The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well we'll wait and see about Arizona. Pundits seem to think it's a done deal; they don't seem to have considered it's only Election Day votes left to count.

Ohio called, but Texas and Florida not, which is very poor. Iowa should be called soon for Trump. Trump with healthy leads in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania...he needs 'em if Arizona's going blue.

Georgia seems to be faltering for Trump, but he's still ahead for now. North Carolina's probably in recount territory. unless Trump has more votes to secure it.

This mainstream media bias is quite something. Trump 49-48 ahead in Montana, 50% voted...oh yeah, that's too close to call. Trump 50-48 ahead in Virginia, 76% voted....oh yeah, we're calling that for Biden.

Looks like 'White Women' cost the Democrats in Virginia..Their breakdown..

Virg2020...Biden 50...Trump 49..

Virg2021...Dem 43....GOP 57..

WH2024 (Redfield/Wilton strategies)

Trump 48 +1
Biden..48 -3

Trump wins on EVs 311(+79) v 227 (-79)

Presidential odds 2024

Trump 7/2
Biden...5/1
Harris..42/5

No greater present than having Covid over Christmas...But never mind hey.

I see more Americans have died under Biden than Trump...Biden is stuck with bad approvals and a misfiring Economy that isn't his fault...But people always need someone to blame.

Hampered by a Vice President that isn't up to the job..

Republicans will take both houses in November I imagine and gridlock for two years..

I think Trump wins in 2024 if he wasn't 78 but whoever the GOP stick up should beat Harris for sure.

Unfortunately like Hoover...Cleveland...Harrison etc...Those Presidents that inherit a mess usually get blamed for it..

All the best for the New Year to you guys and your families and let's hope it is a better one..

Sucks at the moment.

American inflation at a 40-year high. So dismally predictable. Going to be Republican dominance in the mid-terms. Democrat losses may be even worse than when Obama was at the helm.

Outliers in polling...Look at these beauties..

Biden approval (Zogby)

Approve 50
Disapp...48....Biden landslide.

Biden approval (Quinn)

Approve 33
Disapp...53.....Biden routed...

Always dismiss outliers..

Biden is in the low 40s...Pretty much where Trump was.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/18/joe-biden-approval-ratings-first-year-democrats

Spoiler:

Lovely to have the 'grown-ups back in the room', isn't it? Biden is the disaster that a lot of people thought he would be, but again (like over here) it's only a symptom, not the root cause. And Biden is an even worse communicator than Trump, which is a staggering achievement. Biden will hopefully resign soon, Harris can't do a worse job and she's certainly a far less detestable human being.

The American democratic system is so broken that people are effectively forced to choose between Trump and Biden, which is a terrible choice. Often people are voting for the one they dislike least. If you didn't want a second term of Trump, you had to choose Biden. The line 'most votes of any President in history' gets touted, sometimes ironically, sometimes seriously, but it only came about because of the forced binary choice effectively imposed on voters.

It was the same over here - Johnson v Corbyn, terrible choice. Same in France - Macron v Le Pen (might get a part two soon). Similar in Canada.

So many democracies are broken and rooted in 19th century ideas, this has the knock-on effect of turning otherwise good people away from politics, and having more voters ever more disenfranchised with the system, leaving a recurring cycle of ever-more abysmal candidates for the highest office - Johnson, Biden, Macron, Trudeau etc.

Democratic renewal has to be a key ideological fight for the 21st century.

Nobody wants Kamala Harris as President.

Her ratings are worse than Biden's...Lazy...Poor communicator and a personality only a Mother can love..

No coincidence she was the first one out of the Democratic nomination race.

Give me sleepy Joe any day.

Harris poll.

Trump 46
Biden. 40

Trump 49
Harris 39

Anybody that thinks Harris would be an improvement on Biden is slightly optimistic..

Polls also suggest that People don't want US involvement in the Ukraine.

Harv poll..

Biden
Approve 39%
Disapp.. 53%

Trump
Approve 47%
Disapp.. 44%

Like all ex Presidents when times are hard....Trump becomes more appealing..

Harris poll..

Would Putin have invaded Ukraine if Trump were still President ??

Yes 38%
No..62%

What difference would Putin having a puppet as president make

Trump was doing a good enough job destabilising NATO without needing to invade Ukraine

By telling NATO countries to stump up more cash on defence?

No, by threatening to withdraw the US from NATO, and only being talked out of it at the last minute.

I think there are more important things to discuss than Donald Trump who is completely out of political power and yesterdays man. BBC is reporting that Putin has put Russia on nuclear alert which seems a bit concerning.

From what I heard, there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die.

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, by threatening to withdraw the US from NATO, and only being talked out of it at the last minute.

Yes, an ultimatum made with the effort of trying to get European countries to stump up more cash. Germany are now, too late, raising defence spending.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, by threatening to withdraw the US from NATO, and only being talked out of it at the last minute.

Yes, an ultimatum made with the effort of trying to get European countries to stump up more cash. Germany are now, too late, raising defence spending.

Yes, it had a destabilising effect.

Interesting study of it here- https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/97/6/1863/6384364

No name Bertie wrote:I think there are more important things to discuss than Donald Trump who is completely out of political power and yesterdays man.  BBC is reporting that Putin has put Russia on nuclear alert which seems a bit concerning.

Completely fair and relevant to discuss it in my view. Trump's foreign policy was exceptional, and the world is starting to realise it as the Middle East, South Asia and Eastern Europe goes up in flames without Trump at the helm.

Unfortunately the West is stuck with Joe 'poor kids can be just as bright as white kids' Biden for nearly another three years before another Republican takes office again.

Putin is completely unhinged and will likely be removed from power soon through an internal coup. The strength of the Ukrainian resistance was something he gravely underestimated, and this conflict, even if 'successful' for Russia, is likely to be as damaging to his nation's reputation as the Winter War was for the Soviet Union.

I'm not sure reneging on prior international commitments counts as exceptional foreign policy.
Recognising Jerusalem as capital of Israel was an outrage.
The trade war with China was another glaring mistake.
Praising foreign authoritarian governments weakened democracy.
Withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement was another mistake that weakened supposed allies.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not sure reneging on prior international commitments counts as exceptional foreign policy.
Recognising Jerusalem as capital of Israel was an outrage.
The trade war with China was another glaring mistake.
Praising foreign authoritarian governments weakened democracy.
Withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement was another mistake that weakened supposed allies.

Added to that, his major "win" in North Korea achieved precisely nothing.

I noticed that there is a run of comments on Twitter (and I am sure elsewhere) about how Trump is responsible for getting Javelins to Ukraine. They do of course ignore what Trump was trying to get in return for supplying the equipment.

Trump got Javelins to Ukraine.
Discus.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Trump got Javelins to Ukraine.
Discus.

No need to hammer it home

dummy_half wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Trump got Javelins to Ukraine.
Discus.

No need to hammer it home

I thought I'd give it a shot.

Hopefully Putin will be for the high jump

Harris poll

Trump 51%
Harris 39%

Harris pole (vault), it was right there!

Ex Presidents always get better with time.. Unless of course you are Millard Fillmore or Herbert Hoover..

People in America don't want involvement in the Ukraine and they also think Trump would be better against Putin than a guy with cognitive issues..

Playing into Trump's hands nicely..

Harris won't be running for the Presidency because she would never make it through the primaries.  So it would either be Biden or some other Democrat that is not Harris.  With regard the Republicans it is not clear that the Republicans would accept Trump as a candidate nor that he would make it through the primaries - surely they will find a proper Republican such as maybe a Ted Cruz or someone else with an on-point message without any baggage (desantis?).

ps the Presidency is such a short period of office that people are already thinking about 2024 and started thinking about it less than a year into Biden's Presidency.  It makes you wonder the impact of Donald Trump because since the announcement of Trumps intention to run for the 2016 presidency election back in 2015 the British media have been bringing him to everyones attention non stop and everyone is still talking about him while the world moves on.

Duty281 wrote:.... The American democratic system is so broken that people are effectively forced to choose between Trump and Biden, which is a terrible choice.....

The American system is more democratic than the British system - they get to choose their executive leader separately from their parliamentarians / senators.  

Furthermore the Presidential election first has the primaries where party members get to select the person they want to represent the party with televised open debates etc.  Then in the secondary elections independents can also run for the Presidency.  

If there are issues with democracy it is not to do with America but inherent weaknesses in "democracy itself" - which were known to the ancient Greeks who were one of the first known groups of people to implement it as one of a number of forms of governance.  I think Plato writes about this in one of his surviving works.   Furthermore the "founding fathers" of the USA were aware of these weaknesses and hence they split up the political power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary with a constitution that sets the limits of political power and the terms of office.

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:.... The American democratic system is so broken that people are effectively forced to choose between Trump and Biden, which is a terrible choice.....

The American system is more democratic than the British system - they get to choose their executive leader separately from their parliamentarians / senators.  

Furthermore the Presidential election first has the primaries where party members get to select the person they want to represent the party with televised open debates etc.  Then in the secondary elections independents can also run for the Presidency.  

If there are issues with democracy it is not to do with America but inherent weaknesses in "democracy itself" - which were known to the ancient Greeks who were one of the first known groups of people to implement it as one of a number of forms of governance.  I think Plato writes about this in one of his surviving works.   Furthermore the "founding fathers" of the USA were aware of these weaknesses and hence they split up the political power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary with a constitution that sets the limits of political power and the terms of office.

The system may be more democratic than ours in the sense of people getting to vote more directly for the President as well as their other representatives, but it is a flawed system none the less - as Duty points out, when your choices are between Trump and Hillary or Trump and Biden, it's not exactly encouraging the cream to the top of either party. Have to go back to Obama v McCain for two worthy candidates (and even then McCain was compromised by the selection of Palin as VP). The Primary process has got more divisive over the last decade or so.

The other issue with the US system is that first term Presidents get about 12 to 18 months to actually get things done before the mid term elections force everyone into campaigning mode, and then maybe 6 months between the mid terms and starting to have to campaign for the Presidential Primaries. Not a system that actually encourages good governance.

A 2 party system where the President can be elected with less votes than the other doesnt exactly scream “democracy” to me.

dummy_half wrote:The other issue with the US system is that first term Presidents get about 12 to 18 months to actually get things done before the mid term elections force everyone into campaigning mode, and then maybe 6 months between the mid terms and starting to have to campaign for the Presidential Primaries. Not a system that actually encourages good governance.

Good point although it is unclear what could be done differently (pros and cons of a democratic system).   With regard to Donald Trump it was not clear how representative of a Republican he was - he was a non-politician, a businessman, who ended up deciding to run for the Republican Nomination rather than running as an Independent.  I don't think anyone has got anywhere close to doing what he did in American politics - having absolutely zero political experience (never held a previous political office at any level) - then winning the Republican Primary and then the Presidency.

dummy_half wrote:The system may be more democratic than ours in the sense of people getting to vote more directly for the President as well as their other representatives, but it is a flawed system none the less - as Duty points out, when your choices are between Trump and Hillary or Trump and Biden, it's not exactly encouraging the cream to the top of either party. Have to go back to Obama v McCain for two worthy candidates ...

It is not flawed using the above argument.  In a democratic system the individual may not get the result they want (either the result of the primaries or the secondaries) but it was for a majority that voted.

Samo wrote:A 2 party system where the President can be elected with less votes than the other doesnt exactly scream “democracy” to me.

2 party system - Anybody is free to start a third party or run as an independent.  
less votes than the other - the USA is a federation so smaller states have more of a say than their relative population compared to the whole.

The majority didn't get what they voted for in 2016.

I like that the Americans get to directly vote for their own leader, that's one advantage their system has over ours, even if it is a very narrow choice. The reason why I said the American system is broken is because:

1) Most states are safe. Outside of 12/13 states, there's little point in voting.

2) They have a rigid two-party system which forces American voters down a very narrow path. No other party gets a look in. It's not brilliant in this country, but we do have plenty of minor parties who have parliamentary and/or local representation.

3) The electoral college is antiquated. It should be replaced by a fascinating concept of 'most votes wins' for the Presidential election. The situation isn't much better in this country, in relation to this, because FPTP can see one party get fewer votes than another and still end up with more seats.

4) The primaries, which promote an idea of openness, are bent. Sanders beat crooked Hillary in 2015/2016 and should have been the nominee.

Is the American system more democratic than the British one? Overall, no.

Cooked Hillary? Your use of these dull names betrays your real allegiances, Duty.

Soul Requiem wrote:The majority didn't get what they voted for in 2016.

The Presidency is part of the Federal Government. Voters vote at the state level and the result of that vote is the democratic choice of state electors the state voters voted for. So the majority of voters got the electors that they voted for. The next stage is the casting of federated votes by state electors in the federal election of the Union President, and again the majority of those voting (this time state electors) got what they voted for.

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:The majority didn't get what they voted for in 2016.

The Presidency is part of the Federal Government.  Voters vote at the state level and the result of that vote is the democratic choice of state electors the state voters voted for.  So the majority of voters got the electors that they voted for.   The next stage is the casting of federated votes by state electors in the federal election of the Union President, and again the majority of those voting (this time state electors) got what they voted for.

You can twist it but the majority of voters did not get what they voted for.

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:The majority didn't get what they voted for in 2016.

The Presidency is part of the Federal Government.  Voters vote at the state level and the result of that vote is the democratic choice of state electors the state voters voted for.  So the majority of voters got the electors that they voted for.   The next stage is the casting of federated votes by state electors in the federal election of the Union President, and again the majority of those voting (this time state electors) got what they voted for.

You can twist it but the majority of voters did not get what they voted for.

You are using rhetorical BS. As a non-American you are personally unhappy with the American Political System. That is your own personal problem. I described the political reality that you could have found out for yourself.

Thank you for explaining something I already knew, it doesn't alter Donald Trump winning an election having received a minority of votes.

I'm neither happy nor unhappy with the American electoral system.

US system is basically there to stop California and Texas choosing the President every 4 years...

In 1951 Churchill won the GE in this Country with less votes than Clement Attlee..

So no system is perfect..

But the EV system does give the People an interest even if the bellwethers decide the game..

Soul Requiem wrote:....  it doesn't alter Donald Trump winning an election having received a minority of votes. ....

Quote: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

When you do make something simpler then you can produce rhetorical BS of which there is far too much - especially in reporting and advertising.  On social media it is par for the course.  You have a habit of turning everything into a personal attack (your accusation of "twisting" after I took the time to explain it to you).

Soul Requiem wrote:Thank you for explaining something I already knew....

Yet you continue with the rhetorical BS. Something doesn't add up.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:US system is basically there to stop California and Texas choosing the President every 4 years...

In 1951 Churchill won the GE in this Country with less votes than Clement Attlee..

So no system is perfect..

But the EV system does give the People an interest even if the bellwethers decide the game..

Is there any realistic possibility that a state would attempt to break away from the Union in the near or medium term?  For example there has been some complaint that Californians through their voting in of certain governors and state legislature have turned California into a "dump" with some businesses now fleeing to Texas.  I have heard of the complaints but I don't know how significant it is.

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:....  it doesn't alter Donald Trump winning an election having received a minority of votes. ....

Quote: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

When you do make something simpler then you can produce rhetorical BS of which there is far too much - especially in reporting and advertising.  On social media it is par for the course.  You have a habit of turning everything into a personal attack (your accusation of "twisting" after I took the time to explain it to you).

Soul Requiem wrote:Thank you for explaining something I already knew....

Yet you continue with the rhetorical BS.  Something doesn't add up.

You seem to be missing the point completely and I suspect it's deliberate. It isn't rhetorical BS to highlight that Donald Trump won a Presidential election despite receiving a minority of the popular vote, it is simply a fact. That the electoral college system allows it to happen as does first past the post is neither here or nor there.

Is an electoral system that gives certain voters more of a say than others truly democratic? In my opinion it is not.

Wall street journal poll..

Biden
App... ..42
Disap...57

Trump
App......48
Disapp.51

Harris poll...

Trump 47
Biden..41

Trump..49
Harris...38

Harris is a liability..