There are deep fears among senior Foreign Office and No10 officials that another perceived national snub will make it impossible for Theresa May to meaningfully engage with Trump.Sounds more like the Queen might be infuriated. I don't get the idea of Trump being infuriated at not getting invited to Harry's wedding. That seems absurd, but then I don't get the idea of Trump as a short-tempered hothead.
A senior government source said: “Harry has made it clear he wants the Obamas at the wedding, so it’s causing a lot of nervousness.
“Trump could react very badly if the Obamas get to a Royal wedding before he has had a chance to meet the Queen. “Conversations are ongoing about and ministers will eventually have to decide. If the PM lays down the law, Harry will just have to suck it up.”
ADDED: Here's a list of people who went to Prince William's wedding. William is much more important than Harry. The United States was represented by our ambassador, not by a President. There's no idea here that President Trump should be invited to Harry's wedding, just that an ex-President might attend and would need to get some disorienting special treatment. But why would that infuriate Trump? Isn't it a step down for Obama, being a wedding guest? It's the normalization of Obama. He's a friend of Harry's. And that's confusing for other Brits.
Posts
253 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 253 of 253"explain a vote for Obama, followed by a vote for Trump."
A vote for JFK, followed by a vote for Reagan. I believe there were quite a few.
he is an example of exactly how Trump happened
All through the last year, it was made clear that the more they shot off their mouths, the more people rejected them. Worse, they rejected them in favor of Trump. It's not that Trump has this big fan base. He really does not. It's just that people have greater contempt for his detractors than they do for him.
And that has to sting.
" I don't understand what "Bush" is doing in your list with Bush and Carter. "
Read my lips. Mission Accomplished.
I doubt Trump is in a tiz for not being invited to the wedding. He is president, he doesn't need the self promotion he needed when he was a private citizen. Nor is he comparing himself to Obama, he already is more successful than Obama as president and certainly more financially than Obama is ever likely to be.
A vote for JFK, followed by a vote for Reagan. I believe there were quite a few.
JFK would not be welcome in the Democratic Party today, and Nixon would. (Nixon as president that is....his true sins as far as the Left is concerned occurred in the House)
I think the funny thing would be if Obama were invited and declined. Based on his Father's history of opposition to English colonialism and his background as a social activist, this possible outcome which no one has suggested would not surprise me.
In fact, it was all of the over-the-top attacks on Trump, culminating in the Access Hollywood affair, that finally led me to move from "I'm not voting" to voting to keep these folks from getting anywhere near elected office.
So, Chuck -- you want to know a big factor in how Trump was elected?? Look in the mirror. That's why.
It's not that Trump has this big fan base. He really does not.
Trump is the ultimate protest vote. A significant portion of his supporters didn't care about how he would govern, and another big chunk of them voted for him in hopes he would burn D.C. down.
Most of us are pleasantly surprised with the results so far.
Everyone knows that Trump is a loudmouth, obnoxious buffoon. And yet he is still far better than you and the Republican Establishment and any of the Dems. How does it feel to be held in even lower esteem than him?
Gahrie I am trying to picture a voter who ended up liking Trump and voting for him, voting for Hillary if the nominee had been Jeb Bush. Or who would have stayed home and not voted, if the nominee had been Jeb.
I held my nose and voted for Trump, for what I think are clear enough reasons relating to the least-worst alternative. And I am trying to picture somebody who happened to like Trump and not anybody named Bush, not doing the same.
Are you suggesting that the Deplorables are as feckless and as disaffected as urban blacks, who failed to turn out for Hillary in Obama-like numbers? Because I tell you authoritatively; the difference-maker in Michigan in 2016 was a sub-Obama turnout in our urban-black counties. If Wayne County had turned out in 2016 the way they did in 2012, Trump would have lost Michigan.
Trump won Michigan by less than 11,000 votes. The turnouts in Wayne County (Detroit), Genessee County (Flint) and Saginaw County (Saginaw) where most Michigan blacks reside (and where those majority-black precincts vote 98% Democrat) was down from 2012, by 50,000 or more.
Are you saying, Gahrie, that if Jeb Bush had been the nominee, that the turnout would have been as bad for him? I'm trying to figure out the voter who likes all of the things that Trump likes, and yet who wouldn't have been fired up to cast a vote against Hillary. Who would have stayed home, rather than get out and vote for Jeb Bush. (Or who would have voted Democratic instead of Republican?)
You will find that LLR Chuck is an "expert" about elections that have already occurred, and fancied himself just as big of an "expert" pre-election when he made all his hilariously incorrect predictions.
The good news is that after some deep soul searching and reflection LLR Chuck has determined that he was actually right both before and after the election all along!!
So he's got that going for him, which is nice.
LLR Chuck: "Trump's losing by 2 points to the worst Dem candidate since Al Smith (but threading the needle for an electoral college win) is a very limited recommendation."
"Accidental Leftist" Chuck once again, "inadvertantly", pushes ahead on the democrat meme that Trump lost by 2 points!
Maybe our Michigan-based electoral prognostication "expert" needs a refresher on the Electoral College and its "relative" importance in electing US Presidents!!
LOL
This just in, New England loses to Atlanta based on avg yards per punt!!
How many primary votes did Sanders win in Michigan? Quite a few of those Dems just couldn't pull it for Clinton in the general. Same happened here in Wisconsin, Ohio, and PA. Her Blue Wall just got lower and lower until Trump stepped right over it.
LLR Chuck will forever live in his own fantasy world since it is preferable to facing up to how wrong he was all along.
About everything.
That is when he isn't busy denigrating the policies being enacted now that have given us our 3rd Reagan term at long last.
Meade: "How many primary votes did Sanders win in Michigan? Quite a few of those Dems just couldn't pull it for Clinton in the general. Same happened here in Wisconsin, Ohio, and PA. Her Blue Wall just got lower and lower until Trump stepped right over it."
Now now Meade, lets not make it too complicated for our MI electoral expert.
LLR Chuck is pretty much a static analysis/1 variable kind of a "thinker", if you know what I mean.
I held my nose and voted for Trump, for what I think are clear enough reasons relating to the least-worst alternative. And I am trying to picture somebody who happened to like Trump and not anybody named Bush, not doing the same.
Let me help you..picture someone who has been holding their nose since 1984 and getting nothing anyway.
Who would have stayed home, rather than get out and vote for Jeb Bush.
The people you have been taking for granted since 1984, and you apparently want to continue to take for granted.
@Chuck:
So come on, step up...what incredible step on his dick disaster has happened because of Trump?
Why hasn't 2017 been an incredible success for the U.S. and President Trump?
Meade, you see it here! You're reading it in one comment after another. Trump supporters on Althouse explaining their votes because they were pissed; they didn't like the way that the media played the Access Hollywood tapes. Because they felt like victims of the establishment including a GOP establishment. Because they think that they hate people like me, and because they haven't gotten a fair shake from government. Because they feel like they have been "taken for granted."
They aren't talking about a better America, Laurence. They aren't even talking policy at all! They are some angry self-identified victims. "Taken for granted."
You can forget those Reagan speeches, Laurence. They were written by people like Peggy Noonan and Peter Robinson. Robinson (who has liked the same select few Trump speeches that I liked, including Trump's first address to Congress) calls Trump's speechifying “crude,” “scattershot,” "jabbering" and “undisciplined." Robinson suggests that Trump cut back on his Twitter and hire some better speechwriters.
Meade said...
wwww: "This is my reasoning: he's acting A LOT like a party Republican who doesn't understand what happened to his party."
I agree."
Trump is basically the TEA Party candidate, a big FU to the establishment Republican Party. Although I am a lifelong Republican, have been since 1976, basically like Chuck I always voted Republican because the Democrats are almost always so horrible. Reagan was the guy I voted for, twice. I voted for Cruz in the primaries and Trump in the general simply because he wasn't Hillary who is without a doubt a criminal and a traitor and probably a bit crazy and dangerous as a CIC. Trump barely won MI. But he won it and he won it because of crossover votes. I doubt any of the other Republicans would have done better in the general than Trump. Is Trump irritating at times? You betcha. Do I care? Not in the least. I hired the guy, I'm not dating him. All I care about is the economy is picking up, my investments are way up and he is serious about defeating our enemies. It's a safe bet that none of this would be happening if Hillary was president.
This really is an interesting discussion if you support the GOP or Trump, recognizing that many folks see daylight between those two concepts.
Commenters should resist the temptation to make it so personal. Every point being made here is worth considering without being incorporated in a personal attack.
Advocacy is about persuasion.
Meade said...
How many primary votes did Sanders win in Michigan? Quite a few of those Dems just couldn't pull it for Clinton in the general. Same happened here in Wisconsin, Ohio, and PA. Her Blue Wall just got lower and lower until Trump stepped right over it.
I think that's untrue, Laurence.
Here in Michigan, I already outlined the stark dropoff in voter turnout everywhere that there were large black populations.
Meanwhile, in places where we'd expect large Bernie turnouts (Washtenaw County - Ann Arbor) and Ingham County (Lansing/E. Lansing) and Kalamazoo County and Marquette County, turnout was UP over 2012 and the last Obama election. Those are all more or less Democrat strongholds.
Bernie did well in the Michigan primary; he beat Hillary. But in all of the places in Michigan where he did well -- the college towns and exurban Democrats -- there was a good turnout in the general. And they weren't voting for Trump.
Indeed, Laurence; Hillary likely lost the Michigan primary for the same reason that she lost the state by an eyelash in the general; disappointing turnout from the urban blacks who turned out in record numbers for Obama.
The disaffected, who stayed home and who saw the other party win as a consequence.
If you want to talk policy here, talk policy. No one is stopping you. Complaining about what other commenters are doing or not doing is not talking policy. Plus, it bores the Mrs. and the Mrs. hates to be bored.
I'v seen a couple of comments mentioning the record-setting Dow Jones average under Trump.
It's nice; I'd never ever suggest otherwise. But a number of news outlets have done various versions of this chart:
http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_sp500_2010_february_2017.jpg
Sorry for a Mother Jones link. It's just an image, of one chart for which the data is undisputable. If someone has a better chart handy, go ahead and give us a link.
The stock market has been climbing at about the same general rate since the depths of the recession. No more, no less. Is that somehow attributable to Trump?
Meade said...
If you want to talk policy here, talk policy. No one is stopping you. Complaining about what other commenters are doing or not doing is not talking policy. Plus, it bores the Mrs. and the Mrs. hates to be bored.
Laurence you and I have engaged civilly today because you are unlike so many of the regular Althouse commenters. You haven't used "LLR," "titty twister," or "moby." You didn't mention Barron Trump. You didn't assert that I'm not actually a member of the Michigan Bar, or that I am a liar for stating simply that I voted for Trump as a least-worst alternative. You didn't say that I am a paid lefty troll.
It's not me, Laurence; its a handful or two of your regular commenters. Your "base"? I honestly don't know about that.
Laurence, I'm aware of a few of your online kerfuffles on Madison and Regent Street neighborhood message boards. You would never take the sort of shit that comes my way on this blog's comment pages in direct violation of "the Mrs.'" own commenting rules.
you and I have engaged civilly today
And you return his kindness with condescension.
Chuck--The market (the S&P 500)has been going up since March 2009, after it went down 43% from October 2007 to March 2009 (1565.15 to 676.63). However, as your image shows, it has gone pretty much straight up since Trump was elected from opening at 2131.56 on 11/9/2016 to closing at 2686.50 today, a gain of 26% in 13-1/2 months. The markets go up and down, but this one has gone up dramatically up for the past year.
There are sometimes blog commenting "instructions" but there are no blog commenting "rules." She deletes comments that are boring or ones she judges to be intentionally destructive to the flow of her blog. Her blog, her instructions/no instructions, her judgements.
The neighborhood listserv does have a set of rules. I never break them and don't intend to break them. When others on the listserv break the rules, I don't complain to the administrators. I don't like to waste people's time by complaining. I either ignore the rule-breaking or I directly reply to the substance of the post, sometimes with an alternative point of view, which some people complain about. It's a neighborhood. Takes all kinds.
You might enjoy participating in the Regent Neighborhood Listserv. Personal remarks and insults are against the rules although political activism is also supposed to be against the rules so maybe you wouldn't enjoy it. Got any hostas or daylilies for free that you just put out on the curb? Lost kitty cat? Found kitty cat? Need a contact of someone who'll shovel your walks or nanny your kids? It's great for such things.
Chuck, why don't you quit butting in when we're busy bashing you?! It's annoying. ;-D
Chuck--According the NY Times 2012 and 2016 election maps, updated in Feb 2017 to reflect final counts, Dem votes went up in Washtenaw County (U of M), but down in Ingham (MSU), Kalamazoo (Western Michigan U), Isabella (Central Michigan U) and Marquette Counties (No. Michigan U). I may have missed your point, but Hillary's votes went down in university towns compared to Obama, except for Ann Arbor, where they were up 8,000. The losses in the other university counties about offset the gains in Ann Arbor. Trump actually won Isabella County.
LLR Chuck: "Hillary likely lost the Michigan primary for the same reason that she lost the state by an eyelash in the general; disappointing turnout from the urban blacks who turned out in record numbers for Obama."
Its unfortunate for althouse blog that our commentariat here did not include any informed MI political insiders who might have analyzed Hillarys performance during the dem primaries and then applied those lessons to the general.
And to think we actually had someone here who claimed to understand it all and couldnt wait to rub our noses in a Trump defeat. Big Trump defeat actually.
And yet that commenter reads all the "right" people in all the "right" publications where they hold all the "right" views and attend all the "right" parties with all those other "informed insider" types.
Inexplicable.
I wonder if the ghost of Pauline Kael haunts those parties? And if she does, how many votes does she cast for the dems in elections?
Chuck--The lower Dem turnout in Wayne County was decisive, as you said (Obama 595,253 vs. Hillary 519,444).
But Hillary got killed in Macomb County, home of the Reagan Democrats. Trump got 224,665 votes vs. Hillary's 176,317. The numbers in Macomb in 2012 were Obama 207,992 vs. Romney 191,896. It looks like the Reagan Democrats together with lower Dem turnout in Wayne County tipped Michigan to Trump.
Amadeus I was talking about total turnout only in those counties.
I was answering Meade's suggestion that maybe it was lax turnout among Bernie supporters that killed Hillary in Michigan. I don't think that's the case. But you've raised a good point that needs to be considered and, via polling, might be relevant given that Trump's win in Michigan was so freakishly narrow, any little change could have swung the outcome the other way.
NPR did a story on it; estimating that maybe 1 in 12 Bernie Sanders Primary voters ended up voting for Trump. (The infamous Sanders/Trump voters whom I was ridiculing during the campaign season.) If 1 in 12 Bernie Sanders primary voters in Michigan voted for Trump, that number would be about 47,000; more than enough to swing the election to Trump. So props to Meade on that. If we can assume that polling to be true.
But again, my point was that Trump won Michigan so narrowly, that the low turnout in just the black precincts in Wayne, Genesee and Saginaw counties was a difference-maker. I still think that's the clearest case based on the numbers. Obama, had he been a candidate (or if there had been another candidate that excited black voters like Obama did) would have beaten Trump like a drum.
Here's the MLive interactive map that I was using for my data if you are interested:
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/see_how_every_michigan_county.html?appSession=3B58O3488PQ95C310Z2R235RB4C7964S4OSNM525QL1XOKM0F1WDB39TRS4SANP472N9C0FGPR2WKI5DW92EH97RQ74465SB8T7DP9A2JD8VFU72737V70F1F2OY837E
Laurence I did not mean to suggest that you broke any rules for civility on any other message boards. No one reading this should think otherwise.
What I did mean to suggest, was that I'm pretty sure I know what your response would have been if a poster on a neighborhood message board baselessly called you a liar. And then repeatedly branded you with Trumpian insults.
You would not have discussed policy.
Chuck--Thanks for the additional info. Trump got very lucky in Michigan.
LLR: "...might be relevant given that Trump's win in Michigan was so freakishly narrow..."
Lol
I think you meant to write Clintons win in NH was freakishly clise....not really.
You never write that way about dem wins.
It may be possible to draw relevant conclusions.
Amadeus: "Trump got very lucky in Michigan."
Yes, of course. Trump got lucky.
Again.
As always.
Thats it.
Its really a mystery why republicans in MI arent beating a path to Chucks door to get some of that keen insight.
Drago--The story in NH might be that 2,000 Massachusetts voters drove up to NH on the day, registered, and voted. But to be fair, Michigan was a bigger prize and a bigger surprise than NH--as was Wisconsin. NH has always been in play. The GOP hadn't won in MI and WI in a generation. But that is why I like Meade's Reagan analogy.
I don't think Chuck is persuaded. Is he persuadable? Not yet; maybe never.
Also, those Macomb County numbers should be giving Michigan Democrats nightmares. Is Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren going to make the sale to those folks?
Amadeus 48 said...
Chuck--Thanks for the additional info. Trump got very lucky in Michigan.
You're welcome, and thanks for your contribution to this thread.
"What I did mean to suggest, was that I'm pretty sure I know what your response would have been if a poster on a neighborhood message board baselessly called you a liar. And then repeatedly branded you with Trumpian insults."
I've been called worse. The epithets stick to the thrower. Just like the tantrum belongs to child, not the parent. I've also been permanently banned from internet forums and blogs, (though not message boards or listservs).
As you can see, no one gets banned around here. Sometimes people self-ban or flounce off or go silent. Sometimes they come back. I suppose if most of your comments keep getting deleted, you can assume you crossed a line somewhere. If that happens, and you believe there's been a misunderstanding, feel free to email me and we can have a private chat.
Look, she puts a lot into this blog. We all know that. if you enjoy her blog and value it, show it by being interesting or humorous or informative in the comments. Engage with her and what she posts (or with other commenters) and ignore the comments and posts you don't enjoy.
Or send her cash. She loves that.
"Or send her cash. She loves that."
I thought diamonds were a girls best friend.
Or perhaps her taste in gifts skew towards real estate?
Well sure. Can't say I've ever seen her turn down diamonds, real estate, OR cash.
The stock market has been climbing at about the same general rate since the depths of the recession. No more, no less. Is that somehow attributable to Trump?
So a 5,000 point gain in one year, which is a record, is the same general rate?
3% quarterly growth in GDP is the same general rate?
Lowest unemployment since the 70's? Best Christmas season since 2007?
Wall Street and the American people are both showing confidence in, and approval of, President Trump.
They aren't talking about a better America, Laurence
Trump is not only talking about making a better America for us, he's actually making a better America.
"Well sure. Can't say I've ever seen her turn down diamonds, real estate, OR cash"
Just as I had suspected! I was able to ferret out the truth by superior sleuthing and tremendous insight into the psyche of the high performing female....and no, not a male who identifies as a high performing female, and actual high performing female.
I'm sure James James or Laslo could more fully explore that topic.
Sorry for a Mother Jones link.
Don't apologize.
It's quite predictable.
"Hmm, I'll bet the autistics over at 4chan could cross reference every intern with Michigan lawyers/poll workers and come up with a name. Charles something, perhaps? 1983-84?"
LLR Chuck did in fact say he wanted total transparency as to the real identity of those who post things online.
And in that case it was just a 15 year old that Chuckie was gunning for. A 15 year old who had the colossal gall and temerity to post something that made fun of CNN, always a trigger for our LLR and #CNNStrongDefender.
Good Grief ! The lefties are closing in along with LLR chuck.
Happy New Year, Inga. Enjoy your tax cut.
I gotta admit I’m disappointed in Harry. As a younger man he showed so much promise.
Yeah. Me too.
Hmm, I'll bet the autistics over at 4chan could cross reference every intern with Michigan lawyers/poll workers and come up with a name. Charles something, perhaps? 1983-84?
Done.
Laurence, I'm aware of a few of your online kerfuffles on Madison and Regent Street neighborhood message boards.
Since his nom de blog is Meade, why do you take the liberty? Are you two friends? Or are you presuming? Are you currying favor, or trying to? Your familiarity seems unwarranted.
Or is it intimidation? Combined with the frequent references to their location-and in the past you have literally doxxed them, and were censored for it-anyone might think this is your sooper slick rendition of "Hey, bub and bubbette, run this blog the way I want or you might just find some baseballs in your yard."
Imagine if your personal details were released on this forum. You would soil yourself.
You didn't mention Barron Trump.
Is the name of Barron Trump, then, under the Interdict? No one says that name? Maybe it's like Skull and Bones, Chuck. Maybe when someone says the name, BARRON TRUMP, you should leave the blog.
Post a Comment