Ready for almost 7 more years?

[Ibanez]

Yep, and the deplorable will win again in 2020.

I think that depends on who the Democrats come up with. I think Sanders would've beaten him in 2016. I think that if Obama could've run for a third term he would've blown him out a lot worse than he blew McCain and Romney out.

I don't see an obvious Democrat frontrunner right now. Time will tell. As I've written before nobody would've thought a little more than a year into George H. W. Bush's presidency that somebody named Bill Clinton was going to win the next Presidential election. And Bush was a whole lot more popular at that point of his Presidency than Trump is right now.

I think Trump is a weak candidate. But I think he was a weak candidate last time and won because he was running against an even weaker one. I think if the Democrats can come up with even a decent candidate that candidate will beat Trump. But I don't know if they can.

[JohnStOnge]

I think that if Obama could've run for a third term he would've blown him out a lot worse than he blew McCain and Romney out.

That might be the most pointless thing you've ever said here.

Actually it tells you something. I've noted that some people think Trump winning was a rejection of Obama but, as I've written before, a very credible poll released on election eve that got very close with respect to Clinton's popular vote margin (3 by the poll vs. 2.1 actual) had Obama beating Trump by 12 percentage points if he'd been allowed to run for a third term. You can dismiss that poll based on the myth about the polls being way off I guess. But if you do you're kidding yourself. Or you could think it's still possible that Trump could've won the electoral college while losing the popular vote by double digits. And it IS theoretically possible. But, again, you'd be kidding yourself. He'd have waxed Trump worse than he waxed the other two Republicans he faced.

If Romney had been running against Hillary Clinton as she was in 2016 with the baggage she had Romney would've been President too. In fact that same poll that had Obama beating Trump by double digits had Romney beating Clinton by 10 percentage points in the popular vote if those two had been the 2016 choices. What you had this last time is two bad candidates.

[GannonFan]

That might be the most pointless thing you've ever said here.

Actually it tells you something. I've noted that some people think Trump winning was a rejection of Obama but, as I've written before, a very credible poll released on election eve that got very close with respect to Clinton's popular vote margin (3 by the poll vs. 2.1 actual) had Obama beating Trump by 12 percentage points if he'd been allowed to run for a third term. You can dismiss that poll based on the myth about the polls being way off I guess. But if you do you're kidding yourself. Or you could think it's still possible that Trump could've won the electoral college while losing the popular vote by double digits. And it IS theoretically possible. But, again, you'd be kidding yourself. He'd have waxed Trump worse than he waxed the other two Republicans he faced.

If Romney had been running against Hillary Clinton as she was in 2016 with the baggage she had Romney would've been President too. In fact that same poll that had Obama beating Trump by double digits had Romney beating Clinton by 10 percentage points in the popular vote if those two had been the 2016 choices. What you had this last time is two bad candidates.

Other than George W, almost every single full two term President would've beaten whomever they ran against if they decided to/could run for a third term, at least in modern memory. You move into the cult of personality at that point. Clinton would've beaten W. Reagan would've beaten Dukakis. Eisenhower would've beaten Kennedy. FDR did beat a lot of folks. Wilson would've beaten Harding. Teddy would've beaten Williams Jennings Bryan. See, it's easy to play that game. Doesn't mean much since none of those things either happened or, later in the century, could've happened.

[Ibanez]

That might be the most pointless thing you've ever said here.

Actually it tells you something. I've noted that some people think Trump winning was a rejection of Obama but, as I've written before, a very credible poll released on election eve that got very close with respect to Clinton's popular vote margin (3 by the poll vs. 2.1 actual) had Obama beating Trump by 12 percentage points if he'd been allowed to run for a third term. You can dismiss that poll based on the myth about the polls being way off I guess. But if you do you're kidding yourself. Or you could think it's still possible that Trump could've won the electoral college while losing the popular vote by double digits. And it IS theoretically possible. But, again, you'd be kidding yourself. He'd have waxed Trump worse than he waxed the other two Republicans he faced.

If Romney had been running against Hillary Clinton as she was in 2016 with the baggage she had Romney would've been President too. In fact that same poll that had Obama beating Trump by double digits had Romney beating Clinton by 10 percentage points in the popular vote if those two had been the 2016 choices. What you had this last time is two bad candidates.

That's very interesting.

[houndawg]

The purpose of the electoral college is to ensure that the establishment has the final word.

Given the outcome of the 2016 election and Trump, the ultimate non-establishment candidate being elected, and winning over perhaps the most establishment candidate in our lifetime, I'd say your view of the purpose of the electoral college is wrong, like on the level of JSO wrong.

Your givens forgot that Hillary is the most hated politician in America and the Establishment would vote for Saddam Hussein first.

[JohnStOnge]

Actually it tells you something. I've noted that some people think Trump winning was a rejection of Obama but, as I've written before, a very credible poll released on election eve that got very close with respect to Clinton's popular vote margin (3 by the poll vs. 2.1 actual) had Obama beating Trump by 12 percentage points if he'd been allowed to run for a third term. You can dismiss that poll based on the myth about the polls being way off I guess. But if you do you're kidding yourself. Or you could think it's still possible that Trump could've won the electoral college while losing the popular vote by double digits. And it IS theoretically possible. But, again, you'd be kidding yourself. He'd have waxed Trump worse than he waxed the other two Republicans he faced.

If Romney had been running against Hillary Clinton as she was in 2016 with the baggage she had Romney would've been President too. In fact that same poll that had Obama beating Trump by double digits had Romney beating Clinton by 10 percentage points in the popular vote if those two had been the 2016 choices. What you had this last time is two bad candidates.

Other than George W, almost every single full two term President would've beaten whomever they ran against if they decided to/could run for a third term, at least in modern memory. You move into the cult of personality at that point. Clinton would've beaten W. Reagan would've beaten Dukakis. Eisenhower would've beaten Kennedy. FDR did beat a lot of folks. Wilson would've beaten Harding. Teddy would've beaten Williams Jennings Bryan. See, it's easy to play that game. Doesn't mean much since none of those things either happened or, later in the century, could've happened.

I think it's more than cult of personality. Things were perceived as going well during Reagan And Clinton, for instance.

The point is that, to the extent that people think Trump's win was a rejection of Obama, that thinking is false. By the flipping Republican-biased Rasmussen poll that came out on November 9, 2016 (which means the polling ended on Election day) Obama was up in the job Approval/Disapproval rates by 56% to 43%. Oh sure, the people that never liked Obama mostly voted for Trump. But the country would've elected Obama again if it would have had the option just like it would have elected Reagan or Clinton again if it had had the option. The majority of the people were satisfied with Obama at the time.

As you said I think we'd all bet that G.W. Bush would NOT have won again had he been able to run and had to go against Obama. Things weren't going well at the end of his Presidency.

[JohnStOnge]

Actually it tells you something. I've noted that some people think Trump winning was a rejection of Obama but, as I've written before, a very credible poll released on election eve that got very close with respect to Clinton's popular vote margin (3 by the poll vs. 2.1 actual) had Obama beating Trump by 12 percentage points if he'd been allowed to run for a third term. You can dismiss that poll based on the myth about the polls being way off I guess. But if you do you're kidding yourself. Or you could think it's still possible that Trump could've won the electoral college while losing the popular vote by double digits. And it IS theoretically possible. But, again, you'd be kidding yourself. He'd have waxed Trump worse than he waxed the other two Republicans he faced.

If Romney had been running against Hillary Clinton as she was in 2016 with the baggage she had Romney would've been President too. In fact that same poll that had Obama beating Trump by double digits had Romney beating Clinton by 10 percentage points in the popular vote if those two had been the 2016 choices. What you had this last time is two bad candidates.

That's very interesting.

I think another interesting aspect of that poll is what it says about just how much of a problem Hillary Clinton had. When the people who were polled were asked who they'd vote for between HIllary and Trump it was 46% Hillary and 43% Trump. When the same people were asked who they'd vote for if Obama could run again and it was Obama vs. Trump it was 53% Obama and 41% Trump.

Notice what happened there. Most of the change was due to the Democrat in the matchup gaining support rather than the Republican losing support. Trump's number only went down by 2 percentage points. But if the Democrat were Obama the Democrat's support when up by 7 percentage points.

BTW I'll take this opportunity to comment on the fact that 46% Clinton and 43% Trump are lower than either candidate actually got. The actuals were 48.2% to 46.1%. But I think that's not unusual. When there is a poll people can say something like "not sure" or "don't want to tell." In the Seltzer poll, when people were asked about Clinton and Trump 8% did that and when they were asked about Obama vs. Trump 6% did that. In an actual election there isn't any "not sure" or "don't want to tell." The votes are what they are. So you should pretty much expect that if a poll is a good one it is more likely than not that both major candidates will receive somewhat higher percentages of the actual vote than the percentages indicated in the poll.

[JohnStOnge]

Well, we'll see how long it takes for Democrats to exploit this one:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... idual.html

Watch video.

You all know i do believe there are differences in IQ between what we call racial group and that I think they are in part due to genetics. But for a politician to say something like that is not smart. It's kind of like when the golfer said something about Tiger Woods eating fried chicken only worse. I doubt that Trump even realizes what he may have stepped into in the long run by saying something like that about a Black politician.

[kalm]

Well, we'll see how long it takes for Democrats to exploit this one:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... idual.html

Watch video.

You all know i do believe there are differences in IQ between what we call racial group and that I think they are in part due to genetics. But for a politician to say something like that is not smart. It's kind of like when the golfer said something about Tiger Woods eating fried chicken only worse. I doubt that Trump even realizes what he may have stepped into in the long run by saying something like that about a Black politician.

1) It's fun to see a word smith like Trump talk about someone else's IQ

2) Speaking of IQ, That movie may have been Meg Ryan's best innocent-hot role.