"Republicans are going to wish Hillary Clinton won"

[krazen1211]

     "We want to lose this election for strategic reasons!" is an amazing bit of #Analysis that I had thought would be restricted to Atlas, but alas. Nevermind getting to select a SCOTUS nominee or doing something other than obstinately rejecting every bill for another four years; we really just ought to demoralize our opponents.

This guy is the same bonkers fool who used to support President Trump

For the record, nobody in their right minds would trade the Presidency for a handful of seats in an increasingly vestigial legislature. If that trade was worth making, the Democrat party would have thrown Barry out years ago and not let him pulverize 1000 state legislative seats.

[krazen1211]

Obviously one tries to win every game. There are no 'strategic losses', and a team that loses its last few games to get a more favorable draft pick will undergo some scrutiny. Unintended consequences happen all the time. Maybe had America elected Mitt Romney in 2012 we would never have Donald Trump, but I did not see things that way in 2012 -- and practically nobody else saw things that way, either. A vulgar, vindictive neophyte for President?  No way. Until a cursed day in 2016 that makes me wish that I were a German instead of a German-American, even if I had had to spend my early life in the Communist East Germany.

The moneyed elites found Obama useful for preventing the economic meltdown of the time from destroying wealth and the privilege and power that goes with it as did the 1929-1932  meltdown. Indeed, the first year-and-a-half of the meltdowns beginning in 1929 and 2007 were similarly severe. Obama rescued those elites and saved millions of others from an economic calamity as severe as the Great Depression. Had he not done so he would have been culpable in  allowing a second Great Depression, and the Republicans would have really consolidated power in 2012 or so and established the pure plutocracy of their dreams, one in which opulent splendor of the economic elites is within sight of people starving and homeless.

But many of our economic elites -- owners and executives -- are as rapacious, vulgar, and narcissistic (if not sociopathic) as Donald Trump. Those are the economic equivalents of abusive spouses or parents: one cannot have a good life in their presence. They want Americans other than themselves to endure the poverty of India and the repression of China, only to believe that God has some special blessings in the Afterlife for compliant suffering for people as amoral in their economic values as slave-owning planters of the Old South (which, I regret, is part of the American political heritage).

But this said, I see signs of failure. Americans may believe in Heaven for the righteous, and not only for those who fit a monstrous social order as masters or serfs. They believe, as people in democracies generally do, that government rightly serves objective justice, economic equity, and the mitigation of the harshest tendencies of life.

At some point, Mr. PBrower, you are going to have to adjust your theories for the actual realities on the ground.

The miserable 2x loser of the 2016 election rallied support and money from those rapacious, vulgar, and narcissistic economic elites you describe. One does not obtain over $1 billion and a 2:1 financial advantage to squander without those economic elites.

Mr. Trump's overwhelming support across this land came from places like downriver Detroit, Green Bay, Daytona Beach, and many others. Meanwhile the candidate you supported obtained votes in Scarsdale, Darien, Winnetka and the Hamptons.

Who is the master and who is the serf?

...Unpopular Presidents generally make the defeat of legislators in their Parties much easier. I can imagine Democrats running against Republican incumbents or successors with slogans like "Just like Trump". At this time in 2009 Obama was even more successful than Trump, and he still faced big losses in the House and Senate in 2010. So what will keep President Trump from seeing Republicans lose 'bigly' in 2018? God help us -- or South Korea and perhaps Japan -- should some cities in either country be added to a short list that consists 'only' of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe he might be lucky and cause Americans to rally around him for 'patriotic' reasons, as they did on behalf of Dubya after 9/11.  

What will keep President Trump from seeing Republicans lose 'bigly'? The voters. Including the ones you don't like.

[krazen1211]

Do you mean that Donald Trump is the most wonderful thing to have ever happened to America, having conned people into believing that he was a Man of the People because of his affinity for mass vulgarity, and that only by dedication of all to the enrichment and pampering of economic elites and especially his cronies, then all will be wonderful?

The reality is simple: he pulled one of the oldest cons, the Bait and Switch. We wanted more economic security, and instead we got fear. We will get poverty through lower wages and more corruption. The con-man, whether a dealer in schlock furniture, the leader of an abusive and exploitative cult, the Lothario who marries a woman that he eventually abuses in every possible way, or a political demagogue, always leaves the persons conned in far worse shape and himself able to live well.    

America has plenty of gullible people, and the next time the demagogue could be a leftist who exploits the damage that President Trump will have done.

Yes, Mr. Trump is truly a wonderful President.

Who, exactly, is this mysterious 'we' you keep quoting? Is it the people of La Jolla which voted for the loser of the 2016 election? Or is it perhaps the people of your own state who turned away from the actual poverty inflicted on by the prior Democrat and maybe chose a different path over a miserable loser who refers to the people of your own state as deplorables.

It is strange to me that the party that fakes interest in 'voting rights' thinks so little of the voters. And in this case, in your state, the decisive voters in Michigan were those who voted twice for Barry and got poverty in return.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We could test this theory in the aftermath of Trump's amazing victory in the 2016 elections.

In Georgia, today, there is a candidate who somehow acquired about $8 million to campaign for a pitiful seat in the US House of Representatives. Guess what party he is in, and where the elite money is flowing?

Mr. Pbrower, there is nothing wrong with being rich and elite, and certainly nothing wrong with being the party of the rich and elite. I am curious as to why one would deny it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, yes, one has to imagine, as the damage to your happiness is entirely self-inflicted by your own state of mind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Barry, Slick Bill, and James Carter all had such 'low' approvals at various points in their terms. 2 of those 3 won twice. But, in any case, voters were not provided a viable alternative to Trump in the 2016 election. So he won with such 'low' approvals. There is no guarantee or reason to believe the Democrat party can produce a viable alternative for Trump voters.

It is a well known theory that incumbents are 15-5 in Presidential elections in recent history. And that includes Gerald Ford, who never even once secured a majority of electoral votes. Given that history, any political party would naturally win the Presidency at first chance in order to secure the advantage of incumbency. Everyone other than the author of this piece seems to realize that.

[krazen1211]

"We" means how the electorate effectively voted.

It is Republicans who gerrymander districts to pack some districts so that  a few go 80-20 Democratic and that the rest go 55-45 Republican. If you are in relatively-liberal Lansing, East Lansing, Kalamazoo, or Battle Creek you are represented by people who believe fully in a Corporate State -- someone beholden to corporate lobbyists responsible solely to their paymasters. .  

Understandable complains, although a bit silly in some cases. It is strange to me to blame, say, the shape of the State Senate district of Kalamazoo County on gerrymandering when the district is coterminous with the county.

If this is a reference to President Trump's amazing victory in the great state of Michigan, which is the original subject of this thread, I am quite certain the borders of the state are the same as they have been for the prior 6 Presidential elections. I recall a day when the political left in this country believed in one man one vote principles. Sounds to me like your issue is that relatively-liberal Lansing, East Lansing, Kalamazoo, or Battle Creek folk are simply outnumbered in the state of Michigan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a nation of 330 million one can always find 'lots' of dunces to believe in any dying political cause, such as but not limited to the Presidential aspirations of a miserable 2x wretched loser like Hillary Clinton. This is not a meaningful test of anything. But, if you want to strike fear in the hearts of others, why not attempt to come up with viable political candidates?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. You are getting somewhere!

I am quite certain the physical standard of living of Mr. PBrower has not substantially changed in the 3 months of President Trump's term. Meanwhile, however, the physical standard of living of folks living near Mr. PBrower did decline during the years prior to President Trump's term. Real harms differ from perceived harms.

Having ruled that out we can only conclude that Mr. PBrower's self-inflicted anguish is entirely mental and a product of his poor record of political prognostication and forecasting. Given this poor record as demonstrated below one might revisit one's predictions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, the crux of the issue. The issue that the loser political party has is that there is an opposition, more successful, winning political party! I believe North Korea has no such opposition if you prefer such things.

But if you are correct, I will await the flood of campaign cash into the coffers of President Trump's re-election campaign. Thus far there's nothing there.