Posts Made By: James Lacey

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:

I know that you are aware of this page, but some forum participants may not be:  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

I think the interactive graphs at the bottom of the page showing Trump compared to every president back to Truman are informative.  Exemplary web page design too.

Jim

Yes, it is interesting to compare Trump to previous presidents. One thing that stands out is that Trump's approval rating has never broken 50%, not even once. Also, Trump's current approval rating is not much lower than many of his predecessors at the same time in their tenure. My main point was that one poll does not mean the overall mood towards Trump has shifted significantly.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Mel

I think there is a lot of truth here.  It is important for a politician to play to their base - Trump and Pelosi are both masters of this.  But at a deeper level, I think Nancy is really PO's because she sensed that impeachment would backfire and was forced into it anyway.

Jim

I think she was more pissed off about Trump having one of his trade-mark Nuremberg style political rallies in the SOTU. That and his mistruths about California. Regarding the impeachment backfiring, I don't think anyone thought the outcome of the trial was in question. Everyone knew that the Senate would vote to acquit. The point of the impeachment was to expose Trump's misdeeds to the public, and that was successful. The other goal was to put a check on an executive who is abusing not only the power of his office but violating public trust as well. However, I don't think there is any way to reign Trump in, and he and his coterie are all signaling they intend to go back to business as usual, i.e., soliciting foreign interference and abusing the power of the office. I would not be surprised at all if Trump finds himself impeached again.

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

Greg, let's face it, the fact that the man is a homosexual is not an asset.

It could be worse. Mayor Pete could be a compulsive liar who peddles in ignorance, dishonesty, and misinformation by repeating verifiable falsehoods over and over again. He could be guilty of multiple acts of sexual misconduct and harassment. He could coddle up to white supremacists and authoritarian dictators and do them personal favors. He could encourage foreign governments to interfere in our elections and obstruct justice. He could carry out witness tampering and retaliation. He could have terrible policies that cage children, waste money on vanity border walls, undermine our national security, and undercut environmental protections. I mean, there are things worse than being an openly gay married man.

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

James, are you inclined to think that Trump is not going to be reelected?

I'm inclined to think that none of us has a crystal ball and that there is at least as much evidence indicating his defeat as his re-election. For example, the latest Quinnipiac poll has Trump losing to everyone in a head-to-head contest by at least 7%. Yes, it's true, we don't elect the President based on the popular vote, but it is electorally impossible to lose the popular vote by 7% and win the electoral college. If the Trump strategy is to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college, that is not a winning strategy. By the way, Quinnipiac is historically one of the best-performing polls in the sense that they are eerily accurate, and they use gold-standard methodologies exclusively in their practices. Keep in mind too that this is on the heels of what supposedly was a great week for Trump, i.e., his Senate acquittal.

Just this week, Trump announced his budget that includes deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This announcement comes after many false promises where he said he would never touch these programs. You don't have to be a soothsayer to know that is not going to be popular, and Democrats like Bloomberg will undoubtedly be using this flip-flop in their negative ad campaigns.

It boils down to this. Trump's base supporters are not enough to re-elect him. Therefore, he needs to attract voters repelled by his disgusting behavior and who voted against Republicans in the 2018 midterms. So far, it looks like Trump is incapable of moderating his behavior, and the chances of him attracting swing or independent voters are minimal at best. It's ludicrous to think that Trump is going to change after three years of unfettered and unleashed shameful behavior.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:

I generally agree with your post.¹  But, I think that the bit I quoted above is backwards.  Yes, Trump may not attract lots of voters who are not already in his base, these are highly polarized times.  But, the D candidate could be repulsive enough to moderates that they vote Trump as a defensive move.  I'm thinking a socialist or a near socialist for example.

Jim

1.  No doubt Rich will parse your post word by word and pigeonhole me as a commie.  There might be something in your post that I technically do not agree with.  But you know what I mean.

There is no doubt that Sanders would drive a lot of votes to Trump. How many, and if it's enough to lose the election, who knows? What will be interesting is to see is if Biden's political fortune wanes, how much Republicans will suddenly lose interest in Burisma, Hunter, and corruption in Ukraine. It's already starting to happen to some degree. Burisma is the election cycle equivalent to Hillary's emails until it is no longer a useful bludgeon. I see that Trump is already posturing that he will pardon Roger Stone. His aberrant behavior that drives voters away is never going to change. The family separation policy, for example, has driven away a lot of women voters. GOP Senators didn't just leave Trump in office; they gave him the green light to abuse his power even more, and that will not work in his favor.

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

James, the poll that says Trump would lose in a head-to-head with Sanders or Warren is just wrong.

Is it? That's a pretty bold statement given that Quinnipiac is one of the most respected polling organizations in the world. I'm sure they would love to hear precisely why their results are wrong.

My personal bias is that people are sick of this inept, corrupt, and immoral man who is cancer on our democracy.

Take Trump's current budget proposal. After giving trillions of dollars in corporate welfare away in the form of tax cuts, and blowing the deficit sky-high by a trillion dollars, he wants to slash Medicare by $850Bn, Medicaid by $920B and Social Security by $30Bn. Food stamps, education, health, and human services, the EPA, parks and housing, all slashed to the bone after tax cuts for the rich. Who in their right mind could support this kind of stupidity?

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

538 says Quinnipiac has called races correct 83%. Nothing to bet the house on. And does this stat include such early polls? Seems doubtful. 

Mel,

If I could find an 83% bet, I would bet the house on it over and over again and walk away filthy rich in the end. It seems hard to believe that anyone could quibble with those kinds of results.

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

After watching Biden stumble around, do you also think he would beat Trump? He is more likely to be even worse as time goes by.
And hasn't that poll been wrong?

I think the Republicans have lost the moral high ground when it comes to questioning anyone's ability to act rationally. Anyone who is still supporting this morally bankrupt man needs to undertake some deep introspection seriously. Honestly, in hindsight, I can't understand why it was not all over for Trump the first time he mocked that disabled reporter at one of his rallies. It should have all ended right there.

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

Did you have any interest in researching that claim? There is youtube with dates showing Trump doing the same routine with the hands and voice four times, all previous to this incident. Talking about Cruz, a general, bank president, and another person, all without disability. It was a routine he did for many and he claims he overlooked that he had a disability. A polite thing to do? No, but not something that should keep a person from the presidency. Many are so filled with anti-Trump emotion they have lost some logic.

Mel,

So, you are telling me that Trump mocks disable people to mock people who are not disabled? How exactly does that make it better? I suggest that instead of trying to defend the indefensible, it would be far easier to admit that Trump is a horrible human being. There are hundreds of examples of Trump mocking people inappropriately in public and using churlish behavior that is inexcusable. Are you going to defend or make excuses for all of them? Please, admit that Trump is a childish name-calling bully and a pathological lying toddler. At this point, any other position sounds self-serving and delusional.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I'm sure it cuts both ways.

Jim

I'm okay with people being supportive of the President if they genuinely like his policies and his judges or whatever else it is that they think he's getting right. However, it is not possible to defend or make excuses for Trump's behavior. It is shameful, it is unacceptable, and no one should feel the need to protect it just because they like his policies. I would suggest too that it's not the media or pundits that have put Trump supporters in the uncomfortable position where they feel like they have to defend his behavior to support his policies. The blame for that lies squarely with Trump. He is, after all, the one who is in control of his character and manners.