Eric Erickson: Here comes the GOP Bloodbath

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/here-comes-the-gop-bloodbath/2017/05/19/8e27eb58-3c18-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html

[SingingAnalyst]

This will only happen if the Democrats nominate candidates with a natural appeal to those under 40, many of whom sat out the midterm elections of 2010 and 2014. They will need to find a way to make voting in non-Presidential races interesting and exciting and relevant.

[Virginiá]

This will only happen if the Democrats nominate candidates with a natural appeal to those under 40, many of whom sat out the midterm elections of 2010 and 2014. They will need to find a way to make voting in non-Presidential races interesting and exciting and relevant.

I'd venture a guess that Democrats will see a turnout boost in general, regardless of candidates (with some exceptions of course). Trump himself is sort of making sure of that.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Erik Erikson is such a dickhole.

[Matty]

Erick Erickson isn't exactly a reliable source. But the bigger fallacy is this: 1.5 years is an ETERNITY in politics. How can you possibly predict that far in the future? Nobody knows what the big factors will be. We could be in a world war, or your dad could die before then, or YOU or I could die.

[The_Doctor]

Or maybe he knows there's some fire to the smoke and believes that it's better to cut Trump loose now instead of having him saddle the GOP. I've read him over the years; he's usually a reliable Republican hack who votes Republican based on his supposition to abortion and social liberalism.

Presidents with 46% of the vote (and a 2.865 million vote loss) and sitting at a 55-38% standing who are being investigated by a special counsel five months into their presidency don't usually end well.

And before anyone tosses Bill Clinton at me, 1) Bill Clinton was impeached 2) his accused crimes were much smaller in scale than Trump's allegations 3) He won the popular vote and wasn't underwater this early on to this extent in approval ratings for more than one month in 1993 (June, if you're curious)*

*the other time being fall 1994. Other than that, he held consistently high job approval ratings.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Or maybe he knows there's some fire to the smoke and believes that it's better to cut Trump loose now instead of having him saddle the GOP. I've read him over the years; he's usually a reliable Republican hack who votes Republican based on his supposition to abortion and social liberalism.

Presidents with 46% of the vote (and a 2.865 million vote loss) and sitting at a 55-38% standing who are being investigated by a special counsel five months into their presidency don't usually end well.

And before anyone tosses Bill Clinton at me, 1) Bill Clinton was impeached 2) his accused crimes were much smaller in scale than Trump's allegations 3) He won the popular vote and wasn't underwater this early on to this extent in approval ratings for more than one month in 1993 (June, if you're curious)*

*the other time being fall 1994. Other than that, he held consistently high job approval ratings.

Another important point about Clinton is that he was a personable man who made a concerted effort to reach out to the other party and tack to the center, particularly after his health care effort went nowhere.  Trump has shown zero inclination to reach across the aisle, and if anything is alienating elements of his own party.  This is not a great strategy for a popular vote loser starting out with poor approval numbers.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Erik Erikson is such a dickhole.

[pbrower2a]

Erick Erickson isn't exactly a reliable source. But the bigger fallacy is this: 1.5 years is an ETERNITY in politics. How can you possibly predict that far in the future? Nobody knows what the big factors will be. We could be in a world war, or your dad could die before then, or YOU or I could die.

1.5 years later the only question of what a cat will be will be whether it is alive in that time.  It will still be a reliable pet or a brutal predator, if not both. Such is the nature of a cat. It will not go vegan. It will still see small creatures other than fellow cats and perhaps small dogs only as meat if it already does so.

Once people are through the formative stages of life, their character rarely changes (barring something like head trauma, stroke, or such a degenerative disease as Alzheimer's). Much of this is relatively harmless, as in musical tastes or religious beliefs.  The Feds have been surprised that very old mobsters do not mellow with age. It is well known also that convicted pedophiles released from incarceration after decades have molested children after having passed age 90.  

Three things are possible with Donald Trump as a person. One is that he will die. Another is that he will be incapacitated (stroke, dementia, etc.) The  other is that he will be much the same person. Changing his values? Practically impossible.

[Badger]

Erickson I State my concerns to the tea. He's a hundred percent on point with a Republicans like it or not. And we can talk about a year-and-a-half being eternity in politics all we want comma as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread Trump has been in a downward dive-bomb, not spiral, since the day after inauguration. It would take literally changing every manner scope, ideal, and inflammation of not just the administration, but he is a person to change in any tangible way. It ain't happening.

That said, I just don't see the GOP losing control of Congress. The Senate playing field in 2018 just doesn't seem to allow Democrats any realistic hope of picking up that third seat even assuming they keep all their seats including North Dakota, West Virginia, and Montana. Ted Cruz going down 2 O'Rourke is just too great a wet dream and not based enough in reality. Likewise, the houses just too damn gerrymandered to give Democrats at more than at best an outside shot of regaining control.