Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

by **JUburton** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 14:40:01

Caucus? More like...unrepresentative sample of the demographics of the country that get overinflated in the grand scheme of the primary because they're first and I wish this would all end.

Cockus.

by **Uncle Milty** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 14:45:38

already dicked us might as well caucus

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 16:50:02

Like the thread title.

With 3.5% unemployment, cake is damn near baked for this election, barring something unforeseen. Too bad, I really don't like Trump.

by **Uncle Milty** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 17:01:36

There's the never-say-die, can-do attitude! Long way to before the election.

Even if one is personally pessimistic it's probably best not to express it to anyone who may be dissuaded from voting. Might become a self-fulfilling prophecy if enough engage in it.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 17:11:45

Grotewold wrote:I'm hoping there's a decent amount in the swing states who bought Trump's BS last time but won't this time

Problem is, Trump's popularity with most people who voted for him, even in the swing states, isn't because he had snake oil and he sold it to them. The charm of that has the potential to wear off as people start to realize they've been sold a bill of goods.

It's that those who voted for Trump believe he speaks truth to power. In this case, the "truth" he is speaking is that America is for hard working white folks and men, and the "power" he is speaking it to is a cabal of the Ivy League liberal elite, the mainstream media, socialists, and immigrants, who spin the narrative of globalism, diversity, and multiculturalism, at the expense of white, male, European Christian culture, which is just a poor mouse cowering in the corner and assaulted on all sides.

Every time a lefty type calls him a name or implies he is racist, and he fires back; every time he says something "shocking" that is borderline racist, or sexist, or both; he only solidifies his mythical status in the minds of his voters. The most revealing thing I read about him is when he summoned Rick Santorum to his office to talk to Santorum about his book, and basically flat out told him that Santorum had the key to victory and he would be stealing the gameplan. He was simply willing to go further than everyone else, either because he really believes what he says, or he has a stronger will to power than everyone else, or, quite likely, both.

There were already too many ready to vote for Mr. Trump; now, he has the presidency, and an economy firing on all cylinders.

This ain't gonna be pretty.

by **06hawkalum** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 18:19:38

And yet, despite all of those concerns, Biden is creaming Trump in polls of swing state voters and then nationally:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr ... l-ratings/

I'm not overly concerned. The Dem nominee will stand an excellent chance of defeating Trump.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 19:06:55

06hawkalum wrote:And yet, despite all of those concerns, Biden is creaming Trump in polls of swing state voters and then nationally:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr ... l-ratings/

I'm not overly concerned. The Dem nominee will stand an excellent chance of defeating Trump.

I don't see a recent national poll catalogued by 538 that has Biden up more than +4 on Trump, and everyone else is worse. And in the most recent PA poll there catalogued, from December, Trump is up on everybody, from Biden (+4) to Sanders (+11), and everyone else in between.

by **Augustus** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 20:23:14

While I do think Trump is a favorite against the field, I don't think it's quite as dire as you say.

Wolfgang622 wrote: It's that those who voted for Trump believe he speaks truth to power. In this case, the "truth" he is speaking is that America is for hard working white folks and men, and the "power" he is speaking it to is a cabal of the Ivy League liberal elite, the mainstream media, socialists, and immigrants, who spin the narrative of globalism, diversity, and multiculturalism, at the expense of white, male, European Christian culture, which is just a poor mouse cowering in the corner and assaulted on all sides.

Every time a lefty type calls him a name or implies he is racist, and he fires back; every time he says something "shocking" that is borderline racist, or sexist, or both; he only solidifies his mythical status in the minds of his voters.

There's a name for these people. They're called conservatives, and they were never voting Democrat to begin with.

The trope of the "white working class Trump voter" is greatly exaggerated:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/

Now, I do think there's some validity to the that stereotype in the rust belt states that swung the Electoral College to Trump: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Not to be morbid, but this is a population with a very high mortality rate:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/03/23/working-class-white-americans-are-now-dying-in-middle-age-at-faster-rates-than-minority-groups/

A not insignificant number of his 2016 voters in these states are now dead. Not only does this threaten Trump's ability to walk the mathematical tightrope again in 2020, but he also has very few groups he can conceivably add to his coalition. He probably picks up quite a few of the never-Trump never-Hillary Republicans who voted Johnson or skipped the presidential election, but there aren't that many of those people.

On the other side, I do think real room exists for Democrats to pick up the "two time Obama, then Trump voters." Old poll, but his approval numbers with these voters have been significantly lower than his overall numbers:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/06/trump-obama-voters-poll-242334

Many of these voters were never going for Hillary for a variety of reasons. Again, Democrats probably can't win a majority of them back, but given how razor-thin Trump's margin for error is, it's a significant issue for his re-election bid.

Also, consider the two time Obama voters who sat out '16 (gotta scroll a bit):

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/opinion/obama-trump-voters.html

Sorry if anyone takes offense to the mortality rate bit. I'm not at all attempting to come off as triumphal about this development, but I do think it's a fact that could impact the outcome in 2020 that most analysts aren't talking about.

by **CalvinBall** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 21:23:43

Some news out there reporting WH is seriously worried that four Rs will vote to call witnesses. Murkowski, Collins, Romney, Gardner. Maybe more.

Guess that's where the Senate should dismiss fear is coming from.

Believe it when I see it but juicy, juicy.

by **CalvinBall** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 21:24:42

Also, if Pelosi just sent them on this wouldn't have even been a conversation regardless how slim it still is.

wHaT iS ShE doINg?!?

by **thephan** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 22:20:26

Murkowski is unreliable at best

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 22:56:58

CalvinBall wrote:Also, if Pelosi just sent them on this wouldn't have even been a conversation regardless how slim it still is.

wHaT iS ShE doINg?!?

Of course it would have been a conversation. Jesus

It just would have been a conversation that would have had to happen sooner. Because the trial would have started last week instead of next week. We'll get to discuss it at the end of January now instead of the middle of it.

The lone tangible impact Pelosi holding back sending impeachment for a week is making sure all the Dem senators running for President are stuck in DC for the 2-3 weeks leading up to Iowa.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 23:00:45

Augustus wrote:While I do think Trump is a favorite against the field, I don't think it's quite as dire as you say...

Good post, Augustus. You should post more! Maybe keep my fatalistic impulses in check.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 23:05:43

pacino wrote:The candidates themselves aren't fighting and are friends and it'll probably resolve itself quickly. Twitter sure is ablaze, however.

"I am going to have my campaign leak a damaging, unprovable one way or the other story the day before the debate, let the story twist in the wind all day, hear your on the record denial, confirm the leak after close of business, then say I am not going to discuss this damaging story to my opponent, which I very purposefully leaked the day before a debate, any further because it distracts from the campaign."

That is certainly a way to handle a thing.

by **CalvinBall** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 23:14:07

jerseyhoya wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:Also, if Pelosi just sent them on this wouldn't have even been a conversation regardless how slim it still is.

wHaT iS ShE doINg?!?

Of course it would have been a conversation. Jesus

It just would have been a conversation that would have had to happen sooner. Because the trial would have started last week instead of next week. We'll get to discuss it at the end of January now instead of the middle of it.

The lone tangible impact Pelosi holding back sending impeachment for a week is making sure all the Dem senators running for President are stuck in DC for the 2-3 weeks leading up to Iowa.

She's held it back for nearly a month, not a week.

by **JFLNYC** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 23:15:47

jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:The candidates themselves aren't fighting and are friends and it'll probably resolve itself quickly. Twitter sure is ablaze, however.

"I am going to have my campaign leak a damaging, unprovable one way or the other story the day before the debate, let the story twist in the wind all day, hear your on the record denial, confirm the leak after close of business, then say I am not going to discuss this damaging story to my opponent, which I very purposefully leaked the day before a debate, any further because it distracts from the campaign."

That is certainly a way to handle a thing.

Pretty much my reaction, too.

by **swishnicholson** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 23:24:39

JFLNYC wrote:
Pretty much my reaction, too.

by **Uncle Milty** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 23:30:29

Bernie should not be punished for telling her the truth

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 23:39:17

CalvinBall wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:Also, if Pelosi just sent them on this wouldn't have even been a conversation regardless how slim it still is.

wHaT iS ShE doINg?!?

Of course it would have been a conversation. Jesus

It just would have been a conversation that would have had to happen sooner. Because the trial would have started last week instead of next week. We'll get to discuss it at the end of January now instead of the middle of it.

The lone tangible impact Pelosi holding back sending impeachment for a week is making sure all the Dem senators running for President are stuck in DC for the 2-3 weeks leading up to Iowa.

She's held it back for nearly a month, not a week.

Trial would've started the week after New Year's when Congress got back into session. Now it will likely start Tuesday after MLK Day. Last week instead of next week. And it will start with the same rules it would have started with on the 6th because she never had any leverage or chance of changing anything with her aimless plan. And the same cross pressures will exist for moderate or safe from primary challenge or retiring GOP members once the initial portion was over.

by **CalvinBall** » Mon Jan 13, 2020 23:44:03

Think you're underestimating how it hanging out there a few extra weeks allowed people to talk about it more as opposed to going to trial and having it over already

Also, Bolton in the interim said he would testify. Probably doesn't happen if the trial had ended already.

Archived

Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over