U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Ulysses]

 

 

 

 

 

[Hansel]

2 hours ago, Gizmo said:

https://news.sky.com/story/person-sets-themselves-on-fire-in-protest-area-outside-trump-trial-reports-13118749

Florida man...

[JFK-1]

16 hours ago, cosanostra said:

Is he still denying even putting away Stormy Daniels in the first place? When this trial starts and he swears on the bible or whatever they do, won't he be perjering himself and open to all other kinds of criminal action?

 

Yes he actually is publicly denying it, but he probably wont testify in court. This is truly going to be a real mental torment for Trump, he's used to dictating the conversation, basically just rambling utter shit with no analysis of it, talking over any critique. Trump just wants to talk, he never listens.

 

But, if you want to dispute anything in the court the price is you're under oath and if we catch you lying you're toast. Trump can't do two things at the same time, like in he can't talk and not lie at the same time, so for that reason he can't speak in court.

 

But he will lie about it outside the court, spin some simple minded fantasy version of events to waiting press while the prosecution will say nothing at all to the press, or pretty much nothing.

 

Then when they convict him Trump will ramble about how outrageous it is if his fantasy version of events were real. This is an open and shut case, they have him nailed and even glued down too from every angle.

 

Anything Michael Cohen for one says will be backed up by masses of documentary and further witness evidence. I can't see how this can last too much longer than it takes the prosecutors to lay out their case.

 

There is no feasible defense, I think there is already a top Trump exec in prison for lying in connection to this this case. Plus Michael Cohen spent time in prison for lying in relation to this case, lying at the behest of and for the benefit of, Trump.

 

He's going to be convicted, this is where Trumps lifelong war against reality hits a brick wall, he had a good run at it, but didn't quite manage to Jimmy Saville it all the way to the grave.

[Cade]

Turns out the unfortunate individual that set himself on fire is not aligned with Democrats nor Republicans nor reality itself.

He's a full on crazy conspiracy theorist that decided to just take advantage of the fact that the world's media was there to push his ideas and set himself on fire so people would pay attention.

Hope he gets the help he so clearly needs.

 

[cosanostra]

49 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Yes he actually is publicly denying it, but he probably wont testify in court. This is truly going to be a real mental torment for Trump, he's used to dictating the conversation, basically just rambling utter shit with no analysis of it, talking over any critique. Trump just wants to talk, he never listens.

 

But, if you want to dispute anything in the court the price is you're under oath and if we catch you lying you're toast. Trump can't do two things at the same time, like in he can't talk and not lie at the same time, so for that reason he can't speak in court.

 

But he will lie about it outside the court, spin some simple minded fantasy version of events to waiting press while the prosecution will say nothing at all to the press, or pretty much nothing.

 

Then when they convict him Trump will ramble about how outrageous it is if his fantasy version of events were real. This is an open and shut case, they have him nailed and even glued down too from every angle.

 

Anything Michael Cohen for one says will be backed up by masses of documentary and further witness evidence. I can't see how this can last too much longer than it takes the prosecutors to lay out their case.

 

There is no feasible defense, I think there is already a top Trump exec in prison for lying in connection to this this case. Plus Michael Cohen spent time in prison for lying in relation to this case, lying at the behest of and for the benefit of, Trump.

 

He's going to be convicted, this is where Trumps lifelong war against reality hits a brick wall, he had a good run at it, but didn't quite manage to Jimmy Saville it all the way to the grave.

 

So he's unlikely to testify and can't be made to?

Sensible from his legal team if the best chance he has is to not speak and implicate himself.

There was a massive serial killer case a few years back near where I live and his legal team wouldn't allow him to speak other than to confirm his name and to plead not guilty. Nobody heard his voice in several months of court case after that.

[JFK-1]

42 minutes ago, cosanostra said:

 

So he's unlikely to testify and can't be made to?

Sensible from his legal team if the best chance he has is to not speak and implicate himself.

 

He can't be compelled to testify, and you can be guaranteed his lawyers are pleading with him to STFU, even out of court his mouth is making things harder for them. I would guess just about anybody else would in the circumstances follow legal advice. But with Trump I really don't know.

 

He's an unstable and notoriously thin skinned ego driven narcissist, someone so thin skinned who will go after people for something as irrelevant as a comment about his hair. One psychologist concluded Trump has an emotional maturity age of about 14 at best, an entitled teenage brat. 

 

There are some and i'm one of them who think Trump if he doesn't actually testify may act out during proceedings and get himself removed from the court, potentially even jailed. And/or say something that could get him jailed outside the court when rambling to the press after hours sitting bored out of his diaper trying to stay awake.  

 

I would absolutely love it if he testified because if he did they could then question him on anything at all, and he would perjure himself endlessly.

 

I would enjoy Trump testifying so much it probably wont happen, in fact maybe getting tossed in jail is more likely. But with something as unstable as him you just never know what he might do. 

Edited April 20 by JFK-1

[Cranston]

2 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

He can't be compelled to testify, and you can be guaranteed his lawyers are pleading with him to STFU, even out of court his mouth is making things harder for them. I would guess just about anybody else would in the circumstances follow legal advice. But with Trump I really don't know.

 

He's an unstable and notoriously thin skinned ego driven narcissist, someone so thin skinned who will go after people for something as irrelevant as a comment about his hair. One psychologist concluded Trump has an emotional maturity age of about 14 at best, an entitled teenage brat. 

 

There are some and i'm one of them who think Trump if he doesn't actually testify may act out during proceedings and get himself removed from the court, potentially even jailed. And/or say something that could get him jailed outside the court when rambling to the press after hours sitting bored out of his diaper trying to stay awake.  

 

I would absolutely love it if he testified because if he did they could then question him on anything at all, and he would perjure himself endlessly.

 

I would enjoy Trump testifying so much it probably wont happen, in fact maybe getting tossed in jail is more likely. But with something as unstable as him you just never know what he might do. 

Who was the accredited psychologist?

[JFK-1]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Turns out the unfortunate individual that set himself on fire is not aligned with Democrats nor Republicans nor reality itself.

He's a full on crazy conspiracy theorist that decided to just take advantage of the fact that the world's media was there to push his ideas and set himself on fire so people would pay attention.

Hope he gets the help he so clearly needs.

 

 

Well now i'm intrigued, a neutral crazy at last, we must discover exactly what his ideas were.

[Cranston]

2 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Well now i'm intrigued, a neutral crazy at last, we must discover exactly what his ideas were.

Who was the accredited psychologist?

[JFK-1]

1 minute ago, Cranston said:

Who was the accredited psychologist?

 

I can't remember the one who said that, but I wouldn't be saying this if I hadn't known it was an accredited opinion. There are a number including from his own accredited psychologist niece Mary Trump, her opinion would pretty much match my depiction of him.

 

You think Trump acts more mature than 14? 😉

[Cranston]

Just now, JFK-1 said:

 

I can't remember the one who said that, but I wouldn't be saying this if I hadn't known it was an accredited opinion. There are a number including from his own accredited psychologist niece Mary Trump, her opinion would pretty much match my depiction of him.

 

You think Trump acts more mature than 14? 😉

Dearie me. I thought as much. This is like make it up as you want to. Pure garbage.

[JFK-1]

1 minute ago, Cranston said:

Dearie me. I thought as much. This is like make it up as you want to. Pure garbage.

 

Cool, you go for that. While introducing absolutely nothing to support it. until you can say something, anything, to to dispute such a depiction of Trump.

 

While he's all over the news acting like a spoiled toddler. Look up his niece, she's accredited and knows him better than any other psychologist possibly could.

Given that reality, I will go for her opinion before you and your talking while saying nothing of any content. Pure garbage. 

[Cranston]

4 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Cool, you go for that. While introducing absolutely nothing to support it. until you can say something, anything, to to dispute such a depiction of Trump.

 

While he's all over the news acting like a spoiled toddler. Look up his niece, she's accredited and knows him better than any other psychologist possibly could.

Given that reality, I will go for her opinion before you and your talking while saying nothing of any content. Pure garbage. 

You lost the audience when found out to bear false witness to a supposed imaginary psychologist. Beat it liar.

[JFK-1]

Just now, Cranston said:

You lost the audience when found out to bear false witness to a supposed imaginary psychologist. Beat it liar.

 

You're being a weirdo, I will now ignore you.

[Cranston]

Just now, JFK-1 said:

 

You're being a weirdo, I will now ignore you.

It wasn't me that imagined up an imaginary psychologist, but hey I'm delighted that you will ignore me. I try to live in the real world. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

Turns out the unfortunate individual that set himself on fire is not aligned with Democrats nor Republicans nor reality itself.

He's a full on crazy conspiracy theorist that decided to just take advantage of the fact that the world's media was there to push his ideas and set himself on fire so people would pay attention.

Hope he gets the help he so clearly needs.

 

 

It'll be remarkable if he survives, and if he does, he'll likely be severely disabled most of there rest of his life.

 

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Well now i'm intrigued, a neutral crazy at last, we must discover exactly what his ideas were.

 

NYU is the mob, the CIA are after him, all government is criminal.

 

50 minutes ago, Cranston said:

You lost the audience when found out to bear false witness to a supposed imaginary psychologist. Beat it liar.

 

There have been plenty of folk with psych credentials who've done diagnosis from afar which I wish they wouldn't do and is kind of a sketchy thing to do in the first place. But many have said he shows classic signs of clinical narcissism. They're not worth remembering because they're just talking heads on TV. The fashy rapist has done plenty on the public record to judge him by without trying to diagnose him.

 

But as JFK-1 pointed out, Mary Trump is a psychologist and has said the same, and she's seen him up close plenty.

[JFK-1]

3 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

It'll be remarkable if he survives, and if he does, he'll likely be severely disabled most of there rest of his life.

 

 

NYU is the mob, the CIA are after him, all government is criminal.

 

 

There have been plenty of folk with psych credentials who've done diagnosis from afar which I wish they wouldn't do and is kind of a sketchy thing to do in the first place. But many have said he shows classic signs of clinical narcissism. They're not worth remembering because they're just talking heads on TV. The fashy rapist has done plenty on the public record to judge him by without trying to diagnose him.

 

But as JFK-1 pointed out, Mary Trump is a psychologist and has said the same, and she's seen him up close plenty.

 

There have been numerous diagnoses of Trump by many accredited professionals which I thought was a common knowledge, but even that aside I ignored that individual because this jump into beat it liar shit is utterly bizarre and real weirdo shit in the circumstance. You would think I had insulted his mother or something.

 

In general I would agree with your feelings about remote diagnosis, but in this case Trump just wont shut up, isn't very bright, let him talk enough he will tell you exactly what he's about, even when he's trying to pretend to be something else entirely.  Trump is an open book, just about anybody far less a professional can see right through him. 

 

And of course there is as you say Mary Trump who grew up around not just him but his entire family dynamic and who is a trained psychologist who would entirely agree with these more remote diagnoses. Incidentally I even gave Trump credit for being maybe up to 14 years old mentally, a generous estimate.

 

Psychological Science Says Trump Is a Four-Year-Old 

 

Author Noam Shpancer Ph.D. he is a professor of psychology at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201705/psychological-science-says-trump-is-four-year-old

 

 

[JFK-1]

On 18/04/2024 at 07:57, Maple Leaf said:

Does anyone actually believe that this is Presidential behavior? I can well imagine what this bitter, twisted individual will be like if he ever gets back into the White House.  It will be ugly.

 

A quote from a link I just posted about the psychology of Trump, seems apt in relation to your comment.

 

 

The experience of observing Trump is akin to that of noticing the strangeness of a painting from the Middle Ages before realizing that the oddity is due to the fact that the children are depicted with adult body proportions.

 

And therein lies the key: The core Trump dissonance is that he’s an elderly man who possesses the outward appearance and trappings of adulthood—and who occupies the public role we most strongly associate with adulthood—but who is on the inside predominantly infantile.

 

It is that specific dissonance that is wholly novel on the political scene. Over and above the contested considerations of ideology, temperament, character, or intelligence, we all expect (and are used to) a modicum of maturity in our presidents.

 

In our collective imagination the president is a grown up, not a child; not immature in his fundamental bearing and cast of mind.

 

Trump is, and as such he dramatically violates both our experience and our cultural expectations. He calls up the incongruent fascination and dread of a child-king or the baby-faced assassin.

 

To say Trump is ‘infantile,’ in this context is to say two related yet distinct things: One, that he fails to demonstrate some behavioral and attitudinal quality we call ‘maturity'

 

Two, that his cast of mind, the way he processes information, appears qualitatively different from an adult mind.

[The Real Maroonblood]

7 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I can't remember the one who said that, but I wouldn't be saying this if I hadn't known it was an accredited opinion. There are a number including from his own accredited psychologist niece Mary Trump, her opinion would pretty much match my depiction of him.

 

You think Trump acts more mature than 14? 😉

I think the psychologist is bang on.

Anyone with half a brain can see they are right.

[Lovecraft]

9 hours ago, Cade said:

Turns out the unfortunate individual that set himself on fire is not aligned with Democrats nor Republicans nor reality itself.

He's a full on crazy conspiracy theorist that decided to just take advantage of the fact that the world's media was there to push his ideas and set himself on fire so people would pay attention.

Hope he gets the help he so clearly needs.

 

He's now dead.

 

 

[Cade]

One less nut job in America.

Just several dozen million more left to go.

That entire nation had a complete mental breakdown after 9/11 and it seems that many of them were permanently damaged.

[Gizmo]

10 hours ago, Cade said:

Turns out the unfortunate individual that set himself on fire is not aligned with Democrats nor Republicans nor reality itself.

He's a full on crazy conspiracy theorist that decided to just take advantage of the fact that the world's media was there to push his ideas and set himself on fire so people would pay attention.

Hope he gets the help he so clearly needs.

 

Sad, but I am almost relieved it wasn't someone who was driven by the polarisation that is afflicting US politics so strongly. 

[XB52]

1 hour ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

I think the psychologist is bang on.

Anyone with half a brain can see they are right.

That's the issue on here. Half a brain would be an improvement with some of the posters

[Lovecraft]

 

Edited April 20 by Lovecraft

[Maple Leaf]

Trump spoke about Gettysburg at a recent rally in Pennsylvania.  His remarks have been described as rambling and unhinged.  If Joe Biden had said anything like this, the right-wing press would have been all over him.  But Trump largely got a pass.  The remarks are incoherent tripe, perhaps another indication of a declining mental state:

 

"Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was," Trump said during a Saturday rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania, in what was his first campaign event in the battleground state. "It was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways—it represented such a big portion of the success of this country," he continued.

"Gettysburg, wow—I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to look and to watch," he said. "And the statement of Robert E. Lee, who's no longer in favor—did you ever notice it? He's no longer in favor. 'Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill.' They were fighting uphill, he said, 'Wow, that was a big mistake,' he lost his great general. 'Never fight uphill, me boys,' but it was too late," Trump added.

 

 

 

[I P Knightley]

22 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also amused by Cranston's contribution. Kind of apt as I'm distracted from being busy looking through a psychologist's report at the moment.

 

Of course, there's no full psychological assessment as Trump wouldn't submit himself to having one - not an independent one. What we see written by psychologists is a professional opinion which really just confirms (or explains) what we see and hear as being so remarkably unusual and puts it in slightly more professional terms than your typical Joe would.

 

Thing is, whether it's written by an "accredited" (what sort of accreditation are you looking for?) Psycho or just some amateur who makes an observation, it's pretty plain to see that Trump is narcissistic; egotistical; self-obsessed; immature and, in many ways, infantile; has no regards for the consequences of his actions on anyone but himself and, above all, he's dangerous.

 

I've had that opinion validated and signed off by someone with three degrees in Psychology plus a 35-plus year in psychological practice. Is that OK, Cranny?

[I P Knightley]

7 hours ago, Lovecraft said:

 

[JFK-1]

23 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

 

 

 

Go Stormy, she’s way too smart for Trump.

[JFK-1]

1 hour ago, I P Knightley said:

He’s not just farting, he’s shitting in a diaper, and that would indeed produce a “putrid smell”

[JFK-1]

Might still see Trumps assets being seized, Letitia James has filed a 26 page objection to Trump $175 million bond. It says aimong other things this company posting the bond isn't authorised to issue bonds in NY and even if they were she says they don't have the money to cover the bond.

She's asking the judge to accept her objections and give Trump just 7 more days to come up with a legitimate bond, if he can't let the seizures begin.

 

 

[JFK-1]

What Did President Trump Do for 187 Minutes on Jan. 6? (Democracy on Trial: Pt. 12)

What was then-President Donald Trump doing for 187 minutes during the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when some in the crowd were chanting “hang Mike Pence”? The Jan. 6 Select Committee sought answers to that question. Watch Pt. 12 of “Democracy on Trial.”

 

 

[Canscot]

The fun starts today!

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Canscot said:

The fun starts today!

I wonder how long it will be until Trump throws his first tantrum?

[Footballfirst]

Just now, Maple Leaf said:

I wonder how long it will be until Trump throws his first tantrum?

Not before he wakes up.  He's already nodded off during the judge's instructions to the jurors.

[The Real Maroonblood]

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Not before he wakes up.  He's already nodded off during the judge's instructions to the jurors.

Hopefully he’ll nod off and forget to waken up.

[Maple Leaf]

12 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Not before he wakes up.  He's already nodded off during the judge's instructions to the jurors.

 

And he has the cheek to call Biden "Sleepy Joe"

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

And he has the cheek to call Biden "Sleepy Joe"

 

As they say, with Trump, every accusation is a confession. It's kind of astonishing how often it's true, though.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Meanwhile, with the caveat that this is just seeing which way the wind happens to be blowing at the moment, poll numbers are slowly moving towards Biden. Marist, whose methodology usually seems to give slightly more favorable numbers to GOP candidates, has Biden leading Trump 51-48 among registered voters. With the third party candidates included, it's 43-38.

 

If the poll is limited to those who say they will definitely vote in November, the lead grows to 53-47, or 46-39 if third parties are included.

 

https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/election-2024-april/

 

Again, IMO this shows absolutely nothing but that the election is shifting towards Biden slightly, which is not surprising to me but is nonetheless encouraging.

Edited April 22 by Watt-Zeefuik

[Canscot]

I know there is much about this trial, indeed the whole Donald Trump story in fact that you just could not make up!

I just about pmsl when I saw the word of the first witness called to the stand……….  One David Pecker!

For those of you who may not be quite so  informed about Canadian/American slang , Pecker is slang for cock😂

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

Meanwhile, with the caveat that this is just seeing which way the wind happens to be blowing at the moment, poll numbers are slowly moving towards Biden. Marist, whose methodology usually seems to give slightly more favorable numbers to GOP candidates, has Biden leading Trump 51-48 among registered voters. With the third party candidates included, it's 43-38.

 

If the poll is limited to those who say they will definitely vote in November, the lead grows to 53-47, or 46-39 if third parties are included.

 

https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/election-2024-april/

 

Again, IMO this shows absolutely nothing but that the election is shifting towards Biden slightly, which is not surprising to me but is nonetheless encouraging.

 

When was the jury selection for the Trump hush money trial in the news?

 

I ask because the fieldwork for that poll was done last Monday-Wednesday.  Compared to the last Marist (with others) poll, for which fieldwork was done about three weeks earlier, Trump's favourable rating hasn't changed - but his unfavourable rating has improved marginally.  If the polling was done while the jury selection was in the news, you'd be forgiven for inferring that the headlines didn't do Trump's favourability ratings any damage at all.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Jim_Duncan said:

Still a fair chance that one or both of them might keel over pan breid prior to November. 

 

About 1 in 40 that Trump will keel over, and about 1 in 29 that Biden will, meaning a 1 in 1,160 possibility that both will (assuming you treat them keeling over as independent events).  That's based on average white male life expectancy at ages 77-78 (Trump) and 81-82 (Biden) in the United States.  In reality, their statuses and income levels means the odds are probably even higher.

 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

When was the jury selection for the Trump hush money trial in the news?

 

I ask because the fieldwork for that poll was done last Monday-Wednesday.  Compared to the last Marist (with others) poll, for which fieldwork was done about three weeks earlier, Trump's favourable rating hasn't changed - but his unfavourable rating has improved marginally.  If the polling was done while the jury selection was in the news, you'd be forgiven for inferring that the headlines didn't do Trump's favourability ratings any damage at all.

 

Mostly late last week. Beginning of the week was all preliminary motions with a bit of jury selection. But I honestly don't expect the spectacle of this particular trial to do too much to the favorability rating unless there's a conviction. The Stormy Daniels stuff is seedy AF but it's hardly new, and it's complicated as to exactly how it's illegal. But a felony conviction, at some level, is a felony conviction.

 

The J6 trial, if it lands in August or September, could be a much bigger spectacle.

 

If you're looking through those data for a reason for the shift in the polls, I'd say the most obvious one is an improvement in Biden's approval for handling of the economy. It's still underwater but it's bumped a couple of points. Which, again, makes sense. I'd say the other big thing that happened since the February poll is that Biden came out swinging at the SOTU and put the "doddering old fool" memes to bed for a while.

 

The election ultimately is going to be more about Biden than it is about Trump, as weird as I realize that seems from afar.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

To write a longer thing about the state of the election, and why I read the impact of the data very differently from @Ulysses . . .

 

The discussion this week but this thread in general highlight how a lot of y'all clearly think that Donald Trump is the most interesting, most relevant, most important thing about US politics. And to a degree you're not entirely wrong, in that he's an existential threat to American democracy and democracy in the world in general. But in terms of what has salience in the conversations with other US citizens on social media, at the bar, at the school pickup line, and so forth, he's just not that interesting a topic right now. His fans believe in him. His foes are sick of him and scared of what could happen if he comes back. But we're not actually talking about him that much.

 

For context, I live in kind of an odd combo of factors. North Carolina is the state Trump carried most narrowly in 2020, but Durham County (where I live) voted for Biden by about 81-18% (the county just north of us went for Trump). At the same time, my next door neighbor was a big Trump fan. When we were moving back into the neighborhood in 2019 (6 years in Virginia but kept the house here), we told new folks we'd meet "we're the house NEXT to the giant Trump sign." He actually quit talking to me for months because I tried to intercede in a shouting match between him and other neighbors of ours, a gay couple. When Biden was finally declared winner, a lot of us were driving up and down the street honking horns and waving to each other, and my neighbors sat on their porch and grumbled about the rigged election.

 

After J6 that sign went down ("someone stole it!" he said) and never came back up. He's never said it but I know my neighbor's brother is a cop. I think the violence against police on J6 was too much for him. I don't know how he'll vote in November, but even if it's for Trump the gusto has totally vanished. In 2016 and 2020 we'd see MAGA bumper stickers and flags all over the place, even in our "dark blue" city. I still see one occasionally but it's much rarer. His fans might vote for him, possibly in large numbers, but the big, rowdy fun ride vibe that surrounded both of his previous campaigns is totally gone.

 

What are people actually talking about instead of the orange rapey fash? Gaza, housing, immigration, and inflation. The ongoing shitshow of the House GOP. "Is Biden too old" was a big topic two months ago but is gone for now.  Climate change is a big one, but maybe that's just our "blue" city. And, of course, abortion, abortion, abortion.

 

I'm not saying there aren't corners where it's all rah-rah-Trump all the time. I'm saying I used to see more of it, and I hardly ever see it now. Folk on here talk a lot about the "MAGA cult" and it's not entirely wrong but that's like 30-35% of the country—a terrifying amount, to be sure, but not nearly enough to get him the majority. The rest of his support is just upper income people who like that he cut their taxes, or people who are annoyed at immigration or the tent cities that the housing crisis is creating, or people who get worked up about the trans ladies using the bathroom. Some just really don't like Democrats or Joe Biden and so are going to hold their nose and vote for him.

 

And that might be enough for him to win re-election. But as frustrating as it is, given how dangerous he is, that's going to be more about people giving up on Biden than swearing allegiance to the MAGA cult.

Edited April 23 by Watt-Zeefuik

[Gundermann]

Interesting anecote re Reagan. Would love a Carter as US president now.

 

Reagan, tbf, was sufficiently horrified as Israel's slaughter of civilians in Lebanon to halt it with one phone call though.

 

[ToadKiller Dog]

OK a bit childish but the rumour flying round  of Trumps lawyers struggling to cope with his constant rancid smelling farts made me chuckle .

[JFK-1]

7 hours ago, ToadKiller Dog said:

OK a bit childish but the rumour flying round  of Trumps lawyers struggling to cope with his constant rancid smelling farts made me chuckle .

They deserve it, I hope Trump has a diaper malfunction requiring a full hazmat team.

[Ulysses]

19 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Mostly late last week. Beginning of the week was all preliminary motions with a bit of jury selection. But I honestly don't expect the spectacle of this particular trial to do too much to the favorability rating unless there's a conviction. The Stormy Daniels stuff is seedy AF but it's hardly new, and it's complicated as to exactly how it's illegal. But a felony conviction, at some level, is a felony conviction.

 

The J6 trial, if it lands in August or September, could be a much bigger spectacle.

 

If you're looking through those data for a reason for the shift in the polls, I'd say the most obvious one is an improvement in Biden's approval for handling of the economy. It's still underwater but it's bumped a couple of points. Which, again, makes sense. I'd say the other big thing that happened since the February poll is that Biden came out swinging at the SOTU and put the "doddering old fool" memes to bed for a while.

 

The election ultimately is going to be more about Biden than it is about Trump, as weird as I realize that seems from afar.

 

I mentioned some months ago that there is often a lag between an economic upturn and the government getting some credit for it from the electorate, and that I felt this might be a factor in polling in the US through the winter.  That's why I've said a couple of times that I'd be interested to see how Biden is faring in May, or more precisely towards the end of May. It's also why I was interested to see Biden open a slight lead over Trump in the poll you referenced, and especially to improve his standing with independents, even though neither candidate's favourable-unfavourable rating changed.  That could be a pointer to exactly the suggestion you've made about Biden's handling of the economy.  It's also interesting to see a couple of polls showing that Biden fares better when Kennedy's name is included in the question, when a couple of weeks ago Biden was faring worse.  It's only a handful of polls, so it all might be nothing, of course.  And more generally RCP's poll tracker has shown no change in the popular vote worth speaking of since the start of April, and of course also shows Trump leading in all of the states he needs to swing from Biden with the exception of Pennsylvania.

 

Conventional wisdom says that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, so in that sense we actually shouldn't be surprised if ultimately the election is about Biden rather than Trump.  Having said that, the Orange One has for years had a remarkable capacity to make things all about him, so I wouldn't discount his ability to do the same again.

[JFK-1]

It’s absolutely staggering there’s anybody who could think of anything favourable to say about Trump. Anybody want to try?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I mentioned some months ago that there is often a lag between an economic upturn and the government getting some credit for it from the electorate, and that I felt this might be a factor in polling in the US through the winter.  That's why I've said a couple of times that I'd be interested to see how Biden is faring in May, or more precisely towards the end of May. It's also why I was interested to see Biden open a slight lead over Trump in the poll you referenced, and especially to improve his standing with independents, even though neither candidate's favourable-unfavourable rating changed.  That could be a pointer to exactly the suggestion you've made about Biden's handling of the economy.  It's also interesting to see a couple of polls showing that Biden fares better when Kennedy's name is included in the question, when a couple of weeks ago Biden was faring worse.  It's only a handful of polls, so it all might be nothing, of course.  And more generally RCP's poll tracker has shown no change in the popular vote worth speaking of since the start of April, and of course also shows Trump leading in all of the states he needs to swing from Biden with the exception of Pennsylvania.

 

Conventional wisdom says that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, so in that sense we actually shouldn't be surprised if ultimately the election is about Biden rather than Trump.  Having said that, the Orange One has for years had a remarkable capacity to make things all about him, so I wouldn't discount his ability to do the same again.

 

Yeah, he's lucked out enough times that you kind of have the sense that he has a deal with the devil or some such, but the thing is that there's other explanations beyond him having a magical ability to bullshit his way out of anything. Not that I can easily set aside that he's going to just bullshit his way back to the oval office, but there are other explanations.

 

In 2016 Clinton was likely going to win until the Comey memo dropped, and given that it came out the day before election day no poll would have picked up the movement. At the same time, Clinton ran this super new tech data-driven campaign rather than an old fashioned boots on the ground campaign, and there's a lot of folks I know who do organizing who blame her and Robby Mook's whizbang hypertargeting for blowing chance after chance to make up ground with voters. Also, she'd been the subject of Fox News smears for 25 years at that point, it was hard for her to dig out from under all that.

 

In 2020 Trump had both the benefit of incumbency, and the general rule in American politics is that elected incumbents get re-elected barring something unusual. Even a terrible and unpopular President like GWB got re-elected, and it probably took the Ross Perot campaign for his dad to lose. Carter probably had a decent chance without the hostage crisis. In my lifetime, it's them and Trump and no one else that's lost. Add to that, the Democrats were worried about COVID and didn't want to send campaigners door to door, so relied on video and phone banking, which just doesn't work as well. The RNC still had the leftovers of the get out the vote operation that GWB's minions left behind plus the fundraising superiority that left the GOP with a $300 million advantage. The consensus was that the GOP had the edge on the ground game and in the pocketbook.

 

Lots still to go this year, but Trump just fired most of the RNC people who were coordinating the vaunted RNC ground game. Biden's team seems determined to not get beat on the ground and is opening far more satellite campaign offices far earlier than last time. And then there's the titanic fundraising advantage that each wing of the Democratic campaign has opened over its Republican counterpart, and that's even before you get to Trump raiding all of them to pay his legal bills.

 

Which is to say, we have an experiment happening. At the moment, Trump's luck appears to have run out and the advantages he's been able to rely on are disappearing. Unless, of course, he really does have magical bullshit ability and he's going to talk his way out of this one. (And even though I'm calling it "magical bullshit," I'm not denying that it seems to exist.) Or maybe the GOP gets another "October Surprise" and craters Biden right at the end.

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Yeah, he's lucked out enough times that you kind of have the sense that he has a deal with the devil or some such, but the thing is that there's other explanations beyond him having a magical ability to bullshit his way out of anything. Not that I can easily set aside that he's going to just bullshit his way back to the oval office, but there are other explanations.

 

In 2016 Clinton was likely going to win until the Comey memo dropped, and given that it came out the day before election day no poll would have picked up the movement. At the same time, Clinton ran this super new tech data-driven campaign rather than an old fashioned boots on the ground campaign, and there's a lot of folks I know who do organizing who blame her and Robby Mook's whizbang hypertargeting for blowing chance after chance to make up ground with voters. Also, she'd been the subject of Fox News smears for 25 years at that point, it was hard for her to dig out from under all that.

 

In 2020 Trump had both the benefit of incumbency, and the general rule in American politics is that elected incumbents get re-elected barring something unusual. Even a terrible and unpopular President like GWB got re-elected, and it probably took the Ross Perot campaign for his dad to lose. Carter probably had a decent chance without the hostage crisis. In my lifetime, it's them and Trump and no one else that's lost. Add to that, the Democrats were worried about COVID and didn't want to send campaigners door to door, so relied on video and phone banking, which just doesn't work as well. The RNC still had the leftovers of the get out the vote operation that GWB's minions left behind plus the fundraising superiority that left the GOP with a $300 million advantage. The consensus was that the GOP had the edge on the ground game and in the pocketbook.

 

Lots still to go this year, but Trump just fired most of the RNC people who were coordinating the vaunted RNC ground game. Biden's team seems determined to not get beat on the ground and is opening far more satellite campaign offices far earlier than last time. And then there's the titanic fundraising advantage that each wing of the Democratic campaign has opened over its Republican counterpart, and that's even before you get to Trump raiding all of them to pay his legal bills.

 

Which is to say, we have an experiment happening. At the moment, Trump's luck appears to have run out and the advantages he's been able to rely on are disappearing. Unless, of course, he really does have magical bullshit ability and he's going to talk his way out of this one. (And even though I'm calling it "magical bullshit," I'm not denying that it seems to exist.) Or maybe the GOP gets another "October Surprise" and craters Biden right at the end.

 

Thanks for that.  I don't disagree with any of it, but I will anyway - but only a bit.

 

In American political analysis, incumbency is regarded as almost a defensive fortress.  That's with good reason - except when it comes to the Presidency.  You've mentioned three incumbents who lost.  But don't forget that Ford was an incumbent in 1976, albeit in less than ideal political circumstances.  So also was LBJ, when he quit because of his poor performance at the start of the 1968 Democratic primaries. So while he didn't lose in the general election, the reality is that he failed in the primaries.  So in my lifetime there have been five incumbent Presidents who have failed to be re-elected. In the same decades, there were four who came through unscathed - Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama.  Regardless of the specific reasons for each of the losses, that's a 50% fail rate if you treat Ford's loss as an extension of Nixon's resignation.

 

Separately, and I've mused about this before, what percentage of American voters are genuinely independent or undecided?  The candidates and their shadow armies will spend astronomical sums on the campaign, whether high-tech or "ground game". All of that is fine and helpful when it comes to getting your own base to show up and vote for you.  But does much (if any) of it help to change anyone's mind?  I doubt that more than 10% of voters are "independent", and it's probably closer to 5 or 7 percent. 

 

Finally, and right out on a tangent, how do you feel about this proposition?  Trump might well be bad for America, and bad for politics, but he's helped with one problem that the journos claim has afflicted American politics since I was a child - getting people to show up to vote, whether for or against him. Was the 2020 turnout a record?  Will 2024 match it?