The Trump Presidency – 2016

[digamma]

Oh of course. He's still having people chant lock her up at rallies. He's the master at winning the last battle.

Also, reading between the lines, I find the use of the word "knowingly" in the quoted portion of the report regarding conspiracy and coordination interesting. Seems to infer that the campaign may have unwittingly aided the Russian influence (or kind of, you know, the definition of a Manchurian candidate). Will be interesting to see how much the full Mueller Report goes into this.

[EagleFan]

It's typical dirtbag trump procedure. Have others do the dirty work while keeping a distance for plausible deniability.

[JPhillips]

We're so fucked in 2020.

Russia interfered with the election to help elect Trump.

Russians met with Trump campaign folks several times in an attempt to get them to work together.

Manafort gave polling data to a guy connected to the Kremlin.

And the Russians have basically gotten off free and Trump has gone on to dismantle some of the election security apparatus.

I have no doubt they'll do it again in 2020.

[thesloppy]

I have to admit I'm having a hard time reconciling that this report explicitly says that Russia hacked the DNC servers, disseminated their emails to WikiLeaks, expressly offered to help the Trump campaign, Trump is on camera saying "I'd love to see them!", and then somehow this didn't happen? The collective results of the report & the indictments seem to be that the Russians had a conspiracy to influence the 2018 election, repeatedly sought to help Trump's campaign, individuals in Trump's campaign sought out Russian assistance in the campaign and/or shady real estate deals within Russia itself, and somehow none of those streams ever crossed.

[kingfc22]

So about those 12 dirty democrats and the fraud named Mueller who Trump tailed on for months and months. Now their word is gospel. This clown just needs to fucking go.

*I have no problem with this ending with no definitive action by the Special Counsel. Hoping the SDNY brings the hammer once he’s out of office*

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We're so fucked in 2020.

We're completely fucked, permanently. We live in a world where something like 33% of the country believes that democrats are the real threat to their way of the security of the nation, significantly greater than ISIS, China or Russia. Just last week our president was talking about the uprising and violence that his supporters are capable of. These people have been convinced that Fox News is the only reliable source of news left in the country. Literally every other source is effectively state sponsored for Democrats. How do we ever get back to a point where facts matter? We can't even agree that climate change is real and action is required to save our species existence on this planet. Immunizations cause autism, the earth is flat, if you just ignore facts you can say literally anything and a significant number of people will get behind it.

There's no coming back. It's just a matter if we go down in our lifetime's or if it takes a little longer than that.

[Radii]

In one sense the Mueller report shouldn't even matter. I can totally accept that its possible that it wasn't reasonable to attempt to indict a sitting president. I can accept a conclusion that the president is merely incompetent, but not actively evil. I cannot accept that conclusion coming from an individual hand picked by trump for this purpose without seeing the report. The house voted unanimously that the entire report should be released. so, redact information regarding open investigations and release the damn thing.


To anyone sayin that this exonerates the president of all wrongdoing:

-- Paul Manafort is in jail and while his crimes that he was tried for were mostly his own financial wrongdoing, his own team fucked up a redaction in a release that Paul Manafort gave polling data to a Russian official and lied about his contacts with Russians to congress. Presumably more details about this are in the report.

Roger Stone is charged with lying to congress about his involvement in the knowledge of the russian hack of the DNC and having knowledge of WikiLeaks releasing information obtained by a russian hacking effort and with witness tampering.

Michael Flynn is in prison for lying to investigators about his contact with Russians. That's the guy Trump hand picked to be his National Security Advisor.

Campaign aid Robert Gates has plead guilty to lying to investigators about contacts and for conspiring to commit other crimes. His trial has been delayed five times because he apparently has provided so much valuable information to the Special Counsel leading to other criminal investigations that he's still, a year later, being useful.

Trump's personal lawyer is in jail for many of his own issues, but also for campaign finance violations. and for lying to congress to protect the president.

Trump campaign advisor somehow obtained information about Russia having damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Instead of reporting that information to the FBI because "both sides" are supposed to have a vested interest in protecting our national from foreign influence in our governing process, he instead kept it to himself and bragged about it to other diplomats who reported him. He then repeatedly lied to investigators about his contacts with Russia.

Two of Michael Flynn's assistants while he was national security advisor have been charged with conspiracy for their involvement in working on behalf ofa Turkish to overthrow their president.

Also its been reported that Mueller's investigation has led to US Attorney's investigating Trump for crimes involving the use of funds with his charity, and for Campaign Finance Violations.

There are secret grand juries and things we may not know about for years on top of what we do know now.


If nothing else, the full Mueller Report likely has evidence documenting all of these contacts with Russia that Trump's entire campaign staff felt the need to lie about.


So what is there to be happy about no matter what the final conclusions of the Mueller report are? If Trump didn't actively collude with the Russians - which we don't know yet but we know that he's not currently being indicted for it - then he's a completely incompetent fool with the worst judgement of the people he chooses to put around him that i can name in my lifetime.


And what is the right's response to this? "no collusion, fake news, Fox says its no big deal, fuck you" or "LOL at least we pwned the libs"


Lets get the Mueller report out there and see what it says, but lets not forget that there are a number of people in Trump's inner circle in jail because of this investigation already and numerous other open investigations happening, and countless questions that still need answering about why so many of Trump's people were having conversations with Russian officials that they felt the need to lie under oath about - even if those details don't directly lead to Trump being imprisoned directly. That'd be ok. We've unearthed so many horribble truths about Trump and his innercircle in the last 2 1/2 years. Lets keep doing that until we know the full truth.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We're so fucked in 2020.

Russia interfered with the election to help elect Trump.

Russians met with Trump campaign folks several times in an attempt to get them to work together.

Manafort gave polling data to a guy connected to the Kremlin.

And the Russians have basically gotten off free and Trump has gone on to dismantle some of the election security apparatus.

I have no doubt they'll do it again in 2020.

If Trump wins in 2020 it's Dems fault.

We're more than 2 years into Trump's presidency and he's done nothing to expand his base. In fact, his voting base has shrunk because he continues to cater to the far right while throwing the occasional bone to the evangelicals and ignoring everyone else.

He's sitting at a 40% approval rating despite a strong economy. That's unheard of and there's little room for improvement to the economy from here thanks to his corporate tax cuts. Even 538, which continues to be cautious about Trump's chances in 2020, admits there's little chance Trump takes all of Michigan (42% approval), Wisconsin (42% approval), and PA (42% approval) again. Florida? 43%. Arizona? 43%. Texas? 41%. North Carolina? 45%.

Dems won the house vote by a total of 7% and Trump's approval has dropped a couple of points since then. I don't see Russia or anyone else swinging an election that much.

Whoever wins the Democrat nomination hopefully campaigns in battleground states this time and tries to push the battlegrounds into Georgia, Texas, Arizona. Trump prefers to stay away from states he's not popular in so he won't step foot in democrat states this time.

In the meantime I'd like to see the House continue to pursue Trump's tax returns, get the Mueller report made public, and focus on popular policy like the anti-corruption bill, net neutrality, and legalization.

In the the end, dems outnumber the GOP and simply need to show up to the polls.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Whoever wins the Democrat nomination hopefully campaigns in battleground states this time and tries to push the battlegrounds into Georgia, Texas, Arizona.

Thing is, expanding the map is exactly what Clinton tried to do. Instead of locking down the "blue wall," she tried to run up the score by trying to flip Georgia and Arizona and maybe give Trump a run for his money in Texas.

And then Trump somehow took the upper Midwest and pantsed her.

[bob]

Originally Posted by Atocep

He's sitting at a 40% approval rating despite a strong economy. That's unheard of and there's little room for improvement to the economy from here thanks to his corporate tax cuts. Even 538, which continues to be cautious about Trump's chances in 2020, admits there's little chance Trump takes all of Michigan (42% approval), Wisconsin (42% approval), and PA (42% approval) again. Florida? 43%. Arizona? 43%. Texas? 41%. North Carolina? 45%.

Politics aside, I'd think that the 2016 election shows that you can't really trust polls when it comes to Trump.

[JPhillips]

National polling was generally good, it was the state level polling that was more inaccurate.

[PilotMan]

538 actually looked at all the polling post election and found that it was very representative, and within the margin of error.

[bob]

I'm not doubting you, but if that's the case, then why was EVERYONE shocked that Trump won?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by bob

I'm not doubting you, but if that's the case, then why was EVERYONE shocked that Trump won?

Hey, even Giant Douche was shocked when he won.

[bob]

That's my point - if everyone was shocked, how could the polls be accurate?

[PilotMan]

The Polls Are All Right | FiveThirtyEight

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by bob

I'm not doubting you, but if that's the case, then why was EVERYONE shocked that Trump won?

The political "experts" aren't necessarily pollsters.

[bob]

Fair enough, but I don't seem to recall 538 calling a Trump win, but maybe I'm wrong.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by bob

Fair enough, but I don't seem to recall 538 calling a Trump win, but maybe I'm wrong.

538 called a 1 in 3 chance, I think. Probably reasonable when one guy picks up 300+ electoral votes but 3 million less votes.

[albionmoonlight]

The numbers were telling us that Trump had a decent chance of winning (about 1 in 3). I think that it feels like "everyone" was shocked because the sorts of people whose opinions about such things were widely shared (media and pundits and insiders) were predisposed to find an outsider candidate like Trump impossible. So they just assumed the numbers were wrong.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If Trump wins in 2020 it's Dems fault.

Yes, it would be.

There are 33% of Americans who love Trump, voted for him in 2016, and would vote again in 2020. But there are roughly another 15-20% of Americans who held their nose and voted for him, because the Dems offered up Hillary Clinton. That's how we got 2016.

That same 15-20%, however, is looking at the Dems now making concessions to far leftists and outright socialists, with the possibility such a character may even win the nomination.

If the Dems can't be a convincing a center-left party, and if they put up a far-left candidate, that same 15-20% who couldn't stand Hillary will be flat out scared of the 2020 D candidate. (This is, of course, the inherent problem with a 2-party system - I may hate one candidate, but the other one is worse, so I'll vote for the guy I hate least). They'll vote Trump just out of fear that the AOCs or Bernies of the world would actually take over.

[JPhillips]

Trump has consistently gotten approval ratings in the 40-44% range. Polling indicates that he hasn't lost much support over the past two-plus years. He'll also be the incumbent, which historically has been the favorite, and if the economy doesn't flop over the next 18 months that would also indicate he's in good shape.

Re-elections are referendums on the incumbent. At this point the fundamentals generally favor Trump, and he should be looked at as the favorite. As always, though, if he wins it won't be the fault of the people that don't vote for him.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Thing is, expanding the map is exactly what Clinton tried to do. Instead of locking down the "blue wall," she tried to run up the score by trying to flip Georgia and Arizona and maybe give Trump a run for his money in Texas.

And then Trump somehow took the upper Midwest and pantsed her.

She tried to expand the map while ignoring the Midwest. I think expanding the map is the right call, but maybe make a stop or 2 in those Midwest states I mentioned. Whoever wins the nomination needs a stronger campaign strategy.

I don't see trump campaigning much in states he's not popular in so he's not going to put much effort pushing back into blue states. Thats also where his policy is going to hurt him. What is he going to tell a blue state after 4 years of actively trying to damage them or, at best, ignore them? Trump would be happy staying in Georgia, Florida, and Texas where, despite his approval ratings, he still maintains a solid base and can draw a nice rally.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by revrew

They'll vote Trump just out of fear that the AOCs or Bernies of the world would actually take over.

I largely agree, but I do feel we're a major recession away from democratic socialism sounding really good to 2/3 of the country.

[JPhillips]

In looking at an electoral map, it sure looks like it will come down to Michigan and Pennsylvania. If Trump holds one of those, the Dems have to win FL or NC.

[QuikSand]

The simple fact is that battles over complicated things tend to boil down to short pithy sound bites. And where are we there:

-Complete exoneration. Witch hunt!

-Well, technically, in the footnotes you see where the Commission spelled out the variance in the legal theory behind the framework of the contacts, and while they didn't exactly say that there was a coordinated effort to obstruct justice, they do make reference to the legal precedent in this other case from 1971, and if you read the dissent there you'll find language that substantially leaves the door open to an interpretation that this was tanamount to, if not expclicitly, a violation of federal code number 01.154.104(c)(8) et seq, and here's a tweet from some guy at Montana Tech who seems inclined to believe there was a typo in section seventeen, where...

We know how this story goes. Trump is at 38c on PredictIt to win in 2020. I think that's a bargain right now.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by revrew

If the Dems can't be a convincing a center-left party, and if they put up a far-left candidate, that same 15-20% who couldn't stand Hillary will be flat out scared of the 2020 D candidate.

Is there any Dem outside of Joe Manchin that won't be portrayed as far-left?

[PilotMan]

That was my point too lungs. BClinton was probably the most far right D in modern history, yet HClinton was pretty much one notch to the right of Lenin. There is no candidate that R's can't turn into a scary threat to the good ol way of life.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

That was my point too lungs. BClinton was probably the most far right D in modern history, yet HClinton was pretty much one notch to the right of Lenin. There is no candidate that R's can't turn into a scary threat to the good ol way of life.

That's why I think it's important that Dems put out a fresh voice. One that hasn't been targeted for years or have decades of material for the right to pick through (Biden, Sanders). To me, Warren is the new Hillary (and AOC is the newer Hillary, though she isn't running for Prez).

[revrew]

Originally Posted by lungs

Is there any Dem outside of Joe Manchin that won't be portrayed as far-left?

That's why I said specifically that the Dems have to convince America they're center-left, not a specific candidate.

As long as the party is seen as far left, anyone running under that banner, no matter how centrist, will have a hard time dodging the charge of, "Look what they (the party) will do once they (the party) get control!"

Those 15-20% are looking at what the House Dems are doing NOW, and they're all already making judgments about what would happen if a Dem, no matter how centrist, would be elected. And I think the left-swing of the Dem party right now will hurt the candidate - whoever he or she may be - in 2020.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by lungs

That's why I think it's important that Dems put out a fresh voice. One that hasn't been targeted for years or have decades of material for the right to pick through (Biden, Sanders). To me, Warren is the new Hillary (and AOC is the newer Hillary, though she isn't running for Prez).

How exactly is this fresh voice going to have the experience enough to actually lead? One can say that Harris and Booker are fresh voices that have some decent experience, but the right have been savaging them during those experiential years.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How exactly is this fresh voice going to have the experience enough to actually lead? One can say that Harris and Booker are fresh voices that have some decent experience, but the right have been savaging them during those experiential years.

Like it or not, Obama and Trump are showing that relevant experience is not necessary to get people to vote for you and win the Presidency. I'm not really looking at it through the prism of 'Who will make the best President?'. Rather I'm looking at it in terms of winning the election.

Hillary was probably one of the most qualified candidates for the Presidency in a long time and look how far that got us. Perhaps this is a sad commentary on our country as a whole, but it's the reality we are currently living in.

[ISiddiqui]

Obama was a US Senator. That's entirely different than Trump, coasting on his celeb name.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Obama was a US Senator. That's entirely different than Trump, coasting on his celeb name.

His lack of experience was an issue, was it not? A few mostly inconsequential years as a US Senator after being a State Senator. His resume was not that deep.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by bob

That's my point - if everyone was shocked, how could the polls be accurate?

The national polls were right. The state polls were off in a few key states.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How exactly is this fresh voice going to have the experience enough to actually lead? One can say that Harris and Booker are fresh voices that have some decent experience, but the right have been savaging them during those experiential years.

As a Cory Booker fan I feel like he gets attacked more frequently from the left than the right.

And regardless, I think the key is that any candidate will get demonized, so they (and not their handlers) need to have some charisma and be able to sell something about themselves or their vision that will stick more than the other sides attacks.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by lungs

His lack of experience was an issue, was it not? A few mostly inconsequential years as a US Senator after being a State Senator. His resume was not that deep.

Some tried to make his experience an issue as his opponents had a lot more experience than he did - but no one denied that he was a US Senator and therefore qualified enough to run for the highest office.

Both Booker and Harris are first term Senators (Harris just got the job in 2018). Without that position, they wouldn't really be taken seriously as candidates.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Some tried to make his experience an issue as his opponents had a lot more experience than he did - but no one denied that he was a US Senator and therefore qualified enough to run for the highest office.

He was intellectually qualified, but expectations and promises were a lot higher going in than what was ultimately delivered.

We heard that was all the Republicans' fault (which ways weird to me, since they were the opposition party and everything), but could experience and political savvy be a difference-maker in maneuvering a hostile political environment and fulfilling more campaign promises? Putting aside electability for a second, doesn't it make sense that someone like Biden would have a better chance of being effective than an outsider, or someone less experienced?

Or does it not matter at all, and the only role of a Democratic president is to keep the presidency away from a Republican?

Edit: I guess campaigning on ideas and themes always worked and it gets people to the polls. But anybody can say what they would do in a perfect world without anyone working against them or without any other roadblocks. I could find some eloquent redditors or FOFC posters to vote for if that's all it took. I'm much more interested in who will actually do this hugely difficult job well, and it's hard to know how to evaluate that besides experience.

[QuikSand]

Relevant experience is still a factor, but it's clearly no longer a high-importance one like (I'd argue) it once was.

Ranks lower than "person I'd want to have a beer with" and "tells it like it is" and "makes me feel like he understands me" and the like.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by revrew

That's why I said specifically that the Dems have to convince America they're center-left, not a specific candidate.

The Dem frustration is that people on the left were pushing President Obama to enact single-payer healthcare or, at least, create a full public option for health insurance.

And, instead, he adopted the budget-conscious and market-friendly plan that was modeled after the GOP candidate's signature legislative accomplishment and it was still parodied as far-left socialism instead of the center-left (or even center-center) moderate plan that it was.

So the argument from that side is that since anything they do will be portrayed as leftist extremism and lose them the moderates, why not actually govern from the left and try to keep the base excited.

I'm saying this as a center-leftist myself. I think that, policywise, it is the way to go. But I wonder if it really is the correct electoral strategy in this media environment.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

He was intellectually qualified, but expectations and promises were a lot higher going in than what was ultimately delivered.

We heard that was all the Republicans' fault (which ways weird to me, since they were the opposition party and everything), but could experience and political savvy be a difference-maker in maneuvering a hostile political environment and fulfilling more campaign promises? Putting aside electability for a second, doesn't it make sense that someone like Biden would have a better chance of being effective than an outsider, or someone less experienced?

I mean, I think promising more than was delivered is literally every single politician ever. However, he did get the ACA passed, which was his major campaign promise. And righted the economy from 2018's complete mess. Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell and added LGBTQ to federal hate crimes law. Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act for equal pay lawsuits. I think he did a decent job of getting his promises into action. And did quite a lot of things.

[molson]

I think people expected a lot more. Republican obstructionism became the main discussion point of the Obama presidency here. Of course we remember those years more fondly now.

Edit: Everybody's memory/perspective can be reasonably different on that, my point is just that doesn't it make sense that an experienced candidate would more likely to be effective? And if not, how can we evaluate how effective someone will be? It has to be more than just promises and ideas and what they'd do in a perfect world with no obstacles or opposition. Even though that's what gets people to vote. What separates Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from a redditor who has the same political opinions? Or is just getting into the office all that matters. If we replaced her with the most eloquent FOFCer with the same opinions, would they be just as effective?

[ISiddiqui]

Republican obstructionism was partially brought up when the Democrats couldn't get a public option in the ACA, but mostly after the Democrats had lost Congress, which is pretty obvious.

I think experience can matter, but I also think that someone who has experience being a Senator has the requisite experience to pass policy. I don't know how much more you may learn with an additional decade in the job (now if you were in other jobs as well - like Cabinet member, etc, then sure). At some point personality and natural deal making is more important than experience.

There is an argument to be made that the Obama Administration passed more substantial legislation than most and is on par with the Reagan and LBJ Administrations in terms of policy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

At some point personality and natural deal making is more important than experience.

Definitely, but how do we evaluate which candidate has those things? Isn't it just what they've done before (that is, experience)? Or is this where "who I'd like to have a beer with" becomes a thing.

I think campaign and stump speech personality and charisma is way different than the type of personality that that makes one effective in office.

[JPhillips]

Arguably only once in the post WW2 era has the Dem party not nominated one of the more moderate candidates. Perhaps that will change, but even now Biden has a big lead in polling.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arguably only once in the post WW2 era has the Dem party not nominated one of the more moderate candidates. Perhaps that will change, but even now Biden has a big lead in polling.

Just for fun, are you saying McCarthy in 1972? I think JFK in 1960 was also much more progressive than his main competition LBJ and Stevenson, and while Obama governed closer to the middle, he campaigned as the much more progressive option in 2008 (only Kucinich was to his left iirc and he was never a serious candidate.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Definitely, but how do we evaluate which candidate has those things? Isn't it just what they've done before (that is, experience)? Or is this where "who I'd like to have a beer with" becomes a thing.

I think campaign and stump speech personality and charisma is way different than the type of personality that that makes one effective in office.

Little bit of A and a little bit of B. Experience as a legislator doesn't track necessarily with experience as an executive as well. Perhaps that's why Governors were usually tasked with being nominated as Presidents.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Just for fun, are you saying McCarthy in 1972? I think JFK in 1960 was also much more progressive than his main competition LBJ and Stevenson, and while Obama governed closer to the middle, he campaigned as the much more progressive option in 2008 (only Kucinich was to his left iirc and he was never a serious candidate.)

Stevenson was far more left than Kennedy. And while Obama campaigned more progressively, he wasn't all that dissimilar than Clinton in terms of policy positions in 2008.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arguably only once in the post WW2 era has the Dem party not nominated one of the more moderate candidates. Perhaps that will change, but even now Biden has a big lead in polling.

The argument could be made that Nixon was well further to the left than any D president or presidential nominee since.

[Radii]

The rights playbook is the same no matter who the democratic nominee is. “They’re coming for your guns” “they’re basically socialist” (whether it’s true or not) etc. Insert some soecifics for what makes any specific candidate more scary.

I’m voting for the furthest left candidate I can find in the primaries. An actual centrist democrat will turn off a lot of the left. If that 15-20% in the middle isn’t dead set on voting against trump no matter what, fuck em. Excite the base. Get the left voter count up as much as possible.

No matter which democrat wins, the swing back to the right after trumo claims fraud is going to be immense, way scarier than trump. So the left might as well go as far left as possible and try to make some real progress on the environment, fixing the wage gap, etc. because no matter what happens, if trump loses in 2020 the backlash is going to be fierce and not based in fact or reality at all.