CBS News Reports: Sanders starts 2020 in strong position in Iowa and New Hampshire

Avatar

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

49 Responses

  1. Avatar Andrew Donaldson
    Ignored
    says:

    Sanders tied with Biden in Iowa, traditionally more left-leaning for the party. Is not a sign of strength. Biden shouldn’t be anywhere near winning IA.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Andrew Donaldson
      Ignored
      says:

      I realize that I don’t remember whether Clinton or Obama won Iowa.

      I remember Kerry winning Iowa in 2004 very clearly and immediately being crowned The Frontrunner instead of Howard Dean (3rd).

      As such, I’m not sure how long this tradition goes back and whether it stopped at some point.

      (Huh. It was Obama. 37% to 29%.)Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Iowa was necessary for Obama because it convinced black voters in more diverse states that white people were willing to vote for a black guy from Chicago.

        Old whitish* guy from Vermont/Brooklyn (Verlyn? Brookmont?) is not sending the same signal.

        *However potentially changed because Sanders is Jewish.Report

      • Avatar Andrew Donaldson in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        The two running theories on Iowa is 1) it will build momentum for rest of campaign and/or 2) it can let an also ran jump to the top of the leaderboard. Both are false hopes IMO. As I laid out in detail here the Iowa caucuses are going to be right after the Super Bowl, the day before the State of the Union, and the NH debate will be right after with the primary in that state the following Tuesday. If Iowa gets 8-12 hours of the news cycle it will be about all the attention it is going to get. Why I say if Biden is close to the top of very white and much more to the left Iowa, that’s a horrible sign for anyone wanting someone other than Biden. The example used is Obama winning and going on to victory, two problems there is there is no Obama in this race, and Obama’s momentum actually tunred in South Carolina, a state Joe Biden is currently up by 20 in and none of the other three top contenders have been able to show any significant inroads with the minority voters that will decided that race.Report

  2. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t know if Senator from Vermont ahead in New Hampshire is exactly a surprise.

    It would also be interesting to see the methodology and poll composition that lead to these results. The thing about Sanders is that he does really well with under-35 or under-40 voters and not so well with everyone else. I would say that he and Warren have somewhat similar core bases. My anecdotal and highly unscientific observations tell me that Warren’s core base comes from college-educated or about white liberals who might have experienced some setbacks because of the Great Recession but were not completely destroyed by it. However, they see enough is wrong with the economy or status quo that they want reform even if comfortable themselves.

    Sanders also has a core base of largely college-educated voters. Unlike Warren supporters though, these people were truly fucked over by the Great Recession if not before. In general the Sanders supporters I know seemingly always had post-college employment be sporadic and not that great. Keep in mind that most of the people I know finished college between 1999-2005. This is why they hate Buttigieg with a passion. He reminds the of all the people from college with great careers. Warren might get a bit of this hate too (along with sexism).

    Now is Sanders going to expand beyond his core base. Does this poll show that? I’m not sure.

    What this does remind me of is the open field in 2004 which I recall had Kerry in a precarious spot going into Iowa and he ended up getting the nomination quite easily. Every candidate has had their moment in the sun. This might be Sanders’ moment. Good for him that it is closer to the primaries. But underlying all these moments in the sun is the fact that Biden is still the clear winner in every state not called New Hampshire and Iowa.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      Sander’s is a niche candidate.

      Warren tried to be a general candidate but has devolved to being a niche candidate.

      Buttigeig is a niche candidate.

      Biden was a general candidate but seems intent on making himself a niche candidate.

      Klobuchar is and remains a general candidate, but because she isn’t niche she can’t get going.

      The Dem’s problems are legion.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Stillwater
        Ignored
        says:

        “DEMS in Disarray!!!!”

        I disagree with this take strongly but it seems impossible to shake from middle-aged white guys (who seem to make up the bulk of OT commentators). Democrats did very well in every single post-2016 election. 2018 of course was the House wave along with winning numerous governor races and flipping several state legislatures. 2019 flipped Viriginia’s state legislature quite easily and saw Democrats win big in local county/town races for areas that were Republican strongholds.

        So a lot of suburban voters are starting to be really turned off by the GOP and the GOP is becoming more rural and for smaller populations. Yet I somehow think that the Democrats could win in 2020, 2022, 2024, etc and it would still be “DEMS in disarray!!!!” for middle-aged white guys no matter what. How do these thoughts get lodged in the brain? Is it just gob-smacked disbelief at a coalition that can win without middle-aged white guys (college-educated or not) being the center of things?

        I disagree with your stance on Warren. I always thought of her as a niche candidate (one that I supported for FWIW) but I am in the niche. College-educated professional, significantly liberal, with a reformist bent. Previous occupiers of this niche were Zephyr Teachout and Cynthia Nixon who got impressive pluralities in the NYC Democratic primaries and dominated wealthier sections of New York City and the surrounding suburbs but still lost to Cuomo because he dominated among minorities and less-credentialed voters.

        Biden is still a general election candidate.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          I disagree with this take strongly but it seems impossible to shake from middle-aged white guys

          Or anyone who’s paying attention. “Hillary wasn’t anointed. She was just such a *perfect* candidate that other Dems didn’t announce because they knew they couldn’t beat her.”Report

        • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          Biden is still a general election candidate.

          Maybe. He’s having to tack really hard to his left to get the nod.

          How do these thoughts get lodged in the brain?

          Picking someone who can lose to Trump has a lot to do with it.

          Treating people who will probably lose to Trump as serious candidates also has a lot to do with it.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            Maybe. He’s having to tack really hard to his left to get the nod.

            No, if anything he’s tacking/has tacked to the right.Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            There’s not a single candidate in America, of any party who can’t lose to Trump.

            There are a lot of candidates who poll above him, but none by landslide margins.

            There never was a candidate, either in 2016 or now, who could beat Trump easily.

            I think people need to grasp that Trump really and truly represents exactly what a plurality of Americans want.

            Exactly as he is. His base of voters aren’t holding their nose, they aren’t reluctantly picking him as the least bad, hoping for some unicorn centrist.

            No, the Republican Party voter really, really likes Trump, and will accept nothing else.

            I don’t have some magic snake charming spell that can seduce them into voting for decency. And I think it is childish to pretend that anyone else does either.

            But we can at least dispel with the notion that 2016 was some aberration or fluke.Report

            • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Trump’s base is not the entire GOP any more than a Bernie nomination would mean all Dems are Socialists.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Trump’s approval is 90% within the GOP.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                And that means what exactly? That the GOP doesn’t virtue signal that they’re good Democrats and throw Trump out of office when he opens his foul mouth?

                Trump has come through with jobs, judges, economic growth, stopping the gun grabers, opposing illegal immigration, and so forth. He’s paid attention to his collalition, mostly kept his promises, and by most yardsticks done a reasonable job by conservative GOP standards…

                …if we give him a pass for Twitter, his sex life, his empire, his personality, his love of drama, and his constant spinning up the Dems. Subtract the “he’s Trump” part and there’s a lot for the GOP to like.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                “It means what, exactly?”

                It means…The Republican Party voter really, really likes Trump, and will accept nothing else.

                It means…His base of voters aren’t holding their nose, they aren’t reluctantly picking him as the least bad, hoping for some unicorn centrist.

                It means… we can at least dispel with the notion that 2016 was some aberration or fluke.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              I think people need to grasp that Trump really and truly represents exactly what a plurality of Americans want.

              Exactly this. Trump is an amoral, corrupt con-man who’s cheated the system to gain whatever status he has. Which is exactly how most Americans, if given the opportunity, would conduct their personal lives.

              I want to note that Dark, for all his bluster about not being a fan of Donald Trump, has said on this site that he’d vote for “command-control” Trump over Warren on the premise that her “socialist” policies would hurt the economy. lol.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I want to note that Dark, for all his bluster about not being a fan of Donald Trump, has said on this site that he’d vote for “command-control” Trump over Warren on the premise that her “socialist” policies would hurt the economy.

                Yes. You’d be giving me a choice between one man’s corruption which can’t possibly be duplicated (and his anti-immigrant/anti-free-trade stands) or accepting policies which are mind numbingly destructive.

                That’s a “which is the lesser evil” choice but it’s not a hard one.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Motivated reasoning is a bitch, yeah?

                Trump’s corruption is *currently* running rampant through every government institution but also our foreign policy, our national character, and even how we raise our kids. 🙂Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Motivated reasoning is a bitch, yeah?

                You’re talking to someone who didn’t vote for him the first time. By that measurement I’m in the middle. Giving someone the nod who is going to push some of the middle to Trump should be at least a little bit concerning.

                Trump’s corruption is *currently* running rampant through every government institution but also our foreign policy, our national character, and even how we raise our kids. 🙂

                You disliking a policy doesn’t make it “corrupt”. What are you talking about?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                You disliking a policy doesn’t make it “corrupt”.

                Dark, Trump is currently impeached for extorting Ukraine for personal political favors; his cabinet is filled with retired officials who resigned due to corruption (and there are more to come); his campaign was filled with people currently serving jail time for corruption; his entire history as a businessman is filled with mob money funding real estate shell games for his personal benefit.

                None of this is in dispute.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Evan MacMullen, Mitt Romney, Bill Weld on the GOP side and , Bennet, Hickenlooper, Swallwell, and half a dozen other moderate centrists on the Democratic side threw their hat in the ring, and none drew even a fraction of Trump voters.

                Biden is the perfect ideal what pundit claim they want in a “moderate centrist” with Midwestern appeal, and yet the GOP base hates him.

                This zombie idea that somehow there is a massive latent untapped well of moderate centrist crossover Tip& Ronnnie voters who are just waiting for the right white male to come along is total nonsense, but Beltway pundits never tire of spinning it.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I still can’t figure out why the left keeps calling Trump corrupt when he’s probably the least corrupt President since Carter or Reagan. Clinton and Obama entered politics poor and ended their political careers with millions coming out of their ears.

                Trump entered politics extremely rich and is becoming less rich the longer he’s at it.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                “How could a corrupt person ever go broke?”Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                I still can’t figure out why the left keeps calling Trump corrupt…

                Trump has issues with “corruption” because of his empire and emoluments. It’s the same as HRC’s “charity” except on steroids.

                His children are now allowed to buy land for hotels in China, is that the Chinese seeking favor? Some gov activity happens in one of his hotels, is that misuse of gov funds? He rents something for more than the market value, and it’s impossible to know the market value and impossible to track this given the complexity of his empire.

                Trump’s empire breaks the system. It can’t be seperated from him. It’s imposible to evaluate and given the known level of ethics of the people involved, we can pretty much assume (but not prove) that there’s corruption there.

                To be fair it also has an economic reality to it that HRC’s “Charity” didn’t, it was presented to Congress and the American people for evaluation and he got a pass for it, so it’s grandfathered in.

                Which doesn’t change that it breaks the system.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                FFS…trump had to pay 2 million bucks for taking charity money and using it for himself. This was like a month ago.

                Also this, of course he is corrupt but he got elected so its peachy keen has to be the weakest shit. He’s corrupt and benefiting from his office. That’s wrong. Full stop.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                FFS…trump had to pay 2 million bucks for taking charity money and using it for himself. This was like a month ago.

                Quote-posting for emphasis.

                Trump is obviously, blatantly, undeniably corrupt.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Trump is obviously, blatantly, undeniably corrupt.

                Sure. We haven’t seen anyone like him since HRC.

                trump had to pay 2 million bucks for taking charity money and using it for himself.

                President Donald Trump was ordered by a New York judge to pay $2 million in restitution after he admitted to using his charitable foundation to raise money for political purposes during the 2016 campaign.

                The order handed down Thursday by New York State Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla largely resolves a lawsuit filed by the New York attorney general’s office over violations of the state’s nonprofit laws.

                The restitution is based on New York’s claim that the Trump Foundation held a televised fundraiser in Iowa to raise money that was ultimately distributed by the campaign for political purposes, instead of by the charity.

                https://fortune.com/2019/11/07/trump-foundation-charity-money-politics-lawsuit/

                So he didn’t do anywhere near the great job the Clintons did with their charity. Lower quality lawyers presumably.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Tactic 1A: Trump caught being epicly corrupt….start screaming clinton!!! A classic. Combine with tactic 1B: always attack…attack ….attack. You got the trumpian bs style down pat.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Every conservative defense of Trump involves either Obama or Hillary. No free standing defense is possible apparently.

                I got in a discussion with Michael Brandon Dougherty a while back – smart guy, someone conservatives at this site recommend as a reasonable person -and the defense of Trump’s actions invariably went back to Hillary. “Well Hillary did this thing {she didn’t actually do}!” It’s the most insane collective delusion.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                “Well Hillary did this thing {she didn’t actually do}!” It’s the most insane collective delusion.

                There is a ton of random paranoid crap out there. I have a friend who (insanely) maintains the Clintons have their own personal hit team. This doesn’t change that yes, she really has done a number of deeply corrupt things like selling pardons.

                When someone tries to argue that HRC has her own murder team I try to walk them through how far off the edge of the world that is and why. When someone tries to argue that she didn’t really sell pardons, or any of her other ethical adventures didn’t happen, I also have to point that that these were well researched and we have a good understanding of what happened.

                Both of those sides are seriously delusional. HRC was the most openly corrupt politician we had recently until Trump came along, and it’s possible he still hasn’t passed her (although since he has no bottom I’m sure he will).Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Dark, Trump was forced by a court of law to pay 2 million US dollars to charity over a scam he ran only a couple months ago.

                Clinton has *never* been convicted or reliably accused of corruption in 25 years of the GOP and conservatives examining her every move.

                You remind me of my Father in Law, who spouts Rush Limbaugh/Alex Jones/Sean Hannity talking points as if they were actual fact.

                You’re too smart to be such a stupid fucking fool, but that’s where we are as a country yo.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                If you can prove he’s making money, taking bribes would be good, then by all means, make it an issue.

                What we’ve got at the moment is stuff that would be ignored if a Dem were in the office or even ignored-for-Trump if he weren’t in office.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Great so all his taxes and financials should be released immediately. Glad we agree on that, right?

                Secondly and with all due respect that is a dump truck full of horse crap. You have admitted he broke the system and nothing like this situation with his international business dealings had occurred. So this is not something that would be excused nor has it ever happened. Patents in china for ivanka, his company partnering with Chinese businesses to build buildings in indonesia, kush with a security clearance working with the suadis and his fam doing business in our name around the world.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Great so all his taxes and financials should be released immediately. Glad we agree on that, right?

                Are we giving the gov the ability to do this to everyone or is it just members of Team Red you don’t like? And we’re totally sure this new ability won’t be abused… why?

                You have admitted he broke the system and nothing like this situation with his international business dealings had occurred.

                Yes.

                The real question is what to do about it now. Do we interpret all international Trump Empire activities in the context of his political power and pretend they couldn’t have happened without him being President? Trump built stuff overseas before he was President. It’s also really weird that Trump’s Empire engaging in “normal” activity for it would be illegal now that he’s President while HRC’s charity would be legal even though it needed to fold its international activities the moment she lost political power.

                The (unfortunately) fair answer is absent impossible to collect proof we need to assume the economic activity is non-corrupt. Given the ethics of the people involved I find that unlikely but my “belief” isn’t “provable in a court of law”. To be fair this is how we end up needing to accept that Blackwater and the Saudis were giving to charity because of humanitarian reasons and not because of some political shakedown. Or needing to accept HRC simply “beat the lottery level odds” when she walked into a trading office which pled guilty for shifting trades to politically favored people and walked out with a $100k “profit” no matter how insane those fiscal moves would have been in her situation.

                Maybe we put some laws in place going forward that deal with this, but the odds of having another Billionaire Real Estate Developer Family Empire being President seem slight enough that it will probably never happen again. Corner cases make bad law.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                This is going to be a long year if this is the highest quality crap you have. Prez candidates have been releasing their tax info for several cycles. Only his trumpness didn’t. So this should be a basic thing ever prez candidate does. The D’s have. Heck Supreme s, VEEP’s and Secretary level candidates at the least should all have to release their financial records.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Prez candidates have been releasing their tax info for several cycles.

                Up until Romney released his and it was used against him. At the time I predicted we were losing this as a tool to evaluate people. If Romney can’t pass the ethical standard then the political cost for releasing them is a lot higher than not releasing them.

                So this should be a basic thing ever prez candidate does. Heck Supreme s, VEEP’s and Secretary level candidates at the least should all have to release their financial records.

                I’m not opposed but laws aren’t retroactive so it won’t help against Trump.

                If the purpose of this is good governance, then I’d also suggest “charity” reform and hiring-of-relatives(*) reform, both of which are more needed than publication of tax records. However my expectation is this is more about “resist” than good governance so I doubt anything happens. For example NY’s effort to create a law which did this was carefully written to only apply to Trump.

                (*) In the news today Chelsea Clinton has “earned” 9 million dollars since 2011 by sitting on a corporate board. Apparently being being a public health teacher also means she’s an expert on Internet companies… although I find zero reviews from students on her classes so maybe I’m wrong to think she actually teaches anything at her teaching “job”.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                What we’ve got at the moment is stuff that would be ignored if a Dem were in the office

                Except there’s no instance of this actually occurring when a Democrat was in office. there’s a colloquial term for this sort of reasoning Dark. “Bullshit”.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                If you can prove he’s making money, taking bribes would be good, then by all means, make it an issue.

                Apart from his effort to steal charity money (or pay off porn stars) he extorted Ukraine by withholding congressionally authorized aid for personal political gain.

                More to your narrow point, he tried to have the G-7 summit at Maralago. He attempted to do that, tried to establish that as official US policy, without any review process.

                Christ Dark, the man is 100% charlatan. That you can’t see it doesn’t mean he isn’t corrupt, it just means he’s good at conning you.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Except there’s no instance of this actually occurring when a Democrat was in office.

                Selling pardons. Travelgate (where HRC came within a sniff of perjury charges). Cattle Futures (where the office later pled guilty to what she was accused of). Bill being stripped of his law license. “Humanitarian” companies such as Blackwater and Russian mineral companies and the Saudis giving money to their charity… which stopped the second they lost power. Meeting with the AG on the tarmac a few hours before the AG’s decision on whether HRC had a political future.

                Yep. Nothing to see there. This is the level of ethics we expect from Team Blue. It’d only be an issue if it were a Republican.

                Clinton has *never* been convicted or reliably accused of corruption in 25 years of the GOP and conservatives examining her every move.

                If you’re wondering why I think you don’t really give a damn about political corruption, this is it. People as far to the Left as Jimmy Carter have pointed out there’s clearly a link between the money the Clintons are given and their political acts.

                I don’t see how we can give a pass to the Clintons for their various issues without also doing the same for Trump. They are the same.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                he extorted Ukraine by withholding congressionally authorized aid for personal political gain.

                And do you consider this more corrupt or less corrupt than selling pardons?

                More to your narrow point, he tried to have the G-7 summit at Maralago. He attempted to do that, tried to establish that as official US policy, without any review process.

                Yes.

                That you can’t see it doesn’t mean he isn’t corrupt, it just means he’s good at conning you.

                Oh I see it very clearly. The problem is if we use the Clinton level of ethical proof required before we care, then we have to ignore it. For example for the Maralago he’s an expert in hotels and hosting large events was just recommending a good one. For the Ukraine he was simply looking into Team Blue corruption, there was no Quid Pro Quo, and extra governmental politics in the Ukraine is expected to be rough. I expect this kind of assuming good intentions is kindergarten level nonsense, but it’s at least treating both sides with consistentancy.

                But hey, by all means argue that renting hotel space is seriously corrupting while selling pardons is not.Report

            • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              This is a much better version of what I am trying to say. It is not an absolute guarantee that Trump will lose in 2020 but the idea that Democrats will remain divided after a nominee is picked is simply assuming facts not in evidence.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                It is not an absolute guarantee that Trump will lose in 2020

                Hardly. In fact, the idea among Dems that he’ll lose when there’s every indication that he’ll win is what’s so troubling.

                Remember, Saul, the Presidency is determined by the electoral college and not the popular vote.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, this is why on some level I’d like to see a Warren or Burnie run.

                If they’re going to lose, I’d rather have the lesson be learned that it was because they were too far to the left.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                “on some level”Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes. I’d really prefer that the Dems figure out that Warren and Burnie are members of the loony left and shouldn’t be treated as serious choices.

                However if they can’t figure that out on their own, and if they’re going to lose no matter what they do (Trump is VERY strong), then this would be a good chance for them to face some of those demons with little risk.

                They go with Bernie and hand Trump a massive win, even of the popular vote. The Dems figuring out the rest of the country isn’t going to go along with burning down the economy would be a really good thing.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes. I’d really prefer that the Dems figure out that Warren and Burnie are members of the loony left and shouldn’t be treated as serious choices.

                Well …. about that….

                Bernie and Warren hold policy positions widely favored by the voting bases of both parties, primarily increased taxes on the wealthy with a redistributive effect accruing to middle and lower economic class folks. Trump ran on raising taxes for the wealthy, you might recall. It was part of his populist message. People liked it.

                You don’t like it. And that’s fine. You didn’t vote for Trump anyway, last time…

                Add: Michael Seigal (I think?) wrote a post here at the OT about negative partisanship and how the exact same policy will be supported/opposed depending on which party proposes it. This is that.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Calling those positions an increase of taxes is like calling an animal a mammal and then obfuscating the difference between a mouse and an elephant.

                Michael Seigal (I think?) wrote a post here at the OT about negative partisanship and how the exact same policy will be supported/opposed depending on which party proposes it. This is that.

                Nonsense. If the GOP decides the next Amazon needs to be created in a different country and anyone with wealth over a certain level needs to be forced to leave the country then I will leave the party.

                These are ugly, insane policies no matter who is proposing them. They make Trump’s trade war look like a good idea.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                Is there any reason to believe that the Democrats remained divided in 2016?Report

  3. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The Hill breaks it down for us:

    Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *