Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 17, 2017

OTP 17 July 2017: Love is baseball, family. Keep the politics out

This is baseball, and it’s our cocoon, our special time together, protected from the harder realities of life. Here, the sun is always shining, even if it rains.

If you don’t understand that, you’ve probably never lifted a child up over your head to watch adults scramble after a ball or circle the bases after crushing a home run. Or maybe you’ve never slid head first into a mud puddle without a care of how you would get past your mom and into the laundry room. Maybe you’ve never sat for hours on a rickety old bus with ice on your ankle, sprained from sliding into home, but smiling because you were safe.

Maybe you should have; if not, maybe you should try now. You are never not welcome to go sit in the bleachers and cheer on the players at a youth game, even if you cheer for both sides. Leagues always need volunteers. I coached for 35 years after playing, so I know.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 08:54 AM | 3063 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball, ffs, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 5 of 31 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   401. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:21 PM (#5495527)
I can't recall but isn't there basically a grandfather clause in the constitution in regards to changing laws concerning presidential powers?
No? (Not sure what you're thinking of.)
   402. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:21 PM (#5495529)
Post your odds and I'll take my pick, but right now I'm more interested in 2018. If that turns out well---and right now I wouldn't claim any knowledge on that---Trump's fate in 2020 will take care of itself, possibly even before the RNC.


I'd say sitting here today that:

1. As a starting point a good peg of the 2020 election of Trump v. Generic D would be about 50-50. But:
2. If we give the structural advantage to Trump for being the incumbent then let's say his odds would be a tick better than that.
3. But since he's Trump and thus there's a ceiling on his support as there was with Hillary... let's drop him back down to 50-50.
4. But then again, since Democrats can't stop rending their garments over Russia, let's give him that slight edge again.

So as of now I'd peg him at roughly 55-45 to win against generic D.

If impeachment proceedings are begun and they fail I'd up his chances to 60%.

If Hillary runs I'd up his chances to 65%.

So I think each of (a) failed impeachment and (b) Hillary opposes him would be worth about 5% to his chances.

The rest from now until then depends all on on economy and terrorism and none on the Russia insanity or the climate change silliness.

I'm happy to entertain a bet with you now, Andy. I'll bet you $1,000 straight up that Trump will win in 2020. The only way the bet gets canceled is if he dies first.

If he doesn't run, runs and drops out, or is impeached, I'd still lose the bet. That would only be fair, since those things are in part predicated on how he does as president.
   403. perros Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:23 PM (#5495533)
Remember the outrage when Trump suggested he might not accept the results of the election?

Me neither.
   404. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:23 PM (#5495534)
The correct thing to do, for this or any other procedural amendment that isn't an emergency, is to enact it, effective in four years. (Just as the 22nd amendment did not apply to Truman.) You don't want states voting for it or against it based on their views on Trump; if it's a good idea then it's a good idea even if it doesn't apply right away.
That is wise, but not much fun.
   405. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:30 PM (#5495541)
Remember the outrage when Trump suggested he might not accept the results of the election?

Me neither.


He hasn't. He still maintains that the popular vote was stolen from him by millions of illegal voters.
   406. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:31 PM (#5495542)
Remember when Perros made useful points?

Me neither.
   407. zenbitz Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:32 PM (#5495543)
So... In @298 they polled a cross section of Americans, right?

So, depending on how you count, that's like 30-50% "Leftists". But only a small % care about Russia.

So how does it follow that Russia has sent the left into a tizzy?
   408. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:33 PM (#5495544)
That was one of the biggest howlers on recent record, the Democrats wailing about Trump not accepting the results of the election when they were sure they were going to win, followed by the Democrats not accepting the results of the election immediately upon losing.

But go ahead, impeach away. Let's see what comes of it.
   409. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:38 PM (#5495548)
the Democrats wailing about Trump not accepting the results of the election when
he said he wasn't going to accept the results of the election, when
they he was sure they were going to win.
   410. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:41 PM (#5495553)
But go ahead, impeach away. Let's see what comes of it.


You don't actually know how impeachment works, do you Ray?
   411. Hysterical & Useless Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:44 PM (#5495554)
Robert Cotton's library


Sigh. Wish he'd taken better care of his books.
   412. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:46 PM (#5495556)
the Democrats wailing about Trump not accepting the results of the election when

he said he wasn't going to accept the results of the election, when

they he was sure they were going to win.


YesAnd? The fact that he whined about it doesn't change the fact that THEY whined about it. They were supposed to be above him, remember? And yet we learn, to the shock of no one, that they were just bullshitting everyone also, just as he was.

"Look! Look over there! He's a BULLSHITTER!" Followed by your own bullshitting.

It's not a good look.
   413. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:49 PM (#5495559)
YesAnd?
And you once again blame other people for Trump's actions. They rightly complained about him not being willing to accept the results of the election because that's what he said he was going to do. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize someone for what he says. (Ironically, he continued to not accept the outcome of the election, even though he won.)
   414. BrianBrianson Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:53 PM (#5495567)
So, depending on how you count, that's like 30-50% "Leftists". But only a small % care about Russia.

So how does it follow that Russia has sent the left into a tizzy?


C'mon, don't play into Ray's lunacy here. People can have more than one concern. Two, three ... I'm told even four, though I've never seen it myself.
   415. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:54 PM (#5495568)
And you once again blame other people for Trump's actions. They rightly complained about him not being willing to accept the results of the election because that's what he said he was going to do. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize someone for what he says. (Ironically, he continued to not accept the outcome of the election, even though he won.)


So you agree that:

1. Democrats didn't accept the results of the election.
2. Democrats are hypocrites.

I get that you don't think #2 is actually a sin. But if #1 is bad when Trump does it, then it's bad when you do it.

   416. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:54 PM (#5495570)
But go ahead, impeach away. Let's see what comes of it.


It seems you have not noticed, but some of us, even here on the left, have written against impeachment. Today even. And no one here thinks impeachment is going to happen any time soon. There is some grandstanding going on, but no one with a lick of sense takes it seriously.

Let's just wait a bit and see how things develop. Once the investigation puts in its report we will know a whole bunch more.
   417. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:55 PM (#5495571)
So you agree that:


Ray seems to know as much about impeachment as he knows about morality? Sure.
   418. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 04:56 PM (#5495573)
C'mon, don't play into Ray's lunacy here. People can have more than one concern. Two, three ... I'm told even four, though I've never seen it myself.


Yes, that's the right counter argument, but I don't think it's very persuasive in light of the fact that just below 6%-Russia, at 4%, was: "Other."

But if you think an item receiving on the order of 6% in a poll such as this is an item worth selling as the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE WORLD OH MY GOD WE CAN'T STOP TALKING ABOUT IT WAS THERE A **TENTH** PERSON IN THE MEETING ZOINK!!!!, then..... go for it, and after you fail in 2020 we'll see you for another try in 2024.
   419. BrianBrianson Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:01 PM (#5495577)
Err, there's something to do on Russia. There's nothing to do on healthcare or the economy while it's (R)s all the way down, except distract them so they break as little as possible.
   420. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:04 PM (#5495580)
They were supposed to be above him, remember?


It's literally impossible to not be above him. You can't be below sub-human filth.
   421. perros Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:04 PM (#5495581)
You should read Shattered, if for nothing else the campaign's fatal over-reliance on analytics.

Not useful, I know.
   422. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:06 PM (#5495584)
Err, there's something to do on Russia. There's nothing to do on healthcare or the economy while it's (R)s all the way down, except distract them so they break as little as possible.


And politically, making sure his anti-Americanism and Russophilia is constantly hung around his neck is a method to salve as much damage as you can from the howler monkeys shitting on healthcare and the like.
   423. PreservedFish Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:07 PM (#5495585)
Trump still has been less accepting of the election results than the Dems. Dems are obsessed with Russian meddling, and yet nobody important has suggested that Trump benefited from fraud or a hacked vote. But Trump declares, with literally zero evidence, that the Dems received millions of illegal votes.
   424. The Good Face Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:08 PM (#5495586)
They were supposed to be above him, remember?


Who is doing what to whom?

Trump claiming the election would be rigged? Pure evil, a dire threat to democracy and our way of life!

Dems claiming the election was rigged? Justified resistance to evil!

   425. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:10 PM (#5495588)
Dems claiming the election was rigged?


See. TGF is an example of someone who is not stupid, but is rather a lying piece of ####.
   426. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:12 PM (#5495592)
And politically, making sure his anti-Americanism and Russophilia is constantly hung around his neck is a method to salve as much damage as you can from the howler monkeys shitting on healthcare and the like.


I fervently hope you continue to run with this strategy.
   427. BDC Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:13 PM (#5495593)
Democrats not accepting the results of the election

But when has any Democrat "not accepted" the results, in the sense that they think that Clinton or Kaine or whoever should be President instead? Aside from some idiot like Michael Moore.

Even possible impeachment is about the guy being impeached, not about a coup. Nixon wasn't replaced by George McGovern or Tip O'Neill. Clinton wouldn't have been replaced by Dole or Gingrich. People are suggesting that Trump might be impeachable because he's building a record of corrupt behavior. Mike Pence would become President, unless he's Agnewed beforehand, in which case some other Republican leader would become President. That's just how the system has worked in the past.

   428. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:14 PM (#5495595)
1. Democrats didn't accept the results of the election.
I simply do not recall Hillary Clinton calling for people to come out in the streets and riot on November 9 (or January 20). Perhaps you could refresh my memory as to when she claimed that she had actually won and that there should be violence to keep Trump from taking office?
   429. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:14 PM (#5495596)
If the Republicans pick up (roughly) 2-3 Senate seats and lose just 12-15 House seats, it'll demonstrate that Democratic/public opposition to Trump will have had minimal effect on the 2018 elections. Is anybody betting the over?

Over the last 21 midterm elections, the party out of power averaged a 30 seat pickup in the House of Representatives. You can get slightly different numbers if you vary the end points a bit, but the Democrats (194 seats*) are closer to a majority than the GOP was in 1994 (176 seats) & 2010 (178 seats), the last 2 times they flipped the House. If the Democrats do as well as they did when they flipped the House in 2006 (+32), they would have an 17 seat House majority. If the Democrats were to fall short, one would have to conclude that (1) Trump's was not as unpopular as thought by some, certainly not "historically unpopular"; and/or (2) despite Trump's alleged unpopularity, voters were unwilling to embrace Democratic Congressional Candidates to the extent they embraced opposition party candidates in prior midterm elections.

*All numbers are from the last election and don't reflect any special election results.
   430. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:19 PM (#5495602)
Aside from some idiot like Michael Moore.
I bow to nobody in my contempt for Michael Moore, but even citing him is playing into Ray's silliness. The issue wasn't whether some random figure on the right was going to accept Trump's defeat; the issue is whether Trump was going to. If a candidate concedes, then his/her supporters don't matter. If Hillary had said what Moore said, that would be relevant.
   431. The Good Face Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:24 PM (#5495607)
See. TGF is an example of someone who is not stupid, but is rather a lying piece of ####.


And yet you're the guy behaving exactly like... what were your words for it? Ah yes, "sub-human filth". But it's OK, because the sub-human filth did it first!

This is one of the things I like about Trump, he strikes the sediment from the waters of political life. The media can no longer effectively pretend to be objective, the lefties can no longer claim moral high ground, the socialists can no longer claim they care about the working and middle classes, etc. Their evil is laid bare in a frenzy of bestial rage and rutting fury. Honesty, at last, midwifed through their lunatic hatred.
   432. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:27 PM (#5495609)
As you sit here today what do you think the chances are that Trump will win in 2020 if he runs again?

Post your odds and I'll take my pick, but right now I'm more interested in 2018. If that turns out well---and right now I wouldn't claim any knowledge on that---Trump's fate in 2020 will take care of itself, possibly even before the RNC.

I'd say sitting here today that:

1. As a starting point a good peg of the 2020 election of Trump v. Generic D would be about 50-50. But:
2. If we give the structural advantage to Trump for being the incumbent then let's say his odds would be a tick better than that.
3. But since he's Trump and thus there's a ceiling on his support as there was with Hillary... let's drop him back down to 50-50.
4. But then again, since Democrats can't stop rending their garments over Russia, let's give him that slight edge again.

So as of now I'd peg him at roughly 55-45 to win against generic D.

If impeachment proceedings are begun and they fail I'd up his chances to 60%.

If Hillary runs I'd up his chances to 65%.

So I think each of (a) failed impeachment and (b) Hillary opposes him would be worth about 5% to his chances.

The rest from now until then depends all on on economy and terrorism and none on the Russia insanity or the climate change silliness.

I'm happy to entertain a bet with you now, Andy. I'll bet you $1,000 straight up that Trump will win in 2020. The only way the bet gets canceled is if he dies first.

If he doesn't run, runs and drops out, or is impeached, I'd still lose the bet. That would only be fair, since those things are in part predicated on how he does as president.


Now that's a serious post. It's far enough in advance that neither of us have any great prior knowledge advantage. Lots of things can happen either way between now and then.

And sure, I'll take your offer, and we can either send each other undated checks, or we can just trust each other to pay off. Either way, your call.

But since both of us have fallible memories, I'd suggest we both bookmark this page for future reference, as I did the last time around.

EDIT: Bookmarked
   433. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:28 PM (#5495610)
I bow to nobody in my contempt for Michael Moore, but even citing him is playing into Ray's silliness. The issue wasn't whether some random figure on the right was going to accept Trump's defeat; the issue is whether Trump was going to. If a candidate concedes, then his/her supporters don't matter. If Hillary had said what Moore said, that would be relevant.


Yes. That's the extremely disingenuous game that Ray is always playing WRT Trump. What Trump did/said isn't so bad because some random person somewhere did/said the same thing. He does it so often one might begin to suspect he's not telling the truth about not being a Trump supporter.

And Ray, here's a hint and a half for you: The Democrats are powerless to do anything about Trump. All this Russia, Russia investigation stuff is being brought to you by Trump's own party. The Democrats didn't appoint Mueller, the Democrats can't choose what the various Congressional committe's investigate. The Republicans do and did. Without Republican cooperation, the IS no Russia, Russia. So maybe go yell at them for a while.
   434. PreservedFish Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:31 PM (#5495612)
What happens if Trump dies as a direct result of poor job performance? THEN WHAT HAPPENS???!?!?
   435. perros Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:33 PM (#5495616)
, and yet nobody important has suggested that Trump benefited from fraud or a hacked vote.


Defending Digital Democracy

Americans across the political spectrum agree that political contests should be decided by the power of ideas, not the skill of foreign hackers


Don't know if it's worse if you believe your own distrtions of reality, or if you don't. Facts matter little here. Might as well join the snarkfest.
   436. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:37 PM (#5495621)
What happens if Trump dies as a direct result of poor job performance? THEN WHAT HAPPENS???!?!?
Like, during a wrestling match with the French president? That's part of his official duties, right?
   437. BrianBrianson Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:37 PM (#5495623)
Trump's was not as unpopular as thought by some, certainly not "historically unpopular"


Trump's the most unpopular president this short an amount of time into his term, but not the most ever. Two years into Bush's presidency, (R)s picked up eight house seats. It took six years for them to flip the house on Bush.
   438. perros Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:38 PM (#5495624)
Aside from some idiot like Michael Moore.


Who told you Clinton was going to lose the midwest.
   439. Jay Z Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:38 PM (#5495625)
As far as the Dems needing a strong positive message for 2020, I maintain that 2020 is going to be about Donald Trump.

Look, if you want Trump to lose in 2020, why not look at history? What bothers me about the history is that for an incumbent to lose, they typically have to come across as weak and ineffectual. Trump doesn't really have that profile. I know he has no skills, morals, etc. Plain to see.

But he has charisma. What will be difficult for the Dems in 2020 is the charisma angle. Whomever the Dems nominate in 2020 is likely to be dwarfed by Trump on charisma. That's not good.

So then, we have to rely on the voters to reject Trump. Which they have so far failed to do. Maybe they will in 2020, but I'm not counting on it. Trump will still likely be blustering about in 2020, and he'll still find plenty of suckers who will eat up his every word.

I have said before that primary challenge is the most likely sign of a Trump loss. Will Trump be primaried in 2020? I... really don't think that he will. Again, primary challengers usually rely on newness, excitement, and with Trump that's going to be hard to capture.

Trump is doing damage to the country every single day he is in office. He continued presence in his job is a sign of system failure. It happens. But the system has failed. I am not going to dispute that. So I'm skeptical that after so many failures, somehow things are going to go right this time and Trump will be defeated. I guess I need to be shown.
   440. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:38 PM (#5495626)
Now that's a serious post. It's far enough in advance that neither of us have any great prior knowledge advantage. Lots of things can happen either way between now and then.

And sure, I'll take your offer, and we can either send each other undated checks, or we can just trust each other to pay off. Either way, your call.

But since both of us have fallible memories, I'd suggest we both bookmark this page for future reference, as I did the last time around.


Bookmark the page. I'll take the bet. And I'm happy to trust each other to pay off.

To be clear for the record, the bet is:

* We each have $1,000 and only $1,000 at stake. Whoever loses the bet wins the other person's $1,000.
* If Trump wins the 2020 election I win the bet.
* If anyone else, D or R, wins the 2020 election you win the bet, with the one exception as follows.
* The only exception is that if Trump dies at any point before election day on 2020 the bet is canceled.

Did I accurately summarize the bet according to your understanding?

This tests all of my theories: That impeachment proceedings if started will fail and hurt Democrats; that the RussiaRussia stuff hurts Democrats; that Trump as a power hungry egomaniac will want to run again; that if Trump runs again he'll have a 50-50 chance or better of winning.

You're getting a great deal here as from all of the analysis of the TDSers, Trump has little prayer of winning again in 2020, if he even runs again, if he even survives the first four years. And you get the entire field against him, unless death do our bet part.

EDIT: Actually, with regard to the one exception, to be fair to you, if he declines to run or something and then dies, you would still win the bet. I'm happy to rely on our ability to honestly work out, with the help of others here, any gray areas that may arise if he dies. Surely if he were to die tomorrow or something the bet is simply off.
   441. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:39 PM (#5495627)
What happens if Trump dies as a direct result of poor job performance? THEN WHAT HAPPENS???!?!?

Like, during a wrestling match with the French president? That's part of his official duties, right?

Hey, don't give away my ace in the hole!
   442. McCoy Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:40 PM (#5495629)
A straight up bet for $1000 is worse odds than you can currently get in the betting markets.
   443. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:42 PM (#5495631)
EDIT: Actually, with regard to the one exception, to be fair to you, if he declines to run or something and then dies, you would still win the bet. I'm happy to rely on our ability to honestly work out, with the help of others here if needed, any gray areas that may arise if he dies. Surely if he were to die tomorrow or something the bet is simply off.
   444. perros Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:42 PM (#5495632)
You folks are smart on a lot of levels. But profoundly stupid about politics.*

Now I try to be amused, but it's trying indeed.


*Excepting the few who've actually studied history.
   445. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:43 PM (#5495633)
Bookmark the page. I'll take the bet. And I'm happy to have each other trust us to pay off.

To be clear, the bet is:

* We each have $1,000 and only $1,000 at stake. Whoever loses the bet wins the other person's $1,000.
* If Trump wins the 2020 election I win the bet.
* If anyone else, D or R, wins the 2020 election you win the bet, with the one exception as follows.
* The only exception is that if Trump dies at any point before election day on 2020 the bet is canceled.

Did I accurately summarize the bet according to your understanding?


100%, and I have no problem trusting you to pay off if you should lose. I've never had any reason to think otherwise.

This tests all of my theories: That impeachment proceedings if started will fail and hurt Democrats; that the RussiaRussia stuff hurts Democrats; that Trump as a power hungry egomaniac will want to run again; that if Trump runs again he'll have a 50-50 chance or better of winning.

You're getting a great deal here as from all of the analysis of the TDSers, Trump has little prayer of winning again in 2020, if he even runs again, if he even survives the first four years. And you get the entire field against him, unless death do our bet part.


That's why I called #402 a serious post. As we all know, money talks and bullshit walks.

EDIT: Actually, with regard to the one exception, to be fair to you, if he declines to run or something and then dies, you would still win the bet. I'm happy to rely on our ability to honestly work out, with the help of others here, any gray areas that may arise if he dies. Surely if he were to die tomorrow or something the bet is simply off.

Agreed on all counts.
   446. perros Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:44 PM (#5495634)
You guys are actually going to bet with Rainman against Trump again?

Hahahahahaha
   447. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:44 PM (#5495636)
A straight up bet for $1000 is worse odds than you can currently get in the betting markets.


Could one hedge this bet on the markets then?
   448. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:44 PM (#5495637)
A straight up bet for $1000 is worse odds than you can currently get in the betting markets.


Right, but in this case I'm simply going to put my money where my mouth is.

I realize that this is basically a Bivens style bet, and that I could get far better odds elsewhere, but that's not the point of my bet. (Yes, yes, I know: the point of any bet should be the money. So be it.)
   449. perros Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:46 PM (#5495638)
I guess I need to be shown.

Smart man. I'll wager one marriage was enough, too.
   450. perros Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:50 PM (#5495644)
And politically, making sure his anti-Americanism and Russophilia is constantly hung around his neck is a method to salve as much damage as you can from the howler monkeys shitting on healthcare and the like.


The howler monkey in the mirror is you.
   451. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:51 PM (#5495645)
A straight up bet for $1000 is worse odds than you can currently get in the betting markets.

That would bother me if I cared about the money. To me this is more of a social bet with the $1,000 thrown in just to make it interesting. I always prefer betting with a live person with opinions he's willing to back up with real money, as opposed to setting up an online account and betting against some impersonal computer.

EDIT: What Ray said.
   452. DavidFoss Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:56 PM (#5495647)
If Trump wins the 2020 election I win the bet.


I said this before, but I wouldn't bet against Trump. I mean, he's an embarrassment and a crook with no interest in governing the country, but it will be hard to beat him once he has a specific opponent to fixate on.

If his opponent tries to take the high road with a positive message, he'll blast him/her for being low-energy and not knowing how to fight back. Once the mud starts slinging then Trump is on home court. He can run against the media as well.

Second term won't go much better, but he'll get another SCOTUS pick or two and the Republican base will say that it was all worth it. Yay?

Who runs in 2024? Ivanka or Jared would seem to be the obvious pick but don't think they have his teflon mudslinging skills.
   453. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:57 PM (#5495648)
I bow to nobody in my contempt for Michael Moore, but even citing him is playing into Ray's silliness. The issue wasn't whether some random figure on the right was going to accept Trump's defeat; the issue is whether Trump was going to. If a candidate concedes, then his/her supporters don't matter. If Hillary had said what Moore said, that would be relevant.


Bizarre analysis. Hillary *didn't* accept the results. The preview of this was her whining on election night when she sent Podesta up even after it was clear she couldn't win and then what has followed ever since has been her and her campaign whining about Comey and about Russia.

And yes, it _is_ critical that her supporters haven't accepted the results of the election either, since even aside from what she did it was also HER SUPPORTERS (and the TDSers not on the left such as yourself) who banged on Trump before the election for not accepting the results, back when they were certain they were going to win.
   454. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 05:58 PM (#5495650)
So then, we have to rely on the voters to reject Trump. Which they have so far failed to do.


But he lost the popular vote!!!

</off David>
   455. Jay Z Posted: July 18, 2017 at 06:07 PM (#5495653)
Who runs in 2024? Ivanka or Jared would seem to be the obvious pick but don't think they have his teflon mudslinging skills.


Someone who will lose to a Dem we have never heard of.
   456. BurlyBuehrle Posted: July 18, 2017 at 06:15 PM (#5495660)
You understand that being unhappy about the results of an election and "not accepting" the results of an election are not the same thing, right?

Also, I want a piece of the "bet against Trump in 2020" pie.

I'm willing to accept the terms precisely as outlined above in #445. I understand that I'm not as "known" around here as some of the other regular posters, so I'd be willing to accept whatever reasonable conditions you'd want to impose to ensure payment (we could choose a third party to serve as escrow and each pay our $$ to that escrow agent, say, a month out, just as one suggestion). I will go as high as $5k.
   457. perros Posted: July 18, 2017 at 06:29 PM (#5495664)
Calls to throw the President out of office are a funny way of showing acceptance.
   458. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 06:30 PM (#5495666)
You understand that being unhappy about the results of an election and "not accepting" the results of an election are not the same thing, right?


You do understand that impeachment talk has never stopped, right?

Also, I want a piece of the "bet against Trump in 2020" pie.

I'm willing to accept the terms precisely as outlined above in #445. I understand that I'm not as "known" around here as some of the other regular posters, so I'd be willing to accept whatever reasonable conditions you'd want to impose to ensure payment (we could choose a third party to serve as escrow and each pay our $$ to that escrow agent, say, a month out, just as one suggestion). I will go as high as $5k.


Who do you think I am, Joe Bivens?

The betting window is closed. Not because I think you're not good for the money but simply because I don't want to risk thousands of dollars on this. I have the 1K bet, which is precisely the amount that ended up in my pocket after the Bivens bet (he donated the other 1K to a charity of my choosing), and that will be interesting enough for me.

OTOH if you were to offer me Bivens Odds, 20-1........ I would have to reconsider.
   459. BurlyBuehrle Posted: July 18, 2017 at 06:36 PM (#5495670)
So with 457 we're back to "when Trump does it, it's okay, because he's the POTUS," I see.

Trump should not be impeached simply because I don't like his politics. Trump should not be exonerated simply because he won an election.

He should be impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate, and removed from office if and only if he committed an impeachable offense. That's what the Constitution provides. This isn't difficult, at all.

There's more than sufficient evidence to have Trump investigated. If the investigation turns up nothing, or nothing impeachable, he won't be impeached. Is any of this difficult?

Wanting Trump investigated -- when there's sufficient evidence for such an investigation -- is hardly synonymous with rejecting the results of the election.

Trump won the election. He's the President. Are there some other magic words one would need to utter to qualify as accepting the election results?

EDIT: At 458: totally fair. If you change your mind about how much risk you want tied to the 2020 election result, please feel free to approach me.
   460. Lassus Posted: July 18, 2017 at 06:39 PM (#5495671)
Hillary *didn't* accept the results.

Talk about bizarre.
   461. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 06:50 PM (#5495675)
Hillary *didn't* accept the results.

Talk about bizarre.


She didn't accept them in the same way that Trump wasn't going to accept them: whining about the results.

I know David has fevered visions where he imagines that Trump was going to urge his supporters to stage a violent coup to overthrow President Hillary but it just wasn't the case and, as ever, was just more TDS.
   462. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 18, 2017 at 06:58 PM (#5495679)
But when has any Democrat "not accepted" the results, in the sense that they think that Clinton or Kaine or whoever should be President instead? Aside from some idiot like Michael Moore.

Michael Moore shouldn't take the fall alone. There were a fair number of Democratic activists who favored an Electoral College coup, pretty much the definition of not accepting the election. Quite a few articles on the prospects of impeachment, even before Inauguration Day, too. I suppose you can blame the media for that, but they're pretty much partisans with bylines these days.
   463. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 18, 2017 at 07:01 PM (#5495681)
I think it is way too early to have much idea how 2020 is going to play out. The most important factors are the economy and incumbency, followed by other things like scandals, foreign affairs, legislative accomplishments and miscellaneous.

We know exactly zero about any of them, except if it is against Trump he will have incumbency.
   464. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 18, 2017 at 07:42 PM (#5495701)
Ray, #408:
But go ahead, impeach away. Let's see what comes of it.


Obviously I could impeach away any time I wanted. I just don't choose to.

Because it's much more fun watching the first presidency to ever implode and burn on the launching pad.

It's fun to see Donald Trump aimlessly crawling on his belly, all growl and no bite, like the legless zombie from the first episode of "The Walking Dead."

And it's fun to see people tirelessly defending the indefensible. Only peeling away slowly, one dispirited advocate at a time. If all of the Trumpketeers quit cheerleading practice at once, a huge entertainment aspect of this presidency would be lost. And the only person left to fully enjoy Donald Trump's place in U.S. history would be George W. Bush.


-----------


Clapper, #429:
If the Republicans pick up (roughly) 2-3 Senate seats and lose just 12-15 House seats, it'll demonstrate that Democratic/public opposition to Trump will have had minimal effect on the 2018 elections. Is anybody betting the over?

Over the last 21 midterm elections, the party out of power averaged a 30 seat pickup in the House of Representatives. You can get slightly different numbers if you vary the end points a bit, but the Democrats (194 seats*) are closer to a majority than the GOP was in 1994 (176 seats) & 2010 (178 seats), the last 2 times they flipped the House. If the Democrats do as well as they did when they flipped the House in 2006 (+32), they would have an 17 seat House majority. If the Democrats were to fall short, one would have to conclude that (1) Trump's was not as unpopular as thought by some, certainly not "historically unpopular"; and/or (2) despite Trump's alleged unpopularity, voters were unwilling to embrace Democratic Congressional Candidates to the extent they embraced opposition party candidates in prior midterm elections.



This was crapola the previous several times you've wanted to preemptively set the bar high, and it's still crapola.

Your "30 seat average pickup over the last 21 midterm elections" is a mark that was reached 9 times in those 21 elections. Also, the average pickup over the last 21 midterm elections is 27 seats, not 30.

But you're right about varying end points a bit; make it the last 20 midterms instead of the last 21, and the average is 25 seats. (No wonder that 72-seat pickup from the 21st midterm in 1938 looks so tasty.)

More relevantly, your "average" 30-seat pickup was reached 3 times in the last 10 elections. The average 30-seat pickup is less common than small, single-digit swings.

The average House pickup over the last ten midterms is 20 seats. The average pickup over the last five midterms is 18 seats.

And 1994, 2006 and 2010 aren't just your examples of midterm success, they're the only three times that party control of the House of Representatives has flipped in a midterm since 1950. It's happened just 7 times in the 29 midterms since 1900.

It must be hard work trying to convince someone, anyone, that a 25-seat Democratic House "shortfall" would be an "historic underperformance." Pace yourself.


----------


Brian B, #437:
Trump's the most unpopular president this short an amount of time into his term, but not the most ever. Two years into Bush's presidency, (R)s picked up eight house seats. It took six years for them to flip the house on Bush.


At this point in George W. Bush's presidency, he had an approval rating of 57%.

In July 2002, Bush's approval was between 69% and 76%, a residual effect of the 9/11 attacks. It was 68% on Election Day.

What do we imagine Donald Trump's approval rating will have risen to by November 2018, and what would we have to blow up to get it there?
   465. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 18, 2017 at 07:49 PM (#5495714)
What happens if Trump dies as a direct result of poor job performance? THEN WHAT HAPPENS???!?!?


Everyone has a celebratory drink?
   466. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 18, 2017 at 07:51 PM (#5495716)
What do we imagine Donald Trump's approval rating will have risen to by November 2018, and what would we have to blow up to get it there?


99% and The White House, just like in Independence Day. It will be Trump's stirring speech rallying humanity against the aliens that will make it a slam dunk.
   467. greenback slays lewks Posted: July 18, 2017 at 07:51 PM (#5495717)
What bothers me about the history is that for an incumbent to lose, they typically have to come across as weak and ineffectual. Trump doesn't really have that profile.


I don't know. The inability to replace Obamacare is pretty damning, and apparently almost every other legislative objective is sitting on the shelf until that gets done. His foreign policy to this point has been to make the US irrelevant. I don't see that turning around, because Trump has no clue about handling a large bureaucracy. I get your point, that he'll bluster on Twitter all he wants, but at some point this Controversy becomes stale. Is he really going to whine about Clinton and Obama all the way to 2020? That sounds so boring.
   468. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 18, 2017 at 07:53 PM (#5495718)
The howler monkey in the mirror is you.


Don't you have something to blame America for? I assume you have a quota, Vlad.
   469. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 18, 2017 at 07:54 PM (#5495719)
Calls to throw the President out of office are a funny way of showing acceptance.


There is no president. There's a simpering #### soiling the Oval Office.
   470. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 18, 2017 at 08:21 PM (#5495738)
Your "30 seat average pickup over the last 21 midterm elections" is a mark that was reached 9 times in those 21 elections. Also, the average pickup over the last 21 midterm elections is 27 seats, not 30. . . . The average House pickup over the last ten midterms is 20 seats. The average pickup over the last five midterms is 18 seats.

And 1994, 2006 and 2010 aren't just your examples of midterm success, they're the only three times that party control of the House of Representatives has flipped in a midterm since 1950. It's happened just 7 times in the 29 midterms since 1900.

As far as the 30 seat historical average, Wikipedia says the president's party averages a loss of 30 seats, take the math up with them. In one breath, Gonfalon contends that Trump is historically unpopular, but in the next breath he contends that it would be unfair to measure the Democrats' 2018 performance against how other opposition parties did against unpopular Presidents. That's absurd.

Looking at data from 1994 onward might be more interesting - for 50 years before that there was a Democratic lock on the House that Bill Clinton (and House Dems own arrogance) finally kicked away. If Democrats don't really think they have as much chance of flipping the House as the opposition parties in 1994, 2006 & 2010, they are admitting that either Trump isn't as unpopular as they claim, or that despite his unpopularity voters aren't as willing to embrace the opposition party as was the case in prior elections.
   471. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 18, 2017 at 08:26 PM (#5495740)
The way Clapper whores it out for Trump you'd be excused mistaking him for a Eastern European "fashion model."
   472. BrianBrianson Posted: July 18, 2017 at 08:28 PM (#5495744)
Democrats refused to accept the results of the election!


Really?

Well, they didn't throw Trump a party, which is the same!
   473. DavidFoss Posted: July 18, 2017 at 08:37 PM (#5495750)
for 50 years before that there was a Democratic lock on the House that Bill Clinton (and House Dems own arrogance) finally kicked away.


Their own arrogance? You guys really pile on the spin. This was the around the time the conservative southern Democrats flipped to the Republican party. Before that, people were still too upset about Reconstruction. The 1978 midterms (for the previous Democratic president) looks upside compared to the 1990s. So, no ideological flip.
   474. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 18, 2017 at 08:49 PM (#5495756)
Their own arrogance? You guys really pile on the spin. This was the around the time the conservative southern Democrats flipped to the Republican party. Before that, people were still too upset about Reconstruction. The 1978 midterms (for the previous Democratic president) looks upside compared to the 1990s. So, no ideological flip.

The Dems arrogance was a reference to the scandals associated with the House Bank, the House Post Office & even the House Gift Shop. Voters may struggle a bit with the intricacies of economic policy or foreign relations, but outright graft they understand. It's not a coincidence that the GOP breakthrough came after those scandals, although it certainly helped that many House Dems were out of touch with their districts, and Bill Clinton's poor start to his presidency was icing on the cake.
   475. PreservedFish Posted: July 18, 2017 at 08:52 PM (#5495759)
False equivalencies keep happening. We've got two different definitions of "not accept the election results."

The Trump/Repo version is: do not accept results as legitimate, and, even after winning (!), claim there was widespread fraud and that the vote was rigged
The Hillary/Demo version is: accept the election as legitimate, immediately begin working to boot Trump out of office

The latter is a (arguably lamentable) continuation of the bipartisan trend of escalating political intransigence. The former is just pure bullshit.
   476. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 18, 2017 at 08:52 PM (#5495760)
Voters may struggle a bit with the intricacies of economic policy or foreign relations, but outright graft they understand.

Understand and endorse, if they're Trump voters. "He's a smart businessman!"
   477. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: July 18, 2017 at 09:13 PM (#5495773)
An inventory, from Politico’s Playbook. Trump is not doing so well:

“A QUICK STATUS UPDATE ON THE PRESIDENT'S AGENDA -- Health care repeal and replace: Stalled, dead for now, with a very uncertain future ... Infrastructure: No true signs of life. The low-hanging fruit -- privatizing the FAA -- is even facing an uphill climb ... Tax reform: Very uncertain. The House and Senate have to pass a fiscal year 2018 budget, which will be very difficult. Conservatives are already buzzing about killing it -- and thereby, ending the prospects for tax reform. If they are able to pass the budget, there is widespread disagreement about what tax reform should look like. ... Government spending: The appropriations process has started, but not a single bill has passed either chamber. Government spending runs dry at the end of September. ... The debt ceiling: There is no plan to lift the nation's borrowing limit and there's intense disagreement within the Trump administration -- and in Congress -- about how to proceed.”
   478. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: July 18, 2017 at 09:24 PM (#5495775)
The Dems arrogance was a reference to the scandals associated with the House Bank, the House Post Office & even the House Gift Shop.


The sheer volume of Trump #### you can holster in one sitting is astounding.
   479. Greg K Posted: July 18, 2017 at 09:25 PM (#5495776)
Greg K, please post something controversial.

My favourite ice cream is vanilla.

Does that count?
   480. PreservedFish Posted: July 18, 2017 at 09:40 PM (#5495783)
favourite

You monster
   481. DavidFoss Posted: July 18, 2017 at 09:58 PM (#5495798)
My favourite ice cream is vanilla.


Tahitian or Madagascar? Bean specks?
   482. Greg K Posted: July 18, 2017 at 10:02 PM (#5495802)
Specks for sure!

I don't think I've ever knowingly had Tahitian, but I like Madagascar.
   483. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 18, 2017 at 10:26 PM (#5495822)
Healthcare push leaves Republicans in disarray

A months-long push from Senate Republican leaders to repeal ObamaCare crashed and burned on Tuesday, leaving the GOP with no clear path forward on its top legislative priority.

The collapse of the effort came at stunning speed, with Republicans shooting down Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) effort to revive ObamaCare repeal in just a little over 12 hours.

On Tuesday, GOP leadership insisted that there would still be a vote on healthcare in the chamber, but it’s no longer a matter of repealing the law — it’s about bringing finality to a legislative push that appears to have reached the end of the road.
   484. greenback slays lewks Posted: July 18, 2017 at 10:45 PM (#5495833)
Does that count?

No. You must weigh-in on Michael Wood's "Story of..." series instead.
   485. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 10:58 PM (#5495837)
I said this before, but I wouldn't bet against Trump. I mean, he's an embarrassment and a crook with no interest in governing the country, but it will be hard to beat him once he has a specific opponent to fixate on.
Why? He did quite poorly in the general election in 2016. 46% of the vote. Even Hillary was able to beat that showing. And he has only gotten less popular since.

And his showing in the GOP primaries wasn't exactly impressive, either. I mean, yes, he did better than the other candidates, but it was the weakest showing by an eventual nominee since the modern primary system began.
   486. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM (#5495838)
Bizarre analysis. Hillary *didn't* accept the results.
Words have meaning. She did. She conceded and everything. Being a sore loser is not failing to accept the results.

And yes, it _is_ critical that her supporters haven't accepted the results of the election either, since even aside from what she did it was also HER SUPPORTERS (and the TDSers not on the left such as yourself) who banged on Trump before the election for not accepting the results, back when they were certain they were going to win.
It's not only not "critical," but stupid. The issue was not "supporters." The issue was the candidate.
   487. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:08 PM (#5495841)
Trump in 2012:

Obama's complaints about Republicans stopping his agenda are BS since he had full control for two years. He can never take responsibility.


Trump in 2017:

“With only a very small majority, the Republicans in the House & Senate need more victories next year since Dems totally obstruct, no votes!”
   488. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:09 PM (#5495842)
You do understand that impeachment talk has never stopped, right?
You do understand that you can only impeach the guy who won, right? Talk about impeachment necessarily involves accepting the results first.
   489. Random Transaction Generator Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:18 PM (#5495845)
Voters may struggle a bit with the intricacies of economic policy or foreign relations, but outright graft they understand.

Understand and endorse, if they're Trump voters. "He's a smart businessman!"


Since other politicians have done it, it would be immoral of him not to try!
   490. DavidFoss Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:20 PM (#5495846)
Why? He did quite poorly in the general election in 2016. 46% of the vote. Even Hillary was able to beat that showing. And he has only gotten less popular since.


I am being a bit pessimistic, but every time it seem like he's hit a new low, he just tweets out a few taunts about fake news, changes the subject and moves on. I don't see him winning in a landslide but he could easily win another close one by campaigning against the media, sowing discontent against the democrats, taking his opponent down to his level and relying on low voter turnout because people don't think they have good choices. He'll get creamed in NY & CA again -- perhaps by even larger margins -- but I could totally see him running the table in WI-MI-PA-OH again.
   491. Count Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:45 PM (#5495857)
I really enjoy the Greg K history posts. Keep them coming! Who's the best 15th-17th century Trump analogue?
   492. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:50 PM (#5495860)
Why? He did quite poorly in the general election in 2016. 46% of the vote. Even Hillary was able to beat that showing. And he has only gotten less popular since.

And his showing in the GOP primaries wasn't exactly impressive, either. I mean, yes, he did better than the other candidates, but it was the weakest showing by an eventual nominee since the modern primary system began.


You keep saying this. I have to conclude that you really don't see how ridiculous it looks now that Not Sam's President is in fact in office.
   493. Count Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:52 PM (#5495861)
Several major Trump scandals will likely have broken by the midterms, plus a constant stream of minor, ongoing scandals (graft, ignorance, incompetence, etc). It's a very volatile environment, not even counting for possibility of some non-self imposed crisis, so very hard to predict. If one of the scandals (like even more open evidence of collusion) actually leads to some GOP leaders taking substantive steps against Trump things could go south for him in a hurry, but who knows, there does seem to be a floor of 25-30% that will never abandon him. And maybe having already stolen one SCOTUS seat he gets to appoint another justice, which would make republicans happy and bolster his approval.
   494. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:55 PM (#5495864)
Bizarre analysis. Hillary *didn't* accept the results.

Words have meaning. She did. She conceded and everything. Being a sore loser is not failing to accept the results.


Of course it is.

Unless you're arguing that Trump actually WAS planning to lead a violent overthrow of President Hillary.

And yes, it _is_ critical that her supporters haven't accepted the results of the election either, since even aside from what she did it was also HER SUPPORTERS (and the TDSers not on the left such as yourself) who banged on Trump before the election for not accepting the results, back when they were certain they were going to win.

It's not only not "critical," but stupid. The issue was not "supporters." The issue was the candidate.


That was one issue. The other issue was that Hillary's supporters, and the laughably-called "Never Trumpers," were upset about Trump's preemptive failure to accept the results. So those people also, despite bleating about Trump not accepting results, then themselves refused to accept the results.
   495. Count Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:55 PM (#5495865)
If dems get the house in 2018 they will investigate Trump and almost certainly uncover a ton of dirt, so that might also help in 2020. 2020 is a lonnnnng ways away, though.

It's really a constant embarrassment and shock that Trump is president - someone reminded me of birtherism today and I was jolted once again that this jackass is POTUS. Enjoy your liberal tears.
   496. Count Posted: July 18, 2017 at 11:59 PM (#5495868)
I knew some people who didn't "accept the results" the way the rest of us think of the term (I mean, the way Ray probably thinks of the term except for the purpose of making this silly argument). That is, I knew people who bought into the idea that the Russians or whoever else hacked the election *results*, which never made sense for a bunch of reasons and especially because demographic shifts seemed to be pretty consistent across states that HRC won and Trump won (i.e., the shift in rural whites was similar enough in western NY, where she lost the state overall, and PA, where she lost). HRC and other democratic leaders, as far as I know, never bought into that. Trump, of course, insisted that millions of illegal immigrants voted so that he actually won the popular vote.
   497. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 19, 2017 at 12:05 AM (#5495871)
Several major Trump scandals will likely have broken by the midterms, plus a constant stream of minor, ongoing scandals (graft, ignorance, incompetence, etc). It's a very volatile environment, not even counting for possibility of some non-self imposed crisis, so very hard to predict. If one of the scandals (like even more open evidence of collusion) actually leads to some GOP leaders taking substantive steps against Trump things could go south for him in a hurry, but who knows, there does seem to be a floor of 25-30% that will never abandon him. And maybe having already stolen one SCOTUS seat he gets to appoint another justice, which would make republicans happy and bolster his approval.


Two issues to note here:

1. As we know, his supporters will never leave him. So he'll have his base in the primaries again. (*) Now, in a normal cycle the sitting president would have few challengers from his own party after four years, but this of course won't be a normal cycle. It won't be taboo to challenge Trump -- in fact, it will be *encouraged* by the idiot elites such as David Brooks and Bill Kristol. And so for the Republicans everyone and their brother will be lining up to challenge Trump..... and.... presto! He has his fractured field back. And then his supporters will power him through the primaries, just like last time.

(*) Actually I expect he'll have closer to 50% support rather than 35% since now he's "proven" that he can be president rather than it just being a ridiculous notion that will never come to pass. (I know, I know. "Proven" means nothing here other than "literally has been president." But that's all it will take.)

He'll be the Republican nominee.

The Republicans' only chance is to coalesce around just one or two candidates rather than having 15 floating around, but (a) that will be difficult to do, and (b) his base will be in no mood to vote for the typical loser establishment Republican.

2. You mention the SCOTUS issue, and as we know that will STILL be a driving issue for the same people who were driven by the issue the last time.

So interestingly we see that a lot of the same factors will be in place.

I imagine The Hillary Experience won't happen again -- though I wouldn't be shocked if it did -- but I expect her to try. She'll always be younger than Trump! So age won't be a reason for her not to try.
   498. Count Posted: July 19, 2017 at 12:11 AM (#5495873)
1. As we know, his supporters will never leave him. So he'll have his base in the primaries again. (*) Now, in a normal cycle the sitting president would have few challengers from his own party after four years, but this of course won't be a normal cycle. It won't be taboo to challenge Trump -- in fact, it will be *encouraged* by the idiot elites such as David Brooks and Bill Kristol. And so for the Republicans everyone and their brother will be lining up to challenge Trump..... and.... presto! He has his fractured field back. And then his supporters will power him through the primaries, just like last time.

(*) Actually I expect he'll have closer to 50% support rather than 35% since now he's "proven" that he can be president rather than it just being a ridiculous notion that will never come to pass. (I know, I know. "Proven" means nothing here other than "literally has been president." But that's all it will take.)


That's interesting but I feel like it goes the other way - he is incompetent and out of his depth and seems to be deteriorating, to the extent that casual voters who bought into the idea he was a businessman and would shake things up etc. may have noticed that he has no idea what he's doing.

However, he will be able to galvanize against an opponent (like he is STILL doing with Hillary "Goldenstein" Clinton) so some of the soft GOP that's abandoned him will probably go back.
   499. Count Posted: July 19, 2017 at 12:15 AM (#5495876)
He also (as someone pointed out upthread) has some real charisma - he had a great line about McCain (something like "I hope he gets well, great guy, also we need his vote").
   500. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 19, 2017 at 12:23 AM (#5495882)
Flip.
Page 5 of 31 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
--
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogWeekend OMNICHATTER for September 22-23, 2018
(161 - 6:22pm, Sep 23)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(2207 - 6:21pm, Sep 23)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogTim Anderson's eventful day at the yard ends with shot at Joe West: 'Everybody knows he's terrible'
(2 - 6:07pm, Sep 23)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogTickets available as Marlins host Reds
(40 - 5:38pm, Sep 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(384 - 5:15pm, Sep 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(531 - 5:13pm, Sep 23)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

Sox TherapyIT’S OVER
(7 - 4:31pm, Sep 23)
Last: Darren

NewsblogMariners extend longest postseason drought in major North American sports to 17 years
(3 - 4:25pm, Sep 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogWainwright impresses Giants' Bochy
(14 - 4:14pm, Sep 23)
Last: caspian88

NewsblogHall of Famer John Smoltz says MLB needs an overhaul and proposes drastic changes
(86 - 3:32pm, Sep 23)
Last: Toby

NewsblogDodgers outfielder Yasiel Puig burglarized for the fourth time
(10 - 1:36pm, Sep 23)
Last: Bote Man the walk-off king

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(164 - 1:36pm, Sep 23)
Last: Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com

NewsblogFive Tool Players | Articles | Bill James Online
(1 - 1:33pm, Sep 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(825 - 12:26pm, Sep 23)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogJeff Banister fired as Texas Rangers manager
(12 - 11:55am, Sep 23)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

Page rendered in 0.7325 seconds
46 querie(s) executed