As in the Endangered Species Act, which used to be a very bipartisan supported regulation, with multiple successes, but now suddenly, it's a massive failure?

Not at all. The limo had failed inspection and the company was ordered to stop using it. That they criminally ignored that regulation doesn't mean the regulation shouldn't have been there in the first place. Now there will at least be some recourse through the criminal justice system.

Because the regulation failed to effectively prevent the accident, the argument would be that the regulation's existence didn't matter in this situation. Are you trying to tell me that they couldn't otherwise be held criminally liable if that regulation didn't exist? That's just plain wrong.

I'm not arguing against balanced/responsible regulation, just that this particular example proves the need for it.

Just speaking generally, bipartisan support does not necessarily equate to effective/useful regulation.

What balanced/responsible regulation would prevent a company from illegally using a car for transportation services?

And either way, your own argument still shows why it's a good example. If we're arguing strong regulation vs. minimal regulation, then this situation makes an argument for the former, not the latter.

I'm not arguing for or against this particular regulation. I'm simply pointing out that a regulation that did not/could not stop a horrific event is a pretty poor example of why regulation is needed.

The regulation lowers the odds of an event happening. It's often impossible to guarantee an event won't happen.

We can't stop all murders, but laws and enforcement bodies reduce the number of murders that would happen without any oversight.

Nevermind. Not arguing any statement you just made. Not the point. Never heard anyone argue after a murder occurs that this is the reason we need laws against murder.

It's a good example of how businesses aren't going to look out for customers or public. The entire argument of "if they don't then they go out of business" doesn't really fly. They incentive it to cheat, until they can't, and whatever happens in between is cool as long as they don't get caught and no one gets hurt. There are limitless examples of this, yet some will even argue that it'll be worth it as prices and competition, even cheating to keep prices lower is better for customers and the population as a whole.

We have a president who is pretty much the poster child for cheating wherever you can and showing how far that can take you. Don't trust the government? Fine, but don't tell me that the profit motive means that businesses will look out for the public, because that's not happening. That was the point of that particular example.

Exactly my point, seemed like an odd situation to use to prove a point. Thought it was a point better made by you then me. It's like if I am a big TSA supporter and then decide to use a plane hijacking where the hijakcers went right through security as an example of why the TSA works. In general the TSA might very well work and be a good idea but why use that particular case as my example?

It's always funny to read how people can look at the same facts and reach opposite conclusions:

Elizabeth Warren's DNA test shows she isn't Native American, makes her the butt of jokes once again

Yes, Elizabeth Warren has Native ancestry. No, that won’t stop Trump’s racist attacks. - The Washington Post

Indian ancestry comes up a lot in Idaho and similar states, it matters for tribe enrollment, benefits, and state jurisdiction for crimes committed. The most important factor is % blood ancestry. For state criminal jurisdiction, % blood ancestry actually trumps whether the tribe itself consider you a member, which is a little odd to me, but that's what our state supreme court decided..

Somewhere around 1/8 is usually the cutoff. Warren's DNA test means she's at most, 3% Native American (but more likely less). There's a big difference, a legal difference, between "being an Indian" and having some Indian blood.

I know it's not popular to say, but it's still weird that Harvard Law School identified her as a minority professor (including in materials promoting their diversity, that they had a "native american professor"). Trump promised to pay up if Warren proved "she was an Indian." The Washington Post opinion article occasionally altered that promise to a payout if Warren proved she "had Native American ancestry", but then links to the speech where he said "Indian." Her demanding he pay up is essentially a claim that she's an Indian. But she's not.

It's also interesting how, growing up in the northeast, we were taught in polite society that "Indian" is basically a racial slur. But in the west, the courts, statutes, civic groups, organizations and charities that support the tribes, and the tribes themselves, generally use the term Indian in a generic way to describe native American people. That doesn't necessarily make it OK, but, the term definitely means something different to me after using it in legal briefs after the other party, the court, and the law did, and then after I kind of reluctantly decided it was OK for me too and that it would look patronizing if I avoided it when no one else was.

Interesting The Daily podcast this morning. The argument was made that the geography of the US ensures that the majority of the country will be democrat (thus the likely shift in house) yet the senate and electoral college small state preference ensures likely long term senate and presidential wins.

I think the question may be if the 17th Amendment is "unconstitutional"? Perhaps the original indirect election of senators was to exactly prevent the current power gap? As it stands now one party is successful at mobilizing and appealing to the few, but electorally powerful and the other party is successful at appealing to the many at the cost of the few. With our current media and tribalism, I think gone are the days of a party trying to be all things to all people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/p...epublican.html

Some heads will roll, wonder if it goes all the way up to King-in-waiting.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/middl...key/index.html

I guess this means she is prepping to run in 2020. Here's a refresher

Political positions of Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia

The Democratic leadership and lack of strategy continues to baffle me.

1. Who cares about this bit of information? Hint: nobody

2. Why do this right before the mid-terms when all the talk is on other subjects likely in the Dems favor? Now you throw something out their that will likely only engage in what Trump wants which is grade-school confrontations that will rile up his base.

I'm not suggesting this will influence anything in the midterms but by putting this out there at this point in time will provide zero benefit while potentially providing something for Trump to grab a hold of and rally around.

The problem is that Democrats think it is important because they tend towards identity politics. You fit into this box, and we're one of you because X.

The other part of it, to think that she has this family story that makes national news, but she never used it for gain is ridiculous. Why make the claim if there is no gain? I have some interesting family tidbits, but unless we are talking about where your family is from, it is not volunteered.

I think Trump would beat Warren.

Warren is a terrible national candidate. Today is a great example of that.

I doubt a single persuadable voter even knows what's going on with Warren. It's a big deal for the politically engaged, but those people generally aren't persuadable. The family history of a potential primary candidate isn't moving votes in swing states.

Just on the history of incumbency, you have to start from Trump is the favorite, regardless of who runs in the primary.

I am a Democrat and I don't think it's important. I do enjoy how you seem to always have all the answers and always know how the Democrats think and act though. It's great and not at all condescending.

I'm not sure what matters less to me - this Warren Indian story or the royal baby news. Like most of these political stories, the most interesting thing is the coverage, not the story itself. Once again, the MSM stumbles over an opportunity to cover news accurately without providing fodder for the "fake news" crew. it's so frustrating to watch.

I'd agree. She'd get way more votes than him but the EC would not be kind to her.

Definitely. He hasn’t had a hit since “Regulate” with Nate Dogg.

Honestly, I meant Democrats as in the the party, not the rank and file. Its the same as most people on the board think all Republicans are racist.

EDIT: I do get quite a bit of interaction from the Democrats from my wife's family and friends as well as interactions with clients at work.

The only people who i share political views with that discussed the Warren thing today at all were pretty much wondering what the fuck she's doing and why.

Yeah, see my response to Butter. JPhillips said it much better than I did, the people that are politically engaged it is a big deal.

The point I was trying to make, I see more Democrats using identity politics. Which makes some sense, when your targeting a lot of different groups, you want to identify with them to establish common ground.

Its no different than if someone was running a sales force that interacts with the public in a high intensity purchase. You want someone that connects with the client because people buy from people.

The House is huuuuugely gerrymandered right now. Like, obnoxiously so. Yes, both parties do it, but we're talking about, "Republicans had a wave election in a census year" levels of gerrymandered.

That the House is looking like a possible flip is less about geography and more about, well, "the enthusiasm gap." Democrats are pissed off and have been motivated for two years. Republicans have been more muted. Now maybe that changes in the next 2-3 weeks and the "blue wave" that has been bandied about for the last several months fails to materialize.

But if the geography of the nation had anything to do with majoritarian representation in the House, Democrats would have won it it in 2012 or 2016, when their base was more likely to turn out.

On the other hand, I DO think that geography probably puts its thumb on the scale for the Senate, yeah. The heartland is full of large states with pissant populations and bright-red political proclivities, and they all get two Senators, each. Much is made (or was, before 2016) of the "Democratic firewall" in Presidential elections, but there's a similar phenomenon benefiting contemporary Republicans in the Senate.


It's probably against the original intent. The way the Senate was structured was meant to make it a deliberative body, and states selecting their Senators without direct election was meant to ensure that people who had the states' best interest at heart selected people with similar goals - demagogues needn't apply.

It didn't work out that way because humans are corruptible, and the idea of the "smoke-filled rooms" (or the "ol' boy network," if you prefer) picking people based on connections and palm greasing roused some ire.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary, etc. It was a setup meant to insulate the Senate from mob rule and demagoguery, but the other side of that is if you reserve the power to select leaders to the political class, horse trading happens and that's not good, either.

But "unconstitutional"? No. It's literally right there in the Constitution, and no court is going to hold that the Constitution can invalidate itself; to the extent that contradiction happens, the Amendment with the contradicting language is going to supercede the original text, because that's what Amendments do.

The Cherokee Nation responded to Warren's claims, since she's made this a central issue of her identity and her 2020 presidential campaign.

"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America," Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said. 'Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."

That first sentence is referring to the fact that anyone who has even the most remote Mexican-American decent will have "native american" blood via DNA tests - the American native american tribes have occasionally fought off this reality in denying benefits to the millions who can claim 1-3% Native American ancestry. It takes more to be an Indian, in the eyes of the tribes.

This is a woman who was identified by Harvard law school as being a "Native American professor" for many years. And while none of this should really matter, I noticed that it was the #1 political discussion, by a wide margin, on the politics subreddit over the last week, which I think is at least as relevant as determining what matters to people as whatever CNN or Fox News puts on their front page.

I think this is true if all other things as equal(which they never are). Don't you think that the fact that he's historically unpopular in a great economy, Mueller's findings are going to hit at some point, and less people are in favor of him than when he was elected would trend in the other direction though? I wouldn't put his chances at higher than 1 in 3 right now, and that tanks to single-digits if the economy goes for a down-turn which it will at some point, just a question of how the timing of it works out and whether it's at a time that will effect the '20 election.

The anti-Ted Cruz ads from Richard Linklater are hilarious. Especially the way the guy says "Ted".

TBH if the economy and stock market continues to do well and Mueller investigation does not come up with the smoking gun (e.g. him personally involved in a significant way) I do think he gets re-elected.

Trump has seemingly reduced his antagonistic approach recently (still there but less than in first year), has gotten some important wins - SCOTUS, perception he is "winning" the trade/cold war with China, some progress with NK, new NAFTA, complete cowing of the GOP etc. and, second only to the economy in importance, lack of an inspirational Dem candidate at this time ... all points to odds of re-election.

Looks like Trump is getting caught up on his fox and friends dvr with 3 tweets about Warren.

Why she ever brought this back up and doing it before the midterms is just beyond dumb.

Can someone explain to me how Trump is allowed to lie because they're blatant lies? ... Stormy Daniels lawsuit against him was dismissed on the basis that he needs to be able to lie about people as part of his presidency?

Surely having him NOT lie and face punishment when he does would be a good thing?

Trump Lawsuit dismissed

It's not against the law for anyone to lie (civilly or criminally), unless you're lying to defraud a victim, or if you're under oath. And the latter can almost never be proven unless there's corroborating evidence that you intended to lie and weren't just mistaken or remembered incorrectly. Edit: There's slander and libel too, but that's almost impossible to prove in the U.S. too.

Deficit grows by 17% thanks to decreased revenue as a result of tax cuts.

This piece is starting to standout to me. At this time the Dems should really be working on culling the herd, and identifying 3-5 solid choices.

And at this stage, I see Booker, Harris and Warren posing no threat to a Trump re-election, because they all fit the "image" that will once again galvanize his base, while turning off just enough of the independents/moderates to ensure another victory.

At this point I have to think Biden is the most promising option, barring an unforeseen emergence of someone else. He won't be bullied by Trump, and will be much more calculated in his responses than the others, who let emotion drive them to say/do stupid shit. At times they look like they are Dem versions of Trump who only care about winning and not America.

I also don't think Biden will energize Trump's base like the three aforementioned would. Sanders is a wildcard, but he is too moderate for the current Dem establishment and I think his best shot has passed. I still believe that he would have defeated Trump in 2016.

No way they would get the nomination, but I would think long and hard about Tim Kaine or Phil Bredesen. The concern I would have with either, would they be able to move the party more towards the center, or would they have to move further left to toe the party line.

I don't think so either, but even having them in the conversation hurts the Dem cause IMO, so the sooner they are not in the picture the better.

I would love to see Kaine but it would be a bloodbath as the loony left trampled all over each other to see who could be the first one to stab him in the back. Trump choking on a Big Mac really is the only thing standing between us and another 4 years isn’t it.

You're right with Harris and Warren, but way off the mark in regards to Booker. He'll have tremendous appeal to moderates/independents. His problem is going to be from the Bernie types who won't like Booker's coziness with big banks. I think he beats Trump if he can find his way to the nomination.

None of it matters, if the economy continues to grow Trump will be reelected. Money makes everyone look the other way and provides them an excuse to put up with his antics.

My dad is the perfect example. Voted Trump but not a hard core supporter. Hates a lot of his antics and is objective in his views. He is a good man, owned a pharmacy in an area with a lot of minorities and latinos. Never heard him say a bad word about any minority, woman, etc...employed a lot of them, done a ton for the community.

Loves seeing his investments grow and as long as they do he will vote Trump despite all the other nonsense. There are A LOT of similar people aged 65-90 who are just like my dad. Then throw in the people who support him for the other reasons and it is looking like an uphill battle for the Dems.

Kaine has no personality and Bredesen will be 76 in 2018.

Great response Stormy. Keep it coming.

All about the Boomers....still. We can't get away from it. Who cares as long as the world is pandering to me and my specific demographic. Sure investments are growing, at what cost though? Would the R's have been so kind to Obama to let him float a trillion dollar stimulus to the economy when things were already going good? Guarantee as soon as they have lost control of the finances that they'll be touting all the need to cut and save and balance the budget. Meanwhile, if they manage to keep control it'll all be good, as long as the short term is good, everyone else be damned.

It'll take someone like Bloomberg or a Kasich-like D on the left to get the nom and threaten. The middle (of both parties) is still more important than that fringe on each.

This. Plus Biden might be the next best candidate despite his age, but the idea that he won't say stupid shit is... interesting.

Biden is the old guard. I really don't think he can generate enough support to beat Trump. Booker is interesting to me.

The far left will nominate...

Is a fantasy of the right. The moderate ALWAYS wins in the Dem primary, it's only after they are nominated that they are made into a radical socialist.

Clinton was the moderate. Gore was the moderate. Kerry was the moderate. Obama was the moderate. Clinton was the moderate.

The far left isn't going to pick the nominee.

I agree.

I will note, though, that a lot of Dems I know are frustrated by President Obama having governed as a moderate (and almost obsessed with bi-partisan compromise) to still have the GOP successfully portray him as a far-leftist. There's a sense that if everything a Democrat does is simply going to be seen as far left, then why not actually govern from the far left?

I don't think that its enough to win someone the nomination, though.

In general, the far-left hasn't shown an ability to appeal to the non-white parts of the party. That was(is?) certainly Bernie's biggest problem.

But Biden also doesn't generate antipathy like Hillary or a Liz Warren does. And a decent amount of Trump's 2016 appeal/votes was anti-HRC, not pro-Trump.
Slight quibble - I'd say Obama was the more progressive nominee than Hilary, though obviously not on the level of a Bernie Sanders or Howard Dean, and one who didn't govern that way.

Warren does seem to be laying the groundwork for a 2020 run, and will have a built in base amongst the liberal wing (at least if Bernie doesn't run). I think her shortcomings will quickly become apparent when nationally campaigning, but if it's a very crowded field she might be able to win enough early states.

Continues to grow for whom? Rich? I am not sure things have improved that much for those rust belt people with no college education. Trump promised them to get their glory days jobs and pay back, I'm positive that has not happened. Combine that with the continue increase in healthcare costs and drug use, I feel he can take advantage of that voting block only once.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You don't want your ideologues to be your party's candidate.

It fires up the base, sure, but you run the risk of alienating the middle. There's your CW.

The part nobody ever thinks about? You take your ideologue out of the Senate where they can influence legislation and judicial appointments (see: McConnell, Mitch) for a quick 4-8 year endorphin rush in the White House.

If you control the Senate and the White House, anybody the President sends is going to be someone who's going to pass muster with the firebrands, even if the President isn't a firebrand, themselves. They're going to sign the legislation you send them. Etc.

If Republicans control the White House and the Senate, it doesn't matter if the President is ultra-conservative or not - he's going to sign the legislation that comes out of Congress in most cases, and his judicial picks are going to be conservatives much more often than not.

If Democrats control the White House and the Senate, it doesn't matter if the President is ultra-liberal or not. She's going to sign the legislation that comes out of Congress in most cases, and her judicial picks are going to be liberals much more often than not.

What you want out of a Presidential candidate is somebody who's telegenic, empathetic, and (well, until two years ago) articulate. Someone who looks "Presidential," makes voters feel like their concerns are understood, and able expound their message in a way that widens the party's tent.

Your ideologues aren't as bound by the 'middle' unless they're a Senator from a swing state, so they can get away with messaging to the base in most cases, and once in the Senate, they're able to shape legislation in an ideological way.

Trump ran for President like a red-state Senator, which should have been a recipe for defeat. I will never understand how a strategy of "narrow the base" got him elected, but I suspect it's also probably not something that can be replicated on a regular basis.

It's a nice thought.

The reality is that that voting bloc gets taken advantage of over and over and over. Because they value process over outcome, and because they've been conditioned to believe that "conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed."

So if Trump says what they perceive to be the "right" things, but they don't get the outcome they want, it's not that he was wrong - it's that the Democrats somehow sabotaged everything or a RINO stabbed them in the back or whatever.

And then they'll go vote for Trump again.

At what point do they turn on him, because most of them are hard core supports and fall into the "other" category I listed.

I realize it is a generalization, and perhaps an unfair one, but a lot of those uneducated people in the rust belt are also backwards as fuck, and like being able to hate them brown people. The uneducated ones are also the easiest to strike fear in to that hey are losing their country. Trump will campaign to them that they are losing their country to the mexicans and that the Dems will open the boarders and all their daughters all be raped and sold into the sex trade, and they will lap it up.

My Dad is not rich. He is like a lot of boomers. Worked hard, made decent money, and invested well. HE wants to see that continue and thinks Trump will make that happen. Environment, gay rights, civil rights, free speech, etc...be damned.

Its not all bad.

The article stated a couple times it wasn't all because of Trump. However, its been 2 years now and Trump will get credit in 2020 if it keeps up.

On healthcare, fair or not, Trump & GOP will easily be able to blame that on Obama. re: drug use, don't think that's a big issue for the GOP.

Factor in the other Trump pros - SCOTUS, trade war with China (that is going well right now), de-escalation with NK (for now at least), revision of NAFTA and the optics of Mexico & Canada acquiescing to US demands, stock market doing well, the growth of nationalists support in many other countries (e.g. he's not alone), NRA still going strong, his ability to help GOP win elections (or at least not lose them), his strong support for Israel, his strong stance on illegal and non-desirable immigration (his definition of course), GOP likely retaining the Senate etc. ... I'm sure I missed several more.

Combine that with Dem cons - (I'll let someone else list them)

It's going to come down to (1) the economy or how people think they feel about the economy (2) who the Dems can put up (3) does Trump have a major screwup (e.g. Mueller smoking gun, trade war going south etc.) and I'll add a (4) can the Democrat base get out the vote and increase their % from 2016.

https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/...ump-than-obama

I just want to pick this out. Poll after poll after poll shows the opposite.

J.F.C.

BREAKING: President Trump tells AP that Saudi Arabia being blamed for missing journalist is another case of 'guilty until proven innocent'

— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) October 16, 2018

Care to share your links?

Don't tell farm country that the trade war is going well. It's not a huge voting block and I don't see somebody like Kansas or Iowa flipping because of it. But in some of the battleground 2016 states with bigger ag economies like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, it could potentially be enough to move the needle the other way. Only because the needle doesn't have to move far in those states.

Hundreds of dairy farms have already shut down in Wisconsin this year. His supposed victory over Canada in the NAFTA renegotiation only brought things back to the way they were in 2016 and gave us only a fraction of a percent increase in Canadian market access. He liked to portray it as a big win for dairy farmers but to anybody that understands the details, it's a big nothing burger.

I agree. I think trump brought out desperate voters on healthcare costs and lack of economic recovery. Those people did not want 4 more years of failed Obama policies. And with all that, and significant Clinton fatigue, he won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by a total of 108,000 votes.

My point is, between higher democratic turnout and resignation that trump can’t make things great again (due to Dems, media of McConnell, etc) I think his 2016 108k marginm is essentially gone.

(Ugh, lungs just said this better...)

Just saw Julian Castro is thinking about challenging Trump. Other than Republicans probably getting their base believing that he is the spawn of Fidel, this is probably the first name that's intrigued me other than the list of geriatrics being floated about.

Are you speaking for yourself or the specific regions and voters I was referring to?

Rust belt = red leaning states and no college education folks are mentioned in the article?

I seem to be wearing the wrong glasses because I am unable to read between the lines as well as you.

Higher Employment does not equal promise fulfilled. Lower healthcare costs, high standard of living and job security is the good old days.

The article provides data points that "Trump's economy" has helped Trump voters including rust belt and non-college educated.

"Promised fulfilled" is quite an expectation for only 2 years into the administration, but I think his voters will see it is trending that way and that is good for them.

Who has more Indian blood. Elizabeth Warren or chief Running Zack?

Also I'm really surprised that Trump hasn't talked about how Nikki Haley is so much more Indian then Elizabeth Warren

I don't think the economy is as big a factor as people really say. It's used as a convenient cover instead of just saying you don't like minorities and the white nationalist sounds cool to you. Or that you have some major issues with women in your life.

In the end, Trump won because we have a weird undemocratic way of choosing a President. Hillary was an uninspiring candidate with decades of baggage, but she ended up being the more popular candidate.

Democratic republic =/= democracy.
And if you don't think low middle class folks who co siedr themselves sophisticated financially don't see a surging 401k as a major win, you are disconnected.

The number of low-middle class people that put much money into a 401k is pretty small.

And 401Ks were at record levels heading into the 2016 election and it conveniently wasn't a talking point.

The bottom 90% own @15% of stocks. There can't be many low middle class families with surging 401ks.

Good example of media bias. Saying he has “helped” his voters is a vague term, probably not meant for those voters, but more as a nice sound bite. Helped what? Find them a job? Ok, was that really their problem? Lowering healthcare, nope. Returning to good old days manufacturing jobs, nope.

Trump won his key states because of non college educated women turned out for him, in an above average way. I think that group is very affected by healthcare costs and the opioid epidemic but probably have their pick a of shitty retail job.

Here's one from last year.


There are others that show the same thing. Basically, when one party is in power and promises to fix something, they get the credit or the blame. The GOP runs everything, they said they'll fix healthcare, so anything that happens there is going to fall on the GOP.

I have to agree but also believe the low-middle class folks that have the discipline to contribute to a 401k probably do appreciate seeing their money grow. Dow in 2017 was +24%, most will notice that bump. 2018 started out great but we are now at +3-5% I think.

Not convinced the 401k balance is what low-middle think about re: good economy. Its probably more on job opportunities, job security and a 3-4% increase every year.

https://money.usnews.com/money/retir...ance-stacks-up

Interesting. The below Kaiser research is pretty recent and shows Trump/GOP won't get the blame (or that much). It may just be how the question is worded.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...l-health-costs

Of course this isn't hard data, just anecdotal.

I listened to a couple guys recently talking about their 401k balances. These are hourly construction guys. Not spring chickens late 40s early 50s guys. The conversation was about how ones 401k balance had gone up from 10k to 15k since Trump took office. Now i dont know if his numbers are even real...but they were both praising the growth.

If there are a large sample of these people...collectively they are a small % of the total market yet they see personal gain.

I was honestly going to type something very similar.

All the blue collar workers in fly over states whose 401K has gone up from 20K to 27K are going to praise Trump. In their minds the POTUS is giving them free money.

The article is one data point so take it for what its worth. But it provides evidence of better "mining, logging" and "manufacturing" under Trump. Those statistics in the article are not "vague".

The Dems are like a seriously distracted ADHD kid. They can't formulate any kind of sound strategy that controlls the narrative. They could pick from any number of topics and just pound it home over and over again, and forget that anything else is happening until people are sick of it, then move to something else once the first is totally ingrained. Instead, they try and hit every topic a little at a time and run around like Chicken Little with no focus and no discipline to stick to anything .

That's true at a national level, and God knows I've been pounding the party on it's lack of branding, but at a local level it's been healthcare and Social Security. Just look at how many GOPers are running to say they will protect the basics of the ACA. They're doing that because the Dems are killing them on the issue in race after race.

non - dola


the perfect example today. Instead of hitting the president on his complete acceptance of SA's total denial in the journalist case, they focus on a goddamned umbrella. It's not like it was really raining either. Maybe a sprinkle at best. Why?

Yes, a great explanation.

TBF Trump provides such a "target rich" environment but the Dems should do a better job on picking and focusing.

It's not nothing, but that 5k will last them how many months once they're retired?

Of course they'll need every if Medicare and Social Security are slashed.

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm telling you that's why the economy matters to those demographics and why it isn't a dog whistle as Rainmaker suggested.

We agree it isn't a tremendous game changer for them, but for them the perception is it's huge

I see other posters already hit this, but yes, while the vast % of stocks owned and profits made go to the upper X %, a lot of people own few stocks and they like seeing a rise in their "portfolio".

A rise from 20k to 27k in my 401k wouldn't make me change my actuarial timetable, but I'd still enjoy it.

Market soared under Obama. They hated him. Wonder what the difference is.

Will they turn out as much I don't know, but they will never turn on him/the GOP while "coastal elites/libruls" say things like this. Why would anyone with any pride switch sides to a group that talks shit about them non-stop? You heard terms like "condescending" about Hillary (and will hear it with Warren), and hear terms like "folksy" about Biden and GWB - how you talk to and about people matters a lot.

(I also don't think the opioid epidemic is a red state thing - meth was more red state, while opioids were more blue states, and certainly a huge issue in the blue part of the northeast I lived near.)
I don't think Obama policies failed, I think Obama/DNC messaging of those policies did, and a large part of that was due to the media and supporters.

I also don't know if they will turn out for midterms (and hope not, though between the Kavanuagh hearings and Liz Warren bringing up dumb things for no reason I see where the Fox etc train will try to spur turnout), but I don't think there is nearly the resignation amongst 2016 Trump supporters you assume. Dems just need to nominate someone with a bit of charisma who engages people instead of talking down to them...
Castro is someone I'm intrigued by since his DNC speech, but it's a tough look when you haven't won statewide office. HUD Secretary just isn't sexy enough.

Why not Cory Booker? (Kamala Harris is not geriatric either, but she does seem more radical.)

First let me address the statistical fallacy.
On 1/1/09 the Dow was at 9,034 He left at 19,762 (Which was also the highest point at any point in his tenure) a 10,700 point surge in 8 years.



We are 2 weeks removed from a 26,828 peak.

A 7,000 point jump in under 2 years.




Second and I think its the bigger issue with the Democratic party right now. This is the second or third time you have implied if not directly tried to make it an exclusively race issue. You specifically, and many others, marginalize the opinions of any who oppose your view and simply discard them as ignorant racists too dumb to understand these big boy issues. Its the exact mistake Hillary made and what led to the election of a moron like Trump.



Obama had a lot of issues, a lot of reasons to dislike him unrelated to the color of his skin.



But go ahead and dismiss everyone who sits on your side of the aisle, just like the Democrat candidates. Dont bother to spend a minute understanding their motivation. Then shake your head next November and make up another boogie man, another strawman for why everyone screwed up again. Find another Russia to blame. Never learn from past mistakes just keep repeating.

Wonder how Trump would be perceived if he wasn't so abrasive?

There obviously is a sector of people who think he " tells it like it is!" that love it. But if he wasn't so crude and childish all the time and just stayed off Twitter I wonder if the perception from the middle and other side would be enough to make him win easily.

I just don't understand why he feels the need to act like that and discredit all the positives that have happened under him.

I think that without the abrasiveness he wouldn't have cut through that crowded primary field.

You're playing some games with the numbers. If you go from Obama's inauguration the Dow was under 8500. If you go from the low point, in early March of 2009 it was around 6600. You also can't ignore that the Dow is no longer at its historic peak.

If he didn't act like a spoiled child he would be far more tolerable. But we have a president that called a woman Horseface yesterday. That's just not acceptable.

I wouldn't accept that behavior from my 9-year-old, but Trump has proven that if a President acts like an immature 9-year-old long enough, such behavior will barely be noticed by much of the general population.


And don't forget....

A reminder of journalism's goldfish-like attention span: Less than 2 weeks ago, the @nytimes reported, with solid evidence, that the president of the United States is a criminal tax evader. Almost zero follow-up from the rest of the craft. But lots and lots of horse face, etc.

— Dan Gillmor (@dangillmor) October 17, 2018

Dola...to be clear, it was reported, but at this point, Trump acting like a child is going to draw a collective yawn from most people. I can't stand the guy, but I can't bother to be outraged every time he reminds of who he is.

The way I look at it, is it possible that Castro's limited resume is an advantage rather than a disadvantage? Let's be real, the more time a candidate has spent in office, the more fodder there is for the opposition to latch on to.

I'm not necessarily opposed to Booker or Harris but with a guy like Castro the best the Republicans have to muddy his name is his name itself. (A la Obama/Osama back in 2008)

Yeah, I don't understand why the horseface comment got so much coverage. Yes, we already know he is an ass. The media shouldn't let stupid stuff like that distract us from other stuff that is actually important, like his tax evasion or helping the Saudis cover up a murder.

The scope of fraud level activities by the trump organizations in the Times piece is staggering. It's far deeper, far bigger, and with incredible corroborating evidence, and yet here we are worried about who he called names, and whether Melania is standing under an umbrella when it's not really even raining. The narrative of his money, and his incredible bald faced lying has to be the sticking point.

The evangelical right actually believes that he might be a messenger from god that is the answer to their prayers after all these years. Like the sinner who rises above to fulfill a prophecy, this is how he is perceived in some circles in the bible belt, because of how he has filled the Courts and his willingness to give them exactly what they want.

I hope everyone was able to catch this special Fathom event!

The Trump Prophecy - YouTube