President* Trump

[O Really]

So one would think that if a Congressman or Senator actively supported Trump and his evil and unpopular actions, that they would be in jeopardy. Unfortunately, that might not be the case at least in part, IMNVHO, that Trump is so extreme that Republicans are willing to consider him an aberration and think that even if they don't like him, their own slobbering right-wing extremist, who now looks almost "normal" compared to Trump's bunch, would be just fine after Trump's gone. So a lot of them are going to keep voting against their own interests and try to keep the enablers and accomplices in office.

But really, Dems don't need any of the slobbering hard-core Trumpsters to turn in order to win elections. They do, however, need all the Dems and most of the nominal "independents" to actually show up to vote. And they need to put new faces on the party. They've let the Republicans define the party by demonizing P-Lo, by painting Dems as the party of illegal immigrants, atheists, welfare queens and WallStreet - not that their bullshit has to be logical or consistent to be harmful. We need somebody who can draw and invigorate a crowd - in person and online - and that carries a message wide enough for lots of people to get behind. Just "I'm not Trump" isn't good enough. Nor is too much emphasis on polarizing issues. A position on abortion should be as simple as, "I support the rights defined and in effect for over 40 years, and will oppose any law changing or reducing those rights. And that's all I have to say about that. Next question." Steal Trump's infrastructure bit - that's popular with everybody, and he's certainly not going to use it. Steal the "America First" jingoism by defining a "great America" as one who leads, and one that is admired by citizens and other countries, not one that is a bully and aggressor. Create a wide-base platform, and conduct the best campaigns designed by people who know what they're doing. Run candidates that (in addition to basic qualifications) speak well, are scandal-free, look good on TV, are likeable, and follow basic rules of etiquette and common decency.

Otherwise, we'll be stuck with President* Trump and may even have to remove the asterisk in 2021.

[JTA]

I've been seeing people say that the GOP is now a religious movement based mostly on faith.

[O Really]

I've been seeing people say that the GOP is now a religious movement based mostly on faith.

True that. Or superstition. News article today in the AC-T about Swain County still trying to get the money the feds owe regarding the "road to nowhere".

From the article: "The budget proposal the administration of President Donald Trump sent to Congress recently also contains no mention of money to compensate Swain for the road that would have run along the north shore of Fontana Lake.
That dashed hopes by some that a change of administration, and the fact that the president and Swain County’s representatives in the U.S. House and Senate are now all of the same political party, might dislodge some or all of the $39.2 million Swain is yet to be paid from a 2010 agreement between the county and the federal government."

Swain County's representatives didn't change, they're the same scum bags as before. In fact, it was Obama's administration the Dept of Interior, largely through Shuler's effort, reached a settlement to pay the county. Before, there was nothing but crickets. The settlement states payment is dependent on money allocated by Congress (Republicans). So for 7 years, Republican Houses have not allocated any money, even though Obama's administration supported the payment. Nothing changes but Trump, who probably doesn't even know there is an issue, but for sure isn't going to honor anything negotiated by Obama or his departments. Yet somehow the idiots thought Trump would be better. I'm guessing the 30% or so of the population who are Cherokees might have been willing to consult on enforcement of federal agreements/treaties if they had asked.

[JTA]

Many people have difficulty differentiating between reality and fiction. Similarly how television actors exaggerate certain qualities and mannerisms when playing a fictional character, Trump embodies this. It appeals to the emotions much more than another boring bureaucratic politician does.

Remember, for most Americans, "manliness" is equated with wreckless bravado, "telling it like it is", and doing whatever the hell you want, consequences be damned.

Trump is the quintessential American "alpha male", according to bumblefucks.

[Vrede too]

But really, Dems ... need to put new faces on the party. They've let the Republicans define the party by demonizing P-Lo, by painting Dems as the party of illegal immigrants, atheists, welfare queens and WallStreet - not that their bullshit has to be logical or consistent to be harmful. We need somebody who can draw and invigorate a crowd - in person and online - and that carries a message wide enough for lots of people to get behind. Just "I'm not Trump" isn't good enough. Nor is too much emphasis on polarizing issues. A position on abortion should be as simple as, "I support the rights defined and in effect for over 40 years, and will oppose any law changing or reducing those rights. And that's all I have to say about that. Next question." Steal Trump's infrastructure bit - that's popular with everybody, and he's certainly not going to use it. Steal the "America First" jingoism by defining a "great America" as one who leads, and one that is admired by citizens and other countries, not one that is a bully and aggressor. Create a wide-base platform, and conduct the best campaigns designed by people who know what they're doing. Run candidates that (in addition to basic qualifications) speak well, are scandal-free, look good on TV, are likeable, and follow basic rules of etiquette and common decency....

[O Really]

Ummm, not quite. I'm willing to concede that in retrospect he might have out-performed Hillary since he had no emails, no Benghazi-type events, and no 30-year record of being hated. But we don't know what would have happened once the Republicans turned their "socialist!" propaganda and lie-creating machine loose on him. Anyway I think he's too old (and Hillary and Trumper too) to be in the role I'm looking for. I want an O'Malleyish person with a better campaign machine. Aura of JFK and FDR, with updated policies.

[Vrede too]

I doubt that Bernie! will run again and Warren may also be too old, but the Dems do need a version of them, socialist or not, that has dramatic vision and unwavering principles that will inspire people.

[rstrong]

Back on the old board - at this point in Obama's presidency - the far-right-wingers were making a big deal about how Obama's approval ratings had dropped and obviously he'd be a one-term President. Some of us responded with graphs showing how Reagan's and Clinton's ratings had dropped by larger amounts and still they were re-elected.

Those ratings drops were nothing like Trump's. It's entirely possible that we won't get a second term.

[O Really]

Ratings rise and fall with most Presidents, somewhat along with a big issue of the day. Bush the Younger was riding high after 9/11 for a while. A difference with Trump is that his approval numbers are almost 100% generated from Republicans, and he has no broadbased support at all. It's not like 40% across the board approves of him, it's that 80+% of Republicans claim to, while practically zero Dems approve and a minority of nominal independents. And he's not even trying to enlarge his support, apparently content with his "base" and little else. The only way that wins again is if Dems and nominal independents stay home again. And his scandals are a bit more solid than Obama's or even than Clinton. Remember the big Clinton scandal over firing the travel office staff? Horrors! And the totally fabricated Whitewater ummm, "investigation"? Of course, they killed off Vince Foster, but at least it wasn't on a main street. Trump, on the other hand, has already done quite a few things that would have gotten most other Presidents (or mayors) run out on a rail. A perfect storm of conditions and events got him in office. Unlikely to happen again.

[rstrong]

Bush the Younger was riding high after 9/11 for a while.

A point not lost on Trump.

Which is why there's all the rhetoric about North Korea, declaring nuclear tests and rocket launches as acts of war despite the US routinely doing both on a far larger scale.

Which is why there are TWO carrier groups parked off North Korea now, with an unprecedented THIRD on its way.

[Vrede too]

... It's entirely possible that we won't get a second complete first term.

Ftfy, but you are correct that a war, even one built on lies, can turn that around in bloodthirsty, jingoistic America.

[bannination]

Might be a repost, but it's so glorious.

[Vrede too]

If President* Trump meets with 43, will he grab the Bush?

[O Really]

I was thinking more ...

[rstrong]

Don't even think about it.

[Vrede too]

As JTA's Juggalos article suggests, style, imagery and symbolism matter as much as or more than content does. It's probably always been true but was enhanced by radio and then TV, then thrown into hyperdrive by the internet. Trump showed us the importance of flash even when the flash is repugnant, but Trudeau (and Bernie! in an odd crusty grandpa way) demonstrates that flash doesn't have to be repugnant.

[JTA]

Trump is a meme.

[rstrong]

It's probably always been true but was enhanced by radio and then TV, then thrown into hyperdrive by the internet. Trump showed us the importance of flash even when the flash is repugnant,

The article makes some good points, but it leaves out Ted Cruz's role.

Both parties had long demonized "the Washington establishment" elites, promising "hope and change" if elected. (The Daily show once ran side-by-side video clips of Bush II and Obama speaking the same "hope and change" lines.) Even Newt Gingrich - former Congressman, Speaker of the House, then Washington lobbyist - the ultimate Washington insider - ran in 2012 as a "Washington outsider."

The Tea Party - led by Ted Cruz - took it further. They attacked the REPUBLICAN establishment as elitist, tarring and feathering anyone acting like an adult as RINOs. With Fox News cheering them on. It got to be like the Russian government under Stalin - those who were reasonable dare not speak out.

But Cruz was also obviously a long-time member of the Republican establishment. Having opened the door wide open for an outsider, he allowed Trump to step in ahead of him.

Trump may have been establishment, but he wasn't Republican establishment or Washington establishment. Hillary was. As for the Wall Street establishment, Trump did a better job of *appearing* unconnected than than Hillary did.

Still suffering from the 2008/2009 Wall Street fiasco - those responsible left unpunished by Washington - and other job losses - Americans had good reason to give a big Fuck You to the establishment. Trump looked like the best candidate for that.

[Vrede too]

The article makes some good points, but it leaves out Ted Cruz's role....

Yeah, we know, it's all always about Canadians.

Ted Cruz's other role - Make Trump look better in comparison. Cruz did a great job at that but, sadly, it's no longer certain that he would have been worse.

[rstrong]

The article makes some good points, but it leaves out Ted Cruz's role....

Yeah, we know, it's all always about Canadians.

Nah. Trump has no Canadian connections.

(Other than the Trump family fortune was built in Canada. And Trump met his first wife in Montreal. And there are a number of luxury buildings in Canada bearing Trump's name. And he promises a wall on the southern border, but is strangely silent on the northern one. He calls Mexicans murderers and rapists, but has no similar criticism for Canada. And Rob Ford seems suspiciously like a trial run for the Donald Trump candidacy. And Canada is what separates the US and Russia.)

But pay no attention to that. Or Cruz's Canadian origins. And remain focused on the rest of the administration's Russian connections, not their Canadians ones.