2018 Senate (& House)

[Joe Fan]

This is sort of new -- Maine used a voting algorithm to defeat a Republican. Technically neither candidate received 50% so Maine's "ranked-choice voting system" kicked in. And, of course, these type of decisions always go only one way.

The loser wants a hand recount. To which the state said (I bet you can guess what they said)

Spoiler

"Only if you pay for it, dude."

The Dem is naturally opposed to a hand recount saying, “dragging out this process only hurts the people we were elected to serve.” One can only guess what he might be saying if he had lost to the algorithm.

" .... “No one is able to review the algorithm used by a computer to determine elections,” Poliquin campaign spokesman Brendan Conley said in a statement Monday night. “This artificial intelligence is not transparent....."
* * *
The new system, which voters have twice approved at the ballot box, lets voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no one receives a majority, the last-place finisher is eliminated and his or her votes reallocated to the candidates whom voters ranked second. The process continues until someone secures more than 50 percent of the vote.

Voters who had designated an independent candidate as their first choice and the Democrat as their second choice or third choice put Golden over the 50 percent threshold, unseating Poliquin. ...."​

Defeated Rep. Bruce Poliquin Calls for Lengthy Ranked Choice Recount

 

[Joe Fan]

I am a Cruz fan. That is the ugliest beard evah.

¡Viva la revolución!

 

[Joe Fan]

Didnt work.
Go figure

"In her quest to win a third term, Love has tried to separate herself from President Trump on trade and immigration, while still backing the GOP-supported tax reform...."​

Mitt Romney, Rep. Mia Love and marijuana headline Utah election

 

[Joe Fan]

Hyde-Smith wins -- first woman to be elected to the Senate from Mississippi
Contrary to the pre-midterm predictions of some, the Rs will control the Senate 53-47
(+ the WH and a majority on the SCOTUS)

Lastly, while Trump gained Senate seats in his first midterm, both Obama and Clinton lost Senate seats in theirs

 

[mchammer]

GOP has 3 more senate seats in the offing: AL, WV, and MT.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Is it remotely possible that people have actually started to understand the relationship between the senate and the judiciary? Are the same people who can't stand Trump enough to abandon him in the house still unwilling to vote Dem based on the need to keep conservative judicial nominees flowing?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

GOP has 3 more senate seats in the offing: AL, WV, and MT.

Maybe I'm not following your point here, but the WV and MT seats up in 2020 are already held by Republicans. The AL seat is held by a Democrat and a real opportunity, though Jones hasn't turned out to be as liberal as some thought he'd be. However, unless the GOP can find another child molester to nominate, it should be an easy pickup.

 

[Mr. Deez]

There is a factor you guys are not considering in this loss of the House talk. Yes, losing the House hurts and it will create a mess with all these new (dumbass) committee chairs. Still, most of that group of 40-or-so Republican Never-Trump seats that were lost retired. Many of them were committee chairs. Which meant Ryan had a bunch of Trump-haters in prime potions to gum up the legislative works. They only let through what Ryan allowed. I asked the question above, but got no reply -- given that most brand new Presidents get the bulk of their agenda through in Year 1, what did the House accomplish in Trump's first year? It was almost nothing. It was exactly nothing until the very end. They could not even pass the same bills they had passed multiple times under Obama. Why was that? I dont think you guys ever asked that question.

Here are the two main points I think you guys are missing --
(1) Trump left the House races to Paul Ryan who had a large financial warchest. Ryan personally made the call on which races to spend that money on and which races not to spend on. Trump obviously did not want to risk political capital on people who hate him, and made the wise choice to focus all his energy on the Senate (with mostly good results); and
(2) On top of that, many of the House seats that were lost were the seats of the retiring incumbent (Trump-hating) Republicans. In other words, the bulk of the seats lost were lost with brand new candidates who had zero name recognition. Had those well-known incumbents decided to stay, maybe the 2018 midterm would have had a different result in the House? We will never know.

Which raises another question. Which way was better? Is Trump better off now or worse off with the House this way? The good news is that this election cleared out much of the Resistance from within Trump's own party. If they had stayed and the Rs did keep the House, they were going to stymie Trump again anyway - so what would be the point? This way, Trump has a nice fat, old target to aim at in the 2020 election -- anything bad that happens will be the fault of Pelosi and the House Dems (these new Dem comm. chairs are the same tired old faces). The bad side is just as obvious -- non-stop subpoenas and hearings. Yuck. But impeachment is going nowhere, as I have maintained since the issue first arose. To borrow from Gertrude Stein, there's no there there.

Meanwhile, at the same time the House Dems will be making a spectacle of themselves, Trump can keep accomplishing those things that dont need the House such as (a) loading up the federal judiciary, (b) reworking trade deals, and (c) fixing immigration. On this last point, I would argue Hawaii v. Trump gave him the plenary power to almost do whatever he wants in this area of the law. I think what we see now is his preference that the issue be solved through the more appriate channel - legislation. Plus, I dont think he really minds all this media and national focus on immigration. It's a good issue for him. Perhaps his best with the voters. Why not just let it stay front and center?

Then get some better people involved in 2020 and move forward.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

LOL. The contortions you'll go to in order to pin this on someone other than Trump is comical. First, Ryan did plenty of fundraising to keep the House, but there's only so much money can do, especially when the Democrats had tons of money too. Lack of money simply wasn't that big of a factor. A few more TV or internet ads or mail pieces weren't going to make the difference.

Second, you are correct that many Republicans retired, but you act as though that happened in a vacuum. It didn't. Large numbers of them retired because they knew the reelection was unlikely and didn't want the fight. They knew how their districts voted in 2016 and chose to walk away rather than face defeat.

Third, you overstate the impact of retirements. Democrats flipped 41 seats. Some of those were due to retirements, but most of them were not. 29 of the 42 flips were incumbents who were defeated.

Fourth, you ignore the political leanings of the lost districts. Does anyone really think that if Barbara Comstock had more rabidly embraced Trump that a bunch of federal employees in Northern Virginian would have chosen her over the Democrat? Does anyone think that a bunch of wealthy suburbanites in Dallas who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 would have voted to reelect Pete Sessions if he had been a more dedicated member of the Trump train? Seriously?

Regardless of how the seats were lost, What people should be noticing is that there was a pattern. Suburban areas of Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, Richmond, and Salt Lake City that used to be easy places for Republicans to win became difficult to win.

We're losing the suburban demographic, and we can't afford to. The hardcore Trump backers may not care, because they don't like that demographic and dismiss them as "elites." Well, we need to be willing to reach out to voters who aren't exactly like us, and I don't mean the race issue like the media usually does when they attack the GOP. I mean the geographic issue. We need to assemble a coalition. Big city dwellers aren't going to be a part of that for obvious reasons, but suburbanites need to be for us to win. There just aren't enough rednecks to win with them alone.

 

[Monahorns]

I just don't know how you appeal to suburbanites who want more gun control, $15 minimum wage, free college, and single payer healthcare.

The Republican party has already moved left but will have to further to get elected. That leaves freedom lovers like me without a party.

 

[4th_floor]

Maybe I'm not following your point here, but the WV and MT seats up in 2020 are already held by Republicans. The AL seat is held by a Democrat and a real opportunity, though Jones hasn't turned out to be as liberal as some thought he'd be. However, unless the GOP can find another child molester to nominate, it should be an easy pickup.

I hesitate to rise to the defense of Roy Moore. He's creepy and has views on social and religious issues that are too far to the right for me. But I believe the child molester label is inaccurate and unfair. My understanding is that when he "dated" the 16-year old girls in Alabama, they were beyond the age of consent at the time in Alabama. Perhaps I am misinformed on the law, but from my readings it appears that marriage to a 16-year old was not uncommon in Alabama in the 1970s. So I think creep is a better description than child molester.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I hesitate to rise to the defense of Roy Moore. He's creepy and has views on social and religious issues that are too far to the right for me. But I believe the child molester label is inaccurate and unfair. My understanding is that when he "dated" the 16-year old girls in Alabama, they were beyond the age of consent at the time in Alabama. Perhaps I am misinformed on the law, but from my readings it appears that marriage to a 16-year old was not uncommon in Alabama in the 1970s. So I think creep is a better description than child molester.

Sixteen years olds got married more often in those days, but how often did they marry 35 year old DAs? Probably not too often. They probably more often married pretty young men who were of a similar social status. Even in the '70s and in Alabama, a guy in Moore's position would have been considered a dirty old man, because most of us don't need a law to tell us that we don't try to bang 16 year old girls when we're professionals in our 30s.

And to be clear, it's not illegal for a 35 year old man to date a 16 year old girl if he's not getting sexual with her. However, if you have to thread that needle, you're not a good US Senate candidate.

 

[Joe Fan]

LOL. The contortions you'll go to in order to pin this on someone other than Trump is comical.

I am happy I was able to get you to change the first partial sentence of your reply from "That's ridiculous." Pavlov smiles.

First, Ryan did plenty of fundraising to keep the House, but there's only so much money can do, especially when the Democrats had tons of money too. Lack of money simply wasn't that big of a factor. A few more TV or internet ads or mail pieces weren't going to make the difference.

I never said Paul Ryan did not raise money. I consider the fact that you had to change what I actually said in order to be able to address it, another small victory. Ryan did raise lotsa money (I wrote he had a "large warchest"). My objection was how he spent it. This is now the third time I have had to write that. Being the optimist I am, I fully expect one of these times, it will get through.

Second, you are correct that many Republicans retired, but you act as though that happened in a vacuum. ...

The question I posed was whether Trump is now better off or worse off. I suggested that even though the upcoming period of old Dem committee chairs will be tiresome (already is) an argument can be made that Trump and his agenda will actually be better off for the next two years. Maybe he can get them concede certain items that recalcitrant, Beltway Republicans would not? It is at least possible. But, either way, he was able to rid himself of many of the powerful, backstabbing haters in the House who held his first year agenda hostage for so long. Plus, as mentioned, he will now have Pelosi, Hoyer and Waters as large targets.

Nothing about the Senate? lol

Lastly, you seem to miss the big picture about the difference between the House of Ryan and Trump, which is a little disappointing but to be expected I guess. Ryan represents the interests of K-Street lobbyists, always has. Trump represents the people. First President you could say that about since Reagan. The voters got this similarity about those two from the beginning. It matters, and will continue to matter.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I just don't know how you appeal to suburbanites who want more gun control, $15 minimum wage, free college, and single payer healthcare.

First, I don't buy that they actually support all that. Keep in mind that most of these districts were voting pretty reliably Republican just a few years ago. Not many people switch from being conservative Republicans to not only voting Democratic in a given election but embracing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-style socialism.

Second, you just assume that nobody's mind can be changed. It doesn't reflect very well on the conservative policy agenda if we just accept that we can't convince voters to embrace it on the merits.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Ryan did raise lotsa money (I wrote he had a "large warchest"). My objection was how he spent it.

So who got money that shouldn't have, and who didn't get money that should have? How much should they have gotten? And how would it have made a difference? In other words, what would the candidates have done?

The question I posed was whether Trump is now better off or worse off.

Lol. You brought up the retirements issue and are now changing the subject. It's ok, but that's what you did.

I suggested that even though the upcoming period of old Dem committee chairs will be tiresome (already is) an argument can be made that Trump and his agenda will actually be better off for the next two years. Maybe he can get them concede certain items that recalcitrant, Beltway Republicans would not?

Not likely. For starters, he's going to blow a lot of time and effort fighting congressional investigations. That's not going to promote a spirit of compromise by Democrats or Trump. Furthermore, the Democrats he'll be dealing with just got elected mostly to get in his way. They're not likely to play ball in many areas on which the GOP leadership would not. Infrastructure bill? Maybe, but Trump would have to throw in a Christmas tree of liberal priorities - tons of green energy corporate welfare, bailouts for mass transit systems, rail systems, etc.

But, either way, he was able to rid himself of many of the powerful, backstabbing haters in the House who held his first year agenda hostage for so long.

Haters? Yeah, Kevin Brady, Trey Gowdy, and Bob Goodlatte were haters, but Richard Neal, Elijah Cummings, and Jerrold Nadler will be more reasonable with Trump. Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

This reminds me of the people who were happy to see Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chaffee leave the GOP and for Olympia Snowe leave the Senate. They weren't always fun to deal with, but the alternative (who we eventually got) were and are much, much worse. And of course, they were far less reliable than the GOP House members whose seats were lost in 2018.

Plus, as mentioned, he will now have Pelosi, Hoyer and Waters as large targets.

Yes, he will, and it might help him in 2020. Does it help the broader GOP? Hard to say.

Nothing about the Senate? lol

I've already discussed the Senate.

Ryan represents the interests of K-Street lobbyists, always has. Trump represents the people. First President you could say that about since Reagan. The voters got this similarity about those two from the beginning. It matters, and will continue to matter

I'm aware of whom they represent. The problem is that you need a coalition to win. Neither group can win without the other, and there are many common interests between them. However, if one is jeopardizing the other's ability to win (and for no good reason), the coalition falls apart.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

First, I don't buy that they actually support all that. Keep in mind that most of these districts were voting pretty reliably Republican just a few years ago. Not many people switch from being conservative Republicans to not only voting Democratic in a given election but embracing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-style socialism.

My suspicion from my own experiences and conception of human nature is that these people are still conservative in their worldview, but they also are very uncomfortable being seen as mean, racist ogres. They want people to generally get along, and their wives tend to see things in emotional terms - if our society is spiraling into chaos (according to CNN), then it's probably the rude, loud, orange man on the screen that's making all this happen. Most of these people are not habitually political, so they see what shows up on cable news and what their coworkers complain about.

I would be willing to bet that none of the anti-trump sentiment in the suburbs has anything to do with policy - at least not on any real, tangible level. "Be nice to the migrants" is an emotional response but it has nothing to do with their actual political stance, which is "we want secure borders, people entering legally, and the ability to remove people who are not here legally. (Except Dreamers - kicking them out makes us feel icky... so let's find a way to make them stay even though we haven't really thought through all the ramifications and perverse incentives that would create.)

 

[Joe Fan]

So who got money that shouldn't have, and who didn't get money that should have? How much should they have gotten? And how would it have made a difference? In other words, what would the candidates have done?
Lol. You brought up the retirements issue and are now changing the subject. It's ok, but that's what you did
Not likely. For starters, he's going to blow a lot of time and effort fighting congressional investigations. That's not going to promote a spirit of compromise by Democrats or Trump. Furthermore, the Democrats he'll be dealing with just got elected mostly to get in his way. They're not likely to play ball in many areas on which the GOP leadership would not. Infrastructure bill? Maybe, but Trump would have to throw in a Christmas tree of liberal priorities - tons of green energy corporate welfare, bailouts for mass transit systems, rail systems, etc.
Haters? Yeah, Kevin Brady, Trey Gowdy, and Bob Goodlatte were haters, but Richard Neal, Elijah Cummings, and Jerrold Nadler will be more reasonable with Trump. Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
This reminds me of the people who were happy to see Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chaffee leave the GOP and for Olympia Snowe leave the Senate. They weren't always fun to deal with, but the alternative (who we eventually got) were and are much, much worse. And of course, they were far less reliable than the GOP House members whose seats were lost in 2018.
Yes, he will, nd it might help him in 2020. Does it help the broader GOP? Hard to say.
I've already discussed the Senate.
I'm aware of whom they represent. The problem is that you need a coalition to win. Neither group can win without the other, and there are many common interests between them. However, if one is jeopardizing the other's ability to win (and for no good reason), the coalition falls apart.

It is much easier and takes less time to simply summarize the Never-Trumpers position as follows --

Trump is 100% to blame for losing the House in 2018.
Trump gets zero credit for building the Senate in 2018
Trump even gets zero credit for winning the WH in 2016, holding the House and Senate in 2016 or saving us all from an HRC presidency.
Trump gets zero credit for keeping the SCOTUS from going into full anarchist mode or anything else good that happened over the last 2 years.​

Feel free to copy and paste for future use.

 

[Joe Fan]

Something from the SF Chron on how Calif Dems "vote harvested" 2018 --

"California Democrats took advantage of seemingly minor changes in a 2016 law to score their stunningly successful midterm election results, providing a target for GOP unhappiness that is tinged with a bit of admiration.

Some Republicans have cast a skeptical eye on Democrats’ use of “ballot harvesting” to boost their support. The idea’s backers say it’s just one of several steps California has taken to enable more people to vote.

Few people noticed when Gov. Jerry Brown signed the changes in AB1921 into law two years ago. In the past, California allowed only relatives or people living in the same household to drop off mail ballots for another voter. The new law allowed anyone, even a paid political campaign worker, to collect and return ballots — “harvesting” them, in political slang.

The change was strictly a public service, said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, author of the bill. The old rules, she said, “simply provide yet another obstacle for individuals attempting to vote.”...."​

If you ever wondered what it is exactly that "Community Organizers" do, then this is a good example.

California's late votes broke big for Democrats. Here's why GOP was surprised

 

[Monahorns]

As long as the "harvested" votes were actually made by the person identified, I have no problem with the practice. That would actually be a good way from voter ID proponents to justify new ID requirement laws. The principle being, you have to show you are who you say they are and the vote has to be from your own volition but the "voting booth" comes to those who have trouble getting out of the house. Most older people vote more conservatively anyway. Republicans could actually get a boost out of this both in short term votes and in PR.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It is much easier and takes less time to simply summarize the Never-Trumpers position as follows --

Trump is 100% to blame for losing the House in 2018.
Trump gets zero credit for building the Senate in 2018
Trump even gets zero credit for winning the WH in 2016, holding the House and Senate in 2016 or saving us all from an HRC presidency.
Trump gets zero credit for keeping the SCOTUS from going into full anarchist mode or anything else good that happened over the last 2 years.​

Feel free to copy and paste for future use.

Damn, there goes that sphincter again. Of course, none of what you said has anything whatsoever to do with the issue, but it changes the subject and avoids getting into an uncomfortable discussion. Lol.

 

[Joe Fan]

Damn, there goes that sphincter again. Of course, none of what you said has anything whatsoever to do with the issue, but it changes the subject and avoids getting into an uncomfortable discussion. Lol.

Look, we get it. We understand. You are a Trump-hater. But here is the part I do not understand. We already get your perspective every day, all day, at places like CNN and MSNBC, the front page of most any newspaper on any day, nightly on Jimmy Kimmel or that other guy, and the twitter feed of the WAPO, NYT, HuffPo or Bloomberg. So here is my question for you -- why do you think these takes are new or unique when we already get them every day?

My 2 cents on how you could improve -- if you want to stand out as unique or be known for your interesting perspectives, you need to go counter to the mainstream. Be brave. Do something different. You cannot simply repackage liberal hated, rename it Never-Trumping, and then expect the rest of us to think it is somehow special or creative. It's not.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Look, we get it. We understand. You are a Trump-hater. But here is the part I do not understand. We already get your perspective every day, all day, at places like CNN and MSNBC, the front page of most any newspaper on any day, nightly on Jimmy Kimmel or that other guy, and the twitter feed of the WAPO, NYT, HuffPo or Bloomberg. So here is my question for you -- why do you think these takes are new or unique when we already get them every day?

My 2 cents on how you could improve -- if you want to stand out as unique or be known for your interesting perspectives, you need to go counter to the mainstream. Be brave. Do something different. You cannot simply repackage liberal hated, rename it Never-Trumping, and then expect the rest of us to think it is somehow special or creative. It's not.

More diversion . . .

(And for the record, I've been more favorable to Trump than unfavorable since he took office and have rejected and even attacked the Never Trump position.)

 

[Mr. Deez]

My suspicion from my own experiences and conception of human nature is that these people are still conservative in their worldview, but they also are very uncomfortable being seen as mean, racist ogres. They want people to generally get along, and their wives tend to see things in emotional terms - if our society is spiraling into chaos (according to CNN), then it's probably the rude, loud, orange man on the screen that's making all this happen. Most of these people are not habitually political, so they see what shows up on cable news and what their coworkers complain about.

I would be willing to bet that none of the anti-trump sentiment in the suburbs has anything to do with policy - at least not on any real, tangible level. "Be nice to the migrants" is an emotional response but it has nothing to do with their actual political stance, which is "we want secure borders, people entering legally, and the ability to remove people who are not here legally. (Except Dreamers - kicking them out makes us feel icky... so let's find a way to make them stay even though we haven't really thought through all the ramifications and perverse incentives that would create.)

You are exactly correct, and we need to stop approaching these voters as if they're stupid or a nuisance for being like this. Most people including us choose what we'll buy or support based at least in part on how it makes us feel. We'll deny it all day long (as everybody does), but it's the truth.

There's one thing that does cut through the crap, and that's money. How many suburbanites with high incomes are willing to pay the tax burden or to dump the credit card bill on their children that would be necessary to finance Bernie Sanders' priorities which are very quickly becoming the Democratic Party's priorities? Not many. Keep in mind that this agenda costs in the $3T per year. At that cost, upper income families wouldn't just see their taxes go back up to 39.6 percent. We'd be talking about their taxes doubling or more - enough to make a serious impact on their finances. But we don't have any credibility on fiscal responsibility, and that dramatically blunts our ability to play that angle.

I know you all hate Seattle Husker's guts and think he sits in his basement burning Bibles between reading chapters of Das Kapital. However, suppose the GOP could credibly tell him the following:

(1) We're socially more conservative than you, but we're not busybodies, and we'll let your state do what it wants on cultural and environmental issues.

(2) We'll secure the borders, but we'll go after crooked employers as hard as we go after illegal immigrants. Furthermore, we'll evaluate legal immigrants on their individual economic merit.

(3) We'll keep your taxes as low as possible and be good stewards of your money, but most of all, we will generally keep the budget balanced so your kids don't inherit a bunch of debt.

Would he choose the likely fiscal and tax Armageddon that would come from free tuition and socialized medicine (which would hit families like his the hardest) over that agenda if he actually believed we'd deliver it? Maybe he'd still go with the Dems, but a hell of a lot of people who are like him would not once the likely tax burden was put in front of them.

But we don't have that credibility. We approach immigration from a cultural-social standpoint. We push social issues from a national perspective rather than a state and local perspective. We are terrible stewards of the taxpayer's money when we have the chance, and we borrow like there's no tomorrow. Even when we talk a good game, nobody takes us seriously because they don't have good reason to.

 

[Garmel]

.

I know you all hate Seattle Husker's guts and think he sits in his basement burning Bibles between reading chapters of Das Kapital.

I don't think anybody here hates his guts.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't think anybody here hates his guts.

Call it what you want, but you all take a piss on him every chance you get. And that's a bit of a diversion from the point.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Call it what you want, but you all take a piss on him every chance you get. And that's a bit of a diversion from the point.

As if he doesn't invite it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

As if he doesn't invite it.

Ok, I take it back. Back on topic . . .

 

[Phil Elliott]

Would he choose the likely fiscal and tax Armageddon that would come from free tuition and socialized medicine (which would hit families like his the hardest) over that agenda if he actually believed we'd deliver it?

He'd vote for the GOP, but lie about it to his friends. He may already be doing this AFAIK.

 

[Mr. Deez]

He'd vote for the GOP, but lie about it to his friends. He may already be doing this AFAIK.

Should we care if he lies to his friends?

 

[Seattle Husker]

For the record, I've never thought it realistic for free college and believe most of the suburbanite crowd also would not support. I've never thought Bernie was anything more than a sideshow, capitalizing on the anti-establishment crowd. On multiple occasions on this board I've described myself as a fiscal conservative. For the topic of "free education", I believe that there is value for those that earn their own way.

As a parent of 1 college student with 2 more reaching there within 2.5 years, college expenses are egregious. When I was in college I paid my own way (by working) the entire way with only a mere $12k in debt at the end. My sons could NOT afford to do that now. Heck, my son was offered a mere $5k unsubsidized loan for his Frosh year with the expectation that his parents cover the other $20k per year. I'm in a fortunate enough position to be able to pay for my children's education without them taking on debt. If I was unwilling to pay that their options would be nominal for a 4yr Power 5 college.

With all that said, I'd still vote for Bernie and trust that saner more financially prudent heads would prevail in D.C. than knowingly vote for a corrupt *******. Unfortunately, there is no perfect candidate but Trump might be the closest to the antithesis of a perfect candidate for me.