Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 07:40:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire Post by Kevrob Post by Dimensional Traveler Post by Kevrob Post by Dimensional Traveler Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high. Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.
That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.
Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.
I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.
Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*
Post by Dimensional Traveler Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.
Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.
If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?
For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.
Post by Lynn McGuire
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.
The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.
Actually, since at least Reagan, it's been the /Republican's/ to win
or lose. The Dems win when the Republican's lose.
They lose by messing up. They lost in 1992 by ignoring the economy
while boasting about liberating Kuwait while leaving Saddam in place.
They lost in 1994 by shutting down the government for the first time
(if not ever, then certainly for a long long time). It turned out that
the American people /like/ their government and expect it to stay in
operation, contrary to what the Republicans were asserting at the
It wasn't so much the shutdown, as that they shut it down for the _wrong reason_. The GOPhas had a structural problem for decades because, as Andrew Codevilla pointed out years ago, at street level the GOP looks like Reagan and Buchanan and (still somewhat) Eisenhower, at the top it looks like Nelson Rockefeller.
The cycle has been the same ever since 1988. The Dems overreach on cultural or nationalist issues, the GOP wins an election on that basis (1994, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2014, etc.), but then tries to _govern_ as if they had won on pseudo-libertarianish/corporatist economic agenda, 'fiscal conservative/social liberal'. This isn't what their voters were voting for, and they proceed to lose the following cycle.
George H.W. Bush _campaigned_ as Ronald Reagan's third term, but governed as a northeastern Rockefeller-style patrician Republican. This resulted in an embarrassing primary challenge from Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot getting 19% of the popular vote in the fall of 1992. (Perot's vote was in some was the proto-Trump moment.)
Bill Clinton is remembered (falsely) as a 'moderate Dem' these days, but it's often forgotten that in 1993-94 the Clinton Administration was dominated more by Hillary's faction, and was much more liberal. The GOP captured both houses of Congress over it, recapturing the House for the first time in four decades.
Newt Gingrich and the new group immediately proceeded to govern on...entitlement reform. Which was suicidal and a gift to the Democrats, it played directly into the hands of the Dems and the media, and straight into every negative stereotype the public held about Republicans. They hadn't been elected to do that, and they ignored the issues they had won on...and lost to Clinton in 1996 because of it.
In 2004, Bush the Younger won something of an upset victory over Kerry over foreign policy and national security issues. He then proceeded to channel his father, trying to enact various unpopular bits of the business agenda, culminating in an attempt at immigration amnesty that cost the GOP both houses of Congress in 2006. Again, they weren't elected to make immigration easier and safer, but that's what big business wanted, try tried to do it, boom.
In 2010, through the TEA party movement and Obama's overreach, the GOP captured the House again and would have captured the Senate if they'd done a slightly better job of choosing candidates. In 2014 they did recapture the Senate. They then proceeded to fund every single Obama priority and pretend to resist his agenda. Their trouble was that their voters were on to them, they could _see_ that the Congressional GOP had no interest in opposing the Dems on anything that their base voters care about.
2016 and the GOP tried to offer their voters...another Bush. In fact, both major parties tried to lock in the status quo by giving the electorate a choice of a Bush or a Clinton..._again_. "Do you want an open-borders, corporatist, social liberal, globalist free trading Republican or an open borders, corporatist social liberal, globalist free trading Democrat?"
The Dems succeeded in forcing Hillary onto the fall ticket, the GOP failed spectacularly in their effort to ram Jeb Bush down their own voters' throats. Jeb spent a gazillion dollars to win 3 delegates.
But the dominant business wing appears to have learned _nothing_. They've spent the last 3 years trying to get back to 'normalcy', a normalcy their own voters hate almost as much as the Dems do.
Post by Paul S Person
Obama may have been an exception: a Democrat who actually tried to
win. Unlike, say, Hillary, who mostly tried to raise money on the
Hillary, IMHO, _hates_ politics. That is, she hates the 'retail politics' of actually campaigning, asking for votes, talking to people. I think the same of Al Gore. Obama might not love campaigning, but I don't think he hates it. Bill Clinton _loves_ it. So, apparently, does Trump.
The whole point of 2016 was to set it up so Hillary inherits the White House without having to actually go out and campaign for it. Against Jeb Bush, who also seemed to hate the whole affair, she'd almost surely have won. Against Trump, the pre-planned playbook was irrelevant.
Post by Paul S Person
But, yes, it /would/ help if the Democratic Party candidate actually
/tried/ to win this time. It shouldn't be that hard to find one that
will; most of their local candidates do it every election. It's only
the Baby Boomers at the top that seem to have lost the knack. Well,
that and becoming addicted to insane health care proposals.
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
The health care proposals are the _less insane_ part of the agenda of their limousine liberal faction. They focus their because it's the least bad option.
What the business wing is to the GOP, the white liberal upper class faction is to the Dems. They dominate the party, but their agenda is unpopular even with a lot of their own side.