2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[CU77]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

[HooDat]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

there is a difference between should win and would win.

I do think that Michelle would stand a better chance of winning than most of the Dem field. With that said, I don't know that I think being 1st lady qualifies as relevant experience for the job.

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

there is a difference between should win and would win.

I do think that Michelle would stand a better chance of winning than most of the Dem field. With that said, I don't know that I think being 1st lady qualifies as relevant experience for the job.

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.

People forgot to qualify it with “good” businessman. Pat Sajak would have been better.

[CU77]

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

That's absurd. Go back and watch 2016 interviews with HRC on CNN etc.

[a fan]

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

First off, she's loved (as in: love to have a beer with her) by anyone who isn't a R. Can't say the same about HRC.

Second of all, when you ask "what does she bring to the table that the other D candidates don't", the answer is: voter turnout.

"Do you want more Obama or more Trump?" is a very simple and very easy sales pitch for Michelle in terms of issues. She, like her husband, is a moderate.

The nepotism turns both of us off, sure. But you and I don't matter, because we'd vote for a tree stump before we'd vote for Trump.

[youthathletics]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

there is a difference between should win and would win.

I do think that Michelle would stand a better chance of winning than most of the Dem field. With that said, I don't know that I think being 1st lady qualifies as relevant experience for the job.

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.

People forgot to qualify it with “good” businessman. Pat Sajak would have been better.

Pat Sajak doing good with his cash.

[youthathletics]

We have a congressman names Dick Swett...who knew?

[Trinity]

Yikes!

[MDlaxfan76]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

Extraordinarily high approval rating currently, even higher than Barack who is currently very high. A reputation for integrity, a reputation as very bright. Strong approval for personal values.

We live in a world in which name recognition and popularity are 'trumping' experience.

I don't think being black and/or a woman is actually a negative in the current environment. I think we mix up the animus towards folks of color from the right wing and the misogyny of the right wing, as if the strong majority of Americans wouldn't welcome an opportunity to rebuke those in the right wing on those lines. They would.

But it requires the 'right' sort of woman, the 'right' sort of person of color. They need to be perceived as strong and personally charismatic, yet not 'threatening'...much less corrupt. Barack checked those boxes and won strongly.

HRC was perceived as corrupt, arrogant, 'entitled', and she definitely was not charismatic. Smart, qualified, sure. But she had a very high negatives built up over decades. IMO, deservedly to some extent, though we shouldn't ignore that the right wing pounded for decades. But then the Clintons cashed in big time on their personal celebrity and more importantly, on the prospect of HRC being President. Bernie pounded on the perceived corruption, the Wall Street largesse, and the right wing continued to pound as well. Very high negatives. Which made every misstep easy to amplify. Not to mention that she ran a terrible campaign, never really reaching out to working class whites rhetorically.

I think Warren "threatens" as well. Not just because she's smart and detailed, but because her policies are so far left and her tone so strident. That said, she does work way harder than HRC and she does tailor an appeal to working class folks, regardless of race. I don't know if that's enough to overcome the tone issues. I'm not eager to having her lecture us for 4-8 years.

Kamala I think checks the right boxes in terms of personal likability, brains, tone. I think she could pull it off, but she'll need to work super hard to win back those states that Trump flipped from Obama. She'll likely need a VP candidate from the heartland who can appeal to those voters perhaps better than she could, much as Biden (though coastal) did help with working class white voters in those states.

But she doesn't have Michelle's rockstar appeal.

Michelle's weakness is that she would be bypassing any prior elected or high office experience (not a problem for HRC); but Trump blew up that requirement.

Is there any doubt as to whether Michelle would have a first class Cabinet, attracting top quality people back into service or stepping up?

But she reportedly doesn't want it. Which may be her best recommendation!

[HooDat]

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

That's absurd. Go back and watch 2016 interviews with HRC on CNN etc.

let us not forget that HRC is the only life-form on the planet that could lose an election to Donald Trump.
beyond pointing out the obvious, I will let others make my point for me.

First off, she's loved (as in: love to have a beer with her) by anyone who isn't a R. Can't say the same about HRC.

Michelle's rockstar appeal.

[seacoaster]

Trump Campaign pins its hopes on relentless division and divisiveness:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

George W. Bush had “freedom fries,” Sarah Palin had the “Big Gulp” and Dan Quayle had the Hollywood portrayal of an unwed single mother named Murphy Brown.

For President Trump, it’s paper straws — the latest addition to an ever-growing list of cultural flash points his campaign is seeking to highlight as part of a base-focused reelection effort.

As cities and coffee chains across the country have adopted policies aimed at limiting environmental damage, the president’s campaign has targeted what it calls “liberal paper straws.” It’s selling a Trump-branded plastic version as a fundraising tool.

Pointing to the “runaway success” of the straws — which have earned the campaign more than $670,000 in a month — communications director Tim Murtaugh said they represent Trump’s ability to make a political point using a cultural issue everyday voters can relate to.

“With the Trump straws, the campaign tapped into widespread disdain for paper straws that simply don’t work,” he said. “People don’t like being told they can’t do simple things, and so the Trump straws were born.”

From straws to wind turbines to socially conservative issues, Trump is deliberately amplifying public tensions by seizing on divisive topics to energize his base, according to campaign aides and White House advisers. The president is following much the same strategy that he pursued in 2016 — inserting himself into the issues his supporters are already discussing, and using blunt us-against-them language without regard to nuance or political correctness."

Leadership in action!! MAGA!!! And his wife is, according to one poster, "hotter than most women on the planet."

[wahoomurf]

HooDat: Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.[

The current POTUS, a failed businessperson yet a successful TV host, has become THE consummate politician.Ms.Obama exudes a "been there, done that" insouciance...which I find refreshing. Is that enough to boost her potential Presidential profile?

As a registered Republican, I'm chagrined that the GOP doesn't have a better array of candidates. (Why the GOP enthusiastically supports the Democrat incumbent Trump is IMHO, weird). At this point, I don't see any of the myriad Democrat job seekers as exciting. Although the Nation and the World, IMHO, we the people owe it to our progeny to ensure the COOO, doesn't get a second term.

The good news is that 2020 will force me, and I imagine many other folks, to drill down into the issues, and NOT simply align with ANY party.

[a fan]

“With the Trump straws, the campaign tapped into widespread disdain for paper straws that simply don’t work,” he said. “People don’t like being told they can’t do simple things, and so the Trump straws were born."

"Technological advances?? We won't cotton to that, by golly".

Yeah, because straws made out of new materials is the devil. Makes total sense.

[holmes435]

Trump supporters don't actually care about giving up plastic straws or having them vs other straws, it's primarily another way to "stick it to the libs" and try to make them mad.

It's pretty effective identity politics.

[youthathletics]

HooDat: Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.[

The current POTUS, a failed businessperson yet a successful TV host, has become THE consummate politician.Ms.Obama exudes a "been there, done that" insouciance...which I find refreshing. Is that enough to boost her potential Presidential profile?

As a registered Republican, I'm chagrined that the GOP doesn't have a better array of candidates. (Why the GOP enthusiastically supports the Democrat incumbent Trump is IMHO, weird). At this point, I don't see any of the myriad Democrat job seekers as exciting. Although the Nation and the World, IMHO, we the people owe it to our progeny to ensure the COOO, doesn't get a second term.

The good news is that 2020 will force me, and I imagine many other folks, to drill down into the issues, and NOT simply align with ANY party.

Name a few issues that will strike a chord with the majority...enough so, that it will dissuade them from the fruit of their current financial and employment situations? I do not believe people want to rock the boat of stability....and that is why I believe Trump won; we were stuck in a suppressed extremely slow rebuilding era, they viewed Obama as a statesman but not one that was doing much for them. Whereas Trump is the opposite, and as much as Obama got the train running again...Trump gets credit for it in the eyes of the voters. I think they can deal with his behavior "if I'm getting mine".

[Typical Lax Dad]

HooDat: Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.[

The current POTUS, a failed businessperson yet a successful TV host, has become THE consummate politician.Ms.Obama exudes a "been there, done that" insouciance...which I find refreshing. Is that enough to boost her potential Presidential profile?

As a registered Republican, I'm chagrined that the GOP doesn't have a better array of candidates. (Why the GOP enthusiastically supports the Democrat incumbent Trump is IMHO, weird). At this point, I don't see any of the myriad Democrat job seekers as exciting. Although the Nation and the World, IMHO, we the people owe it to our progeny to ensure the COOO, doesn't get a second term.

The good news is that 2020 will force me, and I imagine many other folks, to drill down into the issues, and NOT simply align with ANY party.

Name a few issues that will strike a chord with the majority...enough so, that it will dissuade them from the fruit of their current financial and employment situations? I do not believe people want to rock the boat of stability....and that is why I believe Trump won; we were stuck in a suppressed extremely slow rebuilding era, they viewed Obama as a statesman but not one that was doing much for them. Whereas Trump is the opposite, and as much as Obama got the train running again...Trump gets credit for it in the eyes of the voters. I think they can deal with his behavior "if I'm getting mine".

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/09/anothe ... by-800000/

[youthathletics]

What is your point?

[MDlaxfan76]

What is your point?

Job growth has slowed under President Trump compared to the final months of President Obama’s second term, despite Trump’s frequent boasts that the current economy is the “greatest” in the history of the country.

During the first 29 full months that Trump has been in office, from February 2017 through June 2019, the economy created 5.61 million jobs, or about 194,000 per month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


During Obama’s last 29 full months, from September 2014 to January 2017, the economy added 6.42 million new jobs, or about 221,000 per month.

Altogether, job growth under Trump is about 810,000 jobs short of what it was under Obama during the final part of his presidency.

The job growth numbers were much better in 2018, which Forbes noted was due to a massive corporate tax cut that blew a huge hole in the deficit, but have gotten far worse this year. The gap in job growth between Trump and Obama was only about 194,000 in January but has increased by 616,000 jobs since.

The tax cut proved to be a 'sugar high,' as predicted by most economists, and is now worn off. Add to that the big drag in "trade wars are easy to win" and the economy has slowed considerably.

[Typical Lax Dad]

What is your point?

Job growth has slowed under President Trump compared to the final months of President Obama’s second term, despite Trump’s frequent boasts that the current economy is the “greatest” in the history of the country.

During the first 29 full months that Trump has been in office, from February 2017 through June 2019, the economy created 5.61 million jobs, or about 194,000 per month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


During Obama’s last 29 full months, from September 2014 to January 2017, the economy added 6.42 million new jobs, or about 221,000 per month.

Altogether, job growth under Trump is about 810,000 jobs short of what it was under Obama during the final part of his presidency.

The job growth numbers were much better in 2018, which Forbes noted was due to a massive corporate tax cut that blew a huge hole in the deficit, but have gotten far worse this year. The gap in job growth between Trump and Obama was only about 194,000 in January but has increased by 616,000 jobs since.

The tax cut proved to be a 'sugar high,' as predicted by most economists, and is now worn off. Add to that the big drag in "trade wars are easy to win" and the economy has slowed considerably.

Trump is the ultimate Confidence Man.

[Trinity]

He will soon complain the economy he inherited from Obama was a disaster.