04-24-2017, 11:20 PM
Defeating Republicans in the House may be the only reliable way to constrain a President from his radical and inhuman agenda. If voters really hate President Trump, then such is all that will be available until at least 2020.
(04-24-2017, 11:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Ultimately, it will be the saner sub population of Republicans who will band together with Democrats to put a straight jacket on Drumpf. I still think the GOP is headed for extinction. Too early to tell about the Dems.
(04-25-2017, 04:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Yup; they have always been a problem, says this blue folk. But, as less extreme than his version, as part of normal liberal Western-influenced society, aspects of free-market Reaganism (libertarian economics) have their valid place.
Reagan, Ayn Rand, Mises and Hayek, Milton Friedman, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich; these folks need to be put on the shelf after their hard, long run.
(04-25-2017, 05:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](04-25-2017, 04:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Yup; they have always been a problem, says this blue folk. But, as less extreme than his version, as part of normal liberal Western-influenced society, aspects of free-market Reaganism (libertarian economics) have their valid place.
Reagan, Ayn Rand, Mises and Hayek, Milton Friedman, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich; these folks need to be put on the shelf after their hard, long run.
Gee? How did you ever guess I was thinking of you when I typed the bold phrase above?
CNN has Elizabeth Warren pushing the Warren - Sanders progressive wing of the Democrats. Their angle is not new and not surprising, but might be understood as standing opposite the Tea Party's rejection of the establishment. I've been talking about 3 parties, with the Republicans and Tea Party in open conflict. The Warren - Sanders wing hasn't reached that level yet.
But we might see a four party system for a while. Both the Tea Party and the Warren - Sanders people want a major break from the unraveling pattern. The establishment Democrats and Republicans alike are quite unpopular, viewed as being servants of the capitalist elite class. If we are to break the unraveling pattern, it seems that the Warren - Sanders faction has to end up dominant. While the Tea Party is angry at the establishment, they don't see the Reagan pattern as being the unraveling establishment.
Sanders and Warren are trying, but they haven't the clout in Congress yet. I don't see that they are moving in the country in the direction of regeneracy yet. Thus far, it is the other three factions that are becoming more unpopular. The Warren - Sanders faction is there, but they aren't yet beginning to resemble the steamroller required for a regeneracy.
(04-25-2017, 12:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Switching to another form of poll, it seems MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is starting to beat Fox News in the cable news pundit battles. Her format is partisan pundit. Apparently, she's been pushing the progressive viewpoint for years, but the audience in Trump's era is more ready to listen. The other factor is some of her conservative competition has been scandalized out of Fox.
I am not thrilled by the partisan pundit format. They push propaganda rather than truth and balance. This development does not speak well towards reuniting the country. However, it could well be an indication of the country's mood. It's nice to know that the blue perspective isn't coming out entirely on late night comedy TV.
(04-27-2017, 11:47 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ](04-27-2017, 02:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]FoX News, which does good polls despite the editorial policies of the network , has Donald Trump nearly even in approval and disapproval. But contrast Obama after 100 days to Trump after 100 days:
41. If the 2020 presidential election were held today, would you:
Vote to re-elect ---------Donald Trump---------
Vote for
---------someone else--------- (Too soon to say)
(Would not vote)
(Don’t know)
TOTAL Definitely Probably TOTAL Probably Definitely 23-25 Apr 17 36% 21 15 55 8 47 5 * 3
Vote to re-elect ---------Barack Obama---------
Vote for
---------someone else--------- (Too soon to say)
(Would not vote)
(Don’t know)
TOTAL Definitely Probably TOTAL Probably Definitely 22-23 Apr 09 52% 37 15 31 8 23 14 1 1 Barack Obama at 100 days for reference: If the 2012 presidential election were held today…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/slidesho...-days.html
It was 52-31 for Obama, who would eventually get 51% of the popular vote in 2012.
For President Trump it is now 36-55.
President Trump obviously has his work cut out for him. I'm not saying that he will end up with 35% of the popular vote... the two last big failures as first-term Presidents (Hoover and Carter) did better than that. But both Hoover and Carter were very popular 100 days into their Presidencies; Trump isn't. First impressions may not redeem subsequent failures, but it is hard to see what successes President Trump can have that won't be tainted.
I expect Trump's scores to improve a bit due to the fact he's triangulated more mainstream (to the chagrin of the Duginist assholes). However ... this Flynn thing ... it's really flaring up again. We'll see what happens ....
(04-27-2017, 12:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Another one term president failure was George Bush the first.
Gerald Ford also lost, although he was completing a term.
(04-27-2017, 10:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](04-27-2017, 12:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Another one term president failure was George Bush the first.
Gerald Ford also lost, although he was completing a term.
Dubya at least had some success in foreign policy. Big success. He just could never offer a credible Second Act.
Ford simply was an inept campaigner for President. He had never run for statewide office, and it showed.
(04-28-2017, 12:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](04-27-2017, 10:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](04-27-2017, 12:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Another one term president failure was George Bush the first.
Gerald Ford also lost, although he was completing a term.
Dubya at least had some success in foreign policy. Big success. He just could never offer a credible Second Act.
Ford simply was an inept campaigner for President. He had never run for statewide office, and it showed.
Did I lose something here? George Bush the first would be 41? Dubya would be 43?