President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

The vote that was "suppressed" was that of the democrats who either loathed Clinton so much they didn't vote for either one, or were so convinced she'd win - by said polls - that they didn't bother to vote.

The whole election - the primaries and the general - were a referendum on the people who are running against Trump, not Trump himself.

Clinton lost because of the people who wouldnt vote for her, not the folks who voted for Trump.

 

Yes. It was a failed effort to suppress the Trump vote.

 

I told conservatives to work for Trump. One talk with his team changed my mind.

So, he didn't go to them looking for a job as you fabricated. And you said you would accept his definition of the encounter when he offered it. So…?

And while we're at it, still waiting for you to admit that you fabricated the "Rush Limbaugh didn't make racist comments" statement.

Be an adult. You got caught making shit up. Admit it. Own it, you twit.

 

So did the "inevitability" tactic backfire? Did it make Democrats who really didn't like Hillary but would have voted for her anyway stay home, thinking, "Well, I don't want to vote for her and she's going to win anyway, so I won't bother," while at the same time motivating Trump's voters and ensuring they would come out to vote?

 

Off topic of the presidential race, but this is a nice little snapshot of big-city liberalism.

In a wealthy SF neighborhood, residents fight low-income housing

 

IF the Democrat Party believes that electing a Black Muslim Congressman as the face of the party will sway a single Trump voter or cause non-voters to rise up and vote for a Democrat then they are living in a fantasy world. Get used to saying President Sean Hannity in 2024.

 

LOL. This is all because he got into an email argument with a guy he considers a friend?

This is what has made him decide that no one should work with Trump?

What an ass.

My about-face began with a discreet request to me from a friend in Trumpworld to provide names — unsullied by having signed the two anti-Trump foreign policy letters — of those who might be willing to serve. My friend and I had agreed to disagree a while back about my taking an uncompromising anti-Trump stand; now, he wanted assistance and I willingly complied.

After an exchange about a senior figure who would not submit a résumé but would listen if contacted, an email exchange ensued that I found astonishing. My friend was seething with anger directed at those of us who had opposed Donald Trump — even those who stood ready to help steer good people to an administration that understandably wanted nothing to do with the likes of me, someone who had been out front in opposing Trump since the beginning.

This friend was someone I liked and admired, and still do. It was a momentary eruption of temper, and we have since patched up our relationship. I surmise that he has been furious for some time, knowing that supporting Trump has been distinctly unpopular in his normal circles. He is in the midst of a transition team that was never well-prepared to begin with and is now torn by acrimony, resignations and palace coups. And then there are the pent-up resentments against a liberal intellectual and media establishment that scorned his ilk for years.

I told conservatives to work for Trump. One talk with his team changed my mind.


Cohen, who last week had urged career officials to serve in Trump’s administration, said in an interview that a longtime friend and senior transition team official had asked him to submit names of possible national security appointees. After he suggested several people, Cohen said, his friend emailed him back in terms he described as “very weird, very disturbing.”

“It was accusations that ‘you guys are trying to insinuate yourselves into the administration…all of YOU LOST.’…it became clear to me that they view jobs as lollipops, things you give out to good boys and girls,” said Cohen, who would not identify his friend.

Cohen also said the transition official was “completely dismissive” of concerns raised about Trump’s appointment of Bannon, who Trump’s advisors have strongly defended.

His friend’s email conveyed the feeling that ‘we’re so glad to see the bicoastal elites get theirs,’” added Cohen, who described the response as “unhinged.’’

Trump faces growing tension with key Republicans over national security issues

 

Any party that has ever lost a presidential election immediately goes into a fit of thumb-sucking and self-loathing, convinced this is the start of 40 years in the wilderness when they won't be able to get a dog catcher elected. It just ain't so.

Now that said the Democrats have a lot of work to do, and most of it is in state and congressional races. They've got to develop a short, sharp message telling people "Here are the things you want, and here is the man (and it's almost always a man) keeping you from getting it." Obama shouldn't be feeling too smug about him winning and Hillary losing when he didn't do nearly enough to carry the party to victory with him when times were good.

 

So you think that it's a good thing that the President of the United States evades the press and eschews transparency?

 

It wouldn't exactly be a new thing.

 

I thought it definitely wasn't about racism

 

Perhaps quietly admit that Obama won the presidency (and the 2008 primaries) twice on personality and not policy. That explains 2010, 2014 and part of 2016.

Democrats put their roulette chips on the least reliable voters in 2016. In the long-term, they'll be a dominant party, especially as they now have NV and, eventually, AZ. Their coastal states will also have more electoral votes in 20 years because the Midwest is flat on population growth.