Call me overconfident (an adjective no one has ever used about me) but unless the Dems nominate Emma Goldman, they can’t lose. Trump, in the last election, was a very strong candidate. He was the outsider who would drain the swamp, the great businessman who would create jobs, the deal maker who would solve the Iran and North Korean isssues. No one, other than MAGA-hat-wearing-morons, still believe that. He is going to be on the defensive for the entire campaign, he will not be able to point to any accomplishments, he will ramble on and on and tweet on and on. He will be even more incoherent.
I know what the approval ratings are for him now. Historically, a sitting President can’t win with those numbers; Trump could win if he were the same Trump he was last time. Even then, it would be a close race.
He is not that guy. And I don’t see anything that can happen that will cause his approval rating to go up in the next couple of years, and I see a lot of things that will cause it to go down
I just don’t get the idea of needing to “earn” someone’s vote when you are already 100% against their opponent. It’s as if people have this nature to reject bivalent choices.
You are against Trump. So vote against him. That means voting Democrat.
The only reason it would ever make sense not to vote Democrat if you are against Trump is if you think the Democrat is worse.
All elections involve voting for the candidate that will do the best, and against the one that will do the worst. These are synonymous. If Trump is the worst, then the Democrat will be the best.
The other candidates cannot win. Your vote does in any way stop either candidate who can win. It does nothing.
This is one situation where I’m all about looking at the practical reality rather than ideology. The practical matter is that you’ll either vote against Trump, or you won’t. You’ll either try to stop him, or you won’t. ’
You can always say "I didn’t want to vote for the pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate, but even they were better than Trump.
If you must temper your vote, vote for Republicans in Congress. Use the checks and balances to your advantage. But VOTE AGAINST TRUMP.
I’m an outsider, of course, so just rubbernecking, but that’s how I would analyse it too.
The US has a two and only two party system.
If you say you’re a “never Trumper” but aren’t prepared to vote against him, then you’re actually a “grudgingly okay with Trump” voter.
Maybe you’re okay with that. But don’t call yourself a “never Trumper” if you’re not prepared to do something that keeps him out of the Oval Office.
As one of our comics up here once said: “So what if it’s the choice between two evils? It’s always important that the lesser of two evils gets elected.”
But seriously, you’re overconfident. It doesn’t matter whether Trump loses by 10,000 votes in states like California, or 10,000,000. And it doesn’t matter whether Trump wins in Wisconsin/Michigan/Pennsylvania/etc. by 10,000 votes or 10,000,000. The only thing that matters is how well Democrat X can fight it out with the Donald in a 51-round (D.C. included) fight.
And Donald Trump fights dirty. Dirty in ways that Richard Nixon would have never done.
Those “keys” were built up over the years of observing elections that were conducted under a set of political norms that used to change only very slowly. They aren’t relevant to Trump.
It has often been observed that Trump has done or said scores, maybe hundreds, of things that are so outrageous any single one of them would have been career ending scandals in the relatively recent past (remember “Macaca”?). The takeaway is “wow, this guy is coated with some kind of political Teflon!” And that’s true, to an extent. It would have been unthinkable in the past to imagine a president so beyond the pale managing to hold onto approval numbers around 40 percent or even a little higher. It is remarkable that he defies political gravity to that extent.
But it is only to an extent. That jawdropping onslaught of crass degeneracy does have an impact. It is disturbing that it doesn’t knock his poll numbers down into the twenties or below, but there is still a majority of the population that did not sign off on our dumping all those norms into the shitter, and therefore they don’t care about whatever “keys” are in place: they want him gone.
And I really don’t think this is special pleading. If you went back in a time machine to five years ago and asked the good professor then “What if a candidate had the following keys in their favor, but [list some Trump lowlights, take your pick]?” I’m sure he would have said “Okay, sure: *any *candidate can ruin their position regardless of the keys, if they just go completely off the deep end.”
That’s the situation we’re in. We have a president off the deep end, and a shockingly large minority who is willing to jump in with him. But they are distinctly outnumbered, thank goodness.
With all due respect, I think Lichtman is wrong about impeachment. For one thing, Trump has had scandals - scandal, after scandal, after scandal. He’s just not as affected by them as past presidents have been, and that’s because the electorate has changed. Voters are far more cynical than they have been in the past. Their tolerance for scandal is high, particularly if the candidate is white, male, and christian, or if he is at least seen as serving the interests of that demographic.
He thinks impeachment is the only way Democrats have a chance at winning, and I’d again caution that there’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever that impeachment would be a net gain for democrats. He points out that Trump would be exposed, but exposed for what? Hasn’t he been exposed already? Look, people know who and what Trump is. Those who don’t, don’t want to know. They just want their lives to not be screwed up by the president. That’s it. That’s how little they expect of their democracy, because they’re so fucking cynical they barely believe their vote means shit.
That is why Democrats cannot rely on impeachment as a thing that’s going to resonate with voters and topple Trump. Democrats have been pinning their hopes on the Mueller report and “the truth” since inauguration day, and I’ve got some bad news: you can stop hoping. The only thing that’s going to change minds are a couple of the other things on Lichtman’s list: economic failure and maybe foreign policy failure. A botched response to a natural disaster in the Heartland or the South, with lots of rural white people killed or left homeless, might do it. But Mueller? Russia? Impeachment? Pffff…get real.
Nate Silvers models are pretty well calibrated. If he predicts races with 90% confidence, then you’d expect he gets 90% of the races correct. That’s basically what happens. If you don’t understand that, the fault is with you, not him.
I don’t put a lot of stock in Licchtman and his keys. Scandal? Forget about it. Republican voters are totally blind to scandal, as long as it’s one of their guys. If a Republican is convicted of murder, they’re cool with it as long as they can find a Democrat accused of jaywalking so they can engage in whataboutism. I’m afraid that impeachment would simply enable Republicans to tell their gullible voters that Democrats are incapable of governing and only interested in harassing Individual 1.
I agree with this. There are lots of claims that we should ignore Trumps steady low approval numbers because the economy is so good, and incumbents pretty much always win when the economy is so good. This reasoning overlooks the fact that when the economy is so good, the incumbent president pretty much always has a high approval rating. It isn’t the good economy that wins the presidency for the incumbent it is voters who approve of what he’s doing that win the presidency. It’s just that having a good economy (usually) convinces most voters to approve of what he’s doing.
The reason not to be overconfident is that the Dems are up against an campaign that has no moral qualms, no interest in the truth, a fully politicized Justice department, and an army of spam bots poised to strike against whomever the Dems eventually pick. Trump can win with 40% approval provided he can muck his opponent down to 39%.
“But”, you say, “those are people no one knows or cares about in the GOP or Trump-world.”
Yeah, but:
and
The world of business and finance, in general, doesn’t really like sudden changes and upheavals; such things tend to disrupt their plans for trying to acquire everything.
Just something I saw today that I thought the board would be interested in.
The 46% of eligible voters who didn’t vote is key. The Trump core is not shrinking and they will vote.
If dislike, outrage or disapproval equaled votes we would be remembering President Kerry.
The Democrats are generally poor at communicating. I think the abortion should be “legal, safe and rare” message would match with a lot of people’s view. On this board at least one conservative questioned the rare part if the first two were true. The answer is that the procedure is medical/surgical and safe doesn’t mean zero risk. Rare should be a focus on reducing the demand side, not the supply. Subsidized birth control and comprehensive sex education is the best way to reduce abortion rates.
