Is Indicting Trump A Good Idea?

[Suckrates]

OK, so now Trumps been indicted for the lesser of all his criminal activity, and the GOP is on attack mode, looking for retaliation wherever they can,  the Tennessee expulsions being particularly heinous....   Its not enough to Indict the orange maniac.  He MUST be convicted and jailed.  I can imagine another 4 years of Trump world or a country once again ruled by him.... He tried to destroy America once,  and if at once you dont succeed,  try, try again !    and he IS.....

His Presidential win was a fluke the first time,   the next time it wont be.  And regardless of the true feelings of Fox scum about Trump, as long as they can suck money from promoting him,, they Will.....  with no apologies. 

Any WINS for Trump in any of his legal challenges will not bode well for Dems or America.  Hitler, Putin, TRUMP......

[Suckrates]

 

Do WE really want to be the country that produces, supports and promotes the World's NEXT authoritarian Dictator ?

THINK about THAT !   

We are definitely on THAT path ..........

To quote Trump:    "You must fight like hell to SAVE your country"........

[Pete1111]

On 4/5/2023 at 4:34 AM, Pete1111 said:

Whether or not true, 😉the NYC doorman paid off to kill the story about out-of-wedlock baby should have held out for more.  

Harking back to the NYC doorman,

Ronan Farrow contributed a recent piece in the New Yorker focusing on the hush money case and specifically the doorman.

Anyone familiar with Farrow might agree he is in a separate, more reasonable category from the hysterical talking heads on cable TV and YouTube. 

His article is a sanity check the hush money indictment is not the nothing-burger that too many Dems and RINO's are admitting they believe it is.

When I think back to Farrow's book Catch and Kill I tend to not trust where these sound bites that throw cold water on DA Brag are coming from.  Not that I suggest opening up some conspiracy rabbit hole, but rather to remind we've been lied to before, by NBC for example.  Read Catch and Kill !  You'll have a deeper understanding of these players involved in the indictment, plus much more, e.g. the Harvey Weinstein cover up.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/inside-the-hush-money-payments-that-may-decide-trumps-legal-fate?utm_campaign=falcon_FCzP&utm_social-type=owned&utm_brand=tny&mbid=social_twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Finally, I think highly of Ronan Farrow.  I expect his mother and his husband are both very proud of him.

[Marc in Calif]

53 minutes ago, Pete1111 said:

Anyone familiar with Farrow might agree he is in a separate, more reasonable category from the hysterical talking heads on cable TV and YouTube. 

His article is a sanity check the hush money indictment is not the nothing-burger that too many Dems and RINO's are admitting they believe it is.

And he's known Trump as well as any other New Yorker for a long time. He knows the history -- including where the bodies are buried (figuratively, of course😇).

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, Pete1111 said:

Anyone familiar with Farrow might agree he is in a separate, more reasonable category from the hysterical talking heads on cable TV and YouTube. 

I read the article, and it was good.  But  I'll make the devil's advocate argument. 

I think one reasonable response to the whole Bragg thing, including among voters who are not Trump supporters,  is:  so what?  Who cares?  Donald Trump had a love child.  Donald Trump grabbed pussy.  Donald Trump and his cronies paid people money to shut up.  So what?  Who cares?  Like Donald Trump is the only celebrity or politician who does this stuff?  Give me a fucking break. 

That's probably the way a lot of people who don't feel strongly about Trump one way or the other feel.  When we start to talk about actual Trump supporters, it quickly becomes fuel for the feeling that he is being singled out and persecuted.  It clearly has helped him in Republican primary polls, even as it doesn't help or perhaps even hurts him in general election polls.

I think two things about the polls on this are right on.  First, by a huge margin, 57 to 38, Americans think criminal charges should disqualify Trump from running for President.  I take that to mean that Americans don't say which criminal charges.  They don't think like lawyers.  My guess is the basic idea is more like, "People who do lots of criminal stuff shouldn't be President."  That's not a radical concept.  What makes sense about Bragg's case to me if that it is one nail in the coffin.  It reinforces lots of other things we know about Trump.  But if this alone was supposed to be the entire coffin, I'd be against it.  

The second poll finding that makes sense is that by an even bigger margin, 62 to 38 percent, people think this is mostly motivated by politics, not the law.  If Trump weren't running for President, this wouldn't be happening.  So, obviously, there are a lot of people in the middle who do see this as a nail in the coffin.  And maybe it means Trump should not be President.  But, at the same time, it's a political witch hunt because he's running for President.

If this were choregraphed by the Secret Deep State of Democrats and child blood eaters that exists in America, I would have preferred they didn't lead with Bragg.  You'd think Democrats who drink the blood of Republican children would know better than to lead with the weakest nail. 

But the point is there is no Secret Deep State of child blood eaters.  If there were such a thing, that would be a much bigger scandal.  Even though many extremists think there are.  And these extremist themes are regularly used in subtle ways in Republican attacks ads.  So instead we have, as Farrow documents, a prosecution that to some people who are not partisans looks like a disorganized mess.     What I find encouraging about the polls is, on a very simple level, something like 57 % of Americans think, "Donald Trump sounds like a criminal who should not be President."  Mostly I hope Team Biden keeps their mouths shut.  Which they are.  And just lets the nail be one nail doing its job.  Because a lot of people are also predisposed to think maybe this is just a witch hunt.

I'm assuming other indictments will come down.  If and when that happens, we'll get a better picture of what the coffin looks like, and whether these nails are holding.  Those indictments Include things a vast majority of Americans agree about.  Like lying about and trying to steal the 2020 election was wrong.  Fomenting a riot at The Capitol to hang Mike Pence or seriously injure lots of cops or whatever that whole thing was about was just very wrong.  Period.  I'd rather focus on that, and a consistent pattern of criminal behavior,  than some doorman who got paid to cover up something that nobody can prove happened.  And that most people don't care about - and may see as a witch hunt - even if it did.

It's not great news that right now Trump and Biden are tied in national polls.  So how does 57 % of Americans thinking criminal indictments disqualify Trump square with him being in a toss up with Biden if the election were actually held today?  The numbers actually match pretty well.  In its horse race average, RCP says Trump and Biden both get in the low 40's right now, give or take.  So a majority of people don't want either.  But may have to choose one, it looks like.

If and when that 57 % solidifies into a solid majority that really feels, "Trump is a criminal and should not be President," that really is Trump's political coffin.  I don't think we are there yet.  Oddly, Trump "won" with 46 % of the vote in 2016 (versus 48 % for Hillary) and "lost" with 47 % of the vote in 2020 (compared to 51 % for Biden).  Maybe if there is a strong third party in 2024 he could win with 44 % of the vote.  Clinton actually won with 43 % in 1992.  But that's a stretch.  

If indictment and criminal behavior are big potential nails in Trump's 2024 coffin, I think the big and obvious potential nail in Biden's 2024 coffin is a recession.  If I believe the experts, in 18 months Trump's legal problems will be bigger.  But the economy will be better, and the stock market will be much higher.  We'll see.  (Glenn Neely, the wunderkind who was ridiculed when he said after the 1987 crash we'd have a massive bull market, which we did, is now saying by Summer 2024 we'll be at S & P 5500.  Don't hold your breath.)  We do know that the one time Biden actually ran for President, he could win over 50 % of the vote.  Even if many of those Biden voters were voting for the lesser of evils.  If they can do it once, and we're not in a recession, they can probably do it again.

The other way I think about Stormy and Pecker and the doorman and that gang is the way I think about Hunter Biden:  so what?  I think I posted here back in 2019 or so that all the Hunter Biden mess is a good reason not to nominate Biden.  I stand by that.  That said, we Democrats did nominate Biden.  And Biden did win.  And Hunter is still a big fucking mess, in all sorts of ways.  That said, probably most parents can relate when Joe responds by saying, "I love my son."  And if we want to talk about Biden and nepotism and Ukraine, how about that $2 billion those guys who chop up journalists invested in Jared?  Who was not just Trump's son-in-law.  He was one of Trump's top advisers and diplomats.  What was that about?  Which is why I assume most Americans aren't going to support a witch hunt on Joe Biden simply based on the sins of his son.  Good for them.

That's not a criticism of Farrow.  The opposite.  For liberal Democrats like me who like to read the New Yorker, the more of that stuff the better.  Like I said, it was a good article.  Thanks for posting it.

I'll throw that in as another example of Farrow's work that I think is excellent.  But is also a very mixed bag.

I don't think it's a problem to attack Facebook these days for how they feed people lies and bullshit and extremist ideas in order to make money.  That's a good place to go.  What I find most interesting about what Farrow's investigations of Jan. 6th uncovered is that these people Facebook basically helped organize to riot are not all from really weird sects that live in some remote war camp in Idaho.  A big chunk of them were White business owners and professionals who live in America's suburbs  Especially the suburbs that are changing.  And they don't like the way they are changing.  Farrow says you don't have to peel very much below the surface to find these Whites harbor deep racial animus.  So it's not a huge leap from there to, "All Trump supporters are racist."  And that leads us pretty quickly to Hillary and "deplorables."  Which most people now think was a big mistake to say.  

That's not what Farrow is saying.  My point is I think he does an excellent and nuanced job here, which is why I am posting it.  But it's very easy to dismiss this and say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah.  That's all you got.  You think we're all racist and ignorant.  Fuck you."  Which is why this stuff is appropriately placed in The New Yorker or Christine Amanpour.  

My hope is that if Democrats just let the nails do their work, perhaps most importantly the nails Trump manages to nail into his own coffin himself, the majority of Americans will decide this guy is a criminal who should not be POTUS.  Something in that ballpark happened in 2000.

[Marc in Calif]

4 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I think one reasonable response to the whole Bragg thing, including among voters who are not Trump supporters,  is:  so what?  Who cares?  Donald Trump had a love child.  Donald Trump grabbed pussy.  Donald Trump and his cronies paid people money to shut up.  So what?  Who cares?

... The other way I think about Stormy and Pecker and the doorman and that gang is the way I think about Hunter Biden:  so what?

The answer to "So what?" and "Who cares?" is that Drumpf and his operators and handlers covered up the Stormy situation (and others). And that they did this to help prevent news coverage that might have lost him the election. It involved criminal fraud and conduct.

In indictment-ese language:

Drumpf "repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election."

_____________

I encourage you to respond using no more words than I did in my response above. Challenge accepted? 😁

[Pete1111]

6 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I read the article, and it was good.  But  I'll make the devil's advocate argument. 

I think one reasonable response to the whole Bragg thing, including among voters who are not Trump supporters,  is:  so what?  Who cares?  Donald Trump had a love child.  Donald Trump grabbed pussy.  Donald Trump and his cronies paid people money to shut up.  So what?  Who cares?  Like Donald Trump is the only celebrity or politician who does this stuff?  Give me a fucking break. 

That's probably the way a lot of people who don't feel strongly about Trump one way or the other feel.  When we start to talk about actual Trump supporters, it quickly becomes fuel for the feeling that he is being singled out and persecuted.  It clearly has helped him in Republican primary polls, even as it doesn't help or perhaps even hurts him in general election polls.

I think two things about the polls on this are right on.  First, by a huge margin, 57 to 38, Americans think criminal charges should disqualify Trump from running for President.  I take that to mean that Americans don't say which criminal charges.  They don't think like lawyers.  My guess is the basic idea is more like, "People who do lots of criminal stuff shouldn't be President."  That's not a radical concept.  What makes sense about Bragg's case to me if that it is one nail in the coffin.  It reinforces lots of other things we know about Trump.  But if this alone was supposed to be the entire coffin, I'd be against it.  

The second poll finding that makes sense is that by an even bigger margin, 62 to 38 percent, people think this is mostly motivated by politics, not the law.  If Trump weren't running for President, this wouldn't be happening.  So, obviously, there are a lot of people in the middle who do see this as a nail in the coffin.  And maybe it means Trump should not be President.  But, at the same time, it's a political witch hunt because he's running for President.

If this were choregraphed by the Secret Deep State of Democrats and child blood eaters that exists in America, I would have preferred they didn't lead with Bragg.  You'd think Democrats who drink the blood of Republican children would know better than to lead with the weakest nail. 

But the point is there is no Secret Deep State of child blood eaters.  If there were such a thing, that would be a much bigger scandal.  Even though many extremists think there are.  And these extremist themes are regularly used in subtle ways in Republican attacks ads.  So instead we have, as Farrow documents, a prosecution that to some people who are not partisans looks like a disorganized mess.     What I find encouraging about the polls is, on a very simple level, something like 57 % of Americans think, "Donald Trump sounds like a criminal who should not be President."  Mostly I hope Team Biden keeps their mouths shut.  Which they are.  And just lets the nail be one nail doing its job.  Because a lot of people are also predisposed to think maybe this is just a witch hunt.

I'm assuming other indictments will come down.  If and when that happens, we'll get a better picture of what the coffin looks like, and whether these nails are holding.  Those indictments Include things a vast majority of Americans agree about.  Like lying about and trying to steal the 2020 election was wrong.  Fomenting a riot at The Capitol to hang Mike Pence or seriously injure lots of cops or whatever that whole thing was about was just very wrong.  Period.  I'd rather focus on that, and a consistent pattern of criminal behavior,  than some doorman who got paid to cover up something that nobody can prove happened.  And that most people don't care about - and may see as a witch hunt - even if it did.

It's not great news that right now Trump and Biden are tied in national polls.  So how does 57 % of Americans thinking criminal indictments disqualify Trump square with him being in a toss up with Biden if the election were actually held today?  The numbers actually match pretty well.  In its horse race average, RCP says Trump and Biden both get in the low 40's right now, give or take.  So a majority of people don't want either.  But may have to choose one, it looks like.

If and when that 57 % solidifies into a solid majority that really feels, "Trump is a criminal and should not be President," that really is Trump's political coffin.  I don't think we are there yet.  Oddly, Trump "won" with 46 % of the vote in 2016 (versus 48 % for Hillary) and "lost" with 47 % of the vote in 2020 (compared to 51 % for Biden).  Maybe if there is a strong third party in 2024 he could win with 44 % of the vote.  Clinton actually won with 43 % in 1992.  But that's a stretch.  

If indictment and criminal behavior are big potential nails in Trump's 2024 coffin, I think the big and obvious potential nail in Biden's 2024 coffin is a recession.  If I believe the experts, in 18 months Trump's legal problems will be bigger.  But the economy will be better, and the stock market will be much higher.  We'll see.  (Glenn Neely, the wunderkind who was ridiculed when he said after the 1987 crash we'd have a massive bull market, which we did, is now saying by Summer 2024 we'll be at S & P 5500.  Don't hold your breath.)  We do know that the one time Biden actually ran for President, he could win over 50 % of the vote.  Even if many of those Biden voters were voting for the lesser of evils.  If they can do it once, and we're not in a recession, they can probably do it again.

The other way I think about Stormy and Pecker and the doorman and that gang is the way I think about Hunter Biden:  so what?  I think I posted here back in 2019 or so that all the Hunter Biden mess is a good reason not to nominate Biden.  I stand by that.  That said, we Democrats did nominate Biden.  And Biden did win.  And Hunter is still a big fucking mess, in all sorts of ways.  That said, probably most parents can relate when Joe responds by saying, "I love my son."  And if we want to talk about Biden and nepotism and Ukraine, how about that $2 billion those guys who chop up journalists invested in Jared?  Who was not just Trump's son-in-law.  He was one of Trump's top advisers and diplomats.  What was that about?  Which is why I assume most Americans aren't going to support a witch hunt on Joe Biden simply based on the sins of his son.  Good for them.

That's not a criticism of Farrow.  The opposite.  For liberal Democrats like me who like to read the New Yorker, the more of that stuff the better.  Like I said, it was a good article.  Thanks for posting it.

I'll throw that in as another example of Farrow's work that I think is excellent.  But is also a very mixed bag.

I don't think it's a problem to attack Facebook these days for how they feed people lies and bullshit and extremist ideas in order to make money.  That's a good place to go.  What I find most interesting about what Farrow's investigations of Jan. 6th uncovered is that these people Facebook basically helped organize to riot are not all from really weird sects that live in some remote war camp in Idaho.  A big chunk of them were White business owners and professionals who live in America's suburbs  Especially the suburbs that are changing.  And they don't like the way they are changing.  Farrow says you don't have to peel very much below the surface to find these Whites harbor deep racial animus.  So it's not a huge leap from there to, "All Trump supporters are racist."  And that leads us pretty quickly to Hillary and "deplorables."  Which most people now think was a big mistake to say.  

That's not what Farrow is saying.  My point is I think he does an excellent and nuanced job here, which is why I am posting it.  But it's very easy to dismiss this and say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah.  That's all you got.  You think we're all racist and ignorant.  Fuck you."  Which is why this stuff is appropriately placed in The New Yorker or Christine Amanpour.  

My hope is that if Democrats just let the nails do their work, perhaps most importantly the nails Trump manages to nail into his own coffin himself, the majority of Americans will decide this guy is a criminal who should not be POTUS.  Something in that ballpark happened in 2000.

 

I didn't see the article as all that nuanced, other than to remind that Bragg has not revealed what the felony crime(s) are yet, and to cover some background on the crime Trump was indicted, especially how it relates to Farrow's own researching A.M.I. and the doorman.

 Listening to Michael Cohen drone on last Thursday on Ben Meiseles pro democracy podcast about how "dirty" the prosecutors are in the DA's office relating to Cohen's own indictment, reinforces my suspicion of why such momentum is building against Bragg.  It seems odd. 

Farrow obviously would have no complaints about these chickens finally coming home to roost.   Me either.  A crime is a crime, even if the perp is a powerful,  rich white dude.

If Farrow isn't your cup of tea that's fine.  I enjoy him.  I was quite struck by  Catch and Kill so this follow up piece caught my attention.  And I will always respect him for the risks he took and sacrifices he made going after Harvey Weinstein.  Of course he gives all the credit to the women that went on the record for his research.  He's noble that way.

[Marc in Calif]

9 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

He's noble that way.

Perhaps the only truly noble accomplishment from the union between his mother and father! 

[Pete1111]

1 hour ago, Marc in Calif said:

Perhaps the only truly noble accomplishment from the union between his mother and father! 

I still want to believe he's Sinatra's son.  The resemblance is undeniable.   Ronan Farrow attended Frank's funeral with Mia.  She admited remaining close with Frank.  Of course, it's all their private business. 

Some try to call Trump's situation as no more than a sex scandal, that too much is being made of his private business.

But unlike Trump's escapades with McDougal, Cliffords, and the situation with the doorman, where he manipulated funds illegally to hush a story, Mia Farrow and Frank Sinatras' was a private relationship and is essentially none of our business. 

And really, Ronan may have summed it up best on Twitter when he responded.  "Listen, we're all *possibly* Frank Sinatra's son."  

Do we need to know any more than that?

But IMO we do need to know all about all of Trump's crimes.

[JKane]

The main thing to come out of it so far is yet more money from impossibly gullible people.  I'm far more hopeful for Georgia to come to something, hopefully soon.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Suckrates]

1 hour ago, JKane said:

 

 

 

 

 

Loved this entire post @JKane, but the only thing ill dispute you on is that the MAGA's are NOT trying to distance themselves from Trump.  They are embracing and escalating him as hard as they can.  Nothing seems to be able to break that MAGA Trump fever.....    Maybe a few more losses will do the trick for them ?

[stevenkesslar]

22 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

If Farrow isn't your cup of tea that's fine.  I enjoy him.  I was quite struck by  Catch and Kill so this follow up piece caught my attention.  And I will always respect him for the risks he took and sacrifices he made going after Harvey Weinstein.

 

On 4/22/2023 at 4:05 PM, stevenkesslar said:

My point is I think he [Farrow] does an excellent and nuanced job here, which is why I am posting it.  But it's very easy to dismiss this and say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah.  That's all you got.  You think we're all racist and ignorant.  Fuck you."  Which is why this stuff is appropriately placed in The New Yorker or Christine Amanpour.  

Farrow is my cup of tea, as I indicated above.  And I agree with you that his work on Weinstein was fantastic.  Kudos to him.  

When I was referring to nuanced, I was referring to the Amanpour interview about the racism of Trump supporters.  And I stand by what I said in that quote.  While I completely agree with Farrow's work on the Jan. 6th nuts, which is why I posted it, it's a mixed bag.  As is the whole debate about MAGA racism. I like Farrow's nuance because he is not painting with broad strokes and stereotypes.    Regardless, Team MAGA has clearly circled the wagons.  So now, unless you have proof that they actually lynched a Black man, the reaction is, "No.  YOU are the racist.  Democrats are the racists."

Weinstein is actually an interesting contrast.  Farrow had so much on him, and worked on it long enough, that even though Harvey tried to defend himself, like Trump does, he failed.  I wish it were that easy to make this stuff stick with Trump.  But, as we're seeing, with the Bragg indictment it has clearly rallied a lot of Republicans around him.  Bragg's indictment probably won't help him in the general election, if he's nominated.  And hopefully it will hurt him.  But we don't know that for sure yet.

On 4/22/2023 at 8:08 PM, Marc in Calif said:

The answer to "So what?" and "Who cares?" is that Drumpf and his operators and handlers covered up the Stormy situation (and others).

Same with that.  Again, I agree with both you guys.  Thankfully, as that poll I posted said,  about 57 % or so of Americans agree that an indicted Trump should not be President.  But I'll repeat the other side of the same coin:  an even bigger majority do see the Bragg indictment as political, not legal.  So there's a lot of people in the middle somewhere between "throw Trump in jail" and "this is a political witch hunt."  

I'm glad Democrats, starting with Biden, are staying quiet.  It seems pretty clear from polls that the people in the middle, many of whom do think Bragg is on a witch hunt, are making distinctions between different Trump indictments for different alleged crimes.  My strong hunch is they care more about big lies about the 2020 election and the Jan. 6th attacks on the Capitol than they do about whether Trump has a love child, and paid people to cover it up.  My hope is they all end up being nails in his coffin.   Some ((like Jan. 6th) bigger and more fatal, others (like the doorman) smaller and not effective in and of themselves.  But still helpful to put Trump to bed, finally.  Or in jail, ideally.  😊

Again, just so it is completely clear, I myself like the doorman article, and am glad you posted it.  I think Farrow does awesome work.  And I added that other interview with him as another example.

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Suckrates]

1 hour ago, JKane said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It says, "Is Donald Trump a Sex monster ?"

[Suckrates]

Does any SANE person really listen to what Trump says anymore ?.   If you saw his E.Jean Carrol deposition, it was totally bonkers and embarrassing, and gave us all a CLEAR picture of how he sees himself and his entitlements.

If Fani Willis and Jack Smith dont have enough evidence by now,  most of it coming directly from Trump himself,  then neither one of them really intends to Indict him.   This all should have been done 2 years ago, and the longer it takes the less likely it will happen. 

 

[stevenkesslar]

4 hours ago, Suckrates said:

If Fani Willis and Jack Smith dont have enough evidence by now,  most of it coming directly from Trump himself,  then neither one of them really intends to Indict him.   This all should have been done 2 years ago, and the longer it takes the less likely it will happen. 

Yes, but ..............................

If I had to bet, I'd bet there will be two more indictments.  I'm not a lawyer.  But I am a political whore.  Of course, you know that, my dearest Sis.  So my reading of the tea leaves is they will indict.  Arguably, it's a good thing they are taking their time to build their cases.

This may be off topic, but here's a scary thought.  Not at all surprising to me, but scary:

Quote

One specific issue where voters prefer Trump to Biden: the economy. When pitted against his 2020 presidential rival on handling the economy, Trump boasted higher approval than Biden, with 54 percent saying they viewed his handling of the economy more favorably, and just 36 percent saying Biden has done the better job.

That's from an article reporting that Biden's approval rating in a new ABC/WaPo poll has hit a new low  (36 percent).  And that Trump is beating him 44/38 in their latest horse race poll. 

Unlike Biden, Trump has never won more than 47 % of the vote.  And, unlike Biden, he's never gotten above 47 % approval as POTUS.  So my guess is Biden could snap back easier than Trump.

But both are kind of in a race against time.  I mean that, literally, because they're both old.  But Biden will either look better, or worse, depending on the economy.  Right about now in 1983 Reagan's approval rating in the polls was in the 30s.  And polls said Mondale would kick his ass in 1984.  The Reagan recession ended in Nov. 1982.  So he had two years to recover. 

It seems like the polls tend to mirror inflation.  The high percentage of people who say we're on the wrong track, or their personal financial situation is worse off, peaked last Summer with inflation.  And the negativity about the economy has declined gradually as inflation has waned.  But it is still largely negative feelings.  If there is no recession and inflation has gone down more in a year, that will help Biden.  If there is a recession in Summer 2024, lots of people may hold their nose and vote for Trump.

Trump's race is basically a race against the law.  This quote from an article about how DeSantis is a "really weak option" summed it up nicely:

Quote

“What we probably wind up with is a choice between a guy who is very old and wants to raise our taxes and reregulate everything, and a guy who could be running from prison,” the executive said.

That pretty much captures how a lot of people will feel.  Which is why all these horse race polls show so many people are undecided.  Or none of the above.  That quote was from a business guy.  So he focused on taxes and regulations   Which I doubt are the priority for most people.  I'm pretty sure the broadest perspective is what I focused on above:  it's the economy stupid.  And we're not happy with the  inflation.

There's no way of objectively knowing how voters holding their noses weigh these things.  But an ex-POTUS who lied about losing in 2020 and started a riot in 2021, and who is twice impeached and maybe three times indicted, could be a hard choice even for people who are holding their noses.  I'm hoping, at least.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Suckrates]

 

I would bet my life that Trump has committed EVERY single criminal act that Santos is now charged and indicted for,  and there is even first hand evidence for most of it.     So whats the deal with the DOJ ???? 

Now, I'm really getting pissed.   Are they afraid of charging and LOSING?    Or, are they like everyone else and AFRAID of Donald J. DUMP ?   

Keep in mind, with all the piles of shit coming down the pike on Trump, he has more INCENTIVE than ever to become President (to stay out of jail).  and even if he loses 2024,  with a NEW batch of criminal cronies already in place in the states, he may just have the right formula to STEAL a win this time around.   It's his ONLY protection. 

 

[stevenkesslar]

I like the way these indictments are coming down.

Whether by design or coincidence, they started with the weakest links in the chain.  Not that infidelity, sexual harassment, and payoffs to shut people up about them are nothing. Trump allegedly keeping top secrets illegally is a bigger deal.  But not as bad as, "Oh, fuck democracy.  I'll just lie about losing a Presidential election and start a riot at the Capitol.  Beat the shit of some cops, maybe, too.  And infest the entire body politic with lies, lies, lies, and hate, hate, hate, and my own super sucky pus.  Who cares, anyway?" 

The pus-swollen sore just keeps growing bigger.  So I'm fine with multiple tries at lancing the infected boil from our democracy.

No one knows, or ever will know, how Democrats beat the red wave last Fall.  But we do know that anyone who looked like a principled conservative did well.  I'd include Kemp, Sununu, DeWine, and also DeSantis on that list.  DeSantis has never said Trump won the 2020 election.  Meanwhile, all the MAGA spawn that spouted Trump Lies and Trump Pus went down uniformly.  Except in red states or districts where Trump Lies are like Gospel and Trump Pus is like Holy Water.

So thrice married Trump will be running in 2024 probably thrice indicted.  And the whole thing about lying about the election and starting a riot and beating the shit out of some cops will be at the center of the debate.

I still think that if there is a recession, Trump probably wins.  There are even worse things than lies and pus, I guess.  But this makes it harder for moderates and independents to hold their nose and open their mouths and swallow four more years of Trump Lies and Pus.

Meanwhile, how many bipartisan deals has Senile Old Joe signed into law while Trump lies and oozes pus?

[Mavica]

Quote

"No one knows, or ever will know, how Democrats beat the red wave last Fall."

I think we've seen the research and interpretations, and know.

Quote

"I still think that if there is a recession, Trump probably wins."

I don't think so.  IF there's a recession more likely than not it'll be a soft one ... and Biden won't be blamed for it.  Trump isn't going to get moderate Republicans or many Independents.  It'll be a replay of 2020, as long as Biden stays healthy and can campaign effectively.  The negative for Democrats is Biden's age, and VP Harris being seen as a weak link .. not someone other than the hard-core will want to see as a successor President if something happens to Biden after a re-election.

If Trump is not the nominee, though, Biden's road back into the WH will be challenging.

 

[stevenkesslar]

On 6/9/2023 at 7:15 PM, Mavica said:

I think we've seen the research and interpretations [about how Democrats beat the 2022 red wave ], and know.

Great.  What do we know? 

Or are you assuming people can read your mind?  😉 

I tend to agree with Republican analysts who feel generic conservatives did well.  (Kemp killed Abrams and Abbott killed Beto by convincing margins, for example.)  And would have done better (in swings states like Georgia and Arizona) if Trump had not tainted so many candidates with his lies.

On 6/9/2023 at 7:15 PM, Mavica said:

I don't think so.  IF there's a recession more likely than not it'll be a soft one ... and Biden won't be blamed for it. 

Okay, let's clear this up.  I'm dumb, and try to hide it by being verbose.  So you're probably right.  It's really dumb ass to think a recession could cost someone the Presidency, right?

That said, Alan Lichtman, who actually does write books, has guessed every Presidential election right in advance since 1984.  In 2019 he was pretty clear that, without spelling it out, Trump was on track to win in 2020.  By the time he actually made a prediction in August 2020, he said Trump would lose because three things had changed in the last year:  1) long term economic growth tanked, 2) there was a recession, (both due to COVID), and 3) mass social unrest.  So, basically, Lichtman predicted correctly that the economy would be the key nail in Trump's coffin.  It was.  So dumb ass as it sounds, I'm worried about a recession now being the nail in Biden's coffin that gets Trump elected. 

If Harris were the nominee, it would be worse.  She would not be the incumbent, presumably.  And just getting her nominated would be a huge party fight.  And she wouldn't be the nominee, anyway.  Because every single poll shows that in an open fight with Kamala and Hillary and Pete and Bernie all running, Biden would win again.  Just like he did in 2020.

In terms of Biden being blamed for things, well ... what is he not being blamed for?  He's being blamed for being too old, for starters.  Including by over 2 in 3 Independents, who think he can't handle the job.  Trump has now been indicted twice, with a third indictment likely on the way.  And he's almost as old as Biden.  So while I view it as wildly ironic, Trump supporters don't seem to blame Trump for any of his crimes.  Meanwhile, people do blame Biden for being too old.  And inflation.  And the economy.  And other things.

On 6/9/2023 at 7:15 PM, Mavica said:

It'll be a replay of 2020, as long as Biden stays healthy and can campaign effectively. 

Hope you're right .... or not.  Because that statement can be taken two ways.

If it's a replay of 2020 in the sense that people just want Biden more than Trump, you're right.  I know I do.  But I'm in the minority that approves of the job Biden is doing.  And that does think he clearly can handle the job.  Again, how many huge bipartisan laws has he signed now?  How many big laws did Trump sign, other than his partisan deficit swelling giveaways to billionaire campaign donors?

If it's a replay of 2020 in the sense that people want a change, because they don't like the track we are on, Biden loses.  In November 2020 about 60 % of Americans said we were on the wrong track.  Now it's 65 %. That's scary.

Again, hope you're right.  And at the end of the day people say that even if they feel the economy sucks, Trump sucks worse for all kinds of reasons.  I sure feel that way.  But I wouldn't be too confident about it.

It was actually right about now in 1983 that supposedly one term Reagan broke out of a crappy approval rating in the high 30's, because the economy was improving.  By the end of 1983 his approval rating was back over 50 %.  And the economy, and stock market, were on a tear.  He, and the S & P 500,  never looked back until he won in a landslide in November 1984. 

If we dodge the recession, and the economy is better in a year, I feel confident about Biden.  If we instead get mired in a recession (the majority of Americans say this feels like a recession now) I'm not as confident.

But to the main point in my post. I assume we agree that swallowing the pus of Trump's democracy-killing lies and bullshit and indictment spree is going to be hard for lots of Independents.  Even if they feel Biden is too old.  And inflation really bothers them.

[RockHardNYC]

On 3/18/2023 at 10:01 AM, Lucky said:

My opinion is that the case isn't worth it.

I totally disagree.

[Lucky]

Nice to see you back @RockHardNYC.

I don't think Trump will ever spend a day in jail even if convicted. So why not just go after him in civil court and save some of the drama?

[stevenkesslar]

4 hours ago, Lucky said:

 

I don't think Trump will ever spend a day in jail even if convicted. So why not just go after him in civil court and save some of the drama?

Because, @Mavica is hopefully correct about this:

On 6/9/2023 at 7:15 PM, Mavica said:

Trump isn't going to get moderate Republicans or many Independents. 

As I said above, I hope he is right.  But everything in politics is relative.  If the economy is booming and inflation is a low single digit in 17 months, another reason to vote for Biden/Harris.  If we're in a recession, another reason to vote for Trump.  I would not bet on how that plays out.  Although, it's worth noting that with this second indictment the betting pools just lowered Trump's odds of winning the Presidency.  Maybe they know something.

I keep going back to Alinsky's maxim:  the action is in the reaction.  So, yes, the true and pure MAGA minority will be for Trump.  They will defend every toxic lie.  That's part of the reaction.

But that's a majority of the Republican Party, which is a minority.  They can't win an election based on their true and pure version of lies and pus.  And, for some strange reason, many Republicans and Independents don't like to swallow huge buckets of pus.  That's the other part of the reaction.  And the more clear it is that, yup, these are lies and this is pus and pus is disgusting and this is disgusting shit you really don't want to swallow ................... geez, who knew?  The less people want to swallow it.  Because, really, it is pus. 

The theory and interpretations about 2022 @Mavica may be referring to is that Democrats did a good job targeting certain swing Senate and House races, and outspent and organized Republicans in them.  I posted a very long ass essay from a well known poli sci prof that argued just that, somewhat convincingly.  That could help explain why Democrats (other than Max Frost) didn't do so well in Florida.  They focused on seats they thought they could win.  Like in Georgia and Arizona.  Which they won.

That said, I don't fully buy it.  At least in blue states and purple states, the pattern was amazingly clear.  If you were a generic conservative for conservative stuff, including DeSantis, you tended to do well.  If you swallowed the Trump pus and spewed pus-filled lies about election bullshit, you lost.  Even in red states, like Kentucky this year, the pure MAGA candidates that spewed election lies tended not to do so well in Republican primaries.  

On 6/9/2023 at 7:15 PM, Mavica said:

If Trump is not the nominee, though, Biden's road back into the WH will be challenging.

Which underscores the point.  Conservatives, running as normal conservatives, did pretty well in 2022.  They should have, given that the opposition party usually does do well in midterms.  In particular, DeSantis did really well in Florida, compared to 2018.  Most likely because he was perceived as handling the hurricane well, with something like 2 to 1 approval among Floridians in polls.  So there is no reason to think DeSantis, running as a conservative in a general election, would do badly.  Especially if he's running against President Recession or President Inflation.

As a Democrat.  I'd never vote for either Trump or DeSantis.  But I would feel a lot better about the risk of a conservative like DeSantis winning than I would about a pus-filled liar and rapist and democracy killer like Trump winning. 

I'd of course rather see the Republicans nominate Tim Scott or Nikki Haley.  But who's kidding who?  They barely register in the polls.  For 2024, the Republicans will nominate some version of a MAGA White guy.  Period.

[stevenkesslar]

There's a lot of Democratic and media types using the word "toast" to describe Trump these days.  It's interesting that Trump's former AG is using it as well.  On Fox News, no less. 

I think Barr realizes that when the history books are written, he doesn't want to go down as a Watergate-style co-conspirator.  

It's also worth reviving this headline from May 2020, when Barr actually was the Attorney General.  And wanted to prove he was no Rudy Ghouliani:

Barr says it's unlikely Justice Department will investigate Obama or Biden

"The legal tactic has been to gin up allegations of criminality by one's political opponents based on the flimsiest of legal theories," Barr said.

That's months after Barr had been fact checking Ghouliani's Biden bribery allegations.  And one month before the FBI memo was written memorializing what is basically hearsay.  Jamie Raskin claims the matter was closed in 2020.  Barr disputes that and says they sent the stuff to Delaware for further investigation. 

Either way, Barr's words on Biden in 2020 speak for themselves.  Just like his words on Trump today.  I think we can be sure that if in Summer 2020 Trump's Justice Dept. had actual evidence that Joe Biden had accepted a $5 million bribe, Barr would have been arguing that Biden was ............................ what's the word? .............................."toast."  

Instead, Trump is toast.  And Biden is President. 

Case closed, hopefully.  You didn't even have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out.  😉