ChrisWeigant.com

Four Years, Or Eight?

[ Posted Thursday, January 19th, 2017 – 18:05 UTC ]

Since we're about to leap into an unknown future tomorrow, I found myself wondering what Donald Trump's chances of being a one-term president would be. Historically, we're already in one of the longest runs of two-termers in all of American history, so if that's any indication, Trump's chances for two terms seem pretty remote.

Of course, this is all just idle speculation. Historical firsts are set all the time, so there'd be nothing stopping Trump from setting his own. He's certainly already defied the odds a number of times and come out on top.

When Barack Obama ran a second time, a good historical case was made for why he wasn't going to win a second term. Few presidents have ever been re-elected with the unemployment rate so high, for instance (it was still stubbornly above seven percent during the campaign). Obama's job approval rating stayed below 50 percent for most of his re-election campaign as well, which normally means a loss at the ballot box. And America had only ever seen three two-termers in a row once previously -- and that was during the absolute collapse of the first real political party in the country (the Federalists, who were decimated by their opposition to the War of 1812). So the odds were stacked against Obama, but he won anyway.

This means we've now had two periods of three two-termers in a row. The first was Thomas Jefferson followed by James Madison and James Monroe. This was also notable because all three were from the same party -- a 24-year run that became known as the "Era of Good Feelings" (even though it really wasn't). Monroe actually ran unopposed for his second term, something that will likely never happen again. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama were the second run of two-termers, but (obviously) there were two party switches in there, from Democratic to Republican and then back again.

If you count a different way, America has seen an even longer run in the twentieth century. If you count presidents who died in office and were succeeded by their vice presidents as the same term, then we had an extraordinary run from the Depression to the 1970s. Franklin Roosevelt won four straight terms, but most of his fourth was served by Harry Truman after Roosevelt's death. By this logic, Roosevelt/Truman served five actual terms, after Truman won his own election outright. This duo was followed by Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served a full two terms. John F. Kennedy didn't finish his first term, but then Lyndon Johnson won after completing J.F.K.'s first term, so Kennedy/Johnson served two terms altogether. Then Richard Nixon won two terms, the second of which was finished by Gerald Ford after Nixon resigned. Taken together, this means we had a five-term team, a two-term president, a two-term team, and a final two-term team. That's the longest run without either party having a single term in office in all of American history, but the whole "counting the vice president" idea is kind of bending the rules a bit, I realize.

If Trump does win a second term, it'll be the longest run of two-term presidents ever. This doesn't mean it won't happen, but the historical odds are certainly against it. External events have a way of messing up neat historical parallels, and nobody has any idea what will happen during Trump's first term. When George W. Bush was sworn in, nobody expected him to be a war president, to give the most obvious recent example. Who knows what situations Trump will face, and who knows how he'll react to them? His public opinion could go through the roof (as George W. Bush's did, after 9/11) or could plummet, as a result. Even a spike upwards in public opinion is no guarantee of re-election, though, as George H. W. Bush learned (his approval rating also went through the roof during the Gulf War, but then crashed back down when Republicans punished him for abandoning his "no new taxes" pledge).

Most presidents these days have a built-in "floor" for their job approval numbers. Roughly 40 percent of the country will approve of a president of their own party, no matter what he does or doesn't do. That's normal. Barack Obama's job approval rating stayed above 40 percent for his entire two terms. Presidential job approval ratings are usually a measure of how the independent 20 percent of the population views him, in other words.

Trump's built-in floor seems a little lower, however. Personally, I'd put it at around 35 percent, if not slightly less. I think there are a whole lot of Republicans who are happy enough that a Republican will be in the White House right now, but who could walk away from Trump if he disappoints them at some point in the next year or two. This happened to George W. Bush when the Iraq War went sour and dragged on for much longer than anyone anticipated, and then Bush's approval ratings truly tanked when the economy fell apart in his last year in office.

Trump's core supporters will doubtlessly continue supporting him (and believing his interpretation of things) unless he flip-flops on some major promise he made to them in some way (as happened with the "no new taxes" problems the elder Bush had). If Trump does something unexpected that earns him the ire of the conservative Republican establishment, he'll likely see his approval dip below 40 percent. Maybe Trump makes a deal with congressional Democrats, or maybe he insists on supporting something that conservatives hate -- it could happen a number of ways.

The other way Trump could lose support is if an external event happens that he can't effectively deal with. The business cycle could be overdue for a downturn, and economic bad news is one of the prime reasons many previous presidents only saw one term in office. Or if Trump is faced with a foreign policy crisis and botches it badly, public support could disappear very quickly, even among Trump's core supporters. If his actions veer away from his rhetoric in a big way, many will stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, the opposite is just as possible. Trump could make some bold and decisive moves and begin picking up the support of the independents in a big way. Again, this could happen a number of ways -- perhaps he'll introduce some creative plan to help small American towns hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs, or force some foreign country to bend to his will in some way (military or economic, perhaps). If Trump manages to score some big successes that are wildly popular, then many people who now can't support him may come around to doing so.

Trump will likely need something on these lines if he does manage to get re-elected. The promises he made campaigning the first time were so vast and sweeping that he really will need to make good on at least a few of them if he's going to have any chance of a second term.

I personally have no idea what the odds are that Trump will be seen as a success by the public or not, at least to the level of winning re-election. He enters office with a very low approval rating, but it is roughly at the lowest point that Obama ever saw. Obama came back from low polling a number of times, although his job approval rating didn't climb over 50 percent until just before the 2012 election happened.

So the odds right now seem to suggest that Trump will have a very hard time winning a second term. History also suggests this, since we've gone a very long time without having a one-term president. Trump himself might even get tired of the job and decide one term is enough. That would be pretty surprising, since it so rarely happens. But, as I began with, this is really all just idle speculation, since Trump has proven one thing already -- he has defied expectations in a big way, and he might just continue to do so in four years' time, one way or another.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

63 Comments on “Four Years, Or Eight?”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    When Amerikkka is great again, the Republicans will dispense with these rigged elections. The Orange One is all set.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Why is Trump allowing Mexico to send El Chapo here?

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Obama's last act - one more Mexican immigrant ;)

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Trump does win a second term, it'll be the longest run of two-term presidents ever. This doesn't mean it won't happen, but the historical odds are certainly against it.

    In this case, so are the infinitely more important governing odds.

  5. [5] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    So...Just to toss some Gasoline on the fire... Since I won't be around to do this tomorrow.

    As of noon tomorrow we will begin ,what I predict will be, the largest transference of wealth from the public to the private wealthy folks in history.

    All one has to do is A) follow the money. B) watch congress ... Some of the hits to set this up... hearings on cabinet posts without OGE ethics certifications as was demanded of all of Obama's and Bushes nominees prior to hearings (coincidentally respected and adhered to, until McConnel forgot he supported that). Attempts to de-fund and bully the OGE, all with the reasoning of "is that it tells us we’re ready to do business and get it done". Moves to deregulate banks and make the CFPB a purely partisan organization without the funding to carry out it's mandate. The change in rules for the sale/ transfer of ALL (including nat. parks)public lands “shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.” Thus allowing congress to bypass the required budgeting offsets from loss of federal revenue and makes it all possible without public discourse. Reviving the Holman Rule to allow for the targeted removal of federal positions via funding cuts.

    All of that is before we even get to the proposed legislation. Ayn Rand sums things up best in this case “When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you – you know your nation is doomed.”,

    Don't forget that the richest cabinet in history, is suddenly going to look out for those of us that pay the freight... The OGE says they have no conflicts...right?

    Call me cynical, maybe the Scrooge McDuck economics will work, once we pack the wealthy peoples vaults full of money to the point where they explode in a golden shower of wealth for all of us as it falls from above, our economy will suddenly be making us glad for the golden shower from above. Perhaps the problem is that we haven't been shoveling the money in fast enough...afterall we all know that the rich people are the best at keeping the "velocity of currency" going.

    Ok...I just wanted to get that on the record before things go to hell in a Trump Basket... Only it won't all be Trumps fault it will be congress as well for not looking out for the American people.

    Hopefully, my prediction will not come to pass and we will all benefit from a new golden age...but so far following the money leads me to believe otherwise. As one would say that makes me unpatriotic....if that is the case then I am gladly so.

    Remember “ The politicians are put there to give you the idea you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations that've long since bought and paid for, the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pocket, and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and the information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them.”
    -George Carlin

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    Remember “ The politicians are put there to give you the idea you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations that've long since bought and paid for, the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pocket, and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and the information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them.”
    -George Carlin

    Of course, that applies when it's a DEMOCRAT government, right?? :D

    Funny we never heard anything like this 8 years ago??

    How come?? :D

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    Obama's last act - one more Mexican immigrant ;)

    And, like ILLEGAL mexican immigrants SHOULD be, he is in chains when he arrives...

    Kewl... Good job, Obama.. :D

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    'DEPLORABALL' DIVIDE: Trump supporters greeted by protesters screaming profanities and threats
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/20/deploraball-guests-met-by-protesters-in-chaotic-scene.html

    Ahhh yes... The "tolerance" of the Democrats is on display for all to see...

    This is the new norm for the Democratic Party...

    This will also turn the totality of the American people against the new Democratic Party and will insure 8 years of Donald Trump...

    You heard it here first...

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    And amid all the festivities, a sad note..

    Actor Miguel Ferrer has passed away..

    A truly great one...

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Hopefully, my prediction will not come to pass and we will all benefit from a new golden age...but so far following the money leads me to believe otherwise. As one would say that makes me unpatriotic....if that is the case then I am gladly so.

    It's only unpatriotic if you don't allow that you COULD be wrong..

    You do so it's not... :D

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.facebook.com/FoxBusiness/videos/10154987169055238/

    Lee Greenwood sings GOD BLESS THE USA at the Trump Inauguration Kick Off....

    Have ta admit, I teared up a little....

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:
  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (12)-
    No condemnation is needed. The Trump supporter has suffered enough without having condemnation thrust upon him.

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    No condemnation is needed. The Trump supporter has suffered enough without having condemnation thrust upon him.

    yuk, yuk, yuk.... :D heh

    Good one.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Trump's problem with re-election is the same as Obama's- they were perceived as agents of change by their supporters. The difference is that Obama's supporters were the kind of people that are more likely to consider other points of view and that Obama might not be living up to his promises. Many of the Trump supporters are the kind of people who refuse to believe that they were duped and dismiss evidence of the deception as the lie.
    It is doubtful that if Trump runs in 2020 he will be defeated in the primaries- when is the last time a sitting president was defeated in their own party's primary ? So his re-election depends on how long he maintains the illusion with his supporters.
    And it also depends on what kind of candidate the Democrats offer. If the Democratic party offers another establishment candidate it could be an eight year Trump presidency if Trump maintains the illusion.
    The best way to make sure that doesn't happen is to start now to change the Democratic and Republican parties by refusing to support the Big Money candidates for Congress in 2018.
    After all, how long of a streak are the Big Money congressional candidates on ? There are many on double digit term streaks that total up to 20, 30 years or more in the Congress or Senate.

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    The difference is that Obama's supporters were the kind of people that are more likely to consider other points of view and that Obama might not be living up to his promises.

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary...

    Many of the Trump supporters are the kind of people who refuse to believe that they were duped and dismiss evidence of the deception as the lie.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    If if you change TRUMP to OBAMA, you would be dead on ballz accurate with a PLETHORA of facts to support the claim..

    And it also depends on what kind of candidate the Democrats offer. If the Democratic party offers another establishment candidate it could be an eight year Trump presidency if Trump maintains the illusion.

    Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, their bench is non-existent....

    I predict that Democrats will run a Bob Dole-esque candidate.. One that doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning but they had to field SOMEONE...

    The best way to make sure that doesn't happen is to start now to change the Democratic and Republican parties by refusing to support the Big Money candidates for Congress in 2018.

    If Trump has proven one thing, it's that Big Money does not a guaranteed win make.. So I would agree with you that now is a perfect time to drive that point home..

    On the other hand, you would have to have a TRUMP-esque candidate to make that work...

    I doubt we'll see another TRUMPian in our life times...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Love him or hate him, it is undeniable..

    The Trump presidency will be like no other presidency in the history of the country....

    Those who try to cram Trump into an ideological box will find themselves failing and failing over and over again....

    For all intents and purposes, Trump is an INDEPENDENT president..

    That will make for a wild WILD ride....

    "Buckle up, Bones..."
    -Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK 90210

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:
  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Ladies and Gentlemen...

    Allow me to introduce to you...

    PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It was Sanders, not Trump that proved that a competitive campaign could be run without Big Money. It was the Democratic machine that stole the primary despite the loss of invincible advantage in fundraising.
    Trump used his own money in the primaries and took Big Money in the general election. It doesn't matter whether you use your own Big Money or someone else's Big Money or even how many small contributions you get- if you take Big Money or use your own Big Money you are a Big Money candidate.
    One Big Money candidate losing to another Big Money candidate does nothing to prove that Big Money doesn't matter.
    What is does prove is that people were fed up enough to vote for Trump or stay home. So while we agree it is a good time to drive home the point we arrived from completely different reasoning.

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump Supporters Chant ‘Lock Her Up’ When Hillary Clinton Announced At Inauguration
    http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/01/20/hillary-clinton-trump-inauguration/

    That's so wrong and totally uncalled for....

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump used his own money in the primaries and took Big Money in the general election.

    Just as Sanders would have done the same...

    Regardless, the point is not a lot of money.. It's using OTHER people's money that comes with strings attached...

    Trump is not beholden to ANYONE....

    The same could not have been said for Hillary if she had won...

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump Inaugural Address Focuses On ‘We,’ Leaves Himself Out Of Speech Almost Entirely
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/20/trump-inaugural-address-focuses-on-we-leaves-himself-out-of-speech-almost-entirely/

    The contrast from before and after is mind-boggling...

    It's funny how Trump is accused of being such a narcissist..... :D

  24. [24] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey neil

    Sorry for the delayed response, been crazy busy.

    But I just found some time to get back to your response on your column.
    I decided to answer there instead of bringing it forward to a CW column.

    Hopefully I'll have time to get back here later and catch up.

    A

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    "It was militant and it was dark. The crime, the gangs, the drugs, this ‘American carnage,’ disrepair, decay. You can’t imagine the outgoing president giving a speech like that.”
    -Rachael Maddow

    That's because ALL of it was the fault of the outgoing president.. So, of course he is not going to give a speech like that...

    Duuhhhh......

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If Trump had used his own money in the general he would be beholden to nobody.
    But that is the whole point. If a candidate finances their campaign with small contributions then the candidate is beholden to those contributors which is the desired result.
    Even if Trump were beholden to no one it would still not be desirable. I do not have confidence that Trump will act in the best interests of ordinary citizens whether he feels beholden to anyone or not.
    But for now let's just hope I'm wrong while we work to change the narrative for 2018 and 2020 just in case I'm right.

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    I do not have confidence that Trump will act in the best interests of ordinary citizens whether he feels beholden to anyone or not.

    And yet, his current actions to date show that is exactly what Trump is doing.. Looking out for the best interests of ordinary citizens..

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    What do you call sweeping away all vestiges of the HUGE Global Con-job that is Human Caused Global Warming???

    All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website at Noon Today

    'At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming.'
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/20/all-references-to-climate-change-deleted-from-white-house-website-at-noon-today/

    A good start..... :D

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump forcefully rejected identity politics. Racial and ethnic identities, he said, are less important than our status as American citizens. “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” There are no hyphenated Americans in this worldview, only Americans and outsiders. And Americans are to be privileged over outsiders. It’s been said that American presidents are replaced by their opposites. What a contrast to Barack Obama’s second inaugural address, where he called for a “world without walls.”

    There are no African-Americans.. There are no Italian-Americans... There are no Irish-Americans.. There are no Mexican-Americans...

    There are only AMERICANS...

    It's about frakin' time!!!

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:
  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    We have a new Secretary of Defense..

    General James Mattis....

    NOW we can get around to the business of kicking ISIS's ass!!!

  32. [32] 
    John M wrote:

    One thing I think that everyone needs to keep in mind and is perhaps forgetting when speculating about a possible Second Term for President Trump:

    We just inaugurated our OLDEST President in History. Trump is taking office at the age of 70. That means that when time for a second term comes around, he will be 74.

    The Presidency is notorious for aging men while they are in office.

    Also, the prospects for a white American male not dropping dead from either a heart attack or other cause during his 70's have not, historically, been good, pariculary in as stressful a job as being President is.

  33. [33] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Funny we never heard anything like this 8 years ago??

    How come?? :D"

    Maybe because we now have a cabinet that is 90 percent white, 90 percent male, unlike the rest of America, and which is chock full of millionaires and billionaires?

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (28)-
    I wasn't aware that strategy actually worked.
    But if it does then all we have to do is take Trump's name off all his buildings and eliminate all records of his existence and then he will also magically disappear.

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like hardly anybody bothered to go to the inauguration. Maybe Trump will get a better turn out tomorrow.

    Michale what lies about the most people ever at an inauguration are the Right Wiingery telling you?

  36. [36] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    JFC [2], neilm [3] -

    OK, now you guys are just trying to be funny, right?

    Heh.

    :-)

    goode trickle [5] -

    OK, I started paying attention when you mentioned the OGE and the natl lands clause they snuck in.

    But I have to say, your Ayn Rand quote was pretty masterful, in the "Devil can quote scripture" kind of way... heh...

    Nice offhand use of "golden shower" as well, have to admit... points for that one...

    And your extended Carlin quote at the end just brought it all home. So, all around: well done, Sir, well done!

    :-)

    michale [9] -

    Forgive my ignorance, but who is Miguel Ferrer? What roles has he done?

    Don Harris [15] -

    I hear you on the maintaining the illusion part. I think that's going to be critical to how he is perceived in Washington, personally. If his approval rating slips below 30% (down to his hardcore base), then I think Paul Ryan will feel a lot more comfortable standing up to him.

    I also hear your point on the Dems. If Trump fails to make small-town heaven in his first 4 years (as seems likely) then the strongest competitor would be a Dem populist who offers them a better plan, I would think.

    michale [16] -

    Interesting prediction on the Dem Bob Dole type. But I would counter that that's what the Dems already just tried: a party hanger-on who feels "it's their turn" and was too powerful for anyone else to conquer. So I think they might look for something different next time around. Maybe that's just my optimism, I dunno...

    Don Harris [20] -

    I agree about Sanders, to a certain degree, but would also give credit to Howard Dean and even back to Jerry Brown (with his "1-800 number" campaign in the 1990s).

    As for "Big Money (from my own pocket)," I would give that credit to Ross Perot. But I would fully credit Trump for realizing that Big Money isn't enough, and a corporate-raider-style takeover of one of the major parties was really the only way to work it.

    michale [21] -

    See, every so often, you say something that proves you actually do have some humanity. Or maybe you were being sarcastic, I dunno... Trump made up for it later in the day with the standing O he led for Hillary.

    Also, to be perfectly honest, we all thought the "Na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye" that got chanted during Obama's first inauguration when George W. Bush showed his face was pretty funny.

    Snarkiness often bleeds over to meanness or even cruelty, from either side of the aisle, I'll fully admit that.

    michale [25] -

    OK, sappy moment over. You REALLY think Obama is responsible for all street gangs everywhere? You should read some gritty fiction from the 1950s, dude. Or watch "West Side Story," maybe. I mean, really...

    michale [29] -

    Google "hyphenated Americans" until you come across a speech by Teddy Roosevelt. Just to let you know. There will be a quiz later, just to warn you. Heh.

    michale [31] -

    Don't know where you've been, but we (and the Iraq army) has been kicking ISIS's ass for about the last 18 months now...

    John M [32] -

    That is an excellent point!

    OK, that's it for now, folks...

    -CW

  37. [37] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "OK, now you guys are just trying to be funny, right?"

    Not really. I fail to see how Shorty is less dangerous than those guys at Gitmo who are too scary to house in our supermax prisons.

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Maybe because we now have a cabinet that is 90 percent white, 90 percent male, unlike the rest of America, and which is chock full of millionaires and billionaires?

    So??

    Because they are white and very successful, they can't be effective??

    Let me put the question differently so you can see my problem...

    Because they are black and very successful, they can't be effective??

    See??

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Forgive my ignorance, but who is Miguel Ferrer? What roles has he done?

    You heathen!!! :D

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001208/?ref_=nv_sr_1

    I liked him a LOT in THE STAND

    :D

    Interesting prediction on the Dem Bob Dole type. But I would counter that that's what the Dems already just tried: a party hanger-on who feels "it's their turn" and was too powerful for anyone else to conquer. So I think they might look for something different next time around. Maybe that's just my optimism, I dunno...

    With the utmost respect to the man, Bob Dole is simply boring.. Uninspiring...

    Hillary Clinton was a LOT of things, but boring wasn't one of them.. :D

    See, every so often, you say something that proves you actually do have some humanity. Or maybe you were being sarcastic, I dunno... Trump made up for it later in the day with the standing O he led for Hillary.

    I meant that utterly and completely... It was totally uncalled for...

    OK, sappy moment over. You REALLY think Obama is responsible for all street gangs everywhere?

    "Cops acted stupidly"

    "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin"

    While Obama is not responsible for ALL the street gangs everywhere, he is surely responsible for the complete breakdown of respect for LEOs...

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Looks like hardly anybody bothered to go to the inauguration. Maybe Trump will get a better turn out tomorrow.

    https://news.vice.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/GettyImages-632194640-960x641.jpg

    Yea... NO ONE showed up.. :^/

    Michale what lies about the most people ever at an inauguration are the Right Wiingery telling you?

    Of course, it's comparable to the first black president, right? :^/

    Compare 2012 and 2017 and the difference is FAR less noticeable..

    President Trump is your president now.. Better get used to it... :D

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Also, the prospects for a white American male not dropping dead from either a heart attack or other cause during his 70's have not, historically, been good, pariculary in as stressful a job as being President is.

    Lil bit o' wishful thinking there?? :D

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    I wasn't aware that strategy actually worked.

    It works perfectly if the whole thing was one big con to begin with...

    Humans have never been the cause of the planet's climate changing any more than humans have ever been the cause of the planet's rotation or orbit around the sun..

    The idea that humans CAN control the climate of the planet is nothing more than human arrogance and conceit...

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Let me put it another way...

    If you rounded up all the humans on planet earth and placed them on the sun, they would be about the size of a '.' compared to planet earth...

    So, what the Left Wingery is trying to convince people of is that '.' has MORE effect on the planet's climate than the totality of the sun itself..

    That is simply mind-boggling in the breadth of it's stoopidity and arrogance...

    No, Human Caused Global Warming is finally being placed where it belongs..

    On the trash heap of history...

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/BqA5wr12tn0

    YES!!!!!!

    I don't do it for the money, there's bills that I can't pay...
    I don't do it for the glory, I just do it anyway..
    Providing for our future, our responsibility...
    Yea, I'm real good under pressure, bein' all that I can be...
    I can't call in sick on Monday when the weekend's been too strong...
    I work straight thru the holidays, sometimes all night long..
    You can bet that I stand ready, when the wolf growls at the door..
    Hey I'm solid, yea I'm steady.. I'm true down to the core..
    And I will always do my duty, no matter what the price...
    I've counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice...
    Oh, and I don't want to die for you, but if dyin's asked of me..
    I'll bear that cross with honor, 'cause freedom don't come free...

    I especially like how Toby Keith did a shout out to Barack Obama at the end of the song..

    Now THAT'S class....

    Too bad the scumbag looters who were "protesting" didn't show an iota of such class...

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Also, to be perfectly honest, we all thought the "Na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye" that got chanted during Obama's first inauguration when George W. Bush showed his face was pretty funny.

    Crowd Chants ‘TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!’ As Obama Walks Out At Inauguration [VIDEO]
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/20/crowd-chants-trump-trump-trump-as-obama-walks-out-at-inauguration-video/#ixzz4WObXDKg1

    'Bout as funny as that.... :D

  46. [46] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    Supposedly there is video from the inauguration of Bill Clinton leering at Ivanka and Hillary catching him.
    How can that not merit a mention by you?

    A fitting description for the end of the Clinton era (yay!).

    And, personally, I think Trump breaking his campaign promise about prosecuting Hillary is bad for America.

    If the elites avoid prosecution under Trump too... bad precedent.

    A

  47. [47] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW
    36

    "But I would counter that that's what the Dems already just tried: a party hanger-on who feels "it's their turn""

    Yup.

    A

  48. [48] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil

    Was hoping for a response on the last comment on your column...

    But, did you catch Osborne joining Brown and Blair through the revolving door of financial corruption?

    Keeping his MP spot is sort of a glaring statement on the state of affairs.

    The duopoly disease of both countries.

    A

  49. [49] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW and gang

    Did you happen to catch the Jason Linkins article on HP about the Hillary stooge holding an "autopsy" retreat for big donors?
    Lot's of head in the sand denial.

    He and his kind will spell doom for Democrats if they are allowed to maintain their influence.

    I didn't follow the link, but the article also mentioned that apparently Third Way thinks the path to victory includes spending $20,000,000 attacking the Warren/Bernie wing.

    Is that your Democratic Party?

    A

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll

    You DO realize that, by every standard held dear in Weigantia and beyond, you lose ANY debate even before you get started..

    You realize that, right??? :D

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    Is that your Democratic Party?

    Why yes... Yes it is....

  52. [52] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    50

    I picked up using your apt moniker from others here, so you are delusional yet again.

    However, I wasn't seeking a debate in this instance.

    I know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, but it wasn't a challenging question.

    A

  53. [53] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [49]

    altohone -

    Trump winning is the best thing that ever happened to Bernie.

  54. [54] 
    altohone wrote:

    Mopshell

    I'm guessing there is more to that which is supposed to be self evident?

    A

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    Asshole,

    I picked up using your apt moniker from others here, so you are delusional yet again.

    So, you just follow the crowd like a good little Hillary Democrat, eh?? :D

    I figured as much...

    I don't let others lead me around... I figured your apt moniker all by myself.. :D

    I don't know why I actually thought you might be able to think for yourself..

  56. [56] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "No, Human Caused Global Warming is finally being placed where it belongs..

    On the trash heap of history..."

    WOW, just absolutely STUNNING. For someone who is as into Star Trek as you are, to take a position like that, that is so ANTI-SCIENCE and ILLOGICAL regarding Humanity's impact on global warming, is just MIND BOGGLING. It must REALLY THREATEN something about how you PERCEIVE yourself.

    Humanity is the FIRST GLOBAL TECHNOLOGICAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIES in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the PLANET, with an ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED ABILITY to wipe out MOST OF THE LIFE on Earth through a NUCLEAR WAR, or to SAVE it, by PREVENTING AN ASTEROID IMPACT, and YET YOU CAN SAY with a STRAIGHT FACE in the SAME BREATH that our GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION has NO MEASURABLE INFLUENCE OF ANY CONSEQUENCE on the EARTH AT ALL. REALLY????

  57. [57] 
    John M wrote:

    Chris wrote:

    "Forgive my ignorance, but who is Miguel Ferrer? What roles has he done?"

    The TWO I remember him most for are the TV series "Crossing Jordan" and "NCIS Los Angeles."

    He is also the SON of Rosemary Clooney ("White Christmas" with Bing Crosby) and Jose Ferrer and COUSIN to George Clooney.

  58. [58] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Lil bit o' wishful thinking there?? :D"

    HARDLY. Since I didn't mention any possible assassination attempts. :-D But then I do consider a President Mike Pence to be an EVEN WORSE prospect.

  59. [59] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale

    I have just one reference for you regarding global warming that just maybe you will understand:

    Charlton Heston and Soylent Green

  60. [60] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Because they are white and very successful, they can't be effective??"

    IF their competency was the issue, you would have a point, but it's not, so you don't.

    The ISSUE at hand was exactly WHO's best interests do they REALLY have at HEART. THEIR OWN and the ONE PERCENT like THEMSELVES, or the true LITTLE GUY MIDDLE CLASS they have so FAR ONLY paid LIP SERVICE to. That REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

    ARE they going to be more like the rich, white, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or more like the Traditional Republican Herbert Hoover whom we have all come to despise so much?

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    WOW, just absolutely STUNNING. For someone who is as into Star Trek as you are, to take a position like that, that is so ANTI-SCIENCE and ILLOGICAL regarding Humanity's impact on global warming, is just MIND BOGGLING. It must REALLY THREATEN something about how you PERCEIVE yourself.

    That's just the point..

    My position is actually TRUE science, because it encompasses ALL the science..

    It's YOUR position that is anti-science because YOUR position ONLY allows the science that supports the political agenda and ignores the science that DOESN'T support the political agenda..

    Your position is the VERY definition of anti-science..

    Humanity is the FIRST GLOBAL TECHNOLOGICAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIES in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the PLANET, with an ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED ABILITY to wipe out MOST OF THE LIFE on Earth through a NUCLEAR WAR,

    And, guess what??? If humans DID do that...

    THE PLANET WOULD BE FINE!!

    You think humans can destroy the planet...

    THAT is nothing but human arrogance on a planetary scale...

    The planet is going to be fine.. The ONLY force that can destroy the planet is the sun... And the carrot-shaped solid neutronium planet killer....

    And YOU claim that humans have more power than BOTH of those???

    So who is all about science and who is all about delusions of grandeur?? :D

    He is also the SON of Rosemary Clooney ("White Christmas" with Bing Crosby) and Jose Ferrer and COUSIN to George Clooney.

    I did not know that... Thank you...

    HARDLY. Since I didn't mention any possible assassination attempts. :-D But then I do consider a President Mike Pence to be an EVEN WORSE prospect.

    Which is probably why Trump selected Pence...

    Didn't want the Democrat Party to go all half-cocked.. :D

    I have just one reference for you regarding global warming that just maybe you will understand:

    Charlton Heston and Soylent Green

    Chalrton Heston Planet Of The Apes Charleton Heston??

    That was a nuclear war, not Global Warming...

    Never saw Soylent Green.. Yea, I know, I know.. I am a heathen... :D

    The ISSUE at hand was exactly WHO's best interests do they REALLY have at HEART. THEIR OWN and the ONE PERCENT like THEMSELVES, or the true LITTLE GUY MIDDLE CLASS they have so FAR ONLY paid LIP SERVICE to. That REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

    OK... OK... Let's run with that...

    You are saying that a bunch of white men will NOT look at ANYONE'S best interests but other white men...

    So, conversely, you would agree that a bunch of black men that Obama selected for his administration would not look at ANYONE's best interests but other black men...

    Right?? That's what you are saying???

    ARE they going to be more like the rich, white, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or more like the Traditional Republican Herbert Hoover whom we have all come to despise so much?

    You don't know... Yet you are already condemning them, SOLELY based on Party slavery...

    THAT'S my point...

  62. [62] 
    dsws wrote:

    Monroe actually ran unopposed for his second term, something that will likely never happen again.

    Hey, Trump ran unopposed for his first.

    Or if Trump is faced with a foreign policy crisis and botches it badly, public support could disappear very quickly, even among Trump's core supporters

    It's hard to see how this could happen. What on earth could he possibly do, that his core supporters wouldn't like? And foreign-policy wonks already don't like him.

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    Hey, Trump ran unopposed for his first.

    Heh :D

    It's hard to see how this could happen. What on earth could he possibly do, that his core supporters wouldn't like? And foreign-policy wonks already don't like him.

    The problem is, what ya'all (the Left Wingery) judge as "botches it" is far far FAR different from what patriotic Americans judge as "botches it"...

    For the Left Wingery, exaggerating the size of an inauguration crowd constitutes "botching it".... :^/

    With standards like that, it's going to be a LONG 8 years for ya'all.... :D

    I'm just sayin...

Comments for this article are closed.