Good King Trump

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

There's always a tweet: Trump Twitter Archive

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

So, after the president spent all afternoon live tweeting Fox news, he phoned in and basically babbled a stream of consciousness to his fawning audience, who, no shit, told him his approval rating is 'soaring'.

It soared all the way to -12, and then in the past couple weeks soared to an even greater magnitude, of -17.

Truly impressive.

To be fair, it's noticeably better than a couple months ago when it was -21.

On the other other hand, it's almost exactly at his average level since last June (after the initial few months of chaos and Muslim bans and Comey and initial Obamacare repeal efforts eliminated his benefit-of-the-doubt "honeymoon" period). So reversion to the mean I guess.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by erimir

It certainly seems that they way you evaluate accomplishments and assign blame is much more lenient for Nixon than Obama. Maybe you are more disappointed with Obama than Nixon, since you hoped Obama would be better whereas Nixon was expected to be a shit, but that doesn't make Nixon better than Obama.

That’s probably a fair characterization of my position.

As to Johnson v. Nixon, both were horrible people, but sometimes horrible people do good things. I’d rank Nixon above Johnson because Johnson’s foreign policy was terrible from first to last, whereas Nixon had historically substantial accomplishment: the opening to China, significant arms control agreements, and detente with the Soviets. Both obviously were horrible on Vietnam. Nixon’s record of progressive reform was nearly as good as Johnson’s, even if you think these reforms were done in spite of rather than because of him. I do think you underestimate somewhat Nixon’s at least residually progressive instincts. I don’t think he would feel at home in today’s Republican Party, just as I am certain that Barry Goldwater would not. (Before dying Goldwater called for gay rights and recanted his opposition to civil rights legislation.) How Nixon would adapt to today’s G.O.P. is a bit complicated, though, because first and foremost — unlike Goldwater — Nixon was a self-serving and corrupt opportunist. So who knows how he would fit in today? He might adapt very well to Trumpism, if in doing so he believed he would gain some personal and political advantage. I believe Goldwater would not adapt and would be an outspoken foe of Trump.

As to Clinton, remember that I said this was, IMO, a low-bar list. My initial idea in putting Clinton in the top ten was my modest criteria for what constitutes a good president: Do a few good things and do little harm, and run an administration of general probity. That is why I elevate Benjamin Harrison. To me Clinton was kind of a Democratic version of Eisenhower: Kept us (mostly) out of war and didn't fuck up too badly domestically, while presiding over a good economy. I disagree with you on the issue of accomplishments: I think, for example, that pushing for universal health care, as Clinton, Nixon and Truman did, even while failing, counts for more than pushing for less as Obama did.

Still, as I reflect, Clinton’s bogus welfare “reform” and deregulation tend to bump him down farther from where I put him.

More later.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by davidm

That’s probably a fair characterization of my position.

But that is essentially grading Republicans on a curve.

I do think you underestimate somewhat Nixon’s at least residually progressive instincts.

The reason I would put such emphasis on Nixon's judicial appointments is that there was much more leeway for a president to appoint who they like regardless of the composition of Congress at that time. The level of obstruction we've seen under Mitch McConnell was not the norm and ideological vetting of nominees was much weaker. Nixon was constrained in what he could push for legislatively, given the Democrats' healthy majorities in both chambers, but he had the ability to nominate solid, qualified conservatives to the court. Or to nominate moderates, or progressives.

Despite having a wide range of acceptable ideologies for his nominees, his nominees were:
1. All more conservative than the justices they replaced
2. Three of four, or all, were more conservative than any newly appointed justice since before Truman, at least (depends on which measure of judicial ideology you use)
3. All were more conservative than any justice on the court not appointed by Nixon

There is no reflection of any progressive instinct there.

Why would I then think that Nixon had "residual progressive instincts" given that in the area where he had the most freedom to follow his ideological leanings, only lightly constrained by the Congressional Democratic majorities and public opinion, he chose to behave in a solidly conservative manner?

I disagree with you on the issue of accomplishments: I think, for example, that pushing for universal health care, as Clinton, Nixon and Truman did, even while failing, counts for more than pushing for less as Obama did.

So competence and a realistic evaluation of reality don't matter for presidential greatness?

Supposing we knew, that in an alternate timeline, that pushing for single payer would've resulted in the collapse of the ACA legislation, and nothing would get done. You would still rather Obama had pushed for single payer and gotten nothing?

Given that Obama had seen the failures that came before him, I imagine that this was part of his thought process. It's not at all obvious, in any way, that Obama thought true universal healthcare (single payer or a system like the Netherlands or Germany) was possible and simply didn't want it.

Also I'd be interested to see you flesh out exactly how hard Nixon pushed for universal healthcare. Fitting with your grading Republicans on a curve, I feel like you sometimes treat lip-service from Republicans as sincere, while often dismissing favorable Democratic proposals and rhetoric as pandering.

[The Lone Ranger]

Matt Latimer warns that, despite everything, Trump could very well win re-election unless the Democrats manage to get their act together.

[Limoncello]

He will implode on himself by then. Plus, I don't even think he will want to be the President anymore.

[lisarea]

I mean, I do think he'll implode, but I also thought it was imminent a year ago, so I give up thinking I have any idea what's going on.

[Limoncello]

I don't think he's enjoying it as much as he thought he would.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Matt Latimer warns that, despite everything, Trump could very well win re-election unless the Democrats manage to get their act together.

So it's up to Trump then...

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Limoncello

I don't think he's enjoying it as much as he thought he would.

He might James K Polk it, claim victory and walk away, but I doubt it. Trump will run again if he thinks reelection is a key indicator of a successful President, and I'll bet he does.

I personally think he'll run again because Obama was reelected, and he wants to be "better" than Obama.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I personally think he'll run again because Obama was reelected, and he wants to be "better" than Obama.

Also, "lol one term president."

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

WATCH: "I really believe I'd run in there, even if I didn't have a weapon," President Trump asserted while discussing Florida school mass shooting response in a gathering of the nation’s governors on Monday. pic.twitter.com/aLENQMlMHY

— NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt (@NBCNightlyNews) February 26, 2018

I'm sure Cadet Bone Spurs would have dodged bullets like he dodged the draft.

[The Lone Ranger]

The thing is -- he probably does believe that. The man's capacity for self-delusion seems to be endless.

[Ari]

[slimshady2357]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I mean, I do think he'll implode, but I also thought it was imminent a year ago, so I give up thinking I have any idea what's going on.

He has imploded, by any standard of the past. However the complicit, gutless, hypocritical fuckwits in Congress haven't done anything about it. If Hillary had won and done any of literally a dozen things Trump has done the republicans would have tried to impeach by now.

Watching Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell I'm not sure there is anything Trump could do now that they wouldn't let slide (if not endorse).

I'm really hoping Dems can turn things around this year and take back the House.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Matt Latimer warns that, despite everything, Trump could very well win re-election unless the Democrats manage to get their act together.

I mean, I know that his approval rating isn't at it's lowest level ever, but -16 is not on track to win.

Democrats are also back up to +10 on the generic ballot.

The fact that things look better for him than they did two months ago does not equate to him winning. He certainly has a non-trivial chance of winning reelection. It might be essentially a tossup based on historical patterns - an incumbent with a decent to good economy is favored to win. But approval ratings provide more direct evidence, and his aren't and have never been good enough to make him favored for reelection (if he had the same numbers in November 2020) aside from the very first few weeks.

People are underestimating the chances of him being reelected, sure. It's closer to 50-50, but the thing is that this is because conditions can change. It won't just happen without any obvious indicators.

If Trump is reelected in 2020

• his approval rating will probably be closer to break-even or even positive by the time voting starts
• the economy will probably not be significantly worse than now, or at least be be trending positive compared to 2019
• he will probably not have done anything significantly more disastrous than he has already. Starting a war with North Korea and then hundreds of thousands or millions dying on the peninsula, for example, would probably not help him get reelected

However, while the economy will probably be fine for the next few months, we can't predict what it'll be like in 2020. It could well be significantly worse or in recession. There isn't much reason to expect it to be healthier based on his policies, especially not for working people. It could be, in spite of his policies. We don't really know. There are a lot of economic factors that don't have much to do with Trump. (Note that economies across the world have generally been doing well.)

There's also no reason to expect Trump to "pivot" and stop doing stupid shit or avoid chaotic turnover. He eventually gets tired of everyone. They say something that he finds insulting, but that can be hard to predict. John Kelly said something that Trump found insulting and the domestic abuse thing has been embarrassing and Javanka seem not to like him anymore...

On the other hand, if Democrats do win control of the House and/or Senate, conditions will change and Trump could choose to react to this by jettisoning GOP priorities since he will no longer need the GOP for protection. At that point, improving his poll numbers will be better protection than giving Paul Ryan what he wants. Or Democratic investigations and oversight into not just Russia, but his and his administration's corruption and incompetence across many departments could be dealing out negative headline after negative headline. Russia is hardly the only reason to investigate Trump. So instead he may get nothing done while having less ability to control the headlines.

But either way, Trump's not "on track" to be reelected. The scenarios where he wins reelection probably require conditions to change. Maybe consistent growth continuing will be good enough to overcome all the dysfunction even though thus far he has managed to remain historically unpopular for a president with these economic conditions. But either way, conditions will change. They're not at all guaranteed to change in his favor. But since we can't rule that out, his reelection remains significantly possible.

Although I think a bit less than 50%, since the chances of Trump making a truly catastrophic mistake or dying/having a debilitating health crisis (he's not the healthiest looking 71 year old) or Mueller's investigation revealing stuff even Trump can't shrug off or the economy going into recession are non-trivial and any single one of those could bring him down.

Who speaks for the Democratic Party? Depends on what time it is. What does the Democratic Party stand for?

Can you answer these questions for any year in which the minority party won back control during a midterm?

In 2010? 2006?

This question basically just describes "being the minority party before selecting a presidential nominee".

[Ari]

If Trump even gets up for reelection it means our country is doomed and our gov should be razzed since it will mean the gov is ultimately ok with his corruption and nepotism and it will become a race to drain off the last of our resources before collapse.

[ceptimus]

It also depends on how shitty the next Democrat candidate for president is.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Ari

If Trump even gets up for reelection it means our country is doomed and our gov should be razzed since it will me the gov is Republicans are ultimately ok with his corruption and nepotism and it will become a race to drain off the last of our resources before collapse.

We already know this is true about the GOP.

Republicans will only abandon him if they conclude that defending him will cost them more than not doing so. FOX News and fake news and social media trolls, etc. mean that the cost-benefit is different than it was under Nixon. As it is, their calculation will be that "defending him might work, it might mitigate our losses, it might make no difference, it might make things worse...but impeaching and removing Trump will guarantee electoral devastation". Trump has to become unpopular enough that the leadership figures that the expected value of defending him is negative OR they end up in a prisoner's dilemma where individual Republicans conclude that they can individually benefit by attacking Trump even though it harms the party overall.

A complicating factor is that Trump won't take one for the team. This is part of how he maintains loyalty. He doesn't give a shit about them and if they abandon him he will attack the GOP ruthlessly. Which means that even more than the other calculations, the GOP is going to be careful if Trump isn't in a position where he's discredited among the base.

This isn't about the Democrats being ok with his corruption and such though.

It is, however, connected to the structure of our government. Trump being reelected would significantly decrease my hopes that our government can be reformed as opposed to it being headed for a collapse in the constitutional order.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I love when you prove Hillary right.

— The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) February 21, 2018

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[The Man]

BREAKING: NSA Director Mike Rogers tells the Senate Intel Committee that he has not been directed by President Trump or Defense Secretary Mattis to disrupt Russian hacking operations against the United States, and he needs that authorization to act.

— Facts Do Matter (@WilDonnelly) February 27, 2018

I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation for this.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Trump says Florida police should have taken away the Stoneman Douglas shooter's guns "whether they had the right or not."

— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) February 28, 2018

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Donald Trump: "I'm not into popularity."

I give this all the Pinocchios. I am reincarnating deceased Pinocchios to give them to this.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) February 28, 2018

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

We have a president with the maturity of a five-year-old. A child dictator who never grew up.

WaPo: Trump refers to Jeff Sessions as 'Mr. Magoo' @CNNPolitics https://t.co/cWelUwnYy0

— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) March 1, 2018

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

We have a president with the maturity of a five-year-old. A child dictator who never grew up.

WaPo: Trump refers to Jeff Sessions as 'Mr. Magoo' @CNNPolitics https://t.co/cWelUwnYy0

— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) March 1, 2018

¯_(ツ)_/¯

To be scrupulously unfair, Mr Magoo is a pretty apt nickname for Sessions. "Trump" still has more nicknames though.