FWIW, my attempt to quantify "scam".

I will admit I do not know the veracity of this analysis but open to any counter statistics. Admittedly, I would have thought the number was greater than 70-80% and admittedly, its not broken down by region/origin.

Reduce Refugee and Visa Fraud | NumbersUSA

LOL. I expected nothing less. Yes, silly me. You said "these people" and I assumed you meant all.

My bad.

I'm now convinced that the best, and perhaps only, Democratic candidate to beat Trump in 2020 is Andrew Yang. While other candidates are playing to the base, I keep seeing people on the Internet write stuff like, "Trump supporter in 2016, but changing party affiliation to Democratic so I can vote Andrew Yang in the primaries." No other Dem candidate I see is getting people to cross party lines to support him - and his platform is still progressive in nature.

I'm all on board with Yang. That said, no way he makes it through the primaries, because the Dems gonna Dem and put up an establishment candidate (Sanders/Harris/Buttigieg).

EDIT: Yang is also the only Dem candidate that the MSM (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) are trying to bring down and discredit. They must know he has the knowledge to make real change.

The only things I know about Yang is that he wants UBI (though I'm not sure how he wants to pay for it and what's to stop inflation) and that he wants to pardon all non violent drug offenders. I have no problem with someone convicted of simple possession being released but sellers are basically peddling poison for their own profit. They should be locked up.

I saw Bernie had raised 18 mil this quarter.

Im a Yang fan as well. But no way he can compete with that.

And I was looking at Bill Weld. But he has no chance against Trump. I havent seen a lot of his policy ideas. But I like Gary Johnson, so I would listen.

Sanders is *totally* establishment

That's an interesting list to give as an example of establishment candidates. One isn't actually a Democrat. One is a gay small town mayor that none of us had heard of 2 months ago. And one is a black woman. I think I'll agree with you that Harris is establishment, but most of the other people running are more establishment than she is.

And I know nothing about Yang, but I'm a UBI fan, so I do agree with his one major policy proposal.

Only in this election could someone like Harris be named an establishment candidate, LOL. Any other (and I guess pre-Trump) she'd be considered a long shot due to lack of experience. Same with Buttigieg. Then again, it's a long primary season.

Yeah, it's weird. Biden is establishment.

Calling just about any of the others that have thrown their hat in so far establishment is a stretch.

I'll grant that it's odd to call them establishment, but I call them that because they're getting a buttload of corporate donations, whereas Yang is all grassroots. Take Buttigieg, for example. He comes across as a good guy and says all the right things, but he worked for McKinsey & Company, which has its tentacles in all kinds of powerful corporations. And right now he, Harris, and people like Beto are all fluff and not giving much in the way of policy, whereas Yang (and to be fair Sanders) is presenting a lot of policy ideas.

I just feel like there are a lot of Democratic candidates that are saying a lot of anti-establishment stuff but have a lot of corporate backing. Please give me someone that's not in bed with Big Business.

And just because you are a black woman or a gay, small-town mayor doesn't make you anti-establishment.

I may argue, however, that Governor Inslee and Senator Klobuchar could be considered establishment candidates due to the amount of years both have spent in their respective roles, and Inslee was a Congressman before that (and arguably Senator Gillibrand and Governor Hickenlooper - though he's kind of a weirdo).

In a normal election, Inslee would be a front runner. Long term Congressman who become a successful Governor of a large state.

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/

These numbers are absolutely pathetic. Kudos to Romney and Obama for being outliers.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0ab5c41d1974




EDIT: I now wonder if this might explain some of the disconnect a couple of months ago about the new tax laws...

And this year with the huge number of candidates, I didn't know he was running.

'Experience' seems like it be kind of a bugaboo in politics, depending which way the wind is blowing. For all of Hillary's experience she didn't have much to hold up as any kind of trophy for people to grab onto, rather than some kind of lifetime service award. It's a fine line between being painted as an unproductive career politician vs. a longtime effective leader.

Romney at least has to give 10% to the Mormon church, I assume.

I'm not going to fault Gillibrand, and certainly not Inslee. They're roughly in the ballpark of my wife and I, and what we donated in clothes and a 25yo Saturn don't add up to those totals.

Yeah. We are a little above Klobuchar territory and don’t donate all that much. Some clothes and foods with some money to make a wish.

I’m a fan of letting people do what they want with their money.

There's more to charity work than giving cash, but I'm okay with putting heat on the top 10% to give more. I could give more than I do, but I'm north of everyone's percentage other than Romney and Obama and I'm making far less.

Ideally I'd like to do more for charity, but it all depends on circumstance. In our case, yes we are combined making a nice amount of money. But that's new -- my wife has only gone back to working full-time recently. Why? Because I had no income for 2.5 months in 2017. Our finances were such that we couldn't really absorb that well even with her working, so we had to rely on credit cards, etc.

And, that was given that we were probably already not doing the best job with consumer debt. Not horrible, but we probably weren't as frugal as we should have been. We also have two teens, at one point had four cats and one medically unsound dog...things like that add up.

(I love pets. But we're down to two cats now, and part of me is looking forward to not having to pay for as much in the way of food and vet bills.)

Oh right, also college.

Now, this isn't to say we're particularly stingy. When we go to church (which admittedly isn't as often as we once did) and are either visiting or don't have our donation envelopes, we'll just drop a 20 in the offering. My wife will give to little things like animal charities and I won't necessarily ask for a receipt. And really, with how taxes have been reworked it doesn't make sense to track all that bc we won't be able to itemize anymore. I'll cook for marching band events (technically we're not a tax-exempt entity anyway) or her PEO fundraisers w/o reimbursement. And for the band I put in a TON of time as Treasurer/parent.

I can also tell you that my daughter is pretty charitable with our money where hosting friends is concerned. ;)

So I dunno. Circumstances are different. I don't know what Klobuchar's or Gillibrand's or Beto's are. When I get to be Bernie's age, maybe I'll be in a different place. Kids long moved out, college hopefully paid for. Probably won't have any expensive hobbies. *shurg*


edit: our continued YMCA dues could probably be considered charity considering how rarely any of us go there :P

The Attorney General is holding a press conference tomorrow morning to discuss the Mueller Report release. The press conference is at 9:30, before the copies are to be delivered to Congress at 11, so it's very likely the purpose of the press conference is to spin it as favorably as possible.

The DOJ has been meeting with the White House and Trump's lawyers over the past week to help them write a rebuttal of the Mueller Report.

And finally, I'm so old I remember when Bill Clinton talking to the AG was enough to cause the GOP to go into fits.

edit: And the report being sent to Congress will be on a collection of CDs. lol

I wonder if they considered floppy disks.


On another note:


Yemen war: Trump vetoes bill to end US support for Saudi-led coalition - BBC News



Mr Trump described the resolution as an "unnecessary" and "dangerous" attempt to weaken his constitutional powers.


Ah, the irony ...

Bracing myself for the inevitable, endless stream of MSM analysis of the redacted Mueller report. Should be a fun Easter weekend (playing FO76).

TBH, we don't give $ as much as we could but do donate clothes, toys, books etc. to the Goodwill Store and drop spare Christmas cash for the Salvation Army. For a couple years, donated for matching funds to a college. We have donated (not loaned) money to less-fortunate relatives.

We (okay, my wife ... so the household) has volunteered serious time in providing supplemental teaching to kids needing help on weekends.

Kid in college and another coming up, and of course, saving up for retirement, so everything is focused on that right now.

So if factor in cash and non-cash, family and non-family donations, I feel good about our charity but yes, we can certainly do more.

My household donates very little in terms of cold, hard cash. We have created a long-running charity event that has been running for nearly ten years now, however - pretty sure I've advertised it here, as my band typically plays. This year we helped raise over $25,000.

Can't wait for the "he was frustrated" defense to obstruction of justice to catch on nationwide.

We have the Shaggy Defense. No reason this can't become known as the Trump Defense.

I can't believe there's anyone that watched that press conference and feels this is how our government should work.

Well yeah, that’s the name of the game for the GOP. You either buy the argument or get disgusted with how our government works. Win/Win for reactionary politics.

What's stopping Mueller from giving the full report to Congress without redaction? Releasing it to the public without redaction?

Damn, some people on this forum make bank... anyways my wife and I donate 3-4% in cash (and a bit more in time). We'd probably give more if our student loans were so egregiously high (10% of our income).

The Justice Department authorized the Special Counsel's investigation, not Congress. Ken Starr was authorized under the old Special Prosecutor rule by Congress that lapsed in the 2000's for the whole Clinton thing.

That's where I am as well. Just checked. 90th percentile is somewhere in the 160-165K household income range, so all the folks mentioned in the article (and many of us posting in this thread) are easily above that number. Though I'd never want to force people to do more, I think those who make more *should* do more. And let's face it: when talking about the candidates, we're talking about people who knew that their tax returns would probably need to be made public, so surely they gave at least a *little* more than they would have "in secret"...right?


I'd always assumed that 10% of net was a general standard, and that those who weren't giving to Christ-centered stuff were just giving to United Way, American Cancer Society, Planned Parenthood, St. Jude's, or whatever. So, yeah, this discussion does explain the disconnect on the tax laws.

Is it possible for the Mueller report to say that Trump colluded with Russia, but Barr say that it doesn't, redact where it says it and we never know?

Scrooge are there no prisons - YouTube

Live look in at me....

On paper we gave right at $20k last year.
But that number is less than half of my true charitable giving. I prefer to give to local individuals, typically anonymously, in need and there is no way to deduct that. There is a single mom that is battling health stuff and has a child with her own health issues...we've paid her entire mortgage for just at 2 years now....it makes me happy when I hear about the local community bank being so gracious and working with her... but I cant deduct that. But I do it because I'm called to care for my brothers and sisters who are less fortunate.


Dont know what the right answer is there. And if I didnt live in a small community I probably couldnt do that so it may not be applicable to those in the article.

No, because members of Congress will get the unredacted copies.

I was under the impression that ignorance is not a defense?

I mean the report clearly states that Don Jr. and Kushner broke the law but won't be charged because they are too stupid to realize they broke the law.

it depends on the law. Sometimes doing something "knowingly" is an element of the crime.

Here's the foundation of the report:

The Russians worked to help Trump win, including the DNC and Podesta hacks

Trump's campaign worked with the Russians and Wikileaks to better use their resources(stolen and legit)

Trump tried to repay the Russians through the RNC platform and sanctions relief, but was mostly unable due to the Russia investigation

Trump and others repeatedly lied to the public about what happened

Trump, after firing Comey, tried to fire Mueller and asked for other officials to stop or hinder the investigation, but officials mostly ignored him

That may not be criminal, but it sure as hell should be enough to start hearings towards impeachment. I expect the Dems, though, certain Trump can't possibly win again, will get cute and try to use this in 2020.

dola

Mueller: After telling McGahn to get the special counsel fired, Trump told McGahn to deny reports that he had done so.

McGahn also told Mueller that Trump scolded him for taking notes, saying, "Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes." pic.twitter.com/4cdVfcm0ik

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) April 18, 2019

Is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?

Yep, and ironically, Trump's officials who ignored him ended up saving his ass - Trump wanted to obstruct justice, but couldn't get anyone to actually do it! :lol:

Exactly right, especially in criminal cases, intent (mens rea) is a requirement. Sometimes a prosecutor won't prosecute if they know they will have a hard time proving criminal intent.

Quotes from Mueller:




I think it's clear Barr is doing exactly what he was brought in to do and I also think it's likely the early leaks claiming there wasn't much found by Mueller came directly from Barr himself.

For the Trump administration to claim this report as vindication they know they can say/do anything without losing their base and that Senate and House Republicans are ready to die on a hill for Trump.

Some more from the report:


Below only the part in Italics was used by Barr in his summary.

“Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told @DanaBashCNN .

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 18, 2019

They're going to regret again betting on Trump to lose.

But honestly. what would be the point of impeachment? The senate is never ever ever ever ever going to convict. If they had video of Trump promising Putin the nuclear football, and then blowing him, the senate is never ever ever ever going to convict Trump. Use the report as best you can on the trail. Continue the investigations in congress to bring out as much as you can. But actual impeachment is a complete waist of time,

An impeachment would get a vote on the record though. It would force Repbublicans to say that they don't think blowing Putin and giving him the nuclear football is an impeachable offense, to use your example.

It also makes the Dems look desperate, gives Trump campaign fodder so he can make comments like " they know they can't beat me fair and square" which his base will eat up.

And that does....what???


A failed impeachment does nothing but get more Trump supporters to the polls in 2020.

Not if they have strong evidence of wrong doing

"Their so-called evidence is just more FAKE NEWS!"--DJT, on the campaign trail in 2020, to wildly cheering crowds

He's going to say that about anything though. His base is going vote for him no matter what. Democrats just need to peel off just a few reasonable people.

That assumes both enough rational actors to make a difference and that said actors are actually paying attention, rather than just going by sound bites or random snippets.

Yeah, I think the tipping point for reasonable people was reached long ago, and whatever's left of Trump's base is relatively bulletproof in regards to any kind of news or scandal.

Just from what we know before today and including today, Nixon left office for much less.

Totally. Tho as folks have noted, the crucial difference appears to be that Nixon and his compatriots were all too competent in their criminal efforts, whereas everybody Trump enlisted in his ad hoc plans either ignored him or was mentally/ethically/genetically challenged enough to fuck up every attempt.

I may be mis remembering but I think your are right leaning. Does this's mean you will vote D in 2020 no matter what?

The way to beat Trump in 2020 is for the D's to get a candidate "middle America" will vote for and have the various factions of the left unify to beat Trump. Good luck with that based on the already early infighting with Dems I am seeing.

On one hand, I get that. On the other hand, there's something to be said about being on the right side of history and not allowing potential political blowback be the determining factor of whether to do something or not.

With impeachment, we're at the point where it's the right thing to do and I do think the more you isolate Trump's base from everyone else the better. Every single person in his base can go to the polls, but if you've made it difficult for the independents to vote for him and drive the progressives and moderates out to the polls as well then Trump still loses handily.

The Russia investigation was 12th out of 12 on what voters thought was most important at the midterm.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/...migration.aspx

It's important to partisans, but not to the electorate in general. Spending the next 18 months on a failed impeachment while instead of attempting to fix (I have no expectation of success with a Turtle Senate) any of the other 11 things re-elects Donald Trump.

I'm actually incredibly frustrated at the irrational anger I see from so many Dems about impeachment. Before the report was released, people were hammering Pelosi's comments about why impeachment would be a good idea. Now Stoyer and Schiff are getting roasted from people I normally respect. And the comments are crazy. They say it doesn't make sense to impeach because it will be seen as partisan and then people are responding, "OH MY GOD SO YOU WONT INVESTIGATE THE REPORT AT ALL".

Nobody has said that! Not one single person has said there should be no congressional follow up on the report. But impeachment that would lead to a partisan vote in House and a failed partisan vote in the Senate would accomplish very little and could potentially backfire in a major way.

This could be my ignorance speaking, so please forgive me.

I remember when Trump won, I read and article about why he won. One of the points that I won't forgot, was the fact that he won Michigan with less votes than Romney got when he lost Michigan to Obama.

So where are those voters?

I am a Republican, but as I get older I am finding my views are changing quite a bit. I haven't voted for President in the last 3 elections because I felt like my vote didn't matter. I'm sure it won't matter in 2020 either, but I am really looking forward to voting for who ever is running against Trump even though Indiana most likely stays red.

Trump got more votes than Romney and McCain, but fewer votes than W in 2004. Part of that is due to Michigan having fewer people as it is declining in population. More people voted in 2016 than did in 2012.

Not quite. I have never voted Republican in my life and I generally bounce between democrats and libertarians in elections. I'm a libertarian according to isidewith.com

But preemptively taking impeachment off the table neuters the investigation. What's the point when you've already said you won't do anything about any potential crimes? Remember that Mueller didn't charge in part to the DOJ opinion that a sitting President can't be charged with a crime. Impeachment is the only way to hold a President accountable for crimes in office.

But the political concerns don't matter to me as much as holding a President accountable for ten instances of potential obstruction and a pattern of working with foreign actors to influence the election. Dem leaders are saying that there will be no potential for Trump to be held accountable for this. It says a President can do anything as long as they hold one chamber of congress. Maybe, eighteen months from now he'll lose the election isn't good for the future of the country.

precisely

I totally agree with this. If the President committed impeachable offenses then its the duty of the House to impeach, period and end of sentence. At some point, the only way away from things continuing to get worse if for somebody to do their duty and make good on their oath of office. I understand the political argument, but it's irrelevant here - not impeaching says the POTUS doing this stuff is acceptable.

But I guess I'm not seeing them preemptively taking impeachment off the table. The way I read the statements is that impeachment proceedings shouldn't start now and more information is needed before they would start.

If that's not taking impeachment off the table, I don't know what is. This is what I'm referring to - maybe you are talking about something else? Schiff said that 'a failed impeachment is not in the national interest' - meaning he's not supporting it without Senate Republicans folding, and you know darn well that isn't going to happen ahead of time. Regarding the 'more information' angle - what are they going to discover that Mueller didn't discover in two years?

I really don't see any other choice with the 400 pages or whatever of the report other than to make a decision based off that. Either you impeach based off it, or you say there isn't enough here. For a long time the line has been 'wait for Mueller's investigation to finish'. Well, it's finished. Having more investigations going over the same material that's been reported ad nauseum in the press and is now codified in the report is the same thing as deciding to do nothing. It's an excuse not to act. I think there are three options:

** Impeach
** Say he should be impeached but we don't want to pay the price of acquittal in the Senate (the Schiff etc. argument), the weasel response.
** No impeachment, in which case more congressional inquiries are a clear waste of everyone's time and money.

Hoyer said this:


That reads to me like he's taking it off the table. I get that the GOP will let Trump do whatever he wants, but that isn't a good enough reason, IMO, to take impeachment off of the table. An argument can be made that Mueller's report is a request for impeachment, and there's a lot of evidence for obstruction and a coordinated effort with the Russians and Wikileaks.

What I think is under all of this is a foolish Dem desire to run against Trump again. I think they see him as weak and the worst possible candidate for the GOP. But they thought that in 2016, too, and now in addition to his formidable skills as a campaigner, Trump knows how to undermine the election, knows he can get away with it, and can count on the DOJ to look the other way.

And we just got the tweet way ahead of schedule.

I’m with the Dem leadership on this, at least right now. The single most important thing for the country is to get this president out of office as soon as possible. Impeachment with a GOP controlled senate doesn’t do that. The 2020 election is the absolute earliest opportunity to remove him, so that becomes the only thing that matters.

Now, you can certainly make the case that passing on impeachment will hurt you politically. And the left wing is clearly going to go nuts, but they will have their say in the primary. I just don’t see many people sitting this election out in protest like last time.

At the end of the day this is a democratic government. The people have to decide. That should be a pretty strong message to run on for whoever the Dem candidate turns out to be.

I like the idea of censure as a starting point that's being floated by some.

But this would be true even if they impeach him and he gets acquitted in the Senate. I almost read your logic the other way. If they're thinking he's easy to beat, then go ahead and impeach him, because the fallout won't be enough to help him win. To me, they're acting more concerned about a possible Trump re-election.

Either way, I think at the very least you need to at least get Mueller in there to testify about his findings before you proceed with impeachment.

I guess part of my frustration is that the Dems won the day. The Barr press conference was a huge misfire that only served to reiterate how misleading his memo was. And now there's all this infighting because some Dems don't want to rush to impeachment right away. Maybe Hoyer never wants to impeach, but for the party as a whole I see nothing wrong with being more deliberate about the process, so it won't be seen as completely partisan.

You guys know that Trump supporters are sending memes around like this one: "Just think about how stupid the democrats are: They lost an election they rigged AND they lost an investigation they rigged."

You guys talk about how divisive Trump is, but the same opinion comes from the Trump supporters. The dems are dividing the country.

Trump will win the election again if the dems keep after him. That is absolutely the wrong play.

Will Trump even leave office if loses in 2020 or is convicted after an impeachment? I hope there's a plan B and C.

This. Along with Trump stating he was "fully exonerated" by the Senate over and over again. If he can't be removed from office by election, then you might as well just be ready for four more years. It is the only way he will be removed.

I think he'd leave office, but I do think he'd still run for the nomination (and probably win) even if convicted after impeachment.

If he loses in 2020, does he run again in 2024?

be hard to run from prison

Norms are fragile, and when they're broken with no consequences, they stay broken and encourage further erosion of norms. Watergate was the outlier, the other scandals we've had in the past fifty years have been largely consequence free for the perpetrators. Now we'll accept foreign meddling in our elections, Attorneys General that are little more than the President's personal lawyer, and an encouragement for Presidents to obstruct justice.

I'm not arguing for immediate impeachment hearings, but the investigation has to continue and impeachment can't be taken off the table. This is bigger than the 2020 elections, but even if that's the worry, there's little reason to be concerned. Trump won a very unlikely victory against a terribly flawed candidate and since then the demographics have moved away from him and his support has slightly fallen. If the Dems lose in 2020 it will have more to do with the candidate than any investigation into the President.

Hard to run when your brain is a pile of mush.

You guys understand that Trump supporters believe HRC and the Russians were working together and all those emails she destroyed was the proof. right?

If you have not figured that out, right or wrong, then I see why you are still calling for impeachment and Trump is a bad guy.

This is just going to drive more people out in 2020 to vote for Trump.

He will not be impeached. He will not be in prison.

Yep, you are right. There are some stupid motherfuckers out there. But the fear-mongering and bullshit isnt going to attract any new Republican voter retards for Trump. He's still drinking from a fixed reservoir of contaminated water.

I too agree that we should impeach. It should pass the House but doubtful the Senate will confirm. Regardless, its the right thing to do.

Impeachment process will keep it out there and although it won't shift the hardcore 38-45% (?), I have to believe it will shift the undecided.

The key risk to the Democrats if they become too "petty" in the impeachment process and that turns off the undecided. I do think this is a real possibility.

Nevertheless, the right thing to do is start and try to impeach.

Took the poll.

68% Republican
63% Constitution
60% Peace & Freedom
54% Democratic
50% Socialist
48% Libertarian
42% Green

My top candidates are

84% John Delaney (Dem) - who the heck is he? Have to start researching more
77% Andrew Yang (Dem)
75% John Kasich (Rep)
75% Cory Booker (Dem)
74% Feel the Burn (Indep)

Not sure how to interpret the results between Party & Candidates, seems contradictory (or maybe its the candidates themselves)

I like how when I finished filling out that isidewith.com survey I got a pop-up ad to join Kamala Harris' mailing list.

I do those surveys for fun sometimes (and to procrastinate), but I always feel a disconnect with the results. I don't want vote just on who has the most similar policy positions to me. I'm sure there's lots of people who hold similar opinions to me who would really suck at being president (including myself).

My values cross traditional party lines quite a bit so I'll disagree with any presidential candidate on a lot of stuff. But that's OK, it's so much more important to me to have person with the appropriate skill-sets, experience, background, and temperament for the job.

I know that there are a number of remarkably stupid people in this country. But I'm not sure what the strategy is to reach people who treat Infowars as real news. Just stand up for what you believe in, do what you think is right, and hope the votes go your way (or the map since we have a really dumb way of electing a President).

Is the right play for congressional democrats just to go full court press on the Russian election interference part? Just say over and over that they are the party fighting to safe guard our elections, hold all the hearings about the hacking and everything else that was outlined by Mueller. Point to the voter roll attacks and introduce legislation prohibiting the purges that are so popular in red states. Leave the republican to explain why that’s a bad idea. Leave Trump to explain why he didn’t contact the FBI when they approached his campaign. Force McConnell to explain why he refused a joint statement with Obama in 2016.

It certainly won’t have any effect on the 35% of the electorate that are with him no matter what, but it might help in carving off the portion needed. And it will be at least something to placate the base with if impeachment isn’t pursued. It kind of feels like getting Capone on tax evasion, but whatever works.

90% Tulsi Gabbard
88% Bernie Sanders
88% Elizabeth Warren
87% Kamala Harris
86% Beto
85% Kristin Gillibrand
84% Cory Booker
83% Julian Castro
83% Andrew Yang
83% Booty Man
81% Klobuchar
-------------------
68% Joe Delaney
67% Gary Johnson
57% Joe Biden
------------------
49% John Kasich
21% Trump

****

81% Socialist
73% Democratic
72% Green
---------------
49% Libertarian
-----------------
28% Peace and Freedom
25% Republican
20% Constitution

Not surprised by the parties result, though I thought Green would actually be ahead of Democratic. First time Bernie has actually been edged. I'll have to look at Tulsi some more.

83% Booty Man?

Yeah, I wonder about those sites sometime, who they may want to pump up or smack down. Gabbard, really? Wasn't there a story a while ago about her being the early Russian favorite as far as the Dems go? (And yeah, Booty Man?)

I've never heard of Booty Man before now, but I'm giving him strong consideration.

I dont think you want to characterize these Trump supporters as dumb asses and all the other things you are saying.

That is the arrogance that has them feeling its "us against them and Trump is for us."

The comments about those supporters on this board is what is driving them out to vote. And keeping this country divided.

Whatever you think of Trump, there is a large portion of this country that already felt crapped upon by the "elitists" and democrats. And Trump came in and spoke directly to them. And they bought in.

They are not going away. And throwing Biden up isnt the answer. Dems have a better chance with Sanders if he can rally the 18-25 crowd out to vote. Otherwise, he is re-elected.

Nah.

** Clinton was the most unpopular candidate the Dems have ever run. Most unpopular other than Trump that either party has ever run.

** Trump still lost the popular vote by 3%, and winning the electoral given that was quite unlikely.

** Trump is slightly less popular now.

All of which adds up to a virtual lock for any Democratic candidate better than Hillary to win. Any vaguely competent D candidate should win by a moderate margin. If the economy tanks, that changes to any candidate able to utter consecutive syllables without falling over.


I do fully agree with this though, and it's been amusing to me to watch people blame all manner of things for Trump's victory. The EC. The late shift by evangelicals. Turnout here there and everywhere. Wildly exaggerated if not flat made-up percentages of the country being racist/white nationalist. Etc. The biggest problem is that I think too many people still don't want to face the amount of people who badly, badly wanted Trump to be president. My state of Michigan had as much to do with it as anyone. People had more traditional choices in the GOP. LOTS of them. They were repeatedly and roundly rejected by the primary voters and then we all know what happened in the general. For the most part, I don't think the problem of Trump's populist support has been faced head-on by America - we don't know what to do with it and keep trying to fill that void with other excuses.

This is the thought process that cost them in 2016. Do not underestimate the silent majority. They vote in the right places to win the electoral college.

The whole point is they weren't the silent majority though. They did not vote as a majority. They voted as a minority, and that pattern has drastically changed since '16. See: the midterm results. If Republicans had been vaguely competitive in those areas in 2018, then you'd have a good point. But they weren't.

At that point Trump presented at least the suggestion of a wildcard. At this point he's failed his base in practically every measure and filled his own government with criminal elites. I don't necessarily disagree that self interest, soft feelings & the sting of being condescended to by someone they don't know is still more important to most of Trump's base, but that doesn't exactly fill me with sympathy or respect.

Every single time a discussion comes up like this you speak down to Dems the same way you accuse them of speaking down to the GOP.

You don't think the fact that we have a President openly attacking the left, calling anything he doesn't agree with fake news, and ignoring policy that the majority of the country is in favor of isn't the major division issue?


Just as there's a large majority of the country that feels crapped on by corporations.


They're not going away, but they're the minority. If his base made up a more significant portion of the country they wouldn't have lost the overall house vote by more than 8 points despite strong turnout.

Not acting like he's President over the electoral groups that tipped the election his way is going to lose him the 2020 election. You trashed Hillary on here for not paying enough attention to Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and PA yet Trump has ignored them for almost 2 and half years and his approval ratings in those states show it.

Trump is underwater in the swing states he needs. Tell me how running up the score in the bible belt, Mississippi, and Alabama is how he's getting reelected?