Topic: Trump Faceached & Twattered. "Instakarma's gonna getcha....." #bannedontherun

[Giono]

I think a more left-leaning democrat president like Warren would only work if Democrats control both Senate and Congress both with workable majorities. Otherwise it will be a frustrating term where republicans obstruct everything. Or they will have to do what Trump has done, a lot executive orders and legal challenges.

This is a reasonable post, but I do have some points I don't agree with fully. You are right about the senate. No progressive laws will get past a GOP senate or house.


I actually think that the Senate could be more important than the Presidency for Dems. They get to challenge cabinet and judicial appointments. And if they get 50 Dem Senators they could kill the filibuster, something that even McConnell wouldn't do when Trump wanted him to kill it. Killing the filibuster would free up the Dems to give a shot at controlling the agenda with a President and House in Dem hands.

Warren and some others have said they will use executive orders. Obama used them a lot and Trump has let that genie out of the bottle.

Its easy to forget that Obama was not really a centrist candidate, he was definitely more radical than Clinton. Before Obamacare was passed democrats tried hard for a Single Payer system, but just couldn't get enough support. I think with Obama a lot of policies were enacted with good intentions but executed poorly. During his administration he did enact a number of regulations on banking and financial industry to prevent another 2008 like recession. There were many advances in LGBTQ rights, during his presidency. A lot of his policies just would have been dead on arrival with the attitude of republicans.

The Dems had both houses and the presidency and only got a bastardised health plan that left the private insurers and drug companies free and easy. Extending public healthcare for seniors and the poor socializes the high risk / high cost insured, and leaves the private companies to charge what they want. And even the bastardised plan got labelled by the GOP as Obamacare (ie blackpeoplecare) and it was so poorly built that the GOP started weakening it from day 1 of their presidency.

LGBTQ rights? According to Biden, Obama needed convincing about gay marriage.


Obama was not a nightmare as a President. Far from it. But he had weaknesses. And you can see the result in how easy it was for Trump to reverse almost everything...

Dems need a president that has bigger balls, can throw an elbow or two, and has a longer term game plan.

I think in reality the biggest damage Trump as done is by gutting many governmental organization and de-funding them, or installing his idiot cronies to powerful positions. Just by changing the direction of EPA, ICE, DOE, etc would really help bring some normality but all this will take some time.

Supreme court is probably a lost cause, I doubt any of the democrats are going to get to appoint a new justice other than to replace RBG. I trust all of the candidates to select a liberal judge for that role.

Any Dem President would fix that. But imagine a Dem President that takes the environment as a cause that people will vote for...not just a steady hand at the control, but a new agenda and new vision. That won't just fix things Trump did, but advance things.

I agree about the judges. But Biden wants to select Merrick Garland again...he is 66 years old today. WTF The GOP are nominating young judges. They understand.

Once again Obama let McConnell dominate him like a dog in a dog park when they had a surprise opportunity to rebalance the supreme court. Where was Biden then? Where was his ability to work across the aisle with senators he has known for decades? Biden is going to have to answer some questions about his term as VP. 

No matter who the democratic candidate is, it would be too much to ask to them to fix all of america's problems. Any candidate that promises that is either naive or just happy to lie.  Healthcare, student debt, corporate tax avoidance, income inequality, national debt, stagnating wages these are all complex issues that would take decades to solve, even if everyone in both parties work together. In current climate, I don't see much getting done in the next term, other than some of Trump's more abhorrent policies getting scraped.

That's pretty defeatist and a bit more generous with time than reality will allow. The environment says "No".

I think a lot can be done quickly. Trump has done a lot of damage in a couple of years and he spends most of his time golfing and watching TV, plus his WH is a dysfunctional freak show. An energised and organised WH with a President who actually works can do a lot. There is room for optimism.

[GreatEx]

Looking at the polling where it matters in the swing/battleground states and Trump’s approval ratings are way down compared to 2016 in pretty much everyone, some by very large margins. Even in the red states he’s tanked and is down double digits to some of the Democrat frontrunners.

As was said, it’s not just daft racists and fake Christians who voted for him in 2016, it’s people who have been fucked over, the left behind etc... the one in the rustbelt who Trump promised the world to in 2015/16 and has delivered fuck all to and reneged on every single promise he made to them, whilst gutting their healthcare. He’ll lose many who took a punt on the ‘outsider’ in ‘16.

So is it true that Trump's approval rating has soared to 45% and, if so, where is he making those gains? Scares me to think there are people who were against him, then after 2.5 years of chaos and shitposting think he's now a good president.

[OneTouchFooty]

So is it true that Trump's approval rating has soared to 45% and, if so, where is he making those gains? Scares me to think there are people who were against him, then after 2.5 years of chaos and shitposting think he's now a good president.

His approval ratings have dropped over time and have been fairly steady since, think this one recent poll showing small uptick was an outlier so I wouldn’t hang your hat on it, he’s not soaring and he’s still unpopular.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

[KillieRed]

So is it true that Trump's approval rating has soared to 45% and, if so, where is he making those gains? Scares me to think there are people who were against him, then after 2.5 years of chaos and shitposting think he's now a good president.

People who believe and parrot the Trump Party lines: "i`ve made the economy greater than it`s ever been, promises made/promises kept, i`m making peace with North Korea etc".

It just shows how shallow people really are if they are feeling ok about their lives and are willing to see their emperor in all the finery he says he`s wearing. There`s no critical thinking as long as their life is not negatively affected. It`s classic Trumpism; take credit for things he hasnt done, deny & deflect his failings.

[lorenzo]

Who.the.fuck.cares?

If that's how you fringe lunatics from the left play it out again this time around, enjoy four more years of Trump. We'll get to see the environment get permanently fucked, civil liberties erode, racism and bigotry become the new norm, and who knows what else. But hey, at least we won't have a corporate Democrat in the White House.

I would argue most people that are not them things you point out care. 

[lorenzo]

I think history has told us repeatedly that populists are really really bad for us.

Left or right.

was FDR a populist? Seriously the extent some people go.

[lorenzo]

As I said people are sick of same shit that’s allowing their families to die. But yeah let’s call it populist to suit agendas.

[GreatEx]

Populism: "(lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies."

I'd say that definition is Trump to a T, and Sanders too - minus the anti-intellectualism

[Linudden]

Giono//

The 2020 Senate map makes it virtually impossible for a Democratic president to get anything other than a Republican senate. It's 53-47 right now and the Republican incumbents from potential swing states are all running in a general election year. With the strong incumbent-bias in senatorial elections, in particular during presidential years, anything other than Republican wins in North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa and Arizona would be massive shocks. Mid-terms always have low turnouts for the governing party.

Also, Alabama is up for grabs and given there's zero chance Roy Moore gets nominated again, the Republicans will most likely take that one back with ease. I'd say 54-46, if not more will be the majority after 2020 unless something incredible happens before then. If Trump has a strong election year against a weak Democrat, then maybe one of Minnesota, Michigan or New Hampshire could potentially be picked off too. Maine then? Well, Trump is strong in Maine relative to other Republicans and Susan Collins is rather bipartisan and a long-term incumbent. I don't think she's going anywhere given she's always gotten crossover support.

So, say there's a 54-46 outcome, that definitely puts a lot of pressure on the Democrats in 2022 during those mid-terms, having to win back all of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida just to make it a tie, if Trump is re-elected. If there's a Democrat in office, then they can forget about it. So, no matter who the Democrat is, the Republican roadblock will always be there for now.

Why is that then?

Well, due to the makeup of the senate of two votes per state, the rural nature of the modern-day Republicans are starting to show off more and more. They've yet to get to 2-0 in Montana and West Virginia, but for Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota, the lost Democrat seats are extremely unlikely to be won back due to the demographics. It's the same in Iowa really. The Democrats need to have at least one in Texas and Florida to have a chance to control the senate in the short term and that's hard to achieve. The way states trended in 2016, it's not hard to conceive Minnesota and New Hampshire being "tied" states in the near future as well. Ohio would've been had the election been held in either 2016 or 2020, Brown's win was rather weak even in an opposition party midterm year.

Any Democrat president's hands will therefore be tied and supreme court picks really hard to get through for them, if not impossible, it's quite simple really.

[OneTouchFooty]

Some really stretching the bounds of what populism is and leaving a narrow place in the centre for “not populist”. Don’t fall for the Trumpist rhetoric of left leaning Dems being all radical, fringe lefties when they are nowhere near.

[Something Worse]

Some really stretching the bounds of what populism is and leaving a narrow place in the centre for “not populist”. Don’t fall for the Trumpist rhetoric of left leaning Dems being all radical, fringe lefties when they are nowhere near.

Single payer is populism, who knew.

[Giono]

That is a sane take on things Linudden.

It may or probably transpire like that. But...

There are some variables that are changing. The success of the Dems in retaking the house was down to strength in urban and suburban districts in red states as well. They surprisingly defended Senate seats people thought were vulnerable. Heck, Beto (who is not showing to be a great campaigner) almost won senate seat in Texas. Florida and Georgia were tight losses too and both candidates were black, running in southern states.

One of the things that marks those 3 campaigns for senate was how much out-of-state money flowed into them. We are seeing that being reproduced this election where the Kentucky Dem has got $2mil and the South Carolina candidate has raised $1.5 mil to take on McConnell and Graham respectively. That is pretty impressive considering we are 1.5 years away from the vote.

I think that grey-haired dude on CNN will have a board that looks like a polka dot square dance dress with big blue dots on a red background. Healthcare, education, women's rights, environment are urban and suburban issues. The Dems could surprise.

Turn out is another big variable. 2016 was a 20 year low in turnout, Mostly from depressed turnout of Dems. Turnout in 2018 was a 100 year record or something to the profit of the Dems. They flipped state houses and protected vulnerable Senate seats. Will Trump energise more people to vote for him in 2020? Doubt it. Some of them are actually dying off. That well has been tapped.

The other variable is the economy. Will it continue the Obama curve of growth as it passes records for longevity of bull markets? Or will it decline? The yield curve is predicting a recession. The Fed Chair said yesterday a global recession is a threat and he may have to factor that into interest rate decisions.

The other variable is Trump. Never before has a Senate been in such lockstep with a president. Usually presidential candidates have coattails. But Trump could drag these old men down with him. Who friggin knows?

You could be right and the 2020 will follow a conventional path. But do you really think we live in conventional times? There is a huge political urban v rural realignment going on. Women, minorities, young people are all motivated to vote in 2020. That could affect Senate races across the map as these folks train their ire on the old white men.

[lorenzo]

Single payer is populism, who knew.

So what your saying is everyone who supports NHS is populist?

[Giono]

First poll that qualifies candidates for September debates (NBC/WSJ) is in. Anyone who gets 2% is in (plus they need to hit donor numbers).


Andrew Yang made the cut!


Biden 26%
Warren 19%
Harris 13%
Sanders 13%
Buttigieg 7%
Yang 2%
O'Rourke 2%

(July 7-9, MOE: +/- 4.9%)
 

[KillieRed]

First poll that qualifies candidates for September debates (NBC/WSJ) is in. Anyone who gets 2% is in (plus they need to hit donor numbers).


Andrew Yang made the cut!


Biden 26%
Warren 19%
Harris 13%
Sanders 13%
Buttigieg 7%
Yang 2%
O'Rourke 2%

(July 7-9, MOE: +/- 4.9%)

No Castro?

[Giono]

No Castro?

Klobuchar 1%
Castro 1%
Booker 1%
Inslee 1%
Williamson 1%
Delaney 1%
Hickenlooper 1%
Bennet 1%

All others below 1%

[Giono]

One interesting stat from this WSJ/NBC poll is that support is soft. Only 12% say that their mind is definitely made up.

Interestingly they polled second choices of likely primary voters too.

NBC/WSJ: 1st & 2nd Choices Combined

Biden 36%
Warren 32
Harris 28
Sanders 25
Buttigieg 15
O'Rourke 4
Yang 4
Booker 3
Gabbard 3
Castro 3
Inslee 2
Williamson 2

[Nobby Reserve]

It just shows how shallow people really are if they are feeling ok about their lives and are willing to see their emperor in all the finery he says he`s wearing. There`s no critical thinking as long as their life is not negatively affected. It`s classic Trumpism

Sounds like Thatcherism (albeit she left the egotism at just referring to herself as the royal 'we')

[Linudden]

One of the things that marks those 3 campaigns for senate was how much out-of-state money flowed into them. We are seeing that being reproduced this election where the Kentucky Dem has got $2mil and the South Carolina candidate has raised $1.5 mil to take on McConnell and Graham respectively. That is pretty impressive considering we are 1.5 years away from the vote.

Mid-term years are very special circumstances, and always heavily favours the turnout for the opposition party - just look at the devastating losses Obama had in 2010 and 2014, getting routed in those same suburban swing districts. That's exactly what would happen if a Democrat won in 2020 - it would be:

1) a referendum on socialism would it be Sanders or Warren, leading to huge losses in the mid-Atlantic, especially Virginia and suburban parts of Maryland, Philly, New Jersey and New York.
2) a referendum on free trade and corporatism would it be Biden, leading to huge losses in the Rust Belt.
3) a referendum on California would it be Harris, leading to further losses in the Rust Belt, Texas and Florida.

It's much the same that econ-right, social-left voters rejected Trump in 2018 in suburbia, but the other way round in other districts. Also, the further left rhetorically Dems go, the further left into the centre the Republicans can tap into.

As for the quoted example, those are exactly the reasons Dems usually lose those elections - that they spend huge money in red states where they have no chance, with a white electorate that's deeply Christian conservative. Cruz got way fewer votes than Trump in 2016, because Republican voters stayed at home in the mid-terms due to the party being in government and still he didn't exactly need a recount to win. McConnell will be laughing all the way to the polling station if the Democratic shoot first, ask questions later, donors squander their entire budget on trying to defeat him in a general election year in a state Trump wins by 25-30 points with all the MAGA voters being out to re-elect their demagogue. You should know it mate  Democrats have no chance to flip Kentucky against the leader of the Senate. Nada. It would be like the Republican donors spending gazillions trying to win a senate seat in California or New York.

[Giono]

Mid-term years are very special circumstances, and always heavily favours the turnout for the opposition party - just look at the devastating losses Obama had in 2010 and 2014, getting routed in those same suburban swing districts. That's exactly what would happen if a Democrat won in 2020 - it would be:1) a referendum on socialism would it be Sanders or Warren, leading to huge losses in the mid-Atlantic, especially Virginia and suburban parts of Maryland, Philly, New Jersey and New York.2) a referendum on free trade and corporatism would it be Biden, leading to huge losses in the Rust Belt.3) a referendum on California would it be Harris, leading to further losses in the Rust Belt, Texas and Florida.It's much the same that econ-right, social-left voters rejected Trump in 2018 in suburbia, but the other way round in other districts. Also, the further left rhetorically Dems go, the further left into the centre the Republicans can tap into.

I don't see the electorate being as static as you view it. 2016 was a game changer. Charting out the future using election models based on pre 2016 voting patterns will not hold water going forward. 2018 wasn't just a reaction to Trump by some subgroup in the suburbs. It was a consolidation of voting patterns that the GOP has been forcing since Nixon's southern strategy. The Dems are now a party of the urban and suburban vs the GOP in the rural areas. For decades the Dems have been trying to hold onto what little of the south they had. And those blue dog democrats tilted the Dems to the right. That is not the case anymore. The Dems have won without them. They won urban and suburban districts in red states to do it. That's why Pelosi is not pushing for impeachment and not entertaining everything that a new member from New York City is proposing.

As for the quoted example, those are exactly the reasons Dems usually lose those elections - that they spend huge money in red states where they have no chance, with a white electorate that's deeply Christian conservative. Cruz got way fewer votes than Trump in 2016, because Republican voters stayed at home in the mid-terms due to the party being in government and still he didn't exactly need a recount to win. McConnell will be laughing all the way to the polling station if the Democratic shoot first, ask questions later, donors squander their entire budget on trying to defeat him in a general election year in a state Trump wins by 25-30 points with all the MAGA voters being out to re-elect their demagogue. You should know it mate    Democrats have no chance to flip Kentucky against the leader of the Senate. Nada. It would be like the Republican donors spending gazillions trying to win a senate seat in California or New York.

They did in the past because they had representation there. Bill Clinton was from the same state that elected Huckaby...Al Gore was from Tennessee. This ain't their Dem party anymore.

Elections are like war. You want the enemy to commit resources widely. Having them have to soend to defend McConnell and Graham is great.

And Trump biters DID turn out in 2018...and got beat.

Now that the split between parties is urban Dems vs rural GOP...the battle ground states are shifting to those who have big urban and suburban areas. Florida, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina in the south. Texas and the southwest states.

What motivates these new Dem voters? Their children: Healthcare, Education, Environment, Peace making.

The Dems do not need to cower in 2020 and not try to offend anyone. They should not overplay their hand. But what Never Trumper repugs in the chattering classes want them to do is not the recipe.

[Giono]

Beto only brought in 3.6 mil this quarter.

[Something Worse]

Beto only brought in 3.6 mil this quarter.

Trump and the RNC raised around 55m each. Just fucking kill me already.

[Caligula?]

Beto only brought in 3.6 mil this quarter.

His star really faded fast.

[Giono]

Trump and the RNC raised around 55m each. Just fucking kill me already.

That was topped by what the combined Dems brought in.

[Giono]

His star really faded fast.

Fading is right. He brought in over 9 in the 1st quarter.

Warren's wonkishness and various plans is setting a standard in this race. Main criticism of him is that he lacks them.

He's polling at 0% in NH. Heck, Williamson is at 2%...

[Something Worse]

That was topped by what the combined Dems brought in.

Yeah but the Dems need the money to campaign. Trump is putting that money away so that when the nominee is announced, he'll have hundreds of millions to blow.

I mean fuck, if you think about it, people are excited to donate money to a guy who isn't even really using it yet. Imagine when he starts campaigning properly (*I know technically he's been campaigning since his first day in office)

[Giono]

Yeah but the Dems need the money to campaign. Trump is putting that money away so that when the nominee is announced, he'll have hundreds of millions to blow.

I mean fuck, if you think about it, people are excited to donate money to a guy who isn't even really using it yet. Imagine when he starts campaigning properly (*I know technically he's been campaigning since his first day in office)

But they are campaigning all the same. And since they are not going negative it is all positive. And they are having positive policy releases about prospective fixes while Trump does nothing but show people who he is.

Plus, they are getting so much free TV...the debates have set records and it's a dog show at this point rather than a contest.

When they narrow it down there will be lots of articles and shows delving deep into who the candidates are. Also more in depth stuff about their actual policies.

Money won't be an issue for either campaign I figure.

[Something Worse]

But they are campaigning all the same. And since they are not going negative it is all positive. And they are having positive policy releases about prospective fixes while Trump does nothing but show people who he is.

And get 110m without really trying.

That's the depressing thing. How much do you think they'll make once people know who the Democratic nominee is?

[Giono]

And get 110m without really trying.

That's the depressing thing. How much do you think they'll make once people know who the Democratic nominee is?

That knowledge might animate the base, not his big donors. They may have given to him this quarter for tax purposes? And 50% of that was to the GOP, not him alone. So the Dem candidate haul is twice his.

[Giono]

And get 110m without really trying.

That's the depressing thing. How much do you think they'll make once people know who the Democratic nominee is?

Freshmen Dem congresspeople in swing districts collected 25 million in the 2nd quarter too...

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/680169/freshman-house-dems-stockpile-cash-in-second-quarter

[Giono]

CNN's new NH poll.

—first choice: Biden 24%, Warren/Sanders 19%, Buttigieg 10%, Harris 9%

—1st/2nd choice: Warren 41%, Sanders 39%, Biden 36%, Harris 24%, Buttigieg 16%

[Red Beret]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/iiEQpJ6nheM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/iiEQpJ6nheM</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/4XU6oY7eyCk&amp;t=9s" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/4XU6oY7eyCk&amp;t=9s</a>

[Giono]

	Dave Weigel (@daveweigel)
	2019-07-20, 1:51 PM Biden has been endorsed by 15 members of Congress, Harris by 12, Booker by 12 (all NJ), Klobuchar by 4 (all MN), Warren by 4 (all MA), Bernie by 3. By this point in 2015 the majority of Democrats in Congress had endorsed Clinton.

This ain't 2016...

[PhaseOfPlay]

Anyone watching the Dem primary debate? I don't know much, but I think Buttegieg just did a blinder there.

"He who oppresses the poor oppresses his maker"

Great rhetoric.

[Giono]

Anyone watching the Dem primary debate? I don't know much, but I think Buttegieg just did a blinder there.

"He who oppresses the poor oppresses his maker"

Great rhetoric.

He is a great speaker. He'll make a great VP attack dog.

I did not watch all of it. But from what I understand Bernie and Warren fought off attacks from the right very well.

[Red Beret]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/3RzTKfVek1c&amp;t=377s" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/3RzTKfVek1c&amp;t=377s</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/nFJVeOwq0BU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/nFJVeOwq0BU</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/7mt_oVXyidM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/7mt_oVXyidM</a>

[rafathegaffa83]

CNN's new NH poll.

—first choice: Biden 24%, Warren/Sanders 19%, Buttigieg 10%, Harris 9%

—1st/2nd choice: Warren 41%, Sanders 39%, Biden 36%, Harris 24%, Buttigieg 16%

Can't believe how much Harris has slid down in the polls. Whoever ends up being nominated, the Democrats need a wholly united front

[Giono]

Warren's 1/2 an hour post-debate interview was gold. She was able to describe what she'd do and why in more than a sound byte.

This is the first 10 minutes. After this she schooled each pundit as they took turns coming at her individually. It was like a Bruce Lee film.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/XQunAPp5Nhs&amp;feature=share" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/XQunAPp5Nhs&amp;feature=share</a>

[ChaChaMooMoo]

Night 1
Elizabeth Warren
Vermont Senator;
Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Beto O'Rourke
Amy Klobuchar
Tim Ryan
John Delaney
Steve Bullock
John Hickenlooper
Marianne Williamson

Night 2
Joe Biden
Kamala Harris
Cory Booker
Julián Castro
Bill de Blasio
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Michael Bennet
Jay Inslee
Andrew Yang

How many will survive the phase 3 of the chop?!?

[Something Worse]

Apparently not Kamala judging by that list.