Election 2020

This One New Poll of Democrats Explains Why Donald Trump Will Be Reelected

Just 25 percent of Democratic voters want a candidate promising a "bold, new agenda," which is exactly what party and media elites will cram down their throats.

|

On the one hand, a new Fox News poll spells doom for Donald Trump, with a fistful of Democratic presidential candidates beating the incumbent. Former Vice President Joe Biden cleans Trump's clock by 10 percentage points, 49 percent to 39 percent. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) wins 49 percent to 40 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) ekes out a 43 percent-to-41 percent victory. And Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg both squeeze out a 1-point margin, 42 percent to 41 percent.

On the other, more consequential hand, that same poll underscores why Trump is almost certainly going to win reelection in 2020. One of the questions asked Democratic voters whether they will vote for a candidate with a "bold, new agenda" or one "who will provide steady, reliable leadership." Fully three-quarters of respondents want the latter, with just 25 percent interested in the sort of "bold, new agenda" that virtually all Democratic candidates are peddling so far. This finding is consistent with other polling that shows that Democratic voters are far more moderate than their candidates. Even allowing for a doubling of self-described Democrats who identify as liberal over the past dozen years, Gallup found last year that 54 percent of Democrats support a party that is "more moderate" while just 41 percent want one that is "more liberal."

Yet with the exception of Joe Biden (more on him in a minute), all of the Democratic candidates—certainly the leading ones—are pushing a massively expansionist agenda, thus putting themselves at odds with their own base. Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All would cost $37 trillion in new spending over a decade and his free-college plan would cost the federal government about $47 billion a year. He plans to spend much, much more, as does Elizabeth Warren, who is running on promises to spend $3.3 trillion over a decade in new giveaways that will be paid for by an unworkable, probably unconstitutional "wealth tax" that will at best raise $2.75 trillion.

To greater and lesser degrees, the other Democratic candidates are also offering variations on the big government or "bold, new agenda" theme. For this, they get massive online attaboys, which makes it seem as if there is a groundswell of support for such positions. Based on data from The Hidden Tribes Project, which uses polling and survey data to get a truer sense of voter and partisan ideology, The New York Times reported that the "outspoken group of Democratic-leaning voters on social media is outnumbered, roughly 2 to 1, by the more moderate, more diverse and less educated group of Democrats who typically don't post political content online." That same dynamic plays out in the more-traditional commentariat as well. Writing in The New Republic, Alex Pareene takes it as a given that the Democrats should nominate a big-spending president and effusively praises Elizabeth Warren especially for demonizing specific individuals and companies. Despite her weak poll numbers, Politico claims that Warren is now a "potential compromise nominee," a fantasy belied by the small number of actual Democrats interested in anything resembling a "bold, new agenda."

But what about Joe Biden, who is leading the Democratic field by a large margin, despite being about the least-woke candidate out there? The Fox News poll has Biden at 32 percent, Sanders at 13 percent, and nobody else even in double digits. At The Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger suggests that Biden is in fact an existential threat to the incumbent precisely because he might be as "sleepy" as Trump recently called him:

Mr. Biden may be doing so well in the head-to-heads against Mr. Trump because many voters simply want respite from the nonstop Trumpian atmosphere of disruption and volatility. For them, "Sleepy Joe Biden" may not be an insult. Political belief still matters, but maybe not as much as neurological relief from political and personality overload.

This assumes, of course, that Biden survives the nomination process. As the far-ahead leader of the massive Democratic field, he is the target not just of Donald Trump but of all his fellow partisans too. He's already been dinged over his creeping and his decades-old plagiarism is now being relitigated. It seems as if every day brings a new crisis or controversy, such as Biden's warm statements toward segregationists in the 1970s, his eulogy of racist Sen. Strom Thurmond in 2003, and the emerging narrative that his son Hunter, whose personal life is a total shitshow, appears to be an international grifter who allegedly used dad's connections to make shady deals with Chinese and Ukrainian interests. Whether such charges are true in a serious way is a lot less important than the fact that Biden will be facing such attacks from now through at least the end of the primary process. Even if he manages to win the nomination, he will emerge bloodied as hell. In many ways, that's the lesson from 2016 that the Democrats might want to revisit. Although Hillary Clinton ultimately beat back Bernie Sanders' insurgency, Sanders' constant attacks (and revelations from leaked emails) definitely weakened her against Donald Trump in the general election.

Under the best circumstances, Trump is almost certainly not going to win 50 percent of the vote in 2020. Despite a robust economy, his approval rating peaked at 46 percent shortly after he assumed office. His path to a second term will look a lot like the path to his upset victory in 2016. He will need to scratch out a victory where virtually every vote and every insult counts. But here's the thing: Trump knows how to do this, has the power of incumbency, and things, short of a massive economic downturn, really can't get worse for him. He has weathered every disturbing revelation, every tempest over unprofessional or unethical behavior, every lapse in taste or decorum. His numbers aren't going to get any lower. Earlier this year at the Conservative Political Action Conference and more recently in a Florida mega-rally, he's shown an ability to go big and fire up his already intense following. Less than a week away from the first Democratic candidates' debate and a year-plus away from the general election, Biden, whose history of gaffes and awful legislation is legendary, has nowhere to go but down.

Advertisement

NEXT: Almost No One Digs Josh Hawley's Internet Censorship Proposal, Thank Goodness

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. Also the other thing that is going to get Orange Man reelected is the utter stupidity and non seriousness of his competition. Also reparations is going to be a platform item and a woman who culturally apropriated her way into a Harvard job is the media darling.

    1. Oh I forgot Joe Biden made a statement comparing modern day republicans to jim crow segregationists and the entire dem establishment freaked out because we live in the most retarded of timelines.

      1. Biden compared modern Republicans to life long Democrats?

        Men, who think they are women, are taking all the top trophies in women’s sports. It is a crime to think there are only two sexes. People are afraid to speak their mind. The US constitution is held in contempt by most Democrats. A seeming majority warmly embraces communism/socialism despite the clear history of its murderous failure over the last 100 years.

        The politics of 21st century America are startling and incredible.

        1. my point is Biden made what would would have been taken as a standard attack against the rethuglicans maybe 5 years ago and was totally lambasted for it by the woke.

        2. Do you know where communism came from? Why it took root? It was a response to an oligarchic monarchical system that had raped and pillaged European societies for a thousand years. The income inequality and inequity we see today rivals anything that has ever existed. The stock market is rigged. The banking system is corrupt. Politicians like Trump use public office to make millions. People can only take so much of this shit. I’m not in favor of radical changes but that’s where we’re headed if modest reforms are not taken.

          1. If you think Trump isn’t a response to literally everything you just said I don’t know what to tell you. Those things are also why Bernie consistently polls at 20% if you think people are going to go Biden whose been in the establishment for his entire life hoping him to change something you are delusional.

            1. Trump is Marie Antoinette.

              1. Trump is Marie Antoinette.

                First he was Hitler, now he’s Marie Antoinette? Real Estate mogul, de rigueur owner of Twitter, Epic Troll, Master Impersonator… is there anything the guy can’t do?

                1. Well we for sure know he can eat cake. But be French? *endless stream of mistress’s gaudy sensibilities* actually…

                  1. But be French?

                    You know who else was actually Austrian?

                    1. Seargent Schultz?

                2. As a matter of fact there is something he can’t do: act presidential.

                  1. I sense a longing for a return to the Chocolate Jesus…

                  2. D-Day.

                    Trump is actually very ‘presidential’ most of the time. The media merely focus on his careless talk and ignore the rest.

                    1. “Presidential” is how one acts. Trump is the exact opposite.
                      And, like yourself, he’s big on conspiracies, enemies plotting against him, goblins under his bed. He always says everything would be better if not for the media, or the deep state, or Democrats, or never-Trumpers. Always an excuse for all those who know he’s so massive a total failure

                      He won the nomination with only 37% of the primary votes — so many candidates splitting the vote — roughly the same percent who believe Obama is a Kenyan.

                    2. “He always says everything would be better if not for the media,”

                      This is a long standing tradition, going back to John Adams. Trump is merely more colorful in his language and more persistent in his repetition.

                      Enjoy your <<>>

                    3. he’s big on conspiracies, enemies plotting against him, goblins under his bed

                      Wilson was big on conspiracies. Roosevelt was big conspiracies. Nixon was big on conspiracies. JFK was big on conspiracies. Reagan was big on conspiracies…Trump likes to talk about conspiracies.

                      roughly the same percent who believe Obama is a Kenyan.

                      Is this your theory or are you a bigger loser than Trump who’s “Just say’n”?

                    4. This is a long standing tradition, going back to John Adams.

                      Give us a link to the source that convinced you of that,
                      Treason
                      Enemy of the people
                      Wants a law to curtail a free press.
                      etc.

                      The MEDIA has been doing their job that long. Trump. like many family-business owners, has been an absolute ruler for 50+ years. In his world, absolute loyalty is the norm, and the inability to work WITH others.

                      And a horrible negotiator. He reveals that when he talks about “winning.” Deal-making is win-win, NEVER win-lose.

                      Can you tell us why anyone would agree to a deal with NOTHING for them, only a loss. Only if they’e bullied. which is why he does so much buying.

                      Trump is merely more colorful in his language and more persistent in his repetition.

                      So we agree. He’s not Presidential.

                    5. Apparently you are ignorant of the Alien and Sedition acts that Adams signed.

                    6. The Sedition Act (newspapers) was allowed to expire in 1800. The Alien Enemies Act in 1801. They had cost Adams the Presidency. Jefferson’s party rode public opposition to victory. So the “tradition was rejected, and the government that did it.

                      The same will likely happen to Trump. Apparently, you share Trump’s contempt for the Bill of Rights, and you endorse the jailing of “unfriendly” media. And you believe a GOP House and Senate would pass such an outrage.

                      Looks like an accurate summary of the Trumpian agenda.

                  3. Admittedly, he does have a problem acting “presidential,” in the traditional sense of the term. That’s probably because he’s more concerned with results than he is appearances. You know, not being an actual politician and all….

                    1. That’s probably because he’s more concerned with results than he is appearance

                      Which is precisely why he fails so often.

                  4. As a matter of fact there is something he can’t do: act presidential.

                    I freely admit that while his ability to bluster himself into a war is improving, he’s still sorely lacking in preemptive bombings.

                    1. 🙂

                      Iran is the cluster-fuck of the century!

              2. Let them eat cake? Hardly…

                1. Cake or death?

                  1. Give me liberty or give me cake!
                    Umm, cake.

                2. Thanks to Trump’s policies, millions more Americans can now afford to eat cake.
                  Just because Trump labels these supposed ‘news organisations’ as ‘fake news’ does not mean he is infringing on their rights to operate. Like everyone else in the country he is entitled to his freedom of speech.
                  Criticizing the press doesn’t even come close to what Obama did when he actually had a member of the press physically removed from the Whitehouse press office and had another reporter arrested for espionage.
                  It is not Trumps fault that modern day reporters are nothing more than snowflakes who cry every time they get insulted

          2. I don’t see how the changes proposed by the Democrat Party addresses anything you just mentioned. Forcing us all to live in the dark and use horses for transport won’t make the government any less corrupt. They’ll just be the only ones who get to use cars.

          3. “The income inequality and inequity we see today rivals anything that has ever existed.”

            Hyperbole much?

            1. Haven’t you noticed: progressives love hyperbole; they just fail to realize that it’s hyperbole an instant later. It’s like listening to teenage girls sometimes.

            2. Yeah, that one was fascinating. My first thought upon reading that was that the poster has no idea what’s happening in Brazil right now (for example).

          4. Except for the fact that the poor are richer than many lords of that thousand year history. You cannot ignore that fact.

            Bill Gate’s absurd wealth doesn’t affect you or me in the slightest. We are able to get our needs and at least some of our wants (I am making some guesses from the fact that you have a computer to type this on). The problem of Czarist Russia and late Imperial China wasn’t the inequality. It was the desperate poverty that so many found themselves in combined with ineffective or counter-effective governments.

            Communism actually works quite well in desperate poverty and emergencies (interestingly, this is specifically where capitalism breaks down). However, it cannot handle excess outside of strict religious orders. We have a lot of excess.

            1. Yes, we have “mega rich” people but the lot of the “underclass” has absolutely nothing in common with the peasants of early twentieth century Russian peasants or the Chinese later. who were literally starving [and they suffered much more so once communism was established]; such a comparison is as ridiculous as calling Trump “Marie Antionette.” Sure, the guy is a total asshole, but you’re missing the point of why he got elected. And will likely be again.

            2. Communism actually works quite well in desperate poverty and emergencies

              Communism (and just about everything) works with self-reliance and buy-in. Poverty and emergencies select for these factors.

            3. Bill Gate’s absurd wealth doesn’t affect you or me in the slightest.

              Actually, his wealth mostly exists because it made our lives measurably better.

              1. but but if someone took away all his billions and gave some to me I would have more money and could finally buy that macbook pro I so desperately need!
                Yes….because removing incentives for creating awesome things for humanity could not possibly have any “unintended consequences”

                1. Looks like Satya Nadella will take away Bill’s billions if he keeps doing what he’s doing.

            4. They are just resentful. They whine about grievance and victim hood, but ugly resentment is the motivator. Sad.

          5. I get what you’re saying, OG – the masses can get so upset that the punch themselves, their children and their children’s children repeatedly in the face over and over again until roughly 100 million people die.

            But it sure was fun killing a few elites before the new elite took over in the continuous glorious revolution.

          6. “”It was a response to an oligarchic monarchical system that had raped and pillaged European societies for a thousand years””

            Pillage? Isn’t that the progressive’s tax plan?

            1. That’s the great irony here. The lefties don’t seem to understand that the WAY the “buorgeoisie” were/are able to keep the “prols” down was by capturing the products of their labor. That was done by taxing the everloving crap out of them.

              You owe the crown what the crown SAYS you owe them, all for the
              good of the realm…sounds familiar.

              1. So lefties are as bad as righties?
                Libertarians have been saying that for 50 years.
                Most Americans now agree.

          7. LOL at the idiot who thinks that Trump, as opposed to his predecessor, who used the presidency to get rich.
            And then there’s Bernie and his book millions.

            1. To mangle Lenny – –
              “Any politician who says he is a socialist and owns more than one house is a fraud.”

              1. Another one with o clue what a socialist is

          8. “…People can only take so much of this shit…”

            Was that tin-foil hat on sale?

            1. We who wear tin foil hats are rugged individualists, and always, without exception, make our own.
              (If you don’t make it, you can’t trust it. Chinese tin foil does not work.)

          9. As reported on CNBC in early October 2018, Trump’s net worth since launching his presidential bid has declined by ~1.5B. If you think that constitutes his using public office to get wealthy, Idk what to tell you, because it seems to me that he’s about as good at doing that as he is at being a fascist.

            1. How would they know? Just yesterday. he repeated his refusal to divulge any of his financial records.

              That was from Forbes, which is an estimate, Here’s TRUMP saying that Forbes cannot possibly know his net worth, and explain why the can’t, which most people would know anyhow.

              https://www.cnbc.com/video/2015/09/30/trumps-true-net-worth.html

              Most shameful of all, he actually campaigned on a 37.5% tax cut for himself and a special class of rich folks who use same type of business as him. His Republicans in Congress gave him only a 20% tax cut, which HE says was a tax increase!

              1. Try not to be so obsessed with other people’s money and tax payments. You will be much happier and complain a lot less. Haha

                1. Well Trumpster, the obsessed one is the one I corrected for the blind tribal the error. Now you!

            2. OG: “Politicians like Trump use public office to make millions.”

              I agree with you sickologic – Trump isn’t in politics for the money, though about 3 years ago that’s what I thought (and was convinced otherwise by a forensic psychiatrist then).

              As for those who say Trump “doesn’t act presidential”, I say they’re wrong by definition. Trump got elected and IS president, so how he acts IS presidential. You hear a lot of that from those who don’t like Trump, because unlike presidents for decades, he recognizes the problem is the government (after all, he donated lots of money to Hillary and only got the booby prize of her showing up to his wedding – he knows the game, and would prefer it didn’t exist IMHO). So Trump bashes the deep state and establishment, and it talks back saying he’s not presidential. This is to be expected.

              1. I agree with you sickologic – Trump isn’t in politics for the money

                Why did he campaign on a 37.5% tax cut for himself, and other rich folks with the same business structure?

                All the millions he’s made as President were accident?

                1. Trump is not taking a salary as Pres. He donates it to good causes.

                  http://fortune.com/2019/01/25/trump-donated-third-quarter-salary-alcohol-research/

                  1. Typical Trumpian deflection. Irrelevant, since the 37.5% tax cut he campaigned on passed at a 20% rate (50% cut) — of what he refused to divest. Might a 50% tax cut on the business income, that he refused to divest, be more than his $400,000 salary. And that has nothing to do with the millions he has made by exploiting his office for personal gain (on top of the tax cut)

                    Trump’s widespread business investments make it virtually impossible to avoid enriching himself. When hundreds of people, diplomats and media, join him at Mat a Lago, who pockets the revenue, Or his “habit” of visiting all his venues so much?

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has another sockpuppet.

          10. EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!

            Haha

      2. This was a stupid episode.

        Joe’s point is that he has worked with even atrocious people, as sometimes needs to happen in politics. The point was to pick out the worst of the worst.

        Booker was just Bookering in response. He needs to go away and rescue some more kittens.

        Joe’s error is in pointing out that he’s so fucking old he actually worked with segregationists. His other error is not being honest about the modern Republican party. They can’t be worked with in that way anymore, and implying he has some special juju that will make Grinch McConnell’s heart grow three sizes is a lie.

        1. Joe’s error is in pointing out that he’s so fucking old he actually worked with segregationists. His other error is not being honest about the modern Republican party. They can’t be worked with in that way anymore,

          My gawd. It’s beautiful.

          1. Say what you will about segregationists, at least it’s an ethos.

            1. Some might call it “an alternative life style”.

        2. Tony is just one step away from presenting his final solution.

          1. Shameful bullshit. Biden was elected to work with other members Congress, which he did. If any were segregationist, blame their voters.

            Biden’s strongest asset in the election is that he has worked well with the other party. That’s why he could win in a landslide, and keeps stressing that. He’s triangulating. working for the mix of Democrats as AND playing to the independents.

            With both left and right dominated by extremists …. I hate his politics, but his political skills are formidable.

            1. “his political skills are formidable.”

              Hahaha!!

              1. Trumptard says 50 years in elected office means little or no political skills.

                Hahaha!

          2. Those jackboots are all shined up and ready to kick in some doors.

            1. TDS!

    2. It’s like they are trying to lose. Just amazing how badly they have been missing the point for the last 3 years or so.

      1. All they had to be was not be stupid, remain calm and run someone other than Hillary and they can’t fucking do it. It’s hilarious.

        1. Exactly. Democrats could beat Trump if they could pretend to be more sane, less obnoxious, and less of a liar which is not a high hurdle to clear (most people in the country could), but that’s too much of a challenge for the 21st Century Democratic Party.

          1. Trump is a Democrat???

        2. Yes. Trump’s worst impulses are obvious, and could be use against him, if only the Democrats had some guiding vision that didn’t involve destroying the middle class.

          1. The dem strategy is simple: whine and cry about how EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR, convince people they are victims, and hope that they come up with enough losers to defeat the people who are happy and feel no guilt. Pathetic, really.

            Haha

            1. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
              H L Mencken

              1. Thanks. Republicans and Democrats are equally evil.

        3. Most of the people I know that voted for Trump did so because he was not Hillary. Since Hillary is not running, the dems could beat Trump. I dare say it’s their election to lose. They are doing a pretty good job of trying to lose.

          1. I wouldn’t put it pass them to not check off any of my three conditions.

            1. So far they only have the third.

              1. And I don’t trust them to keep that box checked given the chuckleheads running.

                1. Watch Biden pick Hillary for VP.

          2. It’s just like in the movies when they whack the top drug czar, the rest of the org scrambles to find a replacement, if there isn’t a clear #2.
            Will the repubs be different in 2024 when Trump is gone?

            1. If Trump is reelected, and has a successful 2nd term, Pence will get the nomination if he wants it. If he has a disastrous 2nd term, there will be a fight, but it will be a fight over who gets to lose the general election.

              1. “Pence will get the nomination if he wants it”

                You actually wrote that!!!

                Amazing.

                1. Fear of Pence is the real reason Congressional Republicans stand with Trump. The extreme Christian conservatives – a Taliban before the Muslim one — is among the most disliked factions in America.
                  Separation

                  1. Hardly. They may have low opinions of Pence, but they see that Trump can be effective, and given a lemon they are making lemonade.

                    1. Trump has already destroyed the GOP. Pence would be even worse.

                      “Effective” Presidents would not have most Americans say they would not vote for him. 45% say “definitely” which means regardless of the opponent. When even Texas has 47% who would not vote for Trump, it will take a miracle to change.
                      .
                      Being effective means more than lying about what he’s actually achieved. Hell, people are STILL abandoning the labor force.

          3. They are doing a pretty good job of trying to lose.

            It’s 2004 all over again.

      2. My theory has long been that the “adult” Democrat leadership has already conceded the election to Trump and are using it as a way to let the radicals vent their spleen and get a bloody nose; to get them out of the way for 2024 when the “adults” take over again.

        1. Hm.
          Please tell us who the “adults” in the D party are.

          1. I don’t follow their inner workings. I mean it in the general sense of the same “adults” who finagled Hillary’s shenanigans against Bernie, the ones who set debate formats and dates and invites. The deep state of the DNC.

          2. Exactly. What democrat, other than the obvious 1 term house members in red states, isn’t buying into crazy race theories, reparations, chicks with dicks, massive taxation, open borders, abortion up to age 18 if the mother has a headache, single payer, wealth tax, homeless bill of rights, etc? Nobody in California as far as I can tell. That’s half the party. No Kentucky democrat is going to rise up nationally. Those days are over.

          3. Well, Pelosi carries around a purse full of hard candy…

          4. You know, Joe Biden…

      3. I honestly believe they’re actually indifferent on whether they win; the DNC’s primary objective in this presidential election cycle is instead to simply purge its ranks of all the idiots and assholes. Although he sucks baldy, Biden only jumped in because he’s so old he knows he won’t have another shot.

    3. reparations is going to be a platform item

      “We propose a strict division of this nation into residents with court-appointed lawyers and those without.”

      1. “reparations is going to be a platform item”

        I just hope the bill passes before I fill out the census form so I can declare myself black.

  2. Polls are always accurate and predict the future.

    1. The standard polls, for the last few years have not been very good at a national level. They probably have been better on statewide, congressional district, and where done, local elections. It also is pretty far out for them to be of any predictive use. That said, it is likely that attitudinal results, like the lack of progressive enthusiasm the article mentions about the Democratic respondents, is more stable, and therefore much more useful even though the immediate election environment is unknown.

      I suspect another attitudinal finding, if probed for, would be that the persistent nitpicking about Trump by Democrats and much of the media alike, is viewed as excessive even by many of those who did not vote for him in 2016. Any such attitudes will be firmed up each time the florid Democratic/media reports of misbehavior are found to be less true than claimed.

      1. If anyone had polled me, I would not have admitted that I was even contemplating voting for Trump. I’d have pointed out 30 years of voting for the Libertarian candidate, even though I knew every time it was a symbolic vote in a state where the winners are pretty much predetermined by demographics.

        But in the end, I could not support a Johnson/Weld ticket where Weld was seemingly running an anti-gun platform and Johnson agreed with 73% of Bernie’s platform, not to mention the open-borders uber alles party platform.

        I certainly wasn’t going to pull the lever for Hillary or whatever the Green party’s nominee’s name was (Jill Stein, is that right?). So I’m not too proud to admit that at the last second I went ahead and voted for Trump instead of not voting at all. It was 99.9% an anti-Hillary vote, and 0.1% “not Johnson/Weld and OBL craziness”.

        And it turned out that my previously staunch red state ended up being nearly a tie (50R/45D with 3%L), with Trump winning in the margins, and my staunchly red district flipping. So I was glad I helped Hillary lose, but not overly thrilled with having helped Trump win.

        In summation: people can lie to pollsters or change their minds.

        1. Here’s an email I sent to a sister-in-law (it’s been funny to watch her turn from a liberal english teacher into a gun-toting libertarian) who was worried Trump would end up as a populist dictator…this was a week before the election and it was looking like a strong Libertarian vote could “spoil” the state and hand it to Hillary.

          re: dictator…we have one now and GOP in Congress will do nothing simply because of the color of his skin. If HRC wins, they will do nothing because of her sex, and she will continue in the same vein as Obama, and by her own admission will appoint SC Justices who will gut 2nd Amendment.

          Let’s say Trump wins. GOP Congress, who for the most part hate him, will have no qualms about cutting him off at the knees–he’s a rich white man. At least we can be pretty sure abut his SC appointments and secure in the knowledge that the rest of the government is not about to let him go off the deep end.

          The point is that they GOP establishment hates him because they are the establishment (similar to Cruz only far more so). Dems hate him because they are Dems.

          You know I’ve been a straight L voter for 30 years, but Johnson sounds more and more like Bernie, and Weld agrees with Hillary on gun control; and the L party plank on illegal immigrants is pissing me off.

          Of course I won’t vote for Hillary or Stein. So I can vote L again, for two people I have strong misgivings about and whose party-line I *strongly* disagree with, or I can vote for Trump, someone I have strong misgivings about. Or I can stay home.

          I’m struggling, I gotta tell you. I KNOW KNOW KNOW Hillary will be a disaster and will screw up SCOTUS for a generation. Under Hillary I fear a 2nd amemndment solution will be required. Compared to Trump…

        2. In other words, while you never Felt the Bern, you also weren’t Feeling the Johnson.

  3. Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren are well known commodities. If they’re kicking Trump’s ass in the swing states now there’s a good chance that advantage will last. The majority of people genuinely dislike Trump.

    1. re: “The majority of people genuinely dislike Trump.”

      Maybe true. But it’s also true for Biden, Sanders, Warren, etc. The two major political parties have put us in a position of trying to choose the best car in the junkyard.

      1. I agree with every word you said, but I might change ‘junkyard’ to ‘landfill’.

        1. “shit sandwich”

          1. Giant douche!

            What are you, some kind of feminine hygiene-o-phobe?

      2. I think that a good portion of people who say they approve of Trump’s job performance would also say that they dislike him. He really is contemptible human being in just about every way possible.

        1. That’s correct. As a caveat though you can’t be an honorable person and run for president especially on the republican ticket.

          1. You can be an honorable person and run for president, but your polling numbers will be <1% and there will be a lot of articles written about how you're clearly working for the Russians.

          2. lol. Mitt Romney, Bob Dole, George Bush, John McCaib, a real list of rapscallions

            1. Mitt & McCain are/were scumbags (at least McCain had the decency to die and leave us be). GW Bush has barely more spine than Romney. All three of them are/were cronied up and all three rode daddy’s coattails. FFS, if not for his stint at the Hanoi Hotel, McCain would’ve been relegated for a blue collar career. Bob Dole got his ass kicked by an actual sexual predator who was under investigation for perjury in front of the US Senate, after fucking a White House intern and lying about it (thus proving TripK’s point).

    2. yeah I don’t think any of that is real. The dems are looking at their frontrunners and quaking at the minority turnout numbers. Hence reparations.

      1. We’ll see. I don’t think Hillary was ever leading in Texas at any point.

        1. Surprisingly you would be wrong.

          Hillary leads Trump in Texas

    3. People genuinely dislike Trump as a person. However, many people who sneer at the man will grudgingly support his policy positions. Also, Trump plays well into our deeply held beliefs about politicians. Yes he’s a blowhard and a bit of a sleaze and a lecher. However, we expect that from our politicians. Trump also makes everyone fight dirty enough that you can’t get an Obama overriding everyone’s beliefs and gaining trust through sheer charisma.

      I refused to vote for either candidate last time, but given the current slate of Democratic candidates, I’m likely to hold my nose long enough to vote for him. I will not be alone in that course of action.

      1. “I will not be alone in that course of action.”

        No, you will not, by a long shot. The Democrats are f’n crazy assed and they will not prevail, no matter how much an asshole Trump is.
        They [Dems] miss the point; they seem so enamored of their supposed moral superiority that they are blinded to reality.

        My personal speculation is the Trump wins re-election, and Ginsberg finally kicks the bucket and is replaced by Amy Barrett [never mind that federal judicial vacancies will continue to be replaced with Federalist Society recommended candidates]; that will be enough to make the radicals completely lose their shit and take to the streets. I see many targets of opportunity arising from that….

        [I did not say wood chippers]

      2. many people who sneer at the man will grudgingly support his policy positions.

        Or at least recognize they are vastly less harmful than what Warren is going to propose.

      3. The true irony was that, for all his soaring rhetoric, Obama was (and remains) the scummiest presidential candidate/president we’ve had in decades. He even beats out Bill Clinton for that prize.

    4. The majority of people genuinely dislike Trump.

      Except that, as I point out below, 75% want “who will provide steady, reliable leadership”, which would/could be a continuation of Trump. I’m not saying he will win. I’m just saying that between Trump having been (formerly?) left-leaning, his ability to turn on a dime, and rampant mental instability and TDS, I can’t be certain that he couldn’t effect a political battered wife syndrome on a significant portion of the electorate.

      I mean Nick’s trying to position himself as the Ann Coulter of 2020 and if you’d asked me if he’d do that in 2016 I’d have said you’re nuts.

      1. Nick wants so hard to come out for Trump. So. Hard. Every time they do the podcast I can practically here him biting his tongue as Suderman shits his pants about him. He knows where his bread is buttered but I guarantee he loves Trump for the same reason I love him, he a total and absolute Chernobyl event for how we view the presidency and how politics are discussed.

        1. plus jersey.

    5. Dukakis was way ahead in 1987. And even into summer of 1988 Dukakis was ahead. How did that turn out?

      1. He “tanked.”

    6. Yep. Just like last time – – – – –

    7. I’m sorry, OG, but they don’t have half a brain to share among the three of them. It’s obvious whenever they open a mouth.

  4. On the other, more consequential hand, that same poll underscores why Trump is almost certainly going to win reelection in 2020.

    Someone’s going to hear from the twittersphere for this Trump-endorsing article.

  5. Did you all realize that Trump’s golf game has cost taxpayers over $100 million? Not only is Trump costing us a hundred million and counting playing golf which is bad enough but he’s playing that golf golf courses he owns. It’s a massive scandal. Kings lost their heads for shit like this 240 years ago.

    1. Why is it always golf? Every president forever has spent time playing golf and the opposition party has made a big deal of it. Why?

      1. BAN GOLF!! It’s bad for all environments, natural and political.

        1. don’t even joke.

    2. “Now watch this drive.”

    3. Would you rather “literally hitler” be working and signing things or playing golf?

      Lots of shitposting and hyperbole. That you krassenstein bros?

      1. Yeah it’s funny when people that don’t want Trump in office are complaining about him not doing his job.

    4. Do you realize you have already made 4 of the most vapid and intelligence-insulting ridiculous posts in the history of the forum?

    5. You really aren’t this stupid, are you?

    6. Only if you include all the overhead of Presidential travel and security to the golf, which is often a side-effect of a trip. For example, do you think the Japanese Prime Minister flew to the US JUST to play golf with Trump, or did Trump and the PM play golf together because it was there and they are men who play golf?

      If they had spent 4 hours sitting in a room together talking, the cost would have been the same. Instead they spent 4 hours outside enjoying the sunshine. So much business gets done on a golf course…

      Is fair to attribute all of the high costs of presidential travel and support to a round of golf. Much of the logistical support for a president must follow him wherever he goes, so if the president has one four-hour round of golf in a 3-day trip, is it fair to attribute all of the security and logistical costs to that round of golf?

      Bush frequently flew to his ranch, but did we get blasted with “Bush spent $100M to clear brush?” Some. Obama frequently went to Hawaii and other places (and he played golf, albeit about half as much as Trump!), but the modicum of “outrage” over the expenses were poo-pooed by the media.

      “Among the big-ticket trips were two family vacations during the weekend of February 14, 2014, that cost the Secret Service $272,192. That weekend, former first lady Michelle Obama went on an annual trip to Aspen with her daughters and shut down its airport; the total cost was $88,663.29. The same weekend, President Obama took a golfing trip to Palm Springs and met with King Abdullah II of Jordan, which rang in at $183,529.62.

      1. “For example, do you think the Japanese Prime Minister flew to the US JUST to play golf with Trump, or did Trump and the PM play golf together because it was there and they are men who play golf?”

        I’m guessing they actually did a good portion of their work while golfing.
        I hear it’s a Japanese thing

        1. Apologies.
          Maybe should’ve read past the first paragraph before posting…

  6. This clickbait headline is beneath the level of professionalism I’ve come to expect from Reason.

    Here are a few facts explaining why Drumpf cannot win in 2020.

    1. Incumbent Presidents simply don’t win reelection when the economy is this terrible.
    2. The Mueller Report definitively proves he’s a Russian intelligence asset who colluded and obstructed.
    3. Polls show more Americans than ever agree that “Immigration is a good thing,” meaning the Koch / Reason open borders agenda is going mainstream.

    1. Damn, the economy is terrible? I guess the high stock market, low unemployment numbers, and massive stuff ownership blinded me to this obvious truth. And yes, I realize that the deficit is out of control and all that, but that would be true whether or not the rest of the economy was rolling along so merrily.

      As far as the other points you made are concerned, nobody who actually votes cares. Not that those aren’t good points, but seriously, do you think any of that will change a single voter’s mind?

      1. OBL was trying to be sarcastic.

        He’s not very good at it. As a parody account, it was funny the first day. Time to give it up.

        1. No way, keep it going!

        2. I enjoy OBL’s contributions to the dialogue. Some are really funny.

          YOU try being funny with every post. It ain’t easy.

          1. Ya, OBL definitely takes the “shotgun” approach…he often misses, but when he hits, it’s spectacular.

  7. At this point in the last election Hillary was considered a shoe-in for election and the Republican field was a gaggle of jokers.

    1. 50/50

      Plenty of people knew that the Hag was beatable. But the Republican field was largely a gaggle of deep state jokers.

      1. Few people were predicting Hillary would lose the general election. Most assumed Jeb! would win the primary. No need to rewrite history. Trump was the dark horse candidate much like Reagan in 1980. His polling numbers then were abysmal up until the Republicans convention. It helps that the Democrats candidate in 1980 and 2016 was unlikeable.

        1. Hillary was unlikable. The current crop of Democrats are certifiably insane. Joe is, by comparison, relatively stable [but only by comparison].

          1. Her book deal numbers and popularity with secular women tell a different story.

            1. You’re saying he has a book deal and is popular with somebody?

      2. Governors are now part of the “Deep State”? There were like 37 former Governors running last time, plus Ted Cruz (lol @ Deep State) and Marco Rubio.

        Ah, yes, but that one time Marco was asked to negotiate an immigration bill, and he was added because the other Rs were all Open Borders, and he couldn’t totally convince the other 7 Senators to adopt the future Trump proposal, but still produced a bill far preferable to anything we will get now…. totally Deep State

    2. I don’t know why Hillary isn’t running. She had the election “stolen” from her. Run it back! I bet she has a plan once the Dem convention can’t agree on anyone.

      1. Hillary is Michael Meyers I refuse to believe her political career is over until Hollywood gets an original idea(basically hell freezing over). I could totally see her riding a horse in at the last second at the convention and convincing everyone she’s the only one who can save them from orange man.

        1. I wonder if she went Bruce Jenner and became a man, if anyone at the convention could not vote for her.

    3. The republican field was heads and tails better than this one, it’s not even a contest. And that one had Ted Cruz in it so….

    4. IT WAS HER TURN!

  8. One of the questions asked Democratic voters whether they will vote for a candidate with a “bold, new agenda” or one “who will provide steady, reliable leadership.”

    So, if I read “bold, new agenda” as “do something different” and “steady, reliable leadership” as “more of what we’ve got now” a reasonable interpretation would/could be that 75% of democrats would prefer Donald Trump (D) over Donald Trump (R).

    1. no question. Which is why political mongoloid Joe Biden whose been on the wrong side of every issue is seen as the most electable.

    2. Trump’s policies in general are more D than R. That might be hilarious to see him change parties and show up at their convention.

      1. Trump’s policies are a combination of Ronald Reagan and Dick Gephart. Trump could have been and I think was a moderate Democrat in the 1980s. Both parties have radically changed in 30 years.

        1. Just for the record, the great native American, Elizabeth Warren, was a Republican at one time.

  9. “… just 41 percent want one that is “more liberal.”

    Just.

    Just

    No biggie, pay no attention to the hard left tack of the party.

    Right, Nick?

    1. It’s the radical rightwing that is the biggest threat right now, which is why they must join forces with the national review to combat it.

      1. Indeed. Libertarian Reactionism requires defending the status quo.

      2. lol … onward Frenchian Soldiers

      3. That always reminds me of that line from The President’s Analyst: “Know when we’ll disarm? When those radical right wingers disarm.”

  10. Let’s say one “sane” Democrat emerges from the gaggle of 20.
    (Some smart campaign manager is going to convince one of them to seem sane and let the other 19 divide up the radical vote in the primaries.) Given a somewhat sane Dem wins their primary, which states narrowly won by Trump can be retaken in 2020? On the other hand, which states won by Hillary can be taken by Trump in 2020? This campaign feels like it will come down to massive spending by both parties in just four or five states.

    1. Tulsi Gabbard?

      1. She is that sane person. She is also a Russian plant (that’s how they made sure she cannot win the nomination).

        Her platform is a whole lot of “free shit” though, so its a no-go for me and a whole lot of other people here. National $15 minimum wage sure would fuck up a whole lot of small rural communities that have lower costs of living.

        I don’t understand why the minimum wage is even a national issue.. it should be a local issue. Every place has a different cost of living, so there is no standard “living wage” that applies to the whole country.

        1. See, that is why you will never understand politics.
          ONLY national policies are valid. To pretend local level policies might work is to concede that individuals should have free will. Totally unacceptable.
          Why divide and conquer when you can unite and rule?

    2. PA, OH, MI, WI. Flip any 3 over to the Dems and they win. If FL goes Dem, then they still need 1 of the other states. The Democrats will never win another presidential election unless they can capture the blue collar votes in the midwest.

      Of this crop of candidates, Biden is the only one that I see as having any chance to do that.

  11. Three recent polls, far more relevant, find a majority of American would not vote for Trump. A 3-poll average finds 45% :definitely:’: would not, the rest were “probably” not. Both “nots” were 47% in … Texas. Fox News reported similar in April.

    Trump fired 3 of his 5 pollsters for reporting that Biden would beat him, in several battleground states. Apparently, it’s no longer enough to be totally subservient and loyal. One must not say anything that isn’t good news,

    And never, ever cough.

    1. 53% OF TEXANS ALREADY COMMITTED TO VOTING FOR TRUMP!

      1. 🙂

      2. yeah funny.

    2. None of these polls are relevant. The votes aren’t tallied for another 17 months. This is all a bunch of bullshit right now.

      1. Most sensible comment of the day.

      2. Polling is not voting. As of today, SIX Democrats are preferred. And when 47% wouldn’t vote for him … in Texas … it doesn’t matter how far away the election is!

        In another set of e polls, over half of Americans would not vote fore Trump. Average 45% “definitely not, the rest “probably not.”

        Obviously Trump thinks they’re relevant. He just fired 3 of his own 5 pollsters for saying the same thing.

        Why would he have FIVE paid pollsters, at great expense to his campaign, if they are irrelevant?,.

        1. It doesn’t matter, the general election is 17 months away. Trump is a blowhard baffoon, why would I think that his firing of a few pollsters should indicate that the polls matter?

          I was polled via phone in 2016. The pollster asked me if I would rather vote for Hillary Clinton or *beeeeeeeeep*. She pressed a button on her handset to bleep out my other choice. When I replied “Gary Johnson” she hung up. These polls are not serious, they are meaningless. The next poll will come out tomorrow and no one will even remember the polls today.

          1. Why would he pay five, if polls are irrelevant? Polls on a sitting President are always relevant, when nearly half of all Americans would “definitely” never vote for him, and the “probably nots” make it a majority, the first President that has *never* been approved by 50%. If the Dems don’t foul up badly, Trump will leave us with his biggest failure of all, socialism.

            Dubya left us with Obama. The trendlines are scary.

            On public opinion progressives have been kicking our butt for decades, on almost every issues. Tax fairness, healthcare, the economy. A majority still believe America is on the wrong track, no change since Obama. Even the economy is weakening. Obama left very low labor force participation, and it’s actually worse now.

  12. just 25 percent interested in the sort of “bold, new agenda” that virtually all Democratic candidates are peddling so far

    you hacks just had an article yesterday that talked about the Sanders/Warren/etc candidates topping at a combined 30% in the polls. Which is quite close to the exact same number in that poll. And ain’t anywhere near either a primary majority or the 43% that Sanders got in 2016.

    This assumes, of course, that Biden survives the nomination process.

    No it doesn’t. It assumes that SOMEONE who is basically a boring Dem who has no clear agenda beyond ‘beat Trump’ will get the nom. Which is likely to be the case. I have no idea if Biden will be that boring one. But Dems (and Reps) are both parties of POWER not principle. Even the activists. And if I were to guess what ‘wins’ the nomination it is the candidate who most appeals to (or doesn’t get eliminated by) the Rust Belt and Farm Belt where Trump is most vulnerable and which are the only states that matter in 2020. And there’s nothing about the schedule of primaries in 2020 at least that will change that.

    1. IDK why people keep pretending that policy matters in politics. ‘Policy’ is nothing more than the soggy bottom boys singing ‘Man of Constant Sorrow’. IF and only if it is popular will the establishment and pols grab the microphone to make sure they themselves get the votes that that popularity brings. THAT is called leadership.

      1. ‘Policy’ is nothing more than the soggy bottom boys singing ‘Man of Constant Sorrow’

        One of the main problems with you and your Proggie brethren is your reliance on pop-culture as history when it is almost all fiction. If you actually read a real history book, you might not post such a ridiculous non-sequitur.

        All fallacy and no facts make chemjfreeric a dull boy.

        1. hahaha. Is that something like basing a political philosophy on a fiction author like Ayn Rand? Or on a polemicist who deliberately misread both 19th century anarchists AND John Locke in order to come up with some fictional hoohaa about an ancap utopia that has never and can never exist?

          It’s funny as fuck when assclowns like you call me a ‘progtard’ (whatever the fuck that is) when I’m one of the few commenters who actually cites real history (when that matters) and the only one who seems to have read Hayek (who is apparently far too leftwing for the inbreeds here).

          1. I’m one of the few commenters who actually cites real history

            Maybe I missed those posts.

            the only one who seems to have read Hayek

            And yet, you refuse to acknowledge that a socialist-leaning party is so much worse that an authoritarian-leaning party?

            “The source of order is not the government, even though people continue to believe that despite all evidence.”

            The system can deal with authoritarians like Trump. Socialists like Warren are working to change the fundamental nature of the system to a point at which it can’t recover.

            1. you refuse to acknowledge that a socialist-leaning party is so much worse that an authoritarian-leaning party

              I think both the front-end of a DeRp and the ass-end of a DeRp are where DeRps like you belong. I prefer not being a DeRp at all.

              1. JFree
                June.20.2019 at 12:35 pm
                “…I prefer not being a DeRp at all.”

                Yeah, check the Daily Worker. You can still sign up as a commie.

              2. are where DeRps like you belong

                Where the fuck do you get DeRp from anything I have ever written? I have a 30 year voting history and have never once voted because of a D or an R. I read the voters pamphlet and check the candidates positions and voting record if they have one.

                The system can deal with authoritarians like Trump. Socialists like Warren are working to change the fundamental nature of the system to a point at which it can’t recover.

                This is the meat of what I posted.

                My main objection to your asinine posts has consistently been to your insistence that there is no difference between D & R. I argue the point based on logic and history and then you change the subject every time. There is a quantifiable difference in the danger to our freedoms based on the choice between D & R, but you won’t discuss it, if you actually realize it.

                1. There is a quantifiable difference in the danger to our freedoms based on the choice between D & R, but you won’t discuss it, if you actually realize it.

                  You overstate the difference because you hyperventilate about socialism as if this is the middle of the Red Scare and you are HUAC. It’s the same ‘lesser of two evils’ delusion that I’ve posted about a few times. I’m tired of posting that shit over and over.

                  Dems ain’t socialist. They are grievance politics like they’ve always been. And just in case you couldn’t tell – so is Trump.

                  In all honesty, I wish the L’s and other 3rd parties would step down from their pulpits /podiums and step into the dirty/messy world of grievance politics. that’s the one thing I like about the DeRps. They focus on making things happen not just yapping like toy dogs. And ‘grievance’ could use some libertarian options/framing.

          2. BTW, Objectivism is a a very real political philosophy that Rand promoted through her fiction, but the majority of what she wrote was non-fiction. They had an Objectivist newsletter and everything. Oh, and it was supported by one of the world’s most respected economists, Alan Greenspan. You might know that, if you picked up a fucking book.

            1. Rand never had a political philosophy. That was frequently evident in the Objectivist Newsletter (I have them all, in binders) She always deferred, saying, “that’s the philosophy of law.” She was a moral philosopher.

              Only once did she ever talk about government, and it shows why she hated libertarianism so much. (then mostly anarchism until Davfd Nolan).

              Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
              15. GOVERNMENT FINANCING IN A FREE SOCIETY

              “Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society—the last, not the first, reform to advocate. It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today.

              A process of liberation would be much more rapid than the process of enslavement had been, since the facts of reality would be its ally. But still, a gradual process is required—and any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.

              WHY? … Consent of the Governed., which today’s dominant libertarian faction detests.

              Rand was Jeffersonian — “Consent of the Governed” is the sole requirement for a moral political philosophy. Which cannot be separate from moral philosophy … IF one chooses the society to be moral.

              In any society, the only alternative to Consent of the Governed. is authoritarianism. Yes, object to taxation … but 5% cannot dictate to 95%, any more than 5% can deny the forming of a local Kiwanis … or a garden club.

              How can anyone demand the freedom and opportunity of America … while claiming those who created and maintain it have no right to do so? They are parasites, mooching off others.

              In moral philosophy, her core principle was “the moral is the chosen.” Non-aggression is derived from that, a secondary value. If a majority of Americans “choose” (consent) to a governmental structure for society, no one has a moral right, none at all, to demand change.

              Liberty demands persuasion not dominance. This is why libertarianism is so soundly rejected today.

              If choice and consent are the requirement for a free society, then democratic socialism is morally superior to the dominant thread in libertarianism today.

              Rand literally defended voluntary communism, when asked about the hippie communes. If they choose to live that way, she said, who has any right to stop them? The moral is the chosen. She did think they blew it, believing they had to become farmers (the Israel kibbutzes are communes.) She may have predicted the thousands of voluntary communes that now exist in America. Most are small businesses, employee owned, who simply add communal housing,

              Yes, when today’s libertarians praise employee ownership, they are praising communism. Who has any right to object to free choice?

              1. “Yes, when today’s libertarians praise employee ownership, they are praising communism. ”

                That is not communism when employees individually own stock. Communism would require complete ownership by a central governing body, like religious orders.

                1. Communism means communal ownership. Voluntary communism rarely has a governing body, which the vast majority of thousands of communes do not have. They are too small to need one.

                  Many or most are small businesses. They would have a President who, by definition, is an employee of the commune, and typically has no equivalent role in their communal housing.

          3. “…It’s funny as fuck when assclowns like you call me a ‘progtard’ (whatever the fuck that is)…”

            A progtard is a fucking lefty ingoramus; you, IOWs.

            1. Ingoramus?

              You should probably stick with grunts and poo-flinging.

              1. JFree
                June.20.2019 at 3:00 pm
                “Ingoramus?”

                Oh, LOOK! fucking lefty ignoramus found spelling error!
                Only took the better part of an hour, too.
                Lemme guess; after ten, you have to take off your shoes, right?

            2. Progtards are the same mentality as contards. They both seek to mandate their own values to all of society, by force..

              if America is in a death spiral now, it’s because they are both obsolete and crashing.

              1. Oh, LOOK! fucking lefty ignoramus found spelling error! Only took the better part of an hour, too.

                OMFG. Sevo “thinks” JFree was on this page … for an hour … AND looking for spelling errors, but … JFree is the fucking ignoramous!!

                The President of which country also blames everybody else for his own nonstop screwups? Both from the GOP clown car … as the GOP and DEM clown cars… race headlong toward each other … both pushing down the accelerator … as each shrinking base screams, “Faster! Faster!”

                God save America.
                Or has He given up? And now punishing us?

        2. Yeah, the example was fiction but also satire. Satire’s just a way of encapsulating the essence of fact. Not the details, just the essence. Could be O Brother, could be Atlas, same principle.

          The observation, a widespread one, is that people don’t vote policy so much as branding, and the brands are applied by a few influencers.

          1. The observation, a widespread one, is that people don’t vote policy so much as branding, and the brands are applied by a few influencers.

            So, chemjfreeric, tried to progsplain a ‘widespread’ observation that I couldn’t find anywhere else and managed to fail to the point that it was unintelligible. Got it.

            Just for the record, the words ‘policy’, ‘branding’ and ‘influencer’ have no identifiable meaning without context, so your explanation is meaningless as well.

            1. FFS. What apparently scares you about the Dems is stuff re climate/environment. Dems and Reps don’t really care about that stuff. They care about getting elected.

              Under-35’s DO care about that stuff and have good reason to. Dems are looking to attract under-35’s to their tent. THAT is why Dems are looking for a parade to ‘lead’ re climate/environment.

              Progressives have written their song re climate – call it Green New Deal as sung by FDR. Conservatives have written their ‘song’ – call it Denial as sung by nobody since it doesn’t really exist. NOTHING is stopping libertarians or conservatives from writing a completely different song on that topic – except apparently a complete lack of interest/talent/skill.

              So what are you really pissed at? That Dems are going after the under-35’s? That under-35’s are more interested in climate/future than older gens? That only progressives – following greens in Europe – have actually done the work of thinking about the issue and putting it in a form they hope will be popular?

              Seems to me that you’re either pissed at the wrong thing or you’re just trapped in DeRp.

              1. “What apparently scares you about the Dems is stuff re climate/environment. Dems and Reps don’t really care about that stuff. They care about getting elected.”

                They care about continuously gaining more power. They very much do care about the best means to that end.

                “Under-35’s DO care about that stuff and have good reason to.”

                Nope.
                This is the height of idiotic narcissism and collective megalomania.
                Man used to believe that the Sun was god.
                Man has come to believe that civilization is now god.
                The former belief was far more accurate, and healthy, than the latter.

                1. “That only progressives – following greens in Europe – have actually done the work of thinking about the issue and putting it in a form they hope will be popular?”

                  Translation:
                  “I believe politicians are corrupt and incompetent, but the technocrats who are demanding more power, indeed global totalitarian power, are not like the corrupt and incompetent politicians because these technocrats
                  are honest, smart, and altruistic. Unlike politicians, technocrats want what’s best for everyone. So we should definitely give the technocrats totalitarian power.”

          2. and the brands are applied by a few influencers.,,, </blockquote … called policy proposals.

      2. +1 three man just bands

    2. you hacks just had an article yesterday

      It does sound crazy, but Reason’s writers don’t all march in lockstep. They are graciously permitted their own thoughts and positions, so very rare in today’s hate fest between two collapsing tribes.i

  13. The poll asks Democrats if they are liberal. Sorry, but none of the Democratic candidates are liberal! Progressives are NOT liberal!

    When being classic liberal is beyond the pale, and neo-liberal is seen as a vile epithet, then it’s clear that the Democrat leadership is fully progressive and opposed to liberal ideals.

    But conservatives have so demonized the word that no one knows what it means anymore. Liberalism means at the minimum, socially liberal. Modern Democrats are anything but socially liberal. They are the new puritans. If they seem socially liberal its only because they think they can get some votes. Which is why they were pro gay marriage. And even then the leadership still needed to “evolve” on the issue. Yes, they’re for legalized pot, but ONLY if it’s taxed to hell and back. They only want legalized pot because they think it means they can fund their wild ass spending schemes. It’s still cheaper to buy black market pot in California than the legal recreational kind.

    And liberal didn’t used to mean fiscally insane. While free market types tended to be rare in the Democrat Party of yore, they at least existed. The positive benefits of a market economy had always been acknowledged. Sure they wanted higher taxes, but not so high they killed the golden goose. Nowadays they just don’t give a shit. There are even congresstwerps on the Democratic aisle openly advocating free rein on the monetary printing presses. “Who cares if we don’t have the money, we’ll just print some!”

    Nope, I don’t refer to Democrats or people on the left as “liberal” anymore. They are anti-freedom and anti-individual. They’re not liberals, they’re progressives.

    Maybe it’s time for libertarians to reclaim the word. It’s not like the progressives care. It’s not like conservatives could shit on us any harder than they already are.

    1. Maybe it’s time for libertarians to reclaim the word.

      Lol, that’s hilarious.

      1. They “demonized” the word by using rhe same branding of the left itself. Just more “not REAL socialism.”

    2. “Nope, I don’t refer to Democrats or people on the left as “liberal” anymore. They are anti-freedom and anti-individual. They’re not liberals, they’re progressives.”

      100% agree, and I do the same.
      However it was FDR, the progressive, who hijacked the term ‘liberal’ because progressivism had fallen out of favor following prohibition.
      The progressive era has lasted over a century, and for a long time progressives were calling themselves liberals. It’s not a new phenomenon.
      As you do here, the terminology should be pushed back upon – when it’s productive to do so, and in a manner that doesn’t distract or interfere with the main subject.

  14. I could sense the smug pro-Republican certainty of Nick before I read the byline. It’s as constant as the northern jacket.

    But Trump could win. Americans are stupid and the system favors Republicans for no good reason. He hasn’t improved his standing in the polls since a high just after election day, and has never broken 50%. He “won” last time by threading an Electoral College needle, and the numbers aren’t so good in some of those salt-of-the-earth poor-farmer states that for some reason are the only places that matter.

    But we’ll see. It might come down to how Putin feels about him that day. One thing I know is that all those hysterical fat goobers at his rally will vote. Not because they like his lying, philandering, stupidity, orangeness, or tweeting, but because their brains are so pickled by FOX News that they can’t shop for a wife-beater and bandana without turning it into a reason to hate Democrats.

    1. Americans are stupid

      That’s more of a global problem than a national one. Americans are in fact just people.

    2. “Americans are stupid”

      Projection.

      1. people who describe entire countries or peoples as stupid are surely bigoted and more than likely are midwits.

        1. In Americans’ defense, most of them did not vote to elect Donald Trump. Even if we just count the ones who voted.

          1. HUR TURRRRRN!

            1. Can you imagine how Trumpers would react if he lost after getting the popular vote? Do you think it would be institution-respecting equanimity? You’re lucky Democrats are so docile.

              1. I know how Trump would have reacted, because he told us.

                You’re lucky Democrats are so docile.

                You clearly haven’t paid attention to the news when they call the cops and lie when they see a citizen legally carrying a firearm. They are viscous, petty, and far more willing to use the police state to enforce their tyranny.

                1. But they aren’t willing to go as far as Republicans when it comes to cheating elections and abusing the Supreme Court to win.

                  1. The rules have been laid out for over 200 years. No one cheated, your side just didn’t win because your candidate failed to visit the swing states, called their people despicable things and then promised to put people out of work.

                    It is what it is, you don’t need to make excuses for them.

                    1. Trump visiting swing states was not political genius. It was literally his only move from a defensive position. And the same people who think Hillary not showing up in swing states is to blame also say she’s so unlikable. So which is it?

                      You’re arguing that she failed to get an even bigger majority of the popular vote in order to win a rigged game. Fair enough I guess. The game is rigged, and is stupid and pointless and destructive, but at least acknowledge that it advantages the Republican. They’ve held the presidency for a big chunk of the last generation while winning the popular vote exactly once.

                    2. And the same people who think Hillary not showing up in swing states is to blame also say she’s so unlikable. So which is it?

                      Both? I don’t know. But I think visiting states where swing voters live is important to winning elections.

                      The game wasn’t rigged, the rules have been laid out for over 200 years. Right now it advantages Republicans. In the future, it could advantage Democrats.

                    3. Right now it advantages Republicans? I can remember waaaaay back to the olden times of October 2016 when we were told about the Solid Blue Electoral Wall that could never be penetrated.

                    4. Trump visiting swing states was not political genius.

                      Agreed.

                      It was literally his only move from a defensive position.

                      I would even have gone with “it was the obvious thing any non-retarded candidate would have done if they wanted to get elected.”

                      And the same people who think Hillary not showing up in swing states is to blame also say she’s so unlikable. So which is it?

                      Both. Yet, as you point out, she still won the popular vote. So what actually caused her to lose? Not campaigning in the swing states, which caused her to lose electoral votes, also known as “the ones that matter.”

                      The game is rigged

                      Do you remember what a fit you threw when Trump said this in 2016? Probably not.

                      No one thinks 2020 isn’t the Democrats’ to lose. But everyone also can’t help but notice that the Democrat response to that proposition has been “hold my beer.”

                    5. If I’m forced to play a game of checkers, but white gets 10 extra moves, I’m allowed to complain about the rules.

                      Hillary’s strategy seemed like a good idea at the time. She went aggressive, thinking she had the decisive states in the bag, because she was worried about not winning the popular vote and having a lack of legitimacy. Imagine that.

                    6. If I’m forced to play a game of checkers, but white gets 10 extra moves, I’m allowed to complain about the rules.

                      Mmm’kay. When did that happen, exactly?

                      She went aggressive, thinking she had the decisive states in the bag

                      So you agree that her decision was driven primarily by hubris.

                      because she was worried about not winning the popular vote and having a lack of legitimacy

                      So . . . she knew she had the decisive states in the bag, including all the most populous ones, but she was worried she wouldn’t win the popular vote? Why? Is she insane? Or just stupid?

                    7. Hillary’s strategy seemed like a good idea at the time. She went aggressive,

                      No it didn’t – not to her husband anyway, who was repeatedly telling her campaign that they were making a mistake ignoring the midwest. She didn’t even visit the midwest states which are crucial to the democrats’ path to victory. Aggressively stupid.

                    8. It seemed like a good idea at the time because everyone, including probably you, thought she was going to win, and she was going to win the states in question. In hindsight, oopsie.

                    9. “The game is rigged”

                      Damn that James Madison!! A Trumpkin if I ever saw one!!

                  2. “”But they aren’t willing to go as far as Republicans when it comes to cheating elections and abusing the Supreme Court to win.””

                    They are willing to contract with a former British agent to create a dossier for the purpose of CONTESTING the election. So said the creator of the dossier. Then try to gaslight America into believing Trump is literally Hitler.

                    1. When did they contest the election again?

                      I need to make note that you’re one of the stupid Limbaugh heads.

                    2. I got that from a court document not Limbaugh dumb ass.

                      “Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as “Hillary for America”) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”

                      Steele Court

              2. Well we already know that you didn’t accept the result of a legitimate election. You engages in violence and intimidation and abuse of power when you lost. You literally did everything you accused trump of.

                1. I did not. I did worse. I sent like three work emails on my gmail account.

                  1. That’s not nearly collective enough for you. But it’s unsurprising that you memory hole the asymmetrical violence of your tribe.

                    1. Data or I start talking about the Nazis Trump endorsed.

                    2. Facts.
                      Trump won the electoral vote by 39,000 votes – not a typo, 39,000 – in three states combined, How much influence did Russia NEED to flip so tiny a number of voters. Plus Wikileaks. Plus Comey.

                      10 million voted against Trump. The unusual number of write-ins is attributed to both candidates being unpopular

                      Trump got a record percentage of “anti” votes — voted against Hillary, NOT for Trump.

                      Okay, back to your tribal squabbling.

                    3. Data or I start talking about the Nazis Trump endorsed.

                      Can you list them? I mean actual endorsements, now – not times when he didn’t condemn Nazis hard enough at exactly the moment you would have chosen.

                    4. Data like hosgkinsons attempted assassination? Like the antifa riots in portland? Like the antisemitism that is endemic in the denocratic party?

                    5. Square = Circle,

                      Data or I start talking about the Nazis Trump endorsed.

                      Can you list them? I mean actual endorsements, now – not times when he didn’t condemn Nazis hard enough at exactly the moment you would have chosen.

                      He DEFENDED them in Charlottesvile, which is an endorsement … with the absolute most SHAMEFUL fucking lie of his Presidency. He said the neo-nazis were charged and attacked and beaten with clubs. That’s exact moment” everyone expected the truth, so no more games, please .

                      The initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
                      “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
                      Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs. Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

                      Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry.

                      These are Racists and Jew-Haters.
                      Ivanka and Jerod are Jewish.
                      Trump threw his own daughter under a bus. And she trusts him to be truthful. SHAMEFUL.

                      Left – Right = Zero

                    6. He DEFENDED them in Charlottesvile, which is an endorsement

                      In fairness, no – he didn’t. He said that that not all of the people at Charlottesville were Nazis. Which is true.

                    7. Read it again, slowly.

                    8. Read it again, slowly.

                      I did, thanks.

                    9. He DEFENDED them in Charlottesvile, which is an endorsement

                      In fairness, no – he didn’t.</blockquote absolute UNDENIABLE proof is linked below.

                      He said that that not all of the people at Charlottesville were Nazis. Which is true.

                      That was separate. It was a 17:00 presser.

                      Trump’s shameful lie that the alt-left initiated violence, charged with clubs and wore black helmets, 7:25 — 11:14 — 13:15

                      Those are three lies, psychotic lies, I’ve already proven it was the alt-right that wore the black helmets, had the clubs and launched the assault ,,.. on UNARMED people standing quietly. He said THREE times what you say he never said.

                      If that’s not SICK enough, he keeps ridiculing the media, AND saying he watched it all on TV. The dumbfuck didn’t know which side was which!!! HE THOUGHT ANTIFA WERE CARRYING CONFEDERATE FLAGS!! Pathetic.

                2. AAAK. The link doesn’t show. This is where Trump disgraces himself

                  Trump’s shameful lie that alt-left initiated violence, chaged with clubs, 7:25 — 11:14 — 13.15

    3. Also dare I ask who the preferred “Tony” candidate is in the field of dems?

      1. I like Warren. I know she’s a risk, but they are all a risk for the same reason she is (except Biden, who is a nonstarter for me because he is 150 years old and a gaffe machine).

        She’s the only one who has moved her numbers by sheer skill. She’ll unite the Bernie and Hillary factions. She’s better than you think on the stump. One might say spellbinding. She can sell progressivism, finally, in a way most Democrats are so ridiculously inept at. And I think that’s necessary if we ever want to get out of the cosmically destructive Reagan philosophical era (spend trillions on war, starve poor people, demonize brown people).

        1. I actually kind of agree. I just don’t think she can get past the Indian thing. Granted it could backfire on Trump sort of like harping on Bush being an idiot hurt Gore but we shall see.

          1. I just don’t think she can get past the Indian thing.

            “I have a plan for that!”

          2. I think it will be a very low hurdle. It’s racist and stupid.

            But who the hell knows. Hillary having an email account was a bigger scandal than Trump being the most corrupt human on earth.

            1. This is why dems lose. The issue with Hillary wasn’t her email account. It was mishandling classified information.

              1. Don’t make me call you stupid.

                And thank God we got a guy who doesn’t mishandle classified information. Practically corruption free. Jesus-like, almost.

                1. You would be stupid for ignore the fact I presented.

              2. It actually wan’t the mishandling of classified information for me. It was the fact that she had mens rea applied to her, while that privelege has repeatedly been held back from the rest of us. Fuck that, fuck her. I hate that she is above the law.

                I couldn’t vote for Trump for different reasons, but I didn’t vote for Hillary because she’s above the law.

                1. Now you have the exact same reason not to vote for Trump, except on an exponentially larger scale.

                  They didn’t bring charges against her because they couldn’t prosecute a case.

                  They didn’t bring charges against Trump because he is president.

                  1. They didn’t bring charges against her because they couldn’t prosecute a case.

                    Lie. They didn’t bring charges against her because they applied the concept of mens rea to her. If you don’t know what that is, look it up, then look up the archived video of Comey talking about why they chose not to prosecute.

                    Focus, I’m not talking about Trump, although I agree, I’m not talking about Trump right now. Focus, Tony.

                    1. Yes, that’s true, but you’re wrong about her being treated differently from the normals. While the applicable statute does allow prosecution based on gross negligence, it’s never done. Comey himself noted that it’s only been prosecuted on that basis once in a century, and it didn’t succeed on those grounds.

                      Hillary Derangement sufferers wanted Comey to make special rules to treat her more harshly than anyone else, not less. And they still want to lock her up, not that they know what for.

                    2. Yes, that’s true, but you’re wrong about her being treated differently from the normals.

                      Until the rest of us get the benefit of mens rea, she has been treated differently from the rest of us plebs. I cannot abide.

                    3. Most importantly, Hildog’s crime does not require mens rea, whereas many others do. Hence the double standard.

                    4. “”Yes, that’s true, but you’re wrong about her being treated differently from the normal””

                      Even Comey noted that not everybody would receive the same treatment.

                      “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

                      Comey Statement

            2. It’s racist and stupid.

              You are right about Warren. I haven’t heard her announce her personal pronoun, but going with ‘it’ for monsters is always a safe bet.

        2. cosmically destructive Reagan philosophical era

          The most productive era in human history…

          1. The most wasteful era of productive potential in human history. Good for rich people though.

            1. You really don’t like it when most of the poorest people in the world get further away from starvation, do you. Because that is what has factually happened over the last 40 years, and American policy is much of the reason for it.

              No, proggies need mass starvation to get the masses to beg for salvation from the kind and generous socialist state. Stalinist socialism is alive in your hearts just waiting for the catastrophe that demands its return.

              1. Which foreign intervention policy are you endorsing again?

                Republicans took what was gained in the postwar era and looted it for themselves and their friends. No, they certainly didn’t contain it to the United States.

                1. I can’t even respond to that crock of shit. You are foaming at the mouth at this point.

                2. WW I, Vietnam, and Libya would like to have a word.

                  The most destructive era began when progressives arrived with their racism, eugenics, fascism (yes, this is the actual home for that word), appropriation, and unbelievably destructive welfare state. You can shove your neo-fuedalism up your ass.

                  1. Libya, lol. If you just ignore all the wars Republicans started, Democrats started all the wars!

                    1. Let’s see.

                      Democrats: the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Somalia, the Balkans, Libya, Syria, Yemen.

                      Republicans: Iraq, Afghanistan, Granada . . . . can someone give me a hand, here?

                    2. The democrats started WWII? I thought our involvement started when the Japanese BOMBED US.

                    3. Square’s list looks pretty good although Spanish American may be republican too. There was that weird blip around that time.

                      Certainly the death toll far favors the ability of democrats to kill.

                    4. The democrats started WWII? I thought our involvement started when the Japanese BOMBED US.

                      Depends on how you look at it. If you’re going to choose between Dems and Reps, FDR was very strongly in favor of getting the US involved on the European front long before Japan attacked us, and the “this is none of our business camp” was made up of Republicans.

                      As NAS also points out, Spanish-American is a grey area in that the last major re-alignment was going on at that time such that the partisan split at the end of McKinley’s term looked very different than it did at the beginning.

                      Nevertheless, IIRC, it was Democrats who pushed us into the Spanish-American War but when it when it wound up breaking out on McKinley’s watch (who had been against getting involved), they turned around and decided it was a bad thing and blamed him for it. It wound up being probably the easiest war we ever fought, so he went ahead and took credit for it and pretended he had never been against it.

                      But in the end, the Democratic Party of the 1800s resembles the Democratic Party of today in almost no way (as with the Republicans) – tallying up slights and victories from 150 years ago and pretending they have anything to do with the modern parties is a little silly (but is even moresilly if you’re trying to claim that it’s the Republicans who have a consistent history of getting us into wars, because if you’re going to play that game, the Dems lose, easily).

    4. their brains are so pickled by FOX News that they can’t shop for a wife-beater and bandana without turning it into a reason to hate Democrats.

      Doubling down on the ‘basket of deplorables’ strategy? Gutsy. Stupid, but gutsy.

      1. Have you seen them?

        Do I have to like all Americans? Do you like all Americans?

    5. Americans are stupid

      As opposed to who, the North Koreans? Turnout at nearly 100% and unanimous support of their candidates. They must be doing something right!

    6. Tony: You perfectly sum up the mind of the average Democrat. Your smug arrogance [“all those fat goobers…brains as so pickled by Fox news…can’t shop for a wife beater or a bandana…”] is deceiving you into believing that “the right person” just has to win. Which is why Trump won in the first place, and will likely do so again.

      And then Ginsberg will finally have to give up her ghost and be replaced with someone like Amy Barrett. And who knows who will be next in that line. I guarantee you and many like you are going to completely lose their shit.

      1. So Trump won because a bunch of uneducated assholes got their feelings hurt when Democrats used big words or called racists what they are. And I’m supposed to respect that as sound decision-making?

        I have no interest in coddling stupid people’s feelings. Exactly the way you presumably feel about woke college students.

        1. “”So Trump won because a bunch of uneducated assholes got their feelings hurt when Democrats used big words or called racists what they are””

          Another example of why the dems lost.

        2. Tony, have you ever met the average Democrat voter? I’ve worked with them. They aren’t guys with master’s degrees in political philosophy and gals who go to the opera and head up philanthropic organizations.

          1. Democrats get the browns and the highly educated whites. Republicans get the uneducated and middlingly educated whites. When it all works out, Republican voters are quite a bit richer on average. Which is why the poor Ohio coal miner bullshit is such bullshit.

            1. Life really is this simple to Tony.

            2. “Democrats get the browns and the highly educated whites.”

              “Republicans get the uneducated and middlingly [sic] educated whites.”

              BUT…

              “Republican voters are quite a bit richer on average.”

              Something just isn’t adding up here.

              1. College professors don’t make a lot of money.

                1. And they don’t provide much value either.

                  1. Anti-intellectualism, the hallmark of all great regimes.

        3. So Trump won because a bunch of uneducated assholes got their feelings hurt when Democrats used big words or called racists what they are. And I’m supposed to respect that as sound decision-making?

          It’s not as crazy as you might think. If a candidate says that socialists are shitheads and socialist policies are horrible, you’d probably not vote for him. And that would be a rational response, not just hurt feelings. You’d guess the candidate is highly unlikely to enact policies that you support, and you’d probably be right.

        4. So Trump won because a bunch of uneducated assholes got their feelings hurt when Democrats used big words or called racists what they are.

          Close – Democrats lost (which is the more accurate representation) because they have a marked tendency to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them, however slightly, as “a bunch of uneducated racist assholes,” whether that’s an even vaguely fair characterization or not.

          Case in point: you.

          1. My point exactly; Tony, who in reality is likely just a lonely assed troll, does do a pretty fair job of standing in for the typical progressive scold.

    7. in some of those salt-of-the-earth poor-farmer states that for some reason are the only places that matter.

      They matter because they change their minds. All the other states seem to be mindless drones to one of the two relevant political parties.

      Its the same reason why democrats always pander to black people with vague promises and/or fearmongering, but when they get elected they either don’t pass laws that help them or pass laws that indirectly hurt them. They have that group on lock, therefore that group barely matters to the political process (turn out is all that matters).

    8. I could sense the smug pro-Republican certainty of Nick before I read the byline.

      Which says more about you than anything else – Nick is probably the most committed and, frankly, knee-jerk anti-Republican on the Reason staff.

      1. Suderman isn’t anything to sneeze at. Robby also likes to indulge in a lot of convenient bothsidesism. I expect you approve of the latter though.

        1. Suderman isn’t anything to sneeze at. Robby also likes to indulge in a lot of convenient bothsidesism.

          Yes, but they’re both self-admittedly left-leaning, and they’re dislike of Republicans is consistent with a number of their other views. That’s why I describe Nick as knee-jerk – his hatred of Republicans feels like an act of will.

          I expect you approve of the latter though.

          I certainly have no particular problem with it. Suderman and Robby are deliberately trying to appeal to left-leaning audiences. It may be futile, but I understand why they are doing it.

    9. “their brains are so pickled by FOX News that they can’t shop for a wife-beater and bandana without turning it into a reason to hate Democrats.”

      This is an odd comment. It suggests that hating people indiscriminately is wrong, yet it comes from someone who hates everyone who thinks differently the he. The self-awareness is not strong with this one.

    10. “I could sense the smug pro-Republican certainty of Nick before I read the byline.”

      *chef’s kiss*

      1. Me too, He panders to the alt-right.
        Shamelessly

  15. Well 75% want steady reliable leadership just as HRC offered in 2016. But Trump promised a bold new agenda. A wall that would cost nothing (Mexico would pay for it). Cheap and complete health care for all (sounds like MCA). An end to wars in the middle east. Judging by history, it sounds to me like the winner in 2020 will be the person who makes the biggest promises.

    1. History has also shown that most presidents are a reaction to the previous president. So a calmer, more “presidential” candidate might have a lot to gain here.

    2. It’s not about who makes bigger promises. Voters simply disbelieve the unbelievable ones. They count neither for nor against the candidate who makes them — as promises. They may count as positioning, however.

      Then voters look at the promises they think to be credible, and decide which candidate is making ones they like, and which they dislike.

      1. Ok so what promise did Donald Trump make that was credible? Because I don’t think for a moment he was more credible than Hillary Clinton. Clinton was steady as she goes, pretty boring, but credible. Trump was I can solve every problem and it will be easy. Remember he only found out health care was complicated after he was President. Looks to me like go big or forget the election.

        1. “”Remember he only found out health care was complicated after he was President. “”

          Obama pledged to close Gitmo, but didn’t found out it was complicated until he was President.

          Obama thought you could keep your doctor so either he too did not understand how health insurance works, or he was lying.

          1. Obama did not run against Trump, it was Hillary Clinton. Was she more credible than Trump. I say yes but lying big pays off.

  16. The Democrats think America has concentration camps, reparations are good and defended MS-13. Among other things.

    They’re losers and they especially showed themselves to be losers in every sense of the word the last three years.

    Fucken psychos.

    1. The best way to get the dems to stop talking about the “concentration” camps is to elect one to be in charge of them.

      No one complained when Obama was in charge of them.

      1. Perhaps Trump will ask AOC to be head of CBP?

      2. And they didn’t complain very much the one time we actually had them under FDR (D because Tony likes to forget).

        1. Nor when Carter did it to the Cubans.

          1. Wilson did it to Germans (as did FDR).

  17. When I see a rally for any one Democrat, or all the Democrats running fill a stadium that Trump just filled, I’ll begin to consider your polls.

    1. Say what you will about polls, they are more useful data than rallies. Ask Bernie Sanders when he lost to Hillary, who could barely fill half of a school gym.

      1. The DNC rigged it for Hillary. The head of the DNC resigned due to the shenanigans.

        Were you asleep in 2016. Trump had good turnout at rallies, Hillary didn’t. The polls were showing Hillary was leading, she lost.

        But the Russians!!

        1. The DNC did not fabricate 4 million votes for HRC. You have got to be kidding me with this crap. You can’t even describe the rigging. It’s just a slogan in your skull. It’s sad. And all for a socialist?

          1. Do you forget what happened in the DNC primaries? As someone who voted in the Democrat primaries, I will never forget what they did to Bernie. I can’t believe you forgot the blatant rigging of the primary. You’re lying, right? Please tell me you’re lying.

            1. So if you supported a guy who is an actual socialist, why are you picking on me? I’m much closer to him than I am to libertarians. Presumably so are you? Or is this about something other than actual government policy?

              There was no rigging. The Bernie campaign did steal Hillary campaign data, but he’s forgiven for that since he did lose anyway. Four million votes. She didn’t get that much of a lead because Debbie Wasserman-Schultz gave Bernie 5 fewer minutes of debate time or whatever hysterical horseshit you’re talking about.

              1. So if you supported a guy who is an actual socialist, why are you picking on me? I’m much closer to him than I am to libertarians.

                Because your team doesn’t matter to me, Tony. I care about the truth, and it bothers me that you have such a blatant disregard for it. You’re a stain on the democratic party.

                1. Tony has repeatedly shown he cares not for the truth. He just- sigh – for the 1000th time in his own words proved it. WHY COME YOU NOT CLOSE RANKS WITH ME?

                  He can’t conceive of the notion that you can leave the reservation and find truth.

                  1. Here’s the thing – I didn’t even vote for Bernie in the DNC primary (because Bernie scared the shit out of me with his socialist bullshit), BUT, I still remember the fraud of the DNC and how they stole the nomination from Bernie. That shit still bothers me. Its a reminder of just how totally rigged the DNC primaries are. They were closing polling stations so people from heavily Bernie-supporting areas couldn’t vote. Then the super delegates debacle and the leaked emails showing blatant disregard for Democrat voter’s preferences.

                    Tony is a total hack. Usually when I find people like this, they are just kind of dumb, uninformed but unusually zealous in their belief in falsehoods. But I believe Tony is an metaphorical snake of the worst kind, a true enemy of those he pretends to be aligned with.

              2. “”

                Wasserman Schultz’s resignation comes days after the leak was reported Friday. The trove of nearly 20,000 emails, obtained by the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 and shared with and published by WikiLeaks, seemed to show Democratic staffers discussing how to shrink support for the Sanders campaign. One email from May 2016 suggested using the Vermont senator’s religious background as ammunition.

                More Stories

                When a Local Tragedy Becomes National News

                Emma Green

                West Virginia’s Teachers Are Not Satisfied

                Alia Wong

                The Unsinkable Benjamin Netanyahu?

                Krishnadev Calamur

                Eric Garcetti points to a camera at the Academy Awards.

                Eric Garcetti Isn’t Expecting Much From Washington

                Dianna Douglas

                “It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief,” wrote one staffer to three others. “Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

                “AMEN,” one of the recipients responded.

                Sanders staffers were outraged, and said the emails confirmed their suspicions throughout the primary cycle that the DNC was favoring Clinton over Sanders.”

                Article

                Also, notice how many people are running in the primary now that they know the fix is not in?

                1. Good god, I had no idea the link pulled that other stuff. We do need the preview button back.

                  1. Doesn’t matter. When faced with the truth and facts, Tony just tucks tail and runs. I’m not even a Republican or a Libertarian and I can’t stand Tony’s blatant lies and historical revisionism. The DNC acts against his best interests, spits in his face and he thanks them for it.

                    1. Maybe he should have chosen to be a Democrat if he wanted the DNC to lick his boots.

                    2. See, Tony didn’t even address the issues. He’s running across the horizon. Doesn’t even engage the argument when he’s shown to be a lying snake. An enemy of those he claims to align with.

              3. “Focusing in and looking at a state like New Hampshire, we can clearly see how superdelegates have effected this race. At the polls Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire’s pledged delegates by a landslide 22 percent. Bernie Sanders received 60.4 percent of the poll vote, just about 150,000 votes. Clinton received 38 percent of the poll vote, tallying just about 95,000 votes. Yet, all six Democratic New Hampshire superdelegates gave their support to Hillary Clinton, effectively erasing Sanders win, leading both candidates to leave the state with the same 15 delegates.”

                “But to look at the aftermath of the vote count we truly have to critically evaluate the start. Hillary Clinton entered Super Tuesday in March in a virtual tie in pledged delegates with both candidates holding just about 50 pledged delegates, yet she held the support of nearly 400 super delegates. This early lead created the visual that Sanders could not defeat her for many voters, clearly affecting the race.”

                But you hate the electoral college, because it’s anti-democratic.

                1. So you think the superdelegates should have looked at a 4 million vote surplus over Bernie and then switched to Bernie? And that’s democratic?

                  1. We’re talking about the primaries here, Tony. Please do try to keep up.

                    1. So am I. And you seem to think that superdelegates (you know, “part of the rules of the game everyone understood”) should have defied the popular vote in the primaries and gone to Bernie because… he is such a loyal democrat? So electable? Hillary dared to compete against him and win, and that wasn’t fair?

                    2. Now you’re conflating the general election and the primaries. Are you proud to be this stupid?

                    3. And you seem to think that superdelegates (you know, “part of the rules of the game everyone understood”) should have defied the popular vote in the primaries and gone to Bernie because… he is such a loyal democrat?

                      You didn’t actually read the article I linked, did you? It was HuffPost, even.

                    4. Huffpost is Bernie propaganda central.

                      I don’t understand what I’m getting wrong here. She won the primary by approximately 4 million votes. Why should the superdelegates have picked Bernie instead?

                    5. Huffpost is Bernie propaganda central.

                      Mmm’kay.

                      Please give me a short summary of what they were saying and why it is wrong. Bonus points for explaining why the Democrats’ super-delegate system is totes okay and the electoral college is tyranny.

                    6. I don’t care about superdelegates one way or the other.

                      If they had rigged the outcome in favor of Hillary, good for them. They exist to prevent kooks like Bernie from harming Democrats, of which he is not one. But they didn’t.

  18. polls are unscientific and stupid.

    >>Under the best circumstances, Trump is almost certainly not going to win 50 percent of the vote in 2020

    this is a strange sentence.

    1. Jill Stein is going to take a sneaky 6% as a spoiler to any majority.

      1. is Green Party angry about appropriation re: New Green Deal?

        1. The Green Party is still trying to figure out what day of the week it is.

  19. One thing is for sure: If/when Trump is reelected, the head explosions will be epic!!

    1. I kinda want him to win just for that.

      1. Right?

    2. wait ’til it’s 49 states.

  20. And why does the sign behind Biden say “Poo Pe”?

    1. The most brilliant framing I’ve seen in a long time.

  21. less educated == didn’t spend $200,000 learning things that aren’t true.

  22. Supreme Court Rules That Bladensburg Cross Will Remain Standing

    An exciting 87-page opinion that will be sure to keep law professors busy for years!

    “JUSTICE ALITO announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH join.”

    1. Beyer joining the Conservatives. That is a good decision. The establishment clause was never intended to banish all religion from the public square.

      1. But the winning argument was that it could stand only because it wasn’t a religious symbol (rather a symbol of WWI sacrifice). I mean, it’s a cross, but whatever.

      2. It will be interesting to see what arguments the fevered minds of RBG and Sotomayor came up with for dissenting.

        1. They were of the opinion that a cross was a Christian symbol. Crazy right?

          1. Ban the letter t from all government documents!!

            1. Oh, so it’s a big T? What does it stand for? “Too bad!!”

              1. Booooooo!

                C’mon Tony, you’re better than that.
                That was a eunuch level joke

  23. Most people regardless of politics are just tired of politics, whatever the variety, being shoved down their throats at every opportunity. A big reason why a lot of people voted for Obama in 2008 was because they were tired of the constant drama and nastiness of the Bush years and just wanted some peace and quiet. People forget becuase of his record in office, that Obama ran as a pragmatist and uniter. People voted for him thinking they would finally get some peace and quiet. They didn’t but they thought they would.

    Trump, though you would never know it by reading the media, won in 2016 in a similar way. He ran as a “deal maker” and in a country sick to death of ideology repudiated ideology. This is why he destroyed his competition in the GOP primaries. They all kept yelling “but he is not a conservative” without understanding that most people considered that a positive.

    Yeah, the way to beat Trump is to kill him with niceness and promise to just leave things alone for a while. The first 20 years of this century have been very traumatic in many ways for this country. What the country would like to have more than anything is just some stability for a while. The way to win is not with bold new initiatives to transform America. And Nick is right that that is what the Democrats are going to do and that is why they are going to lose.

    1. This is why Biden polls well as a fantasy candidate. People see Biden as a devil they know and kind of a place holder President who would allow things to calm down for a while. Biden will not, however, poll very well once people start paying attention to the campaign and after he does what is necessary to win the nomination, if he does. To win the nomination, Biden will have to track far left and have big, bold, crazy ideas, to win the Democratic base. Doing that will end any idea that he could be a placeholder President that the country would like to have.

      1. The democrats can’t moderate and kill trump with kindness though. Closest guy that could do that is Bernie because he would just concentrate on policy, policy that is unpalatable for many many people.

        1. When people here “free shit” their ears perk up, though. If that’s the kind of policy Bernie is talking about, people might pay attention.

    2. John said something that makes sense.

      There is apparently the impression that there is no moderate lane in the Democratic primary electorate anymore (this happened to Republicans a generation ago).

      They’re gonna have to pivot hard for the general. I totally agree that selling calm is the way to go.

      1. I have been saying since the GOP primaries the way to beat Trump is to kill him with kindness. Attacking him just puts him in his element and makes him stronger. The guy is the best counter puncher in the history of politics. If you are kind to him, he loses a whole lot of his mojo. Had the other Republicans not been complete sellouts on trade and immigration and made a real effort to reach out to and appeal to his supporters, Trump would have never won the nomination. Instead, they accused the very people whose votes they needed of being racists and ceded the field to him on the two most important issues of the day.

        If the Democrats would not just be moderate but go back to their roots and appeal to the middle class they would win. There was a time when Democrats cared about American workers and didn’t think shipping entire industries overseas was a good idea. There was a time when Democrats were not open borders fanatics and understood the harm to middle and lower classes caused by unchecked immigration. If they would ever go back to that, they would win. And you know what, if they did, I wouldn’t care if they did.

        1. Hillary was, if anything, being generous when she called half of Trump’s supporters irredeemable racists. Of course her biggest flaw as a politician is telling the truth too much, which I know sounds ironic.

          I think base turnout is more important than appealing to phantom swing voters who could be swung by a random comment or mild breeze. What’s really going to help Dems is what mattered in 2018. There are actually a lot more people who are afraid of Trump than there are who are afraid of mean socialist Democrats. All they have to do is promise to replace Trump and not be too crazy once they get there.

          1. and this is where you go off the rails. After coming so close.

            1. The thing about Trump is that he says lots of mean and nasty things but he always says them about paricular people and those people are always celebrities or politicians who can fight back and whose support he doesn’t need. What he doesn’t do from what I have seen is say mean and nasty things about the American public. Maybe I missed it but I never recall Trump saying something bad about Democratic voters as opposed to some Democratic politician. Meanwhile, Democrats have made a fetish of insulting huge numbers of American voters as racist and irredemable. And they continue to wonder why they lost.

              1. He doesn’t refer to them as Democratic voters, he just calls them Mexicans and Muslims.

                1. He said the truth which is that we don’t get the best as illegal immigrants. And he has never said a word about Muslims. Go and look for yourself.

                  Regardless, illegal immigrants and foreign residents of Islamic countries don’t vote or at least are not supposed to. So, the point still stands.

                  1. He tried to ban all Muslims from entering the country. All Muslims, literally, from entering the country.

                    He regularly stokes anti-Muslim bigotry by only considering violence committed by Muslims to be terrorism or even worth paying attention to, despite its relative rarity compared to white terrorism.

                    The point was about demonizing people. If you think only Democrats do that, you are paying so little attention to what Republicans have been doing for 40 years, and especially the last 4 years, no wonder you vote for them.

                    1. He did not ban all Muslims from immigrating, you *literal* liar. Be banned immigration from certain select counties in the middle east where it was difficult to verify identities. There was nothing about banning Muslims from immigrating from anywhere else – south america, east asia, south asia, europe, etc.

                      At least try to argue that is covertly racist, but don’t blatantly lie about the facts. No one is buying it.

                    2. Tony finds it more important to play the partisan card than to accept the truth.

                    3. “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

                      His words.

                    4. Making a shitty comment to a reporter in 2015 =/= “He tried to ban all Muslims from entering the country.”

                      Just quoting your words.

                    5. Does Donald refer to himself in the third person? He’s no Bob Dole?

                    6. “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

                      DON’T TOUCH JIMMY

                      YOU’RE KILLING INDEPENDENT GEORGE.

                    7. It wasn’t a comment to a reporter, it was an official statement, and he did in fact try to fucking ban Muslims until the courts told him he couldn’t. He tried several times.

                    8. It wasn’t a comment to a reporter, it was an official statement, and he did in fact try to fucking ban Muslims until the courts told him he couldn’t. He tried several times

                      Sorry, I was incorrect. It was a statement that he released in 2015, which reporters picked up on. I apologize for that. Regarding the “muslim ban”.. nope you’re wrong. Don’t know what to tell you there other than stop making shit up.

                2. Translation: “Please talk to me, John, please!”

            2. He was never close. He thinks Romney, McCain, and Dole were ultra-right-wing mustache-twirling bomb throwing fundamentalists

          2. Hillary was, if anything, being generous when she called half of Trump’s supporters irredeemable racists. Of course her biggest flaw as a politician is telling the truth too much, which I know sounds ironic.

            You can’t expect to win elections in a country you hate. Tony you are a perfect example of why the Demcorats are becoming a reagional party. At some point in the 00s, being Democrat became a brand by which you showed your percieved superority and loathing of other Americans. A huge part of Democrats’ like you’s identity is based around hating some other. Not only is that a very stupid and unhealthy way to be, it is also electoral suicide over the long term.

            1. >>>You can’t expect to win elections in a country you hate.

              shhhhhh.

            2. So Trump and his supporters don’t demonstrate loathing of fellow Americans? I feel like if anything they are rather less inclusive in their attitude. But true, they are also very insecure about their intelligence and social status, so that explains the constant whining and victimhood.

              I agree that it’s dumb to call any Americans racist. How does it get you votes? But you don’t scream in ecstasy at the thought of a big beautiful wall to keep out the brown hordes because you are a deep thinker on immigration policy.

              1. Tony,

                Ranting and raving about how anyone who doesn’t want open borders is a racist and how everyone who disagrees with you is stupid doesn’t disprove my point that your entire political brand is based on insulting and asserting some fake moral superiority over the majority of the country.

                Thanks for proving my point. And good luck with that attitude.

                1. Nobody wants open borders John. Maybe the problem is that you just believe Democrats are condescending? You’re apparently willing to believe there is a single human who actually supports open borders (other than consistent libertarians, that is).

                  1. If you don’t want open borders, name who you don’t think should get in and how you plan to keep them out. No Democrat ever does that. Sorry but if you can’t explain who you want kept out and what measures you are willing to take to accomplish that, you are for open borders whether you admit it or not.

                    1. It’s a complex subject, John.

                      Did you know, for example, that planes fly over our borders every single goddamn day? Wall? Why aren’t we building a dome?!

                    2. Tony just admitted he wants open boarders. Doesn’t surprise us, Tony, you can just admit it. Its okay to have a policy position.

                    3. How could I want something that I just described as a propagandistic nonsense fantasy slogan meant to make people stupid?

                    4. Avoiding the subject again. I’m not surprised. I’m done with you.

                  2. LOL.
                    They are just for giving Free Education and Free Health Care and Drivers Licenses with expired foreign IDs to anyone who shows up in their Sanctuary States, while never ever asking anyone to leave.

                    It’s much, much worse than “Open Borders”, its recruiting

                    1. If that ridiculous conspiracy theory were true, is it any more nefarious than the way Republicans recruit people by exploiting the fears of religious people and bigots?

                    2. Do you frequently run red lights because they trigger you? What’s it like to go thru life so divorced from reality?

                    3. So are you saying you think refugees and migrants vote in elections, or are you saying Republicans don’t exploit religious people and bigots?

                  3. “”for example, that planes fly over our borders every single goddamn day””

                    And Tony wants to call other people stupid.

                    When the plane lands, you have to process through customs.

                    1. Do they come find you when your visa times out?

                  4. Nobody wants open borders John.

                    Let’s think logically:

                    1. Democrats use the term “undocumented immigrant” – in fact they claim any other (accurate) description is “dehumanizing”.
                    2. Immigration is the international movement of people into a destination country of which they are not natives or where they do not possess citizenship in order to settle or reside there.
                    3. The only requirement for a Democrat to refer to someone as an immigrant is to come here or try to come here.
                    4. If all you have to do to immigrate is come here (or try to) you have met the definition of open borders.

                    So when Tony says “no one supports open borders” he means “we won’t admit we support open borders because a large percentage of people will hear the disputation and decide the time necessary to learn the truth isn’t worth it. Thus hiding our philosophy can help us remain competitive in elections”.

                    1. Let me be clear. Anyone ranting about “open borders” is a FOX News junkie moron who isn’t thinking because their brain has been turned into propagandized tapioca pudding. Nobody has ever advocated for “open borders” except the approximately 6 libertarians who actually have principles.

                      I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about whether “undocumented immigrants” or “rape aliens” is the more emotionally suggestive term.

                      Comprehensive reform means a rather complex set of things, and it won’t get done for the reason other things don’t get done: the incentives aren’t lined up. Half of that equation is the business sector that likes cheap labor.

                    2. The other half is Republicans and Trump who would have fuck all to sell to their idiot base without an immigration problem to constantly refer to and do nothing real about.

                      The third half is, yes, oh horror, people wanting to come to America to be entrepreneurs.

                    3. Nobody has ever advocated for “open borders”

                      Tony chooses to say that if no one says the words “I support open borders” it must not exist. This is akin to saying Republicans cannot be racist because they don’t claim to support racism. It’s a stupid tactic no one would accept on any subject they didn’t already agree with. The fact he’s reduced to this tactic shows how weak his argument is. The principle of open borders underlies all the Dem positions, actions, and even the terms they use [immigrants, sanctuary cities, etc]. It is so completely interwoven with their talking points Tony is unable to even address the issue and instead rants about Fox in a massive misdirection effort. Pay no attention to the principles behind the curtain!

                      “rape aliens”

                      Illegal aliens is fine, but again we see what tool Tony is.

                      Comprehensive reform means a rather complex set of things,

                      No, it means only one thing: Amnesty. We found this out the last time we agreed to it and the only thing that happened was amnesty. It’s revealing we are already living under the agreement Tony proposes as a solution. If it was actually a solution we wouldn’t need another one would we? But the fact that Tony is lying about “Comprehensive Reform” shows he accepts that it means amnesty only.

                    4. So you’re choosing the be hysterical about this issue in such a manner as is specifically designed to turn your brain off to tolerating any approach that isn’t, what, maximum concentration camps and forced removal? And you’re surprised no progress is made?

                    5. So you’re choosing the be hysterical

                      I see we can add hysterical to the long and growing list of words you don’t understand.

                      And you’re surprised no progress is made?

                      I’m not at all surprised no progress is made. It’s revealing that reality has no relationship at all to your assertions.

            3. At some point in the 00s,

              This was true far earlier than that.

              A huge part of Democrats’ like you’s identity is based around hating some other.

              Tony is the college kid who learned the best way to curry favor with professors was to turn every discussion into an anti-American rant. It worked so well than he internalized. Unfortunately it has worked less will since leaving college and his response has been to become more extreme and hateful hoping to recover that early success.

              1. The only professors I had who espoused political views of any sort were the neocons whose war boners for Iraq at the time made their desks unlevel. Occasionally an English teacher, on off hours, would say something quietly in favor of progressive politics over wine. You really should go to college before you decide what it’s all about.

                1. The only professors I had who espoused political views of any sort were the neocons whose war boners for Iraq at the time made their desks unlevel. Occasionally an English teacher, on off hours, would say something quietly in favor of progressive politics over wine.

                  I don’t know anyone who would describe their college experience this way. Did you go to Hillsdale?

        2. “There was a time when Democrats cared about American workers ”

          Most of these people are not in favor of the free shit offered by Dems b/c they are workers. The Dems have completely sold out the workers for the parasites.

    3. Absolutely nailed it, John. I totally agree. Republicans aren’t much better, and that’s the cudgel democrats and progressives ultimately have to use to try and disagree with you here.

    4. people voted for Obama in 2008 was because they were tired of the constant drama and nastiness of the Bush years and just wanted some peace and quiet

      The ones Causing the nastiness and drama, what little there was, all voted for Obama. It’s an interesting racket. “Give us what we want, or there will be dividedness and dissention”

      1. It was a pretty good racket while it lasted. You are right, that was the exact racket. Just make things so horrible the mushy middle gives you what you want hoping you will shut up and leave them alone for a while. The problem is the Obama years showed that nothing is going to shut them up or placate them and people have figured that out.

  24. Tinfoil hat: Fox fudged the poll on purpose to make Democrats cocky and push even harder left, which will make them lose bigly.

    1. But they never want to anger Trump.

      Or was this the part where in the middle of stroking his shaft they give him a good, hard slap in the tit to spice things up?

  25. […] over at Reason, Nick Gillespie points to still more interesting poll data that dramatize the weaknesses of the […]

  26. Man, I can just sense the bitterness in Nick’s voice that the Dems will be hoist by their own petard and let Trump back in. What a jip.

    Oh! for the good old days when the Dems were all about weed, second-wave feminism, lovely porous borders, and consensual butt sex. Now those were issues you could get behind.

  27. […] This One New Poll of Democrats Explains Why Donald Trump Will Be Reelected […]

  28. I am going with the poll from that kid who made up the gazillion straws number – – – –
    Willie Nelson in a landslide.

  29. Gillespie has spent too much time at the inconsequential, disaffected political fringe among anti-social, hopeless misfits.

    There just are not enough vestigial bigots and half-educated rubes left in America to position Trump for another longshot run through the Electoral College. He needed a three-cushion trick shot the first time, and that was four years of evolution — less white, less bigoted, less religious, less rural, less backward — in the American electorate ago.

    1. You mad, bro?

      1. Just enjoying the Replacement Of The Clingers.

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
          June.20.2019 at 8:56 pm
          “Just enjoying the Replacement Of The Clingers.”

          We’re not enjoying the bigoted asshole bullshit.
          Fuck off.

    2. Translation: Trump is a sure thing.

  30. “Under the best circumstances, Trump is almost certainly not going to win 50 percent of the vote in 2020. Despite a robust economy, his approval rating peaked at 46 percent shortly after he assumed office. ”

    What was his approval rating when he was *elected*?
    I bet it’s higher now.

    And Gallup says he hit his highest approval rating, of 46, Apr 17-30, 2019
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

    1. I thought I heard from different polling data that his approval rating is currently at 49%.

      1. Heresy Hunter
        June.20.2019 at 8:43 pm
        “I thought I heard from different polling data that his approval rating is currently at 49%.”

        I neither know nor care; revealed preferences make the difference along about midnight on election night.
        Until then we get the bigoted asshole rev telling us what we should believe (because the bigoted asshole does), and claims that free shit is really popular!

  31. It’s like they are trying to lose. Just amazing how badly they have been missing the point for the last 3 years or so..!

    1. Trump never was very bright. Except for the moon being part of Mars, That was sheer genius! I wonder how else his magnificent powers can change the universe. Godlike powers, but retarded. And Don Jr is he new Christ, when he was knowingly working with the Russians on a meeting to help his dad win the Presidency in a squeaker, sliding in by 39,000 voters!

      1. Fuck off, Hihn.

        1. Is “Hihn” a new swear word for you people?

          1. Fuck off, Hihn.

  32. […] over at Reason, Nick Gillespie points to still more interesting poll data that dramatize the weaknesses of the […]

  33. I do really think that a lot of people who vote D, but are really just a-political idiots trying to virtue signal, are indeed getting tired of the extra bonus levels of crazy.

    That said, the sad truth is that the Dems will not be getting any more moderate anytime soon. At best they may pull back to the level of crazy they were in 2015 or 2016, making that the “new normal.” After a few years it will begin creeping to the left again.

    It’s a function of demographics. Aging sane old Dems who will be dying off, adding in racialist minority ones to replace them that have been raised to believe all white people are evil, etc. We may get a couple year reprieve at some point, but we’ve fucked long haul.

  34. […] This One New Poll of Democrats Explains Why Donald Trump Will Be Reelected – Reason Trump This One New Poll of Democrats Explains Why Donald Trump Will Be Reelected  Reason […]

  35. Nick Gillespie says Trump has weathered so much and his numbers are unlikely to get any worse. (Though if the inevitable downturn in the economy happens before 11/2020, I think Trump could certainly lose a few points.) What Gillespie completely misses is that Trump’s popularity is also unlikely to get any higher. His approval numbers are hard…they have traveled in a very narrow band for 2 years. The fact is Trump can’t get re-elected with his current level of support. He has to get significantly more support than he currently has to win. How is that going to happen? Gillespie suggests that’s going to happen by people rejecting the Democrats’ left-leaning policies that aren’t popular. That simply is not how it works when a President is running for re-election. When a sitting President is running for re-election, the election is a referendum on that President. And that fact is disastrous for the Republican Party. As I bemoaned at the time, socialism won on Election Night 2016. I knew Trump would be the greatest gift the GOP could ever give to the Democrats. That fact showed up in 2018 and it will show up again in 2020.

    1. People still vote against things they don’t like… And if more people dislike batshit crazy Ds, they will vote for Trump.

      IIRC his polling before 2016 was no better than now. Also, half the reason people hate him so much is the propagandist media… If they run out of steam, and people realize they’re full of shit, that could easily swing things a couple percent. I just don’t see Russia, Russia, Russia! continuing to be a thing too much longer…

    2. 🙂

      Trump’s polls are sinking and will get worse unless the Dems blow the inquiries which, should be a slam dunk.

      Two major gaffes, the cancelled Iran strike that he ordered, without first asking how many casualties until 10 minutes before.

      His raging hated pf the NY Times, in a dumbass tweet blaming the Times for being the hate-spewing psychos — on a FAKE NEWS story the failing Examiner was forced to retract! . on FAKE NEWS story the psycho Examiner was forced to retract.

      This unhinged man has the nuclear bomb at his command. It’s only a question of when, and what type of war he’ll bumble into.

      1. Fuck off, Hihn.

  36. Democrats keep doing stupid things to turn off moderates
    1) People are uncomfortable with the transgender rights stuff. Transgender people are like 0.01% of the population. Why harp on it?
    2) Most people other than religious are quite comfortable with allowing first-term and most 2nd term abortions. (If you call a zygote or fetus a “baby” you are religious). They have to get off the message that no 3rd term restrictions are approrpriate. Roe v. Wade doesn’t permit abortions after viability so why talk about it?
    3) The reparations nonsense. Even most black people don’t prioritize it.

  37. Another article about push-polling using stupid labels. Gee, thanks.

  38. Democrats look like they are blowing a perfect chance to beat an unpopular and tainted president.

    The SJW crowd will be the end of the Democrats as we know it.

    Just like the Trumpists will be the end of the GOP as we know it. Period.

    1. Apostrophes don’t get no respect.

  39. Nobody knows what Trump’s support is like.

    At this point, who’d be honest with a pollster–however anonymous they claim it is.

    Saying that you’re not a card carrying, SJW-style raging leftist is, in quite a few places, as good as saying that you want your access to media, banking, credit, and housing cut off.

    Far better to let them start predicting 90+ point wins for whatever leftist imbecile they put up again.

    People keep saying that Trump won because Hillary was so bad. They’re wrong. Trump won because no Democrat had a chance.

    People are sick of having everything in their lives turned into an accusation of some -ism. People are sick of having their history, their traditions, their freedom turned into a crime.

    Obama turned that up to eleven.

    The only reason it even appeared that a Dem had a chance was because the media decided to speak only to itself.

    And now it’s worse.

    As polls start coming out showing how much people want a Democrat over Trump understand that what you’re seeing on the other side of that poll is silence. People have stopped talking as much.

    We live in interesting dangerous times.

  40. Ahh, so you’re concerned that pollsters are affiliated by the deep state, and paid by SJW’s. Like Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and Mike Pence?

    And, when you were last in Kenya, did you visit Obama’s birthplace shrine?

    1. You are going to be so upset.

      1. Only if the Russians steal it for him again.
        His overwhelming victory of 39,000 voters!
        Not a typo. Thirty nine thousand voters.
        For the Presidency of the United States?

        1. I’m hoping your head explodes.

          Trump beat Hillary 304-227.

          That number you’re citing is irrelevant.

          1. (lol) It’s the 39,000 votes that won three states. I( guess you don’t understand how thus works. If those 39,000 went the other way, it would have been Hillary 304-227.

            39,000 votes in threes states combined. Russia flipped at least that many, with 150 million Facebook users,

            And you forgot your own point, 2020, and flipped it to 2016.

            1. I forgot my point while responding to yours?

              Do you understand how conversations work?

              You brought up 39K votes from–wait for it–2016

              And I responded to that. Ta-Da!

              And it wasn’t even 39k votes that won those three states, it was 3 votes. 3. Three votes put him ahead of Hillary, one in each state. One vote in each state meant that she lost. One.

              That upsets you, you big collectivist. But I understand that’s how it works, and that abiding by it keeps things peaceful and fair.

              You think it’s only fair if you win.

              Which is why you must be made to lose. Forever.

            2. Russia flipped that many? LOL

              Russia spent a fraction of one percent of all campaign advertising funds… If they know how to make their advertising worth 10,000 fold more per dollar spent, then they should get into the campaign advertising business for reals!

              You are so delusional it is mind boggling. People voted against Hillary because she was horrible. Whatever Dem they kick out this time seems likely to be even crazier.

        2. TheLibertyTruthTeller
          June.23.2019 at 12:46 am

          Fuck off, Hihn.

          1. ????

  41. Because donald trump not providing effort to Liteblue as barak obama did.

  42. […] I do not think Democrats’ radical turn will help President Donald J. Trump’s (R-New York) reelection effort. To clarify, most voters view Trump as radical and disruptive but they find him obnoxious. […]

  43. If I understand Gillespie’s point, it is that Democrats cannot agree on whether they want a president with a bold new agenda or a president who will be steady and reliable, so Trump, a man who is neither, will win? Connect the dots here, Nick…. As far as I can tell, Democrats will rally behind whoever is nominated to run against Trump.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.