Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Card

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Nobody is 'unifying' this early in the process. There isn't even desire for unity until the party's candidate is chosen. Look what happened when the party 'unified' behind Hillary so early; it was considered an undemocratic coronation. You're all making yourselves nuts by worrying about it this early in the game.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Bruno View Post

      I guess that's a question for pollsters. I was just alluding to the stories I've read on the spat between Pelosi and AOC. If the party leader is against or annoyed with you, you're probably not unifying. The "face of the party" is eventually going to be the nominee, but Trump's goal is to make that person beholden to "the Squad."
      Pelosi is a 79 year old stalwart and party anchor. AOC is a 29 year old rookie. Besides being women, what alignment do you honestly expect of them relationship-wise? Spat or no spat, by the time AOC can legally be president, Pelosi will be in a pine box.

      Comment


        Pelosi's long-term track record and longevity as party leader suggests to me that she's unifying. But that can all end at some point, obviously.

        Comment


          Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
          You take cable news theatre much too seriously
          I don't watch cable news.

          Comment


            Originally posted by WOM View Post
            Nobody is 'unifying' this early in the process. There isn't even desire for unity until the party's candidate is chosen. Look what happened when the party 'unified' behind Hillary so early; it was considered an undemocratic coronation. You're all making yourselves nuts by worrying about it this early in the game.
            I'm not "worrying" about it, I'm just talking about it. I've washed my hands of this country as a long-term enterprise, but I have to live/work eat/sleep here.

            My point again was that Trump is playing divide and conquer. If he's doing it too early for it to matter that's well and good.

            Comment


              Looking from a distance, wouldn't a Trump message of "the economy's in great shape, our soldiers aren't fighting in any new conflicts and I've made every attempt to make good on my 2016 election promises" go down well with at least a sizable chunk of the electorate?

              Comment


                Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post
                Looking from a distance, wouldn't a Trump message of "the economy's in great shape, our soldiers aren't fighting in any new conflicts and I've made every attempt to make good on my 2016 election promises" go down well with at least a sizable chunk of the electorate?
                One would think, yeah. The strong economy, which I assume is only unsustainably strong because of the now-defunct notion that interest rates should ever be raised, is my main source of pessimism about 2020.

                Part of it must be explained by Trump's trashy personality. This is just what he's best at.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                  I'm not "worrying" about it, I'm just talking about it. I've washed my hands of this country as a long-term enterprise, but I have to live/work eat/sleep here.
                  Right...but you always seem to talk about it a specific tone of impending doom, which....you know...suggests you're worrying about it. You don't seem able to accept that Trump has spent almost three years shocking and horrifying a lot of people (especially swing voters and those with legitimate concerns about Hillary), and his base isn't as big as some might think.

                  Comment


                    I'm sure that many GOP strategists would agree with you, NS.

                    The most significant problems with it are that the economy isn't in great shape for many people, that he hasn't really delivered on any of his promises other than judges and that he is in capable of message discipline.

                    He also has a foreign policy structure in place that very much wants new conflicts.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by WOM View Post

                      Pelosi is a 79 year old stalwart and party anchor. AOC is a 29 year old rookie. Besides being women, what alignment do you honestly expect of them relationship-wise? Spat or no spat, by the time AOC can legally be president, Pelosi will be in a pine box.
                      I don't know what unity I expect of them, but AOC isn't just any 29-year-old, and the fact that she's so high-profile at only 29 is a big part of the story. I take AOC to be a reflection of discontent with the old-line Dems, and by extension a reflection of how polarized and dysfunctional we've become. I don't think Pelosi is the answer to anything; once one party in the two-party system goes off the rails like this, it becomes a battle between the extremes.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by WOM View Post

                        Right...but you always seem to talk about it a specific tone of impending doom, which....you know...suggests you're worrying about it. You don't seem able to accept that Trump has spent almost three years shocking and horrifying a lot of people (especially swing voters and those with legitimate concerns about Hillary), and his base isn't as big as some might think.
                        I'm worried in a more global sense, yeah. I'm not fretting about whom the Democrats should nominate. If ANY of the current candidates are unable to defeat Trump, our doom is sealed, and that being apparently the case, I think our doom is sealed.

                        On how shocked and horrified people are, I'm really not sure. I can't get past the stubborn fact that he's allowed to stay in office nonetheless, which is proof of a broken system.

                        Comment


                          I've never read of anything that AOC has said that seems remotely extreme

                          Comment


                            Indeed. And there's already a "Don't go too mental about Trump's racism, it's what he wants you to do" line being developed by liberals. Here's an example, from the UK commentariat's most hardcore Clinton-worshipper

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Bruno View Post

                              I don't know what unity I expect of them, but AOC isn't just any 29-year-old, and the fact that she's so high-profile at only 29 is a big part of the story.
                              I think the fact that she's 29 years old is a big part of the AOC story. She's young, and she's also impetuous / inexperienced enough to say a lot of things that ruffle feathers. She will, most certainly, mellow considerably over the next decade as she learns how to make the levers of power work for her.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by ad hoc View Post
                                I've never read of anything that AOC has said that seems remotely extreme
                                Well it's a relative notion subject to dishonest manipulation. She's, unfortunately, far to the left in the US, or rather those to the left of her are still virtually invisible. The US right wing is self-evidently more extreme in a more global sense than the left. And given how extreme the right is becoming, I assume they'll succeed in fanning flames to the left of AOC into greater visibility.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                                  If ANY of the current candidates are unable to defeat Trump, our doom is sealed, and that being apparently the case, I think our doom is sealed.
                                  Okay, so this is what I'm talking about. Why is it 'apparently the case' 18 months before the next election? This is the process...it always works like this.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Sporting View Post
                                    Well, the next election hangs on five or six states, doesn't it? Let's hope the Dems start making inroads in those,
                                    Not necessarily: There are the midwestern states that Trump won because Clinton wasn't focused on them - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan (and Indiana and Iowa, to a lesser extent). But there's a politics and strategy that could win Georgia, Arizona, Florida and North Carolina (all of which except Florida have been trending less Republican for a couple of decades now) that doesn't necessarily win in the mid-west. I don't think it would be good strategy to pin your hopes on Arizona and Georgia, but those are places Democrats should be competing to give themselves more chances of victory.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by WOM View Post

                                      Okay, so this is what I'm talking about. Why is it 'apparently the case' 18 months before the next election? This is the process...it always works like this.
                                      Trump is so bad that we should be able to run my dentist for president and see him win. My assumption is that if we nominated at least 10 of the current candidates, all of whom are more viable than my dentist, we'd have a decent chance of losing. It's the fact that it's even close.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Bruno View Post

                                        Trump is so bad that we should be able to run my dentist for president and see him win. My assumption is that if we nominated at least 10 of the current candidates, all of whom are more viable than my dentist, we'd have a decent chance of losing. It's the fact that it's even close.
                                        Right...but you are going on nothing but your 'doom gut'.

                                        Where are your poling numbers showing hypothetical matchups with the current 10 leading candidates VS Trump in a hypothetical general election? My assumption is that Biden will take the nomination and walk the election. But if someone is suddenly more appealing and electable than Biden, so much the better. But again, 18 months out....

                                        Comment


                                          If you look at current match-up polling (which is usually piss-poor at this stage, but it's the best we have), Biden, Harris, Warren and Sanders all beat Trump. Trump's numbers basically stick between 42 and 44% with an economy that is superficially looking in great shape. The Democrats numbers basically align with their public profile - despite what we think, there are still a good chunk of the public who have no idea about Kamala Harris, and a fair few who don't know about Elizabeth Warren. So, there's more "don't knows" for those candidates, but Trump's numbers never improve.

                                          Even a minor recession (of the sort that I feel is just around the corner) should completely scupper Trump, because the economy is literally the only thing that people who aren't the racist hardcore don't despise about him.

                                          Comment


                                            We already have the evidence of Trump beating Hillary Clinton, who never polled behind him that I can recall. Whatever the polls say now, a repeat is intellectually conceivable, and the fact that it is explains my sense of doom. Given how brain-dead many voters are, I wouldn't expect a "radical" or "inexperienced" or "crooked" Democrat to put us in better shape than we were with Clinton. Granted, Trump is now a known quantity as president, but like I said, not impeaching him drained my belief in our political system long term. I would place a modest bet on him losing next year, but the systemic erosion that was ongoing before he took office has accelerated a lot.

                                            Comment


                                              There are too many variables this far out. The economy is buoyant by no means booming, jobs are insecure and another flurry import of restrictions could change things rapidly. OTOH there's no overseas conflict right now but one could easily be manufactured. And, in the short term, it's a time-tested method method of "bringing people together for the sake of the country."

                                              Comment


                                                But Trump "beat" Clinton 46-48%. If Trump can't poll better than 44% against relatively unknown candidates who haven't really campaigned yet, and with a decent economy, he's probably not going to win again. Of course there's a chance that he'll win, but right now isn't the time for the feelings of doom. Right now, you'd expect any of the top 10 Democrats to beat him in a general election.

                                                Comment


                                                  Originally posted by E10 Rifle View Post
                                                  Indeed. And there's already a "Don't go too mental about Trump's racism, it's what he wants you to do" line being developed by liberals. Here's an example, from the UK commentariat's most hardcore Clinton-worshipper
                                                  Why do AOC and Rashida tlaieb. look grey skinned in a lot of the pictures that you see on newspaper sites? Is it just the result of flash photography, or an unfortunate artifact of colour adjustment for print. (I first noticed this sort of thing when Gina Miller looked very different in every newspaper)
                                                  Last edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 17-07-2019, 17:09.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
                                                    There are too many variables this far out. The economy is buoyant by no means booming, jobs are insecure and another flurry import of restrictions could change things rapidly. OTOH there's no overseas conflict right now but one could easily be manufactured. And, in the short term, it's a time-tested method method of "bringing people together for the sake of the country."
                                                    The US is heading for a massive economic disaster the next time the global economy takes a bit of a down turn. The US didn't go half far enough in addressing the obvious failure of regulations that turned the last downturn into a crisis, but for the last three years it's been safeties off, full steam ahead, and they've adopted a massively pro cyclical budgetary policy, where they borrow a hell of a lot of money to pump into the economy in the good times. What happens to the US budget deficit when that goes wrong?

                                                    For the sake of American democracy, it's quite important that this disaster happens before the next election, so Trump loses and the blame is put on him. Because if a) trump wins re-election, and then the economy crashes, the republicans will use it to finally finish off much of the federal govt, b) if a democrat wins, they will be blamed, and at the next election 60% of americans will vote for the reanimated corpse of Himmler at the next election.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X