Trump to win?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

This nails it, IMO.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/10/trump...ommentary.html

Seizing on the loosening of regulations and laws that previously kept corporate money and excessive special interest money out of elections, the Democratic Party began catering to Wall Street, big oil, big pharmaceutical companies, and the "professional class."

yep = just exactly what thomas frank says in my post above

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

i just hope, for your sake GRG - that your town doesnt get overrun by the 'wave of refugees' that
are apparently going to be fleeing the US - like any day now, eh?

GRG55 and our friends up north probably don't have to worry too much. I don't think the U.S.A. is that lucky.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to win?

No, I don't think it's quite as grim as that. There are hundreds of Democrats in the House and Senate, thousands more in the state houses, tens and hundreds of thousands working the various agencies, and they dominate K street and the NGOs. Not dead yet.

We need to give this time to shake out and see what Trump will do. See what the Democrats will do in counter. Both parties need to go after and keep/win the voters who put Trump in the White House by promoting policies that help them directly and with immediacy. There are powerful and massively capitalized centrifugal forces that will move Heaven and Earth to keep Trump and the Democrats from doing precisely that, because it's their ass if they don't.

Its their relative strength that is the biggest threat to them. The Democrats were the stronger party. As they were dancing on the Republican grave , they forgot about the dangers of a power vacuum.
Trump easily drove out the neocons and old guard wack job social conservatives, and swept in labor. Old guard capitalists in the Republican party certainly prefers them over financial feudalism.
So floor managers opened the doors to welcome their old rivals against the financial class. Now the social conservatives are boxed in with nowhere to go(Utah is your bellwether).
Fawning all over Islam gives them no choice. This allowed segments of social progressives into the Trump rebellion, lead by the likes of Milo.

So the Democrats may in fact be too viable for their own good. They are not weak enough to collapse and be reformed, and may not be strong enough to win.
The other weakness of the Democrats is their racism and bigotry against whites and against each other. They will not turn out for a white liberal, and blacks will not turn out for a Latino.
White bigotry is far more suppressed. A black person, a Latino, or a woman will not be punished nearly as much if they have the right ideology . Republicans can field women and Latinos.
Meanwhile Democrats are trying to have LGBT and radical Islam under the same tend.

That's what the Republicans were for so long, strong enough to lose , and too strong to change. It was like holding on to an over the hill superstar instead of developing young talent.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

But wait! The Democrats may have a Bench after all!

http://nypost.com/2016/11/10/chelsea...-for-congress/

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump Appointments

It remains to be seen. I hate to be the person who seems to be the Trump apologist but it may be that the names being thrown about are the Joseph Kennedys of today: people who know where the bodies are buried and are useful in that regard. They must be kept on a tight leash.

I'm fairly certain Trump will make mistakes with certain appointments. I am hoping that when he makes a mistake, he is very quick to take corrective action: "You're fired," and appoint someone else.

Didn't Trump get rid of two campaign managers during this election? I cannot recall any other other presidential candidate in the past few decades having changed campaign managers even once.

Winner winner, chicken dinner! He's fired.

According to the WSJ, Chris Christie was removed as Trump campaign transition chairman on Friday, a position that will now be filled by Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the transition team confirmed. Christie will remain on the transition team’s executive committee as a vice chairman, along with Ben Carson, both largely figured positions; they will be also joined by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Mr. Sessions.

The most drastic change on staff was the elevation of Rick Dearborn, the staff chief of Mr. Sessions’ Washington office, into the role of transition director. The move sidelined Rich Bagger, a top ally of Mr. Christie’s who held that role for the last several months. Mr. Bagger couldn’t be reached for comment.

Chris Christie Booted As Trump Transition Team Chairman

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to win?

But wait! The Democrats may have a Bench after all!

http://nypost.com/2016/11/10/chelsea...-for-congress/

Voting for a hereditary monarchy seems a little inefficient.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

No more Clinton or Bush

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Speaking of nailing it...

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/...son-of-brexit/

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Speaking of nailing it...

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/...son-of-brexit/

[verdo]

Re: Trump to win?

It remains to be seen. I hate to be the person who seems to be the Trump apologist but it may be that the names being thrown about are the Joseph Kennedys of today: people who know where the bodies are buried and are useful in that regard. They must be kept on a tight leash.

I'm fairly certain Trump will make mistakes with certain appointments. I am hoping that when he makes a mistake, he is very quick to take corrective action: "You're fired," and appoint someone else.

Didn't Trump get rid of two campaign managers during this election? I cannot recall any other other presidential candidate in the past few decades having changed campaign managers even once.

Donald Trump advisors consider Jamie Dimon for Treasury Secretary

^I lol'd. i mean holy shit...not even a day

I stand by what i said just HOURS ago

what a shocker! (not). I can't wait to see how wall street manages to solidify their control in ways they've only dreamed of under Trumps administration.

Trump voters have no idea what they've done. By the time they get it, it will be too late. I don't even think Hillary would be so brazen. Welcome to the new America folks

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

Donald Trump advisors consider Jamie Dimon for Treasury Secretary

^I lol'd. i mean holy shit...not even a day

I stand by what i said just HOURS ago



Trump voters have no idea what they've done. By the time they get it, it will be too late. I don't even think Hillary would be so brazen. Welcome to the new America folks

You are calling a disaster before it has even occurred as you seem to believe the very election of Trump is the disaster itself. As the article states, it is Trump's advisors, not Trump himself, who floated the idea of naming Dimon as treasury secretary. Even if we assume the story is accurate and Dimon had in interest in being treasury secretary, Trump would still have to approve his advisors' recommendations. Until Trump appoints a no-goodnik who continues to behave as a no-goodnik, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt as Obama was given the benefit of the doubt. This means that I will give Trump two years or until something genuinely nasty happens, whichever comes sooner, before making a judgment.

A bunch of Democrats and Hillary supporters having their psyches bruised from an electoral upset and having panic attacks is not something genuinely nasty.

[verdo]

Re: Trump to win?

You are calling a disaster before it has even occurred as you seem to believe the very election of Trump is the disaster itself. As the article states, it is Trump's advisors, not Trump himself, who floated the idea of naming Dimon as treasury secretary. Even if we assume the story is accurate and Dimon had in interest in being treasury secretary, Trump would still have to approve his advisors' recommendations. Until Trump appoints a no-goodnik who continues to behave as a no-goodnik, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt as Obama was given the benefit of the doubt. This means that I will give Trump two years or until something genuinely nasty happens, whichever comes sooner, before making a judgment.

A bunch of Democrats and Hillary supporters having their psyches bruised from an electoral upset and having panic attacks is not something genuinely nasty.

im like 100% sure that if Hillary won, and we started getting word that they were even thinking about putting total crooks like Dimon into office, there would be shit flipping going on here lol. But i guess the trump kool aid wont run dry until we reach the point where plausible deniability wont work anymore. So until then, ill wait

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Michael Moore Calls Out Race Baiters:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/11/mi...-racist-video/

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

If Sanders and Warren can pull it off, more power to them although it might be that Bernie's time has passed. Besides, the smart move would be to run someone (way) under 70 and firmly planted in the 21st Century as a way of demonstrating a clear break from the past. First the let's see if the party can purge the Clintons and then we'll be in a better position to talk about what might come next.

Sanders is old enough that he will likely play the role of the wise elder. Warren was torching a populist fire in her first interview. She went full on FDR on the Republicans. She might be 70 in 2020 but that interview looked to me like a shot over the bow. Since she was always my first choice, then my first choice for VP, readers are free to discount my opinion on Warren.

I'm not sure where your bravado and optimism comes from seeing how similar assurances were made on Monday morning only to be dashed so thoroughly and unexpectedly Wednesday morning. The Democrats are still walking through the stages of grief, I get it, and we will see if and when they can free themselves of denial as to the reasons they were routed and what they need to do to win back these voters.

As of now, I see them stuck in the propaganda bubble they made for themselves and doubling down on the ridiculous assertions made during the campaign. The anti-Trump riots, small as they are, should give people some idea as to the mindset of the most extreme and unhinged on the Clinton cohort. If the shoe were on the other foot at it was anti-Hillary riots, you can be sure it would be the lead story every cycle. On every talking head and pundit's mouth you'd hear "why isn't Trump making his supporters stop rioting" but no such demand is made on Hillary. Par for the course, but makes me think the institutional and individual failures among the Democratic Party and it's MSM adjuncts that brought us a Trump landslide aren't about to change.

You're still being snarky and fighting the battle you won Woody. You can stop it and we can move forward or we can start fighting again and talk about how your boy lost the popular vote by well more the a million votes, how the exit polls were are off by 5% or more in most of the swing states, (always in the Trump direction), and very accurate in the states that don't matter. We can talk about how happy the KKK and other racist organizations are. We can talk about how the alt-right and Koch brothers appear to own Trump and the Republican party. We can talk about 100+ cases of extreme sexual and racial harassment that have occurred in the last two days and how it appears your candidate is the person who unleashed this rash of racism. And there's a lot more if you'd prefer fighting over the outcomes of the past election.

Clinton is gone, it's not about her. These are not riots they're marches. This is mostly the young progressive wing of the party that feels like they got screwed by the Dems and the screwed again when Trump was elected.

Since you elected him, it might be much more useful for you to tell us what you think he'll do. Or I'll accept that you're an anarchist as you said earlier. Your job is done. You put a bomb in the White House and you're ready to rebuild after it goes off.

If not, please answer the following so we can begin to understand your thinking. Who will he appoint to his cabinet? Will he repeal many hundreds of regulations that keep banks and energy companies among others, in check. Will he lower taxes like every other Republican or will he stand firm and force the government to plan how we'll pay for expenditures? Will he keep Social Security and Medicare viable or will he attempt to privatize it and give Grandma a voucher? I've many more questions but that seems like a good start.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

If the Dems get pushed to the far left by Warren et al the vacuum in the center of the spectrum will give rising Republican talent like Rubio all the room they need to institutionalize the results of this election for a generation. That's the real danger facing the Dems...years in the wilderness.

Um, Elizabeth Warren is quite conservative. She doesn't want average Americans to get cheated by multinational corporations. She thinks everyone should pay their fair share in taxes. She would like to conserve the environment. She does not think corporations are people. She thinks family farms should not be bludgeoned by Monsanto and corporate farms. She thinks banks and the government should serve the people of the US. She thinks education and medical care are a right not a profit center. I may have missed a couple but there is nothing more centrist in the US than these views.