Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

jobbridge4life

jooksavage wrote: »

Trump's biggest problem with his base now is that they simply lose interest as he becomes boring, trotting out the same old catchphrases like a sitcom that should have been cancelled 2 seasons ago.

That question has been on my mind a lot lately. When will his supporters become jaded and just bored by the same old stuff being shouted at them again and again? Even if you 'believe' in Trump, at some point you've heard this all a hundred times or more. Sheer boredom has to kick in sometime.

spacecoyote

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So has there been a decrease in overall registered Republicans or just a shift in the mix ?

As an aside , the whole concept of "Registered" Republican/Democrat/Independent is just very weird to me - I mean , why?

This is the piece:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-would-it-take-for-trump-to-get-primaried/

The piece I quoted states:

Some political scientists have concluded that a bloc of Trump detractors who were once Republicans are now describing themselves as independents. Pew Research Center data suggests that a big bloc of people under 30 in particular have left the Republican Party in the Trump era. If many Republicans who dislike Trump are removing themselves from the sample, that would boost his average among those who remain. So if calling yourself a Republican essentially means that you like Trump, of course Trump’s approval rating is very high among Republicans

Looking at a bit of the underlying data linked to, it seems to say that somewhere between 4%-11% have left the Rep party since Dec 2015. With under 30s being the biggest hit, stating that almost a quarter of those identifying as Rep have left.

There have been defections in the opposite direction too obviously. But if you look at the numbers for people under the age of 50, there would appear to be a net defection from the reps of around 14%. In over 50s, there is a net defection of around 3% to the Reps.

You would think that, it implies, if the regular voters (ie the older population) come out in their normal numbers, and the younger voters don't remain energised, then that would give him a decent chance of getting back in

FreudianSlippers

spacecoyote wrote: »

This is the piece:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-would-it-take-for-trump-to-get-primaried/

The piece I quoted states:



Looking at a bit of the underlying data linked to, it seems to say that somewhere between 4%-11% have left the Rep party since Dec 2015. With under 30s being the biggest hit, stating that almost a quarter of those identifying as Rep have left.

There have been defections in the opposite direction too obviously. But if you look at the numbers for people under the age of 50, there would appear to be a net defection from the reps of around 14%. In over 50s, there is a net defection of around 3% to the Reps.

You would think that, it implies, if the regular voters (ie the older population) come out in their normal numbers, and the younger voters don't remain energised, then that would give him a decent chance of getting back in

I'm in my mid-30s, centrist and was registered Republican until the nomination of Trump by the party; I'm now registered Democrat.

Leroy42

But it would appear that the younger voters are very much more energised that previously. Am I right in that the Mid-terms had a relatively high turnout in comparison to previous mid-terms?

My understanding was that increase was in large part to an increased youth vote, and certainly the level of diversity and women elected would point away from conservatives and older from being the source.

Leroy42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm in my mid-30s, centrist and was registered Republican until the nomination of Trump by the party; I'm now registered Democrat.

OT, but can I ask you why you register at all? Is it because you now 'follow the club' in soccer parlance or is registering roughly the same as stating in a poll your intention, having no actual impact on what you may vote for.

I always struggle to understand why anybody would be a member of a political party (or rather I view it with cynicism). Vote on the issues

FreudianSlippers

Leroy42 wrote: »

But it would appear that the younger voters are very much more energised that previously. Am I right in that the Mid-terms had a relatively high turnout in comparison to previous mid-terms?

My understanding was that increase was in large part to an increased youth vote, and certainly the level of diversity and women elected would point away from conservatives and older from being the source.

An estimated 31% of eligible people ages 18 to 29 voted in the 2018 midterms, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). This exceeds participation from the same age group in the 2014 midterms by about 10 percentage points but is still far below the number that voted in the 2016 presidential election, when 51% of eligible millennial voters cast a ballot.

The problem, I believe, will be keeping that momentum into the primaries and then keeping that going if the "youth favourite" isn't the one that wins the primary.

For example, if Beto/Harris are widely popular with younger voters in the primaries, but the Democratic ticket is something like Warren/Biden (etc.) how do they entice young voters to come out and vote in the election?

Mitch Connor

Leroy42 wrote: »

OT, but can I ask you why you register at all? Is it because you now 'follow the club' in soccer parlance or is registering roughly the same as stating in a poll your intention, having no actual impact on what you may vote for.

I always struggle to understand why anybody would be a member of a political party (or rather I view it with cynicism). Vote on the issues

Isn't it that only registered members can vote in the respective primaries? (probably other things... but I think thats one issue anyway)

Leroy42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

For example, if Beto/Harris are widely popular with younger voters in the primaries, but the Democratic ticket is something like Warren/Biden (etc.) how do they entice young voters to come out and vote in the election?

Very true, and a clear lesson that the DNC should have learned from the 2016 debacle.

However, I would think that the Anti-Trump vote is actually quite a significant force.

Hopefully the Bernie supporters of 2016 have realised that annoyed as they may be at not winning the primaries, either staying away or voting for Trump is the worst possible answer. For a liberal/DNC type voter there is little doubt that HC would have been far preferrable, although I accept not a good choice, rather than letting Trump win as they helped to do.

The GOP fully understand this and that is why they get behind whatever person is in the race.

FreudianSlippers

Leroy42 wrote: »

OT, but can I ask you why you register at all? Is it because you now 'follow the club' in soccer parlance or is registering roughly the same as stating in a poll your intention, having no actual impact on what you may vote for.

I always struggle to understand why anybody would be a member of a political party (or rather I view it with cynicism). Vote on the issues

I was registered in a closed-primary State (NY) previously and wanted to vote in the Republican primary, so it was necessary to register in order to do so - I was then living for a few years full time back in Ireland and was getting overseas voter ballots sent to me. I started living 50/50 between LA and Dublin about 2.5 years ago - California has a weird open primary process since 2015, but I just never "de-registered" until Trump was nominated; once that happened I registered Democrat more as a two-finger to the new GOP establishment than for any real reason. However, if I lived in a closed-primary State I'd need to be registered to vote in the Democratic primary.

MadYaker

More of the same nonsense from him so? That's a bit dull I was hoping for something a bit more exciting, although I feel bad saying as this isn't a TV show. But if it was it would be the best political drama ever. I don't think that speech will do much to end the shutdown or get the wall built.

spacecoyote

It appears that Rosenstein is planning to leave once the new AG is appointed.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/09/rod-rosenstein-deputy-attorney-general-to-leave-justice-department/2522785002/

Could be implications for the Mueller probe depending on the new AG

Call me Al

Leroy42 wrote: »

Don't the polls show that he consistently ranges within the mid 30's? He neither goes up or down too much. Wouldn't that be his base and it would appear pretty solid, in fact very solid, to me.

I think a large proportion of that 30%+ is comprised of Republican-at-all-cost voters. Lucifer himself could be on the ballot and once there was a big R beside his name they'd vote for him.
So whilst yes there is 30%+ for him they aren't necessarily supporting him because they're Trump fans. His true Trump support, as opposed to his R support, is likely a fair bit less than that. They just happen to be loud and nasty, and court controversy, thus making great headlines.

everlast75

spacecoyote wrote: »

It appears that Rosenstein is planning to leave once the new AG is appointed.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/09/rod-rosenstein-deputy-attorney-general-to-leave-justice-department/2522785002/

Could be implications for the Mueller probe depending on the new AG

Considering we are 6 months behind, and the collusion is nearly done, with a number of various aspects outsourced to other departments, I've no concerns.

Gbear

everlast75 wrote: »

Considering we are 6 months behind, and the collusion is nearly done, with a number of various aspects outsourced to other departments, I've no concerns.

And also that the House can now subpoena Mueller to give his findings, or, I think, even rehire him if the probe is shut down before it's finished the investigation.

I can't imagine there's any way for the Republicans to destroy the evidence he has collected. It was apparently a huge concern during Watergate when the office was closed, so the investigators took all the paperwork home and did it on their own time for a bit. In the digital age, it strikes me as more difficult.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The problem, I believe, will be keeping that momentum into the primaries and then keeping that going if the "youth favourite" isn't the one that wins the primary.

For example, if Beto/Harris are widely popular with younger voters in the primaries, but the Democratic ticket is something like Warren/Biden (etc.) how do they entice young voters to come out and vote in the election?

Given that the youth vote got results in winning the house and mitigating the losses in the Senate pretty well, it should keep them energised. And they don't need much to beat the Republicans. It was fine margins, and, as we've seen, probably swayed directly by targeted Russian interference in battleground states.

James Brown

I think the wall is doing great for him. There's little talk of his numerous legal problems.
He bare face lied in that address and his base are on Twitter thanking and god blessing him. He's fear mongering to cause distraction IMO. The man is a disgrace.
He gave himself an out last night. He said he'd make it a steel barrier instead of a concrete wall as per the democrats request. That's a lie but cleverly, there already is a barrier exactly like that in all the places the security personnel actually want it, (building it across the whole stretch is pointless they say) so he can probably get nothing done and still claim a victory.

everlast75

Gbear wrote: »

And also that the House can now subpoena Mueller to give his findings, or, I think, even rehire him if the probe is shut down before it's finished the investigation.

I can't imagine there's any way for the Republicans to destroy the evidence he has collected. It was apparently a huge concern during Watergate when the office was closed, so the investigators took all the paperwork home and did it on their own time for a bit. In the digital age, it strikes me as more difficult.



Given that the youth vote got results in winning the house and mitigating the losses in the Senate pretty well, it should keep them energised. And they don't need much to beat the Republicans. It was fine margins, and, as we've seen, probably swayed directly by targeted Russian interference in battleground states.

Fast moving story re RR. Maybe him leaving and the work being complete will be soon!


https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1082985097006116864?s=19

Thomas_IV

https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2019/0108/1022086-trump-eu-diplomats/

Trump administration lowers status of EU diplomats in US

An EU official told DW that at Mr Bush’s funeral, as diplomats gathered in Washington to pay their respects, Mr O’Sullivan was not called up in the usual chronological order from the longest-serving to the newest ambassador. Mr O’Sullivan was instead called up as the last person.

Before the demotion, Mr O’Sullivan would have been ranked among the first 20 or 30 ambassadors of the more than 150 foreign representatives sent to Washington DC.

US diplomats in Brussels were not immediately available for comment.

I think that this incident and change of course would be worthy to be considered when Saint Patrick's Day approaches and the Trumple gets his bowl of shamrock this year.

This is no President, he's just a bully in the WH and still behaves like that. There's apparently no misconduct reported which might have been committed by the Irish Diplomat, but there's lots of explanation that this is all due to the wavering moods of the Bully himself.

MadYaker

If he declared a national emergency and got the army to build the wall would it come out of the military budget. 750 billion for the military, Trump wants 7.5 for his fence. Surely they could sort something out there? Taking money from the obscenely large military spend which was not a popular move (even with his base) would seem like a pretty good compromise to me?

Are democrats opposed to a wall / fence full stop or are they just opposed to spending the money on it? I think both sides agree that there needs to be more security on the southern border.

Quin_Dub

MadYaker wrote: »

If he declared a national emergency and got the army to build the wall would it come out of the military budget. 750 billion for the military, Trump wants 7.5 for his fence. Surely they could sort something out there? Taking money from the obscenely large military spend which was not a popular move (even with his base) would seem like a pretty good compromise to me?

Are democrats opposed to a wall / fence full stop or are they just opposed to spending the money on it? I think both sides agree that there needs to be more security on the southern border.

They are opposed to spending money on something that simply doesn't work - Which is the wall that Trump is proposing...

The Wall/Fence that is already in place actually covers all the areas that the experts feel is needed.. It needs repair/upgrade in places but not extension.

They are happy to spend money on more Immigrant court resources , more staff to patrol the border etc. etc. but Trump wants to "build a wall"..

Penn

MadYaker wrote: »

If he declared a national emergency and got the army to build the wall would it come out of the military budget. 750 billion for the military, Trump wants 7.5 for his fence. Surely they could sort something out there? Taking money from the obscenely large military spend which was not a popular move (even with his base) would seem like a pretty good compromise to me?

Are democrats opposed to a wall / fence full stop or are they just opposed to spending the money on it? I think both sides agree that there needs to be more security on the southern border.

The Dems seem to be absolutely willing to spend more money on border security and increasing security in general along the border. That's not an issue. The issue for them is Trump is pushing for a wall because it was his biggest campaign promise, even though just "a wall" is incredibly expensive, troublesome and doesn't address the issues he's claiming it will because most drugs, terrorists etc enter the US through legal points of entry rather than trying to cross the border (and if anything, the government shutdown is opening the door to those because so many employees such as TSA employees are calling in sick or quitting due to not being paid).

The only reason anyone is discussing a wall, is because Trump wants (and promised) a wall. Regardless of who funds it though (for some reason I don't think Mexico is going to pay for it), a wall will not address crime or immigration. But it's something Trump can point to and say "I said I would do this and I did this" and claim it worked even if it doesn't.

everlast75

The public don't want it (see mid term results)
The Republicans in house and Senate doesn't want it (they are happy to vote to re-open the government)
The dems don't want it.

The only person who wants it (or to fight for it) is Trump and the likes of Limbaugh. The rest couldn't give two hoots

jooksavage

As the New York Times recently reported, the "build the wall" stuff was just a rhetorical device invented by Trumps campaign team because he was too thick to effectively articulate anything more three word slogans. It's absolutely surreal that government has been shut down over this. Even more surreal and absolutely disgraceful that the Republicans, including allegedly "sensible" ones like Romney are kowtowing to this.

The way they all talk about the wall is just nuts, as if it could just be thrown up in a single term, completely disregarding that sections of the border that the Bush, and later, Obama administrations deemed necessary to fence remain open to this day. Why? Because of lawsuits by landowners on the border challenging the governments claim of Eminent Domain over their property.

Brian?

everlast75 wrote: »

We are told that Trump has "a base"? We are told that this 35% odd percent that will vote for him whatever he does.

Just a couple of questions.

Why are the rest of the US beholden to them?

Do the Dems not have a solid 35%, who will (failing blatant obstruction or abuse of power) vote for the Dem regardless? If they do, how come we never hear about the Dem "base"? Why don't they hold equal power to the Republican base? Why do they never factor into polls, or are discussed in the news?

Because they didn't bother their holes to get out and vote. I'm constantly amazed at how abysmal presidential election turn outs are.

I think I worked it out that about 27% of the US electorate voted for Trump. I'm open to correction on that.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nat silver really cleaned up his bias , all through 2016 and 2017 they were constantly under representing conservative support for anything, seems to be a lot more on the ball these days

Seriously? Nate might be a democrat at heart but numbers don't lie.

Can you point to one poll where "conservative support" was underrepresented?

FreudianSlippers

Brian? wrote: »

Because they didn't bother their holes to get out and vote. I'm constantly amazed at how abysmal presidential election turn outs are.

I think I worked it out that about 27% of the US electorate voted for Trump. I'm open to correction on that.

In fairness there is a lot of voter suppression as well.

hotmail.com

Probably a nice boost in ratings for the news channels yesterday. They love a good hyped speech.

Itssoeasy

That quote that a "drone won't stop a 1,000 people" Does Trump think the border is like the start line of the Dublin marathon and 1,000 people are standing in a line on the Mexican side of the border.

Eric Cartman

Brian? wrote: »

Seriously? Nate might be a democrat at heart but numbers don't lie.

Can you point to one poll where "conservative support" was underrepresented?

The numbers don't lie but their weighting of different polls has changed, they used to put a lot of loading onto polls that lean conservatively, now they put less loading. As I said before, they had an issue, they corrected it. Look at literally any of their weighted polling for the 2016 election and you'll see it was way beyond the margin of error out for every state when for once rasmussen was actually close in a lot of cases.

prawnsambo

Brian? wrote: »

Because they didn't bother their holes to get out and vote. I'm constantly amazed at how abysmal presidential election turn outs are.

I think I worked it out that about 27% of the US electorate voted for Trump. I'm open to correction on that.

I'm actually not surprised. When you look at the massive waiting times, huge ballot papers, opaque and arbitrary voter registration systems, malfunctioning machines and poor candidates, i'm surprised anyone votes.

Igotadose

Amidst all the border/speech kerfuffle, it seems like Manafort's lawyers ('the best people') failed to electronically redact some information in a court filing, so it remained searchable in the court's database, showing Manafort met with Konstantin Kiliminik (Kremlin operative) to talk about Ukraine-related stuff and share electoral polling information *during the Trump campaign.* This puts the kibosh on yet *another* lie from the POTUS that whatever Manafort is being tried for, happened before the campaign. Sorry, no. Oh, and for this and other lies to the court and the FBI, Manafort's facing 17-22 years in prison. He's in solitary confinment 'for his own safety.'

Imagine, from ostrich-skin boots and a monogrammed Loire-style garden in the DC area, to a jumpsuit, a cot, and 3 prison meals a day. Hope it was worth it.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/manafort-russia-court-deadline/index.html