1.7 percentage points, or 25 percent.
:
Individual industry trends have also played a leading role in determining which demographics and geographic locations have seen economic gains in recent years. Job growth in mining and logging jumped 9 percent during Trump's first 18 months, compared with a 13.9 percent contraction during Obama's final days in office.

Manufacturing payrolls, meanwhile, expanded 2 percent, after jumping just 0.1 percent in the final days of Obama's presidency.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

On healthcare, fair or not, Trump & GOP will easily be able to blame that on Obama. [/url]

I just want to pick this out. Poll after poll after poll shows the opposite.

[cartman]

J.F.C.

BREAKING: President Trump tells AP that Saudi Arabia being blamed for missing journalist is another case of 'guilty until proven innocent'

— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) October 16, 2018

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just want to pick this out. Poll after poll after poll shows the opposite.

Care to share your links?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Factor in the other Trump pros - SCOTUS, trade war with China (that is going well right now),

Don't tell farm country that the trade war is going well. It's not a huge voting block and I don't see somebody like Kansas or Iowa flipping because of it. But in some of the battleground 2016 states with bigger ag economies like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, it could potentially be enough to move the needle the other way. Only because the needle doesn't have to move far in those states.

Hundreds of dairy farms have already shut down in Wisconsin this year. His supposed victory over Canada in the NAFTA renegotiation only brought things back to the way they were in 2016 and gave us only a fraction of a percent increase in Canadian market access. He liked to portray it as a big win for dairy farmers but to anybody that understands the details, it's a big nothing burger.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Lathum

At what point do they turn on him, because most of them are hard core supports and fall into the "other" category I listed.

I realize it is a generalization, and perhaps an unfair one, but a lot of those uneducated people in the rust belt are also backwards as fuck, and like being able to hate them brown people. The uneducated ones are also the easiest to strike fear in to that hey are losing their country. Trump will campaign to them that they are losing their country to the mexicans and that the Dems will open the boarders and all their daughters all be raped and sold into the sex trade, and they will lap it up.

My Dad is not rich. He is like a lot of boomers. Worked hard, made decent money, and invested well. HE wants to see that continue and thinks Trump will make that happen. Environment, gay rights, civil rights, free speech, etc...be damned.

I agree. I think trump brought out desperate voters on healthcare costs and lack of economic recovery. Those people did not want 4 more years of failed Obama policies. And with all that, and significant Clinton fatigue, he won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by a total of 108,000 votes.

My point is, between higher democratic turnout and resignation that trump can’t make things great again (due to Dems, media of McConnell, etc) I think his 2016 108k marginm is essentially gone.

(Ugh, lungs just said this better...)

[lungs]

Just saw Julian Castro is thinking about challenging Trump. Other than Republicans probably getting their base believing that he is the spawn of Fidel, this is probably the first name that's intrigued me other than the list of geriatrics being floated about.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Its not all bad.

The article stated a couple times it wasn't all because of Trump. However, its been 2 years now and Trump will get credit in 2020 if it keeps up.

On healthcare, fair or not, Trump & GOP will easily be able to blame that on Obama. re: drug use, don't think that's a big issue for the GOP.

Are you speaking for yourself or the specific regions and voters I was referring to?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Are you speaking for yourself or the specific regions and voters I was referring to?

Rust belt = red leaning states and no college education folks are mentioned in the article?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Rust belt = red leaning states and no college education folks are mentioned in the article?

I seem to be wearing the wrong glasses because I am unable to read between the lines as well as you.

Higher Employment does not equal promise fulfilled. Lower healthcare costs, high standard of living and job security is the good old days.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I seem to be wearing the wrong glasses because I am unable to read between the lines as well as you.

Higher Employment does not equal promise fulfilled. Lower healthcare costs, high standard of living and job security is the good old days.

The article provides data points that "Trump's economy" has helped Trump voters including rust belt and non-college educated.

"Promised fulfilled" is quite an expectation for only 2 years into the administration, but I think his voters will see it is trending that way and that is good for them.

[stevew]

Who has more Indian blood. Elizabeth Warren or chief Running Zack?

Also I'm really surprised that Trump hasn't talked about how Nikki Haley is so much more Indian then Elizabeth Warren

[RainMaker]

I don't think the economy is as big a factor as people really say. It's used as a convenient cover instead of just saying you don't like minorities and the white nationalist sounds cool to you. Or that you have some major issues with women in your life.

In the end, Trump won because we have a weird undemocratic way of choosing a President. Hillary was an uninspiring candidate with decades of baggage, but she ended up being the more popular candidate.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think the economy is as big a factor as people really say. It's used as a convenient cover instead of just saying you don't like minorities and the white nationalist sounds cool to you. Or that you have some major issues with women in your life.

In the end, Trump won because we have a weird undemocratic way of choosing a President. Hillary was an uninspiring candidate with decades of baggage, but she ended up being the more popular candidate.

Democratic republic =/= democracy.
And if you don't think low middle class folks who co siedr themselves sophisticated financially don't see a surging 401k as a major win, you are disconnected.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Democratic republic =/= democracy.
And if you don't think low middle class folks who co siedr themselves sophisticated financially don't see a surging 401k as a major win, you are disconnected.

The number of low-middle class people that put much money into a 401k is pretty small.

And 401Ks were at record levels heading into the 2016 election and it conveniently wasn't a talking point.

[JPhillips]

The bottom 90% own @15% of stocks. There can't be many low middle class families with surging 401ks.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The article provides data points that "Trump's economy" has helped Trump voters including rust belt and non-college educated.

"Promised fulfilled" is quite an expectation for only 2 years into the administration, but I think his voters will see it is trending that way and that is good for them.

Good example of media bias. Saying he has “helped” his voters is a vague term, probably not meant for those voters, but more as a nice sound bite. Helped what? Find them a job? Ok, was that really their problem? Lowering healthcare, nope. Returning to good old days manufacturing jobs, nope.

Trump won his key states because of non college educated women turned out for him, in an above average way. I think that group is very affected by healthcare costs and the opioid epidemic but probably have their pick a of shitty retail job.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Care to share your links?

Here's one from last year.

An NBC News/The Wall Street Journal poll finds 50 percent of Americans surveyed would put blame on Trump and the GOP if health-care costs rise under ObamaCare and more people lose coverage.

Just 37 percent of respondents said they would put blame on Democrats and former President Obama.

There are others that show the same thing. Basically, when one party is in power and promises to fix something, they get the credit or the blame. The GOP runs everything, they said they'll fix healthcare, so anything that happens there is going to fall on the GOP.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The number of low-middle class people that put much money into a 401k is pretty small.

I have to agree but also believe the low-middle class folks that have the discipline to contribute to a 401k probably do appreciate seeing their money grow. Dow in 2017 was +24%, most will notice that bump. 2018 started out great but we are now at +3-5% I think.

Not convinced the 401k balance is what low-middle think about re: good economy. Its probably more on job opportunities, job security and a 3-4% increase every year.

https://money.usnews.com/money/retir...ance-stacks-up

$20,000 to $40,000. It is difficult to save for retirement when you earn a modest salary. "Many people with small incomes think that it isn't possible to save for retirement, but it really isn't the case," says Tim Baker, a certified financial planner for Script Financial in Baltimore. "When you're young, one of the things that you have a lot of is time, which means lots of compounding periods for your money to go to work for you." Many workers earning between $20,000 and $40,000 have managed to save something for retirement. The median 401(k) balance for people who have been on the job for five or more years ranges from $7,474 among workers in their 20s to $77,659 for people in their 50s.
:
$40,000 to $60,000. Employees earning between $40,000 and $60,000 are likely to have a little more room in their budget to save for retirement. The median 401(k) balance ranges from $16,502 among 20-somethings to $113,504 for workers in their 50s, according to the EBRI analysis

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Here's one from last year.

There are others that show the same thing. Basically, when one party is in power and promises to fix something, they get the credit or the blame. The GOP runs everything, they said they'll fix healthcare, so anything that happens there is going to fall on the GOP.

Interesting. The below Kaiser research is pretty recent and shows Trump/GOP won't get the blame (or that much). It may just be how the question is worded.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...l-health-costs

U.S. residents mostly blame the health care industry for high health care costs, with at least 70% of respondents to the Kaiser Family Foundation's (KFF) latest Health Tracking Poll saying drug companies, health insurers, and hospitals are at fault for rising costs.
:
:
78% of respondents said drugmakers make too much profit;
71% of respondents selected fraud and waste in the health care system;
71% of respondents said "hospitals charge too much" for services;
70% of respondents said health insurers generate too much profit;
62% of respondents said new drugs, treatments, and medical technologies often are costly;
49% of respondents said "doctors charge too much" for services;
47% of respondents said the aging U.S. population is driving up health care costs;
45% of respondents cited the cost of medical malpractice lawsuits as a reason for rising health care costs;
41% of respondents said the use of medically unnecessary services is driving up health care costs;
39% of respondents said the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is increasing health care costs;
38% of respondents said the Trump administration's actions on health care are driving up costs; and
28% of respondents said insured individuals not shopping around for lower-priced medical services leads to higher costs.

[CU Tiger]

Of course this isn't hard data, just anecdotal.

I listened to a couple guys recently talking about their 401k balances. These are hourly construction guys. Not spring chickens late 40s early 50s guys. The conversation was about how ones 401k balance had gone up from 10k to 15k since Trump took office. Now i dont know if his numbers are even real...but they were both praising the growth.

If there are a large sample of these people...collectively they are a small % of the total market yet they see personal gain.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Of course this isn't hard data, just anecdotal.

I listened to a couple guys recently talking about their 401k balances. These are hourly construction guys. Not spring chickens late 40s early 50s guys. The conversation was about how ones 401k balance had gone up from 10k to 15k since Trump took office. Now i dont know if his numbers are even real...but they were both praising the growth.

If there are a large sample of these people...collectively they are a small % of the total market yet they see personal gain.

I was honestly going to type something very similar.

All the blue collar workers in fly over states whose 401K has gone up from 20K to 27K are going to praise Trump. In their minds the POTUS is giving them free money.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Good example of media bias. Saying he has “helped” his voters is a vague term, probably not meant for those voters, but more as a nice sound bite. Helped what? Find them a job? Ok, was that really their problem? Lowering healthcare, nope. Returning to good old days manufacturing jobs, nope.

Trump won his key states because of non college educated women turned out for him, in an above average way. I think that group is very affected by healthcare costs and the opioid epidemic but probably have their pick a of shitty retail job.

The article is one data point so take it for what its worth. But it provides evidence of better "mining, logging" and "manufacturing" under Trump. Those statistics in the article are not "vague".

Individual industry trends have also played a leading role in determining which demographics and geographic locations have seen economic gains in recent years. Job growth in mining and logging jumped 9 percent during Trump's first 18 months, compared with a 13.9 percent contraction during Obama's final days in office.

Manufacturing payrolls, meanwhile, expanded 2 percent, after jumping just 0.1 percent in the final days of Obama's presidency.

[PilotMan]

The Dems are like a seriously distracted ADHD kid. They can't formulate any kind of sound strategy that controlls the narrative. They could pick from any number of topics and just pound it home over and over again, and forget that anything else is happening until people are sick of it, then move to something else once the first is totally ingrained. Instead, they try and hit every topic a little at a time and run around like Chicken Little with no focus and no discipline to stick to anything .

[JPhillips]

That's true at a national level, and God knows I've been pounding the party on it's lack of branding, but at a local level it's been healthcare and Social Security. Just look at how many GOPers are running to say they will protect the basics of the ACA. They're doing that because the Dems are killing them on the issue in race after race.

[PilotMan]

non - dola


the perfect example today. Instead of hitting the president on his complete acceptance of SA's total denial in the journalist case, they focus on a goddamned umbrella. It's not like it was really raining either. Maybe a sprinkle at best. Why?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The Dems are like a seriously distracted ADHD kid. They can't formulate any kind of sound strategy that controlls the narrative. They could pick from any number of topics and just pound it home over and over again, and forget that anything else is happening until people are sick of it, then move to something else once the first is totally ingrained. Instead, they try and hit every topic a little at a time and run around like Chicken Little with no focus and no discipline to stick to anything .

Yes, a great explanation.

TBF Trump provides such a "target rich" environment but the Dems should do a better job on picking and focusing.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Of course this isn't hard data, just anecdotal.

I listened to a couple guys recently talking about their 401k balances. These are hourly construction guys. Not spring chickens late 40s early 50s guys. The conversation was about how ones 401k balance had gone up from 10k to 15k since Trump took office. Now i dont know if his numbers are even real...but they were both praising the growth.

If there are a large sample of these people...collectively they are a small % of the total market yet they see personal gain.

It's not nothing, but that 5k will last them how many months once they're retired?

Of course they'll need every if Medicare and Social Security are slashed.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

It's not nothing, but that 5k will last them how many months once they're retired?

Of course they'll need every if Medicare and Social Security are slashed.

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm telling you that's why the economy matters to those demographics and why it isn't a dog whistle as Rainmaker suggested.

We agree it isn't a tremendous game changer for them, but for them the perception is it's huge

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The bottom 90% own @15% of stocks. There can't be many low middle class families with surging 401ks.

Originally Posted by Lathum

I was honestly going to type something very similar.

All the blue collar workers in fly over states whose 401K has gone up from 20K to 27K are going to praise Trump. In their minds the POTUS is giving them free money.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm telling you that's why the economy matters to those demographics and why it isn't a dog whistle as Rainmaker suggested.

We agree it isn't a tremendous game changer for them, but for them the perception is it's huge

I see other posters already hit this, but yes, while the vast % of stocks owned and profits made go to the upper X %, a lot of people own few stocks and they like seeing a rise in their "portfolio".

A rise from 20k to 27k in my 401k wouldn't make me change my actuarial timetable, but I'd still enjoy it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Democratic republic =/= democracy.
And if you don't think low middle class folks who co siedr themselves sophisticated financially don't see a surging 401k as a major win, you are disconnected.

Market soared under Obama. They hated him. Wonder what the difference is.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Lathum

At what point do they turn on him, because most of them are hard core supports and fall into the "other" category I listed.

I realize it is a generalization, and perhaps an unfair one, but a lot of those uneducated people in the rust belt are also backwards as fuck, and like being able to hate them brown people. The uneducated ones are also the easiest to strike fear in to that hey are losing their country. Trump will campaign to them that they are losing their country to the mexicans and that the Dems will open the boarders and all their daughters all be raped and sold into the sex trade, and they will lap it up.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Trump won his key states because of non college educated women turned out for him, in an above average way. I think that group is very affected by healthcare costs and the opioid epidemic but probably have their pick a of shitty retail job.

Will they turn out as much I don't know, but they will never turn on him/the GOP while "coastal elites/libruls" say things like this. Why would anyone with any pride switch sides to a group that talks shit about them non-stop? You heard terms like "condescending" about Hillary (and will hear it with Warren), and hear terms like "folksy" about Biden and GWB - how you talk to and about people matters a lot.

(I also don't think the opioid epidemic is a red state thing - meth was more red state, while opioids were more blue states, and certainly a huge issue in the blue part of the northeast I lived near.)

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I agree. I think trump brought out desperate voters on healthcare costs and lack of economic recovery. Those people did not want 4 more years of failed Obama policies. And with all that, and significant Clinton fatigue, he won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by a total of 108,000 votes.

My point is, between higher democratic turnout and resignation that trump can’t make things great again (due to Dems, media of McConnell, etc) I think his 2016 108k marginm is essentially gone.

(Ugh, lungs just said this better...)

I don't think Obama policies failed, I think Obama/DNC messaging of those policies did, and a large part of that was due to the media and supporters.

I also don't know if they will turn out for midterms (and hope not, though between the Kavanuagh hearings and Liz Warren bringing up dumb things for no reason I see where the Fox etc train will try to spur turnout), but I don't think there is nearly the resignation amongst 2016 Trump supporters you assume. Dems just need to nominate someone with a bit of charisma who engages people instead of talking down to them...

Originally Posted by lungs

Just saw Julian Castro is thinking about challenging Trump. Other than Republicans probably getting their base believing that he is the spawn of Fidel, this is probably the first name that's intrigued me other than the list of geriatrics being floated about.

Castro is someone I'm intrigued by since his DNC speech, but it's a tough look when you haven't won statewide office. HUD Secretary just isn't sexy enough.

Why not Cory Booker? (Kamala Harris is not geriatric either, but she does seem more radical.)

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Market soared under Obama. They hated him. Wonder what the difference is.

First let me address the statistical fallacy.
On 1/1/09 the Dow was at 9,034 He left at 19,762 (Which was also the highest point at any point in his tenure) a 10,700 point surge in 8 years.



We are 2 weeks removed from a 26,828 peak.

A 7,000 point jump in under 2 years.




Second and I think its the bigger issue with the Democratic party right now. This is the second or third time you have implied if not directly tried to make it an exclusively race issue. You specifically, and many others, marginalize the opinions of any who oppose your view and simply discard them as ignorant racists too dumb to understand these big boy issues. Its the exact mistake Hillary made and what led to the election of a moron like Trump.



Obama had a lot of issues, a lot of reasons to dislike him unrelated to the color of his skin.



But go ahead and dismiss everyone who sits on your side of the aisle, just like the Democrat candidates. Dont bother to spend a minute understanding their motivation. Then shake your head next November and make up another boogie man, another strawman for why everyone screwed up again. Find another Russia to blame. Never learn from past mistakes just keep repeating.

[Lathum]

Wonder how Trump would be perceived if he wasn't so abrasive?

There obviously is a sector of people who think he " tells it like it is!" that love it. But if he wasn't so crude and childish all the time and just stayed off Twitter I wonder if the perception from the middle and other side would be enough to make him win easily.

I just don't understand why he feels the need to act like that and discredit all the positives that have happened under him.

[bob]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Wonder how Trump would be perceived if he wasn't so abrasive?

There obviously is a sector of people who think he " tells it like it is!" that love it. But if he wasn't so crude and childish all the time and just stayed off Twitter I wonder if the perception from the middle and other side would be enough to make him win easily.

I think that without the abrasiveness he wouldn't have cut through that crowded primary field.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

First let me address the statistical fallacy.
On 1/1/09 the Dow was at 9,034 He left at 19,762 (Which was also the highest point at any point in his tenure) a 10,700 point surge in 8 years.



We are 2 weeks removed from a 26,828 peak.

A 7,000 point jump in under 2 years.




Second and I think its the bigger issue with the Democratic party right now. This is the second or third time you have implied if not directly tried to make it an exclusively race issue. You specifically, and many others, marginalize the opinions of any who oppose your view and simply discard them as ignorant racists too dumb to understand these big boy issues. Its the exact mistake Hillary made and what led to the election of a moron like Trump.



Obama had a lot of issues, a lot of reasons to dislike him unrelated to the color of his skin.



But go ahead and dismiss everyone who sits on your side of the aisle, just like the Democrat candidates. Dont bother to spend a minute understanding their motivation. Then shake your head next November and make up another boogie man, another strawman for why everyone screwed up again. Find another Russia to blame. Never learn from past mistakes just keep repeating.

You're playing some games with the numbers. If you go from Obama's inauguration the Dow was under 8500. If you go from the low point, in early March of 2009 it was around 6600. You also can't ignore that the Dow is no longer at its historic peak.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Wonder how Trump would be perceived if he wasn't so abrasive?

There obviously is a sector of people who think he " tells it like it is!" that love it. But if he wasn't so crude and childish all the time and just stayed off Twitter I wonder if the perception from the middle and other side would be enough to make him win easily.

I just don't understand why he feels the need to act like that and discredit all the positives that have happened under him.

If he didn't act like a spoiled child he would be far more tolerable. But we have a president that called a woman Horseface yesterday. That's just not acceptable.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ryche

If he didn't act like a spoiled child he would be far more tolerable. But we have a president that called a woman Horseface yesterday. That's just not acceptable.

I wouldn't accept that behavior from my 9-year-old, but Trump has proven that if a President acts like an immature 9-year-old long enough, such behavior will barely be noticed by much of the general population.


And don't forget....

A reminder of journalism's goldfish-like attention span: Less than 2 weeks ago, the @nytimes reported, with solid evidence, that the president of the United States is a criminal tax evader. Almost zero follow-up from the rest of the craft. But lots and lots of horse face, etc.

— Dan Gillmor (@dangillmor) October 17, 2018

[Ben E Lou]

Dola...to be clear, it was reported, but at this point, Trump acting like a child is going to draw a collective yawn from most people. I can't stand the guy, but I can't bother to be outraged every time he reminds of who he is.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Castro is someone I'm intrigued by since his DNC speech, but it's a tough look when you haven't won statewide office. HUD Secretary just isn't sexy enough.

Why not Cory Booker? (Kamala Harris is not geriatric either, but she does seem more radical.)

The way I look at it, is it possible that Castro's limited resume is an advantage rather than a disadvantage? Let's be real, the more time a candidate has spent in office, the more fodder there is for the opposition to latch on to.

I'm not necessarily opposed to Booker or Harris but with a guy like Castro the best the Republicans have to muddy his name is his name itself. (A la Obama/Osama back in 2008)

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Dola...to be clear, it was reported, but at this point, Trump acting like a child is going to draw a collective yawn from most people. I can't stand the guy, but I can't bother to be outraged every time he reminds of who he is.

Yeah, I don't understand why the horseface comment got so much coverage. Yes, we already know he is an ass. The media shouldn't let stupid stuff like that distract us from other stuff that is actually important, like his tax evasion or helping the Saudis cover up a murder.

[PilotMan]

The scope of fraud level activities by the trump organizations in the Times piece is staggering. It's far deeper, far bigger, and with incredible corroborating evidence, and yet here we are worried about who he called names, and whether Melania is standing under an umbrella when it's not really even raining. The narrative of his money, and his incredible bald faced lying has to be the sticking point.

The evangelical right actually believes that he might be a messenger from god that is the answer to their prayers after all these years. Like the sinner who rises above to fulfill a prophecy, this is how he is perceived in some circles in the bible belt, because of how he has filled the Courts and his willingness to give them exactly what they want.

[molson]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The evangelical right actually believes that he might be a messenger from god that is the answer to their prayers after all these years.

I hope everyone was able to catch this special Fathom event!

The Trump Prophecy - YouTube