BREAKING: AG Merrick Garland appoints special counsel in DOJ's Trump Mar-a-Lago investigation, citing "recent developments, including the former president's announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election."
— ABC News (@ABC) November 18, 2022
READ MORE: https://t.co/uZJkuUhT8k pic.twitter.com/SJKghWv94E
The new special counsel will spent another year and a few million dollars investigating Trump and eventually they'll conclude he did nothing wrong just like the last time. But they will succeed in reving up speculation in the public as he runs for president again to stop him.
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 18, 2022
KJP: "WE DO NOT POLITICIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE." pic.twitter.com/VCLtLquE3A
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 18, 2022
KJP: "The president was not aware" that Merrick Garland was going to name a special counsel to oversee the investigation of Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/JkE7Hhv0fe
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 18, 2022
I'm surprised you asked this question, as it's a well-known facet of history. If one had to choose a platform from which to run for POTUS, based on track-record, VP is the runaway obvious choice.Mothra said:If Trump miraculously wins in 2024, and DeSantis is his running mate, what makes you think after a brutal 4 years that puts DeSantis in the best position to win the presidency in 2028? How have the members of Trump's admin fared since 2020? Most of them are looked on as pariahs who will never hold office again.whiterock said:Yes, it would. But he will bear the pain because it puts him in the best position to win in 2028.xxx yyy said:The utterly crazy thing is... if Trump looks like he will win the nomination, there will be pressure on Biden to run as well. Hopefully, toward the middle of next year, we should start getting quality polling (not so much from Trafalgar, did any of their predictions hold up?) in the key states. Leading up to 2020, Biden was the only Dem who consistently polled even or above DJT in Pennsylvania, Wisc., Michigan--key states Dems absolutely have to have. Republicans could take 1 -2 of the three and win. With that, I don't see the possibility of an incumbent in the race in 28, assuming Trump stays in the race. You mention an incumbent Republican VP. Are you thinking Trump would be impeached on the third try? Not likely as you will still need 15-18 Republican Senators to convict. VPs running to replace a 2 term President in their own party do not do well, historically. Desantis should stay out of the VP role as it would be 4 years of Hell as Trump's VP.whiterock said:xxx yyy said:Stuart Stevens said something like this last night: Desantis would be nuts to jump into the race at this point. In spite of the recent Texas poll (since when are we taking Texas polls seriously?) it would be an extremely difficult ugly, bloody campaign to win the nomination against Trump. Better he stays in the wings, wait for Trump to collapse, where he will be the first option if that happens. Whether Trump wins the nomination, wins the Presidency, or loses, Desantis would be a stronger candidate in 2028 with no incumbent to run against. He turns 50 in 28.Harrison Bergeron said:
I do think Trump will run as an independent if he does not get the nomination, and at this point I do not think he does. Trump has shown he is nothing but about himself and could care less about the Republican Party. He's pathetically delusional about his popularity, and he will not take no for an answer.
I would still hold my nose and vote for Trump against the authoritarians, but I hope it does not come to that.
Correct up until that last two sentences. He will be weaker, not stronger in 2028 in all respects, and he will indeed have to run against an incumbent in 2028, either a sitting Republican VP or a sitting Dem POTUS.
He will make the push to get on the 2024 ticket somewhere. The only reason that might dissuade him is the health of his wife.
One cannot run for nomination in a party, lose, and easily step out to run third party. There are filing deadlines to get on the general Election ballot. Given Trumps money and support within the party, he is not likely to be an early departure. He will take it to the end. So the scenario proposed would be a LOT easier said than done.
That's assuming he doesn't win the 2024 nomination, which he very well might.
Again, you just can't seem to fathom the amount of toxicity that Americans associate with Trump. He taints everyone he touches.
Yeah, could be.quash said:
Re: Trump as a third party candidate.
Yes, ballot access is a *****, especially in the short time after the primary.
But there are a few third parties that will have ballot access in most states. Nominating Trump would significantly raise their profile and fundraising. There is a really good chance Trump will be on your ballot.
Somewhere.
I would normally agree with you, but your analysis yet again fails to consider one very obvious x factor and distinction - Trump and his presidency are, shall we say, unique? This isn't the Obama presidency. This isn't Bush II. This isn't Reagan. Instead, it's a disgraced, re-tread, twice impeached, maybe soon under indictment, election-denying buffoon who taints everyone he touches. As others have aptly pointed out, it is baffling that you fail to consistently consider this fact in your analysis. There is a reason that Pence, and others who were apart of the Trump admin, have steered clear of running for public office. Sure, they may land nice jobs at FOX news, or write a best-selling book, but all have been tainted by Trump, and I suspect most will never be elected to office again.whiterock said:I'm surprised you asked this question, as it's a well-known facet of history. If one had to choose a platform from which to run for POTUS, based on track-record, VP is the runaway obvious choice.Mothra said:If Trump miraculously wins in 2024, and DeSantis is his running mate, what makes you think after a brutal 4 years that puts DeSantis in the best position to win the presidency in 2028? How have the members of Trump's admin fared since 2020? Most of them are looked on as pariahs who will never hold office again.whiterock said:Yes, it would. But he will bear the pain because it puts him in the best position to win in 2028.xxx yyy said:The utterly crazy thing is... if Trump looks like he will win the nomination, there will be pressure on Biden to run as well. Hopefully, toward the middle of next year, we should start getting quality polling (not so much from Trafalgar, did any of their predictions hold up?) in the key states. Leading up to 2020, Biden was the only Dem who consistently polled even or above DJT in Pennsylvania, Wisc., Michigan--key states Dems absolutely have to have. Republicans could take 1 -2 of the three and win. With that, I don't see the possibility of an incumbent in the race in 28, assuming Trump stays in the race. You mention an incumbent Republican VP. Are you thinking Trump would be impeached on the third try? Not likely as you will still need 15-18 Republican Senators to convict. VPs running to replace a 2 term President in their own party do not do well, historically. Desantis should stay out of the VP role as it would be 4 years of Hell as Trump's VP.whiterock said:xxx yyy said:Stuart Stevens said something like this last night: Desantis would be nuts to jump into the race at this point. In spite of the recent Texas poll (since when are we taking Texas polls seriously?) it would be an extremely difficult ugly, bloody campaign to win the nomination against Trump. Better he stays in the wings, wait for Trump to collapse, where he will be the first option if that happens. Whether Trump wins the nomination, wins the Presidency, or loses, Desantis would be a stronger candidate in 2028 with no incumbent to run against. He turns 50 in 28.Harrison Bergeron said:
I do think Trump will run as an independent if he does not get the nomination, and at this point I do not think he does. Trump has shown he is nothing but about himself and could care less about the Republican Party. He's pathetically delusional about his popularity, and he will not take no for an answer.
I would still hold my nose and vote for Trump against the authoritarians, but I hope it does not come to that.
Correct up until that last two sentences. He will be weaker, not stronger in 2028 in all respects, and he will indeed have to run against an incumbent in 2028, either a sitting Republican VP or a sitting Dem POTUS.
He will make the push to get on the 2024 ticket somewhere. The only reason that might dissuade him is the health of his wife.
One cannot run for nomination in a party, lose, and easily step out to run third party. There are filing deadlines to get on the general Election ballot. Given Trumps money and support within the party, he is not likely to be an early departure. He will take it to the end. So the scenario proposed would be a LOT easier said than done.
That's assuming he doesn't win the 2024 nomination, which he very well might.
Again, you just can't seem to fathom the amount of toxicity that Americans associate with Trump. He taints everyone he touches.
then it's Big-State governor.
Senator is not bad, but governor is better.
Then it kinda falls off a cliff.
Cabinet officials, out-of-office elected officials, etc..... VERY spotty record.
Before Trump, a businessman with no political experience had never been elected. It was considered so unlikely as to be completely unserious. So anything can happen.
And if you drill down into the nuts & bolts, it makes sense why the list looks like that. It gets down to how much power your office holds, what are the attendant fundraising bases, etc......
But if you're playing Game of Thrones and wanna be POTUS, you definitely would prefer to declare on the front porch of Blair House than anywhere else. You would be the only guy running with governing power and true nationwide political and fundraising networks in-place. It's a tremendous head start on the field.
There is another metric at play - 17 years (IIRC). If you look at the resumes of the men who've been elected, most have gone from entry into politics to entry into the WH in 17 years or less. It's an observation more than a determinant. It's like, if you've been around for 30 years and haven't risen to the top yet, your cream is probably curdled. (see Biden, Joe). You've already been seen, weighed, measured, and...meh. Obviously, there are exceptions (see Biden, Joe) and I think Bush 41 also qualifies. But then there's Trump, and Obama, and Bush 43 and Clinton and Reagan and.....you get the drift. Our presidents tend to rise out of the Miasma of politics pretty quickly. DeSantis would be on the shorter end of that timeline...beating Obama by 2 years.
I see the same pattern of self-destruction we saw in the USFL and Atlantic City.whiterock said:Yeah, could be.quash said:
Re: Trump as a third party candidate.
Yes, ballot access is a *****, especially in the short time after the primary.
But there are a few third parties that will have ballot access in most states. Nominating Trump would significantly raise their profile and fundraising. There is a really good chance Trump will be on your ballot.
Somewhere.
The flipside is, all my contacts in the consulting world tell me Trump is influenced significantly by "Brand ID." it's what got him elected, and maybe what got him unelected. But it is what it is. And if that really is what shapes his worldview, then we have to set the political stuff aside and just look at whether 3rd party drives up his brand ID or not. I don't think it does. In a scenario where he's already lost ALL of the soft MAGA and with it the nomination, I suspect going 3rd party would only start peeling off parts of the hard MAGA that he will need to keep Truth Social alive.
whiterock said:I'm surprised you asked this question, as it's a well-known facet of history. If one had to choose a platform from which to run for POTUS, based on track-record, VP is the runaway obvious choice.Mothra said:If Trump miraculously wins in 2024, and DeSantis is his running mate, what makes you think after a brutal 4 years that puts DeSantis in the best position to win the presidency in 2028? How have the members of Trump's admin fared since 2020? Most of them are looked on as pariahs who will never hold office again.whiterock said:Yes, it would. But he will bear the pain because it puts him in the best position to win in 2028.xxx yyy said:The utterly crazy thing is... if Trump looks like he will win the nomination, there will be pressure on Biden to run as well. Hopefully, toward the middle of next year, we should start getting quality polling (not so much from Trafalgar, did any of their predictions hold up?) in the key states. Leading up to 2020, Biden was the only Dem who consistently polled even or above DJT in Pennsylvania, Wisc., Michigan--key states Dems absolutely have to have. Republicans could take 1 -2 of the three and win. With that, I don't see the possibility of an incumbent in the race in 28, assuming Trump stays in the race. You mention an incumbent Republican VP. Are you thinking Trump would be impeached on the third try? Not likely as you will still need 15-18 Republican Senators to convict. VPs running to replace a 2 term President in their own party do not do well, historically. Desantis should stay out of the VP role as it would be 4 years of Hell as Trump's VP.whiterock said:xxx yyy said:Stuart Stevens said something like this last night: Desantis would be nuts to jump into the race at this point. In spite of the recent Texas poll (since when are we taking Texas polls seriously?) it would be an extremely difficult ugly, bloody campaign to win the nomination against Trump. Better he stays in the wings, wait for Trump to collapse, where he will be the first option if that happens. Whether Trump wins the nomination, wins the Presidency, or loses, Desantis would be a stronger candidate in 2028 with no incumbent to run against. He turns 50 in 28.Harrison Bergeron said:
I do think Trump will run as an independent if he does not get the nomination, and at this point I do not think he does. Trump has shown he is nothing but about himself and could care less about the Republican Party. He's pathetically delusional about his popularity, and he will not take no for an answer.
I would still hold my nose and vote for Trump against the authoritarians, but I hope it does not come to that.
Correct up until that last two sentences. He will be weaker, not stronger in 2028 in all respects, and he will indeed have to run against an incumbent in 2028, either a sitting Republican VP or a sitting Dem POTUS.
He will make the push to get on the 2024 ticket somewhere. The only reason that might dissuade him is the health of his wife.
One cannot run for nomination in a party, lose, and easily step out to run third party. There are filing deadlines to get on the general Election ballot. Given Trumps money and support within the party, he is not likely to be an early departure. He will take it to the end. So the scenario proposed would be a LOT easier said than done.
That's assuming he doesn't win the 2024 nomination, which he very well might.
Again, you just can't seem to fathom the amount of toxicity that Americans associate with Trump. He taints everyone he touches.
then it's Big-State governor.
Senator is not bad, but governor is better.
Then it kinda falls off a cliff.
Cabinet officials, out-of-office elected officials, etc..... VERY spotty record.
Before Trump, a businessman with no political experience had never been elected. It was considered so unlikely as to be completely unserious. So anything can happen.
And if you drill down into the nuts & bolts, it makes sense why the list looks like that. It gets down to how much power your office holds, what are the attendant fundraising bases, etc......
_____________________________________________________________________________
I would argue that if you take a second look at History, the success of the VP moving up to POTUS is much more problematic. We all look at how the two Presidents after Washington succeeded to the Presidency. From Aaron Burr onward however the success is muddled. After Jefferson, the next VP to win the Presidency is Van Buren, after which, the next 6 VP Presidents to become President succeeded upon the death of the President. VPs who take office when the POTUS dies are a lock to win the next election. I imagine if Trump's subsequent deal with Desantis provides for that, the Governor would go along and possibly all of the Democrats. VPs getting elected on their own, while their former President is still living? We have had 3 since Van Buren, Nixon who lost on his first try and won 8 years later, and Biden, who waited 4 years to run. Since Thomas Jefferson, the only VP to accede to the Presidency in the next term of office, by election and not by death was George H.W. Bush.
My apologies as I left off the last sentence...they use to call it a senior moment...
Reinstate former President Trump
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 19, 2022
fubar said:
Give us all a break. You'll vote for whatever candidate the Republicans nominate.
Porteroso said:
Many of you looked at his first 4 years and said "oh yes give me more of that" so forgive anyone with basic observation skills for thinking you're all talk now. Of course you're already thinking of a way to bring up Biden as if that refutes my point.
What democrat policies are good for the economy?HuMcK said:Porteroso said:
Many of you looked at his first 4 years and said "oh yes give me more of that" so forgive anyone with basic observation skills for thinking you're all talk now. Of course you're already thinking of a way to bring up Biden as if that refutes my point.
First, he had three "good" years, not four.
Second, his economic record is actually pretty tepid. In those three "good" years: created fewer jobs than Obama's last three years, never got over 3% GDP growth even after a hugely wasteful (inflationary?) tax cut (Obama got 3.1% in 2015 with higher taxes and half the federal deficit of Trump's best year for growth). Yes, he presided over some record low unemployment figures...that he achieved by staying on the exact same trend line Obama left for him. People also tend to forget that his trade war with China (a complete bust for us) had our manufacturing sector flirting with recession before COVID was ever a thing, and we had to step up direct subsidies to farmers to avoid them experiencing the same thing.
The economy that Trump gets credit for is really Obama's accomplishment more than anyone else, and in hindsight (also said it at the time, but whatever) the 2017 tax cuts were pretty poor policy that we got very little for the expense of, and his 2018 pressure on the fed to halt rate hikes looks even worse now that it did at the time. The idea that Trump was some kind of economic savant is simply not supported by the objective numbers, the best that can be said about it is he managed to stay on the path others laid out for him...and then COVID hit
There are quite a few more factors in last week's disappointment than Trump.Mothra said:I would normally agree with you, but your analysis yet again fails to consider one very obvious x factor and distinction - Trump and his presidency are, shall we say, unique? This isn't the Obama presidency. This isn't Bush II. This isn't Reagan. Instead, it's a disgraced, re-tread, twice impeached, maybe soon under indictment, election-denying buffoon who taints everyone he touches. As others have aptly pointed out, it is baffling that you fail to consistently consider this fact in your analysis. There is a reason that Pence, and others who were apart of the Trump admin, have steered clear of running for public office. Sure, they may land nice jobs at FOX news, or write a best-selling book, but all have been tainted by Trump, and I suspect most will never be elected to office again.whiterock said:I'm surprised you asked this question, as it's a well-known facet of history. If one had to choose a platform from which to run for POTUS, based on track-record, VP is the runaway obvious choice.Mothra said:If Trump miraculously wins in 2024, and DeSantis is his running mate, what makes you think after a brutal 4 years that puts DeSantis in the best position to win the presidency in 2028? How have the members of Trump's admin fared since 2020? Most of them are looked on as pariahs who will never hold office again.whiterock said:Yes, it would. But he will bear the pain because it puts him in the best position to win in 2028.xxx yyy said:The utterly crazy thing is... if Trump looks like he will win the nomination, there will be pressure on Biden to run as well. Hopefully, toward the middle of next year, we should start getting quality polling (not so much from Trafalgar, did any of their predictions hold up?) in the key states. Leading up to 2020, Biden was the only Dem who consistently polled even or above DJT in Pennsylvania, Wisc., Michigan--key states Dems absolutely have to have. Republicans could take 1 -2 of the three and win. With that, I don't see the possibility of an incumbent in the race in 28, assuming Trump stays in the race. You mention an incumbent Republican VP. Are you thinking Trump would be impeached on the third try? Not likely as you will still need 15-18 Republican Senators to convict. VPs running to replace a 2 term President in their own party do not do well, historically. Desantis should stay out of the VP role as it would be 4 years of Hell as Trump's VP.whiterock said:xxx yyy said:Stuart Stevens said something like this last night: Desantis would be nuts to jump into the race at this point. In spite of the recent Texas poll (since when are we taking Texas polls seriously?) it would be an extremely difficult ugly, bloody campaign to win the nomination against Trump. Better he stays in the wings, wait for Trump to collapse, where he will be the first option if that happens. Whether Trump wins the nomination, wins the Presidency, or loses, Desantis would be a stronger candidate in 2028 with no incumbent to run against. He turns 50 in 28.Harrison Bergeron said:
I do think Trump will run as an independent if he does not get the nomination, and at this point I do not think he does. Trump has shown he is nothing but about himself and could care less about the Republican Party. He's pathetically delusional about his popularity, and he will not take no for an answer.
I would still hold my nose and vote for Trump against the authoritarians, but I hope it does not come to that.
Correct up until that last two sentences. He will be weaker, not stronger in 2028 in all respects, and he will indeed have to run against an incumbent in 2028, either a sitting Republican VP or a sitting Dem POTUS.
He will make the push to get on the 2024 ticket somewhere. The only reason that might dissuade him is the health of his wife.
One cannot run for nomination in a party, lose, and easily step out to run third party. There are filing deadlines to get on the general Election ballot. Given Trumps money and support within the party, he is not likely to be an early departure. He will take it to the end. So the scenario proposed would be a LOT easier said than done.
That's assuming he doesn't win the 2024 nomination, which he very well might.
Again, you just can't seem to fathom the amount of toxicity that Americans associate with Trump. He taints everyone he touches.
then it's Big-State governor.
Senator is not bad, but governor is better.
Then it kinda falls off a cliff.
Cabinet officials, out-of-office elected officials, etc..... VERY spotty record.
Before Trump, a businessman with no political experience had never been elected. It was considered so unlikely as to be completely unserious. So anything can happen.
And if you drill down into the nuts & bolts, it makes sense why the list looks like that. It gets down to how much power your office holds, what are the attendant fundraising bases, etc......
But if you're playing Game of Thrones and wanna be POTUS, you definitely would prefer to declare on the front porch of Blair House than anywhere else. You would be the only guy running with governing power and true nationwide political and fundraising networks in-place. It's a tremendous head start on the field.
There is another metric at play - 17 years (IIRC). If you look at the resumes of the men who've been elected, most have gone from entry into politics to entry into the WH in 17 years or less. It's an observation more than a determinant. It's like, if you've been around for 30 years and haven't risen to the top yet, your cream is probably curdled. (see Biden, Joe). You've already been seen, weighed, measured, and...meh. Obviously, there are exceptions (see Biden, Joe) and I think Bush 41 also qualifies. But then there's Trump, and Obama, and Bush 43 and Clinton and Reagan and.....you get the drift. Our presidents tend to rise out of the Miasma of politics pretty quickly. DeSantis would be on the shorter end of that timeline...beating Obama by 2 years.
Does DeSantis want that same fate in 2028, when Trump loses badly to whatever Democrat runs against him? How has that worked out for Mike Pence? Think he has a snowball's chance in hell of a successful run for president? Of course not.
Again, your inability to recognize the elephant in the room is somewhat baffling for an otherwise thoughtful poster. Undoubtedly, your inability to gage the temperature of the country has contributed to your abysmal record of predictions. Trump and his candidates haven't won much since 2016. The error in your idea that's going to change should have become painfully obvious a couple of Tuesdays ago, when almost all of the candidates he threw his weight behind lost, despite one of the most unpopular Democrat presidencies in the history of our country.
Just further proof that Trump taints everything he touches.
Well, there is a guy named DeSantis and a guy named Youngkin and a guy named Abbott, (and quite longish list of others) all of whom managed to get elected in spite of strong Trump endorsements. Desantis in particular was struggling and the Trump endorsement lifted him out of a crowded field. DeSantis was, at the time, literally in the same bucket as the Trump endorsements this cycle - the right-most candidate, unknown, underfunded, opposed by establishments, etc... And his first election against a leftie loon was quite a squeaker. Could have very easily gone the other way. So could a few races this cycle. From that inauspicious start, DeSantis has done very, every well. All on his own. But he might not have made it without the endorsement.
You're framing bias is profound.
You cannot lay all the losses and none of the successes at Trump's feet.
I've asked you this multiple times now, but haven't gotten a response, so I will try one more time: what makes you think Trump can win in 2024, given his abysmal track record since 2016? What do you put his chances at in 2024?
Old mythology long since debunked; the Trump tax cut mainly benefited the middle class and entrepreneurs.HuMcK said:
Obama's apparently, according to the numbers. Higher and more consistent growth than Trump, with much lower deficits. Trump came in and did what he's always done in business: orient his policy decisions around short term growth with little or no regard for sustainability. That's why his 2017 tax cuts fizzled and never lived up to (his own) hype for what it should have accomplished, it was adding fuel to an already humming economy that didn't need it (in fact, it wasted a valuable tool that we could have used instead in 2020). Same story with the 2018 Fed rate hikes that he effectively killed, after his tax cuts were a bust he couldn't tolerate the rate hikes dragging down his numbers (and one can't help but wonder if things would looks any different now if those hikes had been allowed to happen then...).
Hell, even Trump knew it: "I've been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans."
Truth.. only guys i heard complain about Trump tax cuts were people who made 400k or more..Doc Holliday said:Old mythology long since debunked; the Trump tax cut mainly benefited the middle class and entrepreneurs.HuMcK said:
Obama's apparently, according to the numbers. Higher and more consistent growth than Trump, with much lower deficits. Trump came in and did what he's always done in business: orient his policy decisions around short term growth with little or no regard for sustainability. That's why his 2017 tax cuts fizzled and never lived up to (his own) hype for what it should have accomplished, it was adding fuel to an already humming economy that didn't need it (in fact, it wasted a valuable tool that we could have used instead in 2020). Same story with the 2018 Fed rate hikes that he effectively killed, after his tax cuts were a bust he couldn't tolerate the rate hikes dragging down his numbers (and one can't help but wonder if things would looks any different now if those hikes had been allowed to happen then...).
Hell, even Trump knew it: "I've been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans."
Trumps' plan included a 20% income tax offset for up to $100K of self employed income which is taxed at a flat 15% surcharge. A big help. The truth is that objectively, most Americans got a tax cut.
Does Biden plan to do a 180 on his SALT deduction limit removal that is essentially a tax cut for millionaires?
the growth was in the tax payers pockets and the fact that the poor moved up and the middle class moved up on the government chart. Easy to look up, on average, households made 4k more in take home pay which helped the poor and middle class people. The gap between poor and upperclass closed.HuMcK said:
Then where was the growth we were promised? Again, it didn't even get us to the 3% GDP threshold, which Obama crossed with half the deficit (meaning a significant chunk of Trump's GDP growth was atributable to Federal spending), and the positive effects it did have were already petering out by 2019. Another thing, the "middle class" portion of those tax cuts expired this year, so when your taxes go up next year, remember that Republicans did that to you, not Biden.
Households made more money period. Biden/Democrats tax plan affects everyone since it involves the lapsing of reduction in income taxes for all brackets, and especially for the self employed who will lose the Trump offset for their first $100K. That's what Dems want…HuMcK said:
Then where was the growth we were promised? Again, it didn't even get us to the 3% GDP threshold, which Obama crossed with half the deficit (meaning a significant chunk of Trump's GDP growth was atributable to Federal spending), and the positive effects it did have were already petering out by 2019. Another thing, the "middle class" portion of those tax cuts expired this year, so when your taxes go up next year, remember that Republicans did that to you, not Biden.
Just a little tid-bit. Did you see news? Disney replaced CEO, went back to the old one and he is focused on Disney being the premier storyteller in media.whiterock said:
Trump's growing GOP challengers revive fears of 2016 repeat-
://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-las-vegas-donald-trump-2a4caff793c65878204d210bc740cadf
"the GOP's emboldened 2024 class may already be unintentionally re-creating the conditions that enabled Trump's success in 2016. That year, a crowded Republican field splintered the primary electorate and allowed Trump to become the party's presidential nominee despite winning just 35% or less of the vote in each of the three opening primary contests.
In the earliest days of the 2024 season, the 2016 parallels are eerie."
Trump is, worst case, already sitting on a hard base of support equal to, or greater than his vote in the first three 2016 primaries. Far better odds he can grow his share than lose it. And he won't have to grow it much at all if there are a half-dozen or more candidates prowling the early primary states.
Flipside is, I can't envision a scenario where very many donors are going to fund Pompeo, Haley, etc....very far down the road given what DeSantis accomplished in his reelection campaign.
Some revisionist history here...whiterock said:There are quite a few more factors in last week's disappointment than Trump.Mothra said:I would normally agree with you, but your analysis yet again fails to consider one very obvious x factor and distinction - Trump and his presidency are, shall we say, unique? This isn't the Obama presidency. This isn't Bush II. This isn't Reagan. Instead, it's a disgraced, re-tread, twice impeached, maybe soon under indictment, election-denying buffoon who taints everyone he touches. As others have aptly pointed out, it is baffling that you fail to consistently consider this fact in your analysis. There is a reason that Pence, and others who were apart of the Trump admin, have steered clear of running for public office. Sure, they may land nice jobs at FOX news, or write a best-selling book, but all have been tainted by Trump, and I suspect most will never be elected to office again.whiterock said:I'm surprised you asked this question, as it's a well-known facet of history. If one had to choose a platform from which to run for POTUS, based on track-record, VP is the runaway obvious choice.Mothra said:If Trump miraculously wins in 2024, and DeSantis is his running mate, what makes you think after a brutal 4 years that puts DeSantis in the best position to win the presidency in 2028? How have the members of Trump's admin fared since 2020? Most of them are looked on as pariahs who will never hold office again.whiterock said:Yes, it would. But he will bear the pain because it puts him in the best position to win in 2028.xxx yyy said:The utterly crazy thing is... if Trump looks like he will win the nomination, there will be pressure on Biden to run as well. Hopefully, toward the middle of next year, we should start getting quality polling (not so much from Trafalgar, did any of their predictions hold up?) in the key states. Leading up to 2020, Biden was the only Dem who consistently polled even or above DJT in Pennsylvania, Wisc., Michigan--key states Dems absolutely have to have. Republicans could take 1 -2 of the three and win. With that, I don't see the possibility of an incumbent in the race in 28, assuming Trump stays in the race. You mention an incumbent Republican VP. Are you thinking Trump would be impeached on the third try? Not likely as you will still need 15-18 Republican Senators to convict. VPs running to replace a 2 term President in their own party do not do well, historically. Desantis should stay out of the VP role as it would be 4 years of Hell as Trump's VP.whiterock said:xxx yyy said:Stuart Stevens said something like this last night: Desantis would be nuts to jump into the race at this point. In spite of the recent Texas poll (since when are we taking Texas polls seriously?) it would be an extremely difficult ugly, bloody campaign to win the nomination against Trump. Better he stays in the wings, wait for Trump to collapse, where he will be the first option if that happens. Whether Trump wins the nomination, wins the Presidency, or loses, Desantis would be a stronger candidate in 2028 with no incumbent to run against. He turns 50 in 28.Harrison Bergeron said:
I do think Trump will run as an independent if he does not get the nomination, and at this point I do not think he does. Trump has shown he is nothing but about himself and could care less about the Republican Party. He's pathetically delusional about his popularity, and he will not take no for an answer.
I would still hold my nose and vote for Trump against the authoritarians, but I hope it does not come to that.
Correct up until that last two sentences. He will be weaker, not stronger in 2028 in all respects, and he will indeed have to run against an incumbent in 2028, either a sitting Republican VP or a sitting Dem POTUS.
He will make the push to get on the 2024 ticket somewhere. The only reason that might dissuade him is the health of his wife.
One cannot run for nomination in a party, lose, and easily step out to run third party. There are filing deadlines to get on the general Election ballot. Given Trumps money and support within the party, he is not likely to be an early departure. He will take it to the end. So the scenario proposed would be a LOT easier said than done.
That's assuming he doesn't win the 2024 nomination, which he very well might.
Again, you just can't seem to fathom the amount of toxicity that Americans associate with Trump. He taints everyone he touches.
then it's Big-State governor.
Senator is not bad, but governor is better.
Then it kinda falls off a cliff.
Cabinet officials, out-of-office elected officials, etc..... VERY spotty record.
Before Trump, a businessman with no political experience had never been elected. It was considered so unlikely as to be completely unserious. So anything can happen.
And if you drill down into the nuts & bolts, it makes sense why the list looks like that. It gets down to how much power your office holds, what are the attendant fundraising bases, etc......
But if you're playing Game of Thrones and wanna be POTUS, you definitely would prefer to declare on the front porch of Blair House than anywhere else. You would be the only guy running with governing power and true nationwide political and fundraising networks in-place. It's a tremendous head start on the field.
There is another metric at play - 17 years (IIRC). If you look at the resumes of the men who've been elected, most have gone from entry into politics to entry into the WH in 17 years or less. It's an observation more than a determinant. It's like, if you've been around for 30 years and haven't risen to the top yet, your cream is probably curdled. (see Biden, Joe). You've already been seen, weighed, measured, and...meh. Obviously, there are exceptions (see Biden, Joe) and I think Bush 41 also qualifies. But then there's Trump, and Obama, and Bush 43 and Clinton and Reagan and.....you get the drift. Our presidents tend to rise out of the Miasma of politics pretty quickly. DeSantis would be on the shorter end of that timeline...beating Obama by 2 years.
Does DeSantis want that same fate in 2028, when Trump loses badly to whatever Democrat runs against him? How has that worked out for Mike Pence? Think he has a snowball's chance in hell of a successful run for president? Of course not.
Again, your inability to recognize the elephant in the room is somewhat baffling for an otherwise thoughtful poster. Undoubtedly, your inability to gage the temperature of the country has contributed to your abysmal record of predictions. Trump and his candidates haven't won much since 2016. The error in your idea that's going to change should have become painfully obvious a couple of Tuesdays ago, when almost all of the candidates he threw his weight behind lost, despite one of the most unpopular Democrat presidencies in the history of our country.
Just further proof that Trump taints everything he touches.
Well, there is a guy named DeSantis and a guy named Youngkin and a guy named Abbott, (and quite longish list of others) all of whom managed to get elected in spite of strong Trump endorsements. Desantis in particular was struggling and the Trump endorsement lifted him out of a crowded field. DeSantis was, at the time, literally in the same bucket as the Trump endorsements this cycle - the right-most candidate, unknown, underfunded, opposed by establishments, etc... And his first election against a leftie loon was quite a squeaker. Could have very easily gone the other way. So could a few races this cycle. From that inauspicious start, DeSantis has done very, every well. All on his own. But he might not have made it without the endorsement.
You're framing bias is profound.
You cannot lay all the losses and none of the successes at Trump's feet.
I've asked you this multiple times now, but haven't gotten a response, so I will try one more time: what makes you think Trump can win in 2024, given his abysmal track record since 2016? What do you put his chances at in 2024?
I have answered that last question in detail on other threads. He's sitting on 75m votes. He has a great record of policy accomplishments. He has a sold base of support not often seen in modern politics. If he builds the right campaign machine, he can win. Without a doubt. Yes, he will face obstacles mostly due to objectionable bits of his persona. But the alternatives face obstacles, too. Like starting out years and millions of votes behind without a comparably large and fervent base of support, and without any indication that Trump base of support will transfer over to others. That is not to say others can't fix/build what they need. Just noting they don't have it TODAY and Trump does.
It's also worth noting that I am not the one making the prognostication that this candidate or that is the right one or has it all sewn up. I'm the one pointing out pros/cons overlooked in the rash judgment of others.
It's at least a year until the potential contenders have to commit. Let's see what things look like then.
I like Ron Desantis. A lot. I'd go to war with him. Or Trump. Or whoever else gets the nomination. It's all you other guys who are laying all the conditions.
And the way Trump treated and treats Pence! Why would anyone hook their wagon to that...90sBear said:
I'm still waiting for whiterock to explain exactly why DeSantis should want to play second fiddle to Trump as a VP candidate. He keeps saying it's the best straight shot to the presidency, but xxx yyy did a pretty good breakdown on that earlier in the thread here:
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/116457/replies/2981110
He just doesn't seem to get that there are a lot of people that really don't like him and want nothing to do with him and don't want to be associated with him. Good chance DeSantis is one of those people. Perhaps he thinks there's a good chance Trump dies or is assassinated while in office as that seems to be the real best way for a VP to become president.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So which point of Johnny's message did you not like? Just curious.J.R. said:you, little Johnny have worked your way to absolute lunatic fringe ! Enjoy trumps going forward. He is effing toast!Johnny Bear said:
I get all the Trump hate. After all, our country was so much worse off when he was POTUS as compared to now. I mean who needs abundant inexpensive energy, little to no inflation, reliable supply chains, a secure border, growing 401K's, decreasing unemployment in all demographics, respect abroad, and a military that was focused on being the strongest and best fighting force in the world as opposed to being the wokest military in the world.
I don't know how we ever survived - and to think the man wants to restore all of that! Wow, what a monster!
Given the vindictive aspects to his ego, I could easily see that. Yes, definitely a nightmare.Mothra said:
Real question is does he run third party if he loses the primary?
I suspect there's a real possibility he does so.
What a nightmare.
Doc Holliday said:
The media has exhausted their outrage on Trump and it won't stick with Desantis. They will absolutely try, but it won't work.
BearFan33 said:
Sadly, unless republicans up their ballot acquisition game, it won't matter who they run.
Well you have to look at it from a moderate voter's point of view.Johnny Bear said:Doc Holliday said:
The media has exhausted their outrage on Trump and it won't stick with Desantis. They will absolutely try, but it won't work.
What makes you so sure about that? Musk will make it a little fairer vis a vis Twitter, but otherwise Desantis or whomever the GOP nominee is will get the full "Trump treatment" from the rest of the usual sycophants in the MSM, Hollywood, technology, academia, and non-conservative social media not named Twitter. As far as the effectiveness goes, I also thought it would wane a lot based on the unmitigated disaster the Dementia Joe Administration has been, but the '22 mid-term results clearly didn't bare that out. I'm just not seeing reasons to believe it'll be all that different from the standpoint of the attacks from the powerful forces the left controls and their impact even if Trump isn't the nominee.
Doc Holliday said:Well you have to look at it from a moderate voter's point of view.Johnny Bear said:Doc Holliday said:
The media has exhausted their outrage on Trump and it won't stick with Desantis. They will absolutely try, but it won't work.
What makes you so sure about that? Musk will make it a little fairer vis a vis Twitter, but otherwise Desantis or whomever the GOP nominee is will get the full "Trump treatment" from the rest of the usual sycophants in the MSM, Hollywood, technology, academia, and non-conservative social media not named Twitter. As far as the effectiveness goes, I also thought it would wane a lot based on the unmitigated disaster the Dementia Joe Administration has been, but the '22 mid-term results clearly didn't bare that out. I'm just not seeing reasons to believe it'll be all that different from the standpoint of the attacks from the powerful forces the left controls and their impact even if Trump isn't the nominee.
Trump says "you're fake news".
Desantis says "your fake news because of x,y and z.".
Their delivery and how they come across is very different from each other. A lot of moderates and even GOP voters say "I like Trump, but I wish he's shut up and stop tweeting".
You won't convince hardcore dems that Desantis isn't just as bad as Trump, but moderate voters won't buy into those criticisms after seeing how Desantis handles the bs with more wit and explanation.
Well, it wasn't the American people, no matter what else is said.Osodecentx said:Doc Holliday said:Well you have to look at it from a moderate voter's point of view.Johnny Bear said:Doc Holliday said:
The media has exhausted their outrage on Trump and it won't stick with Desantis. They will absolutely try, but it won't work.
What makes you so sure about that? Musk will make it a little fairer vis a vis Twitter, but otherwise Desantis or whomever the GOP nominee is will get the full "Trump treatment" from the rest of the usual sycophants in the MSM, Hollywood, technology, academia, and non-conservative social media not named Twitter. As far as the effectiveness goes, I also thought it would wane a lot based on the unmitigated disaster the Dementia Joe Administration has been, but the '22 mid-term results clearly didn't bare that out. I'm just not seeing reasons to believe it'll be all that different from the standpoint of the attacks from the powerful forces the left controls and their impact even if Trump isn't the nominee.
Trump says "you're fake news".
Desantis says "your fake news because of x,y and z.".
Their delivery and how they come across is very different from each other. A lot of moderates and even GOP voters say "I like Trump, but I wish he's shut up and stop tweeting".
You won't convince hardcore dems that Desantis isn't just as bad as Trump, but moderate voters won't buy into those criticisms after seeing how Desantis handles the bs with more wit and explanation.
Who does Desantis say won the 2020 election?
big feather in RDS cap. Prototypical GOP leaders in the past have always steered clear of culture wars as unwinnable. That meant corporations became increasingly responsive to leftist pressures and dismissive to conservative concerns. RDS showed how to force a corporation back to an at least nominally neutral position. Sure, the corporation may have preferences, but they know if they don't play nice with both sides, BOTH sides will bite.RMF5630 said:Just a little tid-bit. Did you see news? Disney replaced CEO, went back to the old one and he is focused on Disney being the premier storyteller in media.whiterock said:
Trump's growing GOP challengers revive fears of 2016 repeat-
://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-las-vegas-donald-trump-2a4caff793c65878204d210bc740cadf
"the GOP's emboldened 2024 class may already be unintentionally re-creating the conditions that enabled Trump's success in 2016. That year, a crowded Republican field splintered the primary electorate and allowed Trump to become the party's presidential nominee despite winning just 35% or less of the vote in each of the three opening primary contests.
In the earliest days of the 2024 season, the 2016 parallels are eerie."
Trump is, worst case, already sitting on a hard base of support equal to, or greater than his vote in the first three 2016 primaries. Far better odds he can grow his share than lose it. And he won't have to grow it much at all if there are a half-dozen or more candidates prowling the early primary states.
Flipside is, I can't envision a scenario where very many donors are going to fund Pompeo, Haley, etc....very far down the road given what DeSantis accomplished in his reelection campaign.
My view-
Disney will be reaching out to DeSantis about the Reedy Creek District (Disney World's self-governing statute).
Disney will be getting away from taking political sides and focus on entertainment, not taking moral positions.
What will Florida do? I think re-write the Reedy Creek and give Disney what they need, with performance metrics and the ability for the State to review annually.
DeSantis will show he knows how to do economic development and can deal with the biggest Companies reasonably and profitably. Another feather in the cap,,,
I believe this is bigger than people realize.
First, I pointed out Youngkin and Desantis and Abbott not to show Trump was a boon, but rather to show Trump was not an anchor. He has GROWN the party share of a wide number of important demographics. Secondly, the lovers & haters construction is a mild false dilemma. Most people I talk to about Trump are neither. The average joe doesn't take politicians terribly seriously and are not as bothered by the crazy stuff they say and do as the junkies are. Yes, he is a motivator, both pro and con. We just have to do better on the pro side of that equation.Mothra said:Some revisionist history here...Quote:There are quite a few more factors in last week's disappointment than Trump.Quote:I would normally agree with you, but your analysis yet again fails to consider one very obvious x factor and distinction - Trump and his presidency are, shall we say, unique? This isn't the Obama presidency. This isn't Bush II. This isn't Reagan. Instead, it's a disgraced, re-tread, twice impeached, maybe soon under indictment, election-denying buffoon who taints everyone he touches. As others have aptly pointed out, it is baffling that you fail to consistently consider this fact in your analysis. There is a reason that Pence, and others who were apart of the Trump admin, have steered clear of running for public office. Sure, they may land nice jobs at FOX news, or write a best-selling book, but all have been tainted by Trump, and I suspect most will never be elected to office again.Quote:I'm surprised you asked this question, as it's a well-known facet of history. If one had to choose a platform from which to run for POTUS, based on track-record, VP is the runaway obvious choice.Quote:If Trump miraculously wins in 2024, and DeSantis is his running mate, what makes you think after a brutal 4 years that puts DeSantis in the best position to win the presidency in 2028? How have the members of Trump's admin fared since 2020? Most of them are looked on as pariahs who will never hold office again.Quote:
Yes, it would. But he will bear the pain because it puts him in the best position to win in 2028.
That's assuming he doesn't win the 2024 nomination, which he very well might.
Again, you just can't seem to fathom the amount of toxicity that Americans associate with Trump. He taints everyone he touches.
then it's Big-State governor.
Senator is not bad, but governor is better.
Then it kinda falls off a cliff.
Cabinet officials, out-of-office elected officials, etc..... VERY spotty record.
Before Trump, a businessman with no political experience had never been elected. It was considered so unlikely as to be completely unserious. So anything can happen.
And if you drill down into the nuts & bolts, it makes sense why the list looks like that. It gets down to how much power your office holds, what are the attendant fundraising bases, etc......
But if you're playing Game of Thrones and wanna be POTUS, you definitely would prefer to declare on the front porch of Blair House than anywhere else. You would be the only guy running with governing power and true nationwide political and fundraising networks in-place. It's a tremendous head start on the field.
There is another metric at play - 17 years (IIRC). If you look at the resumes of the men who've been elected, most have gone from entry into politics to entry into the WH in 17 years or less. It's an observation more than a determinant. It's like, if you've been around for 30 years and haven't risen to the top yet, your cream is probably curdled. (see Biden, Joe). You've already been seen, weighed, measured, and...meh. Obviously, there are exceptions (see Biden, Joe) and I think Bush 41 also qualifies. But then there's Trump, and Obama, and Bush 43 and Clinton and Reagan and.....you get the drift. Our presidents tend to rise out of the Miasma of politics pretty quickly. DeSantis would be on the shorter end of that timeline...beating Obama by 2 years.
Does DeSantis want that same fate in 2028, when Trump loses badly to whatever Democrat runs against him? How has that worked out for Mike Pence? Think he has a snowball's chance in hell of a successful run for president? Of course not.
Again, your inability to recognize the elephant in the room is somewhat baffling for an otherwise thoughtful poster. Undoubtedly, your inability to gage the temperature of the country has contributed to your abysmal record of predictions. Trump and his candidates haven't won much since 2016. The error in your idea that's going to change should have become painfully obvious a couple of Tuesdays ago, when almost all of the candidates he threw his weight behind lost, despite one of the most unpopular Democrat presidencies in the history of our country.
Just further proof that Trump taints everything he touches.
Well, there is a guy named DeSantis and a guy named Youngkin and a guy named Abbott, (and quite longish list of others) all of whom managed to get elected in spite of strong Trump endorsements. Desantis in particular was struggling and the Trump endorsement lifted him out of a crowded field. DeSantis was, at the time, literally in the same bucket as the Trump endorsements this cycle - the right-most candidate, unknown, underfunded, opposed by establishments, etc... And his first election against a leftie loon was quite a squeaker. Could have very easily gone the other way. So could a few races this cycle. From that inauspicious start, DeSantis has done very, every well. All on his own. But he might not have made it without the endorsement.
You're framing bias is profound.
You cannot lay all the losses and none of the successes at Trump's feet.
I've asked you this multiple times now, but haven't gotten a response, so I will try one more time: what makes you think Trump can win in 2024, given his abysmal track record since 2016? What do you put his chances at in 2024?
I have answered that last question in detail on other threads. He's sitting on 75m votes. He has a great record of policy accomplishments. He has a sold base of support not often seen in modern politics. If he builds the right campaign machine, he can win. Without a doubt. Yes, he will face obstacles mostly due to objectionable bits of his persona. But the alternatives face obstacles, too. Like starting out years and millions of votes behind without a comparably large and fervent base of support, and without any indication that Trump base of support will transfer over to others. That is not to say others can't fix/build what they need. Just noting they don't have it TODAY and Trump does.
It's also worth noting that I am not the one making the prognostication that this candidate or that is the right one or has it all sewn up. I'm the one pointing out pros/cons overlooked in the rash judgment of others.
It's at least a year until the potential contenders have to commit. Let's see what things look like then.
I like Ron Desantis. A lot. I'd go to war with him. Or Trump. Or whoever else gets the nomination. It's all you other guys who are laying all the conditions.
Would you agree with me that things have changed for Trump since he first endorsed DeSantis in 2018? DeSantis was endorsed before Trump's myriad of legal issues, before he was impeached, and before all of the drama that stemmed from his election denying nonsense. Trump was more popular before all of those events, and not at that time the albatross he is now. But that ship sailed long before the 2020 election.
As for Youngkin, if you recall, Youngkin pretty much sidelined Trump during his candidacy. After receiving Trump's endorsement early, Youngkin didn't use Trump at all. He appeared at no rallies, and was hardly even mentioned by Youngkin. I recall the NY Times doing a piece on Youngkin about how he successfully managed to sideline Trump while at the same time not alienating him or his supporters. DeSantis pretty much did the exact same thing in his last election. Vance did the same thing. It was the candidates that embraced Trump and spouted the election denying rhetoric that fared poorly this last election.
So your idea that Trump remains a boon to his candidates is no longer accurate.
As for the last question, I am not sure you've given any facts that support your theory that Trump can do now, as a much less popular candidate, what he couldn't do in 2020. And it also fails to account by Trump's toxicity and the visceral reaction that most Americans have against him. Joe found 80 million of those people in 2020 - better than Trump's 75 million.
There's been nothing rash about judgment of Trump. We've seen this since 2016 - a candidate who has a large following but an even larger number of haters. A candidate unable to control his worse tendencies. And a candidate much less popular now than he was in 2020, when he lost by about 6 million votes. You've given no one any evidence at all that he can somehow turn that around.
I don't have any conditions. I simply want a candidate who can win, and not a loser and re-tread. You apparently like losers and re-treads.
History is rich with examples of POTUS and VPOTUS candidates that made strange bedfellows. Reagan and Bush, two pretty gentlemanly gentlemen, took some time to find a groove. Some never actually gelled at all.90sBear said:
I'm still waiting for whiterock to explain exactly why DeSantis should want to play second fiddle to Trump as a VP candidate. He keeps saying it's the best straight shot to the presidency, but xxx yyy did a pretty good breakdown on that earlier in the thread here:
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/116457/replies/2981110
He just doesn't seem to get that there are a lot of people that really don't like Trump and want nothing to do with Trump and don't want to be associated with Trump. Good chance DeSantis is one of those people. Perhaps he thinks there's a good chance Trump dies or is assassinated while in office as that seems to be the real best way for a VP to become president.