|
On October 10 2018 10:30 xDaunt wrote:
I don’t think that Democrats have to worry about there being a presumptive nominee again. Hillary was a very special case in that she had the right last name, wielded tremendous power in the political apparatus, and had been passed over once already after which she worked out a deal to ensure that 2016 was “her turn.”
You underestimate the amount of influence Hillary and the people that staked their careers on her still have on the party. Fundraising outside of grassroots small donations are still pretty much waiting for Hillary to tell them what to do. It was supposed to be Gillibrand but apparently the falling out over Bill Clinton and MeToo wasn't entirely fabricated. My guess is it was a random line in the sand for her.
The establishment has pretty much lined up behind Kamala "The Cop" Harris she's 4 years early though so we can't be sure Hillary won't make a "this primary was chaotic we need a stable person like me to run against Trump" plea near the end.
Which brings us to the most important point. The primary isn't real. It's a show. The DNC declared it under oath in court so there's no real point in pretending it's a real competition.
|
I think it's also worth mentioning that you don't have to have a preordained winner to have a set of people who you could reasonably put up for election and have a reasonable chance of eking out a win in the general. The process may be biased and party-guided, but there is still an element of choice and "let's see how it plays out" in it. Problem is that the talent pool is just so pitifully bare for Democrats that it's hard to find someone to reasonably challenge Trump among the people who are well known enough to have enough support to actually win party support to get on the ticket.
|
On October 10 2018 11:29 LegalLord wrote:
I think it's also worth mentioning that you don't have to have a preordained winner to have a set of people who you could reasonably put up for election and have a reasonable chance of eking out a win in the general. The process may be biased and party-guided, but there is still an element of choice and "let's see how it plays out" in it. Problem is that the talent pool is just so pitifully bare for Democrats that it's hard to find someone to reasonably challenge Trump among the people who are well known enough to have enough support to actually win party support to get on the ticket.
The problem is the various Democratic candidates are mostly just different sacks full of the same shit. The Democrats strategy is all but openly to not improve the positions that lost them 2016 and simply find a different wrapper to throw on it.
The big problem Democrats have with that (it should be enough just to toss Hillary and replace her with someone shinier), is Trump didn't blow up the world the way Democrats pumped up he would. Obviously he's problematic for the left ,but for people who don't follow politics and don't care how it impacts people they don't know he's done as well as the next guy. DC still get's their panties in a bunch every time he walks in the room, media can't get enough and the Russia narrative/Mueller investigation was a dud from the start .
If Democrats fight tooth and nail to prevent Bernie (or Maybe a Nina Turner) from being the nominee they will lose to Trump. I'm not entirely convinced they don't prefer it that way.
|
On October 10 2018 11:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 11:29 LegalLord wrote:
I think it's also worth mentioning that you don't have to have a preordained winner to have a set of people who you could reasonably put up for election and have a reasonable chance of eking out a win in the general. The process may be biased and party-guided, but there is still an element of choice and "let's see how it plays out" in it. Problem is that the talent pool is just so pitifully bare for Democrats that it's hard to find someone to reasonably challenge Trump among the people who are well known enough to have enough support to actually win party support to get on the ticket. The problem is the various Democratic candidates are mostly just different sacks full of the same shit. The Democrats strategy is all but openly to not improve the positions that lost them 2016 and simply find a different wrapper to throw on it. The big problem Democrats have with that (it should be enough just to toss Hillary and replace her with someone shinier), is Trump didn't blow up the world the way Democrats pumped up he would. Obviously he's problematic for the left ,but for people who don't follow politics and don't care how it impacts people they don't know he's done as well as the next guy. DC still get's their panties in a bunch every time he walks in the room, media can't get enough and the Russia narrative/Mueller investigation was a dud from the start . If Democrats fight tooth and nail to prevent Bernie (or Maybe a Nina Turner) from being the nominee they will lose to Trump. I'm not entirely convinced they don't prefer it that way.
I think the biggest problems are that the economy is improving and the 'trade war' at least seems to be going Trump's way. If people voted him in because despite his character they thought Trump would help the economy and the economy he has indeed helped, or seemed to, that gives him a pretty rock solid foundation to boast from that's going to resonate.
I think even Bernie is going to have difficulty unseating him if the economy improves from here to 2020. Short some truly massive scandal that even teflon Trump can't walk off, of course.
|
On October 10 2018 20:28 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 11:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 10 2018 11:29 LegalLord wrote:
I think it's also worth mentioning that you don't have to have a preordained winner to have a set of people who you could reasonably put up for election and have a reasonable chance of eking out a win in the general. The process may be biased and party-guided, but there is still an element of choice and "let's see how it plays out" in it. Problem is that the talent pool is just so pitifully bare for Democrats that it's hard to find someone to reasonably challenge Trump among the people who are well known enough to have enough support to actually win party support to get on the ticket. The problem is the various Democratic candidates are mostly just different sacks full of the same shit. The Democrats strategy is all but openly to not improve the positions that lost them 2016 and simply find a different wrapper to throw on it. The big problem Democrats have with that (it should be enough just to toss Hillary and replace her with someone shinier), is Trump didn't blow up the world the way Democrats pumped up he would. Obviously he's problematic for the left ,but for people who don't follow politics and don't care how it impacts people they don't know he's done as well as the next guy. DC still get's their panties in a bunch every time he walks in the room, media can't get enough and the Russia narrative/Mueller investigation was a dud from the start . If Democrats fight tooth and nail to prevent Bernie (or Maybe a Nina Turner) from being the nominee they will lose to Trump. I'm not entirely convinced they don't prefer it that way. I think the biggest problems are that the economy is improving and the 'trade war' at least seems to be going Trump's way. If people voted him in because despite his character they thought Trump would help the economy and the economy he has indeed helped, or seemed to, that gives him a pretty rock solid foundation to boast from that's going to resonate. I think even Bernie is going to have difficulty unseating him if the economy improves from here to 2020. Short some truly massive scandal that even teflon Trump can't walk off, of course.
You're right about the economy but you're still reading how to beat Trump wrong. Democrats spent almost 3 years now hitting him with one career ending scandal after another and it hasn't budged his support (other than to calcify and expand it slightly).
Democrats shouldn't even need to mention Trump by name. Everything any Republican says should be tied to every Republican but only in contrasting what instead their candidate is offering.
For example: "Republicans are/have doing/done X" "We're going to do Y"
That's the most basic formulaic way for them to win and they don't want to do it because htye are voting for stuff like Trumps obscene military budgets so they can't say "We're cutting spending on arming/assisting Saudi Arabia in it's genocide against the Yemeni people, instead we're spending it on making sure every child has quality pre-K" (granted that's not actually how spending works).
|
GH, you may need to ready your Jonestown Massacre pic again:
With less than a month to Election Day, the Generic Congressional Ballot is now dead even.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters would choose the Democratic candidate if the elections for Congress were held today. Another 45% would opt for the Republican. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week, 47% of voters said they would choose the Democratic candidate while 42% said they would choose the Republican. It is unclear whether the sudden jump to a tie vote is a reflection of the anger surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation process, but we will continue to watch this in the weeks ahead.
Since Rasmussen Reports began the weekly surveying in early May, Democrats have led every week but one in mid-August when the two parties were tied at 44% apiece. Their lead has ranged from one to eight points.
At this time in 2014, prior to the last non-presidential year congressional elections, Democrats held a 41% to 39% lead. But Republicans went on to gain control of the Senate in those elections and increase their majority in the House of Representatives.
Source.
|
On October 10 2018 23:37 xDaunt wrote:GH, you may need to ready your Jonestown Massacre pic again: Show nested quote +With less than a month to Election Day, the Generic Congressional Ballot is now dead even.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters would choose the Democratic candidate if the elections for Congress were held today. Another 45% would opt for the Republican. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week, 47% of voters said they would choose the Democratic candidate while 42% said they would choose the Republican. It is unclear whether the sudden jump to a tie vote is a reflection of the anger surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation process, but we will continue to watch this in the weeks ahead.
Since Rasmussen Reports began the weekly surveying in early May, Democrats have led every week but one in mid-August when the two parties were tied at 44% apiece. Their lead has ranged from one to eight points.
At this time in 2014, prior to the last non-presidential year congressional elections, Democrats held a 41% to 39% lead. But Republicans went on to gain control of the Senate in those elections and increase their majority in the House of Representatives. Source.
That's pretty much terrible for Democrats. Besides the generic ballot heavily favoring Democrats because California+NY gives them at least 2-3 worthless points. There's the Bradley effect that heavily favors Trump, and Republican turnout is reliable.
Considering Democrats should be a comfortable 10 points up, that they are probably even (or worse) going into midterms, spells disaster.
If they don't fail in epic fashion it will be despite their best efforts.
|
Five tossups in the purple districts of California.
Cook political report has 14 seats going R to D
Another 27 are tossups or barely lean one way.
House looks like close races with tons of seats up for grabs either way. Dems wish two years of Trump blathering and bombast gave them easy fights, but they’re dead wrong.
This mornings polls show increasing R leads in senate races (RCP). A couple more leans R are turning heavier R.
Panic time. They need an October surprise with big shock value to overwhelm Kavanaugh story and lack of a firm identity apart from opposition and resistance.
|
On October 11 2018 00:43 Danglars wrote:
Five tossups in the purple districts of California.
Cook political report has 14 seats going R to D
Another 27 are tossups or barely lean one way.
House looks like close races with tons of seats up for grabs either way. Dems wish two years of Trump blathering and bombast gave them easy fights, but they’re dead wrong.
This mornings polls show increasing R leads in senate races (RCP). A couple more leans R are turning heavier R.
Panic time. They need an October surprise with big shock value to overwhelm Kavanaugh story and lack of a firm identity apart from opposition and resistance.
Mueller could arrest Trump in the white house with a check from Trump's bank account made out directly to Putin with "2016 election" in the memo line and Republicans would just have record turnout. It's not like you couldn't find out every other republican but the ones you plan on voting for were part of a massive skimming scam raking billions of dollars out of the government and it would give you or the rest of Republicans a moment of pause on voting for your local and state reps.
So no, it won't be a scandal that changes the midterms imo.
When Republicans backed Roy Moore is the worst it got for Trump and that was tied for polling right before he won and Moore won 63% of white women. Democrats are in a bubble and it's increasingly looking like it's going to get popped in November (hopefully not 2020).
On October 11 2018 01:18 Danglars wrote:Republicans would win in a landslide if Mueller acts outside his authority and somehow finds officers willing to go along with it. Republicans aren’t monolithic. Tossup districts do respond to major scandal. Even Clinton flipped a couple Republican counties. So if we presume something half believable of a scandal is sprung, it has the chance to capture several tossups by 0-2 points. As things stand, the Dems fucked up bad. They need something energetic to recapture the narrative. You’re a little too pessimistic here, GH.
I just mean to say if Mueller had Trump dead to rights on colluding with Russia.
When Republicans backed Roy Moore is the worst it got for Trump and that was tied for polling right before he won and Moore won 63% of white women. Democrats are in a bubble and it's increasingly looking like it's going to get popped in November (hopefully not 2020).
I think that's the unsaid part of the whole thing. If you found out Trump had illegally colluded, the absolute best Democrats could hope for is that people like you are willing to accept Democrat control over supporting Trump/Republicans.
Would you take that trade if you knew ahead of time? Would you have rather had Clinton win and Trump in prison if he was illegally colluding or would you rather he be held accountable but after winning and placing the SCJs , Tax law, etc?
|
Mueller could arrest Trump in the White House...
Republicans would win in a landslide if Mueller acts outside his authority and somehow finds officers willing to go along with it.
Republicans aren’t monolithic. Tossup districts do respond to major scandal. Even Clinton flipped a couple Republican counties. So if we presume something half believable of a scandal is sprung, it has the chance to capture several tossups by 0-2 points. As things stand, the Dems fucked up bad. They need something energetic to recapture the narrative.
You’re a little too pessimistic here, GH.
|
The question of what Trump would have to do for me to stop supporting him is an interesting one. For conservatives, he is easily the best president since Reagan, and may ultimately be the best president of our lives. Where he has a demonstrative leg up on Reagan is in inflicting real damage upon the Democrat Party.
|
If sexual assault allegations are the new normal, and people like Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder are calling for increased incivility, these next two years are going to be lit! The Republican base down in my area of California are pretty radicalized by how Kavanaugh was treated by the press and Senators. Nearby, a couple house races are tossups.
|
Going back to the Reagan/Trump comparison, one thing to look out for is what happens to China in the next few years. Reagan is widely credited with pushing the USSR over the edge and into collapse. Trump may succeed in similar fashion with China. The trade war that he has started with China has been a smashing success so far. China's economy is really hurting. Investor capital has certainly spoken, with Chinese market indices remaining in prolonged declines. And it's only going to get worse with the USMCA coming into effect. People who say that the USMCA differs little from NAFTA are overlooking the biggest changes. Specifically, the USMCA requires more North American-sourced components in automobiles, and it also gives the US an effective veto on any trade deals that Mexico or Canada might sign with China. Long story short, the USMCA shuts off China's backdoor access to the US market and forces the Chinese to deal with the US if it wants access to the North American market. This is a crippling development for China's export-reliant economy. It comes as no surprise that the Chinese government has a media blackout on trade war news. They know that they are losing badly, and they are afraid of the domestic repercussions.
|
On October 11 2018 06:57 xDaunt wrote:
The question of what Trump would have to do for me to stop supporting him is an interesting one. For conservatives, he is easily the best president since Reagan, and may ultimately be the best president of our lives. Where he has a demonstrative leg up on Reagan is in inflicting real damage upon the Democrat Party.
I mean Regean devastated Unions which was a Democratic backbone at the time and still hurts them today. Does this mean the scenario I laid out wouldn't be enough?
|
On October 11 2018 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 06:57 xDaunt wrote:
The question of what Trump would have to do for me to stop supporting him is an interesting one. For conservatives, he is easily the best president since Reagan, and may ultimately be the best president of our lives. Where he has a demonstrative leg up on Reagan is in inflicting real damage upon the Democrat Party. I mean Regean devastated Unions which was a Democratic backbone at the time and still hurts them today. Does this mean the scenario I laid out wouldn't be enough?
No Republican will accept a traitor in the White House. Patriotism, nationalism, and loyalty actually mean something to us. But let’s get real. The Mueller investigation is a farce. There is no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. However, there is ample evidence of Hillary/Russia collusion. It’s all projection.
|
On October 11 2018 10:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 11 2018 06:57 xDaunt wrote:
The question of what Trump would have to do for me to stop supporting him is an interesting one. For conservatives, he is easily the best president since Reagan, and may ultimately be the best president of our lives. Where he has a demonstrative leg up on Reagan is in inflicting real damage upon the Democrat Party. I mean Regean devastated Unions which was a Democratic backbone at the time and still hurts them today. Does this mean the scenario I laid out wouldn't be enough? No Republican will accept a traitor in the White House. Patriotism, nationalism, and loyalty actually mean something to us. But let’s get real. The Mueller investigation is a farce. There is no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. However, there is ample evidence of Hillary/Russia collusion. It’s all projection.
I'm presuming that to mean you (and most of the party) would at least abstain from voting for Trump and the guilty in that case but if it hadn't been adjudicated yet it wouldn't stop you from voting for your local Republicans. So if he was illegally colluding with Israel would that be enough to lose your vote and risk Democrat control?
|
On October 11 2018 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2018 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 11 2018 06:57 xDaunt wrote:
The question of what Trump would have to do for me to stop supporting him is an interesting one. For conservatives, he is easily the best president since Reagan, and may ultimately be the best president of our lives. Where he has a demonstrative leg up on Reagan is in inflicting real damage upon the Democrat Party. I mean Regean devastated Unions which was a Democratic backbone at the time and still hurts them today. Does this mean the scenario I laid out wouldn't be enough? No Republican will accept a traitor in the White House. Patriotism, nationalism, and loyalty actually mean something to us. But let’s get real. The Mueller investigation is a farce. There is no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. However, there is ample evidence of Hillary/Russia collusion. It’s all projection. I'm presuming that to mean you (and most of the party) would at least abstain from voting for Trump and the guilty in that case but if it hadn't been adjudicated yet it wouldn't stop you from voting for your local Republicans. So if he was illegally colluding with Israel would that be enough to lose your vote and risk Democrat control?
I don't know if it would have to be adjudicated, but there better be some damned evidence. And I don't really know what "illegally colluded" means. For me, what matters is whether the politician is selling out America.
|
On October 11 2018 12:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 11 2018 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2018 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 11 2018 06:57 xDaunt wrote:
The question of what Trump would have to do for me to stop supporting him is an interesting one. For conservatives, he is easily the best president since Reagan, and may ultimately be the best president of our lives. Where he has a demonstrative leg up on Reagan is in inflicting real damage upon the Democrat Party. I mean Regean devastated Unions which was a Democratic backbone at the time and still hurts them today. Does this mean the scenario I laid out wouldn't be enough? No Republican will accept a traitor in the White House. Patriotism, nationalism, and loyalty actually mean something to us. But let’s get real. The Mueller investigation is a farce. There is no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. However, there is ample evidence of Hillary/Russia collusion. It’s all projection. I'm presuming that to mean you (and most of the party) would at least abstain from voting for Trump and the guilty in that case but if it hadn't been adjudicated yet it wouldn't stop you from voting for your local Republicans. So if he was illegally colluding with Israel would that be enough to lose your vote and risk Democrat control? I don't know if it would have to be adjudicated, but there better be some damned evidence. And I don't really know what "illegally colluded" means. For me, what matters is whether the politician is selling out America.
Basically just meant coordination with a foreign country that breaks election or other laws. The second sentence indicates he'd not lose your support if all of our European allies had right-wing parties illegally cooperated to elect Trump since it would be in the interest of the US?
|
The only ones I've seen tossed around involving foreign countries is conspiracy to defraud the US.
The campaign finance law on accepting a contribution or donation, aimed at Trump Jr's meeting with Veselnitskaya is another thought. That one runs into trouble considering Hillary funded a brit to solicit similar donations from Russians + Show Spoiler +And funny enough Fusion GPS's Simpson that handled Clinton's collusion had met with Veselnitskaya the day before and the day after the meeting with Donald Trump after Trump's collusion
The long and short of it is nothing illegal is likely to come out. What Mueller's fans are hoping for is enough evidence of improper or shady dealings to make it look like Trump's a crook at some level, financial or through crooked associates. That hopefully will propel impeachment proceedings in the House should Democrats retake it. I base this primarily on how quickly the narrative went from Carter Page collusion + Show Spoiler +the FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts [to influence the 2016 election] were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign.
The Page collusion bit is the one that is backfiring. Obama administration officials likely used the FBI & intelligence agencies to surveil their rival party's campaign, using their own party's funded oppo research, while disguising it from judges charged with protecting our civil liberties. The "counterintelligence investigation" was just a hopeful criminal investigation of a subject without the predicate crime, exposing both FISA abuse and FBI corruption at the highest ranks. Andrew McCarthy had a lot to say about it.
That's where I think the focus should lie. On the extremely remote chance Trump actually paid for Russian hacking, or sent surrogates to do that, he should be impeached and removed. If there was some campaign finance violation on the level of Obama's or (charged) John Edwards, then pay the penalty.
Pompeo also said that Israel is everything we want the entire Middle East to look like going forward. It's a good reminder that he's engaged on the topic just like Nikki Haley.
|
On October 11 2018 14:54 Danglars wrote:The only ones I've seen tossed around involving foreign countries is conspiracy to defraud the US. The campaign finance law on accepting a contribution or donation, aimed at Trump Jr's meeting with Veselnitskaya is another thought. That one runs into trouble considering Hillary funded a brit to solicit similar donations from Russians + Show Spoiler +And funny enough Fusion GPS's Simpson that handled Clinton's collusion had met with Veselnitskaya the day before and the day after the meeting with Donald Trump after Trump's collusion . The long and short of it is nothing illegal is likely to come out. What Mueller's fans are hoping for is enough evidence of improper or shady dealings to make it look like Trump's a crook at some level, financial or through crooked associates. That hopefully will propel impeachment proceedings in the House should Democrats retake it. I base this primarily on how quickly the narrative went from Carter Page collusion + Show Spoiler +the FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts [to influence the 2016 election] were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign. to Papadopoulos collusion to Veselnitskaya collusion. The Page collusion bit is the one that is backfiring. Obama administration officials likely used the FBI & intelligence agencies to surveil their rival party's campaign, using their own party's funded oppo research, while disguising it from judges charged with protecting our civil liberties. The "counterintelligence investigation" was just a hopeful criminal investigation of a subject without the predicate crime, exposing both FISA abuse and FBI corruption at the highest ranks. Andrew McCarthy had a lot to say about it. That's where I think the focus should lie. On the extremely remote chance Trump actually paid for Russian hacking, or sent surrogates to do that, he should be impeached and removed. If there was some campaign finance violation on the level of Obama's or (charged) John Edwards, then pay the penalty.
https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1050211319012646912Pompeo also said that Israel is everything we want the entire Middle East to look like going forward. It's a good reminder that he's engaged on the topic just like Nikki Haley.
Interesting post, thanks. Obviously they were both unacceptable to me so the Hillary part doesn't really matter for myself but fascinating none the less.
I suppose the same goes for Israel. I'm not a supporter of the ethnic cleansing they've been engaged in and think suggesting more of the middle east should be like Israel is basically begging for mass war. I mean we're already way too close to outright just advocating for genocide for my taste but for those that aren't BDS'ers I see why that sounds like a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
