The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn't doubt it. Although in this job, his success will more or less also be the country's success.
Donald Trump's vision of a successful country will scare you. I believe he will judge his own success by the approval of his peers.
 
It depends strongly on age, as usual. He won a small majority of black millennials, so if @vi1lain is of the correct age, that's what s/he would see.

And I saw your earlier post, so this applies there too. He lost to Clinton because of people over 45. He won under 45s. Age was the strongest indication of support.

I agree about the millennial vote. It's safe to say that Sanders would have got a better share of millennial vote than Clinton for sure. But it would be interesting to see the breakup of these two categories
  • millennial vs older vote
  • Black turnout for Obama vs Black turnout for Clinton
Because of the fact that blacks and latinos are minority, they would have to turn up in record numbers for Dems to even stand up to the 50% white turnout. If historic turnout of black population is only possible if there's a colored person on the ticket, I'm sure there will be questions for DNC and the party on whether it's a viable strategy. I'm also assuming that the notion of millennials generally vote less than the older people is true.

In my view, You saw the Republicans and the evangelical vote. Trump won it at about 4:1 of the vote, because they made a deal with the devil that is Trump because it furthers their cause, in spite of Trump having nothing in common with the evangelicals. It's a pragmatic vote. Liberals and the Independents on the other hand probably decided that they can't be bothered with both candidates/Clinton because they weren't inspiring enough. It's based on ideology. There's a case to be made against DNC fecking up by nominating the wrong candidates and there's also a case to be made against people who didn't turn up to vote against Trump here (whether millennials or black voters)

Of course, I'm not that politics nerd, so I may be completely wrong here.
 
I've suspected it all along once I figured out Trump's character he invented to get elected over the past 18 months. Most people who talk about dealing with Trump in private say he's a pretty easy going, pragmatic guy with liberal leaning views. How he governs as President will basically be little more than an ideological mean reversion.



It's also possible that he's presenting a happy face because he has won the election. When things go tough for him, he'll turn up the populist noise and people who thought he'll turn centrist will look like idiots. How do we fall for this shit again and again?
 
I'm increasingly confident Trump is turning back to his NE liberal ways. The Alt-Right/Ann Coulter/David Duke crowd may be a bit disappointed about building walls, mass deportations, banning muslims etc.
I'm an atheist praying that you are right.
His objectives. He'll happily trade away your rights as a bargaining chip. He doesn't give a feck about anyone but Donald Trump.
While you are absolutely correct, the one thing more important to Donald than money might be his ego. Maybe he will try to satisfy as many people as possible to be considered a good president (I have zero confidence in him delivering... An infrastructure offensive paid for by debt would be welcome though).
 
It's also possible that he's presenting a happy face because he has won the election. When things go tough for him, he'll turn up the populist noise and people who thought he'll turn centrist will look like idiots. How do we fall for this shit again and again?

I don't really see the populist angle. He used it to get elected but there's nothing incentivizing him from continuing down that path. We've already seen stuff like Crooked Hillary, build a wall, mass deportations, and muslim bans quietly go away.
 
I agree about the millennial vote. It's safe to say that Sanders would have got a better share of millennial vote than Clinton for sure. But it would be interesting to see the breakup of these two categories
  • millennial vs older vote
  • Black turnout for Obama vs Black turnout for Clinton
Because of the fact that blacks and latinos are minority, they would have to turn up in record numbers for Dems to even stand up to the 50% white turnout. If historic turnout of black population is only possible if there's a colored person on the ticket, I'm sure there will be questions for DNC and the party on whether it's a viable strategy. I'm also assuming that the notion of millennials generally vote less than the older people is true.

In my view, You saw the Republicans and the evangelical vote. Trump won it at about 4:1 of the vote, because they made a deal with the devil that is Trump because it furthers their cause, in spite of Trump having nothing in common with the evangelicals. It's a pragmatic vote. Liberals and the Independents on the other hand probably decided that they can't be bothered with both candidates/Clinton because they weren't inspiring enough. It's based on ideology. There's a case to be made against DNC fecking up by nominating the wrong candidates and there's also a case to be made against people who didn't turn up to vote against Trump here (whether millennials or black voters)

Of course, I'm not that politics nerd, so I may be completely wrong here.


Briefly, I'll predict what he could and wouldn't have achieved.
He might have lost Virginia, where she won on the basis of suburban rich people. He would probably have lost NC and FL, where the conservative message works. This gives Trump 319 EVs.
On the other hand, MI, PA, WI, IA, and OH were lost by 0.3, 1, 4, 10, and 10% respectively, presumably due to white working class and rural voters. I don't think Bernie could have managed a 10 point swing there, but I'm quite confident he would have taken MI, PA, and WI (=46). That makes it 273 for Trump.
So did he have a chance? Maybe: that is basically a one-state lead for Trump. Vulnerable states would have been the single electoral vote of Maine, either IA or OH themselves, AZ, by some great luck, any one of VA/NC/FL, and an outside shot at Utah (He polled exceptionally well there, and that was before the 2nd Republican was on the scene). Any one of those and he would have won.
 
@Raoul just an observation from seeing some of your predictions and analysis over the past few years (which is often well thought through)... You are constitutionally an optimist and overvalue the likelihood of your desired outcome actually happening. Right now there is huge uncertainty over the path Trump, and ultimately America, will take. Pretending otherwise is just trying to make yourself feel better about the situation. Sometimes shit does go badly wrong.
 
I don't really see the populist angle. He used it to get elected but there's nothing incentivizing him from continuing down that path. We've already seen stuff like Crooked Hillary, build a wall, mass deportations, and muslim bans quietly go away.

He knows that creating populist noise and issues out of nothing detracts people from real issues. He will revert back to type as soon as he runs into trouble. I like your kumbaya world where he's elected and everybody lived happily ever after though.
 
Briefly, I'll predict what he could and wouldn't have achieved.
He might have lost Virginia, where she won on the basis of suburban rich people. He would probably have lost NC and FL, where the conservative message works. This gives Trump 319 EVs.
On the other hand, MI, PA, WI, IA, and OH were lost by 0.3, 1, 4, 10, and 10% respectively, presumably due to white working class and rural voters. I don't think Bernie could have managed a 10 point swing there, but I'm quite confident he would have taken MI, PA, and WI (=46). That makes it 273 for Trump.
So did he have a chance? Maybe: that is basically a one-state lead for Trump. Vulnerable states would have been the single electoral vote of Maine, either IA or OH themselves, AZ, by some great luck, any one of VA/NC/FL, and an outside shot at Utah (He polled exceptionally well there, and that was before the 2nd Republican was on the scene). Any one of those and he would have won.

This isn't about Sanders winning or not, that train passed a long time ago. This is about a group of people voting pragmatically and the other group not doing so.
 
@Raoul just an observation from seeing some of your predictions and analysis over the past few years (which is often well thought through)... You are constitutionally an optimist and overvalue the likelihood of your desired outcome actually happening. Right now there is huge uncertainty over the path Trump, and ultimately America, will take. Pretending otherwise is just trying to make yourself feel better about the situation. Sometimes shit does go badly wrong.

You can only go with what information you have. I think the big mistake people are making is actually to take the things he said during the campaign literally as if he is going to implement every extemporaneous quip he made over the past 18 months. People say whatever they need to, to get elected. Once they have power, they are forced to behave more pragmatically - because A: they gain access to far more information than they previously had, and B: they realize that cooperation with others is critical to actually accomplishing things (and conversely, lack of flexibility is a great recipe for gridlock). Trump likes to do deals, and he will need to cooperate with others to do them, which entails a degree of compromise and cooperation.
 
He knows that creating populist noise and issues out of nothing detracts people from real issues. He will revert back to type as soon as he runs into trouble. I like your kumbaya world where he's elected and everybody lived happily ever after though.

I think he will revert to the good old Twitter account if he wants to call out lawmakers who he feels are blocking his proposals (which will be effective since Congressmen are up for election every two years). Other than that, there's no need for him to behave like the clown character from the campaign.
 
This isn't about Sanders winning or not, that train passed a long time ago. This is about a group of people voting pragmatically and the other group not doing so.

Clinton didn't lose because of evangelicals, she lost because of PA/WI/MI. Evangelicals are well-trained to vote for the Republican and will always do so. She did marginally worse among minorities than Obama. She did much worse among whites, especially non college-educated. But she comprehensively lost rich whites too. Turnout was lower. As of now, you can take your pick of these factors.
 
From following the whole thing and watching Trump before and since his victory does anyone else have this weird feeling that he never intended it to get this far and certainly didn't expect to win. He's looked uncomfortable in all his post victory appearances. Almost sad.
 
Hillary did have a lot of skeletons in the closet and she did very much represent the "despised political elite" and just that lost her the election it seems. I'm not a "Bernie Bro", not even an american, but the way the party handled the primaries was hamfisted at best

Many people say Bernie would have walked away with the election had he been the one running. I'm not so sure, seeing as hes a "socialist" which is a curse word across the Atlantic, but imo he is just what they had needed

Bull crap. If you know anything about politics you would know there are far worse politicians than her. On top of that Hillary had worked for this her whole life.

If anything, all the moronic Bernie clowns (some of who fecking voted for Johnson after Bernie. The guys are polar opposites!) smashed Hillary so much that at the end of the day she was somehow as bad as Trump. I hope those libtards are happy with PENCE leading them now. ENJOY
 
But it's their European HQ. Not like the whole company up and left the States.

I would doubt they will close their European HQs. The idea is to bring back money American corporations have been stowing overseas because of high U.S. corporate tax rate.
 
Clinton didn't lose because of evangelicals, she lost because of PA/WI/MI. Evangelicals are well-trained to vote for the Republican and will always do so. She did marginally worse among minorities than Obama. She did much worse among whites, especially non college-educated. But she comprehensively lost rich whites too. Turnout was lower. As of now, you can take your pick of these factors.
This is unlikely to be true when all votes are tallied, from what I've read.
 
From following the whole thing and watching Trump before and since his victory does anyone else have this weird feeling that he never intended it to get this far and certainly didn't expect to win. He's looked uncomfortable in all his post victory appearances. Almost sad.

I think he's just tired. I read that last day before elections he had 5 rallies in five different states(!). Might've been cities. Still a lot.
 
This is unlikely to be true when all votes are tallied, from what I've read.

I find it bizarre either way. Some of the armchair analysis is bizarre. She won the popular vote and people (like her husband and opponent to name two) have got to the White House with fewer votes. So looking at overall turnout is a damn right stupid way to judge her failure.

All that happened was, in a system where a ridiculously few amount of people actually decide the result, she didn't win the key states. I suspect that reason is her own failing to actually visit most of those states enough out of misplaced confidence.

All of these narrative about Trump inspiring people and Clinton not or whatever just aren't borne out in the cold hard data.
 
sIuAt4a.jpg
 
From following the whole thing and watching Trump before and since his victory does anyone else have this weird feeling that he never intended it to get this far and certainly didn't expect to win. He's looked uncomfortable in all his post victory appearances. Almost sad.

I think he's overwhelmed at the task ahead of him. He probably had his new TV venture all lined up as well. And he's also being extra nice because he knows he's going to need all the help he can get. Expect him to be back to his dickish self at the first sign of any political opposition/dissent though.
 
From following the whole thing and watching Trump before and since his victory does anyone else have this weird feeling that he never intended it to get this far and certainly didn't expect to win. He's looked uncomfortable in all his post victory appearances. Almost sad.

Maybe its dawned upon him that his life will never be the same again.


Its fake. Remember seeing it a few weeks on twitter and fact-checkers debunked it.
 
As much as I hate Trump, not sure what all these protests are going to achieve. He won the presidency in a free election. If these people who are protesting can go and educate voters who did not vote, then it may help in the future. Questions should be asked why potential voters who could not/did not vote because they had no photo ID's did not have them in the first place. This was a very. very important election and people should have been prepared to vote.
 
You can only go with what information you have. I think the big mistake people are making is actually to take the things he said during the campaign literally as if he is going to implement every extemporaneous quip he made over the past 18 months. People say whatever they need to, to get elected. Once they have power, they are forced to behave more pragmatically - because A: they gain access to far more information than they previously had, and B: they realize that cooperation with others is critical to actually accomplishing things (and conversely, lack of flexibility is a great recipe for gridlock). Trump likes to do deals, and he will need to cooperate with others to do them, which entails a degree of compromise and cooperation.
He will (try to) enact most of this very quickly: http://www.vox.com/2016/11/10/13584390/donald-trump-first-100-days
 
How do people feel about the fact that this is the beginning of the end of Roe versus Wade?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.