Rachel Maddow Says Trump Just Made Two Moves That Will Doom Him In 2020

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Rachel Maddow said that the Trump administration made two major decisions on Tuesday that could doom his reelection chances come 2020.

The first, of course, is to try – again – to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and take health insurance coverage away from millions of Americans.

The second move by the administration was to take money from the United States military to for the construction of a wall on the southern border – a wall, I might add, that is incredibly unpopular.

Maddow sarcastically called Trump’s moves a “nice double-barrelled strategy for the president’s reelection campaign.”

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/03/26/maddow-trump-two-moves-doom-2020.html

[John Fante]

1. I'd argue that his budget proposal makes it three moves.

That budget is pure GOP evil in a nutshell.

[SergeStorms]

24. Gotta' pay for those tax cuts...

for corporations and the very wealthy somehow. I think even Trump understands what a colossal screw up those were for the deficit. We'll have to cut spending to the bone to make up for those tax cuts for the rich. He's got well over $1 billion a month coming into the coffers from his backdoor tax on Americans (aka China "tariffs" ) but that doesn't come close to making up for his giveaway to the rich. Dissolving the ACA will be a two-pronged savings "plan". Not only will the government save money from subsidizing American's insurance premiums, but many more Americans will die prematurely, thus ceasing to be a drain on the Trump "economic miracle".

I think all of these money saving actions are spelled out in the fine print of the new Trump budget. You just have to know where to look. We couldn't possibly have the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes. That's downright un-American!

[MyOwnPeace]

30. One thing.........

Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2019, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't understand is how "corporations" - you know, the ones who supposedly run the government and get the breaks, would still support the current "medical plan" when they have to pay for insurance for their cerfs that are earning the money.
We're told that too many people who have "employee" insurance don't want to give up their good coverage in exchange for a M4A plan even though it would free employers from having to provide medical coverage.
I'm sure there is a "follow-the-money" reason for the Repugs to continue to kill the ACA but I just don't understand it...............

[SergeStorms]

42. Trying to make sense...

of what normal republicans are "thinking" is an exercise in futility, and when it comes to Donald Trump it's an exercise in insanity. It's like attempting to herd cats into a room full of angry Pit Bulls.

[okaawhatever]

45. Well, large corporations get better premiums than smaller companies or individuals giving them

an advantage in the hiring market. Also, there is a thing called job lock where people stay with their current employer when they may be able to make more at a start-up or smaller company because of the benefits. Also, employees health care premiums are tax deductible. Taxes will have to increase for any M4A plan, but it would be across the board, it won't give corps. an advantage. In fact, the ACA originally had a rule that health benefits over $12k per year would not be tax deductible, but it was voted down or overturned. Our side is sick of fortune 500 execs getting ridiculous concierge medical care, masseurs and such being tax deductible.

[MyOwnPeace]

46. Thanks, OK!

'Splains it to me now, and I was sorta' right - it is a "$$$$$$$" reason corporations don't want "relieved" of benefit coverage - they gain special advantages from it also!

DUH!!!!!!

Of course!

Why would they want to have anything that would be for the betterment of the people of the United States of America if it would hurt their bottom line or tax advantages?

[allgood33]

31. Cutting out the Special Olympics funding from the Feds will be a final straw for many.

The Trumpians motto: Do as much harm to as many people in as many ways that you can while you can for as long as you can.

The nightmare must end in 2020.

[FakeNoose]

49. He's already walking that one back

I agree it was a big mistake, but now he's blaming his "staff" and he's "saving" the Special Olympics from the chopping block. What an asshat! I'll bet he heard from plenty of MAGAts over that one.

[hibbing]

2. Disagree on both

That's why so many of the deplorables voted for him, because people were getting "free" insurance. Both of these have racial overtones which appeal to the vast majority of Republican voters. Sure, we may win the popular vote again, but with the current situation, it won't matter. Just my humble opinion.

Peace

[Xipe Totec]

3. There aren't enough deplorables to get him elected. nt

[hibbing]

6. Not enough to get him elected in the first place?

[Xipe Totec]

8. So, you're saying only deplorables voted for him?

Look, get real. He barely eked by winning a few thousand votes in states that are now having second thoughts about him.

His strategy to continue to appeal to the worst of the worst is not gaining him any new votes, but it is losing him a lot.

To think that he can win reelection by appealing to these people is absurd.

[hibbing]

11. Never ever ever in my posts did I say we need ro appeal to them

I feel just the opposite, we will never win those people over, nor should we ever try. We are both on the same side but I'm obviously not communicating clearly.

Peace

[Mr. Evil]

16. The other unspoken factor

is that Trump will have Putin voting for him thousands of times. Just enough in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida (and Georgia if necessary) to push him over the threshold of victory from the Electoral College.

[johnj.harrison]

18. deplorables

I wouldn't say they were all deplorable but I would say many are racist and bigots who agreed with his beliefs, such as, most Hispanics are either drug dealers, murderers or rapists and basically saying that Muslim are terrorists. His 33% base for the most part, do share, sad to say, his beliefs on this. What I really don't understand why the Republican party is so worried about the 33% and not the other 67%. Isn't 67 atill more than 33, even in the new math. Many think if Trump loses in 2020 there will be riots by the 33% but I guess between the 67%, the National Guard as well as many of our armed forces in the USA they will handle any kind of uprising. Hopefully the 33% will realize this demigod they revere so much is nothing but a conman, swindler, lying, womanizing, vile human being. Michelle Obama made the statement, "when they go low, we go high", As it turned out, that was wrong. The Democrats should have fought fire with fire and regularly pointed out so many character flaws. I showed my own expose to a Trump supporter. After reading it he told me if Mickey Mouse was on the ballot he'd vote for the mouse.

[John Fante]

43. Apathy on our side gave Trump the narrow victory.

Trump actually recieved a smaller percentage of the vote than Romney. Had we shown up in adequet numbers, he would have lost decisively.

Anyone banking on democratic apathy in 2020 is in for a rude shock.

[MyOwnPeace]

47. I SO hope you are right............

I have thought for a long time that:

1. Too many thought there was no way IQ45 could win - so why bother going out to vote.

2. I'm convinced that there was a strong "Anti-Hillary" segment within the Dems - they would not vote for anybody else, but would not vote for Hillary either.

3. I don't believe there was as strong of a "get out the vote" within the Black community as there was for President Obama. The support from them for #44 certainly helped put him in against incredible odds, especially considering what we see now becoming so public and encouraged by this mis-administration.

I'm convinced that there was Russian interference with the election (NO WAY Pennsylvania puts Toomey back in office!), but even with that, if these other things had changed a bit we would not be living this nightmare.

Forger MUELLER, we must GET OUT THE VOTE!!!!!

[FakeNoose]

52. Correct-a-mundo on all 3 points

Also, a bonus for Pat Toomey, he'll never get re-elected in PA. He might as well move to Virginia, next door to Rick Santorum. Two peas in a pod.

I believe we need to GOTV like never before and we can win in 2020. The White House and the Senate.

[MyOwnPeace]

54. Hey, Fake!

Maybe Ricky can rent his Penn Hills house to Pat to use as his election headquarters next time. I'm sure Penn Hills School District wouldn't mind now that they are under state supervision for being 150 million plus in debt - even though Ricky charged them over $60 thousand to "cyber-school" his kids while he lived in his 2-million dollar place in Virginia.
Oh, wait, that house is kinda' small, like maybe 2 bedrooms. While Ricky's family of 5 may have been able to handle that, I'm not so sure Pat would be able to fit in the bags of "support" he gets from the banks, coal, and Russia.

[FakeNoose]

55. I remember when he actually lived in Penn Hills

... but that was what, 20 years ago? His kids were in grade school then, I think. I thought he sold that house. (?) He's been in Virginia for a long time, and his kids are mostly grown.

[MyOwnPeace]

56. That is about

the correct time line. I suspect he (or the family) did sell the house, probably after his scam was exposed. He was living in his big place in Virginia but charging the Penn Hills School District to provide cyber-schooling for his children.
Did not live in the district or the house at that time - DID live in the "big place."
I guess laws only count for "some."

[zentrum]

7. I think

.....with enough gerrymandering and voter suppression there are. Not to mention that the electoral college won't be ended by 2020.

There technically weren't enough deplorables in 2016 to get him elected and yet here we are.

Sure need to be sure our candidate is The One who can beat him no matter what.

[Xipe Totec]

10. Tell me how 'our' candidate will magically make gerrymandering disappear in a puff of smoke.

You can't argue it both ways; that:

on the one hand he won through gerrymandering

on the other the 'right' candidate will beat him.

The point is pissing off people is not a path to reelection.

[mr_lebowski]

26. You cannot win POTUS through gerrymandering so anyone who implies that ...

Is detached from reality.

Gerrymandering works for State-level seats, and federal House seats ... not US Senate or POTUS.

The concept simply does not apply, and I'd hope all DU'ers would know this.

[zentrum]

38. The thing is....

...since the state-level seats are the ones who do the gerrymandering, they become powerful enough to have an effect on the other bodies.

Once the Gerry is in place, and your district has lost to a Repug representative, there's all kinds of decisions that do eventually weigh on the Senate and POTUS. Number and distance of polling places for example. That really matters in rural or working class areas. Requiring ID. And we all know that requiring ID stands for voter supression of all kinds. Also, in Maine and Nebraska, it also oddly enough affects the Electoral College. This practice could spread if enough states opted into the Maine system.

Your point is well taken but control of the House is hugely impactful, though perhaps in subtle ways, on POTUS and the Senate. For instance, if Schiff or Nadler, had been gerrymandered out of their seats, they couldn't be mounting the threat to (our currently so-called) POTUS that they are now able to do.

[mr_lebowski]

39. Fair enough, good points :) (nt)

[zentrum]

40. Yeah, but you got

...me to really think about it.

[mr_lebowski]

41. Ditto ... and I conclude, in many states, you're 100% right

And in every state these are good points no matter what.

Some states you can obviate a lot of it just by getting a Dem SoS, but then that could still change ...

[zentrum]

36. 4.4M voters

...who voted for Obama stayed home in 2016. Ouch. If they hadn't stayed home, we might have won in the states we lost to the College.

We need a Democratic candidate who is so obviously competent, authentic and compelling that we can overcome all the systems of voter suppression that are in place. To repeat, if there had been enough enthusiasm in the three states critical to the College, for example, we would have won the Electoral College and the popular vote. With enough turn out, gerrymandering also can be overcome, if even by a nose.

Turnout is our only hope at this point, since we ceded control of gerrymandering to Republican state legislators years ago. We need a candidate that creates genuine enthusiasm.

[MyOwnPeace]

48. BINGO!

You make the very point I was trying to say in post #47 (somewhere "up there&quot - we had too many people figure it was "as good as done" or "no way this idiot wins."

Terrible lesson to learn in not taking our democracy for granted.

[zentrum]

51. Found your #47

.....and agree---never thought this nightmare could ever happen in a million years..

Was sure the vote margin was safe because he was so obviously a joke with a bad toupee that acted like a "tell" of his character.

[pangaia]

12. There were last time.

[True Blue American]

29. Gerrymandering should hav worked

In 2016. It did not because we had foot soldiers and angry people voted.

[John Fante]

44. Then there was the time that nearly

61 millon Americans for Democrats... in a mid-term.

If that level of enthusiasm carries over into 2020 (and it will) Trump and his fucking deplorables get crushed. Simple as that.

[diva77]

22. That's right. It's all about election fraud. We need an even greater landslide from Dems in 2020

than 2018 since rethugs have become more brazen -- to the nth degree with implementing the many facets of election fraud.

[misanthrope]

5. Agreed

It isn't the superficial racism that does the work. It's the suppressed variety, the nebulous whispers in the psyche which feed "hunches" and "feelings."

[defacto7]

13. That's an excellent way to describe it.

[Buckeyeblue]

32. He mainly got elected because Hillary Clinton has been demonized since 1992.

[MyOwnPeace]

50. That certainly was.........

ONE of the issues that helped him. Voter apathy ("it doesn't matter - they're all the same&quot , anger with the nominee (Hillary wasn't nice to {insert name here}, or "I don't want a Clinton again" - all of these helped keep voters home.

We can only hope they've learned their lessons (tough to punish the whole class just because 1 kid chewed gum!).

[Buckeyeblue]

58. But that's what happens in our society

The class gets new rules or punished because of the actions of a few. It wasn't Hillary's fault that she was, and continues to be, the primary target of repugs. What did she ever do wrong. But if you say something enough some people begin to believe it.

[Xipe Totec]

4. The Cheney gambit - both barrels straight to the face. nt

[riversedge]

9. Health care would be his downfall-but he has over a year and half to go on even that one.

[SergeStorms]

25. The only reason Trump...

and his deplorables hate the ACA is because it bears the name of Barack Obama on it. Trump and his deplorable republican Senators will attempt to come up with something, anything, that is basically the same, only with Trump's name on it. Then it will automatically become the best healthcare plan the world has ever seen. It's just that name "Obama" Trump and his brain diseased cohorts really object to.

I don't know how presidential historians will do it, but there has to be an *asterisk* next to Trump's name in the presidential roll call. He should not share the same (or any, for that matter) stature our other presidents enjoy. The Trump presidency must clearly be defined as the lowest point in American history, a cautionary tale for future Americans to never make the same mistake again!

[Chin music]

27. +1 yep.

[Shoonra]

14. At least one third move

The total defunding of Special Olympics in the new Trump budget - not even a token contribution - won't set well with almost everyone who is related to a mentally handicapped person; that's got to be more than one million voters, virtually every category including white prosperous Republicans.

If you need a tuse for Trump's departure (or re-inauguration), here it is:
[link:https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?csz=1&iso=20210120T00&msg=Time+left+until+Trump+leaves+office&p0=263|

[llmart]

33. Oh hell, he went on TV and physically mocked disabled people and the deplorables still voted for him

That's why they are called "deplorables".

[HubertHeaver]

15. Trump needs to hang onto all the states he won in 2016.

One flip, say Texas, he loses. If we can get the Valley out to vote, and they vote against Trump, Texas flips. The old adage, attributed to J. Stalin, "it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes" is in play.

[Mr. Evil]

17. Why doesn't Trump just ask his true blue buddy, Putin for the money?

Then that will all but guarantee all of Trump's deplorable, disgusting base will vote for him again and that will make Putin happy knowing that Trump will have a much better chance to win.

Sorry, just being a little snarky with this topic. In all seriousness though, Trump will really find himself in a bind (if he somehow actually gets to start building a wall) when he starts using eminent domain to take privately owned land from mostly Texans. Even most deplorables find the prospect of seizing land through the use of eminent domain as detestable.

Here's one simple fact: Republicans cheat in elections. The 2018 elections in North Carolina and Georgia proved, once again, this to be true. They will cheat in 2020. That is a given.

[AZ8theist]

19. Eminent domain -nt

[Mr. Evil]

20. Ah!

You are correct. I'll make the necessary adjustments. Thank you! (I guess I was thinking impending doom, as in 'imminent.')

[AZ8theist]

21. It sure will be impending doom...

For any of the land owners down there who may lose land that's been in their families for decades. But I would hazard a guess they are the same folks who voted for Doturd. So to them I say:

Thoughts and Prayers!!!

[Mr. Evil]

23. I have to agree with your assessment 100%.

I especially appreciated your sympathies.

[Awsi Dooger]

28. Rachel Maddow is much more skilled looking backward than forward

She basically gives the history book version in real time, but with virtually zero comprehension toward how the variables apply in real time.

That is the reason I don't have much respect for her. It reminds me of very sharp people who would show up in Las Vegas, and then absolutely butcher the handicapping process. I remember telling one of them, "You just gave us a remarkably impressive recital of everything that is not going to happen in this game."

Trump may lose but those two factors won't play a major role, especially the second one. Nobody is going to vote against a Republican incumbent due to lack of support for the military, or where military funds were diverted. That is looney tune. Trump campaigned against the Affordable Care Act. If it goes he will shout victory and improvement, even if there is nothing to replace. The health care issue in 2018 received too much attention. The situational slant of first term president with awful approval rating was responsible for that midterm result. It wasn't like we managed an 8 point generic edge due to health care. The swing independent voters abandoned Donald Trump in early 2017 long before anything was resolved regarding health care. One of our major potential sucker paths toward 2020 is failing to grasp that the terrain decided 2018 and health care was along for the ride. If we push health care again we'll be shocked that it doesn't own the same weight. It has to be merely one of many...a supplement.

One of Rachel's most repetitive flaws is to look at issue polling and assign it further. It doesn't reach further. The swing voters in question answer the question matter of factly one way and vote matter of factly the other way. She never seems to understand that these votes are aligned well in advance on foundational matters, long before any of her day-to-day stuff shows up. People who host nightly talk shows are laughably prone to overreact to today's news. It's like rationalization of their role.

I will say that Rachel's probing is impressive and will stand up well in the history books. Once those Trump era books are written 10 or 20 years from now many of the segments will look sharply familiar, as in, "Oh yes, I remember when Rachel Maddow was the first one to piece that together."

[Vinca]

34. And who knows what could happen with the economy? He's adding to the debt the same way he did when

playing CEO - only this time bankruptcy isn't an option. The trade deficit is worse than ever. He's making Obama look like a piker in that department. Any more tariffs and the car industry will be on life support. It could all blow up in an event worse than 2008.

[jberryhill]

35. Yeah, and Lawrence O'Donnell said Trump would never be elected president

[Jarqui]

37. I agree about his budget

Trump said he wouldn’t cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. His 2020 budget cuts all 3.
Trump said he wouldn’t be like “every other Republican.” He is.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/12/18260271/trump-medicaid-social-security-medicare-budget-cuts

Add getting rid of Obamacare per Rachel & others (above)- insane after what happened during the midterms where folks said they like it

Add getting rid of the Special Olympics .. $18 million "saved" - it's going cost them far more in ad money to repair that PR damage - even if they try to back peddle.

And taking money from the military to fund a fake emergency wall.

[TheRealNorth]

53. I would like to be optimistic

But I would never count against the Republican ability to flood the media with negative ads leading up to an election to suppress Dem turnout. Along with their other voting suppression tactics.

[fescuerescue]

57. Yup. It's the beginning of the End

Finally.