• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

AG74683 said:
Republicans will turn on Trump now. Losing the Kentucky gubernatorial race and the Virginia house and senate are telling signs that their hardcore base is eroding ....
Click to expand...
No. They won't. They can't. They elected to go all-in and can hardly back out at this point.
 
Yeah, I don't see the Republicans starting to dump Trump yet.

Give it a few more months. Many states have filing deadlines for the primaries in January and February and I don't think Republicans would be willing to turn on him before then, especially senators who are running for re-election. Once the deadline passes and they are assured that they aren't getting a legitimate primary challenge, I think we may be more likely to see some Republican senators jump ship, especially if they see Trump dragging them down and causing them to lose in the general.
 
One of our incumbent City Council members lost yesterday by 4 votes. That was close.

And due to the nature of the loser's incumbency, the winner gets to assume the seat once the election results are certified. Not on 1/1/20.

Interesting.
 
I get the feeling the GOP won't dump anything. We'll go to the election and get a new pres. and they'll keep the senate. Then they'll all come out about how they didn't like him anyway - not that he did anything wrong, but they didn't like something just to distance themselves. You know, revised hindsight.


Our local senator was unable to answer if she would seek foreign assistance to help her politically. She ran away from reporters.
 
September article about our mayoral contest

Why should voters elect you?
DANIEL SCHUTTE:
I would like to help all of the citizens of Grand Rapids to live a more happier, healthier and productive life based on the principles given to us in God’s holy scriptures -- the Bible.

If elected, what will your top three priorities be?
DANIEL SCHUTTE:
1. To proclaim the glory and the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only “answer” to every one of our problems and challenges.
2. To address the No. 1 “civil rights” issue of our day ... the murder of the precious and unwanted children of Grand Rapids that may be destined to be destroyed through their murder (commonly referred to as “abortion”).
3. To seek to make the city of Grand Rapids a “sanctuary city” for all unwanted children destined to be murdered through abortion.

etc. etc.

Yesterday, the incumbent received 23,715 votes, compared to 4,476 for Schutte and 82 write-ins.

tl;dr

If elected, what will your top three priorities be?
ROSALYNN BLISS:
Two of my ongoing top priorities, public safety and affordable housing, will be addressed below so I will highlight three others that are more focused and fundamental.
1. Infrastructure and Mobility: Thanks to voter approval of our vital streets funding plan and a growing economy we are making significant and aggressive investment towards fixing our streets and sidewalks – with over $10 million spent last year alone. Better streets, more parking and an “all of the above approach” to mobility across our city must continue to be our approach and direction.
2. Economic Development and Opportunity: Grand Rapids continues to top the lists for the best place to find a job, start a business or buy a home with one of the fastest growing metro economies. Yet we know that this doesn’t represent the story of experience for everyone in our city. We must continue to ensure that everyone benefits from our success. I’m committed to working with our private sector and non-profit partners to removing barriers to employment and providing access to job training and entrepreneurial investment capital.
3. Parks, Pools, Paths and Playgrounds: The renaissance and restoration of our parks has been impressive, and I look to continue our progress. Not only have we been good stewards of the resources citizens have invested into these natural assets but we have leveraged significant state funding as well. We have a thoughtful, community driven Parks and Recreation Master Plan and I am committed to implementing it and supporting funding to make this vision a reality.
 
Last edited:
Veloise said:
September article about our mayoral contest

Why should voters elect you?
DANIEL SCHUTTE:
I would like to help all of the citizens of Grand Rapids to live a more happier, healthier and productive life based on the principles given to us in God’s holy scriptures -- the Bible.

If elected, what will your top three priorities be?
DANIEL SCHUTTE:
1. To proclaim the glory and the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only “answer” to every one of our problems and challenges.
2. To address the No. 1 “civil rights” issue of our day ... the murder of the precious and unwanted children of Grand Rapids that may be destined to be destroyed through their murder (commonly referred to as “abortion”).
3. To seek to make the city of Grand Rapids a “sanctuary city” for all unwanted children destined to be murdered through abortion.

etc. etc.

Yesterday, the incumbent received 23,715 votes, compared to 4,476 for Schutte and 82 write-ins.
Click to expand...

I am just curious here.... are you mocking him because of his religious views? I don't think I would vote for him over RB, but I am trying to better understand the intention behind your post. Personally, I applaud him for his views, but it does not mean that I would vote for him.
 
michaelskis said:
I am just curious here.... are you mocking him because of his religious views? I don't think I would vote for him over RB, but I am trying to better understand the intention behind your post. Personally, I applaud him for his views, but it does not mean that I would vote for him.
Click to expand...


I don't see it as mocking his views. I see this as completely missing the "separation of church & state" & this guy's only platform for being mayor was based on religious views.
 
Fellow cyclist Juli Briskman wins her election ... and her district includes the golf course past which she was riding when that flip seen round the world took place

EIqLEH3WwAEgOv0.jpg
 
I see candidates like this as complete idiots out of touch with the world. Yes, Christ is everything. Yes, Jesus is Lord, to you. The rest of us atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindu, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters might not believe what you do and as a public servant you should recognize that diversity. Also, being mayor or whatever isn't about spreading the word of God. If you want that job go become a preacher.
 
DVD said:
I see candidates like this as complete idiots out of touch with the world. Yes, Christ is everything. Yes, Jesus is Lord, to you. The rest of us atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindu, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters might not believe what you do and as a public servant you should recognize that diversity. Also, being mayor or whatever isn't about spreading the word of God. If you want that job go become a preacher.
Click to expand...

He is a preacher... the irony is so was the very popular mayor before the current mayor who was not able to run again because of new term limits.

As I noted before, I would not vote for this guy because of multiple aspects of his campaign and knowing the current mayor who has done a great job the past few years and should be re-elected. It just seemed to be bashing him because he is pro-life. While I agree that running for mayor is not the place to push that, being openly pro-life christian should not be recognized as a horrible thing for a mayor to be.
 
Why should a mayor be recognized as pro-life or choice. Why should a mayor be recognized as Christian or not. None of these things will make you a better or worse mayor.

Maybe it's short sighted of me, but things like life/choice is a national problem. Your job as mayor is to keep the streets repaired and economic development and whatever other city level stuff needs to be done. If you can't do anything about it then it's not a local issue. You end up getting crap like my last commissioners who banned a certain type of birth control because if you took a whole bunch it could cause a miscarriage. So your "expert" knowledge is going to make it so a woman can't get the proper birth control because some random person might abuse it against doctor's orders. Might as well ban everything. Except guns or capital punishment, because they aren't part of the pro life debate (this line is just to stir up Mskies :)
 
DVD said:
Why should a mayor be recognized as pro-life or choice. Why should a mayor be recognized as Christian or not. None of these things will make you a better or worse mayor.
Click to expand...
Ummm... yea dude... that was my point.

DVD said:
Maybe it's short sighted of me, but things like life/choice is a national problem. Your job as mayor is to keep the streets repaired and economic development and whatever other city level stuff needs to be done. If you can't do anything about it then it's not a local issue.
Click to expand...
This stuff gets on my nerves too when it is a national or global issue. Yes there are always best practices that you can do such as environmental incentives for new development, but other things... like banning guns, should not be up to a mayor when the Constitution is super clear on it.

DVD said:
You end up getting crap like my last commissioners who banned a certain type of birth control because if you took a whole bunch it could cause a miscarriage. So your "expert" knowledge is going to make it so a woman can't get the proper birth control because some random person might abuse it against doctor's orders. Might as well ban everything. Except guns or capital punishment, because they aren't part of the pro life debate (this line is just to stir up Mskies :)
Click to expand...
1409628.jpg

:)
 
Damn, can't even catch an Mskies. Maybe I'll just talk about big hair and hugs in hopes of catching an Ursus. I hear the cook up better in the pan anyway.

1573166398909.png
 
How do you think Michael Bloomberg entering the presidential race will change the dynamics of the democrat primary? Given his views on a bunch of issues, I doubt that I would vote for him, but what are your thoughts?
 
Someone made a font out of gerrymandered congressional districts
theweek.com

Someone made a font out of gerrymandered congressional districts

Congressional districts have a reputation for being downright ridiculous. North Carolina's 12th district resembled a severely broken snake until it was revamped in 2017. Pretty much all of Maryland's districts defy comparison to anything but abstract art. And then there are a few dozen districts...
theweek.com theweek.com
 
Most annoying thing this Veteran's Day. A political ad. Not bad enough, how about adding bragging rights on all the things your politician did for veterans. Still not bad, now ask Veterans who have given so much to give to your campaign. I was not pleased with my local paper or the politician for printing that.
 
Over the weekend I was talking with a friend of mine about the upcoming elections. Him and I have similar points on most of it and he made a very interesting point which I am not sure I agree with, but I think it is worth asking about. He thought that the political and economic system in the US was in a death spiral and he see a full economic and political collapse before 2050, and likely before 2030. He cited everything from the uncontrolled federal budget, federal reserve printing money without any real structure, total noncooperation between parties on anything and everything, and a progressive disregard for the constitution.

He does not think that it would be total doom and gloom but he thinks that the financial sectors of the market will take a massive hit and anything with governmental subsidies would struggle to make it on their own. He said that he is giving up on voting for any office in DC from this point forward because he just plans on sitting back and watching it all crash down.

Personally, I don't think it is as dire as he makes it sound, but one point he raised is very interesting. He pointed out the number of civic and service organizations that were independent of the government are almost nonexistent now, yet being the backbone of society 40+ years ago. He also said that while we are more connected than ever before thanks to the internet, we are completely disconnected with our communities, churches, and schools. I think he is spot on with his views on that aspect and it got me wondering if we as a society are too dependent on the federal government?

What roles do you think we as local or regional government employees can do to help reestablish an independent and locally based interdependent society and do you think that is a good thing?
 
Yep, we're way to dependent on the feds. We also have a huge debt problem and a bunch of other old school Republican things I believe in. The government has been trying to solve the world's social problems for the last 100 years and we're starting to pay for it. I'm good with things like social medicine or free school, but at the same time why is it the government's job to take care of your grandma or pay for your education. I'll happily pay a tax to pay for these things, but I wish the government would act more like a financier and less like a regulator in these things. Yes, we need standards, but maybe some kind of independent national school board that knows about these things instead of congressmen that know nothing. I also have issues with the government stepping into social matters like gay rights (gay or straight, it's not a government problem), abortion (it's a medical procedure and not a government issue - yes, there is the whole murder argument, but that's not my point), and of course stay the hell out of religion or should I say religion should stay the hell out of government.

My armchair solutions to fixing government:
  • A viable 3rd or even more parties that don't just align right or left.
  • A balanced budget - whoa!

On a side note, lay people like us should stop arguing constitutionality. Only because it's one of those I'm right because Constitution arguments which makes everyone else inherently wrong. Not that anyone here intends it that way, but people with agendas like to do that. You can take any piece of the Constitution and argue right or wrong based on anything, but you can't say it supports you until a select bunch of judges decides it does. 2nd Amendment being everyone's favorite (mine happens to be the 1st), I argue that key line about in order to form a militia. Which would dictate that some rules should be put in place to ownership. Reading it straight it tells me you can only own a gun in order to form a militia, but I'm wrong. The judges said so. Many people also argue the shall not be infringed line, but that's wrong too. There and many rules to infringe on the rights so why not make a few more? Sorry, I'm ranting, but I just hate the because the Constitution argument. If you're going to hold that document so sacred remember that it originally held slaves counting as 3/5th and never gave women the right to vote. It also at one time banned alcohol. We are allowed to change it as society changes and maybe it's time to look at it. Not overhaul it, just tweak it.
 
Got a call yesterday from a producer at NBC News who wanted to discuss their field trip next week. They are visiting my fair city to develop a story about how this former GOP stronghold is turning blue.

I simply can't imagine how they could have found me or why they think I would know/care anything about all this ...
/s

aj cyron.png
 
Veloise said:
Got a call yesterday from a producer at NBC News who wanted to discuss their field trip next week. They are visiting my fair city to develop a story about how this former GOP stronghold is turning blue.

I simply can't imagine how they could have found me or why they think I would know/care anything about all this ...
/s

View attachment 47094
Click to expand...
What do you plan to say? You need like three good sound bites that are really going to resonate.

This is a national media platform. My (unsolicited) advice would be to try to tie what's going on in GR with a larger national trend. The GOP has been losing suburban voter support in important congressional districts across the country as recently demonstrated by the 2018 midterms (and even more recently the 2019 elections in Virginia). Young conservatives who may have once been proud to find a home in the town that raised Gerald Ford are increasingly disenchanted and alienated by how the party has seemingly abandoned its traditional message of fiscal conservativism and now spends its political capital in defending the actions of a "leader" who openly admires and courts this country's foes.

Using the words "Betsy Devos" and "criminal" in the same sentence is surely worth mention too.
 
Last edited:
Maister said:
What do you plan to say? You need like three good sound bites that are really going to resonate.

This is a national media platform. My (unsolicited) advice would be to try to tie what's going on in GR with a larger national trend. The GOP has been losing suburban voter support in important congressional districts across the country as recently demonstrated by the 2018 midterms (and even more recently the 2019 elections in Virginia). Young conservatives who may have once been proud to find a home in the town that raised Gerald Ford are increasingly disenchanted and alienated by how the party has seemingly abandoned its traditional message of fiscal conservatism and now spends its political capital in defending the actions of a "leader" who openly admires and courts this country's foes.

Using the words "Betsy Devos" and "criminal" in the same sentence is surely worth mention too.
Click to expand...
Their plan is to spend a week here talking to people (not just me) with the premise of "long-time GOP strongholds are turning blue."
I posted an open call in a couple of places on FB, and quite a few folks have offered to talk to the producers **and be seen on camera. One posted, "it's scary that you don't know any moderates" to which I replied, "I don't know where people live, how they voted last week, or if they can read bass clef."
I sent her to the 3rd District head guy (he was the one who referred the WaPo reporter to me) and he's got a list too.

This week's project: make me an imPEACHment fascinator to wear to the debate watch party.
 
Maister said:
No. They won't. They can't. They elected to go all-in and can hardly back out at this point.
Click to expand...
They are not a monolithic group.

michaelskis said:
being openly pro-life christian should not be recognized as a horrible thing for a mayor to be.
Click to expand...
Why not? To me, Christians have purposely mixed church and state in politics and I think it's a horrible thing. (And mind you, I'm Christian.)
 
michaelskis said:
As much as I don't like him... he isn't going to get impeached. Those in DC are not smart enough to make it happen without substantial fallout.
Click to expand...
Of course he will be impeached. As he should be. The travesty of justice will occur when he is acquitted in the senate trial based on party affiliation as opposed to his conduct.
 
Doohickie said:
Why not? To me, Christians have purposely mixed church and state in politics and I think it's a horrible thing. (And mind you, I'm Christian.)
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think it is a horrible thing. I think that there are particular absolutes in life that should be the foundation of of what we do. For example, earlier this week was World Kindness day and a hospital in Pittsburgh dressed all the kids as Mr. Rogers. Fred Rogers was a Presbyterian minister and everything that he put out in the media as founded in Christian beliefs. But he did in a nonabrasive way. Many of our founding fathers did the same thing.

Even the concept of freedom from religion has been taken out of context. in 1802 President Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Baptists of Danbury regarding this situation. While he is credited for establishing the idea of 'freedom from religion' he didn't really say that nor was that the intent. The letter actually stated:
Thomas Jefferson said:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Click to expand...

When you take this into context and read the 1st amendment:
1st amendment said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

They further solidify the idea that congress cannot pass laws that would prevent someone from practicing their religious rituals, beliefs, or traditions, nor can the determine that everyone should practice one religion over another. It does not say that you can't practice fasting during Ramadan or preventing you from attending church on Easter Morning, or anything in between.


Maister said:
Of course he will be impeached. As he should be. The travesty of justice will occur when he is acquitted in the senate trial based on party affiliation as opposed to his conduct.
Click to expand...

There is no question that he should be impeached... but I don't think that the democrats have it in them to actually make it happen and for the Senate to convict him. I would love to be wrong, but from what I read last night no how it went yesterday, I don't think it's going to happen.
 
So my take on yesterday's impeachment trial was that the R's really want to focus on the "It was only attempted murder, he didn't kill anyone" argument. They also were very careful to make it clear that the two gentlemen were statesmen, and honorable, but clearly they didn't care to listen to what they were saying, because they just kept pushing their updated narrative.

My big takeaway is that Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, and John Ratcliff really came off as crazy. I thought that many of the Republicans were reasoned and clearly opposed the process and concept, but they didn't sound like crazy people. Nunes, Jordan, and Ratcliff were particularly rude, disruptive, and odd. I get very clearly that you don't like that the D's are doing this. I just wish you would listen to the men talking and acknowledge that they aren't up there by their own volition, they are under subpoena.

I wish we had more Will Hurds and less Jim Jordans in politics.
 
The founding fathers created a wall of separation between church and state, not to protect the government from the church. Rather, it was to protect the church from the government. Remember, George III was not only the King of England, he was also head of the Church of England - the official national church. The founding fathers had seen how poorly that worked and wanted no part of it.

***
The House will vote to convict. The tragedy will come when Republicans in the Senate put party ahead of nation. We will all be worse for it.
 
My problem with the whole Christian politician thing is this: Politicians scream faith through words. Mr. Rodgers screams faith through action. Which one would you trust and which one is more likely to be Jesus approved?
 
Gedunker said:
The founding fathers created a wall of separation between church and state, not to protect the government from the church. Rather, it was to protect the church from the government. Remember, George III was not only the King of England, he was also head of the Church of England - the official national church. The founding fathers had seen how poorly that worked and wanted no part of it.
Click to expand...

You are correct, they wanted no part of having the government establish a national religion and did not want the government to suppress any religion. But there was never an intention to have it hinder the expression of religion. George Washington was private about his Anglican background in some aspects, but there are numerous political letters where he closed with something along the lines of "may God be with you". Ben Franklin suggested paying for guidance at the second continental congress to seek the Lord's guidance. Despite losing faith in the Church, he maintained his faith in a Christian God and proclaimed such in an 1823 letter he wrote to John Adams where he stated 'The God to whom you and I acknowledge and adore." If you read through the letters and similar correspondence of the founding fathers, they did not hide their faith under a basket, but they did not say "I am passing this law because I am a Christian" and it is because of that omission that so many people wrongly believe that there is a freedom FROM religion instead of a freedom OF religion.

DVD said:
My problem with the whole Christian politician thing is this: Politicians scream faith through words. Mr. Rodgers screams faith through action. Which one would you trust and which one is more likely to be Jesus approved?
Click to expand...

I am in 100% agreement and unfortunately most of those who claim to be Christian live lives very different than biblical teaching. It does not matter if they have an R or D behind their name. But it does not mean that the idea of living a christian life should be avoided or kept quite if you are making a run for political office.
 
Last edited:
To take it a step farther I don't care if you live a Muslim kind of life or any other religion. They all carry the same basic values at their core and sadly they all get bastardized just the same.
 
I saw these 2 headlines back-to-back:

Diplomats tie tRump to Ukraine scheme
White House responds with personal attacks and unfocused statements.
 
DVD said:
To take it a step farther I don't care if you live a Muslim kind of life or any other religion. They all carry the same basic values at their core and sadly they all get bastardized just the same.
Click to expand...

It's just because in this current version of the Crusades, they're seen as the bad guys.
 
My county is going to vote on adding Election Day on even numbered years as a paid holiday for county employees (I don't know how this would affect staff in the Clerk's office who work with the local cities, villages, and townships administering the election).

In the grand scheme of things, I'm skeptical that that making Election Day a national holiday would have a significant impact on increasing voter turnout but it's a start. While I won't scoff at an extra paid day off, I'd like to see the state offer more opportunities for casting votes early. Maybe making it a paid holiday for us county workers would at least get the conversation started here in Michigan.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
My county is going to vote on adding Election Day on even numbered years as a paid holiday for county employees (I don't know how this would affect staff in the Clerk's office who work with the local cities, villages, and townships administering the election).

In the grand scheme of things, I'm skeptical that that making Election Day a national holiday would have a significant impact on increasing voter turnout but it's a start. While I won't scoff at an extra paid day off, I'd like to see the state offer more opportunities for casting votes early. Maybe making it a paid holiday for us county workers would at least get the conversation started here in Michigan.
Click to expand...
There's a bill in our lege that would exchange Columbus day for election day.
 
mendelman said:
I watched the entire hearing and was as gobsmacked as Schiff was with the Trumpster's morning tweet in the middle of the D portion of the hearing.
Click to expand...
I particularly enjoyed the R-Texas cutting her off mid-reply with "you're done," and the post-gavel whining about "disparaging remarks."

Also, just loving the former tOSU wrestling coach/molestation enabler coming across as a total Philistine.
 
Veloise said:
Got a call yesterday from a producer at NBC News who wanted to discuss their field trip next week. They are visiting my fair city to develop a story about how this former GOP stronghold is turning blue.

I simply can't imagine how they could have found me or why they think I would know/care anything about all this ...
/s

View attachment 47094
Click to expand...
Big reveal today. I went through the FB comments and found some more interview candidates for them.
 
North Korea says it doesn’t want Trump meeting if it’s just something for him to brag about

Trump disputes North Korea: Joe Biden 'somewhat better' than a 'rabid dog'
www.yahoo.com

Trump disputes North Korea: Joe Biden 'somewhat better' than a 'rabid dog'

President Trump came to the defense of his potential 2020 rival Joe Biden on Sunday, disputing a characterization of the former vice president as a “rabid dog” who “must be beaten to death with a stick.”
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
WSU MUP Student said:
I like this. I'm going to start declining meetings if the organizers are just using my presence as something to brag about too.
Click to expand...
Joking aside, I'm of the opinion Trump handed Kim a diplomatic win a couple years ago - for which we got absolutely zero in return (heck, we even lost with the deal in terms of military readiness by our unilaterally refraining from conducting the annual joint ops training we do with ROK) - simply by agreeing to a face-to-face meeting with the dictator in response to his sabre rattling. Kim can now claim with some legitimacy thanks to Cheeto that he's an 'equal'.
 
Maister said:
Joking aside, I'm of the opinion Trump handed Kim a diplomatic win a couple years ago - for which we got absolutely zero in return (heck, we even lost with the deal in terms of military readiness by our unilaterally refraining from conducting the annual joint ops training we do with ROK) - simply by agreeing to a face-to-face meeting with the dictator in response to his sabre rattling. Kim can now claim with some legitimacy thanks to Cheeto that he's an 'equal'.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%

Sometimes I sit and try to figure out if there is a country or region of the world where we have improved relations now compared to before Trump took office. I cannot think of any. He wants to be cozy with folks like Duarte and Putin and Kim but congress (neither house) has gone along on that ride and has often worked to increase sanctions, against Trump's wishes.

The U.S. used to be a beacon for stability in terms of foreign relations, especially since our foreign policy didn't really change much from leader to leader depending on who was in office and what letter followed their name. Thanks to Trump's desire to unilaterally pull out of treaties, trade deals, and other cooperative efforts for seemingly no other reason than Obama supported it, we have lost so much influence around the world, especially in developing nations or places we were trying to build strategic relationships with, that it will probably take at least a few terms just to get back to even.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
I agree 100%

Sometimes I sit and try to figure out if there is a country or region of the world where we have improved relations now compared to before Trump took office. I cannot think of any. He wants to be cozy with folks like Duarte and Putin and Kim but congress (neither house) has gone along on that ride and has often worked to increase sanctions, against Trump's wishes.

The U.S. used to be a beacon for stability in terms of foreign relations, especially since our foreign policy didn't really change much from leader to leader depending on who was in office and what letter followed their name. Thanks to Trump's desire to unilaterally pull out of treaties, trade deals, and other cooperative efforts for seemingly no other reason than Obama supported it, we have lost so much influence around the world, especially in developing nations or places we were trying to build strategic relationships with, that it will probably take at least a few terms just to get back to even.
Click to expand...
The other day I was just trying to remember what the world was like before Trump. And for that matter, picture the world after Trump. Can you picture President Pete tweeting about Mitch McConnell's stupid ideas?

Foreign policy has been really bad. Domestic policy has been really bad. Our economy is good, but I am fairly confident the economy is going to tank soon. Whether that is on Trump's watch or whomever is the next President, it isn't going to be easy to fix. Obama did herculean lifting and we barely made it out. I don't foresee a Republican President having the ability to raise taxes, tighten the belt, increase regulations, and to figure out how to get out. I think it will be interesting.

With that said I think the more interesting story will be who the D's want to be in 2020. Will they go too far left and lose, will they pick an unpalatable candidate to a large portion of the country and lose, or will they just lose. I feel like Trump keeps losing in states he should win, so the tide may be turning, but Trump has a very strong base, that no matter whether he is impeached or not, will support him, whether he is the president or not.
 
GA-6 continues to look like we're gearing up for another messy campaign. In 2016, Karen Handle (R) defeated Jon Ossoff (D) in the most expensive Congressional election campaign in history. In 2018, she lost the seat to Lucy McBath (D) over a combination of Trump fatigue and a complete lack of a focused campaign effort. Handel is back for the 2020 campaign, and has very quietly shored up party support from the GOP establishment - she's a lock to turn this into Handel - McBath Part II. I'm not sure my recycling bin is big enough for the volume of campaign mailers we're going to receive.
 
Back
Top