Phil

It's like deja-vu all over again. Truly amazing how folks will cling to their favorite slimy politician of the day w/o knowing why they're doing it. Reptilian hindbrain type stuff.

Or maybe you're getting conned.

Normalizing Trump might be the best way to beat him in 2020. He won *because* people thought he would blow up DC, not in spite of it.

So he's a coward?

A little research goes a long way. California's fiscal health rating was ranked 44th out of the 50 states in 2016, according to the latest mercatus analysis: https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Norcross-Fiscal-Rankings-2-v2.pdf As for the Trump comment, not what I was implying. Just offering some realism.

California certainly could manage their finances more efficiently. They're going to have a debt crisis at some point in the future.

Ah, darn. At least there's another front coming midweek.

Not much, save some deregulatory measures. The market is responding to what they *think* he'll do, and it's not a guarantee that he follows through on anything. The point is, so long as his approval rating(s) on the economy remain high, he'll probably stick around.

Nothing is a guarantee. Arguably, it could boost GDP growth on aggregate w/ an inflationary response there, perhaps necessitating additional interest rate hikes..at which point we'd have to avoid further deficit spending. So it's self limiting unless we can start running a surplus. Hard to know how much additional "room" we have.

Yeah, it's a huge waste of money, like 5X more expensive than the entirety of planned parenthood, which conservatives are always trying to defund under the guise of "fiscal sanity". You'd think they'd want to do something about the drug war, in that case, but...lol.

Well, the budget is something else completely. The president will propose a budget, but in the end, that's up to congress. The market is pricing-in based on what Trump *claims* his economic intentions are (infrastructure, tax reform, regulatory reform, etc). Whether or not he actually follows through on that remains to be seen.

Looks like we agree on something after all.

Who cares if people pray? Who cares if presidents pray? First world problems, my friend.

I've said this before, but as low as Trump's personal approval ratings are, his approval in handling the economy has been consistently very high, much higher than Obama's or Bush's. That may not matter much in CA/NY, but in the Midwestern states, the economy is everything, and there's a good chance Trump wins those voters in 2020 if the economy continues to expand at the rate it has since his inauguration. http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww243/phillywillie/Mobile%20Uploads/D529F0B6-8E74-4AE5-B1FD-F37946DEDBF3_zpswyucq8ze.jpg http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww243/phillywillie/Mobile%20Uploads/21C5F377-CEBD-4F40-855C-BB1B3B260640_zpshdfnnaz7.jpg

I'm not sure a California democrat (without any real leadership experience) will resonate with folks in the rust belt. I think a young, charismatic progressive with Midwest roots would stand the best chance to beat Trump in 2020. A "working man" type figure (or women) would appeal to many voters who ditched the Democratic Party for Trump in 2016. If the economy continues to expand at this rate, Trump will be very tough to beat in 2020. Can't make another 2016-esque mistake next time.

Those Indo/EPAC warm pools are reconsolidating, really a classic high-wavenumber/Niña-modoki Walker-Hadley setup. Good news for those wanting a troughy western summer. Still have to watch the EPAC/IO going forward. If E-IO stays quiet, then gradual Niño development will occur.

Maybe Keith Ellison could run in 2020. Though his past support for controversial figures might be a problem. There just aren't many riding stars in the Democratic Party, largely due to their decimation in the state legislatures.

I will vote for Trump if that comes to fruition. F**k that.

The limousine liberals.

A good portion of the middle class are struggling financially and a tax cut would go a long way to alleviating that struggle. I don't think the Scandinavian system is something that could work here, numbers wise. The proportion of people in the lower-middle class is just too large, not to mention all the retiring baby boomers.

Are you sure about that?

I agree with your take there, and yeah her tax plan was basically a watered down version of Mitt Romney's plan. She wanted to close loopholes and deductions, but there was actually no tax cut for the middle class, and she wanted to leave rates for the top 10% as they were/are.

All the items I listed are supported by/are aspects of the GOP. Neo-conservatives and Neo-liberals are two peas in a pod, IMO.

- Large scale neoliberal trade agreements aren't progressive. - Relentlessly advocating for foreign intervention, including voting for the Iraq war, isn't progressive. - Being against g*y marriage for decades, only flip flopping after being pressured politically, isn't progressive. - Taking millions from foreign governments that stone women to death, then claiming to be "for women" isn't progressive. - Taking millions from Wall Street banks for speeches isn't progressive. I could go on for pages. How any democrat can defend supporting her is beyond me.

- She was anti-g*y marriage until 5yrs ago or something. - She's a war hawk. She worked very hard to turn Libya into an ash tray. - Her tax plan differed from Paul Ryan's by 5% for those within the top 10%, and was the same for those in the middle class. That's the definition of Republican-lite. Who can vote for that? I don't make death threats, nor do I wish death on children. I'll never respect that type of behavior, and you're forever tarnished for it, in my book. Surely you must know what a death threat is, having served?