Trump Train Losing Steam

[code1211]

And that more or less sums up what I mean by fluke. The Trump campaign was more efficient and had some luck in a weakened, and less efficient, opponent. Moreover help from Russian sources, a willingness to say the things nobody else would dare and scandals that hobbled his opponent all helped. It was, as you mentioned, a unique set of circumstances. That is what makes it a kind of a fluke.

Bear in mind doing 'more with less' also means they won with 3 million fewer actual votes than their opposition. Now as described above conditions were unique enough for an outlier to scrap his way into the presidency.

The fluke part is that a very similar set of unique conditions has to come together for him to do it again. It is not impossible - I wouldn't underestimate trump a second time after seeing him win once - but as with the first time, the odds won't be in his favor and he'll have to beat the odds again.

The popular vote nationally has as much to do with an electoral win as does the total point count in a 7 game series. Winning California and New York big still only delivers California and New York.

It seemed like Trump ignored the states that he knew he could not win. Hillary seemed to ignore some states that she felt she could not lose. The conduct of these strategies resulted in the "Blue Wall" turning red.

The Russian interference seems to have been about $500K to maybe a couple million in ad buys. If that's all it costs to swing an election, Trump and whoever his opponent may be need to look into employing this group. Can you imagine what they could do with a bigger credit limit?

I'm reminded of Joe Kennedy who told JFK that he'd buy him an election, not a landslide. Total spending for the whole campaign in 2016 was just shy of $7 Billion.

"It's the economy, stupid" will be the key thought in the upcoming election for president. If GDP is above 3% for 2018, that will mark the first time we've been above that rate in about 10 years. Can it maintain? We'll see.

If his advisors can wrestle the Twitter Machine from Trump's hands, that may serve him well in his next run.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016s-price-tag-6-8-billion/

 

[code1211]

That is a valid question. If the Dems front a candidate as uninspiring as Clinton again, that improves Trump's chances of winning. Perhaps more so than anything else:

If there's a disaster, we've already seen he can't handle one so the 'stability' voters normally seek won't be there in the current president. If Russia interferes, America is much wiser to it this time and they probably can't pull the same tricks again to such effect (though the red-hat brigade will be all on board with every meme and false story). If the economy improves it might give him a boost as all presidents cop the applause and the blame for changes they may or may not have had much to do with.

But the biggest factor is what do the Democrats have to throw at him?

The Dems obviously need another Obama. So far, none seem apparent.

What disaster are you pointing to as not being handled?

What do the Democrats have to throw at him? What's left? is there anything else they could possibly throw at him that has not already been thrown?

Did Barron cheat on his entrance exams to some prep school? Did Melania wear white after Labor Day? The attacks de jour are never ending and never seriously made. In the meantime, Trump moves forward.

The Russians were undermining Hillary while it seemed Hillary was the winner. As soon as Trump won, they started undermining Trump.

This little tid bit seems to have been comparatively ignored in the overall coverage of the Russian interference. The Russians don't really care who the president is as long as there is unrest in the US. This fact seems very important in understanding what the Russians are trying to do and yet it goes on unnoticed and unreported.

Given this fact, what American domestic entity might be the strongest ally of the Russians?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-31/russia-tried-undermine-trump-after-election

 

[Luckyone]

Are you seriously saying that you never consider past performance to assess possibilities for the future?

no, not after that has already been considered 1000 times. This is a problem (Trump) that is causing new problems and looking to the past will not give us any inkling as to what to do about it. Trump is a walking disaster by himself. What any other President has done in the past pales in comparison to the damage that Trump is causing. As such, talking about Obama is wasting time as it is simply being used as an excuse to try to hide what Trump is doing. .

 

[Luckyone]

You have very strong opinions and about nothing to support them.

Why?

If you believe that then you are blind. I have loads and loads of supporting evidence that has been given by me and others repeatedly on this board. The fact that you are blind to facts is the problem. You cannot make a blind person see.

 

[Luckyone]

Goofy, Pocahontas, Spartacus...

Shouldn't be a problem for you then.

Trump will lose the next election and that is a clear fact. A miracle would need to occur as far as his changing his view on things as well as his incompetency and that is an impossibility for him. He has already angered and damaged the majority of the population that his base (about 33%) will not be able to save him as we now know who he is and he will not be running against a Hillary that has many problems of her own. Even his own base is dwindling and that makes it an impossibility for him to win in 2020.

In addition, I do believe his Trade War will backfire on him big time, which would make it even worse for him.

Wake up man, you are in a dream world of your own making and looking like a fool repeatedly.

 

[uptower]

The popular vote nationally has as much to do with an electoral win as does the total point count in a 7 game series. Winning California and New York big still only delivers California and New York.

It seemed like Trump ignored the states that he knew he could not win. Hillary seemed to ignore some states that she felt she could not lose. The conduct of these strategies resulted in the "Blue Wall" turning red.

The Russian interference seems to have been about $500K to maybe a couple million in ad buys. If that's all it costs to swing an election, Trump and whoever his opponent may be need to look into employing this group. Can you imagine what they could do with a bigger credit limit?

I'm reminded of Joe Kennedy who told JFK that he'd buy him an election, not a landslide. Total spending for the whole campaign in 2016 was just shy of $7 Billion.

"It's the economy, stupid" will be the key thought in the upcoming election for president. If GDP is above 3% for 2018, that will mark the first time we've been above that rate in about 10 years. Can it maintain? We'll see.

If his advisors can wrestle the Twitter Machine from Trump's hands, that may serve him well in his next run.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016s-price-tag-6-8-billion/

Well if GDP reaches 3% that's a small victory he can point to. Won't matter if people don't feel it. If real wages don't rise, if the standard of living doesn't improve, if more people lose healthcare and tariffs keep costing jobs, pointing to a distant number on a screen won't help him.

As for his election win, I still call it a fluke. You can minimize the russian influence but that's part of the point: a confluence of factors large and small all contributed to his win. He won by such a small margin (like 70,000 votes in a few counties) that whatever it cost the Russians it was money well spent. Besides, bots are cheap and the army of red-hat trolls to disseminate was free. My point is they probably couldn't pull it off twice.

And nor could Trump. He'd need just the right of successful interference from Moscow, just the right economic dissatisfaction directed at the establishment while he's an outsider (and now he can't claim that mantle: whatever goes wrong with the economy, it's his). He needs a weak opponent who as you pointed out, fumbles the campaign in key districts. He needs people to believe his nonsense and not to know how loopy he is and we've all seen a lot more of that since he took office. He needs minorities to stay at home at at least the same rate they did in 2016 (and notice a GOP candidate always counts on minorities not voting). He needs endorsements and donors and constant support from Fox which in light of the past couple of years, and ongoing criminal probes, he's less likely to get.

It was a fluke to win as an outlier and and it will be a bigger fluke if he wins again, because all the same things have to happen.

Unless of course some national security disaster rallies people around a perceived strongman or the economy really does turn around in a meaningful way. But even then: Korea, Syria, Ukraine, Saudi and Yemen: Trump has shown he cannot deal with international problems; he only throws fuel on the fire and emboldens rivals. He probably needs another 9/11 to hit that fear button and make people respond to tough talk. Even then it will be harder for a fat rich boy draft dodger to look like a tough bastard when all his top generals have left his staff.

 

[uptower]

The popular vote nationally has as much to do with an electoral win as does the total point count in a 7 game series. Winning California and New York big still only delivers California and New York.

It seemed like Trump ignored the states that he knew he could not win. Hillary seemed to ignore some states that she felt she could not lose. The conduct of these strategies resulted in the "Blue Wall" turning red.

The Russian interference seems to have been about $500K to maybe a couple million in ad buys. If that's all it costs to swing an election, Trump and whoever his opponent may be need to look into employing this group. Can you imagine what they could do with a bigger credit limit?

I'm reminded of Joe Kennedy who told JFK that he'd buy him an election, not a landslide. Total spending for the whole campaign in 2016 was just shy of $7 Billion.

"It's the economy, stupid" will be the key thought in the upcoming election for president. If GDP is above 3% for 2018, that will mark the first time we've been above that rate in about 10 years. Can it maintain? We'll see.

If his advisors can wrestle the Twitter Machine from Trump's hands, that may serve him well in his next run.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016s-price-tag-6-8-billion/

Well if GDP reaches 3% that's a small victory he can point to. Won't matter if people don't feel it. If real wages don't rise, if the standard of living doesn't improve, if more people lose healthcare and tariffs keep costing jobs, pointing to a distant number on a screen won't help him.

As for his election win, I still call it a fluke. You can minimize the russian influence but that's part of the point: a confluence of factors large and small all contributed to his win. He won by such a small margin (like 70,000 votes in a few counties) that whatever it cost the Russians it was money well spent. Besides, bots are cheap and the army of red-hat trolls to disseminate was free. My point is they probably couldn't pull it off twice.

And nor could Trump. He'd need just the right of successful interference from Moscow, just the right economic dissatisfaction directed at the establishment while he's an outsider (and now he can't claim that mantle: whatever goes wrong with the economy, it's his). He needs a weak opponent who as you pointed out, fumbles the campaign in key districts. He needs people to believe his nonsense and not to know how loopy he is and we've all seen a lot more of that since he took office. He needs minorities to stay at home at at least the same rate they did in 2016 (and notice a GOP candidate always counts on minorities not voting). He needs endorsements and donors and constant support from Fox which in light of the past couple of years, and ongoing criminal probes, he's less likely to get.

It was a fluke to win as an outlier and and it will be a bigger fluke if he wins again, because all the same things have to happen.

Unless of course some national security disaster rallies people around a perceived strongman or the economy really does turn around in a meaningful way. But even then: Korea, Syria, Ukraine, Saudi and Yemen: Trump has shown he cannot deal with international problems; he only throws fuel on the fire and emboldens rivals. He probably needs another 9/11 to hit that fear button and make people respond to tough talk. Even then it will be harder for a fat rich boy draft dodger to look like a tough bastard when all his top generals have left his staff.

 

[code1211]

no, not after that has already been considered 1000 times. This is a problem (Trump) that is causing new problems and looking to the past will not give us any inkling as to what to do about it. Trump is a walking disaster by himself. What any other President has done in the past pales in comparison to the damage that Trump is causing. As such, talking about Obama is wasting time as it is simply being used as an excuse to try to hide what Trump is doing. .

You keep referencing all of the horrible things that Trump has done AND you say that reviewing past performance is a waste of time.

Two things here:

1. Do you read your posts before you post them?
2. Could you please list one horrible thing that Trump has done and the direct effect that it has had on your life?

You seem to be raving about fantasy of panic and disaster that is not occurring in the real world.

 

[code1211]

If you believe that then you are blind. I have loads and loads of supporting evidence that has been given by me and others repeatedly on this board. The fact that you are blind to facts is the problem. You cannot make a blind person see.

What you seem to see as "supporting evidence" I see as rumor, innuendo and half truth.

Take one particular Trump atrocity and present the "supporting evidence". This should be easy for you.

I'm not talking about your ravings regarding the impressions or predictions of some liberal goof ball, but an actual occurrence of factual legislative or executive action.

 

[code1211]

Trump will lose the next election and that is a clear fact. A miracle would need to occur as far as his changing his view on things as well as his incompetency and that is an impossibility for him. He has already angered and damaged the majority of the population that his base (about 33%) will not be able to save him as we now know who he is and he will not be running against a Hillary that has many problems of her own. Even his own base is dwindling and that makes it an impossibility for him to win in 2020.

In addition, I do believe his Trade War will backfire on him big time, which would make it even worse for him.

Wake up man, you are in a dream world of your own making and looking like a fool repeatedly.

To quote that great philosopher Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'til it's over".

Do you know that there is a difference between the definition of "fact" and the definitions of "prediction" or "fantasy"?

Here is an example:

Fact: Year to date in 2018, the US GDP shows a trend that it will post a growth rate of more than 3% for the year.

Prediction: The US GDP will end the year at a growth rate above 3% for the first time in about 10 years and that is a clear fact.

Fantasy: Obama was an economic genius despite the FACT that he never presided over a 3% GDP growth rate in any given year.

 

[code1211]

Well if GDP reaches 3% that's a small victory he can point to. Won't matter if people don't feel it. If real wages don't rise, if the standard of living doesn't improve, if more people lose healthcare and tariffs keep costing jobs, pointing to a distant number on a screen won't help him.

As for his election win, I still call it a fluke. You can minimize the russian influence but that's part of the point: a confluence of factors large and small all contributed to his win. He won by such a small margin (like 70,000 votes in a few counties) that whatever it cost the Russians it was money well spent. Besides, bots are cheap and the army of red-hat trolls to disseminate was free. My point is they probably couldn't pull it off twice.

And nor could Trump. He'd need just the right of successful interference from Moscow, just the right economic dissatisfaction directed at the establishment while he's an outsider (and now he can't claim that mantle: whatever goes wrong with the economy, it's his). He needs a weak opponent who as you pointed out, fumbles the campaign in key districts. He needs people to believe his nonsense and not to know how loopy he is and we've all seen a lot more of that since he took office. He needs minorities to stay at home at at least the same rate they did in 2016 (and notice a GOP candidate always counts on minorities not voting). He needs endorsements and donors and constant support from Fox which in light of the past couple of years, and ongoing criminal probes, he's less likely to get.

It was a fluke to win as an outlier and and it will be a bigger fluke if he wins again, because all the same things have to happen.

Unless of course some national security disaster rallies people around a perceived strongman or the economy really does turn around in a meaningful way. But even then: Korea, Syria, Ukraine, Saudi and Yemen: Trump has shown he cannot deal with international problems; he only throws fuel on the fire and emboldens rivals. He probably needs another 9/11 to hit that fear button and make people respond to tough talk. Even then it will be harder for a fat rich boy draft dodger to look like a tough bastard when all his top generals have left his staff.

ALL of the factors you pointed to are improving.

The surest way to assure a Trump win is to have a brutal Democratic Primary that results in a credible third Party candidate from the extreme Left. Bernie comes to mind. He may actaully be the Democrat nominee. If so, trump's a shoe in.

Right now, with regard to your list of trouble spots in the world:

Korea: Not launching missiles at Japan. That's a huge improvement over what Trump inherited.

Syria: Was in a violent Civil War when Trump took office. Still is. ISIS is down to about a gang of 4. It's time to get out of the way and let the bleeding stop. Do you REALLY think the rebels will win?

Ukraine: Did Russia invade Ukraine again AFTER Obama left office?

Saudi Arabia: Still a Stone Age culture in a Space Age World. There is no difference in SA over the last 2 years, 20 years or 200 years culturally except that Rockefeller discovered a great way to market refined oil.

Yemen: It was a dumpster fire in 2000 when Clinton was in office and continued as same under Bush and Obama. What is it that you think Trump should do to undo the errors of his predecessors? Convert the good folks of Yemen to Methodists?

Trump was, is and will be an outsider. EVERYONE in Washington who has been there for more than a few hours is against him. Lindsay Graham is notable as a rare exception to this rule. That's pretty much why I support him.

He is an outsider NOT because he's new on the scene, but because he does things differently and strives to get results directly and quickly.

He works like the rest of America. Not like Washington. Trump's mission is to implement solutions not to create and then maintain wedge issues. How many more fragment group minorities can we dig up about which to feel outrage?

Do you wonder why the term "All Americans" is recognized as being racist?

 

[Luckyone]

You keep referencing all of the horrible things that Trump has done AND you say that reviewing past performance is a waste of time.

Two things here:

1. Do you read your posts before you post them?
2. Could you please list one horrible thing that Trump has done and the direct effect that it has had on your life?

You seem to be raving about fantasy of panic and disaster that is not occurring in the real world.

We have been down this road before and especially with you I have no desire to do it again. Let just say that Trump is an affront to morals, ethics, principles and humanity, none of which you understand so it is not worth explaining as it will not enter your brain

 

[Luckyone]

What you seem to see as "supporting evidence" I see as rumor, innuendo and half truth.

Take one particular Trump atrocity and present the "supporting evidence". This should be easy for you.

I'm not talking about your ravings regarding the impressions or predictions of some liberal goof ball, but an actual occurrence of factual legislative or executive action.

Lying about everything and every day. Nothing the man says can be trusted

 

[Luckyone]

To quote that great philosopher Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'til it's over".

Do you know that there is a difference between the definition of "fact" and the definitions of "prediction" or "fantasy"?

Here is an example:

Fact: Year to date in 2018, the US GDP shows a trend that it will post a growth rate of more than 3% for the year.

Prediction: The US GDP will end the year at a growth rate above 3% for the first time in about 10 years and that is a clear fact.

Fantasy: Obama was an economic genius despite the FACT that he never presided over a 3% GDP growth rate in any given year.

Here you really stepped into some poo-poo. You should know better than to debate the economy with a stock market trader.

Here are the projections from the Fed for the next 3 years. Who would know about the economy than the Fed!

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/fed-keeps-its-long-run-forecast-for-economic-growth-unchanged-at-1point8percent.html

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1CTM

By the time Trumps Presidency will be over in 2020, he will be known as the only President that inherited a growing economy and then was blessed with a Congress that gave him all the tools to make it grow even more (tax cuts and de-regulation) and that then made it all into garbage.

 

[Myview]

Ah-ha! Just like last time.

Got it!

No not like last time. Who ever the Democrat candidate is they won't have a ton of baggage like Hillary Clinton did. Everyone had Clinton fatigue.

 

[uptower]

ALL of the factors you pointed to are improving.

The surest way to assure a Trump win is to have a brutal Democratic Primary that results in a credible third Party candidate from the extreme Left. Bernie comes to mind. He may actaully be the Democrat nominee. If so, trump's a shoe in.

Right now, with regard to your list of trouble spots in the world:

Korea: Not launching missiles at Japan. That's a huge improvement over what Trump inherited.

Syria: Was in a violent Civil War when Trump took office. Still is. ISIS is down to about a gang of 4. It's time to get out of the way and let the bleeding stop. Do you REALLY think the rebels will win?

Ukraine: Did Russia invade Ukraine again AFTER Obama left office?

Saudi Arabia: Still a Stone Age culture in a Space Age World. There is no difference in SA over the last 2 years, 20 years or 200 years culturally except that Rockefeller discovered a great way to market refined oil.

Yemen: It was a dumpster fire in 2000 when Clinton was in office and continued as same under Bush and Obama. What is it that you think Trump should do to undo the errors of his predecessors? Convert the good folks of Yemen to Methodists?

Trump was, is and will be an outsider. EVERYONE in Washington who has been there for more than a few hours is against him. Lindsay Graham is notable as a rare exception to this rule. That's pretty much why I support him.

He is an outsider NOT because he's new on the scene, but because he does things differently and strives to get results directly and quickly.

He works like the rest of America. Not like Washington. Trump's mission is to implement solutions not to create and then maintain wedge issues. How many more fragment group minorities can we dig up about which to feel outrage?

Do you wonder why the term "All Americans" is recognized as being racist?

That's a very rosy view and you're right no US president can solve all the world's problems. North Korea hasn't stopped it's shenanigans just because of Trump - in fact it hasn't stopped at all, just watch them.

It's true he cannot be expected to 'fix' Saudi and yemen and Syria and Russia but he has been shockingly disengaged from some problems, aloof in others, openly supportive of despots in others in spite of his own cabinet and congress. My point is he's not even trying to ameliorate things.

On the home front, like I said, we see stagnant wages, not real improvement in living standards as well as a roll back of benefits and social support, a lot of which will affect trump's own supporters on medicare and food stamps.

Meanwhile the president is increasingly isolated as his inner circle abandons him, his party distances itself and even Fox news grows more critical: the law is closing in on him and he spends his time in twitter spats with celebrities and fuming over his loss to congress and the government shutdown that he demanded and took credit for himself.

He cannot and won't really even try to fulfill his most basic promises of draining the swamp (he's made it worse) or building the wall (he's had two years to start). Instead he curls up in a ball, ninges on KFC and cable news and fumes like a mad emperor while Rome burns. Twitter is his fiddle.

This presidency is a dumpster fire. Anyone can see it. Voters could have chosen anyone over him - a sensible Republican from the primary pool; yes even Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (and Sanders would crush him in an election tomorrow) could have and would have done a much better job.

The president is in a death spiral. Watch him burn.

 

[uptower]

Trump will lose the next election and that is a clear fact. A miracle would need to occur as far as his changing his view on things as well as his incompetency and that is an impossibility for him. He has already angered and damaged the majority of the population that his base (about 33%) will not be able to save him as we now know who he is and he will not be running against a Hillary that has many problems of her own. Even his own base is dwindling and that makes it an impossibility for him to win in 2020.

In addition, I do believe his Trade War will backfire on him big time, which would make it even worse for him.

I know I just said the president was in a death spiral, but I wasn't thinking of elections. I believe his presidency has a good chance of collapsing before 2020.

But if he somehow survives till then, I wouldn't discount him so easily. The odds were against him and he scraped through last time. If the conditions are similar this time around he might just pull it off again: low turnout, no track record of his own, a strong motivated base supplemented by swing voters, an opponent just about as unpopular as himself who ran a poor campaign, a desperation for change; outsider status.

The problem for him is the conditions are not shaping up to be the same: he has his own record now which is dismal and will probably get worse between now and then. He's not an 'outsider' anymore, he's the president; he cannot likely count on swing voters, only the solid core of his base which just isn't enough; if the recent midterm turnout is any indication there'll be a massive turnout in 2020 which always favors the opposition and among the young, the left. We don't know who his opponent will be yet but even Warren won't be as reviled as Clinton.

So it's even more of an outside chance, but assuming he's not drummed out of office before then, he still has a shot and margins always narrow near election day. Weird things happen in elections, as we learned in 2016.

 

[code1211]

We have been down this road before and especially with you I have no desire to do it again. Let just say that Trump is an affront to morals, ethics, principles and humanity, none of which you understand so it is not worth explaining as it will not enter your brain

So you STILL have no example to example that supports your paranoia and fear.

There is nothing that has affected your day to day life in a negative way.

Just a vague and mysterious fear that lurks in your subconscious unsupported by real world events or facts.

Is this a condition that haunts all of your actions and thoughts or only those regarding Trump?

 

[code1211]

Lying about everything and every day. Nothing the man says can be trusted

You have, with that statement described every politician I have ever observed.

What makes the lies from Trump more objectionable for you than the lies from others?

 

[code1211]

Here you really stepped into some poo-poo. You should know better than to debate the economy with a stock market trader.

Here are the projections from the Fed for the next 3 years. Who would know about the economy than the Fed!

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/fed-keeps-its-long-run-forecast-for-economic-growth-unchanged-at-1point8percent.html

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1CTM

By the time Trumps Presidency will be over in 2020, he will be known as the only President that inherited a growing economy and then was blessed with a Congress that gave him all the tools to make it grow even more (tax cuts and de-regulation) and that then made it all into garbage.

I'm surprised you didn't quote Paul Krugman.

Again, you seem to be unable to separate real world fact from some ethereal dreams that have you terrified.

What has ACTUALLY happened in the real world Mr. Market Trader? Were you able to protect your clients from the issues the markets present?

Do you know the difference between real world fact and misty dreamworld predictions of fear and panic?

With your claimed borderline magical abilities, you should be able to profit even when all others are losing. At least, in your world of dreams.

 

[code1211]

No not like last time. Who ever the Democrat candidate is they won't have a ton of baggage like Hillary Clinton did. Everyone had Clinton fatigue.

Not everyone.

The Democrat Party elites seemed to be pretty pleased with her.

I was looking forward to a Socialist vs a Capitalist in the last election. The next election should present that choice if the Rank and file Democrats are allowed their preference.

 

[tres borrachos]

The question that closed the post was this:

"Simply stated, Trump is losing support and therefore is likely too lose the 2020 election."

That is why I asked, "Lose to whom".

Losing an election implies that there is someone to lose the election to. Ergo, my question.

Lose to his opponent. I suspect you know how elections work?

 

[code1211]

That's a very rosy view and you're right no US president can solve all the world's problems. North Korea hasn't stopped it's shenanigans just because of Trump - in fact it hasn't stopped at all, just watch them.

It's true he cannot be expected to 'fix' Saudi and yemen and Syria and Russia but he has been shockingly disengaged from some problems, aloof in others, openly supportive of despots in others in spite of his own cabinet and congress. My point is he's not even trying to ameliorate things.

On the home front, like I said, we see stagnant wages, not real improvement in living standards as well as a roll back of benefits and social support, a lot of which will affect trump's own supporters on medicare and food stamps.

Meanwhile the president is increasingly isolated as his inner circle abandons him, his party distances itself and even Fox news grows more critical: the law is closing in on him and he spends his time in twitter spats with celebrities and fuming over his loss to congress and the government shutdown that he demanded and took credit for himself.

He cannot and won't really even try to fulfill his most basic promises of draining the swamp (he's made it worse) or building the wall (he's had two years to start). Instead he curls up in a ball, ninges on KFC and cable news and fumes like a mad emperor while Rome burns. Twitter is his fiddle.

This presidency is a dumpster fire. Anyone can see it. Voters could have chosen anyone over him - a sensible Republican from the primary pool; yes even Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (and Sanders would crush him in an election tomorrow) could have and would have done a much better job.

The president is in a death spiral. Watch him burn.

We'll see how accurate your predictions might be.

You seemed to back away from the damage Trump has done to the various trouble spots when pressed.

Wages are the highest they have ever been since Trump took office. There are more Americans working than ever since Trump took office. Paychecks are bigger and employees are keeping a larger share of the larger paychecks they are receiving.

Made the swamp worse? How?

Voters chose him to do what he is doing: More jobs, higher wages, better jobs, more opportunity. Promises made, promises kept.

I suppose we can all look forward to President Bernie and a doubling of taxes and the banishment of employers to other countries.

 

[code1211]

Lose to his opponent. I suspect you know how elections work?

I suspect you understand that the opponent will need to have a name.

Do you know what that name is?

Nobody else does. Just wondering. That's why I asked.

For the 2008 election, Obama was a surprise. In 2016, trump was a surprise. Who will be the surprise in 2020?

 

[tres borrachos]

I suspect you understand that the opponent will need to have a name.

Do you know what that name is?

Nobody else does. Just wondering. That's why I asked.

For the 2008 election, Obama was a surprise. In 2016, trump was a surprise. Who will be the surprise in 2020?

So no, you don't know how elections work. Here, I'll help you out.

In a little over a year we will begin the process where both major parties start hosting caucuses and primaries. After the first ones, candidates will start dropping out. Eventually, before each party has its convention, there will be someone on each side who has won the plurality of votes and is collecting delegates who will show up at the conventions and cast their supports for the candidates who won their support. Then we will know, sometime in the summer of 2020, who both party candidates are. And their running mates.

This is 2019 and there will be no candidates selected as the official party representative. You'll have to wait like everyone else will for at least another year.