The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Fitzy]

Unrelated. I hate giving credit to Trump for anything, but I really think he’s the greatest con man in US history unless we are the stupidest American public in US history for falling for a horrid con.

You left out another option. Which is a mix of the 2nd and an increasingly broken political system that has delivered two awful Presidents "this century".

I didn’t leave it out. I don’t believe the system is “broken”. Cracked sure, but the bigger issue is people don’t vote, because we keep claiming there is no point. The vast majority of elections in this country have enough people not voting to change every single election. I’m not saying they would change, but until everyone eligible starts to vote, claims of a broken system are premature.

[GreenGoo]

I don’t disagree with anything you say, except I still think there’s an argument that Trump is a brilliant con man. I’m not saying he’s tricking everyone. I’m saying his very brand is a con and always has been. He is a business failure, yet he keeps making money. He screws over everyone he works with, yet people still work with him.

He has created Trump the myth and enough people buy into it and keep buying into that he is a successful con artist.

Fair enough. I agree with your characterization. We'll have to disagree on whether that makes it brilliant or not. We can both agree that it has been successful.

[malchior]

Unrelated. I hate giving credit to Trump for anything, but I really think he’s the greatest con man in US history unless we are the stupidest American public in US history for falling for a horrid con.

You left out another option. Which is a mix of the 2nd and an increasingly broken political system that has delivered two awful Presidents "this century".

I didn’t leave it out. I don’t believe the system is “broken”. Cracked sure, but the bigger issue is people don’t vote, because we keep claiming there is no point. The vast majority of elections in this country have enough people not voting to change every single election.

100% turnout wouldn't change the fact that districts in some states are heavily gerrymandered or that the composition of the Senate will eventually lead to increasingly small percentages of the country controlling the judiciary and potentially the Presidency. I'd agreed that it is only "cracked" but it is failing aka breaking. Breaking in rhyming ways to how it was breaking under internal political stresses prior to the civil war.

I’m not saying they would change, but until everyone eligible starts to vote, claims of a broken system are premature.

So until something that has never happened in the history of the United States happens we can't claim the system is broken? Seems like a poor metric. The only times we had high levels of voter turnout was when it was restricted to certain classes. Aka male, white landowners.

[Fitzy]

Unrelated. I hate giving credit to Trump for anything, but I really think he’s the greatest con man in US history unless we are the stupidest American public in US history for falling for a horrid con.

You left out another option. Which is a mix of the 2nd and an increasingly broken political system that has delivered two awful Presidents "this century".

I didn’t leave it out. I don’t believe the system is “broken”. Cracked sure, but the bigger issue is people don’t vote, because we keep claiming there is no point. The vast majority of elections in this country have enough people not voting to change every single election.

100% turnout wouldn't change the fact that districts in some states are heavily gerrymandered or that the composition of the Senate will eventually lead to increasingly small percentages of the country controlling the judiciary and potentially the Presidency. I'd agreed that it is only "cracked" but it is failing aka breaking. Breaking in rhyming ways to how it was breaking under internal political stresses prior to the civil war.

I’m not saying they would change, but until everyone eligible starts to vote, claims of a broken system are premature.

So until something that has never happened in the history of the United States happens we can't claim the system is broken? Seems like a poor metric. The only times we had high levels of voter turnout was when it was restricted to certain classes. Aka male, white landowners.

Ok, not everyone voting, but when <60% are bothering to show up it’s hard to say there really is a problem. Even in the gerrymandered districts a surge by non-voters could flip many of them. Not voting sends a signal that everything is fine whether or not that is the intent.

Certainly there are tweaks that could be made, gerrymandering is not an intended part of the system, the electoral college wasn’t meant to reward every vote to the popular vote winner of a state, voting should be treated as an absolute right of every citizen and made as simple as problem. The underlying system is still the one that has held together a diverse country for 230 years, through a civil war, and adapted to changing social norms. It changes slowly, but for every step back we manage two forward. Eventually.

[quote=Fitzy post_id=2618185 time=<a href="tel:1543672867">1543672867</a> user_id=171]
I don’t disagree with anything you say, except I still think there’s an argument that Trump is a brilliant con man. I’m not saying he’s tricking everyone. I’m saying his very brand is a con and always has been. He is a business failure, yet he keeps making money. He screws over everyone he works with, yet people still work with him.

He has created Trump the myth and enough people buy into it and keep buying into that he is a successful con artist.

Fair enough. I agree with your characterization. We'll have to disagree on whether that makes it brilliant or not. We can both agree that it has been successful.
[/quote]

Successful is a much better word than brilliant.

[GreenGoo]

On that we can agree.

[Roman]

So Comey will testify behind closed doors BUT the testimony will be released to the public? Hows that going to work?
I imagine that the questions asked will not be sensitive in nature - thats the only way that the transcript can be released right?https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/02/politics ... index.html

[Holman]

So Comey will testify behind closed doors BUT the testimony will be released to the public? Hows that going to work?
I imagine that the questions asked will not be sensitive in nature - thats the only way that the transcript can be released right?https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/02/politics ... index.html

We get the big story but they can specifically redact anything classified.

EDIT: or... Comey can do what he wants?



The deal seems to say that Comey himself may make public anything he likes?

I assume that this means he'll redacting himself, since he surely still cares about not burning sources or damaging anything else that's sensitive in his experience of the situation.

[Smoove_B]

The "I have nothing to do with Russia" super cut.

[Unagi]

OK, so he has nothing to do with Russia.

can we get that on the record?

[Paingod]

Innocent smart people don't address false accusations and just wait for everything to shake out. Innocent dumb people get confused and don't know nothin' about nothin'. Good liars and criminals don't address false accusations and hope everything blows over, and can look like one of the previous two. Dumb liars and criminals repeatedly draw attention to the very thing they're worried they'll get caught for.

Which best fits Trump?

[Holman]

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about “President Trump.” Nice to know that some people still have “guts!”

This is so much better when read in a George Bluth voice.

[TheMix]

I find it interesting that President Trump is in quotes. Does he not believe that he's actually the president? Or Trump?

[Trent Steel]

I need some kind of doomsday clock to gauge how close we are to actually having action taken against Trump. Are we at 2 minutes to midnight? 1 minute? I need to know when I should really start paying attention because following along on a daily basis is depressing and infuriating at the same time.

I would much rather just look at clock in my daily feed than sift through all the awfulness that is spewed. And once we strike midnight, I'll have my bag of popcorn ready.

[Kurth]

Just hit snooze. Repeatedly. For, like, 2 more years. Minimum.

[GreenGoo]

Just hit snooze. Repeatedly. For, like, 2 more years. Minimum.

+1.

I can't believe that he still has a twitter account. That alone means every fart of a thought he thinks he has worms its way into thousands of sources of information on the internet. It's somewhat maddening that you can't escape his crap and still stay current with the news of the world.

Sure presidents are often widely reported. This guy has a direct line that taps into the foundation of the information sphere of the internet with no one providing context or analysis. That sucks.

[Smoove_B]

Just hit snooze. Repeatedly. For, like, 2 more years. Minimum.

I can't believe this. He's on Twitter now telling judges to throw the book at Michael Cohen and simultaneously praising Roger Stone for not snitching on him.

He either knows the end is near or he's going to stroke out and get locked in like Hector Salamanca.

I don't think we'll collectively survive another 2 years of this.

[Kraken]

I need some kind of doomsday clock to gauge how close we are to actually having action taken against Trump. Are we at 2 minutes to midnight? 1 minute? I need to know when I should really start paying attention because following along on a daily basis is depressing and infuriating at the same time.

I would much rather just look at clock in my daily feed than sift through all the awfulness that is spewed. And once we strike midnight, I'll have my bag of popcorn ready.

(I was going to put this in the Midterms thread, but it's relevant to your question): GOP shows no signs of course correction.

Many of the lawmakers who lost their races or did not run again say the party has a profound structural challenge that incumbents are unwilling to fully face: Trump’s deep toxicity among moderate voters, especially women.

With most of the Republicans who lost hailing from suburban seats, those who remain represent red-hued districts where the president is well-liked.

“Now the party is Trump,” said Representative Tom Rooney of Florida, who at 48 decided to retire, “so we follow his lead.”

Or as Representative Ryan Costello of Pennsylvania, who is also retiring, put it: “It’s clear to me why we lost 40 seats; it was a referendum on the president, but that’s an extremely difficult proclamation for people to make because if they were to say that they’d get the wrath of the president.”

Even though they're talking about the House, the same dynamic applies to the Senate. And until a large number of senators decide that turning against Trump is in their own best interest, he cannot be removed.

Now, "taking action against Trump" encompasses a lot of measures short of impeachment, so your doomsday clock might be closing in on midnight in that sense. But as far as actual consequences...nope. Not until 2020. I suppose there is a small chance that a sane Republican will challenge Trump for the nomination, and sane Republican voters will rally around him, and that will be the end of that. Republicans will have to either rally around a widely-hated candidate or rip their party apart to get rid of him.

[Kurth]

Just hit snooze. Repeatedly. For, like, 2 more years. Minimum.

I can't believe this. He's on Twitter now telling judges to throw the book at Michael Cohen and simultaneously praising Roger Stone for not snitching on him.

He either knows the end is near or he's going to stroke out and get locked in like Hector Salamanca.

I don't think we'll collectively survive another 2 years of this.

I don't think the end is in sight, but I do think we'll survive. For all the harm he's done, for all the norms he's ignored, he's been relatively unsuccessful at undermining our political institutions, despite his best efforts and those of his enablers.

[GreenGoo]

I suppose there is a small chance that a sane Republican will challenge Trump for the nomination, and sane Republican voters will rally around him, and that will be the end of that. Republicans will have to either rally around a widely-hated candidate or rip their party apart to get rid of him.

Has that ever happened, ever? Has an incumbent president failed to receive the nomination after his first term? 'Cause I would really like to see that, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Kurth]

I suppose there is a small chance that a sane Republican will challenge Trump for the nomination, and sane Republican voters will rally around him, and that will be the end of that. Republicans will have to either rally around a widely-hated candidate or rip their party apart to get rid of him.

I agree with everything in your post except this bit. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that Trump faces a significant primary threat, which shows just how much the GOP has been captured by Trump and is maybe the thing that makes me most depressed about the current state of affairs.

Classic, sane Republicans (e.g., small government, fiscal conservatives) are like a lost tribe. It's like they've disappeared from the face of the earth.

[Max Peck]

Has an incumbent president failed to receive the nomination after his first term?

Yes.

[GreenGoo]

Ok, once, 166 years ago now.

Thanks for looking it up for me.

[Kraken]

I suppose there is a small chance that a sane Republican will challenge Trump for the nomination, and sane Republican voters will rally around him, and that will be the end of that. Republicans will have to either rally around a widely-hated candidate or rip their party apart to get rid of him.

I agree with everything in your post except this bit. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that Trump faces a significant primary threat, which shows just how much the GOP has been captured by Trump and is maybe the thing that makes me most depressed about the current state of affairs.

Classic, sane Republicans (e.g., small government, fiscal conservatives) are like a lost tribe. It's like they've disappeared from the face of the earth.

The odds are long, but not zero. An awful lot can (and will) happen between now and the primaries...Mueller's report, an international crisis, a slowing economy, a popular groundswell against global warming...it would take a perfect storm of events, but perfect storms do happen.

[GreenGoo]

The odds are long, but not zero. An awful lot can (and will) happen between now and the primaries...Mueller's report, an international crisis, a slowing economy, a popular groundswell against global warming...it would take a perfect storm of events, but perfect storms do happen.

It's been 166 years. I guess you're due?

[Kraken]

The odds are long, but not zero. An awful lot can (and will) happen between now and the primaries...Mueller's report, an international crisis, a slowing economy, a popular groundswell against global warming...it would take a perfect storm of events, but perfect storms do happen.

It's been 166 years. I guess you're due?

Trump is a unique figure, at least in modern times. He just barely squeaked into office, his popular disapproval rating hovers stubbornly around 60%, he's deeply mired in scandals and corruption, he might be an actual traitor, and he's mentally unhinged. I wouldn't lay money on it, but Republicans could rebel.

[El Guapo]

The odds are long, but not zero. An awful lot can (and will) happen between now and the primaries...Mueller's report, an international crisis, a slowing economy, a popular groundswell against global warming...it would take a perfect storm of events, but perfect storms do happen.

It's been 166 years. I guess you're due?

Trump is a unique figure, at least in modern times. He just barely squeaked into office, his popular disapproval rating hovers stubbornly around 60%, he's deeply mired in scandals and corruption, he might be an actual traitor, and he's mentally unhinged. I wouldn't lay money on it, but Republicans could rebel.

FWIW I think there's a better than even chance that Kasich runs. Although I think there's a very heavy chance that he gets crushed by Trump, although as you say, a lot could happen between now and then.

[GreenGoo]

Without those factors we wouldn't even be considering the possibility, so drumpf being a special case has at least got us talking about it.

[Kurth]

I suppose there is a small chance that a sane Republican will challenge Trump for the nomination, and sane Republican voters will rally around him, and that will be the end of that. Republicans will have to either rally around a widely-hated candidate or rip their party apart to get rid of him.

I agree with everything in your post except this bit. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that Trump faces a significant primary threat, which shows just how much the GOP has been captured by Trump and is maybe the thing that makes me most depressed about the current state of affairs.

Classic, sane Republicans (e.g., small government, fiscal conservatives) are like a lost tribe. It's like they've disappeared from the face of the earth.

The odds are long, but not zero. An awful lot can (and will) happen between now and the primaries...Mueller's report, an international crisis, a slowing economy, a popular groundswell against global warming...it would take a perfect storm of events, but perfect storms do happen.

Fair enough. Now please go put a word in with your Governor to get on his horse if that perfect storm should happen to happen!

[Kraken]

The odds are long, but not zero. An awful lot can (and will) happen between now and the primaries...Mueller's report, an international crisis, a slowing economy, a popular groundswell against global warming...it would take a perfect storm of events, but perfect storms do happen.

It's been 166 years. I guess you're due?

Trump is a unique figure, at least in modern times. He just barely squeaked into office, his popular disapproval rating hovers stubbornly around 60%, he's deeply mired in scandals and corruption, he might be an actual traitor, and he's mentally unhinged. I wouldn't lay money on it, but Republicans could rebel.

FWIW I think there's a better than even chance that Kasich runs. Although I think there's a very heavy chance that he gets crushed by Trump, although as you say, a lot could happen between now and then.

I still think there's a fair chance that Trump dies before the next election and we see a Republican free-for-all. That's probably more likely than a successful insurgency.

[Kurth]

The Boss weighs in: "Why Bruce Springsteen thinks Donald Trump is going to win again in 2020":

"I don't see anyone out there at the moment ... the man who can beat Trump, or the woman who can beat Trump," Springsteen said of the potential 2020 Democratic field. "You need someone who can speak some of the same language [as Trump] ... and the Democrats don't have an obvious, effective presidential candidate."

[Pyperkub]

The odds are long, but not zero. An awful lot can (and will) happen between now and the primaries...Mueller's report, an international crisis, a slowing economy, a popular groundswell against global warming...it would take a perfect storm of events, but perfect storms do happen.

It's been 166 years. I guess you're due?

Trump is a unique figure, at least in modern times. He just barely squeaked into office, his popular disapproval rating hovers stubbornly around 60%, he's deeply mired in scandals and corruption, he might be an actual traitor, and he's mentally unhinged. I wouldn't lay money on it, but Republicans could rebel.

FWIW I think there's a better than even chance that Kasich runs. Although I think there's a very heavy chance that he gets crushed by Trump, although as you say, a lot could happen between now and then.

With today's GOP electorate, Kasich (or any other "moderate" Republican) would get crushed by any far right republican - Cruz, Santorum, etc. A moderate Republican will never make it through the Primaries until we start seeing GOP moderates proliferating at the State level and in the House of Representatives.

[Holman]

The odds are long, but not zero. An awful lot can (and will) happen between now and the primaries...Mueller's report, an international crisis, a slowing economy, a popular groundswell against global warming...it would take a perfect storm of events, but perfect storms do happen.

It's been 166 years. I guess you're due?

Trump is a unique figure, at least in modern times. He just barely squeaked into office, his popular disapproval rating hovers stubbornly around 60%, he's deeply mired in scandals and corruption, he might be an actual traitor, and he's mentally unhinged. I wouldn't lay money on it, but Republicans could rebel.

FWIW I think there's a better than even chance that Kasich runs. Although I think there's a very heavy chance that he gets crushed by Trump, although as you say, a lot could happen between now and then.

The problem is that Trump has altered the GOP in his image by blowing the lid off the racism and resentment that has been contained and channeled from Nixon to Romney. Look at Trump's approvals within the party. Will all of that really go back into Pandora's box because Kasich or Rubio needs a pivot?

The post-Trump GOP will look for another Trump. If things change quickly (say, resignation or heart attack in 2019), they'll settle for Pence, especially since the religious right will declare Trump's exit part of God's Plan For America. But even Pence will need to Trumpify himself to keep up the rage-per-minute.

It will never be GHWB's party again. It wasn't even at the time, but now they see themselves clearly.

[Smoove_B]

I don't think the end is in sight, but I do think we'll survive.

I wish I could share your optimism, but perhaps my 2+ decades of public service have made me more cynical with respect to how government functions.

Regardless, slight update on what's coming:

Over the next few weeks, a series of court filings are due that may shed substantial light on what Mueller has learned from people who once sat in Trump's inner circle.

That could happen as soon as Tuesday, when Mueller is scheduled to file a detailed memo in support of the sentencing of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. That memo would include information about any "bad acts" Flynn committed for which he was not charged, and details about his cooperation with the special counsel.

It's possible that filing will be sealed, which means the public won't see it until later. But on Friday, another filing is expected that legal experts say probably will not be sealed — a detailed explanation of why Mueller's office is withdrawing a plea agreement with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, including the "crimes and lies" Mueller alleges Manafort committed while he purported to be cooperating with the special counsel.

Next week:

And then, on Dec. 12, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen is expected to be sentenced in federal court in New York, in a hearing during which his other "bad acts," and his cooperation with Mueller, are likely to be further detailed.

I had a really shitty night's sleep last night, but I'm guessing it was marginally better than what President Trump is experiencing in the wee hours of the morning.

[Pyperkub]

The odds are long, but not zero. An awful lot can (and will) happen between now and the primaries...Mueller's report, an international crisis, a slowing economy, a popular groundswell against global warming...it would take a perfect storm of events, but perfect storms do happen.

It's been 166 years. I guess you're due?

Trump is a unique figure, at least in modern times. He just barely squeaked into office, his popular disapproval rating hovers stubbornly around 60%, he's deeply mired in scandals and corruption, he might be an actual traitor, and he's mentally unhinged. I wouldn't lay money on it, but Republicans could rebel.

FWIW I think there's a better than even chance that Kasich runs. Although I think there's a very heavy chance that he gets crushed by Trump, although as you say, a lot could happen between now and then.

The problem is that Trump has altered the GOP in his image by blowing the lid off the racism and resentment that has been contained and channeled from Nixon to Romney. Look at Trump's approvals within the party. Will all of that really go back into Pandora's box because Kasich or Rubio needs a pivot?

The post-Trump GOP will look for another Trump. If things change quickly (say, resignation or heart attack in 2019), they'll settle for Pence, especially since the religious right will declare Trump's exit part of God's Plan For America. But even Pence will need to Trumpify himself to keep up the rage-per-minute.

It will never be GHWB's party again. It wasn't even at the time, but now they see themselves clearly.

I think you have that bass-ackwards. The GOP has been altering itself in that image for decades. Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

The post-Trump GOP won't look for another Trump, it's already full of them. Think Steve King of Iowa and both Boehner and Ryan's failures to marginalize his ilk to actually get things done.

[Roman]

The Boss weighs in: "Why Bruce Springsteen thinks Donald Trump is going to win again in 2020":

"I don't see anyone out there at the moment ... the man who can beat Trump, or the woman who can beat Trump," Springsteen said of the potential 2020 Democratic field. "You need someone who can speak some of the same language [as Trump] ... and the Democrats don't have an obvious, effective presidential candidate."

He ain't wrong. Not one iota.

[Malificent]

The Boss weighs in: "Why Bruce Springsteen thinks Donald Trump is going to win again in 2020":

"I don't see anyone out there at the moment ... the man who can beat Trump, or the woman who can beat Trump," Springsteen said of the potential 2020 Democratic field. "You need someone who can speak some of the same language [as Trump] ... and the Democrats don't have an obvious, effective presidential candidate."

He ain't wrong. Not one iota.

I think the Democrats might get away without needing a super candidate IF they pick someone relatively new, someone that doesn't have a long history. Then it becomes easy for voters to assign that person whatever values or ideals they expect. A tabula rasa, if you will.

I think Trump somewhat benefited from that (as did Obama in his first election - hopey changey, etc) in the 2016 election. People saw what they wanted to see in him. With 4 years of actual Trump reality in place in 2020, he'll shed some of those people. Not all or probably not even most. But probably enough that Democrats can slide in with a solid candidate who has their own clean slate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm nervous as hell about who the Democrats will run. Democrats let the Republicans define Hillary's brand and then ran her anyway. Does a Bernie Sanders already have too much history? Elizabeth Warren? I don't know, which is why I'm glad I'm not in charge.

[El Guapo]

The Boss weighs in: "Why Bruce Springsteen thinks Donald Trump is going to win again in 2020":

"I don't see anyone out there at the moment ... the man who can beat Trump, or the woman who can beat Trump," Springsteen said of the potential 2020 Democratic field. "You need someone who can speak some of the same language [as Trump] ... and the Democrats don't have an obvious, effective presidential candidate."

He ain't wrong. Not one iota.

I think the Democrats might get away without needing a super candidate IF they pick someone relatively new, someone that doesn't have a long history. Then it becomes easy for voters to assign that person whatever values or ideals they expect. A tabula rasa, if you will.

I think Trump somewhat benefited from that (as did Obama in his first election - hopey changey, etc) in the 2016 election. People saw what they wanted to see in him. With 4 years of actual Trump reality in place in 2020, he'll shed some of those people. Not all or probably not even most. But probably enough that Democrats can slide in with a solid candidate who has their own clean slate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm nervous as hell about who the Democrats will run. Democrats let the Republicans define Hillary's brand and then ran her anyway. Does a Bernie Sanders already have too much history? Elizabeth Warren? I don't know, which is why I'm glad I'm not in charge.

I think Bruce is better at music than political prognosticating.

Trump *barely* won in 2016 at a time when he was a political outsider in a political outsider-y year, when Democrats were running for a third term in the White House, when his opponent as also historically unpopular, when he benefited from Comey's absurd last minute intervention, etc. With Trump running for reelection as a corrupt and unpopular Washington insider, as long as the Democrats run someone who is not historically unpopular, then they will likely be favored. Though not overwhelming favorites.

[Carpet_pissr]

So we want our Democratic candidate to "speak the same language" as Trump? Pass!

I can guess what he's getting at, I think...but poorly said IMO.
1. We definitely don't want a dog whistler as a Dem candidate. (tricksy)
2. Word salad, much? (literal)
3. Down Homey? Simple? (he talks like me!)

I think Springsteen probable MEANT 3. above. Hey, Biden can definitely do that. He's very "of the people", not an elitist, professorial Kenyan Muslim extremist like Hussein Barak was. Yes. he's old, but dammit, he is qualified as hell, and I think he could win. If you still have some hope for the morals of this country, you might have to believe that an actual adult that can speak in complete sentences (but not TOO wordy or nerdy!) running against a pouty, sometimes incoherent man-baby with the Grinch's heart, would win handily.

4 years of childish, boorish, and frankly cowardly behavior from Trump will be highly contrasted with a strong, noble statesman figure (which I think Biden is).

[LordMortis]

You (Edit you is Guap) know you say this after all your political prognosticating about the inevitability of a Clinton presidency where you denied things like Clinton's being historically unpopular and her having a need to appeal to the working class midwest.

I don't happen to think it's as dire as Bruce does but I agree with his fear and you illustrate that fear well. I remain hopeful that the Merkley star comes to shine and his shine is not gilded and that for some reason a person like Springsteen who has the time and frame of reference to see the big political picture better than I ever will, somehow missed Merkley in the field. Merkley (as I see him) could appeal to clock puncher.

Merkley also has notable appealing distinctions pulled from his wiki:

defeating an R incumbant in the 2008 changeover
Being the only D senator not to endorse Clinton in the primary
Having a public school education
Worked for the CBO
Is driven by charity work in the US for the working and unable to work poor
Is against sustained presence in Afghanistan and Iraq
Is for increased banking regulation
Stands for protecting US jobs by using US product for expanding infrastructure rebuild
He and Warren are allies

I am willing him to have to have no skeletons or deal breaker traits because on the surface he has what it means to be all things to all people who aren't global hawks, corporate agents, religious zealot, or simply always republicans.

[El Guapo]

You (Edit you is Guap) know you say this after all your political prognosticating about the inevitability of a Clinton presidency where you denied things like Clinton's being historically unpopular and her having a need to appeal to the working class midwest.

I don't think this is an accurate summary. I may have been overly optimistic about Clinton's chances of beating Trump in early 2016, though I doubt I described it as inevitable, and the others I strongly doubt.

Trump absolutely could win reelection. He's likely to hold onto the overwhelming majority of his base, and he's inevitably going to get *most* of the Republican vote. The problem for him is that's not enough - he'll also need to get a mix of "soft" Republican votes, soft Democratic votes, and independents, and *that's* likely to be much harder in 2020 than it was in 2016. His party just lost the popular vote in the last election by a lot! Probably close to 9% when all the ballots are totaled.

So, Trump absolutely can win in 2020 (he will have an incumbency advantage, and the economy could be booming). But most of the people Democratic field should be competitive with him, if not slight favorites. I worry somewhat about the Democrats running Warren, because she's been Hillary'd to a significant degree and her numbers aren't looking great, but most others should be competitive.