Spock;1860982 wrote: the tweets will not be part of the re election campaign 3 years from now but all the legislation that isnt getting bashed in the media will be and they will have more positives than negatives.

An alternative take would be his tweets are a distraction from the fact his administration is not getting much done. How much you want to bet he's campaigning in 2020 on the wall he still hasn't built?

gut;1861035 wrote:An alternative take would be his tweets are a distraction from the fact his administration is not getting much done. How much you want to bet he's campaigning in 2020 on the wall he still hasn't built?

Kind of like closing gitmo?

Con_Alma;1861033 wrote:Kate's Law, Sarah's Law and No Sanctuary For Criminals have all made it through the House. I hope the president has the opportunity to sign these bills into law. It's sad we need new laws to magnify and enforce existing laws.

True

The dems would be stupid, not that they are showing anything else at the moment but anyway, if they don't keep every nasty tweet and utterance of his to show a full montage. Both political parties already do this and have forever. It may or may not have any effect on Trump supporters but you can bet gold that this will happen lol

CenterBHSFan;1861057 wrote:It may or may not have any effect on Trump supporters but you can bet gold that this will happen lol

Ratings shattered records throughout Trumps campaign. They continue to hit records - CNN may be in last place but they're doing better than they have in years.

I've said it before - ratings are the best thing going for Trump in 2020.

gut;1861069 wrote:Ratings shattered records throughout Trumps campaign. They continue to hit records - CNN may be in last place but they're doing better than they have in years.

I've said it before - ratings are the best thing going for Trump in 2020.

that and the dems have nobody to run against him.

The only chance they have is Michelle Obama

Spock;1861076 wrote:The only chance they have is Michelle Obama

Because she is a black woman? Or her 8 year legacy of shitty school lunches?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spock;1861076 wrote: The only chance they have is Michelle Obama

You're forgetting Pocahontas.

gut;1861088 wrote:You're forgetting Pocahontas.

Barf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spock;1861076 wrote:that and the dems have nobody to run against him.

The only chance they have is Michelle Obama

Trump barely won against a candidate with one of the worst political brands/images among normal people in a long time...like Tim Ryan has suggested after the recent string of dem losses in special elections - while Trump's brand is bad among a lot of normal people - people like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary happen to have an even worse brand.


My hope is that the Democrats finally get this, get rid of Nancy by 2018 and nominate an otherwise normal Democrat who does not yet have a national profile - someone like Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana in 2020 and I think they can win if only because people will be sick of Trump's antics.



But my sense is a boring "WHIIIITTTTEEE MAANNN" will be unacceptable (even though Trump shows the presidency is really not important ideologically-wise - you just need someone who is in your party and not a complete fuck-up/distraction that will blow up congress' attempts to make policy). The powers that be are already lining up behind Kamala Harris (I feel like) similar to how they did for Obama back around 2006.

Harris would be terrible too. She's obnoxious. They have to have a normal, non-confrontational person to run and would destroy a Trump run. I still hope he doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BoatShoes;1861092 wrote:Trump barely won against a candidate with one of the worst political brands/images among normal people in a long time...like Tim Ryan has suggested after the recent string of dem losses in special elections - while Trump's brand is bad among a lot of normal people - people like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary happen to have an even worse brand.


My hope is that the Democrats finally get this, get rid of Nancy by 2018 and nominate an otherwise normal Democrat who does not yet have a national profile - someone like Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana in 2020 and I think they can win if only because people will be sick of Trump's antics.



But my sense is a boring "WHIIIITTTTEEE MAANNN" will be unacceptable (even though Trump shows the presidency is really not important ideologically-wise - you just need someone who is in your party and not a complete fuck-up/distraction that will blow up congress' attempts to make policy). The powers that be are already lining up behind Kamala Harris (I feel like) similar to how they did for Obama back around 2006.

I called this shit before the results of the election. The Dems have many flaws that were/are hidden due to the media's coverage of ineptness of the GOP and Trump's child like behavior. Those problems were not going away with Hillary as president. They are slowly having their tea party movement, which will do nothing, but make the DNC the left version of what the GOP has become. More specifically the one thing the DNC always had going for them was unity.

I think we have had a large enough sample size (16+ years) to admit both sides are completely incompetent and dgaf about anything except winning elections. Which begs the question why the fuck people are so damn loyal to their team errrrr party? If you believe voting for a third party candidate is beneath you, at least look at every candidate by a individual basis.

like_that;1861102 wrote:I called this shit before the results of the election. The Dems have many flaws that were/are hidden due to the media's coverage of ineptness of the GOP and Trump's child like behavior. Those problems were not going away with Hillary as president. They are slowly having their tea party movement, which will do nothing, but make the DNC the left version of what the GOP has become. More specifically the one thing the DNC always had going for them was unity.

I think we have had a large enough sample size (16+ years) to admit both sides are completely incompetent and dgaf about anything except winning elections. Which begs the question why the fuck people are so damn loyal to their team errrrr party? If you believe voting for a third party candidate is beneath you, at least look at every candidate by a individual basis.

Fuck yeah! If you actually are a pure supporter of either party, you're either a willful idiot or simply an idiot. The higher-ups of both sides care about (1) gaining power, (2) maintaining power and (3) overpowering the other party so they can say they're winners to justify the fact they have power. All while being bought and paid for by billionaires and special interest groups who don't give a damn about the common person as anything other than a commodity to be bought and sold.

BoatShoes;1861092 wrote:Trump barely won against a candidate with one of the worst political brands/images among normal people in a long time...like Tim Ryan has suggested after the recent string of dem losses in special elections - while Trump's brand is bad among a lot of normal people - people like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary happen to have an even worse brand.


My hope is that the Democrats finally get this, get rid of Nancy by 2018 and nominate an otherwise normal Democrat who does not yet have a national profile - someone like Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana in 2020 and I think they can win if only because people will be sick of Trump's antics.



But my sense is a boring "WHIIIITTTTEEE MAANNN" will be unacceptable (even though Trump shows the presidency is really not important ideologically-wise - you just need someone who is in your party and not a complete fuck-up/distraction that will blow up congress' attempts to make policy). The powers that be are already lining up behind Kamala Harris (I feel like) similar to how they did for Obama back around 2006.

Not really......he smoked her bigly

like_that;1861102 wrote:I called this shit before the results of the election. The Dems have many flaws that were/are hidden due to the media's coverage of ineptness of the GOP and Trump's child like behavior. Those problems were not going away with Hillary as president. They are slowly having their tea party movement, which will do nothing, but make the DNC the left version of what the GOP has become. More specifically the one thing the DNC always had going for them was unity.

I think we have had a large enough sample size (16+ years) to admit both sides are completely incompetent and dgaf about anything except winning elections. Which begs the question why the fuck people are so damn loyal to their team errrrr party? If you believe voting for a third party candidate is beneath you, at least look at every candidate by a individual basis.

I think Trump shows why people think loyalty to their "team" pays off - Trump was horrific to many normal conservatives but it was worth it to vote for him to prevent Clinton who as perceived to be even worse to conservatives.

And look Conservatives got a conservative Supreme Court Justice and have a chance to get conservative policy through if he doesn't torpedo it.

It begs lots of questions as to how we got to this point but there is a lot of inertia in favor of "team voting" in the current system.

My guess is you probably have to blow up first-past-the-post elections and try to moe toward multi-party elections/ranked-choice voting etc. like they have in lot of other countries.

It makes it possible for someone like a Macron to emerge among extreme factions (I realize Macron is far left in America but is considered reasonably centrist/not extreme in France)

Spock;1861107 wrote:Not really......he smoked her bigly

Come on.
He lost the popular vote, and outside of the two wins by W, was below the electoral number of every other President since Carter.

He won, but let's say not he crushed Clinton. It was a below average win in modern time.

BoatShoes;1861092 wrote:Trump barely won against a candidate with one of the worst political brands/images among normal people in a long time...like Tim Ryan has suggested after the recent string of dem losses in special elections - while Trump's brand is bad among a lot of normal people - people like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary happen to have an even worse brand.


My hope is that the Democrats finally get this, get rid of Nancy by 2018 and nominate an otherwise normal Democrat who does not yet have a national profile - someone like Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana in 2020 and I think they can win if only because people will be sick of Trump's antics.



But my sense is a boring "WHIIIITTTTEEE MAANNN" will be unacceptable (even though Trump shows the presidency is really not important ideologically-wise - you just need someone who is in your party and not a complete fuck-up/distraction that will blow up congress' attempts to make policy). The powers that be are already lining up behind Kamala Harris (I feel like) similar to how they did for Obama back around 2006.

Harris or Corey Booker would both be logical choices. Unless the democrat party can find a candidate who can turn out the minority vote, they won't be winning the WH back in 2020.

ptown_trojans_1;1861160 wrote:Come on.
He lost the popular vote, and outside of the two wins by W, was below the electoral number of every other President since Carter.

He won, but let's say not he crushed Clinton. It was a below average win in modern time.

He won 30 states. She won 20. Take California and New York's 84 votes out.....she only had about 140. Take his 2 biggest states out to make it fair and he had about 250. Not close.

Spock;1861274 wrote:He won 30 states. She won 20. Take California and New York's 84 votes out.....she only had about 140. Take his 2 biggest states out to make it fair and he had about 250. Not close.

I was about to post a response to point out the ignorance in this, but nvm.

Spock;1861274 wrote:He won 30 states. She won 20. Take California and New York's 84 votes out.....she only had about 140. Take his 2 biggest states out to make it fair and he had about 250. Not close.

like_that;1861276 wrote:I was about to post a response to point out the ignorance in this, but nvm.

Sure, but in terms of the modern Presidential electoral results, it was not a big victory.
1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012 were all larger results.

He still also lost the popular vote.
You cannot simply take away CA or NY for Clinton, just as I cannot take away FL or PA for Trump. They are part of the country.

My point is while Trump did win, and won by a larger margin than W. he still did not crush her in terms of historic standards. He won big by R standards recently, but not Obama or Clinton big.

fish82;1861251 wrote:Harris or Corey Booker would both be logical choices. Unless the democrat party can find a candidate who can turn out the minority vote, they won't be winning the WH back in 2020.

A good point. I would only add that the data I've seen is that turnout was even up in Urban areas in places like Ohio and Florida under Hilliary which means I think that the Dem turnout machine still did a pretty good job. However, she got crushed in rural and suburban counties by such large margins that no amount of turnout could be expected to overcome it. So while Obama lost those areas too and had high turnout - Hillary got destroyed.

Take Wood County, Ohio - Obama actually beat Romney there getting 52% to Romney's 46% while Hillary got a meager 42% to Trump's 51%. In Ottawa County Obama won 51% to Romney's 47% while Hillary got smoked only getting 37% to Trump's 57%. There aren't a lot of minority voters in those counties and they flipped BIGLY from Obama to Trump.

I don't think increased minority turnout in Montgomery County and Lorain County (which Trump also won) can overcome those margins of loss that Hillary got in counties that Obama either won or kept closer. While the Dem brand is pretty bad outside of cities Hillary's truly was/is epically bad.

like_that;1861276 wrote:I was about to post a response to point out the ignorance in this, but nvm.

"If we only count the states and people I think should count to prove my point, it was the biggest landslide EVAR!!!!!"

/cclogic

/lowhangingfruit

Heretic;1861323 wrote:"If we only count the states and people I think should count to prove my point, it was the biggest landslide EVAR!!!!!"

/cclogic

/lowhangingfruit

The point behind that post was to show that without Cali and New York the dems don't represent hardly any part of the country. The dems leaked off huge portions of the country and Hell they don't even have to campaign in 1/3 of their electoral map. They failed bigly.

ptown_trojans_1;1861279 wrote:Sure, but in terms of the modern Presidential electoral results, it was not a big victory.
1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012 were all larger results.

He still also lost the popular vote.
You cannot simply take away CA or NY for Clinton, just as I cannot take away FL or PA for Trump. They are part of the country.

My point is while Trump did win, and won by a larger margin than W. he still did not crush her in terms of historic standards. He won big by R standards recently, but not Obama or Clinton big.

He was actually not that far off from Obama's 2012 MOV.

Yes...it wasn't a landslide. It was still a pretty solid W.

Spock;1861324 wrote:The point behind that post was to show that without Cali and New York the dems don't represent hardly any part of the country. The dems leaked off huge portions of the country and Hell they don't even have to campaign in 1/3 of their electoral map. They failed bigly.

Everyone understands the point behind your post. You explaining it doesn't make it any less moronic.