American Politics: Discuss and Debate (Page 43 of 57)

I mean I totally agree with everything you said.  I just don't know why it's taboo to challenge a sitting president.  If he's the right guy for the moment still, the voters would support him.  If he's not, you get the strongest candidate.  Polls show that Biden is still the strongest to face Trump in November, but I just wonder if that would've been different if anyone had actually thrown their hat in the race.

It doesn't matter, though.  Biden is the guy.  I donated to his campaign yesterday.

Interesting video on what may be skewing the polls from Farron Cousins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4F5HTBcwPc

President Biden has raised the most money of any Presidential political candidate in history. Last night in the 9pm hour he raised more in that time frame than any political candidate in history.

Follow the money, not the polls.

I saw some clips.  Sleepy Joe sounded like he was ready to rumble.  Trump spent the week hanging with Viktor Orban.

Biden is better when he yells.

**

I got a booster today for measles, mumps, rubella and varicella. Measles seems to be making a comeback.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-kn … d-in-2024/

In other news, the full transcript of Robert Hur's interview was released, and Hur's claims of Biden's poor memory have turned out to be lies.

Transcript:
https://d.newsweek.com/en/file/469686/j … ript-1.pdf

Article summarizing Robert Hur's lies:
https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/12/ … den-memory

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he was just making fun of Trump calling him that when he was anything but Sleepy.

Why did Robert Hur smear Biden in such an obvious and deceitful way? Slate takes the view that he wants Trump to promote him should Trump win the election, and should Trump lose the election, Hur would still have a well-paying legal career.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … -lies.html

Well, Democrats did not select Robert Hur as the special counsel. The US Attorney General selected Hur, and the US Attorney General is neither a Democratic nor Republican office of government. The attorney general is the people's lawyer, not the incumbent's lawyer. Except... they often have been the incumbent's lawyer, so unfortunately, there's a contrast between the way things should work which is often not the way they actually work.

Biden selected Merrick Garland as the attorney general. The attorney general is supposed to operate with full independence from the president. However, under Trump, AG William Barr was blatantly Trump's enabler and lawyer, manipulating every potential prosecution for Trump in Trump's favour. Biden selected Merrick Garland who had been Obama's pick for a Supreme Court justice, who had a reputation for being a strident person of integrity, honour and commitment to the rule of law. Garland vowed that he would be a lawful and non-partisan lawyer for the people.

In practice, Garland has been timid and hesitant. He did not pursue charges against Trump's obvious crimes and lower level prosecutors have been the ones to do the work. Garland's determination to seem 'non-partisan' has instead made him turn a blind eye to treason and left him so weak that Republicans can walk right over him, making him a Republican-enabler whom Biden now regrets appointing.

And in this case, Garland's commitment to being 'non-partisan' had him select a Trump appointee to seem 'impartial'. But Garland's efforts and non-partisan impartiality invariably have him weighting things in favour of corrupt Republicans. Hur, to what should have been no one's surprise, used investigating Biden as a chance to curry favour with Trump and smear the Democrat president.

Merrick Garland is unfortunately fearful and weak, and by all accounts, the Biden administration is frustrated and furious with him. They are outraged that he didn't prosecute Trump's obvious crimes; they are appalled that he had so little standard of evidence for Hur's assertions about Biden's memory.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/0 … s-00140813

Hindsight is always 20/20. In the year 2021, Merrick Garland seemed like a great choice for the attorney general. And regardless of how inept and inactive he's been from 2021 - 2024, Democrats didn't select Robert Hur. Merrick Garland did. And yes, Democrats chose Garland -- but they had no idea how spineless he'd turn out to be.

That said, it's possible they should have, but I read a bit about Merrick Garland in 2021 and I thought he was a good hire. So I was wrong too.

Thanks, sarcasm is a lost art.

Garland was not the problem here.  How is it his fault if Trump and most of the GOP and media decide to be deceitful?  The whole point of Biden/Garland was to restore the guard rails.  As for Hur, look, his comments even at face value are basically worthless.  He found no evidence of wrongdoing, end stop, everything else he wrote should have been discarded.  The problem is the MEDIA.  They blew up what he said.  Garland released the full transcript which proved that Hur was "selective" and even then, all he was claiming was that Biden would present himself as a nice old dude.

Grizzlor, I don't mean this to be a rebuke, but when first reported, a handful of Robert Hur quotes had you declaring that Joe Biden should quit and give up, so clearly, Robert Hur's words instantly convinced you:

It's rather disingenous to denigrate others for having the precise reaction you yourself had to short extracts from Hur's report. You yourself declared that Hur's comments about Biden's memory were critical and relevant to the case.

But even a cursory review of Hur's report shows they were neither critical nor relevant, and the transcript shows that Biden is clearly not having memory issues and Hur lied.

Again, this isn't a rebuke. Hur targeted you (and the general public) with his report and he is a highly calculating, manipulative personality who knows exactly how to provoke someone into thinking what he wants them to think. He tricked you. He fooled you with his faux-rationality and air of reason. He does that professionally and has made a lot of money and friends that way, so there's no shame in falling for it.

That's why he's a successful lawyer and why Trump appointed him as the US Attorney for Maryland. And, like all Trump appointees, he uses his power to attack his party's political enemies while elevating his political allies. That's the personality profile of the people Trump appoints. They're all Logan St. Clairs and Colonel Rickmans.

But to me, chastising you for taking extracts from the Hur report as fact would be like me saying Biden should have known better than to appoint Merrick Garland. Garland seemed like a great choice in 2021. Merrick Garland tricked me too. He fooled me with his grave demeanor and solemnity.

From my perspective, Merrick Garland is absolutely the problem from Hur to the Jack Smith case. Garland took two and a half years to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Trump's crimes. A competent attorney general would have had Trump's cases in trial by 2022 at the latest. Garland was astonishingly slow in assigning Jack Smith to the job, and Judge Aileen Cannon is clearly determined to stall the case.

Garland also selected Robert Hur to investigate Biden despite Hur being an obvious partisan hack appointed by Trump himself; Garland made no effort to see Hur's report confined to the facts and avoid irrelevant editorializing.

Yeah between this and whatever happened in the New York case yesterday, I'm concerned that people aren't taking this seriously enough.  Trump may seem very very very dumb, but he's spent his entire life escaping the consequences of his actions.  Especially with almost four years to prepare, there's no reason for any of these cases to not be entirely buttoned up as much as possible.  I hope these are nitpicks that Trump is taking advantage of and not actual flaws in either of these cases.

But as has been said much on Twitter, we simply cannot rely on the law to do its job here.  The only way to defeat Trump is in November.

I admire nothing about Reagan. Except his wit.

And despite my opposition to Reagan, I would have loved for him to write an episode of SLIDERS.

Reagan was an ACTOR!  Not a particularly good one, but he was known as the "Great Communicator" for a reason.  Joe Biden was a gaffe machine, but in the past he was at least better at impromptu stuff.  His team hides him from the press far too often, it's a terrible look.  Now ironically, it's Biden who is left standing from the old days of the anti-Communists.  A shocking consideration, compounded by the younger generations' feelings about Israel.  America remains supportive of Ukraine, but it's not like it was in the 1980s, when the very idea of Communism scared people to death.  And honestly, in retrospect, it probably should have.  Trump's vow to retract America from the world stage is appalling and would have Reagan vomiting.

Anecdotal, but I was hanging with a friend, whose brother is a real estate lawyer in New York, and absolutely despises Trump, though he is a Republican.  He said that what Trump was actually penalized for (property devaluation shenanigans) are done by most of the real estate corporations, accountants and lawyers throughout Manhattan.  Said he probably has a good case for appeal, because the statutes have rarely if ever been enforced to this degree.  Of course it's now comical that the Artist of the Deal cannot find any bonding company to back him for that gigantic amount, and may be unable to exact an appeal.  Oh well. 

The problem with being convicted in the "Stormy Daniels" case is that few if any voters are going to make a decision based on that.  They were fine with this disgusting Access Hollywood tape, so this really won't have any effect.  It may do the opposite, and galvanize his support.  The critical voters in up to 7 swing states are concerned with immigration, inflation, crime, and those effects on the economy, which Trump buries Biden in the polling.  The DC "January 6" case is probably the only one with enough teeth, but again, the polling is shocking in that most Americans believe Trump IS a criminal, and yet prefer his "policies" by large numbers to Biden's.  I really don't know what Biden can even do at this point?

Reagan was an excellent performer and all a great wit who could come up with hilarious turns of phrase and absurd observations and remarks off the cuff.

And as actors go, Reagan successfully convinced a generation of Americans that he was a warm, affable, earnest, loving friend to all Americans as opposed to a ruthless, racist plutocrat whose political career consisted of union busting, deregulation, hacking apart social safety nets, eviscerating student loans, and pushed Americans from needing one income to two to have a home and eventually led to a society where one could work full time and still not be able to pay for housing and food and health care.

But I'll never question Reagan's gift for rhetoric and extemporaneous speaking. Joe Biden, at least these days, often needs a speechwriter. For example, recently at the Gridiron dinner, he delivered some great (but scripted) zingers.

It hasn't gotten a ton of coverage, but Biden's polls have been ticking up recently.  If you look at the Economist polling average, Biden has taken the lead (https://www.economist.com/interactive/u … iden-polls).  In the Real Clear Politics average, Trump is still up a couple points.

Meanwhile Biden is partnering with the Kennedy family to show that they're fully behind him (and not RFK Jr).  I maintain that any Democrat voting for RFK is doing it strictly on name alone, and if Biden can make it clear what RFK stands for, he'll lose most of his left-leaning support.  If everyone knew what RFK stood for, it would hurt Trump way more than it would hurt Biden I think.

There's something really funny about Trump losing a civil case where the state says that he doesn't have as much money as he says he does, he complains about how it's unfair and how much money he has, and then he doesn't have the money to pay the penalty.

I worry about Trump getting the money from a foreign power and owing them favors, but if he doesn't do that, I think this is going to really mess with his head.  I'm sure it will make him crazier and more dangerous, but we'll see if that affects his polling.

I do wonder this - Trump keeps talking about how someone can't be president without total immunity.  When the Supreme Court rules that total immunity is mularkey, how is Trump going to spin that?  The way he talks, there's no way he would want to be president without immunity.  We know he won't drop out, but his position has been so clear.

But that's the thing.  If he owns a bunch of things that are heavily mortgaged, he doesn't really own anything.  It's a house of cards.  Now here's where it gets tricky.  I don't think there's any question that if Mar-A-Lago went sale, it would fetch a ton just for the Trump novelty of it.  I think it'd be a bidding war between Trump billionaires and anti-Trump billionaires for the right to use the property for their own politics-based nonsense.  I'm also in agreement that Trump's getting hit with this stuff because he's Trump.

But 1) Trump knows this and if he didn't want to get hit with this stuff, he didn't need to be such an *sshole and 2) he still broke the law.  Millions of people speed every day, and only a few people get caught.  It doesn't mean that tickets shouldn't be written or that speeding isn't a crime.

I don't like Trump, and I'm willing to admit that it'd be funny if he had to sell off meaningful things at bargain basement prices.  Because he'll never get that stuff back, and his kids have less to run into the ground once their dad is dead.

The lawyers know they will lose.  But does Trump?  Like with the election being stolen, I'm no longer convinced that Trump actually understands what's going on.  I think he's convinced himself (or been convinced by others) that the election was stolen.  And I think he's convinced himself (or been convinced by others) that total immunity is a thing.  And I think it's going to be interesting (not good) to see how he responds to it.  If you take him at his word, he should 100% drop out if immunity isn't granted.  He says you cannot operate as president and that no one would do it.

Now he's 100% not going to drop out but now there's a clear cognitive dissonance, right?  Trump is going to be saying "I don't have full immunity, I'm not going to be able to operate as president" and "I still want to be president" instead of "I cannot do this job without immunity so I don't want the job anymore."

The problem is that he's in too deep.  If he doesn't run for president, he won't be able to delay the trials against him forever.  He needs to be president to get the federal charges dismissed against him and get the state stuff delayed/ignored until he's out of office.  And when he gets in, I think he'll still maintain that he has total immunity.  And there's no question he'll try and stay in office after 2028 so any "I'll get indicted once I leave office" wouldn't even happen.

Also, the fact that SCOTUS even took the case (and delayed it so long) doesn't take off the table the idea that they'll side with Trump and give him total immunity.

538 did a podcast on this the other day (I just finished it yesterday).  They say it's important to be careful not to do too much crosstab diving at this point in the race.  It is still early, and there's evidence of a) protest voting against Biden from people who are going to come back around to him in November and b) collective amnesia about Trump and his presidency.  For example, one of the few places Biden polls better than Trump is in temperament, but he's barely leading.  The polling suggests people don't think temperament is as important as it was in 2020, but there's still no question that Biden's temperament is much more presidential than Trump's.  I think people have just forgotten, and they'll be reminded once they start paying attention.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/video/worrie … -108258022

Anyway, the podcast goes into whether or not polling is bad and where the numbers are good for both Biden and Trump.  What's crazy about polling is that Biden is losing all the swing states (Michigan recently was tied), but the democrats are winning senate races in all the states.  So there are people who are voting democrat for senator but Trump for president.  There will certainly be *some* people who do that, but I assume as the race gets more real, people are going to go back to their respective camps.

Regarding RFK, he's only on the ballot in a handful of states (but they are key states).  When I was pulling the link for the podcast above, I found this:

https://abcnews.go.com/538/rfk-jr-party … =108346487

I know the Biden campaign is worried about RFK, but they're being aggressive about it.  RFK has the Kennedy name, but he's not a true Kennedy.  Polls that have Democrats voting for Kennedy show that Democrats don't agree with his policies.  It's going to take a media blitz to get it done, but right now, RFK is getting Democrat votes based off his name.  If Biden can tell Democrats who RFK really is, I really think he's going to struggle to get Democrat support.  I mean maybe there are hardcore anti-vax Democrats who would otherwise vote for Biden, but I just can't imagine that's the case.  DeSantis voters line up pretty hard with RFK voters so that's a much more logical fit.

But again, it's going to mean getting through to those people.  Biden's going to have a ton of money to spend, though.  He's crushing Trump in fundraising, and Trump actually pulled in less money last month than Nikki Haley.

Yeah, I don't disagree.  I'd feel better if there was someone younger and stronger-looking on the top of the ballot.  But when they poll anyone vs Trump, Biden actually still polls the best.  The only place it seems to be better for a non-Biden candidate is Whitmer when it's a Michigan-only poll.  So I don't know.  The polling says Biden is weak but it also says Biden is the best the Democrats have to offer.

Yeah, I'm still just not convinced that Kennedy hurts Biden more than he hurts Trump.  I'm sure there are going to be people who pay zero attention to the race and then pick Kennedy on name recognition alone, but I just don't think if there's any understanding about who Kennedy is, he'd pull very many votes from Biden.

Even as a protest vote against both parties, he doesn't make sense for people who would otherwise be for Biden.  Stein makes way more sense for Biden voters who have climate change as their only issue, or even Cornel West as an African American.  Once you know what he stands for, he just pushes none of buttons that would otherwise attract a Biden voter.

I guess if the idea is that there's a DeSantis voter who hates Trump and would vote for Biden in a two horse race but chooses to vote for Kennedy otherwise....I guess that makes sense.  But isn't that guy just as likely to vote for DeSantis or Jeb Bush or something like that?

Letitia James has a busy Monday ahead of her, starting with identifying Trump's bank accounts.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/2 … e-00148587

https://nypost.com/2024/03/23/us-news/d … rank-lutz/

Pollster Frank Luntz claims that AG James seizing Trump properties will help him in polls.  I'm not sure it will matter either way.  Unquestionably the Colorado stunt was baseless and counterproductive, but to me, I just don't think people care.  Gloating over what the AG does to Trump really gets us nowhere.  He's likely to be dictator this time next year, so whether he no longer owns a building or a golf course seems awfully petty and insignificant.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/22/politics … index.html

Here's more headaches with polling, just in Michigan.  CNN released a poll showing Biden being crushed by Trump, in line with another January poll of that state from another pollster.  Without boring everyone with numbers, this poll seems to claim that voters under 35 favor Trump by a wide margin, and "voters of color" showed a huge move away from Biden.  These could be accurate, in which case, Biden is likely to lose as badly as John Kerry.  Is that simply the younger voters being so disgusted with both candidates?  Keep seeing these polls showing a massive, almost inconceivable shift from D to R among both groups nationwide.  However, electoral results continue to dispel this?  Again, I continue to question the metrics, because it's likely very difficult to get a real read on those demos.

However, this is pertinent I feel, and goes to the potential notion that youth voter apathy will drive them towards throwaway to Kennedy.  I personally believe these people, who are massively undecided, simply won't vote.

Meanwhile, Emerson has them even in MI.

https://emersoncollegepolling.com/michi … -biden-44/

People buy into the false narrative about throwing their vote away, as if voting for someone who doesn't support what you support is doing something constructive with it.

The justice system jumped out of its way to protect Donald Trump again today.  It's outrageous how he continues to claim he's being persecuted when he's probably the most protected citizen in the world today.  He just never faces any consequences for his actions.

Oh absolutely.  That's what's so tragic.  Donald Trump has people convinced that theres a two-tiered justice system.  And there is.  Just rich vs poor instead of red vs blue.

Yeah, but that sucks, right?  I don't want him to have to pay less because it would be too administratively difficult or because it might help him politically or whatever.  I want the dude to pay for what he's done - monetarily or electorally first, and I guess with jail time if that's possible.  I want the Trump name to crash and burn once he's gone, and I want him to be a footnote in history.

I understand treating him fairly, but it also feels weak to follow the rules with someone with no regard for the rules.

I know Trump is campaigning off the trials, but why do these rich people even fight these cases if there's no chance they ever have to pay the fines?  Why waste money on attorneys when you can just show up yourself, plead guilty, take whatever fine they give you, and never pay?

We can't get complacent or think we wanted to leave one but the polls do not match the money donations or the actual special election voting this woman is a Democrat who ran on abortion and won by 30 points.

https://x.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/17728 … 32925?s=20

I think the losses with Hispanics are real, and it's something that Biden is going to have to deal with seriously. The problem is that, from what I've read, Hispanic Americans don't identify with the immigrants crossing the border.  Especially if they're second generation or more, they consider themselves Americans, and they treat the issue like most Americans do.  I even read an interview with an illegal immigrant, and he was saying he identifies with Trump more than Biden.

So Biden can't win over Hispanics with a pro-immigrant position.  I think it's going to need to be about the improving economy, infrastructure improvements that provide jobs, and stuff like that.  Basically the same pitch he's making to the rest of the country.

Hispanics are not liberal by default.  They're mostly catholic, thus anti-abortion, and have learned from bitter experience to mistrust centralized government.  The more settled they become the less likely they are to vote Democratic.