Tuesday’s elections analysis
A few weeks ago, I wrote that Trump can’t possibly win re-election. No matter how much pro-Trump spin you put on Tuesday’s election results, they bolster the proposition that Trump can’t possibly win re-election.
Ann Coulter wrote an op-ed yesterday that is totally wrong. She blamed the loss in Kentucky on immigration. Massive immigration explains why California went from being the state of Ronald Reagan to a state that Republicans can’t possibly win, but it doesn’t explain why three years ago Kentucky voted for Trump by a huge margin, but this week they voted for a Democratic governor.
Also, the Republican campaigned on being against immigration and against sanctuary cities, which according to Ann Coulter is the right policy for winning elections, but he lost anyway.
A blog commenter says that the Republican guy lost because he was against Medicaid and against teachers’ unions. Maybe. But Trump has been standard Koch-brothers establishment Republican guy on those issues, and the proles still love him.
I believe that people who voted for Trump in 2016 can be divided into three main categories:
1. Single-issue anti-abortion voters. (A bulwark for all Republicans.)
2. Voters who love Trump because he’s Trump. These people are predominantly prole whites.
3. People who traditionally vote Republican but are not single-issue anti-abortion voters.
What about single-issue 2nd Amendment voters? I think they exist, and they have strong overlap with categories #1 and #2, but they aren’t as big of a group as the NRA would like to believe.
What about single-issue anti-immigration voters? I think that there are even fewer of them than single-issue 2nd Amendment voters. A lot fewer of them. Ann Coulter, unfortunately, overestimates their numbers. I think that immigration was a plus factor for Trump, but that Trump led people in category #2 into being in favor of the Wall as much as it was the other way around.
So finally, the election results on Tuesday can be explained by the following two point:
A. People in category #2 don’t turn out in big numbers for Republicans who aren’t Trump.
B. Category #3 has been shrinking for the last two decades, and Trump has hastened this shrinkage because as much as proles love Trump, SWPLs are disgusted by Trump. When the fakestream media talks about those “suburban” voters trending Democratic, even though I am disgusted by how giddy fakestream media people get when they bring up the issue, unfortunately they aren’t entirely wrong.
Lion of the Blogosphere 
The KY analysis is quite simple. GOP won every statewide race, most by double digits, except for the Governorship. This means that people really, really, hated the Governor. Bevin is a Northeasterner. Though it is possible for an outsider to be successful in Southern Politics, one must take extra special care not to offend local sensibilities. Bevin did the absolute opposite. He shit on local customs and traditions and acted every bit the “superior” Yankee coming in to save the stupid Kentucky rubes. He also said stupid, nonsensical stuff that would offend people in any state like when he said the Teacher’s Union was siding with child rapists because they were playing hardball in contract negotiations. The guy was just a uniquely bad politician. He was the least popular Republican Governor in the country according to polling and him losing really doesn’t reflect on anything other than himself.
GOP actually did ok in VA as Dems only the won bare minimum number of seats everyone expected them to win and GOP got a key hold in a Hillary voting district. In NJ, GOP did significantly better than expected. In PA GOP increased their advantage in Western PA while Dems increased theirs in Eastern PA. Overall, a good election for Trump. Bleeding of 2018 has stopped and if Dems nominate a dud and he runs a good campaign, he should have a good chance of victory.
PerezHBD
November 7, 2019 at 1:00 PM
Sometimes people overanalyze the impact of things like immigration, demographic changes, the economy etc on elections. Yeah all that stuff matters, but you still have to actually go convince people too.
The Democrats did a *terrible* job campaigning in 2016. It’s hard to think of anything Hillary would actually do for normal people (continue the status quo I guess?) and hard for any man to vote for her without feeling emasculated. Trump… had many flaws, but at least he was exciting and had a clear issue to run on (immigration reform).
Now, Trump just seems like a sad old man playing golf and watching Fox News all day. He’s barely done anything on immigration, the only thing he “delivered” was a corporate tax cut and a generic republican supreme court pick. Maybe getting back on the campaign trail (and being on TV all the time) will revive him.
ack-acking
November 7, 2019 at 1:12 PM
You seek to confirm the meme that folks who live on the coasts in NY, Wash & CA don’t have a clue what’s going on outside their bubble?
Bevin had a 30% approval and a 57% disapproval when the election happened. His opponent was the son of a recent very popular governor and ran on a very moderate platform (no anti-Trumper crap). Bevin had severely pissed a lot of people off – and he only won last time because there was a convoluted 4-way race. Even so, he won by a mere 73 votes!
Bevin was trailing by between 17 and 20 points when Trump held his rally.
He “lost” by a hair. Every other GOP won HUGELY.
And THIS confirms your fantasy that Trump loses in 2020?
Since we know your IQ is pretty damn high, I assume you’re just poking the bear here, trying to get a rise or stimulate your commenters.
You don’t really believe that shit-talk now do you.
gda53
November 7, 2019 at 1:17 PM
I want Trump to lose.
jjbees
November 7, 2019 at 1:52 PM
I’m curious, by what measure do we know that the Lions IQ is pretty damn high? He likes to tell us so, but has he really demonstrated that, other than pointing out how much those not like him are less intelligent? C’mon, this is a guy that absolutely cannot differentiate a burglary from a home invasion. I enjoy reading the Lion, but I believe that he is one of those educated beyond his intelligence. Or maybe, because I enjoy reading him, I over rate myself…
Dave Liggett
November 8, 2019 at 12:13 AM
If you don’t think I’m smart enough for you, you can read someone else’s blog instead.
Lion of the Blogosphere
November 8, 2019 at 7:02 AM
I think he is very smart, because he’s very bitter at the way his life turned out. I don’t know what his exact IQ is, but let’s assume for a minute it’s higher than 145. If he’s at least 3 standard deviations above the mean,he probably expects his net worth, income, education level, and social life to be at least 3 standard deviations above the mean. But because he’s a nerdy introvert who is disagreeable and probably has low conscientiousness, he wasn’t able to turn his high school academic success at Stuy into an elite university acceptance, or an elite job, or an elite social life, or a high status wife. He appears to be bitter because IQ 115-130 men who are more extroverted, less nerdy, more agreeable, and more conscientous have better jobs, alma maters, social lives, and female partners than he does.
SC
November 8, 2019 at 8:35 AM
The Lion did attend a prestigious undergraduate institution. And while he is not a hedge fund manager or something comparable, his career is successful by most measures. The only way the Lion fell short in life, apparently, is that he did not marry or have children.
This is a small tragedy for the human race, since it means his genes may not exist in the future, and my descendants will not have the opportunity to read his descendants talk about Paul Fussell, social classes, the career advantages to growing up with money, etc. Over the years, the Lion put in words many things that I had trouble seeing, otherwise.
Lowe
November 8, 2019 at 11:08 AM
@Lowe
Ok, I accept that he went to an elite undergraduate school.
But most of my point still stands: he is too introverted and disagreeable to climb the corporate ladder. Now, many men at the very top of corporate America are slightly disagreeable. It’s one of the reasons why the average man makes more money than the average woman. But it is way better to be agreeable than to be 2+ standard deviations more disagreeable than the average American. The men who are a little bit more disagreeable than average have a shot at making it to the top. The women and men who are more agreeable have good shot at making it to middle management. But the men (and yes, it’s mostly men) who are at the disagreeable extreme won’t make it very far because they are so cantankerous. Doubly so if they are also introverts.
If you’re an extremely disagreeable introvert, you won’t get very far in career or family formation. If you end up getting married, it’ll end in divorce and unhappy children.
SC
November 9, 2019 at 12:22 PM
Ann Coulter wrote an op-ed yesterday that is totally wrong. She blamed the loss in Kentucky on immigration.
She wrote a column blaming Virginia’s election results on immigration. If she wrote a similar column about Kentucky, I haven’t found it.
chedolf
November 7, 2019 at 1:55 PM
She’s not wrong about Virginia and immigration. But she’s wrong about where it’s primarily coming from. Legal immigrants from overseas don’t become US citizens overnight. It takes like 10+ years. Virginia turned blue because of the tech revolution. 20-30 years ago, Virginia was just another sleepy southern state. Now it’s one giant tech suburb of DC. And who, besides overseas immigrants, works in tech? UMC liberal white atheists from the Northeast/West Coast who went to elite universities.
My friend moved to Alexandria. He’s a computer whiz and an Oxford grad. He’s also a liberal atheist white man who attended elite private schools as a kid. People like him turned Virginia blue, not some Chinese guy who immigrated 3 years ago and isn’t even a citizen.
SC
November 8, 2019 at 8:39 AM
“She wrote a column blaming Virginia’s election results on immigration. If she wrote a similar column about Kentucky, I haven’t found it.”
Yeah I think Lion conflated the two states, but you know how it is for New Yorkers, if it’s not in the 5 boroughs, it’s all a little hazy. Kentucky, Azerbaijan, what’s the difference?
Mike Street Station
November 9, 2019 at 9:46 AM
Category #3 might be recast as “non-proles who see that chances for a decent life are fleeting so long as blacks are out of control, a condition created by Dems.” I’d say this segment is growing, not shrinking. Now let’s say you’re a Kentucky teacher, and, as commenter “John” stated in the thread below, were angry at a Republican governor who tried to rein-in benefits. Are we saying that there are substantial numbers of teachers who would vote Republican so long as they’re not asked to contribute $100/mo. for their gold-plated PPO medical plan? Well, maybe Kentucky teachers are different from those in California, but I don’t believe it. I think teachers everywhere are anti-Republican for multiple reasons, even if they don’t see their benefits threatened. What this means is that in the Presidential election, Coulter’s likely right that if Trump loses Kentucky, it’ll be due to new immigrant votes.
Marty
November 7, 2019 at 2:00 PM
Teachers have friends and family Marty.
“Well, maybe Kentucky teachers are different from those in California, but I don’t believe it.”
Well, Kentucky teachers are different than the ones in Cali, and if you don’t believe it, too bad. Keep lecturing me on the people who live in Kentucky, Marty. You’re the expert on what goes on in Kentucky, Marty. I bet you even followed Bevin’s polling data on a regular basis after he took office.
Could there have been a change of opinion about Trump among certain demos in Kentucky? Maybe. Bevin did bad in the Louisville, Cincinnati, Lexington, and Frankfort areas. All of this demands further investigation. But Bevins attacks on popular government programs sealed his fate. If he had left everything alone he’d still be the governor of Kentucky.
John
November 9, 2019 at 5:12 PM
“A blog commenter says that the Republican guy lost because he was against Medicaid and against teachers’ unions. Maybe.”
No “maybe” about it. His polls literally started dropping as soon as he attacked teacher pensions and Medicaid. I really don’t know what else to say. Yes, there is a contradiction in that Trump tried to take away benefits and Kentuckians still like him. I can only guess as to why. A lot of voters lack education on what goes on so maybe they are unaware that Trump tried to strip away benefits. Or, maybe they know but immigration matters more at the national level. Democrats in Kentucky are pretty moderate and most conservatives in Kentucky don’t really fear them the way one might fear AOC. Letting one win is not the end of the world.
“He was the least popular Republican Governor in the country according to polling and him losing really doesn’t reflect on anything other than himself.”
Do you live in Kentucky? How do you know about how Kentuckians feel about Bevin? Trump is rougher than Bevin. By far. Not even close. Yet, Kentucky likes Trump! You make Kentucky voters sound like “Well I don’t like Bevin’s eyes. Something shifty about them.” Lol. No, his fiscally conservative policy of balancing the budget by taking away benefits ticked a lot of people off. It is so, so, so simple even a grade school kid can understand. Most Kentuckians are apathetic about politics but when he went after teacher pensions and Medicaid Kentuckians on Facebook finally started talking politics. People who normally did not talk politics suddenly had political opinions. People who low education and iq and full of indifference. THEY started talking politics. They heard stories from mom the teacher, my daughter the teacher, my sister the teacher, about big bully Bevin.
Kentucky has 400,000 people on Medicaid. Kentucky has 4.5 million people. Do the math. Bevin spent years trying to force Medicaid recipients to pay premiums and deductions and even tried to take away vision and dental (he failed) People who did not care about elections before cared now! In a tight race, Medicaid voters can swing the vote. Again, why is this so hard to understand?
The WaPo just posted an article advising Democrats to point out that Trump tried to take away health care. They base this on what just happened in Kentucky. They are correct that Democrats should go after Trump on this in 2020.
John
November 7, 2019 at 2:07 PM
it is always better to win by a hair than to lose by a hair. But in the end, I’m not sure it makes much diference ,in terms of trends. This was a very very close election.
Amused Observer
November 7, 2019 at 2:12 PM
> divided into three main categories
This is a silly breakdown and is typically condescending (dumb like the TV man). People voted for the policies Trump espoused. Less immigration, extrication from pointless wars, better trade deals.
bobbybobbob
November 7, 2019 at 2:22 PM
“People voted for the policies Trump espoused.”
Wrong… people at blogs and newspapers and magazines put too much emphasis on policies and not enough on stuff like charisma, prole appeal, etc.
Lion of the Blogosphere
November 7, 2019 at 4:10 PM
> prole appeal
The people who don’t have a firm grasp on the policy issues take cues from folks in their social networks who do. They trust smarter people in their extended families and social circles.
I guarantee you that people voted on these policy issues. At thanksgiving dinner their smart cousin informed them why they need to support Trump. Maybe they didn’t understand it entirely, but Jim is sure and I trust him.
You are ridiculously out of touch. You clearly regard the American populace as a herd of stupid cattle.
bobbybobbob
November 7, 2019 at 10:54 PM
Lion is not only out of touch. But he has some racist feelings. For example, he hasn’t posted about african politics in the few months I’ve been following this blog! I mean wow.
The Social Justice Warrior
November 8, 2019 at 5:37 AM
Whoever wins the presidency, the Lefts dictatorship of media, business, and college will be left unchallenged.
I cant help be pessimistic.
Fakeemail
November 7, 2019 at 2:23 PM
From the polling I’ve seen, the demographic that Trump is losing support from is white non-college educated women. In 2016 they voted for Trump by a wide margin. In most recent polling I’ve seen Trump is now losing this demographic. I’m not sure if these are also the suburban white women that people are talking about.
Another analysis I’ve seen says that high income non-college educated whites are now a strong Republican demographic and strongly pro Trump.
Low income non-college educated whites have also been leaning Republican, but this demographic tends to be more liberal economically. Trump convinced this demographic that he was not a traditional Republican by promising not to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The Obama care repeal attempt, which would have rolled back Medicaid to lower levels of funding than before Obama care did not play well with this demographic. Still Trump’s immigration policy should appeal to this group, since wages for this group are impacted by illegal immigration. Ideas like medicare for all and $15 minimum wage definitely appeal to this group. I suspect the white non-college educated women that have moved away from Trump are mostly in this demographic. It may be economic issues. The cruelty of some of the Trump policies like child separation may be a contributing factor.
MikeCA
November 7, 2019 at 2:41 PM
People crossing the border illegally should be prosecuted. Because they were awaiting trial they were being detained in federal jails. And it’s against the law to hold children in federal jails. So they’re placed in government care until the authorities can locate a relative to take care of them. That would be the same for any US citizen being held in a federal jail as well. People claiming that illegals were being treated differently were being dishonest. It was propaganda.
destructure
November 7, 2019 at 6:26 PM
Illegal entry into the US is a misdemeanor for a first time offenders.
In many cases the government lost track of the children or never bothered to keep records. When courts ordered the government to return the children to parents who had been deported or released from jail, the government was unable to find many of the children. This was probably mostly do to incompetence and trying to implement a policy very quickly without adequate resources or planning, but the whole point of the policy was to be cruel in order to discourage illegal entry.
MikeCA
November 8, 2019 at 12:45 PM
There are plenty of misdemeanors for which one can get up to a year in jail. And, of course, putting people in jail discourages people from breaking the law. That’s the point. You just don’t want the immigration laws enforced.
destructure
November 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM
o/t – Seems like Staten Island’s North Shore is up to no good with a stabbing on a bus during broad daylight. This time in Hylan Blvd, with demographics of guidos and NAMs in equal numbers, so who’s knows who are the perpetrators and victims when the MSM doles out flash news.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-stabbed-while-getting-off-bus-in-staten-island/ar-BBWqqd8
Ok, what, who's this again?
November 7, 2019 at 3:13 PM
That’s not the North Shore, and I would consider that to be a perfectly safe (although quite guido) neighborhood, night or day.
Lion of the Blogosphere
November 7, 2019 at 4:16 PM
“Bevin was trailing by between 17 and 20 points when Trump held his rally.”
Weeks before Trump came to Kentucky the polls were showing a dead heat. Even though Bevin had low approval ratings polling data indicated a likely close race.
I recommend further investigation into the impact Trump had on Bevin and the election. From a mere glance it appears Trump’s arrival did little to help Bevin. One could even guess that it slightly harmed him. Again, this is just surface level observations. Maybe the next few days will shed further light on Trumps’ real impact.
It’s noteworthy that Kentucky just elected its first Republican AG since 1943, Daniel Cameron. He won by a whopping 140,000 votes, and won counties that were traditionally blue. Also, he is black. Here is a quote from the NY Times:
“He was also the first black person to be independently elected to a statewide office in Kentucky, and the first Republican attorney general elected in the state in more than 70 years.
The current lieutenant governor, Jenean Hampton, is also a black Republican, but she was voted into office as Gov. Matt Bevin’s running mate in the 2015 election.”
Overall, the Republicans destroyed Democrats on election day in Kentucky. So maybe Trump’s arrival did help.
John
November 7, 2019 at 3:21 PM
BTW, Bernie Sanders’ campaign website now includes a page detailing his pro-immigration, pro-border-crossings, pro-“dreamers,” pro-DACA, anti-deportation, anti-borders immigration platform. To all the stupid socialists around here who keep wanting to give Bernie credit for “getting it” that immigration hurts American workers based on one Vox interview from 2015, go read his platform, come back, and try to tell me you still think Bernie is “one of the good ones.”
Hermes
November 7, 2019 at 3:51 PM
(Bernie’s) pro-immigration, pro-border-crossings, pro-“dreamers,” pro-DACA, anti-deportation, anti-borders immigration platform
Wow, that is an amazingly complete give-away of the country; Bern wants to expand the US welfare state to cover the planet.
bomag
November 10, 2019 at 12:50 PM
Analysis in reader comments is better than the original post. Just saying.
destructure
November 7, 2019 at 4:52 PM
She blamed the loss in Virginia to immigration, not Kentucky.
Bill Smith
November 7, 2019 at 5:11 PM
You forgot category #4: “Saw a chance to vote with their middle finger and actually have it count.” That was a not inconsiderable number of people.
Sgt. Joe Friday
November 7, 2019 at 5:39 PM
They’re all line categoroy #2, proles who love Trump for being Trump.
Lion of the Blogosphere
November 7, 2019 at 6:53 PM
Nope, going to disagree with you here. I’m upper middle class, and know plenty of people in southern California (where I lived up until 3 months ago) in the “middle finger” crowd. We voted for Trump in spite of his persona, not because of it.
I had a conversation with the husband of my wife’s cousin back in July 2015, right after Trump threw his hat into the ring. Upper middle class guy, vice president at a successful business in the Seattle area. The GOPe was aghast at the idea of Trump, and I remember making the point that the party should have demonstrated a little bit of introspection, asking themselves what they were doing wrong that people like us (who might have been characterized once as “country club Republicans”) would be willing to at least kick the tires on Trump. But no, you had folks like the late Charles Krauthammer characterizing Trump as a loudmouth on a barstool – and by implication anyone who would think about voting for him.
Sgt. Joe Friday
November 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM
This is the article that made me realize Krauthammer was a fraud. His solution to Romney’s loss was… amnesty. Silly pundit. Hispanics vote for gibs not amnesty. Rockefeller pubes are the ones who want amnesty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-way-forward/2012/11/08/6592e302-29d8-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html
PS: I was going to make a wisecrack about Krauthammer and the Achille Lauro. I decided against it because I’m trying to get back on Leon’s good side.
destructure
November 7, 2019 at 10:40 PM
40% of Kentucky’s revenue comes from the federal government. $2.61 back for every $1 it sends. Medicare and Medicaid flow like water.
Who pays for this? Mostly blue states!
99.9% Fine
November 7, 2019 at 6:25 PM
Well, then blue states should offer to take in Kentucky’s black population so that Kentucky does not get all of that sweet, sweet federal money. Or, offer to take in all of those retirees who moved there to escape Illinois.
map
November 7, 2019 at 6:57 PM
Someone making 200K per year in a blue state pays the same federal income tax rate as someone making 200K per year in a red state. Because the federal income tax rate is the same for everyone. The difference is that some states have more high earners than others. So if you want to correct the imbalance then you could replace the progressive income tax with a flat tax. Alternately, you could eliminate some of the programs causing the imbalance such as social security, medicare, medicaid, public education, etc. Or you could take entitlements from the federal government and return them to the states. Or you could relocate military bases (which is one of the major sources of federal spending) from red states to blue states. Of course, moving so many military bases to blue states might turn some of them red. So which of those would you prefer?
destructure
November 7, 2019 at 11:49 PM
That was to 99 not map.
destructure
November 7, 2019 at 11:50 PM
You are correct that military bases cost money and they are usually in red states. Also Yellowstone national park is in a red state and most liberals would have no problem paying for with that. The solution, spend MORE in low receiving states. Give Illinois a $10 billion grant for infrastructure and education. Still a good deal for the red states.
99.9% Fine
November 8, 2019 at 10:42 AM
And where would that $10B come from? The same people who are already paying for everyone else regardless of which state they’re from. Individuals are the ones paying federal income tax and receiving federal entitlements, not states.
destructure
November 8, 2019 at 7:56 PM
“Mostly blue states!”
Nope, states don’t pay taxes.
Alexander Turok
November 8, 2019 at 8:15 PM
And blue states pay with value transference, parasite professions.
map
November 9, 2019 at 3:32 AM
“A blog commenter says that the Republican guy lost because he was against Medicaid and against teachers’ unions. Maybe. But Trump has been standard Koch-brothers establishment Republican guy on those issues, and the proles still love him.”
This is completely incorrect. Trump wanted a repeal and replace of Obamacare…he wanted a better system created than what was had. Paul Ryan didn’t deliver that. He just tried to repeal it. That left Ryan open to the Pelosi state by state attack on Republicans that tried to repeal ObamaCare 50 times. Along with other own goals like sacrificing incumbency, voters punished Paul Ryan for his antics by removing him from office.
Again, Trump is not an austerity junkie. He understands that if he positions himself in trying to lower the standard of living of some substantial portion of the population, then he will lose. That’s why Trump is so popular in places like Kentucky. Even proles understand their own self-interest, and Trump is pushing policies that will benefit them, even in healthcare, and if even if it mean leaving a policy in place.
Bevin didn’t do that. He actively worked to lower the standard of living of enough people until they formed a substantial political bloc against him. Hence, he lost…and he didn’t really lose by much. 5,000 votes is nothing when a third party siphons off 28,000. But…change happens at the margin.
In general, the media is the progressive version of Q Anon: Trust the Mueller plan; Trust the Schiff Plan; Trust the Whistleblower Plan, yada yad yada. They are spinning a local Republican loss as if it is a referendum on Trump because their constituency needs that soothing amygdala drip. The latest is stories about how “suburban college-educated” are “disgusted” by Trump and leaving him in droves so the lefty rabbits don’t off themselves. Of course, they forget that there are way more non-college educated than college-educated. If you gain two or three working class for every college you lose, then you still win. You would expect to see this as Trump re-aligns the US away from global pan-economism.
map
November 7, 2019 at 6:55 PM
“This is completely incorrect. Trump wanted a repeal and replace of Obamacare…he wanted a better system created than what was had. Paul Ryan didn’t deliver that. He just tried to repeal it.”
“Again, Trump is not an austerity junkie. He understands that if he positions himself in trying to lower the standard of living of some substantial portion of the population, then he will lose. That’s why Trump is so popular in places like Kentucky. Even proles understand their own self-interest, and Trump is pushing policies that will benefit them, even in healthcare, and if even if it mean leaving a policy in place.”
I am not so sure you are right about this. Quote from pewtrusts.org: “In a stark departure from past administrations, the Trump administration is allowing states to enact new Medicaid rules that will curtail benefits and reduce, rather than expand, the number of people eligible for the federal-state health program for the poor.
New work requirements have received most of the attention. This year, the administration has granted permission to Arizona and Ohio to impose work requirements of 80 hours a month for most able-bodied adults.
Since 2017, at least 15 states have either applied for or received permission to impose work requirements. But the changes go far beyond forcing Medicaid recipients to get jobs.
Armed with federal waivers allowing them to deviate from the normal Medicaid rules, states also have forced beneficiaries to pay premiums; “locked out” recipients who miss deadlines; stopped providing rides for medical appointments and eliminated retroactive coverage of new enrollees’ medical bills.”
Trump cannot be trusted on Medicaid. If anyone has any evidence that Trump is trying to preserve Medicaid or make it better, show it to me. I could be wrong but I have yet to read anything that makes me think that I am. Even if Trump was betrayed on repeal and replace by corporate Republicans, it does not change the fact that he charged ahead on the repeal without having a replacement ready to go. That was irresponsible for a guy who allegedly cares about the Kentucky working class.
John
November 7, 2019 at 8:38 PM
John,
“In a stark departure from past administrations, the Trump administration is allowing states to enact new Medicaid rules that will curtail benefits and reduce, rather than expand, the number of people eligible for the federal-state health program for the poor.”
But these decisions are driven by the state, not the Trump administration. The states take the risk in doing that and it’s the state politicians that reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of misreading their electorates.
What Trump is not doing is running around like Paul Ryan trying to repeal whole medical systems 50 freakin’ times.
“Even if Trump was betrayed on repeal and replace by corporate Republicans, it does not change the fact that he charged ahead on the repeal without having a replacement ready to go.”
Trump did not charge ahead. He was lead into the healthcare fiasco by the RINO’s. What he should have done was taxes first, then trade and, once the economy was running along, then tried to fix what was wrong with entitlements. And by “fix” is you get it to work for the losers in the system as well as the winners and those who are treading water.
map
November 8, 2019 at 4:03 AM
Map,
You’re way too easy on Trump. He tried several freakin’ times to repeal the ACA without a replacement. No one truly lead him. I hope that you aren’t one of those Trump 4D chess master apologists I hear about. To quote Trump, “Sad!”
Trump’s best hope is for Democrats and the media to forget that he ever tried to repeal health care without a replacement. No doubt he is hoping no one brings that up during the 2020 election. Or that his administration created Medicaid waivers.
John
November 8, 2019 at 9:26 AM
John,
“You’re way too easy on Trump. He tried several freakin’ times to repeal the ACA without a replacement. No one truly lead him. I hope that you aren’t one of those Trump 4D chess master apologists I hear about. To quote Trump, “Sad!”
Uh…no. It never came up for him to repeal it because John McCain vetoed it in the Senate before he was put to death. There was never an ObamaCare bill in front of him. Period.
map
November 9, 2019 at 3:37 AM
“Uh…no. It never came up for him to repeal it because John McCain vetoed it in the Senate before he was put to death. There was never an ObamaCare bill in front of him. Period.”
Uh…no. He wanted to repeal the ACA even without a replacement. Period. Show us evidence that he was planning to veto the repeal attempt. You act like voters don’t care about intention. I really don’t know what else to say to you. If you refuse to use logic, then I can’t help you.
John
November 9, 2019 at 11:27 AM
What about the segment of Trump fans who are disaffected liberals, who believe Trump might be the only one who could bump society’s Overton window rightward, bring back a modicum of free speech, and turn the screws on political correctness and identity politics.
Roli
November 7, 2019 at 10:05 PM
Two things I saw today which I take as an il omen for Trump’s chances.
One a Facebook friend of mine, who I went to high school with but haven’t seen since and who is your stereotypical low-IQ white redneck, who loves his guns and hates abortion, posted a link to this article along with a barely literate rant against Christianity:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-backs-controversial-push-for-bible-classes-in-schools/
That there exist prole whites who hate Christianity is not something the media is going to be aware of. Nor are inside the beltway “strategists,” whether Democrat or Republican.
The second is this unscientific poll posted on /pol/, which has Yang beating Trump by 18 points in a two-way race:
https://www.strawpoll.me/17573110/r
There aren’t many single issue anti-immigration voters, and Trump’s not doing great with them.
Anonymous
November 8, 2019 at 12:07 AM
Churchianity is a huge betrayal of Christianity. Prole whites bear the brunt of it.
map
November 9, 2019 at 3:39 AM
i’m a college-educated white woman. I love Trump becuase he gives the middle finger to the deep state/establishment/whatever you want to call it. I love him because he is a disrupter. I get a huge kick out of his rallies when he goes off script. He is such a breath of fresh air.
I know he doesn’t always follow through. But he is still so much better than the alternatives. So much better.
I’m not sure his f-you attitude toward the deep state/establishment is the main reason most people vote for him (it is MY main reason). His attitude definitely is at least PART of his appeal for many people.
Amused Observer
November 8, 2019 at 12:17 AM
MEH 0910
November 8, 2019 at 1:28 AM
Do you think Bloomberg is considering going into the race because 1) it’s easy and he wants to be president 2) it’s easy and he doesn’t want EW or BS to be presidents or 3) because it’s difficult and he doesn’t want Trump to be president .
My bet is more on 3.
Bruno
November 8, 2019 at 2:56 AM
I doubt Bloomberg will enter the race, Democrat or third party. Is it still possible for him to run Democrat? If he does that then reason 2 seems likely.
You’re right that if he enters it is b/c of reason 3, though. Bloomberg is probably surrounded by young sycophants who all hate Trump. The question is whether he is too senile to realize he has little chance, and he will make Trump’s election more likely.
I hope he does enter. On the off chance he wins, Bloomberg is certainly more appealing than Warren. Maybe more appealing than Trump too.
Lowe
November 8, 2019 at 10:31 AM
Thank you Lion for this analysis. But no thank you for not mentioning black republicans like myself. Black republicans may not be a big number, but they are more important than whites because we are black and the media agrees. In my opinion if Herman Cain had run we would have won. But since republicans persist in picking white candidates, Im afraid democrat voters won’t find them appealing. Democrats need blacks to vote for. Everyone knows that.
The Social Justice Warrior
November 8, 2019 at 5:33 AM
Elizabeth Warren
Verified account @ewarren
Elizabeth Warren Retweeted BlackWomxnFor
Thank you, @BlackWomxnFor! Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I don’t take this endorsement lightly. I’m committed to fighting alongside you for the big, structural change our country needs.
Tell me more about how Warren is some kind of threat to Trump.
Andrew E.
November 8, 2019 at 9:48 AM
She is just being political, man. Nobody cares about her telling people they are the backbone of our democracy. If anything it makes her more credible as a candidate that she tells people this.
Lowe
November 8, 2019 at 10:35 AM
Really? Is she telling prole white people this?
map
November 9, 2019 at 3:43 AM
“Tell me more about how Warren is some kind of threat to Trump”
Are you saying the fact that Warren has gone off the left leaning rails will stop Democrats from voting for her over Trump? I think this election so far has demonstrated that there is no bottom.
Mike Street Station
November 9, 2019 at 9:58 AM
MEH 0910
November 9, 2019 at 6:11 PM
Derbyshire no longer follow your analysis but sides with Sailer :
https://vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-strong-horse-weak-horse-guess-which-one-is-the-gop
Bruno
November 10, 2019 at 10:20 AM