Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

[DC1989]

He's going to win isn't he

 

[najaB]

He's going to win isn't he

It's not certain by any stretch. He has a very passionate base, but they represent no more than 15-20% of the overall electorate. Then there are people who will vote for anything that has an R next to their name - which is, say, another 10-15% of eligible voters.

It's fair to say that majority of people won't vote for him - either because they're died in the wool Democrats, or because they're disaffected Republicans. The task that the Dems face is getting out the vote.

 

[DC1989]

It's not certain by any stretch. He has a very passionate base, but they represent no more than 15-20% of the overall electorate. Then there are people who will vote for anything that has an R next to their name - which is, say, another 10-15% of eligible voters.

It's fair to say that majority of people won't vote for him - either because they're died in the wool Democrats, or because they're disaffected Republicans. The task that the Dems face is getting out the vote.

I'm not an expert on the accuracy US polling but isn't he winning almost every national poll? I've just looked at polling averages and in 2020 Biden was around 6 points ahead in March 2020 - now he's around 1 point behind.

Still a long way to go and the US economy is booming. It's strange because no matter which party in the UK was presiding over an economy like that they would be a shoe in for reelection!

 

[najaB]

I'm not an expert on the accuracy US polling but isn't he winning almost every national poll? I've just looked at polling averages and in 2020 Biden was around 6 points ahead in March 2020 - now he's around 1 point behind.

Polls are just that: snapshots of what a selection of the electorate says on any given day.

Still a long way to go and the US economy is booming.

Problem is that there's a narrative on the right that the economy is the worst its ever been. It's actually quite funny (funny sad, not funny haha) to see the lengths that Fox News and the like will go to in order to paint good news as bad. Just the other day I saw one of their economic advisors saying that the fact that take home pay is increasing is a potential inflationary disaster, yet the same person had said that when inflation was higher than wage growth it was the worst thing ever.

So wage growth higher than inflation = bad, and inflation higher than wage growth = bad. And if there's no wage growth then it's a stagnant economy!

 

[nlogax]

Still a long way to go and the US economy is booming.

This is where Trump is treating the current state of the country as an Old Country Buffet (if you've ever had the misfortune of visiting one). Anything positive going on in the economy he's personally taking credit for, anything negative is Biden's fault.

 

[DC1989]

Polls are just that: snapshots of what a selection of the electorate says on any given day.

Problem is that there's a narrative on the right that the economy is the worst its ever been. It's actually quite funny (funny sad, not funny haha) to see the lengths that Fox News and the like will go to in order to paint good news as bad. Just the other day I saw one of their economic advisors saying that the fact that take home pay is increasing is a potential inflationary disaster, yet the same person had said that when inflation was higher than wage growth it was the worst thing ever.

So wage growth higher than inflation = bad, and inflation higher than wage growth = bad. And if there's no wage growth then it's a stagnant economy!

Yes - I'm sure a big part of it is that it can take a long time to get used to the 'new' price of something, even if your wage grows. I still see a can of coke as something that should cost 50p !

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes - I'm sure a big part of it is that it can take a long time to get used to the 'new' price of something, even if your wage grows. I still see a can of coke as something that should cost 50p !

I feel the same way about a lot of food prices. I would guess that's because prior to the recent inflation bout, we had years of next to no inflation, so prices of so many things stayed basically the same for ages, giving us lots of time to start feeling that that those prices were somehow 'natural'. I suspect if it had been - say - the 1970s when prices were constantly rising, we might not have looked at prices the same way.

 

[wilbers]

Yes - I'm sure a big part of it is that it can take a long time to get used to the 'new' price of something, even if your wage grows. I still see a can of coke as something that should cost 50p !

Hey, they still can be, 6 for £3 = 50p each. Yes, they are smaller 250ml rather than the regular 330ml size, but you can't have everything.

https://groceries.morrisons.com/products/coca-cola-original-taste-cans-597772011?

 

[gg1]

He's going to win isn't he

I don't think he will.

His zealots are of course lapping up every his every word but I can't see him gaining the few million voters in the centre he would need to win.

 

[birchesgreen]

Its better Biden dips now rather than later in the year, there is time to sort things out (hopefully).

 

[nw1]

Yes - I'm sure a big part of it is that it can take a long time to get used to the 'new' price of something, even if your wage grows. I still see a can of coke as something that should cost 50p !

I remember it being 33p!

Also remember when chocolate bars were around 20p, and not so very long ago (about 1990).

 

[najaB]

I don't think he will.

His zealots are of course lapping up every his every word but I can't see him gaining the few million voters in the centre he would need to win.

He can sneak a win, but it's not nearly as likely as it was in 2016. As long as the not-Trump vote turns out. The problem is that a lot of people are forgetting how bad he was.

 

[wilbers]

He can sneak a win, but it's not nearly as likely as it was in 2016. As long as the not-Trump vote turns out. The problem is that a lot of people are forgetting how bad he was.

Well, plenty of time to remind everyone in umpteen pre-election videos.

 

[nw1]

He can sneak a win, but it's not nearly as likely as it was in 2016. As long as the not-Trump vote turns out. The problem is that a lot of people are forgetting how bad he was.

Just thinking of how the states might go. Perhaps Georgia and Arizona are trending Democrat with time, and will thus stay Democrat.

Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin I'm not so sure about as they are perhaps trending more Republican.

IIRC Trump had to win 2 of those to win in 2020. So Democrats presumably need to be focusing on holding those states.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Just thinking of how the states might go. Perhaps Georgia and Arizona are trending Democrat with time, and will thus stay Democrat.

Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin I'm not so sure about as they are perhaps trending more Republican.

IIRC Trump had to win 2 of those to win in 2020. So Democrats presumably need to be focusing on holding those states.

It may be slightly better than that for the Democrats. In 2020, Biden got 306 electoral college votes, Trump 232. So Trump would need to flip states that total at least 38 votes to win (I'm not quite sure what happens if he flips 37 votes resulting in a tie). On the 2020 figures, if nothing else changes, he'd need to flip all of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to get enough votes - no two of them is enough. However, I think the numbers of delegates each state gets will change slightly to account for population changes, and I'm not sure if that changes the calculation. Certainly, those three states are the marginal ones that in the long run seem to be moving towards the Republicans so they must be the most challenging ones for Biden this year. On the other hand, you have North Carolina which Trump just took in 2020 but where the Democrats seem to be slowly getting stronger. Florida, which Trump took in 2020, also used to be highly marginal but I think that's probably out of reach for the Democrats now.

At any rate the polls are definitely too close for comfort at the moment. I'm not massively enamoured of Biden but I do hope he recovers some support before November, as the prospect of another Trump presidency would to my mind be awful.

 

[JamesT]

It may be slightly better than that for the Democrats. In 2020, Biden got 306 electoral college votes, Trump 232. So Trump would need to flip states that total at least 38 votes to win (I'm not quite sure what happens if he flips 37 votes resulting in a tie). On the 2020 figures, if nothing else changes, he'd need to flip all of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to get enough votes - no two of them is enough. However, I think the numbers of delegates each state gets will change slightly to account for population changes, and I'm not sure if that changes the calculation. Certainly, those three states are the marginal ones that in the long run seem to be moving towards the Republicans so they must be the most challenging ones for Biden this year. On the other hand, you have North Carolina which Trump just took in 2020 but where the Democrats seem to be slowly getting stronger. Florida, which Trump took in 2020, also used to be highly marginal but I think that's probably out of reach for the Democrats now.

At any rate the polls are definitely too close for comfort at the moment. I'm not massively enamoured of Biden but I do hope he recovers some support before November, as the prospect of another Trump presidency would to my mind be awful.

If no candidate gets at least 270 electoral college votes (either a 269-269 tie, or a third candidate gets enough votes), then for President it goes to a vote of the House of Representatives. Each state gets a vote, rather than individual representatives. As it stands, the Republicans have the majority of representatives in the majority of states, so potentially Trump has the upper hand if it went that far. Though the vote would be in the new session of Congress, which might see a change in representation compared to today.

The reapportionment of seats is known already as it was based on the 2020 census https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election

If the results of the 2020 election were to stay the same (which has never occurred in the history of presidential elections) in 2024, Democrats would have 303 electoral votes against the Republicans' 235, a slight change from Biden's 306 electoral votes and Trump's 232, meaning that Democrats lost a net of 3 electoral votes to the reapportionment process

So in theory, 35 more to win for Trump. Georgia and Pennsylvania together would get him over the line. But given how narrow the margins in some of these swing states, I would suggest if Trump can keep his poll lead, he would likely take more than the minimum number of states.

 

[Strathclyder]

Well, plenty of time to remind everyone in umpteen pre-election videos.

Put those TV ad dollars to good use! Just play one of several Trump word explosions from the past 3 years ('dictator only for one day', 'poisioning the blood of this country', anything about pardoning those convicted for January 6th etc), preface that clip with the LBJ 'Daisy' ad and end the ad with 'I'm Joe Biden and I approve this message'. That should get the message right across that a second Trump term will make the first one look like a cakewalk.

 

[Silenos]

At any rate the polls are definitely too close for comfort at the moment. I'm not massively enamoured of Biden but I do hope he recovers some support before November, as the prospect of another Trump presidency would to my mind be awful.

Although I gather that some US commentators have queried those poll figures, on the grounds that when you dig into them they look a little odd, and do not reflect what was seen in the primaries:

More thoughts on primary polls

538 analysts live-blogged the Super Tuesday primaries. Donald Trump faced Nikki Haley in the GOP presidential race. Five states held Senate, House and other contests.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Pete_uk]

Mr Trump has given notice that he cannot pay his bond because no-one will take his property as security.

 

[Busaholic]

Mr Trump has given notice that he cannot pay his bond because no-one will take his property as security.

Does that mean he gets detained in custody?

 

[dgl]

Thought he had bigly amounts of money, I guess bigly means <= 0$ !
Looks like his property may be seized, well there's about $10 off the bill.

Trump unable to get $464m bond in New York fraud case, his lawyers say

The former president must either pay the full amount in cash or secure a bond to continue his appeal.

www.bbc.co.uk

Donald Trump cannot find a private company to guarantee the $464m (£365m) he has been ordered to pay in a New York civil fraud case.
The former president must either pay the full amount in cash or secure a bond in order to continue his appeal.
Mr Trump's lawyers said on Monday that securing a bond of that size was a "practical impossibility".
For a fee, a bonding company would guarantee the full amount to the New York court.
They would then have to pay it if Mr Trump loses his appeal and cannot do so himself.
Mr Trump's team spent "countless hours negotiating with one of the largest insurance companies in the world", the lawyers wrote in a court filing, but concluded that "very few bonding companies will consider a bond of anything approaching that magnitude".
The lawyers said they had approached 30 companies without success.
Mr Trump's two eldest sons also must pay millions of dollars in the case.
Along with ordering Mr Trump to pay the penalty, New York Judge Arthur Engoron banned him from running any businesses in the state for three years after he found the former president falsely inflated assets to secure better loan deals.
A judge paused Mr Trump's business ban last month, but denied his bid to provide a smaller bond amount, $100m, to cover the fine.
In the latest filing, the former president's lawyers included an affidavit from a president of a private insurance firm, who said that "simply put, a bond of this size is rarely, if ever, seen".
"In the unusual circumstance that a bond of this size is issued, it is provided to the largest public companies in the world, not to individuals or privately held businesses," the lawyers also said.
Mr Trump's unprecedented legal situation makes it difficult to predict next steps, said former federal prosecutor Diana Florence, who also said that penalties on this scale are usually levied against large companies.
His legal team has been playing a delay game as he appeals the verdict, she said, but now "he might be out of rope".
New York's attorney general has vowed to seize his assets if he does not pay the fraud judgement. There is also interest on the penalty hanging over his head, which is accruing by at least $112,000 per day until he pays.
Trump's lawyers said bond companies would not accept "hard assets such as real estate as collateral" for the bond, but only cash or "cash equivalents", such as investments that can be quickly liquidated.
"He's facing the very real possibility that the AG will begin to liquidate [his assets], and he's really dependent on whether a court is willing to give him more time," Ms Florence said.
According to a Forbes estimate, Mr Trump is worth about $2.6bn. He also testified last year that he had $400m in liquid assets.
But the $464m judgement is not his only expense. He was ordered to pay $83m in January after losing a defamation case to E Jean Carroll, a woman he was found to have sexually abused. He has already posted a bond in that case.

 

[brad465]

Given how close $464m is to £350m, has Trump thought about leaving the EU as a means to raise that money?

 

[jon0844]

Given how close $464m is to £350m, has Trump thought about leaving the EU as a means to raise that money?

We could cover it with just one week of savings from having left the EU, and in return he promises a bigly trade deal when he gets back into power....

 

[DaleCooper]

Donald Trump is promoting a $59.99 bible as "the only bible endorsed by Donald Trump" and charges a licensing fee for the use of his name. I think he may have gone too far this time although experience suggests otherwise. Are Gideon bibles still free in hotels?

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump announcing the sale of a bibles he is endorsing for $59.99.

 

[Gloster]

Presumably he has indicated which of the Ten Commandments you should obey and which can be ignored.

 

[DaleCooper]

Presumably he has indicated which of the Ten Commandments you should obey and which can be ignored.

I just wish someone would ask him whether the story of Noah and his daughters reflects Trump's relationship with his children. As I doubt he has read the bible his response could be hilariously damning.

 

[birchesgreen]

It includes the King James bible, the Bill of Rights, list of amendments and some other public domain documents, well worth the price eh?

 

[Gloster]

It includes the King James bible, the Bill of Rights, list of amendments and some other public domain documents, well worth the price eh?

’…list of amendments…’ to what! Does Trump think he knows better than the bible, or is this a new, improved version? You still can’t covet thy neighbour’s wife or his ass, but you can covet your neighbour’s wife’s…

 

[birchesgreen]

’…list of amendments…’ to what! Does Trump think he knows better than the bible, or is this a new, improved version? You still can’t covet thy neighbour’s wife or his ass, but you can covet your neighbour’s wife’s…

US constitution amendments or whatever they call them.

 

[Gloster]

US constitution amendments or whatever they call them.

Even though the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear in the US Constituion, this seems to be running somewhat close to infringing the First Amendment. However, I expect it will go down well with his fundamentalist Christian supporters, which might be why he has done it (in addition to the usual grifting).