There are about 30 million voters who fit your description, but 140 million voted in 2016, and another 90 million were eligible to vote but didn’t bother. So out of a pool of 230 million potential voters, about 30 million act and think the way you describe.
They are going to do what they do, but they are barely 20% of people who bother to vote, and they are aging rapidly and being replaced by younger voters who have never known the GOP to be anything except incompetent.
“We” meaning you are, and have been, a trump stooge. OK let’s pin this.
Yes I think Trump’s incompetence will hurt the GOP just as Bush’s did. No, it won’t usher in an era of permanent Democratic domination but it will give them a serious shot at having a President with a big mandate and a Democratic Congress like in 2008. That Congress didn’t last but the Democrats did get a two-term President who got a lot of stuff done. And if they had selected a better candidate, they would have won a third-consecutive Presidential term and perhaps regained the Senate as well.
It took six years of Bush before the Democrats made serious gains and with Trump I think it may happen a lot sooner because he is starting at a lower level of popularity and has a much less experienced and competent political team.
Of course all this isn’t to say that the Democrats don’t need to get their act together. They are doing a good job of keeping their morale and energy up but have yet to develop an appealing message that will attract white working class voters which is the more difficult and important task. If they make some progress there, Trump will give them a lot of opportunities to mount a comeback over the next four years.
Americans thought a blue blood aristocrat was one of them because he pretended to be a cowboy. It’s no surprise these same people thought a billionaire who stiffed his contractors and ran a fraudulent university was a hero of the working class. I’m morbidly curious what’s coming down the pike.
So you’re hoping for a terrorist attack that kills americans, and then you’re going to lie about the perpetrators in order to gain votes.
I guess you’re proud of yourself for “winning” in this scenario…
Let’s deal with reality here. The House is too big a lead to overcome, and Dems have too much of a disadvantage in the next Senate elections to have a serious chance of gaining anything. Dems aren’t taking back Congress in 2018. So not two but four years of Republican stranglehold. It’d take a conservative catastrophe of epic proportions to change that. While Trump is a catastrophe, they (and he) still have their fact-free core constituency to buoy them.
Gallup just came out with its latest approval poll, his lowest yet. It still bothers me that 40% (or some number thereabouts) actually believe Trump is doing a good job.
That’s an interesting word choice. My highlight.
No, if there are no more terror attacks, Trump can say he did a great job. If there is another attack, he can blame the Democrats and can say he tried to do his best. Either way. Winning!
So, as was said, you’re ambivalently hoping for a terrorist attack, and you’re prepared to lie about the perpetuators?