2024 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

[OUBubba]

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=methodology

142 surveys completed and returned, up from 91 four years ago...

That tells me there were a lot of people with agendas.

That's like saying someone who has a lot more negative yelp reviews is facing bias related to volume. Like, maybe the food was ****** enough that people felt motivated to turn in the survey.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I agree that the survey is inconsequential but rather more indicative of the polarization that has occurred. Seriously...DJT is only 3 spots ahead of Carter for Economic Management? I abhor Trump but would recognize that economically he should rank higher than 34th.

On a more impactful news item, Trump Org and CFO Allen Weisselberg will be charged by the Manhattan DA tomorrow for tax-related crimes. It should be noted that DJT is not being directly charged at this time but this is his business empire that is now having their accounting practices questioned. That can't help Trump in anyone's mind but his most ardent supporters.

I've read in some circles a hope that more R's will have room to back away from supporting Trump but I think that's more a wish than reality.

 

[bystander]

I've read in some circles a hope that more R's will have room to back away from supporting Trump but I think that's more a wish than reality.

If you're a Republican and you're obsessed with only one thing (getting re-elected), then you're looking at all the votes Trump received and the very real possibility that Biden is flaming out. You keep the Trump train going and benefit from the extreme Leftists that are poking holes in the damn of Joe's alleged moderate political style.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

C-Span's 2021 Presidential Historian's survey has been released.

Not that this shouldn't be anticipated but Presidential Historians (142 currently in the poll) have a markedly unfavorable view of Trump.

SH, my initial comment is "So what!" In the first place, I personally don't think anyone can make a valid ranking of a POTUS until about 30 years after he leaves office - it takes time to see how his policies develop and influence the direction of the country. In the second place, the historians have their criteria for effectiveness and I have mine - and the criteria are not the same. And in the third place, most of these "historians" tend to be from academia, and their left bias is well known.

And I still think DJT will not be the candidate in 2024 - he may be the kingmaker for the GOP, wielding considerable influence in selecting the nominee.

 

[horninchicago]

SH, my initial comment is "So what!" In the first place, I personally don't think anyone can make a valid ranking of a POTUS until about 30 years after he leaves office - it takes time to see how his policies develop and influence the direction of the country. In the second place, the historians have their criteria for effectiveness and I have mine - and the criteria are not the same. And in the third place, most of these "historians" tend to be from academia, and their left bias is well known.

And I still think DJT will not be the candidate in 2024 - he may be the kingmaker for the GOP, wielding considerable influence in selecting the nominee.

That should always be your thought to that guy.

 

[OUBubba]

SH, my initial comment is "So what!" In the first place, I personally don't think anyone can make a valid ranking of a POTUS until about 30 years after he leaves office - it takes time to see how his policies develop and influence the direction of the country. In the second place, the historians have their criteria for effectiveness and I have mine - and the criteria are not the same. And in the third place, most of these "historians" tend to be from academia, and their left bias is well known.

And I still think DJT will not be the candidate in 2024 - he may be the kingmaker for the GOP, wielding considerable influence in selecting the nominee.

I think you’re right.

husker on husker crime.

 

[Seattle Husker]

SH, my initial comment is "So what!" In the first place, I personally don't think anyone can make a valid ranking of a POTUS until about 30 years after he leaves office - it takes time to see how his policies develop and influence the direction of the country. In the second place, the historians have their criteria for effectiveness and I have mine - and the criteria are not the same. And in the third place, most of these "historians" tend to be from academia, and their left bias is well known.

And I still think DJT will not be the candidate in 2024 - he may be the kingmaker for the GOP, wielding considerable influence in selecting the nominee.

I believe I openly recognized that the poll was "inconsequential". None of Trump's recent rallies/interviews would seem to point to him not running. See his Hannity interview last night. Here is the key quotes:

"It's not that I want to," Trump said. "The country needs it. We have to take care of this country. I don't want to, is this fun? Fighting constantly? Fighting always? I mean, the country, what we have done is so important."

 

[theiioftx]

Unfortunately I think Trump runs again. I’ll be for DeSantis.

 

[huisache]

Trump is a joke in my opinion but I agree it is foolish to rate a guy so soon after leaving office. I note that Woodrow Wilson is rated above my hero Polk.. If you had done the ratings right after Wilson left office he would be lucky to be ranked above Pierce. Maybe Trump gets treated better with time.

The whole shebang is just bs though. Look how high they rank JFK, a man who got a lot of humping done and a tax cut and got his pants pulled down a couple of times by the russians. He avoided a war with them. He was the one who led them to believe they could put missiles in Cuba to start with. And they have LBJ rated highly as well. I am trying to think what he did besides getting a lot of my friends killed (53 years ago Monday for my childhood best friend) that justifies his high ranking. Civil rights. That was good. Overall he sucked.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

Look how high they rank JFK

Way too high. The JFK era was marked by style, not substance. He accomplished very little.

And they have LBJ rated highly as well.

Also a farce. Besides the fiasco in SEA, look at all the money we've spent on his "War on poverty" - with no results fifty years later.

 

[SabreHorn]

Way too high. The JFK era was marked by style, not substance. He accomplished very little.

Damn it, HHD, now I'm going to spend this evening opening 45 new accounts to let me "like" this part enough.

Wish Charles Harrelson had written his memoires before he "died".

 

[horninchicago]

But…Camelot.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

But…Camelot.

As I said - style, not substance.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

If you're a Republican and you're obsessed with only one thing (getting re-elected), then you're looking at all the votes Trump received and the very real possibility that Biden is flaming out. You keep the Trump train going and benefit from the extreme Leftists that are poking holes in the damn of Joe's alleged moderate political style.

I just took a poll of all adults in my home, and the lowly 1982 Texas Rangers were judged to be the superior baseball team to the 1927 Yankees. I don't agree, but hey I have a Ranger homer as a wife and her adult son just goes along...

It's all about the laundry. When I saw Brinkley on the list of "experts" on the link I just laughed it off to be honest

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

Damn it, HHD, now I'm going to spend this evening opening 45 new accounts to let me "like" this part enough.

Wish Charles Harrelson had written his memoires before he "died".

He did thump Marilyn Monroe and Angie Dickinson. Envy points to him

 

[SabreHorn]

If he could keep up with Angie Dickinson, I'll change my opinion of him.

 

[Mr. Deez]

He did thump Marilyn Monroe and Angie Dickinson. Envy points to him

Marital infidelity is always wrong, but in situations I sorta understand the temptation of it even if I condemn it and frankly, knowing what JFK was nailing makes me respect Bill Clinton even less than I already did. Again, it's all terribly wrong. However, Marilyn Monroe and Angie Dickinson give you an idea of the level of the hotness the POTUS has access too. Knowing that, Bill Clinton risked the presidency and frankly going to jail to hookup with Monica Lewinsky.

It's not that Monica was ugly. She wasn't. Plenty of dudes would have been happy to get with Monica, but she was average. And let's be honest. Neither Kennedy nor Clinton were choosing their mistresses for their personalities, intelligence, or character. In fact, being a mistress is sorta based on having bad character. They chose them based on sexual appeal and not much else, and Clinton risked too much for too little. Really stupid.

 

[huisache]

Angie Dickinson described her tryst with JFK as the most noteworthy 15 seconds of her life.

Clinton was The answer to the question what if Kennedy was born poor in Arkansas.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Angie Dickinson described her tryst with JFK as the most noteworthy 15 seconds of her life.

If we had a chance to bed Angie Dickinson in her prime, how many of us would have done dramatically better? @OUBubba would have been done before she took off her shoes.

 

[OUBubba]

Way too high. The JFK era was marked by style, not substance. He accomplished very little.

Also a farce. Besides the fiasco in SEA, look at all the money we've spent on his "War on poverty" - with no results fifty years later.

To be fair, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was huge and was initiated by JFK. And, he was going to stop the silly war but someone stopped him from that.

 

[OUBubba]

If we had a chance to bed Angie Dickinson in her prime, how many of us would have done dramatically better? @OUBubba would have been done before she took off her shoes.

True story.

 

[theiioftx]

 

[huisache]

To be fair, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was huge and was initiated by JFK. And, he was going to stop the silly war but someone stopped him from that.

;JFK proposed a civil rights act but like the rest of his agenda, aside from the tax cut, he came nowhere close to getting it passed-----his years in the Senate were not spent productively, he was always running for president, and so he lacked the ties to the other members and the legislative talents to move his agenda, most of which was for show anyway. It took a master legislator to get it passed.

And the idea that he was going to stop the war is a myth made up by his sycophants. He let the Viet Namese generals kill their president because he was interfering with the conduct of the war and was trying to open back door ties with the north with the idea of a political solution. He had to go and so he was murdered with the US's permission. Kennedy was no more ready to be the next US president to lose a country to the commies than Johnson was.

 

[OUBubba]

I've read that he was the last President to practice supply side economics, or, as Be Stein famously referred to it as "voodoo" economics properly.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I've read that he was the last President to practice supply side economics, or, as Be Stein famously referred to it as "voodoo" economics properly.

He did practice it, but he wasn't the last to do it "properly," whatever that means.

 

[OUBubba]

He did practice it, but he wasn't the last to do it "properly," whatever that means.

The thing with supply side economics is this. If you cut government income you are supposed to cut spending in correlation. Instead of increasing government revenue, you decrease revenue but decrease spending. Then you get positive action on the Laffer curve. It's been about 30 years since economics, so forgive me for the cobwebs. Reagan did NOT decrease government spending. St. Reagan increased both government spending and decreased revenue. When you're trying to hit a fade off the tee to cut the corner but you duck hook it, it's a double cross. That's reaganomics in a nutshell.

 

[huisache]

More on Kennedy: upon his ascendency to the presidency, his vice president was bragging to Sam Rayburn on what a brilliant cabinet Kennedy had assembled. Rayburn said maybe, but he wished just one of them had ever run for sheriff. His point being that none of them had the right kind of experience to be handling the government. Johnson inherited that bunch when Saint John got Diemed by the rat in Dallas.

The best and brightest, all those Ivy League geniuses, were the architects of our brilliant moves in SE Asia.

In Marginal Revolutions today there is an interesting interview with Larry Summers in which he talks about the self-denying policies of the US---to wit, we are always assuming the worst about ourselves and then acting on it. The first example he uses is Kennedy's belief that the USSR was surpassing us. Much of what Kennedy did re Cuba, Viet Nam, Congo, etc, was based on this erroneous belief.
But he was nailing a lot of 9s and 10s every day. And his wife had that great sort of French accent.

Camelot!!!

 

[Mr. Deez]

The thing with supply side economics is this. If you cut government income you are supposed to cut spending in correlation. Instead of increasing government revenue, you decrease revenue but decrease spending. Then you get positive action on the Laffer curve. It's been about 30 years since economics, so forgive me for the cobwebs. Reagan did NOT decrease government spending. St. Reagan increased both government spending and decreased revenue. When you're trying to hit a fade off the tee to cut the corner but you duck hook it, it's a double cross. That's reaganomics in a nutshell.

You just can't help but look at it through a partisan and dishonest lense. First, the Laffer Curve was all about increasing government revenue through economic expansion in the wake of tax cuts, not decreasing it.

Second, do you just never look at the actual numbers? Kennedy didn't cut spending. In fact, it went from $97B to $118.5B between 1961 and 1964 and increased every year in between. Reagan had one year of down revenue and seven of higher revenue. By the end of his term, it was up about $400B per year.

 

[EDT]

 

[iatrogenic]

The thing with supply side economics is this. If you cut government income you are supposed to cut spending in correlation. Instead of increasing government revenue, you decrease revenue but decrease spending. Then you get positive action on the Laffer curve. It's been about 30 years since economics, so forgive me for the cobwebs. Reagan did NOT decrease government spending. St. Reagan increased both government spending and decreased revenue. When you're trying to hit a fade off the tee to cut the corner but you duck hook it, it's a double cross. That's reaganomics in a nutshell.

Wrong Gomer. Tax revenues grew under Reagan after his tax cuts, but I’ve given up on any Democrat ever understanding basic economics. That is just a bridge too far for the libs.

Spending did increase, but the difference in revenues and spending was less than the value of military equipment Biden left in Afghanistan.