Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[Teenwolf]

Guess Kanye didn't get that memo.

Kanye has serious mental health issues. The God complex has shown through for a long time now. I still remember him in VH1 Storytellers claiming "if I could have only 1 wish, it would be to be in this place, right here watching myself". I think it's pretty clear that Kanye's Trump association is hurting his brand. He (or someone on his team) just canceled his Twitter account, so they're desperate to stop the bleeding.

[Teenwolf]

I think you may have misread......her endorsement did see a large influx of new voters -- 65k after her comments, as you said -- but that was nationwide. Only 2k of those were in Tennessee.

https://moneyish.com/ish/this-is-how...s-endorsement/

Thanks for clarifying! 2K is pretty minor for that race, but the size of the bump is yet to be fully determined. If it's a few thousand per state, I could see that much of a bump swinging a few races throughout the country.

[revo]

Thanks for clarifying! 2K is pretty minor for that race, but the size of the bump is yet to be fully determined. If it's a few thousand per state, I could see that much of a bump swinging a few races throughout the country.

Oh yeah, it was big. It was so big Dopey Donald had to come out and attack her.

[onejayhawk]

4 of Obama’s 8 years saw GDP growth of 1.7% or less (2009, 2011, 2013, 2016). For such a large stimulus, those numbers aren’t great.
Again, we will see how Trumps numbers stack up.

2009 is on Bush. Like Trump in 2017, Obama was not even sworn in for the bulk of the first half. 2011 is the one that should have seen significantly better. It was a slow recovery but it is already a long one. We have not seen unemployment numbers like these since Vietnam. As you say, we will see how the long term numbers add up. But, the Republicans have enough to run on this month.

J

[OaklandA's]

4 of Obama’s 8 years saw GDP growth of 1.7% or less (2009, 2011, 2013, 2016). For such a large stimulus, those numbers aren’t great.
Again, we will see how Trumps numbers stack up.

The sad part is that the last two times the economy was strong and unemployment was below 4% (1969, 2000), the government was able to actually achieve a budget surplus. This time, we have taken those two positive factors and still managed to double the budget deficit to $1 Trillion. Usually high employment results in large jumps in tax revenue, but not this time. Corporate tax revenue will actually be lower this year than in 2000 (even without accounting for inflation!).

[B-Fly]

The sad part is that the last two times the economy was strong and unemployment was below 4% (1969, 2000), the government was able to actually achieve a budget surplus. This time, we have taken those two positive factors and still managed to double the budget deficit to $1 Trillion. Usually high employment results in large jumps in tax revenue, but not this time. Corporate tax revenue will actually be lower this year than in 2000 (even without accounting for inflation!).

Yes, it's hard to tell what fiscal conservatism even means to the GOP now. I guess it means letting companies and individuals keep more of their gross pay, regardless of whether the federal government can balance its budget or achieve surpluses to reserve against future entitlements or pay down debt.

[Pauly]

Did you guys see that Michael Bloomberg has changed his registration from independent to Democrat...likely to prep for a presidential run in 2020 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...0-bid-jn2z6gyr

I saw a few rankings with Biden and Sanders and a few others a few days ago in this string...I would think Bloomberg is at or near the top of that list as far as Trump opponents go.

[TS Garp]

Did you guys see that Michael Bloomberg has changed his registration from independent to Democrat...likely to prep for a presidential run in 2020 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...0-bid-jn2z6gyr

I saw a few rankings with Biden and Sanders and a few others a few days ago in this string...I would think Bloomberg is at or near the top of that list as far as Trump opponents go.

He would be almost 79 when he was sworn in. I think he would've had a great chance in 2016...

[Sour Masher]

He would be almost 79 when he was sworn in. I think he would've had a great chance in 2016...

Yeah, I think when get that high in age, past the average life expectancy of an American male, your age because a huge liability. you'd have to run with a really great and popular VP to overcome that. Being healthy and spry looking wouldn't hurt either.

[revo]

Yeah, I think when get that high in age, past the average life expectancy of an American male, your age because a huge liability. you'd have to run with a really great and popular VP to overcome that. Being healthy and spry looking wouldn't hurt either.

Trump would be 75, so at least there's that.

[chancellor]

He would be almost 79 when he was sworn in. I think he would've had a great chance in 2016...

Agree. If the Dems vote in an upper-70s age person, I fully expect it'll be Bernie Sanders.

[Sour Masher]

Trump would be 75, so at least there's that.

But he is the healthiest man to every walk the face of the planet. His esteemed doctor said so.

In all seriousness, despite his poor lifestyle choices, Trump has good longevity genes. He is very likely going to live well into his 80s. His mother lived to 88 and his father lived to 93.

[onejayhawk]

And he has big ... hands.

It's fairly clear that either the next Democratic nominee has not yet made an impact or they will get slaughtered. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were obscure Governors. Maybe that is where the next hope sits. Obama was an obscure Senator but he had Chicago's political machine behind him. It's not the same thing.

J

[umjewman]

And he has big ... hands.

It's fairly clear that either the next Democratic nominee has not yet made an impact or they will get slaughtered. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were obscure Governors. Maybe that is where the next hope sits. Obama was an obscure Senator but he had Chicago's political machine behind him. It's not the same thing.

J

I've been hearing rumors that Ted Cruz is going to change his party affiliation, run as a Democrat, and win the presidency. They're also going to let Ted serve as a Senator simultaneously as a Republican just because.

[B-Fly]

I agree that Bloomberg is too old, but I appreciate his decision to explore running in the Democratic Primary rather than sitting out there as a potential 3rd party general election spoiler who would split Trump opposition. I don't think he'll win a Democratic Primary, but I think he'd contribute positively to the primary debates/discussions/platform, and embracing him within the Party will presumably have the corresponding benefit of focusing his financial support on Democrats, whereas he's historically played both sides. He also would be a good potential advisor/surrogate for the nominee and, hopefully, a good potential advisor or cabinet member for the next president.