Help
http://www.cnn.com/2...test/index.html
SHUTDOWN. As expected, we have too many man-children in Congress. These codgers refuse to grow up!
We can't get compromise in Congress. We can't get a federal budget approved to stop this kicking of the can down the road with appeasing spending bills. We are so much better than this.
Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?
#8922
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,222
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2018-January-20, 06:26
At some point there will be a deal and government will be funded again. We should not praise the people that make this deal. Rather, Republican leaders and Democratic leaders should stand jointly in front of the cameras and explain what there is in the content of the agreement that prevented the deal from being made in early January or, for that matter, last year. They cannot be allowed to explain it by blaming someone else. They must explain why, based on the content of the agreement, it could not have been done earlier.
Of course such an explanation does not, and will not, exist. But then they must, before they leave the stage, acknowledge this fact. The voters can then do as they wish with this information. But absolutely there should be no praise for those who come to an agreement in February that is in no way different in content from an agreement that could have been made in December.
Of course such an explanation does not, and will not, exist. But then they must, before they leave the stage, acknowledge this fact. The voters can then do as they wish with this information. But absolutely there should be no praise for those who come to an agreement in February that is in no way different in content from an agreement that could have been made in December.
Ken
#8923
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,283
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-20, 09:21
kenberg, on 2018-January-20, 06:26, said:
At some point there will be a deal and government will be funded again. We should not praise the people that make this deal. Rather, Republican leaders and Democratic leaders should stand jointly in front of the cameras and explain what there is in the content of the agreement that prevented the deal from being made in early January or, for that matter, last year. They cannot be allowed to explain it by blaming someone else. They must explain why, based on the content of the agreement, it could not have been done earlier.
Of course such an explanation does not, and will not, exist. But then they must, before they leave the stage, acknowledge this fact. The voters can then do as they wish with this information. But absolutely there should be no praise for those who come to an agreement in February that is in no way different in content from an agreement that could have been made in December.
Of course such an explanation does not, and will not, exist. But then they must, before they leave the stage, acknowledge this fact. The voters can then do as they wish with this information. But absolutely there should be no praise for those who come to an agreement in February that is in no way different in content from an agreement that could have been made in December.
The reason a deal could not be made is Fredo and his viewership base - he has to continue to play an uninformed lunatic in order to keep them watching, he promised them a wall, and by God, a wall there must be! If he suddenly becomes a rational actor, the base will tune him out and look for another show to watch.
If you want to look for who in Congress to blame, look no further than those Republicans in Congress who are protective of Fredo, for they are complicit in all his excesses.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#8924
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 880
- Joined: 2014-February-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-January-20, 09:41
#8925
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,496
- Joined: 2006-February-24
Posted 2018-January-20, 12:42
Guest post from Matt Yglesias at Vox:
Quote
Back in November 2016, the Electoral College, in its wisdom, selected a man to be president who 61 percent of voters felt was unqualified and 63 percent felt lacked the right temperament to be president. The voters were, of course, correct about Donald Trump, and the government shutdown stems from those facts.
Trump set the current crisis in motion last September when he revoked Barack Obama’s executive order that protected DREAMERs — young unauthorized immigrants brought to the US as children — from deportation, but he offered no guidance about what he wanted to happen next, other than for Congress to do ... something.
The lack of clarity emboldened immigration hardliners in the GOP caucus while simultaneously raising hopes for a deal among immigration reformers. But Trump’s intervening behavior wound up salting the earth by leaving everyone feeling that he might screw them over at any moment. Consequently, nobody is quite sure exactly who is shutting down the government or what it is the White House is trying to achieve by rejecting a bipartisan proposal that would avert a shutdown.
The country has mostly coped with Trump’s inability to do his job by outsourcing governance to congressional GOP leadership. But congressional Republicans are less unified on immigration than on most issues, and Trump is more invested in immigration than on most issues. Consequently, his actual personal leadership as president of the United States is critical to moving the system forward.
But the mere fact that the circumstances require Trump to act like a real president doesn’t change the fact that he’s a lazy, ill-informed conspiracy theorist prone to tweeting cryptic pronouncements about delicate policy issues based on Fox & Friends segments.
Welcome to 2018.
As a candidate, Donald Trump loudly and frequently promised to “build a wall” on the US-Mexico border and “make Mexico pay” for it.
These ideas never made any sense, but once Trump won the election, turning them into some kind of actual policy imperative became important to the overall Republican Party. Mexico, of course, was not going to pay for the wall, but the White House got behind the conceit that Congress could appropriate funds for it that Trump would assert was some kind of advance on hypothetical future Mexican repayment.
Still, this left the problem of actually getting the money. Congressional appropriations require 60 Senate votes, and many Republicans were lukewarm on the wall concept all along, so last spring, Trump was considering the option of forcing a shutdown to try to get his way.
This was a bad idea, and other Republicans seem to have talked Trump out of it.
But the problem remained: how to get Democratic votes for the wall? One natural way to do it would be to give Democrats a big legislative win of their own. But precisely because congressional Republicans were lukewarm on the wall all along, they would revolt at the idea of giving away policy concessions of any real value.
Then came an idea: By canceling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Trump could generate new leverage for himself and then give Democrats concessions on the DREAMers (leaving Republicans no worse off than they were before) in exchange for some kind of wall money.
Trump changed his mind about his goals
Trump has deeply hawkish instincts on immigration, seemingly driven by his personal and ideological racism, but he’s ill-informed on pretty much all subjects, including immigration.
And the basic problem with a DREAMers-for-wall swap is that the wall is a dumb idea that wouldn’t actually accomplish anything to reduce immigration to the United States. And if legislative protections for DREAMers ended up creating a path to citizenship, it might actually end up increasing immigration, since the new citizens could sponsor visas for relatives.
Consequently, better-informed immigration hawks like White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) began working with Chief of Staff John Kelly to avoid the kind of deal that Trump had repeatedly suggested — and even at times explicitly agreed to in general terms.
The problem is that while hawks successfully scuttled a deal — souring Trump on a bipartisan compromise authored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — they haven’t managed to put forward any plausible ideas of their own.
Instead of negotiating positions, hawks have put forth a comprehensive wish list for entirely transforming the American immigration system. They say they want billions of dollars in new border security funding plus the full RAISE Act vision of cutting legal immigration in half while ending family and diversity visas in favor of an exclusive focus on job offers and educational attainment.
This is what Trump, whether wittingly or unwittingly, means with his various asides about the perils of “lotteries” and “chain migration.”
Everyone is, obviously, entitled to their views about immigration policy. But there’s just no way Democrats are going to agree to these changes as the price to pay for helping the DREAMers. There’s a total disproportion between the scale of the asks and the significance of the DACA issue. To get sweeping changes in the immigration system enacted, conservatives would need to come to the table with some kind of help for the entire population of long-settled undocumented immigrants — precisely the kind of comprehensive immigration reform they’ve been eschewing for years.
The result is that if Democrats blink and cave to Trump on the shutdown question, Trump himself is going to get none of the policy changes he desires — no change to the diversity visas, no change to family visas, and no wall money. In exchange, he’ll get to start deporting DREAMers, but the actual capacity of American immigration courts to carry out deportations is already maxed out.
Losing legal status will harm DREAMers in concrete ways, forcing some out of active-duty military service and others out of legitimate work and educational activities. But people who’ve grown up and spent their whole lives in the United States aren’t going to “self-deport,” and crowding the deportation pipeline with sympathetic DREAMer cases won’t help immigration hawks’ cause.
Maybe Trump doesn’t care and thinks hurting DREAMers is its own reward. But if so, he ought to at least clarify that and help the country move on.
The perversity of the current situation is that Trump has always publicly maintained that he wants to do something to help the DREAMers — repeatedly using the word “love” in this context.
That, for obvious reasons, has raised expectations among Democrats and immigration activists that there is a deal to be struck.
If Trump doesn’t actually want a deal, then he can probably prevail on the narrow issue of the government shutdown. Realistically, Democrats from red states with low Latino and Asian populations aren’t going to hold out forever for the sake of a futile effort to help DACA recipients. Indeed, if Trump had signaled implacable opposition months ago, there probably would be no standoff today. Alternatively, if he does want a deal, he needs to start seriously engaging with the process and put some concrete principles on the table.
Instead, by veering from handshake deals with “Chuck and Nancy” to profane rants about “shithole” countries, Trump has confused everyone and brought the political system to the breaking point.
Trump set the current crisis in motion last September when he revoked Barack Obama’s executive order that protected DREAMERs — young unauthorized immigrants brought to the US as children — from deportation, but he offered no guidance about what he wanted to happen next, other than for Congress to do ... something.
The lack of clarity emboldened immigration hardliners in the GOP caucus while simultaneously raising hopes for a deal among immigration reformers. But Trump’s intervening behavior wound up salting the earth by leaving everyone feeling that he might screw them over at any moment. Consequently, nobody is quite sure exactly who is shutting down the government or what it is the White House is trying to achieve by rejecting a bipartisan proposal that would avert a shutdown.
The country has mostly coped with Trump’s inability to do his job by outsourcing governance to congressional GOP leadership. But congressional Republicans are less unified on immigration than on most issues, and Trump is more invested in immigration than on most issues. Consequently, his actual personal leadership as president of the United States is critical to moving the system forward.
But the mere fact that the circumstances require Trump to act like a real president doesn’t change the fact that he’s a lazy, ill-informed conspiracy theorist prone to tweeting cryptic pronouncements about delicate policy issues based on Fox & Friends segments.
Welcome to 2018.
As a candidate, Donald Trump loudly and frequently promised to “build a wall” on the US-Mexico border and “make Mexico pay” for it.
These ideas never made any sense, but once Trump won the election, turning them into some kind of actual policy imperative became important to the overall Republican Party. Mexico, of course, was not going to pay for the wall, but the White House got behind the conceit that Congress could appropriate funds for it that Trump would assert was some kind of advance on hypothetical future Mexican repayment.
Still, this left the problem of actually getting the money. Congressional appropriations require 60 Senate votes, and many Republicans were lukewarm on the wall concept all along, so last spring, Trump was considering the option of forcing a shutdown to try to get his way.
This was a bad idea, and other Republicans seem to have talked Trump out of it.
But the problem remained: how to get Democratic votes for the wall? One natural way to do it would be to give Democrats a big legislative win of their own. But precisely because congressional Republicans were lukewarm on the wall all along, they would revolt at the idea of giving away policy concessions of any real value.
Then came an idea: By canceling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Trump could generate new leverage for himself and then give Democrats concessions on the DREAMers (leaving Republicans no worse off than they were before) in exchange for some kind of wall money.
Trump changed his mind about his goals
Trump has deeply hawkish instincts on immigration, seemingly driven by his personal and ideological racism, but he’s ill-informed on pretty much all subjects, including immigration.
And the basic problem with a DREAMers-for-wall swap is that the wall is a dumb idea that wouldn’t actually accomplish anything to reduce immigration to the United States. And if legislative protections for DREAMers ended up creating a path to citizenship, it might actually end up increasing immigration, since the new citizens could sponsor visas for relatives.
Consequently, better-informed immigration hawks like White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) began working with Chief of Staff John Kelly to avoid the kind of deal that Trump had repeatedly suggested — and even at times explicitly agreed to in general terms.
The problem is that while hawks successfully scuttled a deal — souring Trump on a bipartisan compromise authored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — they haven’t managed to put forward any plausible ideas of their own.
Instead of negotiating positions, hawks have put forth a comprehensive wish list for entirely transforming the American immigration system. They say they want billions of dollars in new border security funding plus the full RAISE Act vision of cutting legal immigration in half while ending family and diversity visas in favor of an exclusive focus on job offers and educational attainment.
This is what Trump, whether wittingly or unwittingly, means with his various asides about the perils of “lotteries” and “chain migration.”
Everyone is, obviously, entitled to their views about immigration policy. But there’s just no way Democrats are going to agree to these changes as the price to pay for helping the DREAMers. There’s a total disproportion between the scale of the asks and the significance of the DACA issue. To get sweeping changes in the immigration system enacted, conservatives would need to come to the table with some kind of help for the entire population of long-settled undocumented immigrants — precisely the kind of comprehensive immigration reform they’ve been eschewing for years.
The result is that if Democrats blink and cave to Trump on the shutdown question, Trump himself is going to get none of the policy changes he desires — no change to the diversity visas, no change to family visas, and no wall money. In exchange, he’ll get to start deporting DREAMers, but the actual capacity of American immigration courts to carry out deportations is already maxed out.
Losing legal status will harm DREAMers in concrete ways, forcing some out of active-duty military service and others out of legitimate work and educational activities. But people who’ve grown up and spent their whole lives in the United States aren’t going to “self-deport,” and crowding the deportation pipeline with sympathetic DREAMer cases won’t help immigration hawks’ cause.
Maybe Trump doesn’t care and thinks hurting DREAMers is its own reward. But if so, he ought to at least clarify that and help the country move on.
The perversity of the current situation is that Trump has always publicly maintained that he wants to do something to help the DREAMers — repeatedly using the word “love” in this context.
That, for obvious reasons, has raised expectations among Democrats and immigration activists that there is a deal to be struck.
If Trump doesn’t actually want a deal, then he can probably prevail on the narrow issue of the government shutdown. Realistically, Democrats from red states with low Latino and Asian populations aren’t going to hold out forever for the sake of a futile effort to help DACA recipients. Indeed, if Trump had signaled implacable opposition months ago, there probably would be no standoff today. Alternatively, if he does want a deal, he needs to start seriously engaging with the process and put some concrete principles on the table.
Instead, by veering from handshake deals with “Chuck and Nancy” to profane rants about “shithole” countries, Trump has confused everyone and brought the political system to the breaking point.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
#8927
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,283
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-21, 19:11
Curious about the WC group: What do each of you think would be a reasonable guess as to the size of Fredo's base compared to all voters? Personally, I think is is quite small, somewhere in the 15-20% range. You?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#8928
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,222
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2018-January-21, 19:28
Winstonm, on 2018-January-21, 19:11, said:
Curious about the WC group: What do each of you think would be a reasonable guess as to the size of Fredo's base compared to all voters? Personally, I think is is quite small, somewhere in the 15-20% range. You?
I suppose various numbers work depending on definitions. For example. Take a person with a very busy life, say someone heading a one person household with several kids,a parent with a full time job, reads about politics close to never, has little time or inclination to worry about what happens to dreamers, thinks Dems are a whining pain in the butt, and likes seeing Trump drive them nuts. Is such a person in the Trump base? Probably there are quite a few such people. Doesn't go to trump rallies, or to any rallies. No time, no interest. In the Trump base?
Ken
#8929
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,283
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-22, 10:14
kenberg, on 2018-January-21, 19:28, said:
I suppose various numbers work depending on definitions. For example. Take a person with a very busy life, say someone heading a one person household with several kids,a parent with a full time job, reads about politics close to never, has little time or inclination to worry about what happens to dreamers, thinks Dems are a whining pain in the butt, and likes seeing Trump drive them nuts. Is such a person in the Trump base? Probably there are quite a few such people. Doesn't go to trump rallies, or to any rallies. No time, no interest. In the Trump base?
I view Fredo's base as those who either: A) support him unequivocally or B) who always vote, regardless, and always vote Republican.
IMO, the type of person you describe is the type who can be as easily uninspired as inspired and is as apt to stay home on election day as fight the lines to vote.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#8930
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,222
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2018-January-22, 11:46
Winstonm, on 2018-January-22, 10:14, said:
I view Fredo's base as those who either: A) support him unequivocally or B) who always vote, regardless, and always vote Republican.
IMO, the type of person you describe is the type who can be as easily uninspired as inspired and is as apt to stay home on election day as fight the lines to vote.
IMO, the type of person you describe is the type who can be as easily uninspired as inspired and is as apt to stay home on election day as fight the lines to vote.
Yes, there are many who voted for Trump but we should not assume they will vote for Trump, or vote at all, again.
Now, let's look at the group "who either: A) support him unequivocally or B) who always vote, regardless, and always vote Republican."
Thought experiment: Let X be any candidate for anything. What percentage of people support X unequivocally? Similarly with "Republican" replaced by "Democrat". For example, a lot of the usual Democrat voters voted for Reagan in 1980, a lot of the usual Republican voters voted for Johnson in 1964. I usually vote for Democrats but I voted for Larry Hogan for governor, as did many others since he is now in office in this rather blue state.
So with your criterion for "base", no doubt the percentage of voters in his base would be small. It would be for anyone.15 to 20 percent seems on the high side.
Ken
#8931
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,283
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-22, 12:13
kenberg, on 2018-January-22, 11:46, said:
Yes, there are many who voted for Trump but we should not assume they will vote for Trump, or vote at all, again.
Now, let's look at the group "who either: A) support him unequivocally or B) who always vote, regardless, and always vote Republican."
Thought experiment: Let X be any candidate for anything. What percentage of people support X unequivocally? Similarly with "Republican" replaced by "Democrat". For example, a lot of the usual Democrat voters voted for Reagan in 1980, a lot of the usual Republican voters voted for Johnson in 1964. I usually vote for Democrats but I voted for Larry Hogan for governor, as did many others since he is now in office in this rather blue state.
So with your criterion for "base", no doubt the percentage of voters in his base would be small. It would be for anyone.15 to 20 percent seems on the high side.
Now, let's look at the group "who either: A) support him unequivocally or B) who always vote, regardless, and always vote Republican."
Thought experiment: Let X be any candidate for anything. What percentage of people support X unequivocally? Similarly with "Republican" replaced by "Democrat". For example, a lot of the usual Democrat voters voted for Reagan in 1980, a lot of the usual Republican voters voted for Johnson in 1964. I usually vote for Democrats but I voted for Larry Hogan for governor, as did many others since he is now in office in this rather blue state.
So with your criterion for "base", no doubt the percentage of voters in his base would be small. It would be for anyone.15 to 20 percent seems on the high side.
I know it seems high...but. I think that is the most troubling aspect of this entire presidency - that the racist (alternative) right is not only shown itself to be larger than thought but that so many who are not overtly alt right are OK with a lot of their ideas.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#8932
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 880
- Joined: 2014-February-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-January-22, 12:25
U.S. economy to grow nearly 3 percent in 2018 because of Trump tax cuts, IMF says
https://www.washingt...m=.0007feb732bb
https://www.washingt...m=.0007feb732bb
#8933
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 880
- Joined: 2014-February-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-January-22, 12:29
Interesting development: https://www.youtube....h?v=aa95jLxZfc4
#8934
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,952
- Joined: 2008-June-23
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-January-22, 13:11
ldrews, on 2018-January-22, 12:25, said:
U.S. economy to grow nearly 3 percent in 2018 because of Trump tax cuts, IMF says
https://www.washingt...m=.0007feb732bb
https://www.washingt...m=.0007feb732bb
Read the whole thing.
"Of the 29 countries the World Economic Forum assessed, the United States ranked 10th for economic growth but dropped near the bottom — 28th place — for ensuring everyone benefits from growth."
That's like bragging about coming 2nd in a chess match.
When a deaf person goes to court is it still called a hearing?
What is baby oil made of?
What is baby oil made of?
#8935
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,366
- Joined: 2012-March-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Illinois
- Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer
Posted 2018-January-22, 17:05
Winstonm, on 2018-January-22, 10:14, said:
I view Fredo's base as those who either: A) support him unequivocally or B) who always vote, regardless, and always vote Republican.
IMO, the type of person you describe is the type who can be as easily uninspired as inspired and is as apt to stay home on election day as fight the lines to vote.
IMO, the type of person you describe is the type who can be as easily uninspired as inspired and is as apt to stay home on election day as fight the lines to vote.
This is anecdotal, but in a way telling.
MSNBC (I couldn't believe it) had a piece on the other day where they followed up with three Dems who had voted for Trump. They were a waitress from FL, a union member from MI, and another 29 YO first time voter. They all said they still supported Trump because he has done what he said he would do and the economy has gotten much better. The waitress said that as disposable income goes up that was good for her. The union member noted that Trump hadn't done much on trade yet, but otherwise had carried through on his promises. The 29 YO said he'd still vote for Trump, but probably "wouldn't buy his jersey." All thought he should twitter less. All didn't think Trump was racist and felt the Russia investigation wasn't worthwhile because they didn't think the Russians had meaningfully affected the election.
Sorry, but if the people most likely to flip back and support the Dems are maintaining their support for President Trump, that doesn't augur well for the Dems.
#8936
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,519
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-January-22, 18:04
rmnka447, on 2018-January-22, 17:05, said:
This is anecdotal, but in a way telling.
MSNBC (I couldn't believe it) had a piece on the other day where they followed up with three Dems who had voted for Trump. They were a waitress from FL, a union member from MI, and another 29 YO first time voter. They all said they still supported Trump because he has done what he said he would do and the economy has gotten much better. The waitress said that as disposable income goes up that was good for her. The union member noted that Trump hadn't done much on trade yet, but otherwise had carried through on his promises. The 29 YO said he'd still vote for Trump, but probably "wouldn't buy his jersey." All thought he should twitter less. All didn't think Trump was racist and felt the Russia investigation wasn't worthwhile because they didn't think the Russians had meaningfully affected the election.
Sorry, but if the people most likely to flip back and support the Dems are maintaining their support for President Trump, that doesn't augur well for the Dems.
MSNBC (I couldn't believe it) had a piece on the other day where they followed up with three Dems who had voted for Trump. They were a waitress from FL, a union member from MI, and another 29 YO first time voter. They all said they still supported Trump because he has done what he said he would do and the economy has gotten much better. The waitress said that as disposable income goes up that was good for her. The union member noted that Trump hadn't done much on trade yet, but otherwise had carried through on his promises. The 29 YO said he'd still vote for Trump, but probably "wouldn't buy his jersey." All thought he should twitter less. All didn't think Trump was racist and felt the Russia investigation wasn't worthwhile because they didn't think the Russians had meaningfully affected the election.
Sorry, but if the people most likely to flip back and support the Dems are maintaining their support for President Trump, that doesn't augur well for the Dems.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#8937
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,283
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-22, 18:18
rmnka447, on 2018-January-22, 17:05, said:
This is anecdotal, but in a way telling.
MSNBC (I couldn't believe it) had a piece on the other day where they followed up with three Dems who had voted for Trump. They were a waitress from FL, a union member from MI, and another 29 YO first time voter. They all said they still supported Trump because he has done what he said he would do and the economy has gotten much better. The waitress said that as disposable income goes up that was good for her. The union member noted that Trump hadn't done much on trade yet, but otherwise had carried through on his promises. The 29 YO said he'd still vote for Trump, but probably "wouldn't buy his jersey." All thought he should twitter less. All didn't think Trump was racist and felt the Russia investigation wasn't worthwhile because they didn't think the Russians had meaningfully affected the election.
Sorry, but if the people most likely to flip back and support the Dems are maintaining their support for President Trump, that doesn't augur well for the Dems.
MSNBC (I couldn't believe it) had a piece on the other day where they followed up with three Dems who had voted for Trump. They were a waitress from FL, a union member from MI, and another 29 YO first time voter. They all said they still supported Trump because he has done what he said he would do and the economy has gotten much better. The waitress said that as disposable income goes up that was good for her. The union member noted that Trump hadn't done much on trade yet, but otherwise had carried through on his promises. The 29 YO said he'd still vote for Trump, but probably "wouldn't buy his jersey." All thought he should twitter less. All didn't think Trump was racist and felt the Russia investigation wasn't worthwhile because they didn't think the Russians had meaningfully affected the election.
Sorry, but if the people most likely to flip back and support the Dems are maintaining their support for President Trump, that doesn't augur well for the Dems.
This populist narrative doesn't hold water. Fredo has proven himself no populist and his polling support numbers go down while strong disapproval goes up. Many dems and independents voted against Hillary and for change but have since regretted that choice was Fredo. They will not make the same mistake if the dems can find a reasonable alternative.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#8938
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 880
- Joined: 2014-February-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-January-22, 18:59
ggwhiz, on 2018-January-22, 13:11, said:
Read the whole thing.
"Of the 29 countries the World Economic Forum assessed, the United States ranked 10th for economic growth but dropped near the bottom 28th place for ensuring everyone benefits from growth."
That's like bragging about coming 2nd in a chess match.
"Of the 29 countries the World Economic Forum assessed, the United States ranked 10th for economic growth but dropped near the bottom 28th place for ensuring everyone benefits from growth."
That's like bragging about coming 2nd in a chess match.
After 8 years of sub 3% growth, 3+% growth looks pretty good, don't you think?
#8939
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,198
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2018-January-22, 19:21
Winstonm, on 2018-January-22, 18:18, said:
This populist narrative doesn't hold water. Fredo has proven himself no populist and his polling support numbers go down while strong disapproval goes up. Many dems and independents voted against Hillary and for change but have since regretted that choice was Fredo. They will not make the same mistake if the dems can find a reasonable alternative.
Are you sure? Trump got an election boost and is now down about the same level as he was before the election. He has increased his ratings slightly recently although the government shutdown might have been a setback. This is the normal pattern: almost every president has been significantly less popular after one year than immediately after his election. Trump had a lower baseline and still he has low approval. There's also a long term trend that presidents get less and less popular. Here in New Zealand, everybody loves our PM because she is our PM, just like Danish people love their queen (OK, I exaggerate a little bit). This is probably how USA was a generation ago but nowadays the climate is so partisan that appr. half of the electorate is bound to dislike the president.
But of course you are right, the democrats will have to field a pretty bad-looking candidate to lose next time. Unless Trump does something to unify the nation behind him, such as starting a nuclear war. He must be tempted. Another possibility is that the democrats actually find a very reasonable candidates but that the facebook trolls manage to make him/her toxic. We have seen that happening before .....
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#8940
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,366
- Joined: 2012-March-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Illinois
- Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer
Posted 2018-January-22, 19:55
Winstonm, on 2018-January-22, 18:18, said:
This populist narrative doesn't hold water. Fredo has proven himself no populist and his polling support numbers go down while strong disapproval goes up. Many dems and independents voted against Hillary and for change but have since regretted that choice was Fredo. They will not make the same mistake if the dems can find a reasonable alternative.
Winnie, the problem might be finding and NOMINATING a "reasonable alternative". If the Dems go much further left, they'll have to replace donkey as a party symbol with a hammer and sickle.
Assuming MSNBC didn't pack the piece with Trump diehards (which is highly unlikely), the surprising thing was none had flipped because of Trump's flaws. So while progressive zealots are myopic about how unacceptable Trump is and Russian collusion, they may be a lot less of an issue for most everyday people. They're more worried about living paycheck to paycheck than anything else.
But then again there was a Dem President whose mantra was "It's about the economy, stupid." President Trump has certainly kept his word and concentrated on jobs and the economy. It'll be interesting to see where his approval ratings go when the full effect of the tax cuts kick in.