President Donald Trump

[Ken]

Potentially targeted terrorism, but I was thinking more mob attacks on institutions, seeking to disrupt the smooth transition of power.

I think you are giving him far too much credit for being able to think that far ahead. He's worried about what was on SNL last weekend, not what's going to happen when he leaves office.

[DMT]

I think you are giving him far too much credit for being able to think that far ahead. He's worried about what was on SNL last weekend, not what's going to happen when he leaves office.

That's why he filed his 2020 re-election campaign the day after the 2016 election?

[nullnor]

Sometimes they go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again.

he's confusing it with Halloween. that one house on the block every year that gives out cans of soda. or trick or treaters that try to get extra candy at the White House. he's guarding the candy.

[revo]

Judge rules in favor of Acosta/CNN.

[frae]

Judge rules in favor of Acosta/CNN.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/judge-hands-cnn-victory-in-its-bid-to-restore-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass/2018/11/16/8bedd08a-e920-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c7284de9be69

"In his decision, Kelly ruled that Acosta’s First Amendment rights overruled the White House’s right to have orderly news conferences. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied."

"He also agreed with CNN’s argument that the White House did not provide due process. He said the White House’s decision-making was “so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me . . . who made the decision.” The White House’s later written arguments for banning Acosta were belated and weren’t sufficient to satisfy due process, Kelly said."

[Hornsby]

[cardboardbox]

Judge rules in favor of Acosta/CNN.

probably shouldnt bother appealing. This judge was simply following precedent but I imagine if it goes to the supreme court the conservative justices will worry about optics and rule against Trump.

Best option now is to completely ignore acosta for the next 2 years.

[DMT]

Best option now is to completely ignore acosta for the next 2 years.

Yea right, Trump revels in the drama.

[baldgriff]

Yea right, Trump revels in the drama.

This is the truth! Just because he raises his hand to ask a question - doesnt mean you have to recognize him. It would be like putting the retiring veteran on the bench and not playing him.

[Ken]

That's why he filed his 2020 re-election campaign the day after the 2016 election?

Not sure what you are trying to say here, the point is that Trump is too big of a buffoon to play the evil terrorist role in the 2020 election. Being worried about that gives him far too much credit IMO.

Launching the campaign is just self indulgence, which is his favorite past-time.

[revo]

Best option now is to completely ignore acosta for the next 2 years.

Then Acosta should pull an Arnold Horshack:

[revo]

Epic Victory!

I bet he thinks Pearl Harbor was an epic victory too.

[cardboardbox]

Epic Victory!

I bet he thinks Pearl Harbor was an epic victory too.

you think the 2018 midterms, which were about an average result for a presidents first term, was like Pearl Harbor?

Does that mean Republicans will be kicking some serious Democrat ass in 2-3 years?

[OaklandA's]

you think the 2018 midterms, which were about an average result for a presidents first term, was like Pearl Harbor?

The historical average is skewed by some really lopsided numbers like -125 in 1894 and -96 in 1874.

If we look at the last 50 years, ranking midterms from worst to best, we get:
2010: -63
1994: -54
1974: -48
2006 -30
1982 -26
1978 -15
2014 -13
1970 -12
1990 -8
1986 -5
1998 +5
2002 +8

So it is clear that 2018 is the 4th worst result in the House of Representatives in the last 50 years (4th out of 13).

[cardboardbox]

The historical average is skewed by some really lopsided numbers like -125 in 1894 and -96 in 1874.

If we look at the last 50 years, ranking midterms from worst to best, we get:
2010: -63
1994: -54
1974: -48
2006 -30
1982 -26
1978 -15
2014 -13
1970 -12
1990 -8
1986 -5
1998 +5
2002 +8

So it is clear that 2018 is the 4th worst result in the House of Representatives in the last 50 years (4th out of 13).

quoting myself from the midterm thread:

"Going all the way back to the Civil War, there were only two instances when a new party seized the presidency but didn’t lose seats in the House during their first midterm elections: Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934 (during the Great Depression), and President George W. Bush in 2002 (in the shadow of the 9/11 terrorist attacks). Even including these outliers, the average attrition during a party’s inaugural midterms is 35 House seats; excluding these two exceptions, the average loss is 41. Regardless of which number we run with, Trump could end up performing better than average in preserving his party’s influence in the House. He performed much better than his last two Democratic predecessors: Bill Clinton lost control of both chambers in the 1994 midterm elections. Barack Obama saw historic losses in the House in 2010, and lost seats in the Senate as well — the most sweeping congressional reversal in 62 years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-the-midterms-were-a-referendum-trump-won/2018/11/09/a39cc5fe-e44f-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html

As I said before, democrats did well, but maybe not the wave you want it to be.

If you want to say this set of data is a bit skewed towards the result the author wanted, I might agree. Thats why I dont completely agree with his headline.