President Trump 2.0

Originally Posted by Damien

I think it's a bit misleading, or at least missing the point, to say he underperformed as the Democratic Nominee. This wasn't the standard two-way race between the Democrats and the Republicans. His main contender was also a Democrat, the DNC's preferred candidate to be the nominee, running as an independent.

I don't think there is a baseline to compare against previous elections as a result. It's someone who caused upset within the Democratic Party and then had to contend with some of them splitting off to stop him anyway.

It won't tell us much about wider America - there are results elsewhere that are a greater example of the trouble the Republicans are in - but it is a shock for the Democratic Party's leadership. This guy is very wing.

I think the vote split explanation is a bit convenient. Internal party disunity is hardly a new thing. It happens here, usually within Labour, often enough. The official candidate typically still wins, if the seat is safe enough. Sure, Cuomo will have taken something off Mamdani, but how much? It has to be more than 17% just to account for what Mamdani has lost compared to Di Blasio.

If the Dems can’t make it here, they can’t make it anywhere, and they were within a rat’s whisker of not making it. Of course they’re going to do well in the mid terms but I don’t think these results are nearly as good as they should be considering how polarising Trump is, or is supposed to be.

Originally Posted by Chris

I think the vote split explanation is a bit convenient. Internal party disunity is hardly a new thing. It happens here, usually within Labour, often enough. The official candidate typically still wins, if the seat is safe enough. Sure, Cuomo will have taken something off Mamdani, but how much? It has to be more than 17% just to account for what Mamdani has lost compared to Di Blasio.

Internal party disunity isn't a new thing, but a New York Election that isn't a simple Democrat vs Republican vote is. This was a Democrat vs a Former Democrat running as an Independent vs a Republican.

According to the exit poll 31% of people who said they were Democrats voted for Cuomo. Cuomo did better with wealthier and older voters. He won the over-45+ vote. Most Republicans also voted for Cuomo to try and keep Mamdani out.

Mamdani won because he turned out women and younger voters. He did enough that he managed to offset losing part of the Democrat base who stuck with Cuomo.

If the Dems can’t make it here, they can’t make it anywhere, and they were within a rat’s whisker of not making it. Of course they’re going to do well in the mid terms but I don’t think these results are nearly as good as they should be considering how polarising Trump is, or is supposed to be.

New York isn't, but the reason the vote for the Democratic candidate fell wasn't because the Republican vote held up.

It's the other votes, such as that in Virginia, that will be encouraging for the Democrats.

In the end, it's similar to Labour here. Trump was elected because people were unhappy with the economy, it hasn't got better (maybe worse), and if he doesn't turn it aroun,d voters will be angry.

[jem]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The problem they have is that this is not the Republican Party. This is the Trump party. And Trump can’t run again.

So if Vance is to be the anointed one, they need to start getting him out there and with full Trump endorsement.

Vance did a Charlie Kirk turning point event last week where he took questions for over a hour, he needs to do more of that, and do Trumpesque rallies where he promises to complete the MAGA agenda.

"So if Vance is to be the anointed one, they need to start getting him out there and with full Trump endorsement.”

Yes true, except that Trump cannot possibly do that, he cannot, absolutely cannot endorse any successor, because that encourages people to look beyond him, to consider a future where Trump doesn’t exist any more.

For a historical example see Queen Elizabeth 1st and the issues with her succession.

Apropos of nothing

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ves-by-country

Venezuela………303.2 billion barrels
Saudi Arabia….267.2 billion barrels
Iran………………..208.6 billion barrels

[Stephen]

He doesn't get to decide if airspace is closed or not. Especially not via a proclamation on his social media platform. Clown.

[Dingbat]

So what’s he planning to do? Shoot down civilian jets flying to/from Caracas?

[Carth]

Probably just trying to ensure there are no 'accidents' to civilian planes when he starts the invasion . . .

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Carth

Probably just trying to ensure there are no 'accidents' to civilian planes when he starts the invasion . . .

Ah, a war. A distraction for any failing leader. Russia or Venezuela? Guess which he chooses...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Trump was elected because people were unhappy with the economy, it hasn't got better (maybe worse), and if he doesn't turn it around voters will be angry.

It has got worse in terms of inflation encouraging Trump to Taco on tariffs on Brazil.

Four months ago, US President Donald Trump announced 40 per cent additional tariffs on Brazilian imports (creating 50 per cent total levies), because he was furious about the country’s legal investigation into Jair Bolsonaro, its former president, and its clampdown on US Big Tech.
But president Lula da Silva defiantly hit back at the bullying – boosting his domestic popularity – and defended the courts. A Brazilian judge has now sent Bolsonaro to jail.

And those tariffs? Last week, Trump declared that “certain agricultural imports from Brazil should no longer be subject to the additional [40 per cent surcharge]”. In plain English: Lula won.

There are at least three lessons here. The first is that the White House seems to be becoming more nervous about cost-of-living pressures. No wonder: recent surveys show that consumer sentiment is slumping in tandem with Trump’s approval rating. His team is scrambling to find ways to reduce grocery prices – and cutting agricultural tariffs is an obvious move.

(The other two lessons were standing up to Trump, a lesson learned from China's success and identifying in any Tariff action a hierarchy of “goals”, “strategies” and “tactics”. )

https://archive.ph/OQw8S#selection-1641.0-1641.361

[jem]

Of course the big problem is Trump claiming repeatedly that ‘tariffs are paid by other countries’, which is patently rubbish.

Does the US produce all of the foods and/or goods that it needs or wants? If not then tariffs will, absolutely will, push the prices up. Which will further depress Trump’s, not brilliant, approval rating! It’s really not looking good for the Republican party in the midterm elections next year, is it?

So what you are saying is when the other party stands firm, Trump will, really will, well TACO?