2020: The Two Year Long Election

[HerNameIsBuffy]

36 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

Brothers one and two never married, so they bought a house together. Brother number one also thinks Trump is both an imbecile and an idiot. I hang out with brother number one on Friday nights, and we catch up on the Orville or Star Trek Discovery, or watch a video one of us has gotten from the library. Brother number two entertains brother number three in his adult son and they play games and ejaculate about Trump. Sometimes another friend is over, and he prefers to join brother number one and I in the no politics zone.

Brother three is a great friend to have who I enjoy hiking with as well as brother number one. During the Democratic National convention two years ago, we decided to take a camping and hiking trip. Knowing how badly brother number 3 had Trump-humped during the Republican National convention, I said day one that this is a politics-free zone and anybody breaking the rules owes me a foot massage. Brother number 3 actually kept quiet about politics the whole week!

Brother number one is my best friend. Unfortunately, if I want to see him, I have the Trump love to put up with from two and three.

That is very complicated!  I have one brother and he hates Trump so I’m good.

my sisters on the other hand - it’s conversation non grata.

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

"Democrats cheer, Republicans jeer McAuliffe’s plan to boost Virginia candidates"

Spoiler

RICHMOND — Virginia Democrats cheered and Republicans lobbed their sharpest “T-Mac” barbs Thursday in response to former governor Terry McAuliffe’s decision to forgo a White House bid and devote the next year to turning the General Assembly blue.

“It really doesn’t get much better than Terry raising money,” said Del. Lashrecse D. Aird (D-Petersburg), adding that other Democrats she has spoken with share her excitement. “Terry has been very popular with Virginians . . . so it makes it very easy for him to step into this role.”

McAuliffe, who had been mulling a presidential bid at least since leaving the Executive Mansion 15 months ago, announced Wednesday that he would not run.

He said his decision was based in part on the predicament of home-state Democrats, who seemed to be on the cusp of seizing control of the legislature until McAuliffe’s successor, Gov. Ralph Northam, and two other top Democrats were swallowed by scandal.

McAuliffe says he will serve as campaigner in chief for Democrats running for the state House and Senate, assuming a leadership role that Northam, Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax and Attorney General Mark R. Herring normally would have fulfilled.

Northam and Herring admitted in February to wearing blackface as young men, and two women have accused Fairfax of sexual assault years ago — claims he has vigorously denied. All three men remain in office but have struggled to move past the controversies.

Del. Charniele L. Herring (D-Alexandria), chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus and no relation to the attorney general, said McAuliffe, a prolific fundraiser with close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, could provide a range of help to Democrats. “It can be anything from just helping candidates on the ground, firing up people before they knock on doors, our fundraising efforts,” she said. “When he says he’s all in, believe it.”

Republicans said they were excited, too — for the chance to revive old attacks on McAuliffe, who as an entrepreneur mixed business and politics in ways that sometimes raised eyebrows and led to investigations.

“If anyone thinks that the Clintons’ bagman is going to be the savior for Virginia Democrats, they must be really desperate,” said Chris LaCivita, a GOP operative who worked against McAuliffe’s 2013 gubernatorial bid.

One race that will probably be a top priority for McAuliffe is the contest in which Democrat Dan Helmer is seeking to unseat Del. Tim Hugo (R) in a district that straddles Fairfax and Prince William counties.

The 2017 blue wave left Hugo the lone Republican state delegate in Northern Virginia after he beat a Democratic challenger by just 96 votes.

This year, his race with Helmer has drawn the most money of any state contest so far, with Hugo raising $162,000 and Helmer bringing in $124,000 since January.

Democrats need to flip two seats in the House to win control; they are also two seats shy of a majority in the Senate.

Helmer, a former Army intelligence officer, said McAuliffe is “going to be a great contributor.” He added that he expects Democrats from across the country to get involved as well, because Virginia is the only state where control of the legislature is likely to be decided in elections this fall.

Hugo countered that he’s not worried, noting that he won by 20 points in 2013, the same year McAuliffe was elected governor. “I’m going to work hard, run on my record and we’ll win,” Hugo said.

Virginia is the only state where sitting governors cannot run for reelection.

Quentin Kidd, director of Christopher Newport University’s Wason Center on Public Policy, said McAuliffe would have faced an uphill climb during a crowded presidential primary season in a year when Democratic voters appear to be looking for a more progressive nominee.

He also noted that, if McAuliffe harbors ambitions of running for governor again in 2021, it would serve him well to be perceived as a savior for Democrats this year. McAuliffe has declined to discuss his future ambitions.

“Our polling has shown and the fundraising numbers are showing that the statewide leadership is really struggling right now,” Kidd said. “He has an opportunity to help save it in some ways.””

Even Republicans concede that McAuliffe’s decision will probably mean more money for Democrats. But they also seized on his involvement as an opportunity to launch a new round of jabs at Democratic politicians and as a sign of profound weakness in the party.

“T-Mac will do a great job bringing in gobs of shady special interest money, which most Dem candidates claim to hate,” John Findlay, executive director of the Republican Party of Virginia, said in an email, using an old nickname for the former governor.

“McAuliffe can’t change the facts: Governor Blackface refuses to appear in public because he is so despised. Democrats are preventing Justin Fairfax’s accusers from having a public hearing. The fact Democrats think they will be saved by a failed presidential candidate is truly pitiful.”

Republicans have not won a statewide election in Virginia since 2009. And President Trump’s unpopularity helped Democrats make inroads into previously red suburbs, picking up 15 House of Delegates seats in 2017. Republicans hung onto control by dint of a lottery — a name pulled out of bowl — to settle a tied race.

That momentum may have changed with the scandals that erupted in February.

The party’s troubles were on McAuliffe’s mind a week ago, after a Planned Parenthood dinner put on by his wife, Dorothy McAuliffe.

The McAuliffes had invited state Democratic Party Chairwoman Susan Swecker to spend the night at their McLean home. In the pool house that has been the site of many a Democratic fundraiser, dressed in pajamas and robes, the three of them stayed up until 4 a.m. talking about many things — but always coming back to what could be done to help Virginia Democrats.

McAuliffe said it was that conversation — coupled with the news a few days later that Northam had skipped a fundraiser that drew protesters, and that he, Fairfax and Herring had raised little money since the scandals — that convinced him not to run for the White House.

“I think we all know where we are and what the situation is,” Swecker said in an interview Thursday. “It’s time for all hands on deck, because this is an incredibly pivotal and important election.”

 

[47of74]

Looks like E.W. Jackson has crawled out of the sewers again

Quote

Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg found himself in the crosshairs of a firebrand pastor this week, who claimed the openly-gay politician would crack down on Christianity if elected in 2020, and that his LGBTQ supporters wanted to turn America into a “homocracy.”

Bishop E.W. Jackson, a failed Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, made the comments on Tuesday during a segment on his radio broadcast, which is known as “The Awakening.”

He was responding to a guest comment claiming Buttigieg, who is hoping to become the primary candidate for the Democratic Party, would be running on an “LGBT agenda.” The segment was first highlighted by Right Wing Watch.

Buttigieg did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Jeeeeeeeezus wing of the reich wing must be really afraid of Pete Buttigieg if they keep acting like this.

 

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

Looks like E.W. Jackson has crawled out of the sewers again

The Jeeeeeeeezus wing of the reich wing must be really afraid of Pete Buttigieg if they keep acting like this.

 

Absolutely, because the only Jesus is Evangelical/Fundie (mis)interpretation of him. Buttigieg talks about a different interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. Do you know that Jesus doesn't say one thing about homosexuality? Paul does (don't get me started on Paul), but Jesus doesn't. Instead, Jesus says horrible things like take care of the poor and the sick and visit those in prison. He preaches love and forgiveness instead of judgement and hate. The reich wing can't stand this message.

[47of74]

Absolutely, because the only Jesus is Evangelical/Fundie (mis)interpretation of him. Buttigieg talks about a different interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. Do you know that Jesus doesn't say one thing about homosexuality? Paul does (don't get me started on Paul), but Jesus doesn't. Instead, Jesus says horrible things like take care of the poor and the sick and visit those in prison. He preaches love and forgiveness instead of judgement and hate. The reich wing can't stand this message.

And I think I there’s even a question of how much of Paul’s writings actually came from Paul and how much came from one of his hangers on like Timothy.

[Cartmann99]

3 hours ago, 47of74 said:

that his LGBTQ supporters wanted to turn America into a “homocracy.”

 Yup, the untold horror of LGBTQ people wanting their lives and families to be given the same positive regard as heterosexual people continues.

I just don't get these people.

[Penny]

On 4/19/2019 at 12:27 PM, Cartmann99 said:

 Yup, the untold horror of LGBTQ people wanting their lives and families to be given the same positive regard as heterosexual people continues.

I just don't get these people.

I don't get these people either. We are all people, no matter who we love. 

My 90 year old Dad looked up his former back doctor to call and get an appointment. Come to find out he was transgender and now is a woman. Dad immediately looked for another doctor.  He only wanted to go to this doctor as he had fixed his back some 10 years ago, but now that he is a woman, I guess she is different as a doctor? 

[milkteeth]

 

[PreciousPantsofDoom]

Just finished watching Mayor Pete on Anderson Cooper. Very impressed! The more I see of this guy,  the more I like. He's smart, poised and answers questions like he was born to do it. 

I feel like that moment on the West Wing where Josh tells Sam that (then candidate) Bartlet is the real deal. I dont know if Buttigieg can or will win, but he looks like the real deal to me.

(At this point he would have my vote, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm, you know, Canadian...)

[GreyhoundFan]

Every time I think I couldn't despise McTurtle more, I read something that makes me furious. He needs to go in 2020:

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

35 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Every time I think I couldn't despise McTurtle more, I read something that makes me furious. He needs to go in 2020:

 

I have never seen a pic that looked more like someone straining to poop.

[fraurosena]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

An interesting op-ed: "It’s easy to see how Trump can win reelection"

Spoiler

Larry J. Sabato is director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Kyle Kondik manages the center’s Washington office. They are co-editors of the center’s newsletter, “Sabato’s Crystal Ball.”

President Trump thrives on chaos, much of it his own creation. But it would be a mistake to assume that the reelection campaign of this most untraditional president will mirror the tumult of his 2016 effort. It’s too early to handicap 2020, but Trump may try to capitalize on some of the same factors that helped three modern Republican presidents, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, win reelection.

The reelections of all three men were not always certain. Around this time in the 1972 election cycle, Nixon held only a modest lead over the early Democratic front-runner, Edmund Muskie, who in 1968 had been the vice-presidential running mate of Hubert Humphrey. In late January 1983, pollster Lou Harris found former vice president Walter Mondale leading Reagan 53 percent to 44 percent. John Kerry’s challenge to Bush was nip-and-tuck throughout 2004. Fast-forward to 2019, and Trump often trails some Democrats in presidential trial heats, but with his large, solid base and a continuing good economy, it isn’t hard to see how Trump could win again. 

That is not to suggest that Trump is destined to win, much less that he would rebound to a gigantic victory like Nixon’s and Reagan’s. For one thing, the landslides that one finds at regular intervals throughout much of the 20th century don’t even seem possible in this highly partisan, polarized era. America is in a stretch of eight consecutive presidential elections where neither side has won the popular vote by double digits, the longest such streak of close, competitive elections in U.S. history. 

Another caveat: Trump’s approval rating has been upside down for essentially his entire presidency, and he has shown no inclination to broaden his base of support by changing his policies or softening his sharp rhetoric. From that perspective, even matching Bush’s 50.7 percent in 2004 seems like a major reach. Yet Trump could again win the presidency without winning the popular vote because of the strength of his coalition in the crucial Midwest battlegrounds. 

Trump is in the process of jumping one major hurdle: He lacks a major primary challenger. (Bill Weld, the 2016 Libertarian vice-presidential candidate who recently declared a GOP primary challenge, does not count as “major.”) With approval ratings among Republicans usually exceeding 80 percent, and with his allies firmly in control of the party apparatus almost everywhere, Trump has thus far boxed out major intraparty opposition. The last three reelected GOP presidents all waltzed to renomination. 

Trump is also going to be in a much better financial position than he was in 2016, when Hillary Clinton vastly outspent him. Trump already has $40 million in the bank for his reelection bid, and he should be able to raise hundreds of millions more now that his party is more completely behind him than in 2016. Money is not everything, as Trump himself showed in 2016, but any campaign would prefer having more, not less.

The Internet will be a campaign wild card again. Trump will probably reprise his 2016 digital advertising strategy to dissuade specific demographic groups, such as African Americans and young women, from voting for the Democratic candidate. His army of domestic online trolls no doubt will also turn out in force, and foreign actors, particularly Russians tied to the Kremlin, will almost certainly try to influence the election. Don’t expect the Trump administration to devote a lot of energy to frustrating those efforts.

The Democratic Party may inadvertently boost Trump if it gets carried away with an impeachment frenzy that prompts a voter backlash. Opposition to Trump will help unify the Democrats and fund the eventual nominee after a standard-bearer emerges from what is a giant and growing field of about 20 candidates. But one or more factions of the Democratic Party may emerge from the primary season disappointed and angry. Trump’s well-funded digital strategy will work to widen these fissures.  

Ultimately, Trump may turn out to be at the mercy of conventional factors. In 2016, academic predictive models based on fundamentals such as the state of the economy suggested that Trump, or any other Republican candidate, was in position to win the election or come very close. This time, such models (once they become operative next year) could make Trump the early favorite despite his poor approval ratings. 

Credit the powers of incumbency and a strong economy, the state of which may matter more to Trump’s odds than nearly anything else. Incumbency and the economy, among other matters, ended up being more than enough for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Despite Trump’s unprecedented outlandishness, that same combination might work for him, too.  

 

[fraurosena]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

An interesting op-ed: "It’s easy to see how Trump can win reelection"

  Hide contents

Larry J. Sabato is director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Kyle Kondik manages the center’s Washington office. They are co-editors of the center’s newsletter, “Sabato’s Crystal Ball.”

President Trump thrives on chaos, much of it his own creation. But it would be a mistake to assume that the reelection campaign of this most untraditional president will mirror the tumult of his 2016 effort. It’s too early to handicap 2020, but Trump may try to capitalize on some of the same factors that helped three modern Republican presidents, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, win reelection.

The reelections of all three men were not always certain. Around this time in the 1972 election cycle, Nixon held only a modest lead over the early Democratic front-runner, Edmund Muskie, who in 1968 had been the vice-presidential running mate of Hubert Humphrey. In late January 1983, pollster Lou Harris found former vice president Walter Mondale leading Reagan 53 percent to 44 percent. John Kerry’s challenge to Bush was nip-and-tuck throughout 2004. Fast-forward to 2019, and Trump often trails some Democrats in presidential trial heats, but with his large, solid base and a continuing good economy, it isn’t hard to see how Trump could win again. 

That is not to suggest that Trump is destined to win, much less that he would rebound to a gigantic victory like Nixon’s and Reagan’s. For one thing, the landslides that one finds at regular intervals throughout much of the 20th century don’t even seem possible in this highly partisan, polarized era. America is in a stretch of eight consecutive presidential elections where neither side has won the popular vote by double digits, the longest such streak of close, competitive elections in U.S. history. 

Another caveat: Trump’s approval rating has been upside down for essentially his entire presidency, and he has shown no inclination to broaden his base of support by changing his policies or softening his sharp rhetoric. From that perspective, even matching Bush’s 50.7 percent in 2004 seems like a major reach. Yet Trump could again win the presidency without winning the popular vote because of the strength of his coalition in the crucial Midwest battlegrounds. 

Trump is in the process of jumping one major hurdle: He lacks a major primary challenger. (Bill Weld, the 2016 Libertarian vice-presidential candidate who recently declared a GOP primary challenge, does not count as “major.”) With approval ratings among Republicans usually exceeding 80 percent, and with his allies firmly in control of the party apparatus almost everywhere, Trump has thus far boxed out major intraparty opposition. The last three reelected GOP presidents all waltzed to renomination. 

Trump is also going to be in a much better financial position than he was in 2016, when Hillary Clinton vastly outspent him. Trump already has $40 million in the bank for his reelection bid, and he should be able to raise hundreds of millions more now that his party is more completely behind him than in 2016. Money is not everything, as Trump himself showed in 2016, but any campaign would prefer having more, not less.

The Internet will be a campaign wild card again. Trump will probably reprise his 2016 digital advertising strategy to dissuade specific demographic groups, such as African Americans and young women, from voting for the Democratic candidate. His army of domestic online trolls no doubt will also turn out in force, and foreign actors, particularly Russians tied to the Kremlin, will almost certainly try to influence the election. Don’t expect the Trump administration to devote a lot of energy to frustrating those efforts.

The Democratic Party may inadvertently boost Trump if it gets carried away with an impeachment frenzy that prompts a voter backlash. Opposition to Trump will help unify the Democrats and fund the eventual nominee after a standard-bearer emerges from what is a giant and growing field of about 20 candidates. But one or more factions of the Democratic Party may emerge from the primary season disappointed and angry. Trump’s well-funded digital strategy will work to widen these fissures.  

Ultimately, Trump may turn out to be at the mercy of conventional factors. In 2016, academic predictive models based on fundamentals such as the state of the economy suggested that Trump, or any other Republican candidate, was in position to win the election or come very close. This time, such models (once they become operative next year) could make Trump the early favorite despite his poor approval ratings. 

Credit the powers of incumbency and a strong economy, the state of which may matter more to Trump’s odds than nearly anything else. Incumbency and the economy, among other matters, ended up being more than enough for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Despite Trump’s unprecedented outlandishness, that same combination might work for him, too.  

 

It is an interesting op-ed, and it makes some very valid points. But there’s something it only glancingly, and almost dismissively mentions: the overwhelming antipathy against the GOP in general and Trump in particular. It also doesn’t mention the effect of all the (House) investigations into Trump, his campaign, and his cronies. I don’t think one should underestimate the influence of all the information that will be generated from them. And last, but most certainly not least, there are also the nat-sec investigations. It would not surprise me if the (preliminary) results of those will be released next year, and they will be devastating. 

These are not normal times, and the 2020 elections cannot be predicted by past presidential election cycles. Not even the 2016 one. However, the 2018 midterms do show the unity of anti-GOP and anti-Trump animus in the country, and I believe those results will have a heartening effect on voters. They have had a taste of what happens when they don’t vote, and a taste of what happens when they do.

Then there is the as yet unknown effect of the eventual Democratic challenger. There already is a great pool of very good candidates to choose from. The Democrats have altered their process of how they are going to choose their candidate, and they are acknowledging the need for change in the party. They are listening to new voices. They know they need to unify internally, for the party, and they are acutely aware of the need for unification of the country.

More than ever in the history of the US, the lead question people will be voting on is what they want to be as an American. The choice between being angry and divisive, or compassionate and unifying. Between hatred and fear, or love and inclusion. The American identity. 

I don’t think the choice will be that difficult.

Edited April 24, 2019 by fraurosena
Typo

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

the overwhelming antipathy against the GOP in general and Trump in particular.

That's here and a lot of places online (and I'm sure irl, too) but definitely not everywhere.

Trump has huge support of people in my industry.  I hear far more pro-Trump sentiments irl than anti.  I am sure many people hate him and many of his policies, but that's definitely not a universally expressed sentiment.

I wish you were right on this, but every day I see the people that make his re-election likely.

The democrats need to unite and get behind someone who can take him out.  Because "not Trump" won't be enough for many people.  

[fraurosena]

22 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Because "not Trump" won't be enough for many people.  

Oh yes, I agree with you there. I believe though, that a message of hope, positivity and inclusiveness will be the antidote against all the angst, anger and aggressiveness that emanates from the right.

Out of curiosity, what do the pro-Trumpers around you say about why they are for him?

[GreyhoundFan]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Oh yes, I agree with you there. I believe though, that a message of hope, positivity and inclusiveness will be the antidote against all the angst, anger and aggressiveness that emanates from the right.

Out of curiosity, what do the pro-Trumpers around you say about why they are for him?

In my area, there aren't many pro-Dumpy people, but I do know a few in real life. They say he's a great businessman and love that he says whatever he wants. They also say that the "fake news" is unfair to him. It drives me crazy, because the people to whom I am referring are educated and fairly worldly, but they are blinded by Dumpy.

[fraurosena]

7 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

In my area, there aren't many pro-Dumpy people, but I do know a few in real life. They say he's a great businessman and love that he says whatever he wants. They also say that the "fake news" is unfair to him. It drives me crazy, because the people to whom I am referring are educated and fairly worldly, but they are blinded by Dumpy.

The impression I get, is that they don't actually point out any real arguments why he's a great businessman -- or politician for that matter. They simply believe because they want to believe, not because there's any factual basis for it. 

[formergothardite]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Out of curiosity, what do the pro-Trumpers around you say about why they are for him?

I live surrounded by Trump fans. They claim that he is blamed for way too many things and that he is a strong leader who isn't afraid to say what they have all been thinking. They say his taxes don't matter, they say his lies don't matter, they say him acting childish doesn't matter, he is setting the republican party up to have a lot of power in the judicial branch and that is what matters in the long run. He is there it protect white Christian republicans and that is what matters because if the scary liberals get power then Christians will be persecuted. 

For these people it doesn't matter what his taxes say, it wouldn't matter if he was on record saying he wants to work with America, nothing bad about him will change their minds. I used to think if it came out he paid for an abortion they would turn on him, but at this point I think the only thing that would make them reject him is if he came out as gay. A gay lover being discovered? Nope, they would claim it was lies. 

I can very, very easily see him winning the next election if the democrats don't get it together and have a strong candidate who can inspire people and make them care. Never Trump isn't going to be enough in the next election because the Always Trump people will be going out in droves to vote for him. 

[milkteeth]

3 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

The impression I get, is that they don't actually point out any real arguments why he's a great businessman -- or politician for that matter. They simply believe because they want to believe, not because there's any factual basis for it. 

People who are hard core Trump supporters at this point are basically not too dissimilar from cult members at this point. You're never going to use facts to dissuade them from their belief, because their love for him is based in emotion not reason at this point. Trump makes them feel good. He satisfies their baser needs to feel superior to others, and makes it okay for them to be hateful and cruel.

Instead we should be focusing on the vast number of people in this country who don't vote, and figure out how we can get them engaged. I agree that just running as the 'anti-Trump' is a losing strategy, but personally I also think that running on vague platitudes like  'I stand for hope, togetherness, apple pie and the American way!' isn't going to cut it either. People have heard it from politicians before. The Democratic contender for 2020 needs to be able to say "Look, this is how things will get better if you vote for me. These are my plans to help you, and this is how I will fight for you." That is what gets people to the polls, and energizes the base. As we've seen before, Republicans win when we are demoralized and our turn out is low.

 

 

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[fraurosena]

21 minutes ago, milkteeth said:

I also think that running on vague platitudes like  'I stand for hope, togetherness, apple pie and the American way!' isn't going to cut it either. People have heard it from politicians before. The Democratic contender for 2020 needs to be able to say "Look, this is how things will get better if you vote for me. These are my plans to help you, and this is how I will fight for you." That is what gets people to the polls, and energizes the base. As we've seen before, Republicans win when we are demoralized and our turn out is low.

I agree wholeheartedly it's not about platitudes, it's about attitudes. It's about being concrete, decisive and believable. People need to see that not only do you stand for certain ideals, but you also have believable and above all achievable goals. 

5 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

 

Bernie, bless his heart, is not the way forward, for all his socialist demagoguery. 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

5 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Oh yes, I agree with you there. I believe though, that a message of hope, positivity and inclusiveness will be the antidote against all the angst, anger and aggressiveness that emanates from the right.

Out of curiosity, what do the pro-Trumpers around you say about why they are for him?

100% the economy.  I don’t know anyone who wears a maga hat or is outwardly in favor of racist rants and many express disgust at his behavior and seeming like an idiot - but they voted for him and will again.

In my world and my industry it is all about the money.

(that he’s not responsible for the upswing in the economy based on anything he’s doing is lost on many.  He’s gettibg credit for it even though it’s not about him.)

The irony is that I am in an industry that is heavily reliant on illegal immigrants.  But no one I know believes illegal immigration from Mexico and central and South America will change.

The people who support him I know - many have more liberal leanings socially but that’s not their focus.  It’s all about who will give us the most stable economy with lower taxes.

(although my taxes went up with this fucker so where is the outrage about that?)

i like your view of how we should be,  but how we actually are is far less about humanity than  is decent.

i fully expect him to win again unless the Dems can put in a centrist leaning candidate who will address the economy as a major issue.