From what I've read, the only reason he said he was unhappy with the chants was at Ivanka's cajoling. But throwing his supporters under a bus didn't play too well with the Breitbart crowd so he retracted his non-racism and lauded the racists as 'great patriots'. It's a rather random dance of whim and dumb which could lead anywhere at this point.

I obviously agree, but I also deplore the way Trump monopolises the media all over the world by making outrageous statements and then setting off cascading waves of condemnation. This is all media manipulation and obfuscating, and red meat to his so called 'base'.

Here in Australia, we have an exceedingly inept and graceless politician by the name of Pauline Hanson. She too runs on a racist/xenophobe platform and recently managed to get back into the Australian senate for another term after many years trying.

In 1998, when she first got into Parliament, she became instantly notorious by saying in her maiden speech that Australia was being overrun by Asians and making disparaging comments about indigenous Australians. The national press made it a front-page story, there was enormous controversy, and every politician who spoke to the media the next day were asked, very loudly, DID YOU HEAR WHAT SHE SAID? DID YOU? (John Howard, then conservative PM, was wise enough to refrain from saying anything.)

By this means, she was suddenly catapulted from 'independent member for a country electorate' to a national anti-celebrity and figure head for the racist right (which fortunately is far less prominent in Australian politics than in the US). But if her speech had been reported on Page 5, 'new member makes racist comments in maiden speech', then she would probably have faded back into richly-deserved obscurity. That is the problem with these kinds of controversies - they add fuel the fire and play into the hands of those who want to exploit it. As long as the media is monopolised by TRUMP RACIST, then all the really serious questions, like the US defaulting on the national debt, the multiple criminal investigations into Trump, and so on, are all sidelined. Just the way he wants it.

Oh, sure, this has been happening with Trump since the beginning. My objection is to the naughty-three-year-old-with-hand-in-the-cookie-jar response of pointing to his brother and saying "He did it!" when mummy catches him. Although in this case, for Trump and his apologists, it's "He did it" (the Dems) and "Mummy did it" (the "fake!" news media). Anywhere that's not a space for idiocy should immediately disinfect itself of that ideological cockroach poo.

Mueller testifies in front of Congress Wednesday, broadcast live, although the depressing fact is that if the Mueller report hasn’t sunk Trump yet, then this probably won’t either. Trump has destroyed the standards to such an extent that his ‘base’ will just laugh it off or treat the whole thing as a sham. It’s beyond disgraceful.

I remember picking up a book in a bookstore once by a conservative pundit, called ‘The Death of Outrage’. Jacket blurb: ‘In this new, updated edition of a book heralded as a clarion call to the nation's conscience, William Bennett asks why we see so little public outrage in the face of the evidence of deep corruption within Bill Clinton's administration (referring to the Lewinsky scandal). ’

Oh, the irony.

Mueller testifies in front of Congress Wednesday, broadcast live, although the depressing fact is that if the Mueller report hasn’t sunk Trump yet, then this probably won’t either. — Wayfarer

I feel for that guy.
It will depend on the performance by all involved.
Sometimes the film is better than the book...

Voter turnout should tell us whether the moral debauched land of Murica is complete or not...

The left continues to try to define Trump and his supporters without their consent. They continue to insist they are all racist and therefore unfit.
But Trump and his supporters never talk about racism! Only the left does. And racism has never been out front of their agenda, Though I admit Trump did make a stupid remark about Muslims though this was during a time when terrorist acts were happening quite frequently.
Point I’m trying to make is, the race issue today is no different than the abortion issue 10 years ago. It’s a non-issue to begin with! It simply is a simplistic, morality issue promoted by the self- appointed morally superior party to gain support. In fact, it doesn’t even have a place in politics.

Point I’m trying to make is, the race issue today is no different than the abortion issue 10 years ago. It’s a non-issue to begin with! — halo

It's not a non-issue as long as black men and women are commonly afraid of the police. It would be nice if Trump would acknowledge the problem. But maybe he did and I missed it.

I think he'll be re-elected, so my long term plan involves ignoring the news. The only thing that's mildly interesting to me is the deep interest Europeans have for the American show while Americans know nothing about European politics.

More rhetoric...

Meh. — creativesoul

um ok

The "socialist" bugaboo may very well turn off swing voters- and that is exactly the strategy the Republicans are already using. — Relativist

Right, the Republicans have been using this strategy since Obama was first elected. They called Hilary a socialist. They've been calling progressive "socialists" regardless of actual policy proposals since FDR. They call everyone a socialist to spur their own base. You can only cry wolf for so long until people wise up to it, and there is no justification to suggest that swing voters will automatically be persuaded by such a flagrantly dishonest tactic.

It will never get the needed 60 votes in the Senate. — Relativist

Sure, McConnell is a huge barrier to progressive legislation, but that's a completely different subject.

If they do NOT, their position will be defined by Republicans as being for open borders — Relativist

Ok so the Dems can just charge the GOP with creating racist concentration camps, which they are. Problem solved.

Your argument seems to be that democratic candidates should embrace Republican talking points and accept elements of their policy proposals. This is simply suicidal. Polling clearly shows that the Democratic base is open to progressive policies, and that some of these policies are also popular with independents. And even if they aren't, the GOP managed to get widely unpopular legislation passed and so there is no reason to assume the Dems can't either. ACA only had 40% approval and 50% disapproval in 2010. But guess what happened anyway.

Do the Democrats and other anti-Trumpers here feel worried about the national polls regarding matchups between Trump and leading Democrats? I mean, Trump is polling right now exactly where he landed at in November 2016. Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million, but Trump won the states he needed to. He is very popular here in Wisconsin (he is also just as unpopular I suppose). The Russians and Saudis continue to troll for him, and there is so much disinformation on the social media platforms. Not to mention that Mitch McConnell refuses to bring legislation to protect our voting systems to the floor of the Senate.

I really would not be surprised if Trump gets re-elected. And if he does, I’m afraid our country will never be the same again. — Noah Te Stroete

There was an article in the NYT a day or so ago that said it was completely possible for Trump to lose the popular vote by 5M and still win the EC and be re-elected.

There was an article in the NYT a day or so ago that said it was completely possible for Trump to lose the popular vote by 5M and still win the EC and be re-elected. — Maw

Scary

Our timeline on American politics is too short, here. If you look at politics in America since 1960, you can chart a steady trend away from substantive candidates and campaigns. Richard Nixon "lost" the Kennedy-Nixon Debate" because (the pundits said) he had a 5 o'clock shadow and looked tired. Looking tired? 5:00 shadow? Election by election the importance of clever theatrics has grown and the importance of content in the campaign has decreased.

The Platform Committees of the two nominating conventions used to receive attention. Not any more. Who cares what the platform is when you have fascinating personalities?

There are significant differences between the Republic and the Democratic Party, of course. For the last 40 years, the Republicans have paid more attention to their long-term project of reducing government--both in its regulatory guise and in its social services guise. Conservatives have resented the New Deal for the last 85 years. Democrats have tried to maintain and extend it.

It was under a Democrat (Bill Clinton) that "Welfare as we know it" was ended (i.e., reduced). It was under a Republican (Ronald Reagan) that the government response to the AIDS epidemic was poor. It was under a Republic (Bush II) that we became mired in a middle east war, and it was under a Democrat (Obama) that we stayed there.

Trump illustrates two personal characteristics that are relevant: First, as a CEO, he behaves in the presidency as if was a CEO--with lots of prerogatives, and not part of a government. Secondly, as has been noted, he doesn't deal with specific issues as much as incite political arousal toward easy targets.

And it isn't just Trump, of course. There are also many millions of voters who find in his incitements an answer to their many (some quite justified) resentments. How many millions? Enough in the right states to get him elected in 2016 by an Electoral College total of 304 electoral votes to 227. One may not like the Electoral College, but until the constitution is changed, there It is.

The Democrats should not compete with Trump in a race to the bottom of the barrel of electoral strategies. They have plenty of good issues and good rhetoric that can incite and inspire their base, and even steal some Trump voters--provided they focus on winning majorities in the crucial states of the Electoral College.

It will be a tricky high wire act.

I think he'll be re-elected, so my long term plan involves ignoring the news. — frank

This is an understandable response, and fairly sensible. The news coverage highlights the steady progress of a malignancy, and who needs that?

Guardian Cartoon

Democrat strategy room:

Clinton :How can we beat Trump?

A: Economy? National Defense? Domestic Security? Trade? Foreign wars?

Clinton: No, can’t because he’s turned all that around and the country is doing fantastic in those areas.

A:,How about the old way, anti- establishment and against working class people?

Clinton; No. Workers love him and he is the most anti-establishment president in history.

A; Well, how about make him out to be a racist?

Clinton: Maybe. But he’s been in public eye for 50 years and has never been known as racist. Plus, his Palm Beach club is one of the few that allows blacks and Jews and he’s been friends with several black celebrities his whole life and none have ever accused him before of racism. Do you think we can pull it off?

A: Sure, he’s got a big mouth, he’s already said a few things that we can spin as racist and we’ll just wait until he says anything remotely racist or against anyone of color and run along our partners at NBC and CNN a hundred times a day until it becomes truth. It’s worked before..

Clinton: ok, it’s the only chance we have. Good luck!

Your argument seems to be that democratic candidates should embrace Republican talking points and accept elements of their policy proposals. — Maw

No: I'm not saying to embrace their talking points, in saying they shouldn't play into them. In particular, consider Medicare For All. IMO it has near zero chance of passing, but even if it could - it's too big, and too soon. We absolutely need a public option- that should be campaigned for. If successful, it will eventually crowd out the private options. IMO this is smart policy, and smarter politically.

I'm not saying Republican proposals should be embraced, but I definitely reject "no compromise" attitudes, whether it's from the "tea party" Republicans or a progressive mirror image. Even if Dems win the Presidency and the Senate, they won't be able to pass anything significant without compromising with Republicans because of the 60 votes needed for cloture.

he’s been in public eye for 50 years and has never been known as racist. — halo

ROFL! Right, and he's always been a faithful, loving husband, too.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

Huh, you mean Hillary didn't write the above from her base in the Ping Pong Pizzeria child sex trafficking hub from which she, to this very day, directs the Democrat anti-Trump smear machine?

The Democrats should not compete with Trump in a race to the bottom of the barrel of electoral strategies. They have plenty of good issues and good rhetoric that can incite and inspire their base, and even steal some Trump voters--provided they focus on winning majorities in the crucial states of the Electoral College. — Bitter Crank

Biden-Warren, I’m hoping. I think it will be the winning ticket. Biden the reassuring political persona, Warren the policy engine. I can see it.

Biden-Warren, I can see it. — Wayfarer

Have you had your vision checked recently? (jokey quip)

You might be right. I feel neutral toward Biden, positive toward Warren. Warren is loaded with policy ideas, true enough, and expresses her ideas in a forthright and an articulate manner. However, in order for her to be able to DO GOOD POLICY (outside of executive orders) she would have to have a Democratic majority in the Senate and House, and not just for the first two years. The house/senate limitation applies to everyone, of course, for good or for ill.

The Republican Party has executed a long-term policy of getting control of state houses (where redistricting for Congress is done after the Censes) and has also been working on courts and state legislatures to protect rather old-fashioned methods of voter barriers like gerrymandering and "voter fraud" initiatives. Voter fraud has become a true rarity, so voter fraud is code for barring minorities and the elderly, both of whom are more likely to vote liberal. Poll taxes aren't going to work and neither are literacy tests. What they are using now is restrictive rules to deter minority and elderly voter registration.

This far sighted, patient projected is paying off. It reminds one of the long-term patient, hard working effort to block Roe vs. Wade. The secular right and the religious right have been working on this since 1973, when Roe vs. Wade was handed down.

The Democratic Party does not seem to have anything like the same long term, patient, strategy in place like the Republicans have. The Republicans have done well in the research and development department where they have discovered routes to long-term power that had eluded them for quite some time. I have not heard of anything similar in liberal circles.

No: I'm not saying to embrace their talking points, in saying they shouldn't play into them....I'm not saying Republican proposals should be embraced, but I definitely reject "no compromise" attitudes, whether it's from the "tea party" Republicans or a progressive mirror image — Relativist

When differences between parties are so far removed from one another ideologically, compromise as such becomes a major liability. What is there to compromise over when one party is firmly anti-abortion, anti-public healthcare, anti-climate change policy, and are morally content with concentration camps at the border fueled by racist ethno-nationalism? Obama believed in compromising with the GOP despite the outright rejection they received at the polls in 2008, which should have solidified outright dominance for the Democratic party.

Members of the GOP understand this precisely, McConnell most of all. McConnell understands that American politics is split in an ideological way that, maybe outside the 60s, has no historical precedent, and that the GOP is in the far more precarious position given that older generations that vote for the GOP are dying and younger generations are far more liberal, which means that their voter base is shrinking over time. This is also true of shifting ethnic demographics - America is becoming less and less white, and more and more diverse, and ethnic minorities are more likely to vote Dem. It goes without saying that this is very bad in the long term for the GOP, and when they can't win by democratic means, they will resort to fascist control. For major policies, McConnell and his party have no agreements with the Democrats. They don't agree on providing universal healthcare, they want to over turn Roe v. Wade, they don't want a progressive taxation, the GOP senate in Oregon literally fled the state rather than appear for a vote regarding climate change, they are perpetual war hawks, etc. Given this, McConnell understands that any compromise with the Democrats will only damage his own party - what does he have to gain - and so he's jumped head first into Machiavellian politics. He blocked Obama's judicial nominees, the most prominent being a seat for the Supreme Court, which will have huge repercussions for generations, even after the GOP theoretically becomes a defunct political party who citizens don't elect to the legislative or executive branch. McConnell then went on to fill those vacant seats with conservative judges - unelected Government officials who have the power to strike down progressive legislation drafted by members of Congress elected to represent the will of a more progressive American polity.

All this circle-jerking over "compromise" displays a vast ignorance over what modern American politics has become.

Also to all everyone saying working class people love Trump or are conservative etc. no, sorry this isn't 1953. Working class doesn't equal white or white Christian. Many working class people are ethnic minorities who solidly vote Blue. Instead of saying "working class" just say white Christians.

Not even white Christians. It’s white male rural Christians that are his strongest supporters. A lot of evangelical white women have turned against Trump because of the children in cages at the border. Mostly from the burbs. But generalizing gets you nowhere. The Dem nominee needs to go to these rural places and let these Trumpites know that he has actually done ZERO to help them. The Dem needs to go on Fox News and show the alternative.

Not true. Most mexicans I meet in So Cal are Trump supporters, pro border security and frankly less likely to embrace homosexuality and gender blah blah.. They are very conservative culturally, religious and find open borders offensive given their efforts to come here legally. Trust me, they are the least likely to embrace illegal immigration for several reasons.

The cubans in miami where i’m from are passionately free market republicans (given their experience with communism). In fact, many south americans are pro free market, culturally conservative.

The media cherry picks what they show you. There are hundreds of stories a day thousands of people they can interview on the street. and they pick a the ones that fit their values and beliefs. You are not get a good sample.

I wouldn't necessarily say rural since they are undeniable megachurches in areas such as California that are solidly pro-Trump. Not to mention the fact that California is the breeding ground for modern day "Intellectual Conservationism" (f course, all that becomes moot given that California is a decidedly blue state). The Democratic nominees should absolutely go to rural areas not only because there are Independents and Democrats that live in such areas, but most importantly because they are contenders for the Presidency and should therefore reach out people across the country. My issue is strictly in regards to reaching out to Trump supporters as a prominent political strategy as a necessary path towards election.

Most mexicans I meet in So Cal are Trump supporters, pro border security and frankly less likely to embrace homosexuality and gender blah blah.. — halo

The cubans in miami where i’m from are passionately free market republicans — halo

Most mexicans I meet in So Cal — halo

The cubans in miami — halo

The media cherry picks what they show you. — halo

You are not get a good sample. — halo

hmm ok well here's a good sample showing most Latinos lean liberal/Dem

Let's see...

Actual minorities speaking in favor of Trump vs. surveys and polls saying otherwise.

Pardon me for not exactly having much confidence in surveys/polls, given how fucking wrong they were before, and how easily the wording and sample can be - and are - both carefully selected for influencing a particular answer/result.

I was traveling around Texas speaking to some Mexicans and they all were saying how much they love Trump! Every single one! They said to me, we came into this country legally, so those that don't come into this country legally should be placed in concentration camps, be placed in cells made to fit 25 with 100 other people and have their children separated from them. It's only fair, they tell me, to force these immigrants, even if they are seeking asylum which is legal, to be denied bathroom breaks, a bed to sleep in, showers, or full hot meals. This is simply a reasonable response to illegal immigrants, I am constantly being told this by Mexicans at the southern border even though the majority of immigrants are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Fortunately as a third generation American myself, I tell them, there were basically no immigration laws imposed for my great-grandparents, as long as they didn't have the bubonic plague or some shit.

The border situation came about long before Trump.

The one who will beat Trump will have to call out - and prove - the fact that both parties have turned their backs on regular American workers.