Honestly, I now think this is true (that Trump is toast). I mean I think people here know that I'm not one who is given to hype and other forms of undue optimism, but there is simply no way of looking at the present situation objectively and concluding that Trump will likely be re-elected. If you want the most compelling evidence there is, just look at the election results we've seen since 2016. The 2017 off-year elections. The 2018 midterms. The 2019 off-year elections. There is a clear pattern here. I mean it's normal for the party opposing that of the president to do well in midterm elections, but it's not as usual for that to continue the following year, historically speaking. And yet it just did. The Trump people have been all "REMEMBER 1998!" about the impeachment proceedings, insisting that the pursuit of Trump's impeachment would be politically devastating to the Democrats. And yet in reality...Tuesday's election results say otherwise. Decidedly.

I'll point you in particular to the result of the Kentucky governor's race, which saw a 30-point swing in the Democratic Party's direction compared to Trump's performance there in 2016! The average swing toward the Democrats in last year's midterm elections, for comparison's sake, was 10 points, and that was good enough for a pick-up of 40 House seats: the biggest midterm-election gain for the Democrats since 1974; the year of Nixon's resignation. And again, this was in Kentucky; not exactly a blue state. Kentucky is among the more rural and whitest states in the country, and also among the poorest. It's not immensely dissimilar from neighboring West Virginia in those ways, especially in the eastern part of the state. Lots of old, run-down coal towns. Kentucky gave Trump his fifth-largest margin of victory in 2016 (30 points) and the governor, Bevin, was elected the preceding year by a similar margin. Bevin went on to reverse the state's Medicaid expansion, throwing countless people off their health insurance, and to try and cut the pension of the state's teachers, among other things. By the end of it all, even the Fraternal Order of Police, an institution not exactly known for their liberal attitudes, had turned on him and he polled as the least popular governor in the country. His personality was frequently compared to that of Trump, and his re-election campaign revolved centrally around his personal friendship with Trump. Trump visited the state to campaign for him and the two of them hyped up the threat of his impeachment as the core motivation for why Bevin deserved to be re-elected even though he has no vote in the matter as a state governor. And he managed to lose, and not just with the urban areas, as you might well expect, but also in the suburbs of the state and even in a number of rural coal towns in the east! The picture you get, inescapably, is that, if anything, Trump and Trumpianness are political liabilites, not assets, in this climate, even in normally-Republican states.

It's not the only extraordinary case we've seen in recent years. Kansas elected a Democratic governor last year too, and Alabama a Democratic Senator the year before that. Individually these sorts of Democratic victories can be explained away as special cases with unique and rare circumstances, but taken together they form a picture; the picture of a president who is consistently unpopular and which is dragging down the party of its association, taking a whole generation of Republicans out with it, much as a certain Rick Wilson (the Never Trump Republican author of the now-famous book "Everything Trump Touches Dies") has always predicted he would.

Here's the real key: Trump won in 2016 without the popular vote, and even that victory was dependent, even in the Republican primaries, on the support of independent voters. Half of independents today tell pollsters that they not only disapprove of the president's job performance, but believe that he should be impeached and removed from office! That's how much the situation has changed. Republicans might love Trump, but they're alone in their affections today and they've become too arrogant and oblivious to figure that out.

There was a survey of voters in key Midwestern states that Trump unexpectedly carried in 2016 or else nearly carried (voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota specifically) conducted by the Cook Political Report and the Kaiser Family Foundation over the course of about a month recently, so this one was particularly extensive and thorough. It found that between 57 and 61% of voters in each of those states disapproves of President Trump's job performance and at least 64% in each state, furthermore, supports the Green New Deal. Across those four states, "defeating President Trump" ranks in as the overall top priority of voters by a wide margin, while "re-electingn President Trump" and "defeating a Democrat" are the combined top voting priorities of only about one-third as many people, by contrast.

One-term presidencies are uncommon, but it's really starting to look like we have one on our hands. Another indicator of that, actually, is the simple fact that, as I pointed out a bit ago, Democrats generally believe Trump will be re-elected. That's actually kind of a good thing. It means that Democrats will be motivated to actually show up and vote next year. Compare to 2016. In 2016, polls showed that Democrats were confident that Clinton would be elected. The result was that they didn't show up and Trump won. By contrast, polls leading up to last year's midterms showed that Democratic voters believed the Republicans would win. The result? The Democratic voters showed up and won an enormous victory. Just as examples. The lesson here is that arrogance is the enemy of victory. Unlike yours truly, many people won't vote if they think victory is likely, so it's actually kind of a good thing that Democratic voters possess this somewhat irrational fear of defeat right now in a way.

All of this points toward the conclusion that we will have a Democratic president in 2021. And quite possibly, just mathematically speaking, also a Democratic Senate. And a situation wherein most governors are Democrats too. I mean usually things down the ballot go the same direction as the presidential election. So I mean I think there is a considerable possibility of the result of next year's election being that essentially a generation of Republican leaders will have been wiped out by the Trump presidency and Democrats will emerge with unified control of the government and the overall prevailing position in American politics generally. THAT situation probably won't last for more than a couple years, but I think it's probably more likely than not to happen. Anyway, point is that, you know, the Republicans are constantly reliving their 2016 victory because it's all they've got to cling to really. Yeah, Trump (technically) won in 2016. And his party hasn't stopped paying for it since. Maybe they'll finally figure something out after he becomes a rare one-term president.

Bloomberg just entered the crowded ring. White, rich and male power engage...

So who are Tulsi Gabbard's supporters, you ask? Well, according to the most recent survey data from the Economist and YouGov, Tulsi Gabbard's supporters overall are...

...Trump voters...

24% of Trump voters support her.
1% of Clinton voters support her.

...who are conservative...

16% of conservatives support her.
2% of moderates support her.
1% of liberals support her.

...and aren't Democrats...

5% of independents support her.
1% of Democrats support her.

...and are rich...

6% of people making over $100,000 a year support her.
3% of people making between $50,000 and $100,000 a year support her.
1% of people making under $50,000 a year support her.

...and male...

4% of men support her.
1% of women support her.

...and old...

3% of those 65 and older support her.
3% of those between 45 and 64 support her.
1% of us between 30 and 44 support her.
2% of those under 30 support her.

...and white.

4% of white people support her.
1% of black people support her.
0% of Hispanic Americans support her.

(See pages 168-170.)

This is so ridiculous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtQinzGBSYw

Billionaires are really upset about the discussion of a wealth tax.

To get the perspective on the entitlement Cooperman and Gates show here: they get a public platform on TV to rail about the hurtful wealth tax. But how much of a platform get the 550,000 homeless people in the US? What is with the 27.5 million people without health insurance, get they a chance to cry on TV about it? What is with the relatives of the 45,000 people that die each year because they lack health insurance? Gates and Cooperman have a massive privilege and use it to attack plans that would take away a small part of their wealth and could help so many people. This is beyond pathetic.

EDIT: By the way, this is why Bloomberg now runs and we hear rumours about Clinton. Because these rich people fear to give away a small part of their fortune for helping the ones in need. They actually fear these plans from Sanders and Warren if one of them becomes the democratic candidate, they will try their best to get Trump reelected.

Y'all hungry ladies and gents?? Because billionaires are on the menu and I'm famished.

There's nothing wrong with being rich, white, or male. I dont understand why people sya that to look down on Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is pretty rational and reasonable and has spent millions in liberal causes, including his massive John Hopkins endowment. This thread is just brimming with envy and social resentment.

That said, I really hope his intentions to run go nowhere. It's frankly a bit of vanity. If he wanted to push for a moderate voice, he should support Biden, or go for Pete or Klobuchar.

I don't get it.. Is this supposed to illustrate that Tulsi has right wing sympathies/ideals/policies or something? That's pretty rich, considering - as I've said - she is probably the MOST (actual) progressive/liberal out of all of the Dem candidates currently in the running outside of Bernie (and Gravel who is no longer running). Even Warren has voted WITH Trump on certain actions regarding foreign policy (and was once ACTUALLY a Republican btw).

Have you considered that maybe people outside the establishment Dems and even some right wingers simply respond so positively to Gabbard b/c she is attempting to reach across the aisle a bit rather than being exceedingly exclusionary and demonizing all that don't fit into her circle of ideology? In these times we need MORE inclusivity, not less. Tulsi seeks to provide this. 

I mean, candidates that treat Trump and his supporters like they are the literal Devil incarnate, Hitler, and Armaggeddon all rolled into one are typically NOT going to garner their support vs someone who treats them just as people who have differences. Maybe misguided, close-minded, and even cruel in some ways, but not evil incarnate. It's ridiculous considering we're talking about 63 million people plus probably millions more in the nation who didn't/couldn't vote and 10s or even 100s of millions more overseas..

This is why Trump supporters and independents tend to have a more positive perception of Tulsi, as she's a refreshing candidate who doesn't despise them with every fiber of her being like I sense some of these candidates and their supporters do. And for the record I've also hear from a TON of Trump supporters who think Tulsi is an evil, gun-grabbing socialist too soo again this demographic, or "guilt by association" bs (or whatever the hell this is meant to be) is pointless and the perception depends on the individual.

That's an awful lot of conclusions to reach about me from just a simple list of statistics. You claim, for example, that I'm "demonizing" everyone who disagrees with me politically in the slightest, such as obviously yourself for instance. Are you kidding me? As I recall, we've been having a pleasant conversation over the course of the week in the private messages where I have, among other things, described you as a smart and reasonable person and much of which, in fact, has revolved precisely around our agreements about the importance of free speech and dislike of cancel culture and strictly ideological thinking that neglects objectivity. Therefore, you of all people should know that I don't think of you or other more libertarian-oriented people who support Tulsi Gabbard as monsters or The Enemy. And if you've followed this thread to this point, you will also recall that I'm actually quite amenable to Andrew Yang, the other candidate you're backing, myself. You don't have to present yourself as someone completely different in public from who you are in private. You're not a victim here.

Also, I live in a town that voted 81% for Trump in 2016. I know that not every Donald Trump supporter is a monster either. (Though the type of Trump voter I've described above is not entirely of the same demography, you will notice.)

That said, this is an election after all, and I have my opinions about who would make the best Democratic nominee, and I'm afraid it's definitely not Tulsi Gabbard, who is someone I just have no respect for at all. I would sympathize with the way she has been sometimes portrayed in the media if I didn't feel like she earned a lot of it. Yes, after enduring these years of a certain president, I am indeed troubled by things like her apparent connections to hostile foreign dictators and the fact that those connections would seem to govern the whole nature and emphasis of her campaign. The very last thing I think we need at this time is another president like that! And I think it does say something about you if you're a Democratic candidate for president who has essentially no support among either Democrats or progressives or just working class people and several times more among the ranks of Trump voters, conservatives, and very wealthy people. That to me honestly makes her look like almost maybe even a plant of some kind. I'm not trying to demonize you or anyone for supporting her, but I am questioning the character and motivations of the candidate herself. I think we could do much better than Tulsi Gabbard, even just choosing between libertarian Democrats. I mean there is a libertarian type candidate in this race I feel much more positively about, and that's Andrew Yang.

Some of the specific areas where I have strong disagreements or problems with Tulsi Gabbard (besides those I've already mentioned) include:

-Her insistence that we should never have supported the Syrian Democratic Forces. As people here know, I'm a passionate supporter of their cause and strongly opposed to our recent betrayal of them to Turkey, which has, and continues to as we speak, yield a yes very violent campaign of ethnic cleansing across much of Northern Syria, including such ancestral lands of the Kurdish people as Kobani. I feel very, very strongly about this issue, as people here know, and Gabbard's position that we should've I guess just left them to ISIS in the first place frankly angers me. I've not heard any other Democratic candidate articulate that view, period, let alone with her level of passion.

-Her opposition to admitting Syrian refugees into this country and her opposition to providing basic public services (like health care, for example) to refugees and immigrants who aren't documented just because they may not have the right paperwork. We provide medical care even to imprisoned, convicted murderers, rapists, and terrorists. It's remarkable to me, therefore, that one should view say those who have fled the genocidal campaigns of ISIS, for example, as less human than that. This position is also unique among Democratic candidates. Combined with Gabbard's 'anti-interventionist' views, it forms, for me, the picture of an isolationist candidate whose goals bear a striking, and worrying, resemblance to those of the sitting president, which might explain why that very president once considered Gabbard for a cabinet position. Everyone is owed such basic rights as medical care as far as I'm concerned.

-The fact she questions whether Bashir Al Assad has used chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. That much is extremely obvious. That's a very unique, and frankly despicable position that I'm not convinced is even sincere. And she wonders why people question her loyalties! Don't get me wrong: I'm from a family with a history of military service too and I'm grateful for her service. But Michael Flynn served too, you know? That didn't make him something other than what he wound up becoming in the end.

-Her long history of homophobic views and actions. This point of objection I'm pretty forgiving of really, considering that most Americans in general have traditionally held a lot of homophobic views and considering that I know an awful lot of people personally who aren't otherwise terrible people but who nonetheless, you know, feel or have felt (as applicable) that people like me should be legally forbidden to marry who we authentically love or to have children within the framework of a same-sex relationship. My own parents weren't exactly open-minded about same-sex relationships, in fact, but I was ultimately able to make some peace with my mom nonetheless before she passed away. But let me be clear here: Tulsi Gabbard did not historically just feel that same-sex couples shouldn't have all the same rights as heterosexual couples, she actively campaigned for an anti-gay organization that was founded by her father and actively lobbied against not just marriage rights but against even civil unions for same-sex couples. Those represent particularly extreme views and levels of dedication that weren't common of even moderate Democrats in those times. Most people before the current decade might have believed that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people shouldn't have all the same rights as heterosexual people, but most did not actively join anti-gay crusades. That represents an unusual level of hostility. That she has changed her views on this subject is really the most important thing, but...there is still this long history of particularly extreme hostility and her more recent statements disowning this past have frankly struck me as plastic and generic-sounding, not all that sincere. Certainly not emotional at all. There doesn't seem to be a lot in the way of actual, heartfelt conviction behind this theoretical change of heart she's had more recently.

-Her ongoing opposition to single-payer Medicare-for-all. Still believes that for-profit health insurance companies should have a role to play going forward. This is just simply an area where I disagree with her. When there are not one but two candidates in this field who can bring themselves around to supporting national health insurance, why should I go with someone who doesn't?

-Still believes that late-term abortions should be illegal. I believe this is another of Gabbard's unique views in this Democratic field. As much isn't an uncommon view by any means. I believe most Americans still agree with this view actually, and it certainly doesn't represent a common variety of abortion at all. The thing is that abortion rights are demonstrably under attack in this country right now. Most abortion providers have been forced to close their doors over the last decade owing to waves of new state laws intentionally designed to undermine them and there are now several times more fake abortion clinics in this country than there are real ones. So many women's heath facilities have been closed for providing abortions among their services over the last decade, in fact, that the maternal mortality rate in this country has actually begun to rise as a result! (A fact that rather belies the insistence of the anti-abortion movement that their aim is to promote human life.) In such a context, where you now have state governments seeking to ban even rape survivors from terminating a pregnancy, I feel that it is especially important that the next president be someone who is very clear about where they stand on the question of bodily sovereignty for women and not someone who's commitment thereto is on the wishy-washy side and the weakest in the Democratic field.

These things to name a few are among my issues with Gabbard. All that said, there are a couple areas where I'm more inclined to agree with Tulsi Gabbard than I am with even the leading progressive candidates, Warren and Sanders. One of those areas is the importance of freedom of speech and the other is her support for universal basic income, inspired by Andrew Yang. The thing is though that Andrew Yang seems to also be a supporter of both of those things and lacks many of the aforementioned liabilities that Gabbard has. Although he does have some unique liabilities of his own, like the fact he seems to be advancing UBI as an alternative to many of our existing public welfare programs rather than as a supplement thereto. But I don't question Andrew Yang's loyalties.

Also, these things I consider to be advantages that Gabbard has over other Democrats aren't things that she stresses on the campaign trail. What she stresses is foreign policy, which is an area on which I don't even trust her, let alone broadly agree with her. That's the policy area that seems to be the most important to her by far.