The Chosen One

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Greg, Darian:

I don't know how you two can be so optimistic.  It seems to me that Trump is likely to lose.  I know that the polls were wrong in 2016, and I recall that I sure was wrong with my predictions back then.  But.... it ought to be so easy for the D's to win.  Flipping Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would do it, and that should not be impossible.  Unless the D's nominate a socialist in name or deed, I suppose.

If the economy does falter, I would think that a Trump win would be all but impossible.

Sure, the pollsters blew it last time, in part because so many Trump voters refused to answer polls or misled the pollsters.  Perhaps more importantly, Trump must have gotten some inconsistent voters to vote in the upper Midwest, and Clinton blew the turnout in these states big time.  Both of these occurrences skewed the models the pollsters rely upon.  I would expect the legit pollsters (Gallup, Quinnipiac, NBC/WSJ etc.) to be cautious about these effects next time, and make reasonable adjustments.  The legit pollsters do have some professional pride.

Jim

Jim,

Head to head polls at this point are useless, that's why.  You are correct in that the Dems could easily re-take some states Trump surprisingly won last cycle, but we won't know how likely that is until the Dems nominate their guy or gal and voters begin to weigh them against each other.  At this point both sides on this board are too optimistic.  

Originally Posted by James Brown

I sure hope it does not come to that.  But I would take a lying Trump over and honest Warren or Sanders.  

Jim

Yep. We are not better off with Sander's 16 trillion dollar plan or Warren's plans. Does it matter if they are honest?

Originally Posted by James Brown

Why anyone is still supporting this (fill in a long list of personal shortcomings, vices, and felonious behavior) can only be attributed to party loyalty. 

In my case, I could easily support someone like Kasich, for example. Even better George Conway. My party loyalty only runs as deep as Trump has to go.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

In my case, I could easily support someone like Kasich, for example. Even better George Conway. My party loyalty only runs as deep as Trump has to go.

James:

If you don't mind me putting you on the spot - Will you vote for Sanders over Trump if those are your choices? I know that you are no socialist!  Despite what our local oracle might proclaim.

Personally, I will not panic if Sanders is elected over my vote for Trump in this hypothetical, because I am reasonably confident that the big socialist policies of free college, student debt forgiveness, Medicare for all, green new deal and so on are dead on arrival in gridlocked Washington.  I'll be out of the market long before November though, if it looks like Sanders v. Trump. 

Jim

p.s. We won't get to vote for Kasich etc. will we?  That is a shame.  I am not a fan of the extremes controlling the nominating process now-a-days.  (Yes, Richard, I know very well that the last two moderates that the GOP nominated got thumped, but I credit Obama's general popularity for those losses, not any inherent electibility problems with candidates like McCain and Romney.)

Jim  

Originally Posted by James Brown

James:

If you don't mind me putting you on the spot - Will you vote for Sanders over Trump if those are your choices? I know that you are no socialist!  Despite what our local oracle might proclaim.

There is no way I could ever vote for Trump, so I suppose the answer is yes. Although, I don't think it's a choice I will have to make since I really doubt Bernie will get the nomination.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Greg, Darian:

I don't know how you two can be so optimistic.  It seems to me that Trump is likely to lose.  I know that the polls were wrong in 2016, and I recall that I sure was wrong with my predictions back then.  But.... it ought to be so easy for the D's to win.  Flipping Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would do it, and that should not be impossible.  Unless the D's nominate a socialist in name or deed, I suppose.

If the economy does falter, I would think that a Trump win would be all but impossible.

Sure, the pollsters blew it last time, in part because so many Trump voters refused to answer polls or misled the pollsters.  Perhaps more importantly, Trump must have gotten some inconsistent voters to vote in the upper Midwest, and Clinton blew the turnout in these states big time.  Both of these occurrences skewed the models the pollsters rely upon.  I would expect the legit pollsters (Gallup, Quinnipiac, NBC/WSJ etc.) to be cautious about these effects next time, and make reasonable adjustments.  The legit pollsters do have some professional pride.

Jim

Jim, my expectations of a Trump victory are pretty much based on my hunch or "intuition" on the matter, and of course I may be mistaken. I think Trump will garner more black vote this time around, and perhaps more Mexican vote as well. I'm inclined to think that most of the people that voted for Trump will do so again. I really can't see any reason for the states you mentioned to go back to the Democrat corner; Trump might even flip a Democrat state.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 I do not see any benefit for me to pay attention to polls, whether I like the results are not.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Support for Trump at his rallies seems to be as strong as ever. The Democrats running seem to be nothing more than a collection of buffoons. It's difficult for me to imagine anyone taking any of them seriously.                                                            
                                                                          

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:

I don't think that tactical D arguments of the economy actually being no good are going to fly.  Many, many people are experiencing the benefits of the good economy, and this overwhelms the lesser number of folks who are specifically impacted by crummy tariff policy and such.  

I really think this is an interesting comment:  "Why anyone is still supporting this pathological lying charlatan with decades of well documented fraud and failures can only be attributed to party loyalty."  My short answer is yes.  You are certainly describing me in 2016 and 2020 (if I vote for Trump.)  As a Republican, I would prefer a Republican government.  Not on 100% of the issues of course, but on more than 50% of the issues.  I definitely like conservative judges, conservative tax policy and I distrust big government "plans for that."  You probably know where I stand on almost any issue in view of a decade and a half of banter.

Character does matter to me, but it does not swamp everything else, particularly since I'm pretty jaded about the character of anyone in Washington DC.  Secretary Clinton was certainly not a model of virtue in my opinion, so the character issue washed out to become simply a choice between bad and worse.  Virtually everyone who considers character important lined up on which candidate was bad and who was worse based upon ideology alone.

So, at the end of the day, I think that your phrase, slightly modified, will accurately describe the vote of most Democrats and Republicans:

Why anyone is still supporting this (fill in a long list of personal shortcomings, vices, and felonious behavior) can only be attributed to party loyalty. 

Jim

Jim,
Today's rout in the stock market and the coinciding dump in folk's 401k's are a reflection of the looming recession on the horizon as a direct result of Trump's disastrous trade war with China. American manufacturing is already in recession. The American farmers union is on record today as saying Trump is making things worse and not better. The deficit, which should be at least slowing in a thriving economy, is going ballistic and all the while not a peep from the hypoctritical GOP that hounded Obama for less. The Fed can temporarily help matters by dropping interest rates but they don't have a lot of wriggle room. In the end it's another sad story of another Republican and another recession...

If we didn't have Republicans, we wouldn't have recessions!
A more peaceful world and a world of people that once again liked us and looked up to us and respected our president, almost full employment, less crime, $20 minimum wage, free medical, rent control so anybody could have cheap rent and live in any neighborhood, free college, canceled student debt, and 16 year olds could vote. Everybody would sell their guns to the government. With no Republicans that would happen in the first year or two!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Jim,
Today's rout in the stock market and the coinciding dump in folk's 401k's are a reflection of the looming recession on the horizon as a direct result of Trump's disastrous trade war with China. American manufacturing is already in recession. The American farmers union is on record today as saying Trump is making things worse and not better. The deficit, which should be at least slowing in a thriving economy, is going ballistic and all the while not a peep from the hypoctritical GOP that hounded Obama for less. The Fed can temporarily help matters by dropping interest rates but they don't have a lot of wriggle room. In the end it's another sad story of another Republican and another recession...

LOL.....the sky is falling, the sky is falling

The facts on tariffs just dont add up to the hysteria you are blowing out your ass Rod......Tariffs are nothing more than taxes. Trump cut taxes by far more than he added in tariffs

President Trump hiked tariffs from 10% to 25% on about $200 billion in Chinese imports. In other words, he just raised taxes by … $30 billion a year.

Oh, no!

The total amount we all paid in taxes last year — federal, state and local — was $5.51 trillion. This tax increase that has everyone’s panties in a twist is a rounding error.

Even if Trump slapped 25% taxes on all Chinese imports, it would come to a tax hike of … $135 billion a year. U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) last year: $20.5 trillion. So even this supposedly scary “escalation” of this “tariff war” would, er, raise our total tax bill from 26.9% of GDP all the way to 27.5% of GDP.

Oh, and isn’t it interesting to see some people’s priorities? Apparently the most shocking part of this trivial tax hike is that it might raise the price of new Apple AAPL, -4.62%  iPhones.

Right now we export less to China than we do to Japan, South Korea and Singapore put together. That’s the point. So the effect of China’s new tariffs on the U.S. are yet another rounding error. Even if China banned all imports from the U.S., that would amount to only 0.6% of our gross domestic product. And we’d sell the stuff somewhere else.

Don’t buy the hysteria. President Trump is simply trying to pressure our biggest competitor to buy more American goods. That should be a good thing, even if you don’t like him.

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

LOL.....the sky is falling, the sky is falling

The facts on tariffs just dont add up to the hysteria you are blowing out your ass Rod......Tariffs are nothing more than taxes. Trump cut taxes by far more than he added in tariffs

President Trump hiked tariffs from 10% to 25% on about $200 billion in Chinese imports. In other words, he just raised taxes by … $30 billion a year.

Oh, no!

The total amount we all paid in taxes last year — federal, state and local — was $5.51 trillion. This tax increase that has everyone’s panties in a twist is a rounding error.

Even if Trump slapped 25% taxes on all Chinese imports, it would come to a tax hike of … $135 billion a year. U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) last year: $20.5 trillion. So even this supposedly scary “escalation” of this “tariff war” would, er, raise our total tax bill from 26.9% of GDP all the way to 27.5% of GDP.

Oh, and isn’t it interesting to see some people’s priorities? Apparently the most shocking part of this trivial tax hike is that it might raise the price of new Apple AAPL, -4.62%  iPhones.

Right now we export less to China than we do to Japan, South Korea and Singapore put together. That’s the point. So the effect of China’s new tariffs on the U.S. are yet another rounding error. Even if China banned all imports from the U.S., that would amount to only 0.6% of our gross domestic product. And we’d sell the stuff somewhere else.

Don’t buy the hysteria. President Trump is simply trying to pressure our biggest competitor to buy more American goods. That should be a good thing, even if you don’t like him.

These are the so-called "facts" from Navarro. They sound good but they're wrong. Here's just one aspect of it:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/aug/20/peter-navarro/donald-trumps-tariffs-china-dont-hurt-americans-to/
Obviously, the stock market sees the reality of it even if Greg can't. Half of America has their money invested in stocks, either in their 401k's or in mutual funds or directly in individual stocks from a company. That's a lot of money and a lot of people and that's a lot of pissed-off people, too. Tell them to Lol! Greg...