Trump Effects

[Ten oz]

No, my over all position did not change. I'd still rather Trump then the other cannidates.

But, I realized I was misinformed about the new information.

I meant your position regarding North Korea, not the election. You supported strikes in previous posts.

[MonDie]

Indeed. Also considering that many policies take a while to demonstrate an effect, it may take well past his presidency until one can figure those out.

 

We could propose our best candidates for both negative effects and positive effects, then debate which effects, the positives or negatives, are easier to establish or longer reaching.

[Airbrush]

A recent Trump Effect includes how Paul Ryan defended Trump's outrageous off the script comments on Tuesday, of "Charlottesville outrage week".   Trump's comments about there were "good people on both sides" and bad people on both sides.  Ryan called it "he messed up" to excuse Trump's basic personality defect, that he is unapologetically white supremacist.  Ryan explains it away like Trump made a gaff, when in fact Trump revealed his inner amoral personality.  That weird personality will not change.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

This thread is about the impact of Trump's policy but Trump really doesn't have policies. His approach thus far has been to demand others to come up with something. On Healthcare he relied on the Congress to make something up from scratch and provided no ideas. Ditto for yet to be debated tax reform. On Afghanistan he ordered General to provide him solutions and with North Korea everyone from the Sec of State, U.N ambassador, Sec of Defense, and Trump himself all describe the situation in different terms. How can we accurately rate the effect of Trump's policies when he doesn't seems to author any? 

[Airbrush]

Anything related to Trump is a "Trump Effect".  I was not aware this discussion is specifically about his policies, or lack of such.  I was looking for a discussion about Trump.  Does anyone want to start a discussion about what is wrong with Trump?  Something like "Gripes About Trump"?  Then I will post over there.

When Paul Ryan says "he messed up" on Tuesday of "Charlottesville Week", that implies that Trump messed up by being honest.  He should have lied like a normal politician and say Nazis and KKK are bad, for the good of the nation, rather than vent his bizzare innermost feelings.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Airbrush

[Raider5678]

Managed to turn a lot of his most avid supports against him in my valley.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Managed to turn a lot of his most avid supports against him in my valley.

In what way? Would they vote for a Democrat or an Independent to unseat him if he makes it to 2020? Or do you mean they've stopped donating money? He gets to keep the campaign funds even if he pulls out, and as long as he isn't too obvious about it, he can use them to donate to other campaigns, pay people who helped him, almost anything he wants to do with them.

None of my Republican friends are willing to say they'd vote against him. I think this is part of the effect I mentioned earlier. They will forgive him everything else if he comes through on a few things they think are important. Most of my friends favor infrastructure improvements and one will go absolutely mental if billions are spent on that stupid wall instead of bridges, but they still support the decisions of the WH.

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

In what way? Would they vote for a Democrat or an Independent to unseat him if he makes it to 2020? Or do you mean they've stopped donating money? He gets to keep the campaign funds even if he pulls out, and as long as he isn't too obvious about it, he can use them to donate to other campaigns, pay people who helped him, almost anything he wants to do with them.

None of my Republican friends are willing to say they'd vote against him. I think this is part of the effect I mentioned earlier. They will forgive him everything else if he comes through on a few things they think are important. Most of my friends favor infrastructure improvements and one will go absolutely mental if billions are spent on that stupid wall instead of bridges, but they still support the decisions of the WH.

He doesn't even need to come through on a few things. He got 63 million (62.8) votes and will get that again. I think it is a total farce the way people pretend actual policy issues drive the way people vote. I don't even know Republicans who can list any useful policy achievements by Republicans in the last 20-30yrs years.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

He doesn't even need to come through on a few things. He got 63 million (62.8) votes and will get that again.  

I doubt that. There are a number of people who voted for him that are now disillusioned.

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

In what way? Would they vote for a Democrat or an Independent to unseat him if he makes it to 2020? Or do you mean they've stopped donating money? He gets to keep the campaign funds even if he pulls out, and as long as he isn't too obvious about it, he can use them to donate to other campaigns, pay people who helped him, almost anything he wants to do with them.

None of my Republican friends are willing to say they'd vote against him. I think this is part of the effect I mentioned earlier. They will forgive him everything else if he comes through on a few things they think are important. Most of my friends favor infrastructure improvements and one will go absolutely mental if billions are spent on that stupid wall instead of bridges, but they still support the decisions of the WH.

Remember that not only did Hillary win the popular vote, there were an additional 10 million who voted for other candidates. You don't have to flip the ones that voted for Trump to oust him. It's enough that some of them stay at home, rather than voting, if they don't see a candidate of their liking.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I doubt that. There are a number of people who voted for him that are now disillusioned.

 

There were a number of people disillusioned with him during the Primary and then voted for him anyway. 

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There were a number of people disillusioned with him during the Primary and then voted for him anyway. 

You are asserting that he will have zero defections, and there have been public declarations from people who say their vote was a mistake, they regret it, and would not vote for him again.

[Airbrush]

"McConnell, in Private, Doubts if Trump Can Save Presidency"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump.html?smid=fb-share

This presidency is no longer a going concern and may self-destruct at any moment.  That is why Kim Jong is now watching the White House and waiting for signs of self-destruction.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Airbrush

[Area54]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

You are asserting that he will have zero defections, and there have been public declarations from people who say their vote was a mistake, they regret it, and would not vote for him again.

That certainly appears to be true, but surely there are some who would now choose to vote for him who previously abstained or voted for another. Examples:

• Those who believe we need to tear down the current edifice and rebuild.
• Anarchists
• The criminally insane
• Sleeper agents

More seriously, at each stage of Trump's odyssey I argued he could not move to the next stage. I have been wrong every time. The smart gambler knows when to quit. Very little in this sorry affair could now surprise me.

 

[Sicarii]

The most troubling success of Trump so far is his federal court appointments, most of which will be confirmed by GOP Congress. Midterm elections in 2018 are crucial, and that cannot be understated.

"Trump’s predecessors all slowly ramped up their judicial nominations during their first six months in office. Ronald Reagan named Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court and made five lower-court nominations in that period; George H.W. Bush made four lower-court nominations; Bill Clinton named Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the high court but no lower-court judges; and George W. Bush named four lower-court judges who were processed by the Senate (plus more than a dozen others sent back to him and later renominated). The most successful early actor, Barack Obama, named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and nine lower-court judges who were confirmed.

What about Trump? He not only put Neil M. Gorsuch in the Supreme Court vacancy created by Merrick Garland’s blocked confirmation, but he also selected 27 lower-court judges as of mid-July. Twenty-seven! That’s three times Obama’s total and more than double the totals of Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton — combined. For the Courts of Appeals — the final authority for 95 percent of federal cases — no president before Trump named more than three judges whose nominations were processed in his first six months; Trump has named nine. Trump is on pace to more than double the number of federal judges nominated by any president in his first year.

Moreover, Trump’s picks are astoundingly young. Obama’s early Court of Appeals nominees averaged age 55; Trump’s nine picks average 48. That means, on average, Trump’s appellate court nominees will sit through nearly two more presidential terms than Obama’s. Many of Trump’s judicial nominees will be deciding the scope of our civil liberties and the shape of civil rights laws in the year 2050 — and beyond."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-one-area-where-trump-has-been-wildly-successful/2017/07/19/56c5c7ee-6be7-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.fc71530ea8e0

Edited August 23, 2017 by Sicarii
Changed text color.

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

You are asserting that he will have zero defections, and there have been public declarations from people who say their vote was a mistake, they regret it, and would not vote for him again.

Not zero. Zero would be impossible to calculate as some who voted for him in 2016 will be dead by 2020, others in prison, others may not vote for some other reason and etc. There will also be first time voters who neither voted for or against him in 2016.

That said I'm 2012 Obama got 65.9 million votes to Romney's 60.9 million. In 2016 Clinton got 65.8 million to Trump's 62.8.  Meanwhile everyone agrees Clinton and Obama as candidates are wildly different and Romney and Trump were wildly different. The result was breathtakingly similar. In 08' McCain got 60 million and in 04' Bush got 62 million. The window is very tight. Bush's term ended in total ruin and still not much of a percentage turned on the Party. People overwhelming vote the party line and it takes earth changing events to shift even a couple percent of voters. So I feel it is safe to assume Trump gets his 62-63 million votes again. The key to beating him isn't in flipping any of his supporters but rather is in turning out new supporters, people who don't always vote and first time voters. 

Edited August 23, 2017 by Ten oz
spelling

[Airbrush]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 1:47 PM, Ten oz said:

.......That said I'm 2012 Obama got 65.9 million votes to Romney's 60.9 million. In 2016 Clinton got 65.8 million to Trump's 62.8.  Meanwhile everyone agrees Clinton and Obama as candidates are wildly different and Romney and Trump were wildly different. The result was breathtakingly similar. In 08' McCain got 60 million and in 04' Bush got 62 million. The window is very tight. Bush's term ended in total ruin and still not much of a percentage turned on the Party. People overwhelming vote the party line and it takes earth changing events to shift even a couple percent of voters. So I feel it is safe to assume Trump gets his 62-63 million votes again. The key to beating him isn't in flipping any of his supporters but rather is in turning out new supporters, people who don't always vote and first time voters. 

Interesting comparison in 5 recent popular votes (rounded to the nearest million).  I did a little research to complete the grid and relied on your info above:  

2016:  Trump 63 - Clinton 66

2012:  Obama 66 - Romney 61

2008:  Obama 69 - McCain 60

2004:  Bush 62 - John Kerry 59

2000:  Bush 50 - Al Gore 51

The key to beating Trump is to allow him to self-destruct, or "turning out new supporters" AND flipping some of his supporters, whichever comes first.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Airbrush

[iNow]

What's needed is beating Congress, and gerrymandering will make that well neigh impossible. 

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16199564/democrats-2018-gerrymandering-problem

Quote

Democrats’ 2018 gerrymandering problem is really bad

A leading forecast says they’ll get 54% of the votes — and only 47% of the seats.

(...)

According to Elliott Morris’s model for Decision Desk HQ, 54 percent of the vote won’t deliver Democrats a landslide House majority. In fact, it won’t deliver them a majority at all. Morris thinks 54 percent of the vote will translate to 206 seats, leaving Republicans with 229 seats and the majority.

 

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Interesting comparison in 5 recent popular votes (rounded to the nearest million).  I did a little research to complete the grid and relied on your info above:  

2016:  Trump 63 - Clinton 66

2012:  Obama 66 - Romney 61

2008:  Obama 69 - McCain 60

2004:  Bush 62 - John Kerry 59

2000:  Bush 50 - Al Gore 51

The key to beating Trump is to allow him to self-destruct, or "turning out new supporters" AND flipping some of his supporters, whichever comes first.

Turning out new supporters is the key in my opinion. Republican support has been flat for that last 12yrs. Even the collaspe and terrible approval ratings of Bush didn't shrink the base much as McCain only did marginally worse. 2 million seems like a lot but it represents 1 and a half percent of all voters that year. The bigger impact was in turning more people out. Of course Republicans are well aware that the more voters there are the harder it is to win. That is why they pursue voter fraud and work to restrict voting days and hours. The difference between 1-2% of the overall vote can comedown to logistical issues on the ground or even the weather. But I digress; I don't believe any meaningful number of voters every actually flip. Perhaps some stay home but I don't think, regardless of what many people I have spoken to claim, voters actually go back and forth election to election based on the candidate. The consitence in pattern tis too tight. Take Wisconsin for example. People often discuss the way Trump was able to flip Wisconsin by reaching out to rural workers yet he did a hair worse than Romeny in Wisconsin, Trump got 1,405,284 individual votes and Romney got 1,407,966 . Breathtakingly close result. McCain is 08' wasn't far behind at 1,262,393 . It is pretty crazy!!! At least half the people I know claim they vote person not party and flip election to election but clearly there is no way any meaningful percentage of voters actually flip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin,_2008

 

[Ten oz]

he Justice Department confirmed in a court filing late Friday that neither it nor the FBI has evidence that Trump Tower was the target of surveillance efforts by the Obama administration during the 2016 presidential election.

The Motion summary of Judgement was filed in D.C. district court in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the watchdog group American Oversight, which is seeking government records of surveillance in Trump Tower.

In March, Trump wrote on Twitter that he had discovered that former President Barack Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped during the run-up to the November election, which he called "McCarthyism."

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/348987-justice-dept-says-it-has-no-evidence-of-trump-tower-wiretapping

 

This is an example of an effect of Trump. He makes illegitmate claims putting the onus on others to correct. Resources are wasted correcting the record and by the time the matters get resolved the general public isn't paying attention anymore. How many man hours were lost by the DOJ & FBI on this and at what cost to tax payers just so Trump could temporarily change media focus with a bit of whataboutism? The Presidents wastes his own agencies, helmed by his appointees, time chasing fictions. The loss in productivity has an associated cost which tax payers must cover.

[Airbrush]

Rex Tillerson, in a rare press conference, would not deny that he recently called Trump a "moron".

Tillerson responded when questioned further about the "moron" comment, “I’m not going to deal with petty stuff like that. This is what I don’t understand about Washington. I’m not from this place. The place I come from, we don’t deal with that petty nonsense. It is intended to do nothing but divide people, and I’m just not going to be part of this effort to divide this administration.”

Besides not denying calling Trump a moron, his word choice, vague language applies equally to Trump.  Tillerson is trying to tell it like it is, very carefully:

"I'm not going to deal with petty stuff like that [calling Trump a moron]" = Tillerson has serious issues about Trump's moronic, pathological pettiness and narcissism

"This is what I don't understand about Washington" = What he doesn't understand about TRUMP

"The place I come from, we don't deal with that petty nonsense" = again criticizing TRUMP'S pervasive pettiness

"It is intended to do nothing but divide people" = TRUMP does nothing but divide people in every case, even disaster relief for Puerto Rico

"and I'm just not going to be part of this effort to divide this administration." = Trump's effort to divide, and because of that Tillerson may not much longer "be part of [TRUMP'S] effort to divide this [COUNTRY]".

https://thinkprogress.org/rex-tillersons-pointless-press-conference-86d21e85b4f2/

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Airbrush

[scherado]

On 8/22/2017 at 3:20 PM, Airbrush said:

Anything related to Trump is a "Trump Effect".  I was not aware this discussion is specifically about his policies, or lack of such.  I was looking for a discussion about Trump. 

I don't know the exact effect, to date, but I do know that President Trump giving CNN the middle finger, repeatedly, civilly, since he was inaugurated, is something I never thought I'd get to see.

[Ten oz]

"President Trump is due to sign an executive order Thursday morning intended to allow individuals and small businesses to buy a long-disputed type of health insurance that skirts state regulations and Affordable Care Act protections. "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-to-sign-executive-order-to-gut-aca-insurance-rules-and-undermine-marketplaces/2017/10/11/40abf774-ae97-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.bd6541516a25

 

Back in July Trump said “It’ll be a lot easier,” “We’re not going to own it. I’m not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. We’ll let Obamacare fail, and then the Democrats are going to come to us.” .Trump is attempting to force change by creating chaos. This seems to be his move on a wide range of things. Just apply pressure, undermine what is in place, and hope what follows is better or at least something that saves faces. Trump does this with foriegn policy too. Trump has already created chaos with North Korea. There is no clear way forward yet his rhetoric just becomes more and more incendiary. Trump does this on trade publicly questioning NAFTA. A country can't be ran this way though. If the ACA fails without an alternate in place millions will suffer. If a diplomatic solution isn't found with North Korea war will break out and millions will suffer. Trump's approach to forcing change through chaos with an eye towards negotiating over the rumble in ludicrous. The down stream effect might be catastrophic and Trump seems perfectly willing to risk that.

[DrmDoc]

Trump's Rasputin, Steve Bannon, says Trump has a 30% chance of completing a full term.  For the sake of our nation, let's hope Bannon is indeed clairvoyant.

[Airbrush]

"In an appearance [today, 10-15-17] on CNN’s "State of the Union," Tillerson was asked [again] point blank more than once whether he had insulted the president [by calling him a moron]. The secretary said the line of questioning was part of "the games of Washington" and [again] refused to deny that he had called Trump a "moron."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/tillerson-again-refuses-answer-if-he-called-trump-moron-n810806

Jake Tapper:  "Is it true, did you call him a moron?"

Tillerson:  "As I indicated earlier...I'm not going to deal with that kind of petty stuff.  I mean this is a town that seems to relish gossip, rumor, innuendo, and they feed on it.  They feed on one an other in a very destructive way.  I don't work that way.   I don't deal that way, and I'm just not going to dignify the question....He and I have a very open and candid relationship.  I see him often.....We have a very open exchange of views...."

The first part of his reply is the most important message he has to convey about his troubled relationship with Trump.  This is almost a hostage video, and Tillerson is trying to tell us what Trump is about, in a way acceptable to Trump

"Not going to deal with that kind of petty stuff" =  He would rather not be an agent of Trump's pettiness (he would like to get out)

"This is a town that relishes gossip rumor, and innuendo, and they feed on it" = Trump creates the situation, through his reality show style, for gossip, rumor, and innuendo, and Trump feeds on the conflict, and therefore Tillerson would like to get out

"They feed on one another in a very destructive way" = Trump and the majority of the media feed on one another in a very destructive way.  Trump speaks nonsense, and the media reports it, and Trump calls it fake news, over and over again

"I don't work that way.  I don't deal that way." = I don't work the art of the deal the way Trump does

"He and I have a very open and candid relationship" = It is a relationship where I call Trump a "f###### moron and he tells me "f### you" right back

"I see him often....We have a very open exchange of views" = I'm sick and tired of seeing that creep, and we yell and cuss at each other all the time.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Airbrush

[DrmDoc]

19 hours ago, Airbrush said:

"In an appearance [today, 10-15-17] on CNN’s "State of the Union," Tillerson was asked [again] point blank more than once whether he had insulted the president [by calling him a moron]. The secretary said the line of questioning was part of "the games of Washington" and [again] refused to deny that he had called Trump a "moron."

Tillerson likely thinks privately that the world already knows what he refuses to deny he said, which is that Trump is indeed a moron.  If he has any measure of integrity, to deny that sentiment would make Tillerson a colossal lair and no better than his boss.