PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: azure on February 19, 2019, 10:37:44 AM
-
NYT just announced it, and Bernie confirmed it to Vermont Public Radio.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020.html)
If he gets the nomination, that might just be enough to get me to vote for Trump.
-
Bernie's not so bad. He wants to turn us into Norway. Sounds good to me as long as he goes all the way.
-
Sanders just joins the other asshats in the clown show right now.
I still contend we haven't seen the real nominee yet, which will be a dark horse. This dark horse will follow in the same design as BHO, a carefully crafted candidate. I also believe the handlers learned from BHO and will not allow this one to get caught up in celebrity.
-
Bernie's not so bad. He wants to turn us into Norway. Sounds good to me as long as he goes all the way.
I don't know much about Norway's socialism but I do know it is a very small, more homogenous society than the U.S. That crap won't work here.
-
I don't know much about Norway's socialism but I do know it is a very small, more homogenous society than the U.S. That crap won't work here.
I mean go all the way Norway. Including everything.
http://www.nyinorge.no/en/Familiegjenforening/New-in-Norway/Moving-to-Norway/Citizenship/
To apply for Norwegian citizenship, you must have a valid residence permit in Norway. You must also meet several other requirements, including the following:
You must have documented or clarified your identity.
You must be resident in Norway and intend to continue to live here.
If you are married to, or are the registered partner or cohabitant of a Norwegian national, the time you have lived in Norway and the total time you have been married, registered partners or cohabitants, must be at least seven years. ---
You must have completed 300 hours of tuition in the Norwegian language or be able to document sufficient skills in Norwegian or Sami.
You must not have been convicted of a criminal offence or been ordered to undergo enforced psychiatric treatment or care (good conduct requirement).
-
I'd be behind Sanders except he's too old. The guy is 78 years old. By the time he'd be elected POTUS he'd be 80. Last time we had an 80 year old POTUS it didn't work well.
-
I'd be behind Sanders except he's too old. The guy is 78 years old. By the time he'd be elected POTUS he'd be 80. Last time we had an 80 year old POTUS it didn't work well.
Which president was that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
-
Which president was that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
He means Reagan probably. One of the best Presidents in my lifetime. If Lenin or Marx was 80, the little Bolshevik would vote for them.
-
He means Reagan probably. One of the best Presidents in my lifetime. If Lenin or Marx was 80, the little Bolshevik would vote for them.
When Reagan left office he was just shy of his 78th birthday. This country has never had an 80 year old president.
Reagan was the best president of the 20th century.
-
I'd be behind Sanders except he's too old.
Why? Please, convince me to feel as you do.
-
Why? Please, convince me to feel as you do.
Why? He's a JEWISH Bolshevik in the tradition of Jewish communists that populate America. Especially New York, Jewish Communists that spread their evil through out the U.S. wherever they go. Carpetbaggers all of them. I've seen it everywhere I have lived.
-
Why? He's a JEWISH Bolshevik in the tradition of Jewish communists that populate America. Especially New York, Jewish Communists that spread their evil through out the U.S. wherever they go. Carpetbaggers all of them. I've seen it everywhere I have lived.
Ah, I always wondered why Jewish Americans are leftist when it’s the right that supports Israel. It’s because Russia and the communists were enemies of the Nazis. They’re stuck needing to support anything that opposed the Nazis (very understandable). But in reality the Nazis were just another form of leftism. Nazi stands for “socialist”. So being stuck there just after WWII and living in large cities in the northeast there was no hope they’d ever be exposed to conservative ideas or rural American culture.
-
Why? Please, convince me to feel as you do.
Because people in their 80's are much more prone to cognitive dysfunction, cancer, and other maladies associated with old age. The human life span is about 82, give or take. And the job of POTUS, if properly done requires a great deal of energy. Most young occupants of the White House go gray in their first term.
-
Because people in their 80's are much more prone to cognitive dysfunction, cancer, and other maladies associated with old age. The human life span is about 82, give or take. And the job of POTUS, if properly done requires a great deal of energy. Most young occupants of the White House go gray in their first term.
I think Becky was asking why you’d be for Sanders, age notwithstanding.
-
I think Becky was asking why you’d be for Sanders, age notwithstanding.
Oh, because I really liked a lot of his ideas from the last election. I like universal health care, I don't think anyone should be ruined by illness. Please don't tell me it doesn't happen, I've seen it. Heck, if I didn't have my job we couldn't get any kind of coverage. I think the banks are once again out of control and would like to see someone stand up to them. I love the fact that in the last election cycle he took no money from special interests. And I really don't like the increasing economic disparity we see here, America was ever supposed to have a landed aristocracy but that's what we're building.
The folks who voted for Trump out of disconnect with both parties are likely to get more out of Sanders. I like his progressive platform. I won't try and convince anyone, I think his ideas aren't very popular here. But I don't care about being popular and I never did. I care about being try to myself and my beliefs.
Sadly I cannot support him this election cycle. He is too damn old.
-
I would have voted for Sanders vs Hillary if I’d had to vote Democrat in the primary. I agree with him on a couple of social issues but the economic socialism would be disastrous. Also I completely agree with Michael on his age. In my experience the majority of people over 70 have significant cognitive dysfunction but there are some exceptions. Trump seems to be one, he’s sharp as a tack. Hillary I think was suffering decline. She had hypothyroid which greatly affects energ, motivation and physical health, and she had other issues we’ve seen hints of but don’t know the diagnosis. Sanders is probably healthier than Hillary but I am wary of putting octogenarians in office. Look at RBG, what a disaster, sleeping through sessions. Reagan did the same thing toward the end of his terms.
-
Oh, because I really liked a lot of his ideas from the last election. I like universal health care, I don't think anyone should be ruined by illness. Please don't tell me it doesn't happen, I've seen it. Heck, if I didn't have my job we couldn't get any kind of coverage. I think the banks are once again out of control and would like to see someone stand up to them. I love the fact that in the last election cycle he took no money from special interests. And I really don't like the increasing economic disparity we see here, America was ever supposed to have a landed aristocracy but that's what we're building.
The folks who voted for Trump out of disconnect with both parties are likely to get more out of Sanders. I like his progressive platform. I won't try and convince anyone, I think his ideas aren't very popular here. But I don't care about being popular and I never did. I care about being try to myself and my beliefs.
Sadly I cannot support him this election cycle. He is too damn old.
Sanders’ whole schtick is spouting clichéd Marxist rhetoric demonizing millionaires like himself and promising that he’ll look out for the underdog. He gets paid $174,000 for being a totally unproductive senator, but spent $600,000 for a summer home. His wife, one of his “most trusted advisors,” attempted to carry off a massive deception to get funding for the college she worked for.
If he’s itching to redistribute wealth, he should start with his own, but to do so would be voluntary. That contradicts the core principle of all leftists, which is coercion.
Bernie Sanders and his ilk are self serving frauds. We all saw with Obama what happened when leftists got their hands on our healthcare. It has been said that when the government controls your health care, they control you.
-
Here's a Constitutional question. Limbaugh was saying he thought Sanders would choose AOC as his running mate. Let's say Sanders was elected and croaks of a heart attack, can AOC be sworn in as the President? She does not meet the age qualification.
-
Here's a Constitutional question. Limbaugh was saying he thought Sanders would choose AOC as his running mate. Let's say Sanders was elected and croaks of a heart attack, can AOC be sworn in as the President? She does not meet the age qualification.
If she doesn't meet the age requirement, the answer is no.
-
Here's a Constitutional question. Limbaugh was saying he thought Sanders would choose AOC as his running mate. Let's say Sanders was elected and croaks of a heart attack, can AOC be sworn in as the President? She does not meet the age qualification.
She would not qualify for POTUS. Cue leftists to call Republicans racist women haters for following the Constitution as a lame excuse to keep the first brown female from becoming president.
-
Does anyone find an age requirement for the VP.
-
Does anyone find an age requirement for the VP.
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President,
So let's say for sake of argument, Crazy Bernie runs and ask Sandy to be his VP candidate, and there is no objection of the above part of the constitution.
Then he gets elected. The day after he takes the oath of office, Crazy Bernie assumes room temperature. Just by the language of the constitution Sandy can't hold the office, and must be bypassed. So the next in line is the Speaker of the House.
-
Does anyone find an age requirement for the VP.
There isn’t one. However, a VP who doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirements to be President would not be eligible to be elevated to that spot.
-
Back door way to get Pelosi in there...
-
Back door way to get Pelosi in there...
Theoretically that could happen, exactly. But I can’t imagine democrats really wanting Pelosi in there.
-
Back door way to get Pelosi in there...
But Pelosi has already said she would not run for Speaker again............
-
Oh, because I really liked a lot of his ideas from the last election. I like universal health care, I don't think anyone should be ruined by illness. Please don't tell me it doesn't happen, I've seen it. Heck, if I didn't have my job we couldn't get any kind of coverage. I think the banks are once again out of control and would like to see someone stand up to them. I love the fact that in the last election cycle he took no money from special interests. And I really don't like the increasing economic disparity we see here, America was ever supposed to have a landed aristocracy but that's what we're building.
The folks who voted for Trump out of disconnect with both parties are likely to get more out of Sanders. I like his progressive platform. I won't try and convince anyone, I think his ideas aren't very popular here. But I don't care about being popular and I never did. I care about being try to myself and my beliefs.
Sadly I cannot support him this election cycle. He is too damn old.
Someone finally said something to make me consider universal healthcare and it was Jordan Peterson. (The guy that the left hates because he’s a racist conservative.) He pointed out that it’s easier to start a small business in Canada because they don’t have to worry about providing health insurance to employees. That’s a great point. Tying health insurance to employment is a disaster. You are absolutely right if it weren’t for your job you wouldn’t have coverage. When my husband lost his job and his coverage the COBRA payments were unaffordable. Fortunately I have coverage through my retirement and so he got on mine.
How health insurance got tied to employment was government meddling in salaries and tax codes. So the right solution is to untangle that. But I don’t know if this country could do that - it seems no one even knows how it got this way much less cares to reverse it. To most people the only way out is a government takeover. I am far from believing that would be anything but another disaster but I agree the way things are is not sustainable. The population as a whole is getting older and sicker, with fewer young healthy people to fork over premiums.
-
Someone finally said something to make me consider universal healthcare and it was Jordan Peterson. (The guy that the left hates because he’s a racist conservative.) He pointed out that it’s easier to start a small business in Canada because they don’t have to worry about providing health insurance to employees. . . .
As a former business owner, I agree with some of this whole-heartedly. It is a huge burden on the private employer to be responsible for employee health care. But that doesn't justify universal health care to me.
It is a huge conundrum. I do believe everyone deserves health care. But I don't think saddling employers is the right answer. Perhaps giving everyone the same tax breaks a business gets for healthcare expenses would be a better way of sharing the pain without putting American businesses at such an economic disadvantage. That would also free employees to seek better jobs without the handcuffs of company health care plans.
-
Someone finally said something to make me consider universal healthcare and it was Jordan Peterson. (The guy that the left hates because he’s a racist conservative.) He pointed out that it’s easier to start a small business in Canada because they don’t have to worry about providing health insurance to employees. That’s a great point. Tying health insurance to employment is a disaster. You are absolutely right if it weren’t for your job you wouldn’t have coverage. When my husband lost his job and his coverage the COBRA payments were unaffordable. Fortunately I have coverage through my retirement and so he got on mine.
How health insurance got tied to employment was government meddling in salaries and tax codes. So the right solution is to untangle that. But I don’t know if this country could do that - it seems no one even knows how it got this way much less cares to reverse it. To most people the only way out is a government takeover. I am far from believing that would be anything but another disaster but I agree the way things are is not sustainable. The population as a whole is getting older and sicker, with fewer young healthy people to fork over premiums.
Rush, aren’t those really two separate and distinct things? I totally agree tying insurance to employment is a ridiculous.
But why can’t insurance companies still do what they do - sell health insurance?
Today I can get life insurance from:
-AICPA (American Institute if Certified Public Accountants)
-AOPA
-NRA
-EAA
-AAA
-My Credit Union
-Any life insurance company.
All of those alphabet groups puts me into a group whereby risk is diversified, and insurance can be had affordably.
Why can’t the same thing happen with health insurance?
That literally could happen with insurance companies if the government would get the fuck out of the way.
I remember on POA or here (not sure) where I got a lecture from Steingar about how the ACA insurance mandate was necessary to bring young healthy people into the pools so insurance companies could diversify their risk.
SHAZAAM! The insurance companies has NO IDEA how to do diversify risk before Obama came along and taught them how to do insurance.
The only guarantee in life is that the government will be inefficient, expensive, and painfully bureaucratic when they try to do something that’s always been done by the private sector. Look at the FedGov takeover of student loans.
-
Rush, aren’t those really two separate and distinct things? I totally agree tying insurance to employment is a ridiculous.
But why can’t insurance companies still do what they do - sell health insurance?
Today I can get life insurance from:
-AICPA (American Institute if Certified Public Accountants)
-AOPA
-NRA
-EAA
-AAA
-My Credit Union
-Any life insurance company.
All of those alphabet groups puts me into a group whereby risk is diversified, and insurance can be had affordably.
Why can’t the same thing happen with health insurance?
That literally could happen with insurance companies if the government would get the fuck out of the way.
I remember on POA or here (not sure) where I got a lecture from Steingar about how the ACA insurance mandate was necessary to bring young healthy people into the pools so insurance companies could diversify their risk.
SHAZAAM! The insurance companies has NO IDEA how to do diversify risk before Obama came along and taught them how to do insurance.
The only guarantee in life is that the government will be inefficient, expensive, and painfully bureaucratic when they try to do something that’s always been done by the private sector. Look at the FedGov takeover of student loans.
I agree 100% but how do you get all the morons in this country to vote for the politician that will make the government get the fuck out of the way?
-
One problem is that health insurance as we know it today isn't insurance.
-
One problem is that health insurance as we know it today isn't insurance.
In what way? I think mine is.
-
In what way? I think mine is.
In a few critical ways. Fundamentally, insurance covers unexpected, non-routine, not-insignificant losses. Health insurance regularly covers small, expected, and routine things. It is fundamentally unlike most of the insurance we know of.
-
In a few critical ways. Fundamentally, insurance covers unexpected, non-routine, not-insignificant losses. Health insurance regularly covers small, expected, and routine things. It is fundamentally unlike most of the insurance we know of.
Well it certainly is different than other things, but it’s still insurance. My auto insurance won’t cover maintenance or repairs, but I can buy an extended warranty that will cover those things if I want them to.
But I get your point. I think that consumers have gotten into the habit of not paying out of pocket for medical matters, and the doctors and hospitals have followed suit.
I don’t have dental or vision insurance, and they look at me odd when I say I’m just going to pay the bill.
-
Well it certainly is different than other things, but it’s still insurance. My auto insurance won’t cover maintenance or repairs, but I can buy an extended warranty that will cover those things if I want them to.
But I get your point. I think that consumers have gotten into the habit of not paying out of pocket for medical matters, and the doctors and hospitals have followed suit.
I don’t have dental or vision insurance, and they look at me odd when I say I’m just going to pay the bill.
Interesting article - https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/health-insurance-is-not-insurance/
-
One problem is that health insurance as we know it today isn't insurance.
Agreed. And that is probably the main problem.
-
By expecting insurance to cover all medical costs, both routine and non-routine, we are turning over all oversight to someone else. We can run up as big a bill as we can knowing that someone else will pay for it. Then those that pay for it (insurance companies) merely raise the rates for everyone. And since we are now paying so much, we expect even more from our insurance. Which we get from the insurance companies, who then raise their rates again.
Is it any wonder how we got to where we are?
-
By expecting insurance to cover all medical costs, both routine and non-routine, we are turning over all oversight to someone else. We can run up as big a bill as we can knowing that someone else will pay for it. Then those that pay for it (insurance companies) merely raise the rates for everyone. And since we are now paying so much, we expect even more from our insurance. Which we get from the insurance companies, who then raise their rates again.
Is it any wonder how we got to where we are?
This is largely the problem in a nutshell. There is no incentive to regulate use.
-
The problem is if you go the other way, that is charge folks for "routine" stuff and only kick in the insurance when things get bad, no one goes to the doctor until they're half dead. At that point it costs way more to cure the illness than it would have cost to prevent it. There's a reason folks in states with nationalized health care systems have better health than us and pay less for it.
-
The other problem is that many folks are living with chronic diseases that require very expensive pharmaceuticals on a monthly basis to manage. Not just lifestyle-related conditions like DM2, but things like RA, MS, IBD, certain chronic systemic cancers, lots of others. No way for most people to afford to treat them without some way to spread the cost around, either the way we do it now through premiums for "health insurance", or through taxes with "Medicare for all", or whatever. One way or another, we all pay for it, the thing about anything run by the government is that we would pay more because of the bureaucratic overhead. And as Rush and others have said, it will only get worse as the population continues to age.
I'm heartened that many politicians including Trump are starting to put their finger on the central problem, the cost of health care itself. I've yet to hear a rational sounding solution to that, though, from either (or any) side.
-
The problem is if you go the other way, that is charge folks for "routine" stuff and only kick in the insurance when things get bad, no one goes to the doctor until they're half dead. At that point it costs way more to cure the illness than it would have cost to prevent it. There's a reason folks in states with nationalized health care systems have better health than us and pay less for it.
I always hear this argument but I haven't seen the science that proves it. I'm suspicious of the supposed preventive care that is being pushed these days.
For example: routine mammograms to "catch" breast cancer "early" and hence cure it more easily. When you take a deep look at it, something very disturbing appears. Supposedly women's lives are extended longer if they catch and treat breast cancer early, but in reality, the extension is simply the amount of time it got caught early. Properly interpreted, the studies actually show that the woman would have died at the same time no matter what was done or when it was caught, but because it was caught 3 years earlier, she supposedly lived 3 years "longer" with breast cancer.
This sort of misunderstanding of the data is rampant. Actually things might be flip flopped; it is cheaper to treat later. Total treatment time between diagnosis and death is shorter. This of course applies to some things but not others. There are certainly things where catching it early results in cure and overall less cost. But it's way more complicated than the simple idea "spend more to prevent saves in the long run". That's not always true. Much of this preventive maintenance is just a waste. Encouragement to exercise certainly is; I think it's pretty clear that diet, not exercise, is the majority influence on obesity and disease. Exercise might keep your muscles stronger, but it does nothing whatsoever to stop plaque buildup in your arteries.
-
The problem is if you go the other way, that is charge folks for "routine" stuff and only kick in the insurance when things get bad, no one goes to the doctor until they're half dead. At that point it costs way more to cure the illness than it would have cost to prevent it. There's a reason folks in states with nationalized health care systems have better health than us and pay less for it.
I have often described a sort of "hybrid" system. Provide basic services through subsidized clinics. Provide immunizations, basic wound repair, basic exams for minor illnesses (like strep throat or the flu) that could develop into bigger problems. People could use those services if they need or choose too. Or they could pay their own doctors for such services.
But also, let the market provide for people to purchase better insurance plans that will cover the major stuff. Offer choices of high-deductible plans or "Cadillac" plans. And make insurance premiums tax deductible for people rather than forcing employers to be responsible for health care.
This is a case where "a little bit of socialism" might be a good thing.
-
She would not qualify for POTUS. Cue leftists to call Republicans racist women haters for following the Constitution as a lame excuse to keep the first brown female from becoming president.
I guess I’m mistaken! Apparently if you have lady parts there is no age limit, at least according to AOC.
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-constitution/
“Although we’ve been joking that because the Equal Rights Amendment hasn’t been passed yet, the Constitution technically says he cannot run unless he’s 35. … So what we’ll do is we’ll force the Republican Party to pass the Equal Rights Amendment by threatening to run for president.”
“That is awesome,” the photographer reportedly replied. “All the people who say a literal interpretation of the Constitution is the only thing you should be paying attention to.”
-
Back to the OT of the thread: Bernie's age doesn't bother me. Yes it's a liability, statistically speaking, but statistics don't address the individual. He has always seemed sharp and I've seen nothing in his recent public appearances to suggest cognitive decline. My problem with Bernie is his policies (Medicare for all would be a disaster in this time of $22 trillion debt), his narrow focus on economic inequality (he lives in a left-wing populist world where the common man is good and big business the epitome of evil), and the fact that he can't discuss international affairs intelligently to save his life, my main takeaway from the Clinton-Sanders debates in 2016.
So far there hasn't been an announced dem candidate I could vote for. They're mostly left-wing extremists pushing Sanders-style "democratic socialism", not a real centrist in the bunch. Sad. I'm still very lukewarm to Trump and much of what he does scares the crap out of me, but he has grown into the job more than I expected, and I'd have to hold my nose and punch his number on the ballot if the alternative were any of the current crop of Dems.
My long-shot hope is that a moderate Republican (maybe someone like Kasich - definitely NOT Weld) successfully challenges Trump in the primaries. I realize it isn't likely to happen unless Trump does something REALLY disastrous, but I'm afraid our next President is going to be a socialist if it doesn't. Heck, I strongly suspect that if the Dems had gone for Bernie, we would have a socialist in the WH now.
-
Back to the OT of the thread: Bernie's age doesn't bother me. Yes it's a liability, statistically speaking, but statistics don't address the individual. He has always seemed sharp and I've seen nothing in his recent public appearances to suggest cognitive decline. My problem with Bernie is his policies (Medicare for all would be a disaster in this time of $22 trillion debt), his narrow focus on economic inequality (he lives in a left-wing populist world where the common man is good and big business the epitome of evil), and the fact that he can't discuss international affairs intelligently to save his life, my main takeaway from the Clinton-Sanders debates in 2016.
So far there hasn't been an announced dem candidate I could vote for. They're mostly left-wing extremists pushing Sanders-style "democratic socialism", not a real centrist in the bunch. Sad. I'm still very lukewarm to Trump and much of what he does scares the crap out of me, but he has grown into the job more than I expected, and I'd have to hold my nose and punch his number on the ballot if the alternative were any of the current crop of Dems.
My long-shot hope is that a moderate Republican (maybe someone like Kasich - definitely NOT Weld) successfully challenges Trump in the primaries. I realize it isn't likely to happen unless Trump does something REALLY disastrous, but I'm afraid our next President is going to be a socialist if it doesn't. Heck, I strongly suspect that if the Dems had gone for Bernie, we would have a socialist in the WH now.
Primarying a first term president is the best way to elect the opposition party. Too much money, resources, volunteers, and strategy is wasted beating your primary opponents before you ever step foot into the general.
Any GOP primary candidate knows this, and if they get into the game, you will know they’re playing for the other team.
-
Primarying a first term president is the best way to elect the opposition party. Too much money, resources, volunteers, and strategy is wasted beating your primary opponents before you ever step foot into the general.
Any GOP primary candidate knows this, and if they get into the game, you will know they’re playing for the other team.
Yes, usually that's true, but Trump won in 2016 because of a confluence of many factors, and he has not enjoyed that kind of popularity since. For long stretches he has polled in the low 40's and even high 30's, nationally. I don't think he will be able to beat a strong, popular socialist candidate. I predict he will be a one-term president unless his numbers (nationally, not just among Republicans) improve dramatically in the next year. The only question is whether the Republicans have the will to go with someone who has a better chance of beating Bernie, or a Bernie-clone.
-
Yes, usually that's true, but Trump won in 2016 because of a confluence of many factors, and he has not enjoyed that kind of popularity since. For long stretches he has polled in the low 40's and even high 30's, nationally. I don't think he will be able to beat a strong, popular socialist candidate. I predict he will be a one-term president unless his numbers (nationally, not just among Republicans) improve dramatically in the next year. The only question is whether the Republicans have the will to go with someone who has a better chance of beating Bernie, or a Bernie-clone.
We have a booming economy.
Historically low unemployment including for Blacks, and Hispanics.
We have very low energy prices including gasoline which goes right to a working person's bottom line.
Stock markets are In good shape.
Less regulations.
At least an attempt to better secure the border.
Do you think most people are really going to want to mess with that because the Media, and Democrats constantly yell, "Orange Man Bad!!!" ?
-
We have a booming economy.
Historically low unemployment including for Blacks, and Hispanics.
We have very low energy prices including gasoline which goes right to a working person's bottom line.
Stock markets are In good shape.
Less regulations.
At least an attempt to better secure the border.
Do you think most people are really going to want to mess with that because the Media, and Democrats constantly yell, "Orange Man Bad!!!" ?
Sadly, yes, it’s possible. Scott Walker has been nothing but an unmitigated success in Wisconsin, for all of Wisconsin. He was defeated in November by a pencil neck socialist tool for the unions, in large part due to hate of him, not of his track record. Some municipalities in liberal strongholds also had non-binding pot legalization referendums in the ballot, so that brought out the stoners too.
Face it, a large part of this country is just in angry rage for no reason, and would be fully willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.