On Friday, Liz and I went to a Karaoke bar and I asked the question “Who are you for in the presidential election?”
On Saturday, Liz and I went to a different Karaoke bar and I asked the same question to 31 different people.
As with Friday night, I received some interesting comments. Here are the results from Saturday.
- Donald Trump: 11
- Bernie Sanders: 8
- Will not vote: 5
- Ted Cruz: 3
- Hillary Clinton: 2
- Refuse to answer: 2
I did not ask any of the same people I asked on Friday. Once again, the mix of people was about 50-50 men and women.
The age demographic was slightly different. On Friday it was mid-30s to mid 60s, on Saturday it was mid-20s to mid-60s.
Those under the aged of 30 were for Sanders.
Trump Conversations
Once again it was the women who were the strongest Trump supporters. I did not ask why but I listened to reasons if people provided them.
Consider the response of a mother-daughter pair sitting at the bar. The daughter is age 25, and for Sanders. She volunteered “my mother is strongly for Trump”.
The mother chimed in with “This country desperately needs Trump. We need to run the country like a business.”
Hillary Conversations
In my Friday poll, Hillary received no votes. On Saturday, Hillary received 2 votes, both from men.
The strong comments against someone, when offered, were generally against Hillary. Strong comments for someone, were generally for Trump.
Sanders Conversations
The person I spent the most time with was a young man, age 24. Let’s call him Robert as I don’t remember. Robert is a statistics major at Illinois State University, and a strong Sanders supporter. His father was for Trump.
He asked what I was doing and why, then commented that my survey was not valid because of demographics.
I told him that I was well aware of that. “There are no blacks, no Hispanics, and bar hoppers in general are not a diverse group,” I replied.
We discussed taxpayer-sponsored free education. I railed against it, and was surprised by his response.
Robert is also against the idea, practically stating my own words back at me. As I have stated many times before: If everyone has a PhD, then PhDs will be driving trucks and collecting garbage.
Synopsis
Although Karaoke bars in McHenry County, Illinois do not provide a representative sample, the strength for Trump surprised me.
Even more surprising was the lack of support for Hillary, especially by women. Not a single woman was for Hillary. And the strongest Trump supporters were women.
I think this disproves the notion that Trump will get hammered by women. Some Republicans may not like Trump, but how many will switch to Hillary?
Comment from Mish Reader
A reader commented on my blog “If Trump is the nominee, the GOP will lose the election. I cannot imagine any universe that exists where I would cast a vote for him.”
I responded “Perhaps if you ask around you will find other people differ dramatically”.
Another reader commented on a statement I made about the black vote.
This person commented “You are wrong about the Black vote. I live in North Carolina. I also work in a very busy retail establishment. From time to time I ask people who they like for president. Every single black person has said that they will vote for Trump.”
Outside the Box
People view these things largely from their own point of view. Simply by asking around, one can find a clear ground swell of “I am fed up!” votes.
Yet, as Robert commented, “if I took the same bar poll in Texas, the results would have been dramatically different.”
Indeed! But here’s the key point (and question): “Trump can win Texas, but can Cruz win Illinois, or New Jersey?”
Nominating an Evangelical war-monger with limited appeal outside the evangelicals and war-mongers is not a winning strategy.
For the results of my first poll, please see Mish’s Informal Bar Poll: “Who are you for in the presidential election?”
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Cruz is a completely un-electable nut-case.
He also happens to be the only remaining Republican candidate who Hillary Clinton has a good chance at beating.
The Clintons and their cronies on Wall St and in the Military Industrial Complex want Cruz to be the Republican nominee for this reason.
This thing with Cruz greedily gobbling up an unelected bunch of delegates in Colorado has disgusted me. I was not for Cruz anyway but could have been had he gotten the nomination legally. Now even if legally I can not.
Trump whether write in or tick box. Any pretenders will go down in spectacular flames. They will be run out of town on a rail.
Cry Baby-Trump is the un-electable nut-case. You’ll see when Cruz (who is by far the most intelligent candidate in the race) gets elected. Cry-Baby-Trump will not get the 1,237 delegates. Cry-Baby-Trump will lose the nomination on the 2nd or 3rd vote at the convention and then Cry-Baby-Trump and his cry baby supporters will cry, cry cry about how unfair reality is. How to play this for financial gain? Go long Kleenex (ticker KLX).
Ted Cruz – The whore chasing fake Goldman Sachs Evangelist, annointed by Glen Beck.
Enjoy, because this is America’s last election.
Trump is the least of your problems. What’s coming will make you get on your knees and wish all you had to deal with was Trump.
Hillary is more intelligent than Cruz…and both these “intelligent” characters are basically sociopaths. Sometimes SmART means people know how to take care of themselves
Kasich is another big banker-military industrial complex stooge. He is also supported by George Soros who donated $250,000.00 to his campaign and supplied all those BLM protesters to make Trump look bad. Kasich Down the Garbage Disposal 2016.
Greg, you are so informed! I suppose you know that, unlike the bogus Trump lies about Cruz infidelity, your beloved Cryin’ Trump admits to cheating on his wife. I guess the lies about Cruz are funny but the truth about Trump, not so much, eh? Unbelievable that so many of you want a President that financed Harry Reid, Pelosi and Clinton. Too bad he’s gonna lose.
“Greg, you are so informed! I suppose you know that, unlike the bogus Trump lies about Cruz infidelity…”
So why Did Carly Fiorina run flack for Cruz when he was questioned about it?
This would be funny if it weren’t so stupid. Rubio was the one behind the infidelity about Cruz. We still don’t know if its true or not. This is an issue that only matters for Cruz. When you come off as a righteous religious zealot, expect everyone to dig into everywhere you’ve been and everything you’ve done. Cruz would be electable if he were liked by his own party and if he wasn’t such a nut on liberty and freedom but in favor of restricting the rights of anyone that doesn’t agree with him. Cruz is the modern day Hitler from a belief perspective.
“Regression” to the mean is very misunderstood in the United States. I think the driving force behind it though is collectivism and forced equality. For an example, if everyone has a degree – and has the same level of being “degreed”, then the government can step in and tell companies they have to pay equal wages since everyone is equal by education. We might say to the government, “But not all our employees get the same result? That’s why we don’t pay equally.”
The government has shown through bailouts though that it doesn’t care about results. We live in the world of “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.” I think this is finally becoming obvious to some, but I suspect for the doubters, it will really be clear over the next ten years that this is the ultimate goal.
Always remember that the Soviet Union at one point had more educated people than the United States. And we still won the Cold War (thanks capitalism!).
“We” didn’t “win” the cold war. The Soviets lost it. And “we” were/are not practicing “Capitalism”. They were just a bit ahead of us down the road to socialism. Of course, by now we have largely caught up. Kind of like Lincoln in the War Between the States. He didn’t so much free slaves, as simply grow the Federal Government to the point where everyone were equal again. All slaves.
Trump has a 69% disapproval rating in scientifically valid polls. Your sample is bizarrely unrepresentative of America.
Oh great another liberal quoting “science”. Do you believe in globull warming too?
Shamerock if you want your opinions to be seriously considered you need to back them up with sources, that is, links.
If someone asked me if I like The Donald as a person I would answer “No”.
If they asked me who I will vote for, I would say “Trump”. See how easy it is to manipulate poll results?
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore”. There are only 2 anti-establishment candidates and The Bern is anti-American.
“Shamerock if you want your opinions to be seriously considered you need to back them up with sources, that is, links.”
You didn’t do that yourself, CJ. You only said ‘has a 69% disapproval rating in scientifically valid polls’ without naming any such polls, much less how they collected their data.
I didn’t think it would be too hard to google “Trump favorable rating”.
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/NEWMarch-2016-AP-GfK-Poll-FINAL_Clinton.pdf
FAV1. For each of the following individuals, please select if you have a favorable or unfavorable
impression of that person. If you don’t know enough about the person to have an opinion,
you can say that too. (Summary table) – some items held for future release.
total favorable | very | somewhat | total unfavorable | somewhat | very | dont know | refused
Ted Cruz 26 5 21 59 27 32 14 1
Hillary Clinton 40 17 23 55 17 38 4 1
John Kasich 34 8 26 31 18 12 34 2
Donald Trump 26 11 15 69 13 56 4 1
Bernie Sanders 48 19 29 39 19 20 12 1
You seem confused, Woot. I didn’t say anything that would need back-up.
As for Shamerock’s poll, it was not hard to google, but not as easy as supplying a link.
So it is an arm of the MSM. We already know very well what the MSM thinks of Trump. That’s one of the reason’s I like him!
Scientific as in bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz
I am in no position to argue statistical polls, except….every pundit, every poll initially showed Trump couldn’t win ANY state, yet he is leading in delegate votes. He has done so in the face of total opposition by his own party machine. We watch as the RNC point blank tells us that we should vote for Cruz here and anyone else there for one and only one reason….to deprive trump of delegates….no preferred candiate, only the exclusion of Trump. In states where Trump has won large numbers of delegates, Cruz and the RNC are courting delegates to vote AGAINST Trump on second or third votes. There is NOTHING democratic about this. Our nominee will be selected by delegates that few if any of us have actually voted for. Listening to Levin on the radio tonight, he is continually justifying the Colorado delegate choice as legitimate as they followed their own rules…like that makes it OK. Like a caucus comprised of a very small minority of voters is somehow legitimate because they followed the Republican committee rules, or that as the rules allow the manipulation and coercion of delegates to vote for who THEY want, rather than the constituency they CLAIM to represent. The primary system is corrupt as it is designed to maintain control of the party, NOT the voters.
I voted for Cruz in the Texas primary and not been a big Trump guy, but I HATE this obvious corruption. I have for years believed or assumed that the primary system was representing the will of the people, and it has taken till now for the scales to fall from my eyes. I fear it will only become more blatant as we near and endure the actual convention.
If this goes the way I think it’s going, I want to see the names of every delegate that votes in the republican convention…and their votes, made PUBLIC. THEY are acting as OUR representatives and deserve NO anonymity. Let us watch and see how these individuals are rewarded as the result of THEIR candidate’s success (thanks to them). Lets have a little transparency and accountability in the “process” so legitimate and above board.
All right then! Warm up the tar, and go collect some feathers.
Politics is so tribal, so emotional, that individuals literally believe their worldview is the only valid one and anyone who disagrees with them is insane. And this is the basis for government in 2016.
DOCILITY: The awareness of one’s weakness & ignorance combined with a desire to know the truth.
TOTALITARIAN: The absolute belief in a particular ideological explanation, and all encompassing plan for life.
Twentieth Century economics & politics tend toward totalitarian solutions. Isms- Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Globalism, Nazism, Fascism all enjoy the embrace of fanatical true believers- which ever creed believed in, that belief was absolute. For such men, the world is their will, and they will not waiver. In other words, they are not docile.
Seems like your rant stopped half way through, Brett. What is the other side of your -isms? I can only think of anarchism but maybe you have something else in mind? For me the one which you mentioned which allows the most personal freedom ( I think you support that?) is capitalism.
In 1929 we needed a businessman so we elected one, Hoover, and we got a Great Depression. In 1980 we needed a businessman, a Harvard MBA, we got Bush, and the Great Recession. Why anyone thinks that running a business is anything like running a government amazes me. There is no relationship in having great ability as a businessman translating into a politician who can run a government. Further, Trump has shown he would be a dangerous player on the world stage. Cruz is a religious bigot and Christian Dominionist. Both are very poor and dangerous choices.
Does Trump even have any kind of track record “running a business?” Owning some towers on Manhattan when the Fed hands every Manhattanite a billion to go by condos with, isn’t really evidence of “running” anything. Neither is being a loud clown on a TV show. His Casino ventures, a business even illiterate guidos “living” in the trunk of Town Cars, have proven able to be good at, have pretty much all gone down the drain.
But like you say, I doubt it matters. Trump has charisma. Like Reagan. Who was literally senile (saved the world from nuclear armageddon by forgetting where the nuke button was…), and to this day remains a legend in the Republican party. And even amongst many Democrats.
Wayne you are confused. In 1980 we got: Reagan who pulled us out of the Carter Recession. Bush The First came along in 1988 (inaugurated in ’89) who had a minor recession in the early ’90’s which he said was not a problem. But Slick Willy the better politician said “It’s the economy” and then took the credit when, in fact, the little economic setback in the early 90’s was as Bush the First said: “no problem”.
And STUKI – Reagan started to go senile only at the very end of his term, after he had accomplished a lot. That was a cheap shot. What about the incompetent presidents FDR and Wilson at the end of their terms? Are you mad at Reagan for ending the Cold War by beating the Soviets? FDR did a lot of damage internationally which history ignorant Americans don’t know.
Senility is a gradual process. Very gradual, in fact. By the time it is obvious enough to be noticeable in carefully managed TV appearances, it has been affecting the ability to deal with more complex problems for a long time.
I think Reagan was fine. Certainly better than both Carter and Clinton, who were both very obviously more nominally “intelligent.” The point I was trying to make, is “brains”, “business knowledge” and whatnot, is not really needed, nor much appreciated, in a president. Aside from the Founders, who did seem unusually insightful, but who came to power in a different era, by what in practice amounts to a very different process, the presidents who seem most fondly remembered, were rarely the “smart” ones. but rather those who were “likeable” and of “sound judgement.” Where “sound judgment” is taken to mean judgment similar to that of most “common men.” And, in the era of TV and female suffrage, “looking presidential” and authoritative doesn’t hurt either.
Trump seems to have at least some of that, although he is, perhaps purposefully and in tune with the times, more crassly divisive than Reagan was. Imagine Trump opening a speech with “Fellow Americans.” While his personal financial circumstances are obviously in an other universe than most of theirs, he doesn’t necessarily come across as completely insincere. Now imagine Hillary do the same….. No matter how hard she, and her handlers, try, it is blatantly obvious that she views herself as entitled royalty that “deserves” her privilege. While Cruz, obviously the smart one of the bunch, is too aspie to even attempt to hide his disdain for those perhaps less logically astute.
So many think Trump is SOOOOO smart and will make us awesome! BUT, look at his campaign’s incompetence when it comes to organizing his campaign. The Cruz campaign handed Trump his ass in Colorado because the Cruz campaign is competent. Go ahead and whine about how it was stolen from big baby Trump, boo hoo. If Trump runs this country like he runs his businesses (many are bankrupt) and his campaign (look at his failures in North Dakota and Colorado) we are screwed if he becomes president.
Yes, Cruz is competent as he understands the inherent corruption in the political process. Trump understands the corruption in the crony side of things but he has never run a political campaign and much of his support comes from this fact. He, like my ignorant self simply assumed that if a person won the popular vote…actually HAD the people voting for him, that no one would be able to take that away from him. Just as he is now seeing in states he has already won, the competent Cruz is going in and coercing delegates to vote for their interests rather than the people whom they are supposed to represent. Very savvy. Exactly what we want in a president. Someone who knows how to work the politics, constituencies be damned.
And if you had not noticed, America, like much of the rest of the world, IS bankrupt. At least he might know how to actually restructure and survive as compared to most others who only know how to borrow and spend, kicking the can onward to the future generations.
I don’t care about Trump, I care that we have something that approaches a fair and transparent election system that is as closely democratic as possible. Not a backroom insiders fix, run by those who best know the rules. Trump SHOULD have KNOWN. We should have known.
What I hope for now is a similar thing happening with the democrats resulting in both Trump and Sanders running in alternative parties. Crack this sucker wide open. Take the power AWAY from the political parties and give the election system back to the people. The political parties have monopolized our democracy. We are finding ourselves saddled with nominees that do not represent Americans wishes. There is a REASON why half the people don’t vote. Don’t mistake frustration and a surrender to a corrupt system for apathy…exactly as THEY hoped.
All good points, and maybe that is why they call themselves Republicans, after Plato’s Republic where the elites rule.
Maybe not that different than when Teddy Roosevelt bolted and formed Bull Moose party a century ago after winning the primaries and watching delegates nominate Taft; which gave election to democrat Woodrow Wilson. Last GOP convention kicked out Ron Paul delegates. So, party is consistent, if that counts for anything. Pat Buchanan web site columns opine that GOP elites (egos) care more about getting their way than winning elections. These same War Party neo-cons thought Bush II’s Iraq invasion was a brilliant move. Mad as Hatters, they all are. To think they might come to their senses, coalesce around Trump and try to influence a Trump GOP that has repudiated their policies might be too much to expect. War Party neo-cons will ride any War Horse, and Hilary will likely be their mount if Trump wins in Cleveland. One way or the other, Cruz or Trump or a third handpicked candidate, the GOP seems poised to fracture. Either Trump or the neo-con War Mongers will leave. If the latter, might be good riddance, as at least Trump is an alternative to the War Party that has ruled the USA since Bill Clinton elevated them to dominance.
Electoral college follows same elite principle with electors from the states casting the final votes. If electoral college is not conclusive, it goes to the House of Representatives and then Supreme Court where the party line has always prevailed in presidential elections. So, even if Trump triumphs in Cleveland and a national election, the anti-trumps will still have some chances. Read up on the election of Benjamin Harrison over Sam Tilden, when the Democrats traded the presidency in exchange for removing federal troops and allowing Jim Crow states to suppress the ex-slaves. War Party feels just as strongly, and cares little whether you think it corrupt…
“Nominating an Evangelical war-monger with limited appeal outside the evangelicals and war-mongers is not a winning strategy.”
Yep. It’s probably a bait-and-switch strategy with Cruz serving as placeholder for Paul Ryan some other schmuck. And, if Hillary is indicted, it just might work – for four recessionary years.
You know this is their wish. They have made no illusion of their hate for both Cruz and Trump. You can bet that is Cruz was leading they would just as vigorously be pushing Trump as his spoiler to take the convention to a contest…one that THEY can finally take control of. Regardless of if Cruz actually wins then nomination, we KNOW that the RNC will only half heartedly (at best) support Cruz, ensuring a democratic win…something that many have already publicly stated they would welcome in lieu of Trump (and no reason they wouldn’t feel the same for Cruz). They have already stated that even if Trump wins the nomination, they will for the first time in history, refuse to turn the RNC over to Trump. It is dangerous to challenge the powers that be.
It stands to reason that if Trump had no chance of winning, we wouldn’t see such a long list of people lining up against him in the media.
They are not actually afraid of the things they attack Trump for (being “hateful” or “bigoted” or anti-______). The “establishment” elites in America are afraid that he will take away their endless supply of near-slave labour in illegals that they use to suppress wages and boost corporate profit. They are afraid he will end useless foreign wars that pour billions into the defence contractors. They are afraid he will tear up punitive foreign trade deals that enrich multinational corporations at the expense of average people.
In normal circumstances, I would have passed Trump off as another Obama – someone would just say the right things to get elected then continue on with the same agenda (can you really tell the difference between the Obama and Bush governments, because I can’t). However, the fact that so many of these greasy, rich, corporate, neocon types are against Trump gives me some small shred of hope that Trump is also against them.
The way to tell the Bush vs Obama administrations is: Bush supported the Second Amendment while Obama is doing everything he quasi-legally can to destroy it.
It seems the polls have been reasonably accurate so far. Trump & Hillary seem to be leading the polls for the big states of New York, California and other north eastern states.
Bernie got swamped in the south. Its next to impossible for him unless he wins New York and gains serious credibility and momentum. The question is what do the 80% of under 30 Democratic primary voters who voted for Bernie do in November if Hillary is nominated as expected?
Trump can win the required delegates by winning big in NY & CA. What will the Republican establishment to about that in Cleveland?
The bigger question is if the contest in the general election becomes Hillary vs Trump, how will the states vote? Will they follow the traditional pattern of Blue & Red with the outcome decided in Ohio and Florida, or, will it be a completely different scenario where traditional Republican states turn Blue and vice versa?
Good question…what will the RNC do if Trump has the prescribed number of delegates going into the convention? Will they attempt to sway committed delegates with some last minute rule change? And even If Trump wins the convention, the RNC clearly is not willing to support him. They claim on one hand he CAN’T win and then in the next breath say they won’t vote for him themselves. If that is not a blatant admission that they will be intent of defeating THEIR candidate, where does that leave us? The RNC and likely the DNC are adopting the radical Islamic stance of a suicide bomber, willing to blow up everyone to win.
Hi Mish, I am a long time reader of yours. I read your blog everyday and look forward to new posts. That said I want to let you know my preference for the 2016 Presidential election. I am a delegate to the Nevada State Convention and I will be supporting Senator Bernie Sanders. I am also a “boomer” as are all my friends who are alone supporting Bernie Sanders. Almost everyone I know supports Bernie. We are a mix of young, old, white, black, Hispanic, disabled and gay as well as many others. We represent every demographic out there. Why are we supporting Bernie? In my opinion, he is the only candidate speaking on behalf of the 99% of people in this country and not tied to special interest. Donald Trump is not a viable candidate in my opinion. His campaign has been based on a platform of hate. Too harsh? Consider this. He has managed to alienate every ethnicity and demographic out there and he has not even made it to the White house. He cannot control his rhetoric and his team have to do a lot of damage control. No, Bernie is the one for me. Just so you have another view of Bernie supporters. Thank you.
Bernie alienates me…but I guess that doesn’t count.
“His campaign has been based on a platform of hate.”
Sanders’ (socialist) platform is based on theft of private property – a human right.
The Bern is almost the opposite of The Donald. A socialist vs a capitalist. A smooth talking experienced politician who knows what people want to hear vs a political neophyte who has no filter between his brain and his mouth. if you can look beyond that, what it really comes down to is, will America remain the world’s leading economy with the most individual freedom, or will it change to socialism? That is the question with Bern vs Donald. Think: Venezuela.
I hope trump wins against Hitlary, then he can prove that we can all work together by appointing Clinton as Ambassador to Lybia.
With no security at the embassy?
At this point, what does it matter?
Hoo Ha that’s a great idea Greg.
The extradition of Guccifer (Marcel Lazar) from Romania last week, which coincided with Hillary ‘husband’ Bill’s irrational rant against Obama, means that Hillary is now likely to be indicted.
So it will likely be the Republican nominee against Sanders – a race that GOP insiders believe they can win with anyone. This may be the reason for the new effort to stop Trump.
You be dreamin. Hillary is right, we will NEVER see her in handcuffs.
Of course there is nothing says she can’t have an accident if things get too embarrassing. She has already fell down once and cracked her head. Maybe amnesia next??? Those missing years she just can’t recall. Who would indict a brain damaged old woman after all.
Trump seems almost certain to be the nominee, and will almost certainly lose badly in the general election, and lose badly, and I’m thinking Goldwater bad. Having the strong support of 30% of voters is enough to win the nomination, but not enough to win a general election. My hope at this point is that the election is not as disastrous as I fear it will be, and that the Republicans can hold on to at least one house of Congress. The best possible outcome I see at this point is a divided government than can spend another four years doing nothing. If Ryan has the balls to stand up to Hillary, and somehow manages to remain as Speaker of the House, the next four years will work out OK.
The other good thing I expect to come out of this election is renewed strength for the Libertarian Party, which has been an afterthought since 1980 when Clark actually finished 2d in one state, ahead of Carter. I think they have an excellent chance of pulling 5% of the vote in the Fall, and I think it would be great if they could manage 10%.
With voter turnout running around 55%, and very angry minority of 30% can indeed win an election.
I guess I fail to understand how it makes sense that the only electable nominee is one that can’t win a popular vote of republicans. Who will rule, the Hut us or the Tutsis?
If any repub is nominated besides anti-establishment Trump, I’ll be voting third party, and I know I’m not the only one who will be totally pissed at the GOP. How does that fit in your scenario Carl? Will traditional dems switch to traditional repubs Crudz, Kasich, Ryan, or horror of horrors Romney? I don’t think so.
At this point I don’t think any Republican can win. I think the party is now too far divided to ever unite again, and in fact, I think that the party will break apart.
If we ran this country like a business, the president would make 20 million dollars a year and each congressman would get a million dollar bonus each year.
I heard a rumor today from my son that speculates with a brokers convention we will end up with a kasich/Rubio ticket. Anything is possible.
Well, if you will notice there are many failed businesses that have their leadership golden parachute with very fat paychecks. And further, if you notice, very few politicians retire impoverished. they seem to manage to “leverage” their positions of power and influence to quite an advantage. Speaking for myself, I would be HAPPY to pay the President and congressmen millions of dollars a year if they actually served US and not themselves and their ideologies. A drop in the bucket compared to our budget, our corruption, our WASTE. Having the leaders of the largest economy in the world run by people being paid relatively minimum wage is simply asking for corruption, that equal to the notion of priests living in celibacy and not molesting little boys. We have this deluded idea that those who serve us should do so out of sacrifice, and we see what we get. Do not expect ANYONE to sacrifice more than we are willing to do ourselves…very little. Like with everything else expecting something for nothing only to find it cost us double.
I would be very happy to give them a big bonus if they would balance the budget. Of course the bonus’s would also have to fit in the balanced budget. ha ha what a weird dream.
Give it up.
This is our last Election. Trump or not, the tension is so damn high, the different races here are so jacked, that perhaps as early as this summer it all explodes.
I’m ready. Are you?
yup.
yup.
This is why humans invented War. To resolve these issues.
Wrong. Issues were created as an excuse for war. War resolves very little, especially in the modern age where it is unacceptable to do such things that would allow anyone to actually win. Modern war has been to benefit the MIC and larger agendas, and has not resolved anything, only added to more conflict. We are now in a never ending conflict…on ALL levels.
The Somalis figured it out. Hailing from the cradle of humanity, I guess they’re a bit ahead of the rest of us.
“War does not decide who is right, only who is left”.
we need trump like we need a hole in the head. one of these days, maybe you lofo trumpeteers will unscrew your tin foil hats a few notches and figure that out.
the guy supports abortion, federal gov’t involvement in healthcare and education, he employs illegals in his hotels, he spouts bush lied people died more than rosie o’donnell. This died in the wool crony capitalist has more leftist policies than Hillary Clinton, What I see is a bunch of supposedly left hating trumpeteers giving a leftist guy a pas or agreeing with him. IOW, trumeteers are actually leftists who just don’t want to pay for it. oh right he is suposedly going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it, wow, you racists will all for anything
He has condemned abortion, going so far as to suggest if it were to become illegal that the woman should be punished.
And I supported Bush’s war, but I, like Bush, was stupid. Stupid because he believed what he was told because it was what he wanted to hear. He pursued the war because he believed that he had the support of democrats…most of which who voted for it. He was wrong. democrats and the media attacked him from the first bomb blast, and never let up. Bush refused to fight back, refused to refute their claims of war for oil and all the rest, claiming his religious beliefs told him to turn the other cheek. We NEVER had Iraqi support on the ground as democrats were screaming we had to leave from day one. Iraqi alliances evaporated in the face of being abandoned and left to deal with the extremist faction seeking revenge upon their “traitors”. The war was a stupid mistake as all should have known that it would NEVER be allowed to succeed. To put people’s lives in jeopardy with no real intention of winning is a horrible sin. Bush and his supporters exaggerated the facts because they believed in their cause and their inevitable victory. THEY WERE WRONG.
Trumps speaks truth to power. If republicans cannot admit their mistakes, do we really thing progressives EVER will?
“we need trump like we need a hole in the head”
Correct. For the specific reason that the elephant in the room is that we need a president like we need a hole in the head. Or any “leader.”
What does it say about the other candidates when a guy can use his twitter account to win primaries ? Trump is the proverbial middle finger at Washington. There is no other outsider left in the race. Truth be told, there are a fair chunk of the populace who don’t believe anything coming out of Washington. This race is less about Trump and more about what the country thinks about the establishment. It tells you something when dissimilar voters can decide between Trump and Sanders.
What we really need is a President who will restore sound money. The rest won’t matter if bankers turn the country into a banana republic. The free market has to set prices, including interest rates, before free market capitalism can allocate capital efficiently.
Bank central planning of the economy is inefficient.
I think many comments miss the point. In order to change policy, you actually have to be in power first (e.g. win an election). If Republicans were smart, they would select the most electable person and worry about everything else later. The Democrats are smarter about winning the White House more recently and worry less about being righteous. Obama was willing to do and say things agreeable to most Americans to win. Who will be that candidate this time ? It’s not Sanders or Cruz. Things can change but Hillary will likely eek out a victory electorally over Trump. I think general elections are like playoff football. It about who turns the ball over less and makes the lesser amount of mistakes rather than more big plays. Trump and Cruz both will likely lose in attacking Hilary.
“Trump and Cruz both will likely lose in attacking Hilary”
Cruz yes, Trump, no. Trump is the outsider and the only one who has criticized the wars of the past 25 years which Hillary has been a big proponent of, especially Libya and Syria. And not just the Benghazi part of Libya either. Trump has talked tough but hasn’t acted militarily yet as he’s not been a politician. Hillary has befriended neocons and has the blood of innocents on her hands – lots of it. Trump most certainly can attack Hillary on that once he disposes of Cruz – if he can dispose of Cruz before the convention.
It will only work up to a certain point. In order to attract independents and moderate white Democrats, Trump will have to present a vision to believe in. Going after Hillary will only result in more minority and female voters coming out to support Hillary as the victim. Exactly what she wants. Ironically, Trump can only win against Hillary if he doesn’t succumb to her tactics of pulling the race into the mud. I would bet he just can’t stay away from it as it is out of his personality to not attack. The closest race IMO is Trump/Hillary with Hillary pulling off a narrow electoral victory b/c of the 10M new hispanic voters in the general election. The popular vote may not be close but Trump can compete in states where anyone else is sure to lose to Hillary.
FWIW, I don’t think this is a foreign policy or war election. This election is truly an economy election which includes immigration. It is the only reason Trump has gotten as far as he has otherwise we would be stuck with no alternative choices.
“I don’t think this is a foreign policy or war election.”
Immigration is part of foreign (globalist) policy and is Trump’s issue – the same one that drove House Majority Leader Eric Cantor from office (in a primary election).
Disagree. Immigration is more of an economic issue in America. Immigration barely moves the needle on foreign policy.
“Obama was willing to do and say things agreeable to most Americans to win.”
I think you meant (or should have said) Obama was willing to LIE about things agreeable to most Americans to win.
Here are 68 of his lies (some obviously left out). Click on any for details:
https://www.youngcons.com/the-ultimate-list-of-barack-obamas-big-fat-lies/
Your thesis is impossible for a conservative, as, at their base, conservatives do not believe in the power of government and have few ideological means of removing the power from government which they need to do so. A strong president who refuses to use signing statements and executive orders does what in the face of existing policy? Trump says he will rescind Obama’s orders and statements, but to do so offers its own challenges…besides the fact that it will require Jesus himself to be willing to eliminate one’s own powers that they fought so hard to acquire. Democrats are at least honest in this regard. The DEMAND power to effect their ideological change, even if they claim the need for democratic participation from the very people who they deem to stupid or ignorant to fend for themselves.
There is another country where people 20 years ago decided the needed a man to “run the country like a business”. This was a successful businessman, never went bankrupt.
This country is Italy, and the man Silvio Berlusconi.
Hope people in the USA do not want to repeat an experiment which went badly…
In 1871 the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA became a corporation because of the treasons of the 41st congress passing the ACT of 1841 giving control of the United State to European bankers to pay for the cost of the Civil War. Government is a business and it is a family business and the citizens of the our country are nothing more that sheep being lead to slaughter. Since 1921 or there about, live births were given a birth certificate with a number on it. This birth certificate was registered and used as collateral against the debt in the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. America has been in a slow decline for a very long time and the decline is speeding up as of this moment.
The big question is: Are we really free. The answer is, HELL NO! We are all slaves as “citizens” of the United States as compared to a natural born person in the United States. If you really want to know what the difference means, do your own due diligence.
pardon the act of 1871
I like Trump’s health care plan, points 5 and 7 should help
break up the MIC “Medical Industrial Complex”. The Major source of our
continuing debt issues. Break it up, run a surplus.
As I read through these comments, I am struck by a historical pattern. Depressions are demographic events,not political ones. They are caused when one generation prepares to retire and reduces spending, while the next generation isn’t ready to drive the economy yet. That happened in the late 20’s, then again in the late 70’s, and is happening again today.
The interesting thing is that the country appears poised to follow the same political pattern this time as in the prior two times. In both prior times, the country responded by electing a fiscally prudent businessman. After the downturn of the 20’s started under Coolidge, the country first turned to a businessman, Hoover, and then when the economy didn’t return, it switched to a big spender, FDR, who ran up massive federal debt.
The next time around, when the downturn started under Nixon and Ford, the country turned to a businessman, Carter, who attempted to institute fiscally prudent measures like zero base budgeting, but then at the next election, the country flipped to a big spender, Reagan, who, like FDR, racked up massive levels of Federal debt.
If it’s true that history repeats itself, then I guess turning to a businessman won’t be surprising, and then we would expect that after a one term presidency, he’ll be replaced by another big spender. One more president in the FDR/Reagan mold should get the US to a debt/GDP ratio that will be untenable, however.
Carl you have a couple mistakes in your post:
1. The downturn did not start during Silent Cal’s administration; it was 2 years later.
2. Carter was not a businessman. Carter was a government subsidized peanut farmer turned politician.
3. The Nixon/Ford downturn is usually attributed to the arab oil embargo. As I recall the arabs were pissed at the US for supporting Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Why would you blame the presidents for what the arabs did to us?
4. Don’t forget congress is supposed to control the budget, although they have for a while now been abdicating their responsibility.
I agree with your point 1 – sorry about that. As for point 2, Carter was still a businessman. Government subsidies actually don’t change the picture that much. Yes, they give you extra cash flow, but they also give the same cash flow to other farmer with the net result of over-production and low prices, making it impossible to make a profit without the subsidies. To make a profit when you, and all your competitors are getting a subsidy, you still have to be an effective businessman.
As for point 3, demographics do cause downturns, but are often overlooked, and so commentators historically have looked for other causes. Consider this chart of the long term DJIA adjusted for inflation:
http://home.earthlink.net/~intelligentbear/com-dj-infl.htm
The peak actually came in 1968, well before the oil embargo and the creation of OPEC. I would never blame Presidents for the effects that demographics cause, only for their reaction to it. In my view the downturn lasted from 1968-1982, which is about normal. (The prior one lasted from 1929-1942ish, and this current one will most likely last from 2008-2020 or so.)
Nixon, Ford, and Carter did not spend crazily, and I credit them for that. Reagan, however did. Worse, he continued to run huge deficits well past the time when the next demographic boom was underway, and I hold him responsible. If you buy into Keynes theory that governments should spend heavily in downturns, you should also buy into the part that says that government should run surpluses during upturns, and from 1982-88 that certainly wasn’t the case. Bush and Obama have both spent irresponsibly in this cycle, but perhaps it has worked to some extent, as the downturn has been less severe thus far than the prior ones. To me the real question is, as the downturn ends will we run a surplus and pay down the debt? I think there is zero chance of that, so I think that long term the current spending will end up costing a lot.
FYI
Goldman Sachs Finally Admits it Defrauded Investors During the Financial Crisis
http://fortune.com/2016/04/11/goldman-sachs-doj-settlement/