Trump Cancels Denmark Visit

[One Bad Pig]

(original color == white)

approximate mental age = 12

Jim

Are you done modifying your post yet?

I agree, a 12 year old might have difficulty distinguishing between the aptness of your and MM's characterizations of each other.

[carpedm9587]

Similar to how the Democrats became "The Obama Party" and has never recovered?

No.

[One Bad Pig]

Similar to how the Democrats became "The Obama Party" and has never recovered?

Of course not. The Democrats are already busy distancing themselves from Obama. Carpe cannot imagine the Republicans doing the same with Trump.

[Teallaura]

And perhaps one with a bit of diplomatic acumen, a slightly thicker skin, and some form of moral compass that is recognizable to the rest of us?

I suspect a LOT of people will be taking the past four years into consideration when they pull that lever, check that box, push that button, or punch that chad on November 3rd, 2020. And it appears Trump is about to get a third primary challenge. Walsh was initially a Trump supporter, but now has some serious words about the future of the GOP with Trump at the helm. Frankly, I don't think he will do any better than Weld. Neither will Flake, Kasich, or Sanford - if they run. Trump simply has too strong an approval rating among Republicans (a fact that continues to amaze/dismay me). If any of these five men truly want to put an end to the Trump presidency, they will eschew the primary and run as an independent in the general election. The resulting split of the Republican vote would sink Trump. But they would have to do this knowing their action would put a Democrat in the White House. That would mean they would have to so see Trump as a threat to our country and institutions that they would be willing to act to ensure that result, ending their career within the Republican party. I don't know if any of the five of them have that kind of commitment.

This is actually the scary part. It's one thing when the loonies on the edge think they can't loose - it's another when the rank and file start thinking the same way.

Way too early to call a race - but Trump has no serious primary challengers at this point. The Democrats have a grossly enlarged field that couldn't set fire to their base without a flame thrower - and maybe not even then. The metrics are far more in Trump's corner than whoever the Dem challenger is at this point.

It is still too early - too much can happen - but it's also frightening that the Dem base is this over confident. They now have too many leftist reactionaries and a Trump win will set them off like a powder keg.

[rogue06]

This is actually the scary part. It's one thing when the loonies on the edge think they can't loose - it's another when the rank and file start thinking the same way.

Way too early to call a race - but Trump has no serious primary challengers at this point. The Democrats have a grossly enlarged field that couldn't set fire to their base without a flame thrower - and maybe not even then. The metrics are far more in Trump's corner than whoever the Dem challenger is at this point.

It is still too early - too much can happen - but it's also frightening that the Dem base is this over confident. They now have too many leftist reactionaries and a Trump win will set them off like a powder keg.

A lot is riding on the state of the economy which is why the MSM is working so hard to tell us how bad it is.

[Teallaura]

A lot is riding on the state of the economy which is why the MSM is working so hard to tell us how bad it is.

Yup - that and MSM and other media are hoping for a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[carpedm9587]

This is actually the scary part. It's one thing when the loonies on the edge think they can't loose - it's another when the rank and file start thinking the same way.

Who said anything about "can't lose?"

On the chance that Trump might actually win re-election, I'm already putting things in place to sell my home and move abroad. I am under no illusion that it is "in the bag."

Way too early to call a race - but Trump has no serious primary challengers at this point. The Democrats have a grossly enlarged field that couldn't set fire to their base without a flame thrower - and maybe not even then. The metrics are far more in Trump's corner than whoever the Dem challenger is at this point.

I think you have to be VERY selective about what data you look at to come to this conclusion.

It is still too early - too much can happen - but it's also frightening that the Dem base is this over confident. They now have too many leftist reactionaries and a Trump win will set them off like a powder keg.

Meh...one person's "reactionary" is another person's "fresh new face with bold ideas." The left watched with some dismay as the phenomenon of the Tea Party unfolded and the left lost both houses and the executive, which cost them the judiciary as a secondary effect. Now the right is basically watching the left do essentially the same thing. I think you underestimate the degree to which the left is as solid against Trump as the right is for him, and the degree to which Trump is losing moderates and (it would seem) even some small percentage of his 2016 base. The narrow squeak of 2016 doesn't give him a lot of wiggle room, and I see him squandering what little wiggle room he had. If the economy turns, as it is widely expected to do, then I suspect Trump is all but DOA.

With any luck - I can keep the house and the citizenship and write off the last four years as a bizarre political aberration.

[Teallaura]

Who said anything about "can't lose?"

On the chance that Trump might actually win re-election, I'm already putting things in place to sell my home and move abroad. I am under no illusion that it is "in the bag."

I grant you aren't going that far - but you demonstrate an unrealistic confidence, at least in the post I quoted.

I think you have to be VERY selective about what data you look at to come to this conclusion.

I think you aren't nearly selective enough. Look at the whole picture, yes - but know what parts are in the composition and which aren't.

Meh...one person's "reactionary" is another person's "fresh new face with bold ideas." The left watched with some dismay as the phenomenon of the Tea Party unfolded and the left lost both houses and the executive, which cost them the judiciary as a secondary effect. Now the right is basically watching the left do essentially the same thing.

Would that be the same 'fresh new idea' folks who are busily trying to shut down an anti-bigotry conference? The ones that have beaten people in the streets? The same ones that flee any real debate and shout down any dissent?

The Tea Party even as misrepresented in the media was still better than that.

I think you underestimate the degree to which the left is as solid against Trump as the right is for him, and the degree to which Trump is losing moderates and (it would seem) even some small percentage of his 2016 base.

That would be correct - since the data you are relying on seems faulty to me. There is better evidence that moderates are leaving / being pushed out of the Democratic party - even some beginning to support Trump.

The Democrats are solidly insane - they are not unified, not even by their hatred of Trump.

The narrow squeak of 2016 doesn't give him a lot of wiggle room, and I see him squandering what little wiggle room he had. If the economy turns, as it is widely expected to do, then I suspect Trump is all but DOA.

With any luck - I can keep the house and the citizenship and write off the last four years as a bizarre political aberration.

The evidence actually favors the 'narrow squeak' - it wasn't - having been influenced by Google's bias - between 2 and 10 millions votes may have been influenced. So if you want to go with the popular vote - Clinton, without Google, might not have won anyway.

Or you can look at it realistically - Trump's was a very sound win which should, but didn't, wake the Democratic Party to how much they are loosing the middle.


IF we use just the cross section of today - as if the election would be held tomorrow - there's no Democratic candidate with a realistic road to victory. And honestly, all this recession talk is dangerous - if it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, that's meat for Trump; if not, Trump can point to how the Dems want so badly to get him that they are HOPING to harm the middle and lower classes (Bill Maher has been giving him plenty of ammo here). Shy of a really major setback, you need the economy to be worse than it was under Obama for this to hurt Trump - and all those folks who finally found work aren't going to listen to 'maybe' from the Democrats.

[DesertBerean]

Of course not. The Democrats are already busy distancing themselves from Obama. Carpe cannot imagine the Republicans doing the same with Trump.

This is the second time I've heard this about Democrats and Obama. Where is this happening?

[One Bad Pig]

This is the second time I've heard this about Democrats and Obama. Where is this happening?

It was really brought out in the second round of debates. Obama is pretty far to the right of most of the candidates.

[carpedm9587]

I grant you aren't going that far - but you demonstrate an unrealistic confidence, at least in the post I quoted.

OK - I went back and reread the post. I'm not seeing "confidence." I noted that I think a lot of people will be thinking about the last four years when they vote. I noted that his primary challengers had little hope of succeeding, and suggested one way in which they would likely succeed (challenge as an independent in the GE). Historically, such challenges have usually split the vote (at least to some degree) giving the victory to the opposite side. I doubt any of them is going to actually do that. So I don't see where you see "confidence."

I think you aren't nearly selective enough. Look at the whole picture, yes - but know what parts are in the composition and which aren't.

Yeah...we'll that's a sure formula for picking the data that will affirm my confirmation bias. No thanks - I think I will continue to look at the entire picture and all of the available data.

Would that be the same 'fresh new idea' folks who are busily trying to shut down an anti-bigotry conference?

The ones that have beaten people in the streets?

As far as I know, none of these "fresh new faces" in our government have beaten anyone. Is there violence from the left and right in the streets? Absolutely - and it's all reprehensible. But let's not forget that every single death due to domestic terrorism in 2019 was perpetrated by a right-wing extremist, not a left wing one. As you move out to the extremes, the probability of violence increases. It's not a function of left/right, it's a function of degree of extremism. The data suggests that right wing extremism is far more out of control than left wing extremism.

The same ones that flee any real debate and shout down any dissent?

The Tea Party even as misrepresented in the media was still better than that.

That would be correct - since the data you are relying on seems faulty to me. There is better evidence that moderates are leaving / being pushed out of the Democratic party - even some beginning to support Trump.

The data I'm looking at is Trump's polling data for both job approval rating and election positions. It includes data from across the political polling spectrum. Even Rasmussin, notorious for their right-leaning slant on polls, has him under water. Then there is the growing economic news, showing that his tariffs are having a significant impact on his own base, and the degree to which they are beginning to ask themselves "why." Farm income down 12% in 2018. They are projected to rise 10% this year (if Trump's tariffs don't undermine the sector), which will still bring them in below 2017 numbers. Iowa land values have dropped 14% since 2014. In many of the states where Trump's strength is concentrated, his own base is not significantly benefiting from his programs and "gut" decisions. Indeed, numbers suggest that the modest gain the lower and middle classes saw from the "great tax cut" will be close to wiped out by increased costs due to tariffs. Since tariff's are a tax, it means the tax cut to these wage levels is basically erased by a tax increase few people talk about. Meanwhile, although unemployment has hit record lows (most of which was achieved under Obama, BTW), the 2.5M jobs cited for Mar 2018 through Mar 2019 appears to be about 500K too rich, and the average will be closer to 170K per month. Meanwhile, if we do encounter the recession many economists believe is coming, the fed has little wiggle room to cut rates (since they are still near the bottom) and there is little room to borrow further given the red ink being spilled by this administration, with a close to $1T deficit in a relatively healthy economy. Meanwhile, several of the indicators the Trump Administration was bragging about last September are showing downward trends since. Such trend lines are showing up in a wide array of economic data. Then there is the inverted yield curve, which I was amazed to hear Navarro deny was a stable predictor of recession (i.e., because it was only a flattened curve), when his own book said exactly the opposite.

Sorry, Teal - the American people are not stupid. They can see when they are being conned - and I suspect a lot of them will know that in full measure by 11/3/2020.

The Democrats are solidly insane - they are not unified, not even by their hatred of Trump.

Wow... ... you really have gone off the deep end...

The evidence actually favors the 'narrow squeak' - it wasn't - having been influenced by Google's bias - between 2 and 10 millions votes may have been influenced. So if you want to go with the popular vote - Clinton, without Google, might not have won anyway.

What? Teal...votes are influenced by any number of factors, but where on earth you get evidence for this claim that "Google swung the election numbers" I have no clue.

Or you can look at it realistically - Trump's was a very sound win which should, but didn't, wake the Democratic Party to how much they are loosing the middle.

Less than 100K votes in three states and failure to gain the popular vote is not a "solid win" by any measure I am familiar with.

IF we use just the cross section of today - as if the election would be held tomorrow - there's no Democratic candidate with a realistic road to victory.

The polls say otherwise.

And honestly, all this recession talk is dangerous - if it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, that's meat for Trump; if not, Trump can point to how the Dems want so badly to get him that they are HOPING to harm the middle and lower classes (Bill Maher has been giving him plenty of ammo here). Shy of a really major setback, you need the economy to be worse than it was under Obama for this to hurt Trump - and all those folks who finally found work aren't going to listen to 'maybe' from the Democrats.

This is kind of cute. So Trump will win if the economy is good because presidents get credit for a good economy. But Trump will win if the economy is bad because Trump will blame the Democrats.

And then you accuse me of irrational exuberance?

[KingsGambit]

Denmark isn't a powerful ally - it just isn't. Rather than a gracious 'no, thanks' their PM decided to get snarky. No, he shouldn't have put up with that. There was no call for her to do that in the first place and in the second, whether she likes the guy or not, he is President of the United States and he didn't do anything wrong in simply asking.

I think Trump forfeited the right to take umbrage to rude behavior (which this was not. He was the only one who behaved rudely by calling her "nasty") years ago. Seriously, I don't get your insistence on this point.

[Teallaura]

I think Trump forfeited the right to take umbrage to rude behavior (which this was not. He was the only one who behaved rudely by calling her "nasty") years ago. Seriously, I don't get your insistence on this point.

Under that logic, who hasn't?

Whether he has the 'right' or not doesn't mean he didn't take umbrage - and he says he did so I'm going with yeah, that's what happened.

[rogue06]

This is the second time I've heard this about Democrats and Obama. Where is this happening?

A good piece here that I read at work at the WSJ but is behind a paywall at home: so the Puffington Host will have to do:

Source: 2020 Democrats Face Deep Divide On Obama�s Legacy

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[*The article continues at the link above*]


Another behind a paywall, this time the WaPo: Joe Biden wants opponents to stop attacking the Obama's record

[Teallaura]

OK - I went back and reread the post. I'm not seeing "confidence." I noted that I think a lot of people will be thinking about the last four years when they vote. I noted that his primary challengers had little hope of succeeding, and suggested one way in which they would likely succeed (challenge as an independent in the GE). Historically, such challenges have usually split the vote (at least to some degree) giving the victory to the opposite side. I doubt any of them is going to actually do that. So I don't see where you see "confidence."

Then you evidently didn't read the rest of the post you just made!

Yeah...we'll that's a sure formula for picking the data that will affirm my confirmation bias. No thanks - I think I will continue to look at the entire picture and all of the available data.

Oh lookie - a squirrel. Relevant data is what matters - 'all available' is just weeds.

Evidently the news isn't 'relevant data'.

As far as I know, none of these "fresh new faces" in our government have beaten anyone. Is there violence from the left and right in the streets? Absolutely - and it's all reprehensible. But let's not forget that every single death due to domestic terrorism in 2019 was perpetrated by a right-wing extremist, not a left wing one. As you move out to the extremes, the probability of violence increases. It's not a function of left/right, it's a function of degree of extremism. The data suggests that right wing extremism is far more out of control than left wing extremism.

Then you aren't paying very close attention to just how radical part of your party has become - and how much your candidates are pandering to them.

I know you have a computer so it's your own fault if you're not paying attention.

Oh cute - but you aren't that stupid so no.

The data I'm looking at is Trump's polling data for both job approval rating and election positions. It includes data from across the political polling spectrum. Even Rasmussin, notorious for their right-leaning slant on polls, has him under water. Then there is the growing economic news, showing that his tariffs are having a significant impact on his own base, and the degree to which they are beginning to ask themselves "why." Farm income down 12% in 2018. They are projected to rise 10% this year (if Trump's tariffs don't undermine the sector), which will still bring them in below 2017 numbers. Iowa land values have dropped 14% since 2014. In many of the states where Trump's strength is concentrated, his own base is not significantly benefiting from his programs and "gut" decisions. Indeed, numbers suggest that the modest gain the lower and middle classes saw from the "great tax cut" will be close to wiped out by increased costs due to tariffs. Since tariff's are a tax, it means the tax cut to these wage levels is basically erased by a tax increase few people talk about. Meanwhile, although unemployment has hit record lows (most of which was achieved under Obama, BTW), the 2.5M jobs cited for Mar 2018 through Mar 2019 appears to be about 500K too rich, and the average will be closer to 170K per month. Meanwhile, if we do encounter the recession many economists believe is coming, the fed has little wiggle room to cut rates (since they are still near the bottom) and there is little room to borrow further given the red ink being spilled by this administration, with a close to $1T deficit in a relatively healthy economy. Meanwhile, several of the indicators the Trump Administration was bragging about last September are showing downward trends since. Such trend lines are showing up in a wide array of economic data. Then there is the inverted yield curve, which I was amazed to hear Navarro deny was a stable predictor of recession (i.e., because it was only a flattened curve), when his own book said exactly the opposite.

It's TOO EARLY - polling data at this point are nothing but weeds.

Trends are useful - but you actually can't use cross sections to predict the future. This is bad analysis - yeah, everyone does it but it's still bad.

There is some useful data - but you're looking at the wrong stuff. Don't care if his approval rating is low - it's a bad metric and hasn't stopped Congress in forty years - and probably not any president since Carter and I wouldn't swear to Carter (Reagan was a much better candidate just as Clinton was up against Bush Sr)

Sorry, Teal - the American people are not stupid. They can see when they are being conned - and I suspect a lot of them will know that in full measure by 11/3/2020.

No, they aren't - which is very bad news for the Democrats. Get nose out of the racing sheets and look at how badly the horse is limping.

Wow... ... you really have gone off the deep end...

Translation: Dang she's right - gotta dodge!

What? Teal...votes are influenced by any number of factors, but where on earth you get evidence for this claim that "Google swung the election numbers" I have no clue.

Good grief - you really DON'T watch news AT ALL, do you? Clinton herself referenced it - trying to defend herself by calling a Harvard professor's peer reviewed paper 'debunked' despite the fact that it hasn't been - and he's a Clinton supporter.

Less than 100K votes in three states and failure to gain the popular vote is not a "solid win" by any measure I am familiar with.

304 to 227 is a solid win - and it would have been 306 had Texas cast all its votes. And you knew perfectly good and well what I meant. Really are worried, huh?

The polls say otherwise.

Polls are too early to matter.

This is kind of cute. So Trump will win if the economy is good because presidents get credit for a good economy. But Trump will win if the economy is bad because Trump will blame the Democrats.

yep - because the media is setting it up that way in an attempt to cause a recession - or get clicks, one.

And then you accuse me of irrational exuberance?

Yup - I'm not dumb enough to say Trump will likely win where you keep arguing that he will likely lose. I'm just saying he would win if we held the election today. If the Democrats run a crappy candidate, all the polls in the world won't help them win. And all they have in their bloated field are lack luster candidates - exactly what they cannot afford. Democrats historically don't turn out unless motivated - four years of 'orange man bad' isn't going to provide the necessary momentum to get Millineal backsides off the couch.