Washington Post: Trump is on Track to Win Reelection.

[sharon45]

Despite more than half of Americans thinking that Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president, he still has a clear path to winning reelection.

We have entered a new era in American politics. The 2016 election exposed how economic, social and cultural issues have splintered the country and increasingly divided voters by age, race, education and geography. This isn’t going to change.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Despite more than half of Americans thinking that Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president, he still has a clear path to winning reelection.

We have entered a new era in American politics. The 2016 election exposed how economic, social and cultural issues have splintered the country and increasingly divided voters by age, race, education and geography. This isn’t going to change.

Of course he's on the inside track. He has a united party. He doesn't need as many votes as his opposition. He has no opposition. He has Russian bots helping his cause.

 

[fromderinside]

Conductor Henry Handseeni here. I'm available to bring you as many violins as necessary to conduct your masterpiece to any imaginary audience you request.

Its always possible to use recent events as proforma basis for any experienced situation unless you refer to more complete history which usually changes everything.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Despite more than half of Americans thinking that Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president, he still has a clear path to winning reelection.

Of course he's on the inside track. He has a united party. He doesn't need as many votes as his opposition. He has no opposition. He has Russian bots helping his cause.

I wouldn't call the republican party "United". I've actually gained some modicum of respect for McCain, Steele, Graham (somewhat), and other republicans standing in opposition to this administration.

However, I think your greater point is that currently the democrats are even more divided - and that regardless of any level of divisiveness - republicans tend to vote in lockstep when it comes to gaining/maintaining power, where democrats tend not to. That I agree with.

aa

 

[sharon45]

Despite more than half of Americans thinking that Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president, he still has a clear path to winning reelection.

Of course he's on the inside track. He has a united party. He doesn't need as many votes as his opposition. He has no opposition. He has Russian bots helping his cause.

Like the article I cited, this is also a defeatist attitude. Trump ran largely against the party he was seeking the nomination from and still won, yet he hardly presides over a party of integrety, both in moral character and unimpaired. Obviously it may seem to be way too early, but any perceived opposition had better start honestly planning and building some now if they have not done so already.

 

[sharon45]

Its always possible to use recent events as proforma basis for any experienced situation unless you refer to more complete history which usually changes everything.

Agreed. And even Michael Moore had a similarly published commentary with almost the exact same title from about two months ago.

 

[sharon45]

However, I think your greater point is that currently the democrats are even more divided

That might be true, but while they are not currently in power, the Democrats can easily afford this position for the short run in order to gain time to eventually get their political affairs properly arranged.

and that regardless of any level of divisiveness - republicans tend to vote in lockstep when it comes to gaining/maintaining power, where democrats tend not to.

I think both camps like to fancy this about their competition. Makes each feel as having the most respect for individualism.

 

[Opoponax]

Shit can change fast. I remember when George H.W. Bush had something close to a 90% approval rating with less than 18 months left until the '92 election.

Whatever any numbers say now will almost certainly not be saying the same thing in a year, let alone three.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Of course he's on the inside track. He has a united party. He doesn't need as many votes as his opposition. He has no opposition. He has Russian bots helping his cause.

Like the article I cited, this is also a defeatist attitude. Trump ran largely against the party he was seeking the nomination from and still won, yet he hardly presides over a party of integrety, both in moral character and unimpaired. Obviously it may seem to be way too early, but any perceived opposition had better start honestly planning and building some now if they have not done so already.

I'm not being defeatist, I'm being a realist! We have to face reality. Due to gerrymandering and the electoral college, we need more votes. The data shows that the democratic vote turned out less than the republican vote did. More of our votes went to third parties. The Russians employed bots to attack democrats in the last election.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Opoponax is on target with the Bush 41 analogy -- that's what popped into my head immediately. Another wild card is the economy -- it's very unclear that the job increase numbers are going to improve, that the Trumpanzees will find their health care options to be bearable. There's the wildest card of all -- Scrotus getting us into some mindless conflict in the Mideast or starting a genocidal nuclear exchange with Rocketman. He could also display signs of the disease that took his old man. Mueller's posse could ultimately get/use/leak Orangey's tax returns -- the docs he wants no one in the world to see. Putin could take the Moscow hotel footage of Trump peeing on hookers and release it as a metal video (although his base would probably love that and turn it into souvenir tees.) But also -- I overhear Orangey's fans in coffee shops & changing rooms and even they are constantly saying he doesn't know when to shut up. I think his relentless, ramped-up, self-absorbed rhetoric is so nauseating that I think a substantial majority will be sick of it. In the 70s, we dreaded Jimmy Carter speeches, for entirely different reasons -- he was so labored and dull. Listening to Trump is the same as listening to the dumbest, loudest know-it-all in your neighborhood -- oxygen, please. And Trump at age 74 -- that fat ass and greasy combover aren't going to look any better in '20.

 

[SLD]

Trump's reelection will depend on the economy. If it continues to grow he will be seen as a success and win reelection. Pocketbook issues will trump most other issues. Pun intended.

The one thing that may be his undoing could be healthcare reform failure. Healthcare is failing because of Republican efforts to stymie Obamacare. The failure to fully fund the program as originally intended will create havoc in the healthcare markets causing premiums to skyrocket in the coming years. Of course they'll blame Obama, but the public will blame whoever is now in charge for the debacle. This in turn could cause other economic problems and a serious drag on economic performance. Possibly even a recession. The problem is timing. When it hits exactly is unknown. It could hit in 2021 too late to effect his chances. Or worse, in late 2020 resulting in a Democratic win, but then whoever is President being blamed for the downturn. The best time for a downturn is right after Trump takes over. But that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. I don't expect it to happen anytime before the 2018 mid term elections.

The problem though isn't Trump but Trumpism. Simply defeating Trump isn't enough. As long as he remains an inspirational figure for the right the problem of christo-fascism in America will remain. To really defeat that, we may actually prefer a Trump re-election followed by a complete and utter economic collapse. Or even worse a serious military set back. I don't relish either thing, but the right wing's dominance is dependent on their perceived economic and military aggressiveness. It's a myth of course but they continue to peddle this fantasy to a gullible public. To defeat it truly it must fail utterly.

SLD

 

[sharon45]

Shit can change fast. I remember when George H.W. Bush had something close to a 90% approval rating with less than 18 months left until the '92 election.

Whatever any numbers say now will almost certainly not be saying the same thing in a year, let alone three.

Agreed, showing that neither party ought to take for granted a certain present position. Right-wing radio unduly criticized this, but Trump has learned well from Obama and then some to go out campaigning on through from the past general election to the next.

 

[sharon45]

Like the article I cited, this is also a defeatist attitude. Trump ran largely against the party he was seeking the nomination from and still won, yet he hardly presides over a party of integrety, both in moral character and unimpaired. Obviously it may seem to be way too early, but any perceived opposition had better start honestly planning and building some now if they have not done so already.

I'm not being defeatist, I'm being a realist! We have to face reality. Due to gerrymandering and the electoral college, we need more votes. The data shows that the democratic vote turned out less than the republican vote did. More of our votes went to third parties. The Russians employed bots to attack democrats in the last election.

But it is defeatism when you clearly seem to be showing only problems without possible solutions. In the beginning of '09, Republicans were in a terrible mess, yet unlike you here, they were largely denying it, so at least that is one strong point in your favor is practically recognizing the dilemma.

 

[sharon45]

Opoponax is on target with the Bush 41 analogy -- that's what popped into my head immediately. Another wild card is the economy -- it's very unclear that the job increase numbers are going to improve, that the Trumpanzees will find their health care options to be bearable. There's the wildest card of all -- Scrotus getting us into some mindless conflict in the Mideast or starting a genocidal nuclear exchange with Rocketman. He could also display signs of the disease that took his old man. Mueller's posse could ultimately get/use/leak Orangey's tax returns -- the docs he wants no one in the world to see. Putin could take the Moscow hotel footage of Trump peeing on hookers and release it as a metal video (although his base would probably love that and turn it into souvenir tees.) But also -- I overhear Orangey's fans in coffee shops & changing rooms and even they are constantly saying he doesn't know when to shut up. I think his relentless, ramped-up, self-absorbed rhetoric is so nauseating that I think a substantial majority will be sick of it. In the 70s, we dreaded Jimmy Carter speeches, for entirely different reasons -- he was so labored and dull. Listening to Trump is the same as listening to the dumbest, loudest know-it-all in your neighborhood -- oxygen, please. And Trump at age 74 -- that fat ass and greasy combover aren't going to look any better in '20.

While the numerous topics cited above are certainly no sideshow, his virtually endless campaigning, supposed gaffs, and tweets are purposely designed to slowly garner public acceptance, and steadily wear down most opposition's strength and resolve.

 

[sharon45]

Trump's reelection will depend on the economy. If it continues to grow he will be seen as a success and win reelection. Pocketbook issues will trump most other issues. Pun intended.

The one thing that may be his undoing could be healthcare reform failure. Healthcare is failing because of Republican efforts to stymie Obamacare. The failure to fully fund the program as originally intended will create havoc in the healthcare markets causing premiums to skyrocket in the coming years. Of course they'll blame Obama, but the public will blame whoever is now in charge for the debacle. This in turn could cause other economic problems and a serious drag on economic performance. Possibly even a recession. The problem is timing. When it hits exactly is unknown. It could hit in 2021 too late to effect his chances. Or worse, in late 2020 resulting in a Democratic win, but then whoever is President being blamed for the downturn. The best time for a downturn is right after Trump takes over. But that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. I don't expect it to happen anytime before the 2018 mid term elections.

I think it is rather safe to say that the Republicans would also be quite privy to this information to use and abuse for their own advantage. As I've said months ago, I still don't buy that Trump wants to honestly replace ACA. It is merely an act.

The problem though isn't Trump but Trumpism. Simply defeating Trump isn't enough. As long as he remains an inspirational figure for the right the problem of christo-fascism in America will remain. To really defeat that, we may actually prefer a Trump re-election followed by a complete and utter economic collapse. Or even worse a serious military set back. I don't relish either thing, but the right wing's dominance is dependent on their perceived economic and military aggressiveness. It's a myth of course but they continue to peddle this fantasy to a gullible public. To defeat it truly it must fail utterly.

And I am always going to maintain that an opposition must truly communicate and uphold some effective answers, instead of essentially waiting for the other side to glaringly screw up so you can be almost embraced by default.

 

[funinspace]

Trump's reelection will depend on the economy. If it continues to grow he will be seen as a success and win reelection. Pocketbook issues will trump most other issues. Pun intended.

The one thing that may be his undoing could be healthcare reform failure. Healthcare is failing because of Republican efforts to stymie Obamacare. The failure to fully fund the program as originally intended will create havoc in the healthcare markets causing premiums to skyrocket in the coming years. Of course they'll blame Obama, but the public will blame whoever is now in charge for the debacle. This in turn could cause other economic problems and a serious drag on economic performance. Possibly even a recession. The problem is timing. When it hits exactly is unknown. It could hit in 2021 too late to effect his chances. Or worse, in late 2020 resulting in a Democratic win, but then whoever is President being blamed for the downturn. The best time for a downturn is right after Trump takes over. But that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. I don't expect it to happen anytime before the 2018 mid term elections.

Yep, it’s (largely) the economy stupid. I’d say that an early recession tends to better insulate a sitting president, though it also tends to damage the mid-term elections for that party. Think of Pres. Reagan’s first term, or the lesser Bush’s first term recessions. The recessions came early and the economy was improving well enough before the upcoming November elections. The 90-91 recession was over early enough for HW Bush, but after 12 years of Repugs in the WH, it was tough for a non-charismatic President to overcome party exhaustion. This economic expansion has been going now for about 8 years. Considering that post WWII, there have only been 2 longer expansions (the 1960’s almost 9 years; the 1990’s 10 years), I’d say the chances of clearly hitting a recession prior to November 2020 are fairly high. Most of the leading indicators people utilize only give a 6-month warning at best of a probable recession, so even 2018 isn’t out of the woods yet.

The problem though isn't Trump but Trumpism. Simply defeating Trump isn't enough. As long as he remains an inspirational figure for the right the problem of christo-fascism in America will remain.

The Christo-fascism affect should keep weakening at the presidential election level as states like Texas, Nevada, and Arizona (some examples) become more competitive due to increasing Hispanic population percentages.

Some fun numbers from Texas Presidential races are below. Don the Con couldn’t even do better than McCain, even though McCain was running during an obvious recession coming down our throat with 8 years of Repugs in charge:
2016: FFvC 52.23%
2012: Romney 57.17%
2008: McCain 55.39%

 

[sharon45]

Yep, it’s (largely) the economy stupid. I’d say that an early recession tends to better insulate a sitting president, though it also tends to damage the mid-term elections for that party. Think of Pres. Reagan’s first term, or the lesser Bush’s first term recessions. The recessions came early and the economy was improving well enough before the upcoming November elections. The 90-91 recession was over early enough for HW Bush, but after 12 years of Repugs in the WH, it was tough for a non-charismatic President to overcome party exhaustion. This economic expansion has been going now for about 8 years. Considering that post WWII, there have only been 2 longer expansions (the 1960’s almost 9 years; the 1990’s 10 years), I’d say the chances of clearly hitting a recession prior to November 2020 are fairly high. Most of the leading indicators people utilize only give a 6-month warning at best of a probable recession, so even 2018 isn’t out of the woods yet.

The problem though isn't Trump but Trumpism. Simply defeating Trump isn't enough. As long as he remains an inspirational figure for the right the problem of christo-fascism in America will remain.

The Christo-fascism affect should keep weakening at the presidential election level as states like Texas, Nevada, and Arizona (some examples) become more competitive due to increasing Hispanic population percentages.

Some fun numbers from Texas Presidential races are below. Don the Con couldn’t even do better than McCain, even though McCain was running during an obvious recession coming down our throat with 8 years of Repugs in charge:
2016: FFvC 52.23%
2012: Romney 57.17%
2008: McCain 55.39%

I think Trump did pretty good considering how much he was in a fight with his own party.

 

[J842P]

Yep, it’s (largely) the economy stupid. I’d say that an early recession tends to better insulate a sitting president, though it also tends to damage the mid-term elections for that party. Think of Pres. Reagan’s first term, or the lesser Bush’s first term recessions. The recessions came early and the economy was improving well enough before the upcoming November elections. The 90-91 recession was over early enough for HW Bush, but after 12 years of Repugs in the WH, it was tough for a non-charismatic President to overcome party exhaustion. This economic expansion has been going now for about 8 years. Considering that post WWII, there have only been 2 longer expansions (the 1960’s almost 9 years; the 1990’s 10 years), I’d say the chances of clearly hitting a recession prior to November 2020 are fairly high. Most of the leading indicators people utilize only give a 6-month warning at best of a probable recession, so even 2018 isn’t out of the woods yet.

The problem though isn't Trump but Trumpism. Simply defeating Trump isn't enough. As long as he remains an inspirational figure for the right the problem of christo-fascism in America will remain.

The Christo-fascism affect should keep weakening at the presidential election level as states like Texas, Nevada, and Arizona (some examples) become more competitive due to increasing Hispanic population percentages.

Some fun numbers from Texas Presidential races are below. Don the Con couldn’t even do better than McCain, even though McCain was running during an obvious recession coming down our throat with 8 years of Repugs in charge:
2016: FFvC 52.23%
2012: Romney 57.17%
2008: McCain 55.39%

I think you are in for a disappoinment if you are relying on the increased proportion of Hispanics in the electorate as a long-term bulwark against Christo-fascism. Indeed, if the Republicans eventually realize that Hispanics are natural allies, the Dems might get hoisted by their own petard.

 

[Derec]

I wouldn't call the republican party "United". I've actually gained some modicum of respect for McCain, Steele, Graham (somewhat), and other republicans standing in opposition to this administration.

Not on policy. But when it comes to electing their guy, they are much more united than the Dems, as could be seen from many Bernie supporters staying home, voting for Това́рка Джйл, the Donald or just stayed home.

However, I think your greater point is that currently the democrats are even more divided - and that regardless of any level of divisiveness - republicans tend to vote in lockstep when it comes to gaining/maintaining power, where democrats tend not to. That I agree with.

Took words right out of my mouth. But I will still post it, to justify the effort in writing "Comrade Jill" in Russian Cyrillic.

 

[funinspace]

Yep, it’s (largely) the economy stupid. I’d say that an early recession tends to better insulate a sitting president, though it also tends to damage the mid-term elections for that party. Think of Pres. Reagan’s first term, or the lesser Bush’s first term recessions. The recessions came early and the economy was improving well enough before the upcoming November elections. The 90-91 recession was over early enough for HW Bush, but after 12 years of Repugs in the WH, it was tough for a non-charismatic President to overcome party exhaustion. This economic expansion has been going now for about 8 years. Considering that post WWII, there have only been 2 longer expansions (the 1960’s almost 9 years; the 1990’s 10 years), I’d say the chances of clearly hitting a recession prior to November 2020 are fairly high. Most of the leading indicators people utilize only give a 6-month warning at best of a probable recession, so even 2018 isn’t out of the woods yet.


The Christo-fascism affect should keep weakening at the presidential election level as states like Texas, Nevada, and Arizona (some examples) become more competitive due to increasing Hispanic population percentages.

Some fun numbers from Texas Presidential races are below. Don the Con couldn’t even do better than McCain, even though McCain was running during an obvious recession coming down our throat with 8 years of Repugs in charge:
2016: FFvC 52.23%
2012: Romney 57.17%
2008: McCain 55.39%

I think you are in for a disappoinment if you are relying on the increased proportion of Hispanics in the electorate as a long-term bulwark against Christo-fascism. Indeed, if the Republicans eventually realize that Hispanics are natural allies, the Dems might get hoisted by their own petard.

I'm not sure how you see this natural alliance, as the Repugs would first have to jettison their 'brown people are causing our labor and budget problems' meme to even have a chance. Either way, this is still a big 'if' you suggest could happen...

Anywho, though Black and Latino voting percentages were off, HRC's percentage of the Latino vote held well enough:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-vote-but-falls-below-2012-support-for-obama/
2016 HRC 66%
2012 Obama 71%
2008 Obama 67%

Part of what drove HRC's loss was the drop in the percentage of minorities that bothered to vote, and that the percentage of whites voting went up 1 percentage point from 2012:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/332970-voter-turnout-dipped-in-2016-led-by-decline-among-blacks

Black turnout fell 2 points and Hispanic turnout tumbled by a whopping 34 points in Michigan, a state President Trump won by just over 10,000 votes after Clinton fell short of matching President Obama's vote totals in Detroit.

In Wisconsin, another state Trump barely won, fewer than half of black voters cast a ballot; four years ago, when Obama carried the state, 78 percent of blacks voted.

Turnout among black voters fell seven points in Florida, and turnout among Hispanic voters there, who make up critical voting blocs stretching from Miami-Dade County to Orlando, fell eight points. That ended a streak of four consecutive elections in which black and Hispanic voters showed up in increasing numbers.