I think a lot of people are projecting their own thoughts about Trump onto how other people perceive him. If you’re a Democrat and are friends with mostly Democrats, you’re going to see a constant barrage of scathing criticism of Trump every day on your Facebook wall, when you talk about politics with your friends the conversation will always turn towards all the egregious and outrageous things Trump just did.
But really, think about this: in the past two years, has the standard of living in America, in the main, really suffered? Are that many people really feeling the direct effects of Trump’s policies, in their bank accounts, in their day-to-day life? Employment is up. Gas is affordable. As far as I can tell, nobody’s civil rights have actually been curtailed in any meaningful way. There was an attempt to stick it to transgender military service members, which failed. There may be degradation of the environment and the educational system due to his cabinet appointments, but most people aren’t feeling this…to the majority of Americans, anything to do with the inner workings of the departments of the government is too abstract and remote from their daily lives to be meaningful.
There hasn’t been a war started, even though many people said there would be trouble with North Korea; that hasn’t materialized. It may yet, but as of now it hasn’t. Assuming that between now and 2020, there’s no new war, there’s no recession or other economic crisis - I mean something that truly hits average people in their pocketbook - and everyone has access to the amusements and distractions of life, the internet, entertainment, all the “bread and circuses” that keeps this country content, are people really going to look back at Trump’s first term and think, “this country has been through a disaster”?
If - IF, mind you - the years 2019 and 2020 play out similarly to 2017 and 2018 - I don’t really think many of them will.
Democrats will still hate Trump because he’s Trump. It’s easy to hate him. We’re all sick of seeing his ugly mug and hearing his blathering voice and reading the bullshit that he tweets and the antics that his followers get up to. But the rest of America - are they really going to think “this has been a disaster and we desperately need change?”
^
This is a very measured and well-though-out post.
The only counterpoint I would offer is that by having his caustic nonsense on blast 24/7, I think we’re likely to see the perception seep in to the American psyche that things in America are a disaster, and so his ascendancy must be corrected. I’ve long argued that a Democrat will win in 2020 if for no other reason than a return to normalcy. Regular people are undoubtedly exhausted from the high-octane frenzy of Trump vs. anti-Trump rhetoric.
Didn’t vote in the poll. I think being a woman is a desirable feature in the 2020 Democratic candidate, but shouldn’t be anywhere close to determinative. Like if we’re rating candidates from 1-100, I would maybe give women a 5 point bonus.
If you think gender shouldn’t be determinative, then the third choice in the poll is yours. I selected that one in the poll even though I think the opportunity for women is strong in 2020 as never before.
I’ll agree with Dacien that yours is a very well thought out and sensible post.
I’ve (obviously) snip’d the crap out of your original post, but my counterpoint to the “has the average American noticed any difference under Trump?” question would be - have you checked your 401k, ever since Kavanaugh got confirmed in early October, and then “Tariff-man” took hold, and now the uncertainty of a government shutdown possibly lasting “years” (according to Trump)?
I’d say that’s a pretty big variable when it comes to “has Trump’s policies affected the average American”.
I feel like I see this all the time. I’m in a very blue area so I tend to listen to conservative media perspectives to get a balanced view. Pretty much noone seems to understand the perspective of Trump voters or conservatives; oftentimes there is no knowledge that there are ideological differences between those two groups. This government shutdown is such a thing - this is a win-win for Trump. Trump supporters are a diverse group, but as far as I can tell they relish the idea of “lazy” government teat sucking workers getting their cummupence. They hate them even more than union workers. Long time conservatives will at times at least acknowledge that federal employees are, in fact, human beings though - which is nice.
It was a crime, but not a serious crime.
At least you didn’t string this out over several weeks as Rudy and the Trumpettes do. But, setting aside the hyperbolic question whether “electoral evil on a massive scale” is hyperbolic, a simple fact is that Cohen’s testimony alone makes a substantial case that Trump is guilty of violating federal criminal law. I’ll ask the lawyers to comment on whether any of the crimes we know Trump and his son committed qualify as felony.
I took a skim of her wiki page. Only major “red flag*” I saw was her support of gun control and “F rating” from the NRA. This is a hot button issue for many rural voters in states that get disproportionately more electoral college votes. Both men and women, they want to have private arsenals because the guns make them feel safer.
*in terms of her chances to be elected POTUS, not something I personally dislike
Googling I find that NRA has deliberately made their ratings hard to find! But another organization offers a download of NRA ratings (though not including the 2018 scores). Here is what I find for some of the Dem candidates (whom have I forgotten?):
F Biden, J.
F Booker, C.
F Brown, S.
F Gillibrand, K.
F Harris, K.
F Hickenlooper, J.
F Klobuchar, A.
F O’Rourke, B.
F Warren, E.
F* Castro, Joaquin
D- Sanders, B.
Only Bernie beats the F … with a D-minus. I used the brother as a proxy for Julian Castro. The ‘*’ means he didn’t have straight F’s — he was C in 2012, D in 2014, and didn’t earn his F until 2016.
In the list, all of the above were shown with ‘D’ (Democrat) except Klobuchar who was shown with ‘L’ (Farmer-Labor Party?). Maybe that will be a way to smear her.
I still find Former FEC Chaiman Bradley Smith’s argument on this compelling: If Trump had instead paid the hush money with campaign funds, campaign finance law is sufficiently labyrinthine that his detractors could convincingly argue that he misappropriated campaign money to pay for a personal expense, thus violating the law.
But to the greater point, Johanna’s language very much seemed to imply the greater allegation of Trump-Russia collusion, not a campaign finance violation.
Sure, but imagine you’re a Trump supporter. How does knowing “your man” broke the law make you feel? Did he shoot anyone? Did he rob any grandmothers of their life savings (this time…)? Rape anyone? Denounce Christianity?
None of the above. So he paid some hush money, paid a hussy to keep her mouth shut. Maybe got some money from the Russians, good business if you can get it, one reason he’s Winning Rich.
This probably isn’t enough to convince 21 Republican Senators to turn on him. I mean, golly gee those campaign finance laws sure are complicated. And besides, just because he committed a few violations of the federal statutes, is that really “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. More like a *low *crime.
There are thresholds that I’d support impeachment on. But it has to reach that bar. I would not have supported Bill Clinton being impeached for lying about his escapades in the White House. I wouldn’t support impeachment for Donald Trump for paying off a mistress to the tune of $130,000 or whatever it was, which is a drop in the bucket in a presidential war chest. Do I think anyone who plugged their nose and voted for the eminently odious Trump would have heard about the hush money payment before the election and said, “Well now! That’s a bridge too far! He may be a terrible human being in multiple respects, but I will not tolerate this!”, after which they proudly punch the “Hillary” selection? No, no I do not.
If he committed some kind of “criminal collusion” (my shorthand), some kind of conspiracy to influence the election in coordination with foreign agents, that’s outrageous and he should be impeached immediately. It would bother me that even Pence would be allowed to ascend in that situation, because it sets the example that you can undermine democracy, and as long as you don’t get caught until after the election, one of “your guys” still gets to be president.
I mean, you would? Really? Look, here’s what probably really went down.
Trump didn’t expect to win the election. He knew the odds were against him. The Russians likely were offering him various promising future deals that would help him financially regardless of the election outcome. And whatever they did to help Trump probably wasn’t enough. Yeah, the attack ads on facebook might have swayed a few voters, but probably not enough voters in the states that mattered.
Honestly I think Trump is a moderately competent con man who doesn’t have the ability to commit a really complex “high crime”. I think he should be impeached, but not for being a crook, but for just gross incompetence.
For Democrats to win they need to nominate a charismatic person who is already famous.
That person needs to have some political accomplishments, can’t be old, and needs to be able to bring a fragmented party together. Oh, and he or she needs to be able to quickly raise a lot of money.
There is no such man or woman today. The field is as weak as I’ve ever seen it. Putting the politically correct stuff to bed, Democrats can already count on undereducated minority votes, whether they are African American, or Hispanic. What they really need is to pick the person the Trump voters would like view as the lesser evil of the lot and not vote against him or her, but for Trump himself. That was Clinton’s problem. Many people were against her and voted for Trump because of it
This means a more moderate candidate is best suited. Dems can run a dog catcher and win California and New York. But who can they run to win Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania?
Of the three choices, the last one is the best. Don’t make gender a part of it.
However, the actual result could be that we have a candidate for whom her gender is an asset. Or it’s possible we have a candidate who would be good, but being a woman clearly is tanking her numbers. In those cases, we choose gender to win.
But the reason I choose the last one is because gender is not the actual underlying reason. It is about winning, not about predetermining which gender we would be willing to support.
I’ve been one of the posters suggesting a male candidate was more pragmatic. But I just voted with the third option. I’m trying to convince myself that we are at a moment where a large enough portion of our society can get past seeing gender identity as a necessary criteria for influential office.
The challenges against a woman candidate are so considerable - and unfair.