Donald Trump

The Green New Deal and 'Socialist' Democrats Are Normalizing Trump

Just 18 percent of Americans have favorable views of socialism.

|

Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS/Newscom

Remember back when Donald Trump was just getting elected and people worried about "normalizing" him and the "extinction-level threat" he posed not just to the United States but the whole of Western civilization? The rude and often disgusting ways he vilified people (especially women), his proud ignorance of basic elements of American governance and policymaking, his calls for violence against hecklers at his rallies—all this and more marked Trump as a break with recent precedent.

Two years into his presidency and about 46 percent of Americans have indeed normalized Trump. That's where his approval rating has settled in a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Over at RealClearPolitics, which averages a bunch of different polls, his approval rating is currently 44 percent. Over the past six months, it's been mostly bouncing around in the low- to mid-40s as well. This represents progress for Trump, who was stuck in the 30s for most of the second half of 2017. About 40 percent of respondents said they will vote for him in 2020. That doesn't sound good, but it's about where Bill Clinton was at the same point in his presidency.

So what happened? Lots of stuff, including first and foremost the simple fact that the world hasn't ended yet on his watch. The economy is still growing, albeit weakly in comparison both to what Trump promised and the postwar historical average. Just one in three of us think there will be a recession in the next year, according to that NBC/WSJ poll. A year ago, 64 percent of us figured a crash was coming. Unemployment is low and wages are growing. He was instrumental in passing a major tax bill, he supported criminal justice reform, and he signed "right to try" legislation. He's talking about pulling out of wars that long ago lost public support. (For an official White House list of accomplishments, go here.) Perhaps more of us are starting to realize that "Trump Is More Like Recent Presidents than Anyone Wants To Admit" (that's not a compliment, by the way, it's just reality) and also that American cultural and political institutions are capable of hemming in his worst tendencies. He lost the showdown over the government shutdown. The Democrats winning the House in the midterms might make it easier for people to be at peace with the idea of President Trump. A divided government is one that, at least to some extent, will limit any given party's or person's power.

At the same time, I want to suggest that one of the biggest factors in "normalizing" Trump is the rise of self-proclaimed socialists in the Democratic Party. This was a theme in Trump's Castro-length performance-art masterpiece at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Saturday, during which he begged the Democrats to run on Green New Deal (GND) policies that would give the government massive new powers not simply in the energy sector but in health care and labor markets too. For a rundown of just how expansive the GND being pushed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will be, go here. In his State of the Union address, Trump declared that "America will never be a socialist nation" and if the GND isn't textbook socialism, it's close enough for government work. As I noted over the weekend, the agenda and statements of progressive Democrats make Trump seem much more mainstream, as do "comments, however short-lived, by Democrats such as Kamala Harris, who at one point recently called for an end to private health care. And over 100 House Democrats have signed on to a plan that would end private health insurance in two years."

Indeed, for all the talk of the growing popularity of socialism, especially among younger people, over the past couple of years, the fact remains that Americans generally don't like the term or its connotations. The NBC/WSJ poll asked respondents whether they had positive or negative reactions to various people and ideas. When it came to socialism, just 18 percent of people had "very" or "somewhat" positive feelings about socialism, while 50 percent had negative feelings. For capitalism, the percentages were reversed, with 50 percent being positive and 19 percent being negative.

To the extent that the Democrats take on the mantle of socialism or allow Donald Trump to tag them with it, they will not only make him seem more and more mainstream and acceptable, they will almost surely lose the 2020 presidential election.

Related: "California's High-Speed Rail Disaster Is a 'Shot Across the Bow for the Green New Deal'"

Advertisement

NEXT: Google Finds Unexpected Gender Gap in Worker Pay: Reason Roundup

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. MAGA

    Still not tired of winning

    1. +10000

    2. I get paid over $180 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I just got paid $ 8550 in my previous month It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it.
      ?????AND GOOD LUCK????? http://WWw.Aprocoin.com

    3. I wasn’t a fan of Trump, and there are a lot of things still i don’t like but the most impressive things about his presidency are:

      His approach to the judiciary. It should be textbook for all future GOP administrations. Forget the chamber of commerce approach, go for principled judicial technocrats.

      His tax cuts, The corporate tax cut will keep paying dividends for decades, and it reduced the expensive games corporations were playing that were costing them, their shareholders, and the treasury money. And I was quite impressed by how simplified the tax forms were this year.

  2. Trump’s been normal to anyone seeking a rebuke of progressive overreach since he declared he was running. The beltway liberals are just a bit slower than the rest to realize half their friends are commies

    1. “The rude and often disgusting ways he vilified people (especially women)”

      LOL give me a break Nick. You can clutch your pearls if you want but presidents have been sleazy from the get go.

    2. Indeed. Trump got all the “normalizing” he could possibly need on election day. What we’re seeing instead is a desperate effort to portray as somehow “abnormal” any dissent from the establishment’s policy preferences.

    3. +100

      MAGA by outing the Commies!

      1. I didn’t vote for Trump because I thought he’d likely be a terrible president.
        (No, I was not so fucking STUPID as to vote for Hitlery!)
        Trump has done nothing since his election – but prove me wrong in every possible way.
        He’s accomplished more for America in 2 years than his four predecessors achieved in 28 years.
        If he continues this way for the next 6 years, he’ll eclipse every president back to Thomas Jefferson.

        I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. But I sure as hell will in 2020.

        MAGA indeed.

  3. Democratic socialists have plenty of time to improve their brand between now and November 2020. They should focus on proposals like #AbolishICE which are widely popular among mainstream American voters. (Polls show more Americans than ever agree with the statement “immigration is a good thing.”)

    1. I know this is bait but since there are people who sincerely believe this, I cannot fathom how they conflate “Americans support immigration, which broadly refers to legal immigration” with “Americans support not enforcing immigration law, which broadly affects illegal immigration.”

      1. Meh what’s to fathom. They’re liars.

    2. Lmao!!! Abolishing ICE is not popular with a majority of mainstream voters. It is popular with those who answer biased polls. Remember, HRC was gonna win by double digits according to polls????

    3. “Just 18 percent of Americans have favorable views of socialism.”

      So, how many helicopters do we need to fix this problem?

    4. I would rather ICE had tanks and aircraft and could make regular saturation fires along the border.

  4. Yes, the problem isn’t that socialists are well, socialists, its that they are normalizing Trump.

    Thats one hell of a hot take.

    1. So, what’s the difference between a “hot take” and a “hot mess”? Because I’m not seeing it here.

      1. Can’t it be both

        1. Hot damn!

  5. Nobody was ever concerned with “normalizing” Trump because he’s the most normal President we’ve had in a long time. I don’t know how people haven’t started calling out anti-Trumpers on this yet, but all the rhetoric was just a campaign strategy. It was never anything more than a campaign strategy. The issue is that when you lie about rhetoric being just that, voters start believing you. Now we have an increasingly violent and radicalized Left to deal with.

    1. Now we have an increasingly violent and radicalized Left to deal with.

      Yet right wing US terrorists have about a 30-1 murder ratio over the “radical Left”. I can tell you been Hannitized.

      1. Why don’t you respect Reason’s property rights? They banned you. Leave like they asked.

      2. It’s not our fault the left is incompetent. They TRY.

        According to this compilation, between 1992 and 2017, 3,342 people were killed in the US in terrorist attacks.

        92% of them died as a result of Islamic terror, but that’s because 89% of them died as a result of 9-11.

        6.6% were recorded as “nationalist” or “right-wing”, most of which (5%) was due to the OK city bombing.

        So the numbers are vastly skewed by two attacks that accounted for 95% of terrorism deaths during that period, and which were over 20 years ago.

        About 0.7% were due to “left wing” attacks, with the balance being unidentified motive. That’s only a 9.4-1 ratio, not 30-1.

        If you pull out those two outliers, the ratio becomes 2.3-1. A lot less impressive ratio.

        1. My source is post 9/11 and contains 11 deaths just by the Pittsburgh gunman:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism

          30-1 is reasonable.

          1. His source, if you press him, included a bank robbery with no citations in the “right wing terror” group. He’s completely full of shit.

          2. Add 9 by Dylan Roof/Charleston and the six Sikhs kllled and 40-1 is more likely.

            I know I know, some wingnut will say WHAT ABOUT STEVE SCALISE??? HUH?

            1. And an unsourced uncorroborated “torture abduction and murder.”

              Just leave like you were asked to, trash.

          3. How amusing; Wikipedia has an extensive analysis of “right-wing terrorism” in the US, and a couple of paragraphs for left-wing without number or a list of incidents.

            Could it be they weren’t particularly interested in the topic?

            1. If it’s Wikipedia, “they” is “us”. You can edit it yourself.

        2. So how do they rack up the numbers of 50 dead at a gay nightclub by a gay muslim democrat? And how did the Las Vegas shooter investigation suddenly gets closed down without any conclusion? Was Stephen Paddock an FBI or police informant or just a common Hillary supporter?

        3. What if you started counting all the white people shot by black criminals who hate white people?

      3. “…I can tell you been Hannitized.”

        Hadn’t seen your lies recently, turd. I was hoping you got your sorry ass tossed again, or made the world a better and smarter place by dying.
        Please do one or the other you lying piece of shit.

        1. No he has no respect for property rights. He’s the drunk at the party who was asked to leave but keep screaming “YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!!!”

      4. It’s interesting how every time someone brings up political violence, apologists limit the definition to deaths as if it’s somehow not reprehensible to nearly kill someone, rape, destroy property, assault, injure, etc.

        1. It’s also interesting how apologists fail to differentiate between lone actors and mob violence. Antifa hasn’t killed anyone yet, but there isn’t a Dylan Roof association. Matter of fact, if you just read through the list of post 2001 “right wing terrorism incidents”, 100% were lone actors and the majority of them aren’t even right wing. For instance, how does Tree of Life count as right wing? Hating Jews isn’t right wing. Nazis aren’t right wing either and if you knew anything about them you would know they hotly contested the two dimensional right/left paradigm that Westerners frequently use. How does the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting count as right wing either? Many Catholics are Democrats. Expressing anti-abortion views doesn’t make you right wing. The shooter was deemed delusional and unfit to stand trial.

          There isn’t enough comment space to evaluate every instance, but the point is that to prove political violence is attributable to a group, the attackers first have to be part of one. Most of the examples of “right wing” violence are lone attackers with single issues. Almost all left wing violence is organized mob violence from organizations with a mission.

          1. Here are a few other notable non-right wing “right wing violence” examples that don’t fall under the misrepresentation of anti-Jewish sentiment as right wing: Vegas Police Officer Ambush (shooters were anarchists decrying police brutality), Woodburn Oregon Bank bombing (bombers were anti-government, should we start a page for Libertarian violence?), LAX Airport shooting (shooter was anti-TSA and a conspiracy theorist), PA Police Barracks shooting (shooter was a delusional survivalist and anti-police), etc.

            Frankly, given this list, you could attribute more violence to Reason than you could to the Aryan Brotherhood or the KKK. That’s how stupid this resource is that you cited. It’s blatant disinformation and proof of why you should never cite Wikipedia.

          2. The tree of life shooter actually ranted against trump because he had to many Jewish people close to him and was pro Israel…so there’s that

            1. Indeed he did. That’s a common complaint from anti-Semites actually. They think Trump is a ZOG puppet because he supports Israel, has a Jewish son-in-law (and grandkids) and accepts his daughter’s conversion. The alt-right loves people like Omar and Tlaib because they advance their agenda in ways that the alt-right can’t due to their name being so toxic.

              It’s funny having the mainstream left call Trump anti-Semitic and the far right call him a kike shill and a race traitor. I hate the centrist fallacy too but in this case it’s perfect.

            2. hell’s bells, that would make him a contender for a Dem seat in Congress these days.

    2. How can anyone watch Trump and conclude that he’s a normal human being in any way? Is it the gilded toilet fixtures or the hair?

      1. Everyone who is not a Lefty nutjob.

        1. The more time you spend here pretending to be an American rightwinger, the faster the women around you are turning into grizzled beasts.

      2. There are not many politicians who are normal human beings. The objection to Trump has more to do that he is not a normal politician.

        1. Looks like we have a solution to that little experiment.

          1. Tony and his ilk love “solutions” especially final ones.

      3. As shocking as this may be for a Libertarian site, people are individuals and their normalcy does not correspond to stereotypes about their economic or social class.

        1. I think you people are far too easily impressed. I can say “bullshit” in front of a bunch of Christians too.

      4. “normal human being in any way”

        That’s just because idiocy, mental illness and probably drug abused WHIMPERING and blaming about any success and value out of pure jealousy while imaginatively being P.C. and dressing about it IS your “normal” perception.

    3. Now we have an increasingly violent and radicalized Left to deal with.

      Look no further than Matt Welch’s Twitter feed!

  6. This is why Senator Sherrod Brown (who is opposed to the “Green New Deal” and Medicare for All) would stomp Trump’s ass.

    But Democrats are probably too stupid to nominate him.

    1. With the exception of Russian stooge Tulsi Gabbard, any Democrat will easily win in 2020. The economy is simply too awful for an incumbent to get reelected. (Plus Mueller will probably remove Drumpf from office this year.)

      #DrumpfRecession
      #UnbanPalinsButtplug

      1. You have it all wrong, pal.

        According to Wingnut.com Trump’s 2.9% GDP growth is proof his anti-regulation policy is working while Obama’s 2.9% GDP growth is proof that Obamacare dragged the economy down.

        Get it now?

        1. Pay your bet, stop posting kiddie porn links, and leave like Reason asked you to.

          1. Fuck you – you lying cocksucker.

            How you’re trying to get ChemJeff banned.

            You conservative pieces of shit won’t be satisfied until this becomes Free Republic II.

            1. Jeff is trying to get jeff banned.

              YOU got YOU banned, and yet came back after you were asked to leave.

              1. I wasn’t asked to leave, you lying Trump piece of shit.

                1. What the fuck do you think a ban IS you fucking retard?

            2. moneyshot|3.5.19 @ 10:41AM|#
              “Fuck you – you lying cocksucker.”

              Pay your bets and stop posting kiddie porn links, turd.

              1. Is that what PB did? I kept wondering what the ban was about.

            3. At least Free Republic doesn’t post kiddie porn links, you hicklib pederast.

        2. Oh don’t worry, I get it. I paid close attention to Palin’s Buttplug’s posts before Reason made the mistake of banning him. So I know Obama personally created the strongest economy in the history of this country, which Drumpf immediately ruined.

          #KrugmanWasRight

      2. I thought Mueller was gonna remove Trump from office before Christmas? Did his report not go out, or are they still reading it?

    2. I just don’t understand what it is about politicians and an inability to maintain a hairstyle.

  7. Just not enough uneducated, disaffected bigots to pull it off again.

    Trump needed a longshot carom through the Electoral College to achieve his win-from-behind election a couple of years ago. Four years of evolution in the American electorate — less white, less rural, less religious, less bigoted, less backward — will make it even tougher to sink that three-cushion bank shot next year.

    American history includes successive waves of ignorance and intolerance (targeting Irish, Jews, gays, Catholics, Italians, blacks, women, Asians, eastern Europeans, atheists, agnostics, Hispanics, etc.) but demonstrates that the xenophobes do not win over the longer term, and this latest batch of bigots seems nothing special despite its reliance on the insights, charms, and integrity of Donald J. Trump.

    Republicans are being branded by backwardness and bigotry for a generation. Old-timey right-wingers take their stale thinking to the grave and are replaced by younger, better Americans in our electorate each day. The arc of American progress throughout our lifetimes has favored the liberal-libertarian mainstream, leaving movement conservatives to their natural position, muttering bitterly about modernity.

    1. Oh yay, the Rev is here to tell us all how we are all uneducated racists because we dare to express an opinion contrary to his own. Thank you again for displaying the slef
      Righteous, leftist arrogance we have all come to know and love…

    2. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|3.5.19 @ 10:12AM|#
      “Just not enough uneducated, disaffected bigots to pull it off again.”

      You and the rest of the asshole can probably get Trump elected again.

    3. Arthur L. Hicklib drops in with the NPC bot response.

    4. “American history includes successive waves of ignorance and intolerance (targeting Irish, Jews, gays, Catholics, Italians, blacks, women, Asians, eastern Europeans, atheists, agnostics, Hispanics, etc.) but demonstrates that the xenophobes do not win over the longer term, and this latest batch of bigots seems nothing special despite its reliance on the insights, charms, and integrity of Donald J. Trump.”

      Yes, indeed, but we can’t completely got rid of the racists either, sadly to say.

      I can say this, though: at the very least, all those racists are so confident President Trump is so unpopular, that nearly two dozen racists have thrown their hats into the ring to become President, and have scrambled to see how much they can out-crazy each other.

      Fortunately this likely means we’ll have four more years of keeping a serious racist out of the White House.

  8. Democrats embracing the “socialist” label, and I believe there are a grand total of three in the country, are not doing themselves any favors re: branding.

    But what is the Trump policy for climate change? Anyone? Crickets?

    1. Crickets is a policy, and in many cases the best policy.

      1. But doing nothing is not doing Something!

        1. There is no such thing as doing nothing. Sometimes not acting is the most radical action you can take.

          But I’m not here to teach kindergarten, you fucking morons.

          1. “Tony|3.5.19 @ 11:37AM|#

            There is no such thing as doing nothing”

            An idiot said this.

            1. It’s because what you mean by doing nothing is continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the chemistry of the earth completely unchecked. Which is, as any moron can understand, not actually the same as doing nothing.

              1. “Tony|3.5.19 @ 11:42AM|#

                It’s because what you mean by doing nothing is continuing to pump greenhouse gases”

                So when you said doing nothing you were stupidly lying.

                1. Why don’t you define what actions humans could take that could be defined as doing nothing. Since you object so much to the very simple concept I’m elucidating that you can’t apparently understand.

                    1. Yes, it’s my claim that there is no such thing as doing nothing.

                      Why don’t you try to do nothing. I’ll start the timer.

                    2. If you were genuinely concerned about greenhouse gases you’d act locally and stop breathing.

                    3. You’re never going to be able to out-psychopath Mr. Shitlords, so don’t embarrass yourself by trying.

          2. “But I’m not here to teach kindergarten, you fucking morons.”

            Good. You aren’t intelligent enough to teach kindergarten, shitbag.

            1. You aren’t intelligent enough to graduate kindergarten, cuntbubble.

          3. Buy more sandbags. The rising seas are going to drown Oklahoma.

    2. You worry too much, Tony. Drumpf had all the advantages in 2016 ? Russian hacking, biased media, Comey letter ? and still lost by 3 million votes. The 2020 Democratic nominee will win easily, “socialist” labeling or not.

      1. You forgot to mention he was running against the most unelectable candidate the DNC could muster.

        1. The most unelectable candidate the DNC could muster back then. They’ve upped their game, and are now considering even more unelectable candidates.

          1. Bellmore’s got it, it’s been shocking, but not surprising how the Dems have approached everything.

          2. “They’ve upped their game, and are now considering even more unelectable candidates.”

            That applies to every single one of them who has announced their candidacy thus far. Either they are so ensconced in their ideological silos they really cannot hear or perceive anything approaching reality, or they actually want Trump to win.

      2. they’ll win California by 5 million votes this time, and complain even more about the archaic Electoral College.

        1. Indeed. I have often wondered why Democrats have demanded a dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than ask themselves “How can we appeal to more Americans in a greater variety of States?”

          It’s as if they want to shove their policies down the throats of people living in Flyover Country, with a complete disregard of the concerns of those “deplorable” people….

    3. I hope he never falls into the delusion of believing that the government can control either the economy or the climate.

      1. The government can’t control the economy? So what are all you idiots worried about?

        1. Stupid assholes like you trying anyway.

        2. The government can try to control the economy. The result is usually called “market failure”.

        3. Consult your dictionary. There is a difference between controlling an economy and fucking it up.

          1. The only difference is time Sandwich, time.

    4. Trump’s policy toward climate change is the only rational one — ignore it, because there’s nothing we can do that isn’t worse than doing nothing.

  9. “The rude and often disgusting ways he vilified people (especially women), his proud ignorance of basic elements of American governance and policymaking, his calls for violence against hecklers at his rallies”

    As I recall, Trump’s “calls for violence against hecklers” turned out to be more complicated than Mr. Gillespie may remember.

    As I recall, those “hecklers” turned out to be hired by someone working for the Clinton campaign, and they were the ones who instigated the violence at Trump rallies.

    Further, we might quote what Trump actually said rather than simply gloss over it like that.

    All this being said, I understand that Gillespie is referring to the news media’s take on this stuff–and holding it up to scrutiny here. But I don’t think a charge like that should be repeated without reference after it was debunked.

    1. As if it’s any surprise that the original narratives will live on well after they’ve been debunked. Not everything gets torn apart as violently as the Nathan Phillips lies. There are still people who believe Obama’s administration was a bastion of open-minded and thoughtful exchanges with the press.

      1. There are no ‘Nathan Phillips lies’.

        By this time next year it will be an accepted fact on the left that the GOP, Trump, and the right all banded together in a racist attack on a native elder who was defending defenseless PoC.

  10. Trump’s been Trump for at least 40 years – a gross pig in a carnival barker’s suit hawking hamburger as filet mignon – so what’s being normalized isn’t Trump but Trump as a top political figure. And of course the idea that top political figures are upright and dignified selfless Solons and statesmen dedicated to public service is the racket that Trump’s horning in on and that’s really what’s got the political classes’ panties in a bunch. “Everybody knows” politicians are the scum of the Earth, but we pretend that politics is a noble calling, like the priesthood or journalism, and Trump’s simply the boy telling us the emperor has no clothes, the priests are molesting little boys and the journalists are propagandizing whores. And that is what’s coarsening public discourse – nobody’s bothering to pretend anymore about their intentions, they’re all reveling in their nakedness and letting it all hang out, it’s liberating to be able to say what you really think. “Imma Fuck You Up And Steal Your Shit” is now the generic standard public political slogan rather than just the nod-and-a-wink private one, and aren’t we all better off now that we’re being honest?

  11. “Just 18 percent of Americans have favorable views of socialism.”

    And most of the news media seems to be well within that 18%.

    I’m hopeful that AT&T taking over Warner Media with properties like CNN will subject them to market discipline. Too much of our news media has been bought as defensive plays against political attacks by the left–Buffet with Disney/ABC Cap Cities, Gates with MSNBC to fend off antitrust, now Bezos has bought the Washington Post . . .

    A significant part of the value of these properties is in their ability to deflect criticism from the people and interests who own them, rather than market forces, and that is not good for civil society.

  12. Gillespie reporting on how Trump vexes him is one of the most delicious aspects of my life.

  13. They are not “normalizing” the President, but rather making it clear who the progressive left really is and what they believe. They support a strong central government imposing its will on states, they are racists, anti American and anti- freedom. They believe the government should control wealth, health and thought. They are opponents of freedom and individual rights.

    1. Only a couple of decades ago normal Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy had to pay homage to pro-segregationist Democrats like Alabama governor George Wallace. Bill Clinton took time from his busy campaign schedule to preside over the execution of a mentally incompetent black person. All this was done in the hopes of cementing the vote in states below the Mason & Dixon line. These days it’s Republicans who pander to the same vote (“build that wall”) leaving the Democrats to concentrate on the urban and suburban vote.

      1. “…These days it’s Republicans who pander to the same vote (“build that wall”) leaving the Democrats to concentrate on the urban and suburban vote.”

        Those would be the ones who elected the hag?

        1. “Those would be the ones who elected the hag?”

          Yes, to win a seat for the New York senate, the urban and suburban vote is vital. No need to pander to rural rubes.

          1. You managed to avoid the election she lost by pandering to the urban and suburban vote. But that’s pretty typical of your sophistry.

            1. You expressed an interest in the election she won. I commented on the election she won. This is not avoiding anything.

          2. This is indeed the state of affairs in New York State: there’s a *lot* of resentment by Upstaters over just how much New York City politics dominates the rest of the State.

            If Hillary had learned how to appeal to rural rubes, rather than take city and suburban votes for granted, she might have been President today.

      2. “Ted Kennedy”

        I don’t consider coldly, casually letting a woman drown while protecting my political career “normal” but you do you.

        1. What’s normal for politicians can be pretty despicable. Like driving your car off a bridge or sitting at the feet of a pro-segregationist governor.

          1. No, that is still very very abnormal even for politicians, especially considering it has only happened once. Basically the definition of an outlier.

            “Like driving your car off a bridge or sitting at the feet of a pro-segregationist governor.”

            You just compared Negligent Homicide to literally nothing. Are those two things really equivalent to you?

            1. “No, that is still very very abnormal even for politicians, especially considering it has only happened once. ”

              Tell that to the voters of Massachusetts. They kept on electing the man to to senate. They are not as naive and sentimental as you seem to be. In 1970, a year after Chappaquiddick, Ted was elected with over 60% of the vote. He repeated this for every race well into the 21st century.

              ” Are those two things really equivalent to you?”

              They are both examples of despicable acts.

              1. “Tell that to the voters of Massachusetts. They kept on electing the man to to senate”

                What the fuck does that have to do with “normal?”

                “They are both examples of despicable acts.”

                In not actually answering my question, you answered my question.

                One is killing somebody. The other isn’t.

                1. “What the fuck does that have to do with “normal?”

                  Nothing. I’m only pointing out that it’s not ‘very very abnormal,’ as you claim.

                  “One is killing somebody. The other isn’t.”

                  No disputing that. What is your point? Sitting at the feet of a segregationist is not despicable if you have killed someone? You don’t appear to have given this much thought.

                  1. “”What the fuck does that have to do with “normal?”

                    Nothing.”

                    Right.

                    “I’m only pointing out that it’s not ‘very very abnormal,’ as you claim.”

                    Well you failed and you’re wrong and your stupidity about voters proves nothing. It happened ONCE EVER. THAT IS NOT BY ANY DEFINTION NORMAL.

                    YOU ARE WRONG.

                    “No disputing that. What is your point?”

                    You can’t read the question you failed to respond to then?

                    Stop the weasel shit guy. You’re wrong and they aren’t equivalent. Just man the fuck up and take the L.

                    1. “Nothing. I’m only pointing out that it’s not ‘very very abnormal,’ as you claim.”

                      This doesn’t even make sense. You’re literally saying it does AND does not have amything to do with normal. You aren’t even being coherent.

                    2. “You aren’t even being coherent.”

                      I’ll try to be clearer. Scandalous behaviour, even to the extent of murder, is not as unusual as you take it to be. It can even be seen as normal insofar as voters don’t deem it as a reason to remove an incumbent politician. I hope that is clearer. Don’t hesitate question me if you are still not understanding my point. (Which, I promise, is not all that difficult.)

                    3. “Well you failed and you’re wrong and your stupidity about voters proves nothing. It happened ONCE EVER. THAT IS NOT BY ANY DEFINTION NORMAL.

                      YOU ARE WRONG.”

                      Politicians are often involved in scandalous behaviour, even murder. Obama ordered extra judicial killings of Americans and it didn’t hurt his re-election. I’m surprised you think Kennedy is somehow exceptional.

                      “Stop the weasel shit guy. You’re wrong and they aren’t equivalent. Just man the fuck up and take the L.”

                      I never claimed they were equivalent. You were the one who raised they issue of equivalency. I wrote that both acts were despicable. Despicable, equivalent: two different words, different spellings, different meanings. Surely you can understand this.

  14. In other words, every time Trump says something outrageous, the Democrats say “hold mah beer and watch this”.

  15. “The economy is still growing, albeit weakly in comparison both to what Trump promised and the postwar historical average.”

    Completely disregarding that this is stronger than the Democrats told us it was rational to believe it would grow just a few years ago. Obama’s anemic recovery was ‘the new normal’ after the 2008 recession.

  16. whats missing is not that Trump has normalized anything but brought about the realization that this has been the method of politics for a long time now its just that people are noticing it now due only to TDS. we should be thankful for Trump in that respect

  17. The rude and often disgusting ways he vilified people (especially women)….

    Nick of course has no examples of this.

    1. The left-wing echo chamber cannot provide serious analysis.

  18. The rude and often disgusting ways he vilified people (especially women)”

    Unlike Hillary’s treatment of women who were raped by her husband

    “his calls for violence against hecklers at his rallies”

    Unlike Obama’s claims to put a boot to the neck of anyone who disagreed with him.

    I’d say Trump is right in line with historical presidential precedent

    1. Whatabout HilteRER!!!

      1. He wouldn’t have the ammo if Obama didn’t give it to him.

  19. “Perhaps more of us are starting to realize that “Trump Is More Like Recent Presidents than Anyone Wants To Admit” ”

    I’ve been saying this all along. Most people’s heads explode when confronted with the idea that he’s just another Bush/Clinton/Obama with an abrasive Twitter timeline.

    1. His administrative methodology is no different than any of the previous Boomer presidents. What sets him apart is the fact that he blew up the prevailing political status quo, and now the parties are trying to figure out what their platforms are going to be for the next 40 years as they realign. That’s all this drama is really about.

      In a best-case scenario, a split in both parties might take place–progressives and Democrats on the left, with neocons and paleocons on the right. This will give people more choices and make for some interesting political campaigns in the next few decades. Or, the parties will simply coalesce around globalism and nationalism as their philosophical keystones rather than post-WW2 definitions of liberal and conservative.

      In a worst-case scenario, the left goes full-bore totalitarian and sparks a civil war. Take a look at what’s going on in France and see what could happen if the urban left gets too full of itself.

      1. Ultimately I think it’s the bankers who will set the limits on the country’s future. These days, it’s the left, even the far left as in Greece, who have been most successful in appeasing the bankers and imposing austerity on their voters. The rest, as the good book says, is opera.

      2. Realigning electoral coalitions is exactly what this is about. Using catchphrases to pigeonhole those realignments is nothing more than doing the prep work for the usual fearmongering and sheepdogging that will serve to cement various groups to whatever the policy puppeteers decide to do.

        Calling GND and Medicare-for-all ‘socialism’ will work to undermine both of those two across the spectrum. Calling them ‘federal govt involvement’ will undermine those among R’s – but not among Ind’s or D’s.

        Calling the alternatives ‘free enterprise’ or ‘capitalism’ will undermine GND/MFA across the spectrum – but calling those alternatives ‘big business’ will undermine the alternatives among Ind’s and D’s. And those alternatives will actually have to exist first since the R’s have proven that they don’t actually have any alternatives other than ‘defend the status quo’ – and the market is not actually stepping in to solve the problem.

        The status quo re healthcare is popular among those who get govt/employer paid medical – but abysmal among everyone else. The status quo re environment is popular among the older and abysmal among the younger. GND/MFA will tweak themselves in prep for the next recession or some big environmental surprise. ‘Defending the status quo’ will simply pee their pants and shout louder since they are at the highwater mark re economy and LACK of environmental surprises

        1. Calling GND and Medicare-for-all ‘socialism’ will work to undermine both of those two across the spectrum.

          The GND was already undermined the minute Pelosi scuzzed it in that press conference. The relevant details–like the fact that the projected cost is more than all the wealth in the world combined, that just the infrastructure conversion process will require massive amounts of “carbon” creation, that it requires a top-down central control of the economy as the governing principle–don’t help its cause, but it’s a non-starter when one of the de facto heads of the party treats it like something a seven-year-old granddaughter wrote in class for Earth Day.

          Medicare-for-all is undermined by both its projected cost (as it can’t even be implemented on a smaller scale at the state level, from huge economies like California to small NY/MA refugee states like Vermont) and the determination of its sponsors to end all private healthcare insurance.

          1. Missing the point.

            Details of GND will change. Details of ‘defending the status quo’ can’t change. The political viability of each will be affected by outside events neither side can control. Who cares what Pelosi thinks? She is old not so long-term dead. Old peeps are already on status quo side.

            Same with healthcare. Remember Hillarycare? 25 years ago and R’s are still defending the status quo with no alternative. D’s have now switched from small-reform (R-origin mandate, expand Medicaid during recession, put mandates on employers) to blow-it-up mindset. They’ll change details as needed. Electorally, that’s a coup. Cuz status quo has actually been propped by employer mandates for decades. If D’s aren’t going that route anymore, employers are gonna start dumping coverage and millions will become uninsured and lose access and market ain’t gonna step in with a solution either.

            In both cases, the D’s are positioning themselves for a change in the electoral coalition that will result from external events. When those events happen, they will already ‘have a solution’. Which means they will get votes.

            You read 7 habits of effective people? – #2 Begin with the end in mind

            R’s ‘end’ is what exists. What IS. Easy to keep as long as what IS works. But it also can’t change.

            D’s have now just begun the process of defining ‘end’. Their 2020 primaries will all be about making that a coherent picture, a true ‘end’. Prob won’t matter for 2020 since Trump is incumbent – but by 2024?

            1. Looking at any of these from existing D leadership positions in Congress is silly.

              House – Pelosi 78; Hoyer 79; Clyburn 78
              Senate – Schumer 68; Durbin 74;

              My guess is this is the last session for that D leadership in the House. In 2020, it will change and get younger. And my guess is D’s retain House in 2020. Who knows after reapportionment/gerrymandering for 2022

              For Senate, leadership stays the same – but in the 2020 and 2022 senate elections, R’s have to defend 44 seats D’s only have to defend 24. A D Senate after 2022 wouldn’t surprise me.

              2020-2022 is going to be when the policy details of GND/MFA start to matter. Before then, it’s all spaghetti on the wall.

              1. A D Senate after 2022 wouldn’t surprise me.

                Depends on if Trump is re-elected or not, and the state of the economy at the time. If there’s a Dem in the White House, and that person pisses off voters like Obama and the Dems did in ramming their agenda through, the party could very well get blown out in the mid-terms again.

                A recession is going to result in the party in power getting blasted regardless.

                1. Depends on if Trump is re-elected or not

                  First I assume Trump WILL be reelected. He ain’t gonna be seriously challenged in the party – and absent that, Americans re-elect incumbents nowadays.

                  But regardless – having to defend nearly twice as many seats as your opponents – in a two-party system – means you’re very very likely to lose seats. R’s haven’t even absorbed that interpretation of the 2018 Senate election. In 2018 – D’s were defending 26 seats – R’s 9. Of course D’s lost seats. 2 as it turns out. That does not actually mean R’s ‘won’ some referendum. It just means they had an enormous advantage going in – and for 2020 and 2022, that advantage is reversed.

            2. Who cares what Pelosi thinks? She is old not so long-term dead.

              Considering she has the stroke to make sure anything she wants gets to the floor for a vote, it matters very much what she thinks. That’s the whole point of seniority, and Cortez is delusional if she thinks she can leverage public opinion against a Democratic stalwart like Pelosi.

              R’s ‘end’ is what exists. What IS. Easy to keep as long as what IS works. But it also can’t change.

              Except you’re assuming that the Republicans won’t change themselves, which is a fallacy. That’s the whole point of a realignment–it wasn’t just the Democrats who cleaved to the New Left following the upheavals of the late 60s and early 70s, it was the Republicans, too, as they positioned themselves against the New Left’s excesses. The change will be inevitable because Trump has 90 percent or greater support amongst Republican voters.

              Assuming that the Republicans won’t propose something in the future just because they’re Republicans is begging the question.

              1. it matters very much what she thinks.

                No it doesn’t. No one supporting GND has the slightest expectation of it going anywhere before Trump is out of office. It is spaghetti being thrown against the wall to see what sticks. Pelosi is 6 years older than Trump. She ain’t outlasting him.

                The change will be inevitable because Trump has 90 percent or greater support amongst Republican voters.

                That is precisely why R’s aren’t gonna change. Not anytime soon at least. There’s even aphorisms for that. Don’t mess with success. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Leave well enough alone. There is no I in team. I’m sure you can list others.

                And anyone who’s worked for big successful corps has seen that too. The boom times are when orgs resist change and don’t spend time with fundamental questions. Then they lose bad in a way where they are embarrassed by that loss (see D’s in 2016). THEN and only then do they rethink. And R’s haven’t really rethought since 1964 – which took until Reagan/Gingrich for that to become the ‘modern R’ party which was the last R’s that actually ‘proposed change’.

                1. As for how Trump realigned the R’s. Except on trade, I don’t think he did. What he did re immigration was imo more about the R base getting increasingly pissed off at the R establishment that it perceived wasn’t taking it seriously – and they finally found someone who would do that. That issue won’t lead to some realignment though.

                  His win wasn’t realigning except trade. Rather it was the 2nd time the D’s electoral college and vote concentration was exposed and more embarrassingly for D’s than Bush/Gore. That too will be part of the electoral game for the D’s in the 2020 primaries – to see how those two issues (which are the generational transition issues that D’s want to own for the next couple decades) play in or have to be tweaked for Rust Belt, Plains, and West. Those three areas are exactly where R’s have picked their trade stance too now.

                2. I could see the Rs adopting a mutant strain of libertarianism (and actually having to deliver!) which isn’t exactly within the status quo. In a time of political excess, threatening to burn the house down is indeed revolutionary.

                  However, I do think you are correct the left has the stronger position moving forward. Eventually the old skool liberals will rework the GND into the Teal Policy Specification. They WILL get at least some of what they agitate for, especially if no one else has any thing else to offer in return (failure to do more than repeal Obamacare was a black eye to the GOP).

                  Ignored in this however are the unaffiliated. As red states have been moving purple, it’s less progressives normalizing Trump as much as independents picking apart various flavors of insanity coming from either side. From Obama to Trump, the momentum favors change.

                  Pride cometh before the fall. Guess which side is boasting the most?

                  1. I think libertarians need to realign. They’ve gotten nothing from a 40-year subordination to an R party that kinda talks libertarian sometimes but never delivers anything but conservative. It was delusional to think they could take over anything – R’s is the property of the country-club cronies and the socon grassroots. They built it, they ain’t gonna give it up. Why should they? It’s their property. Libertarians should understand that concept. If a libertarian can’t leave the R tent, then they aren’t actually libertarian. They are simply hangers-on to coercive power-seeking.

                    Libertarians can come up with a coherent ‘end’ that isn’t just theory but is an actual picture/vision that can be talked about with neighbors or boiled down to a 2-min elevator pitch. FAR faster on their own and outside the R tent than R’s EVER will – without having to surrender core principles or carry R baggage for the R’s.

                    Then sell THAT change as something new and qualitatively different from the DeRp.

                    1. Gary Johnson had sorta the rigth idea — a smaller government moderate centrist party that would leave the crazy to the other guys. But he could never really articulate a vision, or much else, and bungled what support he did have by trying to appease the liberals.

      3. 2020 is about the Dumbocrats thinking Trump is so unpopular they can ride all their hobby horses to an easy win. Instead of just presenting a sane, competent, moderate opponent.

    2. With the exception of appointing Gorsuch, I forgot about that one.

      but otherwise just about every action he’s taken – not the words but the actions – could have easily been done by the previous presidents and no one would think it was out of character.

  20. The fucking democrat/progressive/socialist/communist party is toast and so is their media allies.

    I will watch with glee as they destroy themselves !!!

    LOL x forever !!!

  21. Cracks me up how Nick and the “liberal-tarian” gang think that TDS is normal. Duh, it is what gives you nut jobs like AOC who amazingly has taken over the Head Nu position from Maxine.

    Trump’s style is harsh but NOTHING he has ever proposed is even as remotely close to as crazy as what AOC and the crazy gang propose daily.

  22. This is a stretch…Bernie’s “Bread Lines are a good thing” video has been around for years. I believe stronger polling for Trump is related to #1: identity politics–it doesn’t get crazier than white guys calling black people white supremacists or labeling dog parks as racist segregation. #2: Jerry Brown, the war on the suburbs, the affluent and car driving (it should be enough to say California) #3 the EU and a fear of central planning and euro style taxes on the middle class.

  23. I disagree. Trump won by not being “normal” and if the dems nominate a sensible boring centrist, they will lose again (see Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, Hillary). On the other hand, a self proclaimed socialist like Bernie, or someone with charisma (Beto, Tulsi) could easily defeat Trump because elections are now performance art

    1. Lol.

      Beto couldn’t beat Cruz, who’s just as hated as Trump but also lacks the charisma. And he spent an insane amount of money.
      Tulsi can’t get through her own party, and won’t get that deep state backing any more than Trump.
      Neither have any charisma.
      Be careful mistaking progressive cultists following orders for actual people

  24. Let the Leftocrats paint themselves into a graffiti-smeared corner. Their lack of perspective and inability to restrain themselves are classic signs of immaturity, and the US is rapidly tiring of the “youth culture,” particularly as it applies to politics. Remember all those Boomers? Well, we’re still here, older, wiser, and not afraid to tell a bunch of punks to get real … or get lost.

  25. There’s also the couple years of normalcy helping to normalize him.

  26. Fonzie Jacket has gone full MAGA over a flag hug

  27. The only “normalizing” going on is the growing ignorance of the Supreme Law. Which I see no evidence that President Trump is pushing this “normalizing” or even leaning towards it. Socialism on the other hand is the very drive to this ignorance of the Supreme Law being “normalized”.

    And Today’s new interesting point –
    “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” isn’t IN the Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence (from British Rule) asserting to Britain that those items are granted to every person by their creator (NOT Government).

    The 14th Amendment (In the Constitution); nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Clearly demonstrating that personal rights are granted by creators NOT GOV but are not to be ‘deprived’ by GOV.

  28. I wasn’t expecting much, but I’m nevertheless shocked by the Democratic overreach so far. The only explanation I can come up with, is that the Left has confused their personalized internet feeds with reality even worse this time around than they did in 2016. They seem to think everyone is as outraged as they are, and therefore being super-lefty-crazy in 2020 is warranted.

    I could definitely see another Trump electoral college win/popular vote loss happening, and I think the entire liberal population would have a psychological break.

    1. maybe, just maybe they’ll really move to Canada this time.

  29. 18%…..That seems to be one of the numbers being used – which are the #FakeNews numbers?

  30. “Just 18 percent of Americans have favorable views of socialism.”

    Yes, but a far larger number favor socialist policies. If the above statement were true there would be no problem repealing social security. But that is unlikely to happen. Health care access is very popular yet in some ways a socialist policy. The truth is that health care, access to affordable higher education and a living wage are very popular. in 2018, President Trump told us hoard of brown people were invading from the Mexico and he lost 40 House seats. If he tells us socialist are taking over in the 2020 campaign, I think he will be a one term president.

    1. People want their SS and access to health care. I don’t know anyone who supports a 15 dollar per hour “living wage” for menial work.

  31. “The rude and often disgusting ways he vilified people (especially women), his proud ignorance of basic elements of American governance and policymaking, his calls for violence against hecklers at his rallies?all this and more marked Trump as a break with recent precedent.”

    Trump isn’t abnormal in any of these areas. In fact, he’s more reasonable than most Democrats have been for many years in these areas. This concern about “normalizing Trump” can only come from the warped perspective of the left-wing echo chamber.

  32. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  33. It’s not the Green New Deal. It’s not any kind of New Deal.
    I call it the New Green Deal.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.