suffering damage to our nation that's truly irreparable
I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement (Who is left out of such agreements is an exercise for the reader.) The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage, that the political system is not at all designed (Or has the will) to deal with.
I'm curious why you think his re-election chances are so high?
Comparing to the post-WWII Presidents who failed to get a second term, Ford, Carter, and the first Bush, they all had much higher net approval ratings at almost all comparable times through their terms.
Carter and Ford both had approval ratings almost as low Trump's at this point, but they had much lower disapproval ratings, giving them much better nets.
Scroll down here for post-WWII President approval/disapproval/net rating charges over time compared to the current President over time [1].
My reasoning is, that Democrats seem to be playing the same notes as for previous election (mainly social justice), except with more "socialism" (higher taxes). It seems unlikely that this time they succeed... unless they change strategy before the election, of course!
In the 2016 election, "Social Justice" barely made the top ten issues people voted on[1] (#1, It's the economy, stupid!) The independents that swung for Trump were worried about their jobs (or lack thereof). His base was more concerned with social justice issues, but they would've voted for him anyway.
The democratic candidate, nor her running mate were widely known, or even running on social justice issues. [2]
Lastly a higher tax on the wealthy is highly popular, even in republican circles. As are some "socialist" type policies like medicare for all. [3]
I don't understand how [1] makes your argument... Sure economy is important, but the question is, do the policies differ? Like, it's probably 99% important to voters that they elect a "natural-born American" but if both candidates fulfill this condition, it makes 0% of the decision to whom they will vote for.
I perceived (and I thought many other people did also) as Sanders running more on economic issues (equality, taxes, etc) and Hillary running more on social justice issues (deplorables, "woman card", equal pay, immigration, racial justice, etc)
I perceived (and I thought many other people did also) as Sanders running more on economic issues (equality, taxes, etc) and Hillary running more on social justice issues (deplorables, "woman card", equal pay, immigration, racial justice, etc)
Most of the notable Democratic candidates are running far more heavily on economic issues than Clinton was, and even the more centrist ones like Gillibrand are campaigning on things that in 2016 were Sanders-exclusive signatures, like Medicare for All. Clinton may have won the 2016 nomination, but Sanders was a lot more influential on the trajectory of the party.
I think we have a very good chance of un-electing him. He's alienated all but his most dedicated core base, and there's a huge list of Democratic primary candidates from which to whittle down the very strongest. Lots of people who voted for him did it with the mentality of "The establishment's bad; let's try something different. Drain the swamp. Things couldn't get any worse." Now those people are saying, "Oh."
I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement. The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage.
This is definitely true, unfortunately. A government is made of people, and no government system can withstand being populated by bad (or at least shortsighted) people. Most of those before Trump weren't massively better people than him, morally speaking. Even Obama quietly did some really shady things.
Okay, but pragmatism dictates that we don't get a do-over with the governing structure of the most powerful nation on earth. We can work to make it better, but that's a long and slow process, and in the meantime we need to get the various buttons and dials out of the hands of a literal crazy person.
I'll put it this way: I disagree with Mike Pence politically on virtually every issue. But it would still be a massive relief for me if he finished up Trump's presidential term.
Comments
By which, you surely mean, the next six.
I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement (Who is left out of such agreements is an exercise for the reader.) The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage, that the political system is not at all designed (Or has the will) to deal with.
I'm curious why you think his re-election chances are so high?
Comparing to the post-WWII Presidents who failed to get a second term, Ford, Carter, and the first Bush, they all had much higher net approval ratings at almost all comparable times through their terms.
Carter and Ford both had approval ratings almost as low Trump's at this point, but they had much lower disapproval ratings, giving them much better nets.
Scroll down here for post-WWII President approval/disapproval/net rating charges over time compared to the current President over time [1].
[1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/...
My reasoning is, that Democrats seem to be playing the same notes as for previous election (mainly social justice), except with more "socialism" (higher taxes). It seems unlikely that this time they succeed... unless they change strategy before the election, of course!
Your reasoning is not backed up by evidence.
In the 2016 election, "Social Justice" barely made the top ten issues people voted on[1] (#1, It's the economy, stupid!) The independents that swung for Trump were worried about their jobs (or lack thereof). His base was more concerned with social justice issues, but they would've voted for him anyway.
The democratic candidate, nor her running mate were widely known, or even running on social justice issues. [2]
Lastly a higher tax on the wealthy is highly popular, even in republican circles. As are some "socialist" type policies like medicare for all. [3]
[1] http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-i...
[2] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22...
[3] https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-m...
I don't understand how [1] makes your argument... Sure economy is important, but the question is, do the policies differ? Like, it's probably 99% important to voters that they elect a "natural-born American" but if both candidates fulfill this condition, it makes 0% of the decision to whom they will vote for.
I perceived (and I thought many other people did also) as Sanders running more on economic issues (equality, taxes, etc) and Hillary running more on social justice issues (deplorables, "woman card", equal pay, immigration, racial justice, etc)
Most of the notable Democratic candidates are running far more heavily on economic issues than Clinton was, and even the more centrist ones like Gillibrand are campaigning on things that in 2016 were Sanders-exclusive signatures, like Medicare for All. Clinton may have won the 2016 nomination, but Sanders was a lot more influential on the trajectory of the party.
I think we have a very good chance of un-electing him. He's alienated all but his most dedicated core base, and there's a huge list of Democratic primary candidates from which to whittle down the very strongest. Lots of people who voted for him did it with the mentality of "The establishment's bad; let's try something different. Drain the swamp. Things couldn't get any worse." Now those people are saying, "Oh."
This is definitely true, unfortunately. A government is made of people, and no government system can withstand being populated by bad (or at least shortsighted) people. Most of those before Trump weren't massively better people than him, morally speaking. Even Obama quietly did some really shady things.
What they did have was tact, and intelligence, and self-control. They didn't take Putin's word over their own intelligence agencies (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695646320/andrew-mccabe-fbi-i...). They didn't display such erratic behavior that their own white-house staff called psychiatrists to ask if they should be worried (https://splinternews.com/white-house-staffers-reportedly-tol...). They didn't have a nuclear football installed in their personal residence (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/pentagon-nuc...).
Whatever objectives his predecessors had, they knew those couldn't happen if they literally endangered the society underpinning them.
That's the root of the problem, though. You're bringing up symptoms of the problem, not the root causes.
The problem isn't that he has a nuclear football installed in his summer dacha.
The problem is that the nuclear football exists, and that there exist two men that can, at a whim, end the world.
Okay, but pragmatism dictates that we don't get a do-over with the governing structure of the most powerful nation on earth. We can work to make it better, but that's a long and slow process, and in the meantime we need to get the various buttons and dials out of the hands of a literal crazy person.
I'll put it this way: I disagree with Mike Pence politically on virtually every issue. But it would still be a massive relief for me if he finished up Trump's presidential term.