President Trump

[Bellyhungry]

So it looks like this IG learned from the Mueller investigation - instead of being muffled by Barr, they leaked the findings before Barr has a chance to kybosh it.

[pudubny]

So it looks like this IG learned from the Mueller investigation - instead of being muffled by Barr, they leaked the findings before Barr has a chance to kybosh it.

This makes sense to me. Several people asked why he appointted Durham to start an investigation long before the IG report was complete? They were/are investigating several overlapping issues. Perhaps he got an update from Horowitz and could see where it was going. Judging by his direct involvement with Durham's investigation he has lost any chance of calling it "independent" at this point.

[par345]

For those who don't believe in.conspiracies....
Trump....Barr....Nunes...Graham...etc.

[Bern]

Why employment numbers are misleading.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkel...k#677782924fd1

[par345]

Why employment numbers are misleading.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkel...k#677782924fd1

Well what can we say other than..yes... ...figures lie and liars figure, and no better place for Trump to hang his MAGA hat....Trump who of course prior to election said don't believe unemployment numbers...they are really 28-44%.....then once elected, press secretary Sean (dancing with the stars) Spicer, when asked about the earlier unemployment numbers skepticism said they were fake then,but real now.......USA USA USA

[WWFS]

Keep in mind his support was razor thin to begin with...lost popular vote by 3 million...won the college by 77000 votes in 3 states to make the difference...since then, 2018 and 2019 were bad signs for Trump.

The 2018&2019 numbers were really not as bad for Trump as some would portray. For the most part, Dems padded their leads in States that they carried in 2016.

Some back of the envelope calculations:

Of note, 7 States had a margin of less than 5%, making up a total of of 101 EC votes. (5% is the number traditionally attributed to an incumbent POTUS).

Just using popular vote based on the House elections, one could project the following EC votes:

DEM - 298
GOP - 240


25 DEM States (+DC):
AZ,CA,CO,CT,DC,DE,HI,IA,IL,MA,MD,ME,MI,MN,NC,NH,NJ ,NM,NV,NY,OR,PA,RI,VA,VT,WA

25 GOP States: AK,AL,AR,FL,GA,ID,IN,KS,KY,LA,MO,MS,MT,ND,NE,OH,OK ,SC,SD,TN,TX,UT,WI,WV,WY


If the popular vote in statewide elections (Senate and Governor) are evaluated and used in place of House elections, 3 states would flip from the House only projections:

AZ - 11 EC votes to GOP
NC - 17 EC votes to GOP
IA - 6 EC votes to GOP

On the base of that calculation, one could project the following:

GOP - 274
DEM - 264

A couple of other observations:

Percentage Dem turnout in 2019 special elections was down from 2018, while GOP turnout was up.
Percentage GOP turnout in 2018 across the board elections was down from 2016.


Any way you look at it, it will be very close.

[par345]

The 2018&2019 numbers were really not as bad for Trump as some would portray. For the most part, Dems padded their leads in States that they carried in 2016.

Really?....An impeachment inquiry would not have happened under the pre- 2018 House.

[Bellyhungry]

Caught snippets of Trump-Macron presser on social media. Seems like another clusterfvck in the making.

[Pingeye2_fan]

Caught snippets of Trump-Macron presser on social media. Seems like another clusterfvck in the making.

There is always a 50% chance of that with anything he is involved with.

[bogey5]

Caught snippets of Trump-Macron presser on social media. Seems like another clusterfvck in the making.

And another attaboy donnie keep it up from his biggest fan

[vermin40]

Was driving into work this a.m listening to some U.S political analysts talking about the 2020 election. Not sure who they were as I only heard about 10 minutes of the discussion but they seem convinced that even with all the impeachment noise and whatever else is being thrown at Trump over the next year that unless the Dems come with a better candidate than the current crop they will lose again. Their feeling was Hilary Part Deux, Michelle O or Oprah would fair far better than the current crop.
I'm kinda hoping Crazy Joe is the candidate. By next fall he could be close to being institutionalized.

[Arthur Dailey]

Was driving into work this a.m listening to some U.S political analysts talking about the 2020 election. Not sure who they were as I only heard about 10 minutes of the discussion but they seem convinced that even with all the impeachment noise and whatever else is being thrown at Trump over the next year that unless the Dems come with a better candidate than the current crop they will lose again. Their feeling was Hilary Part Deux, Michelle O or Oprah would fair far better than the current crop.
I'm kinda hoping Crazy Joe is the candidate. By next fall he could be close to being institutionalized.

Agree except in regards to HRC. The public disdain for her is too far reaching and entrenched.

[par345]

USA runs NATO...Donald is the President of USA....I think the French President calling NATO "brain dead" was his snide way of saying what we all know....DT is brain dead

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...d-nato-remarks

[Arthur Dailey]

An intriguing article in the December 2nd issue of The Atlantic. Below are some excerpts.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...elcome/602446/


DAN P. MCADAMS is a psychology professor at Northwestern University and the author of the forthcoming book The Strange Case of Donald J. Trump: A Psychological Reckoning.

Trump’s ratings run closer to a straight line. That line is consistently lower than what other presidents have shown: Trump’s approval ratings have generally hovered in the low 40s. Unlike all other presidents, he has never exceeded a 47 percent approval rating. But he has rarely dipped much below 37 percent.

He has a sizable core of support that refuses to shrink. In fact, a recent poll of voters in six battleground states showed that 90 percent of Trump’s supporters from 2016 approve of his performance as president.

A CNN reporter recently interviewed six loyal Trump supporters in Pennsylvania. When one woman admitted that there was virtually nothing Trump could do to lose her vote, the interviewer asked how she might react if the president were to shoot somebody. She responded that she would want to know what the victim had done to deserve being shot.

Trump supporters and Trump detractors live in different worlds. They may not speak to one another about politics, knowing that such a conversation is likely to end badly. They get their news from different sources. They stay faithful to their respective political tribes.

In her article “From Apprentice to President,” the cognitive scientist Shira Gabriel argued that viewers of Trump’s reality-television show formed “parasocial bonds” with the host. These “one-sided psychological bonds with specific media figures such as favorite celebrities” leave the viewer feeling that she truly knows the star and enjoys a special relationship with him. After statistically controlling for a range of other factors, Gabriel found that American television viewers who established parasocial bonds with Trump as the host of The Apprentice were disproportionately likely to vote for him in the 2016 presidential election, even if they were Democrats.

His supporters adore him as something like a larger-than-life force, a beautiful persona reflected in the pool. Should they encounter new negative information about the president, they may judge it against the “evidence” of their acquaintance with the president’s persona—and discount it. The contrast is simply too great between what the “fake news” claims, and the infallible presence onscreen.

[Chambokl]

Trump this morning on climate change.

Nobody fights more than him on clean water and clean air. He also watches oceans . . . nobody watches ocean like him and he sees debris everywhere in the ocean . . . and all the debris are going to the USA. This has to stop . . .

Yes he is brain dead . . . the man has absolutely no clue about climate change . . .