As long as trump doesn't get re-elected I'll be happy. The rest of the stuff is just ornaments on the tree. I personally think it's a stretch he'll even run again (or be allowed to run for a second term). Never mind win. But if he does get a second term, wouldn't the dems deserve at least a good portion of the blame for failing to endorse a candidate worth of beating that piece of shit not once, but TWICE???
I think you can blame the Dems for the hubris of nominating Hillary while she was under FBI investigation (even if that investigation ultimately turned up nothing), but come 2020, they could nominate anyone and it'll be the voters' fault if they lose. The voters have more than enough information to know who and what Trump is, and that he cannot be allowed anywhere near the oval office for a second longer than is constitutionally mandated.
I can understand the anger towards Trump voters, but I don't think he has much of a chance to win reelection. His approval rating was near 50% at only one point during his presidency, which was his first month in office. Since then it's consistently hovered around 40%. Congress has really only passed one truly noteworthy bill during his presidency, a tax cut, and that had only 39% approval. If you can't sell a tax cut to the American people you're in rough shape. The attempt to replace the ACA was such a disaster it had less than 20% approval, and plenty of voters want to see the ACA gone. He'll probably get near 40% of the vote (and by probably I mean in the slim chance he actually survives impeachment) just because a lot of voters will go straight policy, not caring about Trump himself. His hardcore supporters are around, but even within the GOP base there's plenty who don't like him, but would rather see a government that does nothing, or next to nothing than let the democrats implement their policies. Make of that what you will, but there really isn't any indication that he can again eek out the small margin that elevated him to the office last time. A lot can happen in two years, but I think you'll agree that prospects for Trump's near future look more like impending indictments than sweeping reforms that are going to win over the American people.
Yeah, you shouldnt buy that. You should buy that people generally vote based on how their immediate circumstances are directly impacted relative to how they were yesterday. In economics its called Rational Choice Theory. Generally people are going to care more about whether or not theyre personally employed rather than someone paying hush money to a porn star. They do this whether they realize or not. Thats not "right" or "wrong;" thats just what people generally do in a given environment. If anything, thats a more reasonable explanation than some dramatic pronouncement that democracy failed.
By that logic the only time an incumbent would ever lose is during a recession, which is clearly not the case. People vote for gun rights, abortion restrictions, and other non-economic factors all the time.
Let’s see, Jimmy Carter, check. Recession in 1979-1980. George HW Bush, check. Recession in 1990 to early 1992. Who am I missing? And it’s not just an economic theory, economics just happens to be the most direct way to study it. it’s a theory on social behavior and choice making.
Midterms frequently if not consistently swing against the President's party even in good economic times.
Ok, and? How is that in conflict with what I said about utilitarian decision making? You brought up recessions, not me.
Jesus Christ the retard can’t toss a coin properly for a football game. Anybody see Trump try to release a coin into the air like a dove? Then again, this is the same person who stared at a solar eclipse.
I think the comparison of today vs yesterday is too simplistic a way to look at how people vote. They are willing to throw out incumbents even if today looks pretty good.
A surprise to no one, I’m on/follow a lot of gun websites and Reddit’s, and they have largely all abandoned trump because he doesn’t support the 2A strong enough. No doubt in my mind every one of those places will get behind someone else from the GOP in 2020.
Hopefully this isn't serious, but every time I think something is beyond stupid and would never happen, trump goes and re-defines the word again. Raw meat for the wolves: Kushner in running for Chief of Staff
I hope he makes whoever he wants to be COS. It doesn’t matter anymore. Fucking David Duke for all I care. Anyone he picks who would take the job will just be a chaos person. It won’t change or help anything and only might turn them into witnesses.
You bring up a good point. Since this is all going down in flames and we're all laughing, might as well maximize the amusement. I'd love for him to name one of his sons the COS. Not the one currently under investigation, the retarded one... the redhead. Or if not that then Ivanka. Get as many people with dirty hands as possible.
Well it’s not more simplistic than just assuming people are too stupid to know what they’re doing. Its a framework to study general behavior. In Presidential elections, they are voting for 1 person. In midterms elections, I imagine it would be difficult to gauge how voting for my representative in MA would be impacted by you voting for yours in CA as it relates back to me. Unless either of us are impaired, we are both making choices based our own circumstances and preferences, for the most part. A coalition of these preferences is what gives birth to a political party. That’s just one general school of thought and a deep rabbit hole at that.
Chris Christie just declined the role of Trump's Chief of Staff. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/421418-christie-declines-chief-of-staff-role How bad does it have to be for Christie to say, "nah, I'm good thanks."
Nice quote from reddit, “The rats won’t even board the ship now”. Bets on if Kushner is dumb enough to take it?
Would anybody honestly want me hat job at this point? How do you even sell it? “Good day to you. Could I interest you in the worst profession in the world?”