September 30, 2018

"Sorry, Democrats, but America is unlikely to have a Democratic president before 2025...."

"[I] you look at historical patterns from the end of the 19th century to now, you’ll see that a party (Republican or Democratic) almost always holds the presidency for at least 8 years. Notice I’m saying a 'party,' not a 'president.' For example, Ronald Reagan was a Republican president for 8 years, followed by another Republican president, George H.W. Bush, for 4 years; that’s 12 continuous years of Republicans, so that whole time follows the 8-year minimum rule, even though one of those presidents was in office for only 4 years. There’s been only one exception since 1897 (when the first 20th-century president took office).... Jimmy Carter...."

Writes my son John (at Facebook).

It sounds like a very strong rule, but there is that one exception.

95 comments:

exhelodrvr1 said...

If we get another Jimmy Carter now, we're f'd.

Humperdink said...

I hope your son John in correct. Unfortunately, even with R's as president the country drifts leftward. It will take a series of catastrophic events to make a u-turn (see oil rich Venezuela).

JackWayne said...

It sounds like a very strong rule, but there is that one WEAK exception.

FIFY.

Unknown said...

Read his lips

The fanny pincher who denounces Trump was silent during 8 years of O.

Public was correct to reject him and his dynasty

Please clap

mccullough said...

People are used to Trump.

The Dems have no normal people they will put forth as their nominee. It would have to be someone boring who is not into the flame throwing. So we’ve eliminated Booker, Harris, and Warren. They are the ones their base love. The Crazies.

Trump would rout them. He’ll do everything he can to raise their profiles. Trump is going to pick his opponent. The Dem voters will fall for it.

That’s how fucking stupid they are. They are going to let Trump do it.





MayBee said...

I'm trying to imagine which Democrat could win in 2020, but then I never imagined Trump would win in 2016.

Mark said...

Jimmy lost because he was incompetent and he seemed to almost want people to feel bad about themselves and about America, not because of irrational hatred for him.

iowan2 said...

I agree, the Dems potential candidates are all crazy, even to the left. I doubt who ever ends up being the candidate, is not on any national radar yet. Carter, Clinton, even Reagan to a certain degree, were not talked about 2 years out. The Dem's candidate is going to have to have few DC ties. Run as a DC outsider. At least if the dems want moderate dems and true independents to vote the D ticket. The economy is not a short term affair. President Trump has laid a very solid foundation for continued growth. Even at this point only blind partisans believe Obama has anything to do with today's economy

Mark said...

This past week was the first time I had ever really heard Spartacus or Kamilla, and was overwhelmingly underwhelmed when I did.

The Crack Emcee said...

I thought the Democrats were on a crash-and-burn when I left in 2004, having no idea they'd be the disaster they've turned out to be. The self-destruction, since then, has been amazing to behold.

They - literally - can't get it together.

Kevin said...

“Even at this point only blind partisans believe Obama has anything to do with today's economy.”

Obama blamed Bush for the economy when he was President, told everyone 2% was “the new normal”, and now takes credit for the roaring economy under Trump.

He has zero credibility on the topic.

Roger Sweeny said...

To be blunt, these "patterns" are usually nothing but "statistical noise." XKCD does a nice takedown in a many panel cartoon:

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Humperdink said...

TCE said: "The self-destruction, since then, has been amazing to behold."

I completely agree. The D's have become a coastal/beltway party. The media, also coastal/beltway, has walked hand in hand on the same path.

OTOH, the do not call the GOP the "stupid party" for nothing.

jaydub said...

The left doesn't want a Democrat president. They want a communist president but will settle for a socialist.

stlcdr said...

As Roger Sweeny said, statistical noise. However and unfortunately, people - and groups - are wholly convinced by such things. Reading the tea leaves.

tcrosse said...

Leave it to the Tech and Media big shots to contrive a likely candidate for 2020. Call it Obama 2.0.

Tom said...

Carter was in-effectual in the face of an energy crisis, stag-flation, and Iran embassy hostages.

Trump is benefiting from a booming economy after 8 years of stagnation that deeply hurt the working class. Trump has seized the newest and largest ethnic voting block - white working class voters. I'm guessing he also has a number of college educated people from all sorts of backgrounds who will say they aren't voting for him - but actually will for him because their pocketbooks depend on him.

Who are the Democrats going to run? Biden? Trump's smarter. Warren? He's also used the verbal kill shot on her it's stuck. Clinton? Oh, please please run again without the benefit of the FBI and CIA at your becon call!

The only way to beat him would be to crash the economy

chickelit said...

Dems have no strong front runners and it’s their fault. They spend all their energy tearing down Trump with zero positive effort. Just look at the crazies who posts here like Inga & Ritmo — Just Trump Trump Trump, bash bash bash.

Gahrie said...

The only way to beat him would be to crash the economy

Which is what the Democrats would immediately begin to do if they took control of Congress.

Rory said...

"The only way to beat him would be to crash the economy"

They'll do it if they have to. All the other Democratic constituencies - Hollywood, the bureaucracy, the news media, the schools and universities, social media, the SJW's - have done their part in the craziness.

Clinton's the next nominee. It's an article of faith for the Dems that she's the rightful president, and she'll run for re-election.

rehajm said...

I was young but recall a strong sense of we’ve made a collective mistake wih Carter. From TV even. Obama was lucky to conform to Jon’s rule...

How anyone would reject the improved standard of living we have under Trump in favor of Socialism is mind boggling. Unless you really really like convenient abortions.

(snl live audience laugh here)

Big Mike said...

The Democrats should not get another President unless and until they — as a party — stop feeling contempt for ordinary Americans. For a while they wore a mask, but Obama dropped it during his second term, and Hillary Clinton never bothered with the pretense. An elitist like Althouse can’t see that.

MadisonMan said...

So now Democrats will work to tank the economy. At the moment, I as far better off than I was two years ago. I suspect in two years, unless the Democrats sweep in in November, I can say the same thing.

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

That's a very powerful thing to campaign on if you're the incumbent and the answer is an obvious "Hell yeah!"

(And now I read the previous comments; I'm just part of a chorus)

Michael K said...

The only way to beat him would be to crash the economy

They will try and the business cycle has not been repealed.

George Mitchell created a recession by blocking a capital gains tax cut and making Bush I a liar in 1992.

Jupiter said...

Roger Sweeny said...
To be blunt, these "patterns" are usually nothing but "statistical noise."

That was my initial thought as well, you might as well talk about the Presidents' horoscopes. Boy, look at all those Leos!

But there is probably an underlying causal dynamic, involving the advantage of incumbency. If Roosevelt hadn't died, he'd probably still be President of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Amerika.

Unknown said...

I will crawl over glass to support trump.

BudBrown said...

I was a Carter guy. I've been recalling all the positive things he achieved. Thing I don't get is how it seems an article of faith to conservative types that he was a bad president.
Sometimes I think he was our last conservative president. Whatever.
What Carter and Trump have in common is they managed to get elected despite not being in, uh, harmony with the big wigs in their parties. Kennedy was gearing up to oppose him in the next primaries pretty early on. I don't get out much but what I hear is Trump voters who aren't very supportive now.

Darrell said...

The only way to beat him would be to crash the economy

Which is what the Democrats would immediately begin to do if they took control of Congress.


They're trying to do it now. Big sell-off by billionaires and large institutions. Rumors have been circulated about a big market bust in October for months. You can guess who is behind those rumors.

FIDO said...

Once again, I will say this.

From the dodged bullet of a Hillary presidency, my IRA has gone up 33% in less than two years.

That is a YUGE rebuke to Democratic economic policies. And Trump hasn't done hardly much.

But he isn't Obama destroying energy businesses and vetoing pipelines and drilling. And he isn't corrupt Hillary, who never saw a pocket she didn't mind picking.

Darrell said...

It's all part of the Blue Wave of Death.

FIDO said...

I don't get out much but what I hear is Trump voters who aren't very supportive now.

I suggest you get out more.


I was a Never Trumper. Then the Democratic Party made the Jim Jones People's Temple, with all of it's communistic undertones, seem sane in comparison.


So many of the people chary of Trump will GLADLY vote for bombastic over crazy socialist character assassins who hate the Rule of Law and Western Culture.

Althouse can't help it. She marinated in that sauce for her entire adult life.

Lucien said...

Bush Pere was supposed to be a shoe-in in 1992, Ross Perot, who hated him, showed up and Clinton won with 41% of the vote. Who knows what billionaire will pop up in 2020. Bloomberg? Bezos? Cuban?

Darrell said...

Bloomberg? Bezos? Cuban?

Will take votes away from the Democrat.

buwaya said...

You are in fundamentally different social, cultural and institutional terrain now.
There is no continuity with past versions of your polity.

Everything is unpredictable.

Anything can happen.

FIDO said...


Bush Pere was supposed to be a shoe-in in 1992, Ross Perot, who hated him, showed up and Clinton won with 41% of the vote. Who knows what billionaire will pop up in 2020. Bloomberg? Bezos? Cuban?


Ross Perot was credible. Which of those three would be seen as anything but a Democratic tool?

FIDO said...

BUT...it is possible there is a lot of desire for a third party candidate.

But who is to say that it won't pull mainly from the Crazy Democrats?

buwaya said...

Our net worth is up 25% since Nov 2016.
That has to be discounted a bit for inflation.

Not as good as many have done, what with all my hedging, but I am very pleased anyway.

It is however not a sustainable rate of increase over time. To a degree it is a bubble and has to end.

Michael K said...

I've been recalling all the positive things he achieved. Thing I don't get is how it seems an article of faith to conservative types that he was a bad president.

I will grant that he had to deal with the 1974 Democrat-left Congress elected post Watergate.

He finally realized that inflation was out of control and hired Volker.

He finally realized the Russians were not friendly Teddy Bears and started the military buildup.

The Iran crisis was his doing as Andrew Young convinced him the Khomeini was "A Saint" and he "threw the Shah out like dead mouse" in the words of an Iranian general.

He was a bad, not as bad as Obama , but a bad president.

Michael K said...

I would have voted for Perot in 1992 if he had not turned out to be a nut.

A lot of people voted for him anyway. He and Palin were the harbingers for Trump.

Jeff Weimer said...

Trump, for all his foibles, is driving the Democrats even more extremely leftward in misguided reaction, and thus less electable generally at a state/national level. This opens up an opportunity for a center-right and less polarizing Republican candidate to keep the Presidency. However, the one thing the Republican electorate will no longer countenance is meekness in the face of Democrat and media demagoguery. That potential candidate must be able to stand firm in the face of blistering opposition.

buwaya said...

Carter also started a lot of the deregulation effort that was later carried through by Reagan. That is, that of removing various old regulatory structures. A very new thing at the time, removing regulation.

Unfortunately it was one step forward, two back, as (not the best metric) Federal Register pages peaked in 1980. A peak not seen again till 2000.

Anonymous said...

George H. W. Bush was almost as weak a candidate as Hillary - a lot more honest, but weak as a presidential candidate. I know that is blasphemy, but my feeling at the time was " this guy really doesn't want to be president" and I voted for Clinton, the Democrat, for the first and only time in my life. I still think I was right, just as I think I was right to vote for Goldwater over the lying LBJ.

cronus titan said...

Obama gave Trump an opening when Obama waxed on bout the new normal of 2% growth and weakness broad. Trump effectively argued that America could be great again, against a candidate who pretty much argued that she would manage the decline. A lot can happen in two years but there does not seem to be anything right now Democrat can seize on which is why we are seeing tantrums of hate but not much else. "I hate their guts" does not seem to be a persuasive argument.

Anonymous said...

Carter's biggest problem was that he was an engineer and about as charismatic as a ham sandwich. His second biggest problem was that he made a lot more bad decisions than good ones.

Anonymous said...

Bloomberg is only a nominal Republican the others are in it for the ego trip. Bezos is no republican. Cuban? Depends which way the wind is blowing this week.

Mountain Maven said...

Those are tendencies. Like no senators, no blacks, no one from the private sector. All those tendencies got blown up over the past 10 years.

Mountain Maven said...

Carter was a pessimist and he couldn't run the economy. That's why Reagan won so hugely

Yancey Ward said...

Carter's reelection faltered on the sands of Iran when the rescue mission went tits up. He was in trouble in any case because of inflation and the economy as a whole, but after the rescue fiasco, he was never going to overcome the incompetence tag.

I still think there is a chance that Trump hands the baton to Pence, but I think that is definitely less likely than it was a year ago, and not even probable any longer. The economy is what will determine whether or not he gets reelected, and you can't predict that item that far ahead.

A commenter above made an interesting point- Trump is so in the heads of his opposition that he might well be able to effectively pick his own opponent. The Democrats, however, might be saved from themselves just because so many nuts and lightweights will try to run, and it will be the sane person who wins the nomination with a plurality. The main danger I see for the Democrats is that Hillary! will be seen as that sane person.

Yancey Ward said...

Trump drives the Democrats leftward by occupying the center, or, equally descriptive, is occupying the political ground ceded by the Democrats in their lurch to the left fringe. Tomato/tomahto. Either way, it is an effective electoral strategy.

Gahrie said...

It is however not a sustainable rate of increase over time. To a degree it is a bubble and has to end.

Much of the increase was delayed for eight years and waiting for sanity to return. Things will settle down in a year or two.

Big Mike said...

Since we're discussing elections, can one of our commentators from Arizona explain what's happening out your way? Why is a Democrat, even an allegedly moderate Democrat, leading a good conservative like Martha McSally?

Because Sinema isn't a moderate anything. Moderate people do not produce posters like this one for an antiwar rally.

Ray - SoCal said...

Obama destroyed a lot of the farm team of the Democrats. And the left of the party is primarying people that are not pure enough. Soros funding has a lot of impact at a primary level.

At a real estate luncheon in LA, I was at recently, the panel estimated problems in 2020.

One speaker commented that the economy is tied to the unemployment rate.



Ray - SoCal said...

Stupid poll tricks:

1. Over sample Dems
2. Poll register voters, not likely
3. Use biased questions
4. Target areas that historically vote a certain way, but register another. Term used is RINO.
5. Use internet based polling

Yancey Ward said...

I would wager that from Sinema's campaign ads you can't tell which party she is from. Phil Bredensen is running for the Democrats here in Tennessee, and I defy you to determine that he is a Democrats from any of his campaign materials.

FIDO said...

To be fair to Carter, didn't he help broker that peace agreement between Israel and Egypt? But it isn't mentioned it Wiki, so it must have never happened, right?

He was also pretty butch about the Afghanistan invasion by the Soviets.

Still, he was a squish and grew much more as a private citizen.

FIDO said...

I would wager that from Sinema's campaign ads you can't tell which party she is from. Phil Bredensen is running for the Democrats here in Tennessee, and I defy you to determine that he is a Democrats from any of his campaign materials.

Doesn't that say exactly how toxic the Democrat brand is, that the candidates are hiding their PARTY affiliation?


But, if true, I am supposed to believe in a blue wave? Crash!



The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

“You are in fundamentally different social, cultural and institutional terrain now.
There is no continuity with past versions of your polity.”

Bingo. We’re in one of those historical funhouses where precedent has no meaning. The election of Donald fucking Trump is in itself a strong indication. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy about that election but think about it. When the road does straighten out, I bet it will be in a direction no one anticipates.

MD Greene said...

We've had a siloed Congress that would rather fight than talk for a long time now. The Ds hated Bush, and the Rs hated Obama; neither would give an inch on anything. The days when Reagan worked with O'Neill and Clinton with Gingrich feel like ancient history.

That was one reason a totally unprecedented candidate caught the imagination of American voters in 2016. The other reason is the Democratic Party let its nomination be hijacked/purchased by an outright crook who told half the country how much she hated them.

The current sh----ow over Kavanaugh further discredits Congress, and it's hard to imagine any member gaining the respect of either party, let alone a majority of the country. Why wouldn't other prominent private citizens look at the situation and say, "Why not me?"

I expect to see a lot of hats being tossed into the rings. Bring it on.

Big Mike said...

@Crazy Jane, what, precisely, was the Republican Congress supposed to do in the face of Barack Obama's uniquely bad ideas, except to say that the idea is very bad?

Bruce Hayden said...

"The only way to beat him would be to crash the economy

They will try and the business cycle has not been repealed."

I think that we are good, but not sure. The problem is that we are most of a decade from the last recession trough, and that is a bit long, which is to say that normally we would probably be facing another recession by then. I think two things help Trump here. One is that Obama almost seemed determined to drag out the recession throughout his entire 8 year term (which is why it is called the Obama Recession). It's almost like he couldn't have screwed up the recovery worse if he had actively tried to extend it, instead of ineptly trying to maybe help us recover from it. I think that it was ignorance on his part, combined with filling his White House with 20 somethings, who thought that they could lie their way out. And having the even more economically ignorant Pelosi running their caucus in the House made it worse. Or, maybe Obama really did want Carter level malaise, out of some sort of anticolonial guilt. And, while Obama did everything wrong, so far Trump has done everything right. Difference between a community activist and a builder and businessman, and between a Harvard law degree, and a Warton business degree. My guess right now is that the Trump Tax Cut, if nothing else helps, will push the next recession beyond 2020. We shall see.

Not sure of the value of my assets, but my income has essentially doubled in the last maybe 3 years. Partly it was a result of the boom, and partially a result of a 2/5 reduction in federal corporate income taxes (1/3 reduction if you add in state Corp taxes). The one bummer is that my partner no longer qualifies for the Obamacare subsidy, and had to pay yesterday almost double what we had been paying before, nearing $1500 a month. But, it is no worse than all those Blue State homeowners who lost their SALT deductions for the taxes on their million plus dollar houses.

rcocean said...

If we have a recession, and we're due for one. The R's will lose in 2020 in a landslide.

The 1991 recession was rather mild, but Bush got 37% of the vote in 1992.

1980 bad economics = Carter Loss.

rcocean said...

Immigration has resulted in importing millions and millions of Democrat voters. California has gone from Reagan to Quasi-Socialist.

Col and Va have gone blue state, and NC is following. Republicans are holding Florida by a razor's edge, and Texas is about to turn Purple.

When's the last time an R POTUS candidate got 51% or more of the vote? Answer: 1988

Chuck said...

So Trump’s marrow 2016 election was part of a trend, and a pendulum movement of U.S Presidential politics back to the, consistent with a broad center-right consensus in the national mood (among many divisions to be sure)...

...as opposed to some rare, magical power of masterpersuasion...

I think I might agree with that.

Michael K said...

I think two things help Trump here. One is that Obama almost seemed determined to drag out the recession throughout his entire 8 year term (which is why it is called the Obama Recession). It's almost like he couldn't have screwed up the recovery worse if he had actively tried to extend it,

I agree with this and Obama may have shifted the business cycle a few years to the future. Usually, the recession comes when overheating takes over.

One problem is that ZIRP brought a stock market bubble since there was no place else to put money. The bond slaughter by Obama hurt snow bird places like Tucson, which seems to be recovering now.

Sinema is relying on leftists in Tucson and the minority population of Phoenix. I don't think McSally is in trouble although NeverTrumpers keep accusing her of being a RINO. That is more of a threat to her.

She was representing a swing district and had to stay in the middle. I don't know if the GOP can hold this district although Democrat insanity may help. The public school district seems to be in trouble as parents flee to charter schools.

That may be a sign that even Hispanic parents are trying to get away from leftist nonsense in schools.

Murph said...

Among the plethora of all the choices, one of Carter's worst ideas, which unfortunately Congress enabled and enacted, was the "Windfall Profits Tax" that pretty much obliterated the financial incentive for capital investment in exploration and discovery of additional fossil fuel sources, in a time of OPEC-driven supply restrictions and high prices that otherwise should have resulted in expansion of exploration and discoveries.

Carter's grotesque economic policies led to greater national economic trauma than would otherwise have occurred.

On the other hand, unlike others I would give Carter credit for his approval of the rescue attempt of the Iranian hostages -- that it failed should not be ascribed to him, IMHO, but to those whose planning was incomplete and/or erroneous, and/or uncontrollable events that intervened.
Unfortunately, as Obama took credit for the killing of bin Laden, so too Carter shouldered the blame for the rescue failure.

Birkel said...

Trump's economy is pushing against prevailing headwinds. The unwinding of 1) Quantitative Easing and 2) the increase in interest rates are driving the rest of the world into recession. Increasing interest rates makes America look even more like a safe harbor for capital.

And domestically 1&2 may very well offset the growth potential created by A) lower marginal taxes and B) decreased regulation. If the housing market collapses or if unemployment numbers begin to creep up without increasing (nominal or real) wage increases, the middle class that supports Trump may look for alternatives.

Some people above point out the lack of good alternatives. But I'd bet that is less important than the question "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" that Trump hopes to be able to ask.

If he cannot ask that because the Fed strangles the recovery that Trump made possible, Trump may lose.

Th Fed likely staved off a double-dip recession with its ludicrous expansion of the balance sheet under QE that allowed Obama to pretend his policies were working. They took Obama's ridiculous policies as a given and responded accordingly. But the plan for unwinding QE without upsetting the world economy never existed. It could not exist. And now they're hoping that they can unwind it before the SHTF. My bet is they cannot.

Francisco D said...

Since we're discussing elections, can one of our commentators from Arizona explain what's happening out your way? Why is a Democrat, even an allegedly moderate Democrat, leading a good conservative like Martha McSally?

I am a new resident, so my experience is limited to the constant barrage of TV ads.

Sinema had a makeover and looks very hot. I would hit it. Given that she is openly bisexual, she allows young men to fantasize a great three-way. (I am retired, but never underestimate us old guys).

McSally was only very briefly married. She gives off zero sexual persona.

This area seems to play up to military vets a lot. McSally may have the edge there but Sinema has presented herself as a being very pro-military. She has also reinvented herself as a moderate.

McSally may not be well liked because she was a decorated combat pilot. Combat pilots are notoriously arrogant and probably make enemies among the lower ranks.

I am sure she was a better pilot than McCain. He crashed four planes to her zero.

Big Mike said...

@Murph, what I have been told by people working inside the Pentagon is that so many of Carter’s advisors were so opposed to Iranian blood being spilled that the mission was postponed again and again until the military was forced to try to execute it during the time of the year when sandstorms were highly likely. So if Carter gets credit, he also must shoulder blame for not telling his staff that he’s the President, he’s the Commander in Chief, and he has made his decision.

Big Mike said...

@Francisco, follow the hotlink in my comment and tell me how pro-military Sinema really is.

Jim at said...

I was a Carter guy. I've been recalling all the positive things he achieved.

Could you name one, please?

tim maguire said...

If the election were held today, Trump would win for 2 reasons:

1) Strong economy.
2) You can't replace someone with no one and the Democrats have no one.

Francisco D said...

Big Mike,

I have seen that poster many times in McSally ads along with the pink tutu.

Re: Sinema. I said I would hit it (ala Sir Mixalot) but I wold not vote for her in a million years.

My challenge is to convince my liberal Democrat fiancé to vote for McSally or not at all.

Drago said...

Chuck: "So Trump’s marrow 2016 election was part of a trend, and a pendulum movement of U.S Presidential politics back to the, consistent with a broad center-right consensus in the national mood (among many divisions to be sure)...

...as opposed to some rare, magical power of masterpersuasion...

I think I might agree with that"

Yes you would. For 2 primary reasons: it's obviously and laughably wrong (imagine Jeb! carrying MI or WI or PA! LOL) and finally it would allow you to pretend you weren't really wrong about the election or what Trump represents, even though you were.

And hilariously so.

Not to worry though LLR Chuck.

It's clear your boy Flake is going to lead Murkowski and/or Collins and the red state dems on the path to voting no on Kavanaugh.

Drago said...

Jeff Weimer: "Trump, for all his foibles, is driving the Democrats even more extremely leftward in misguided reaction, and thus less electable generally at a state/national level."

Nonsense.

According to LLR Chuck and his stable of MSM lefty writers Trump has basically played no part in any of this.

It's all just a trend.

Why just the other day were all marveling out how Kasich, the son of a postman if you didn't know (LOL!), has been driving the dems crazy with his super effective conservative messaging...

Double LOL!

Birkel said...

Carter began the process of dismantling the CAB (the only agency ever disbanded in America's history) that was finished under Reagan. Points for that.

Carter gave us the Dept of Ed. Huge blunder that has spent trillions for no measurable improvements in outcome.

Carter was a nasty, backbiting, petty, and disinterested jerk. People who knew him did not like him by wide margins.

And he was leaden. He could not move. His instincts were to freeze like so many opossums he must have seen on his farm.

But Carter was not purposefully, actively negative toward his own country and countrymen. So he beats Obama and is only the second worst president since FDR.

Arashi said...

Carter also played a big role in the current state of the middle east with his active abandonment of Iran to the Ayatollah - but hey, he does good things with Habitat for Humanity.

The Godfather said...

Contra Birkel, the CAB wasn’t the only federal agency to be disbanded. Thanks to Gingrich, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Termination Act. The ICC was the first federal regulatory agency. (Yes, some of its functions and staff were transferred to the Surface Transportation Board, but the STB is a mere shadow of the old ICC, which nearly destroyed the rail freight industry.)

Michael K said...

McSally was only very briefly married. She gives off zero sexual persona.

I didn't know she had been married. I assumed she is gay.

I have met her and she is very sharp and not at all arrogant. At a reception for donors (almost all of whom had given a hell of a lot more money that I have) she ran through issues in a 15 minute talk that was well focused, not at all vague and right on.

I have been a supporter since she first ran and before I moved here permanently.

My daughter was at U of A and I wanted her to volunteer.

I knew of her from she refused to wear a burkah off base in Saudi. She ended up suing Rummy and won. She said he has donated the max to her campaign anyway,

Francisco D said...

I knew of her from she refused to wear a burkah off base in Saudi. She ended up suing Rummy and won.

Yes. I am a big Rummy fan, but she not only did the right thing, she pursued it and risked her career.

I think she will make an excellent US Senator, although she is likely to be closer to McCain and Flake then she is to Goldwater.

That said, Flake and McCain are reliably conservative in their voting patterns. Goldwater (vilified as a crazy guy) was a true Libertarian. We need more like him.

Birkel said...

The Godfather:
I take your point. The CAB was totally dismantled. The ICC, as you write, was mostly dismantled. So I believe my point was a fair one and I also appreciate your gentle nudge.

Thank you.

Big Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

Have you tried telling her she doesn’t get any more of that great oral sex unless she votes for McSally?

Watch out, That stuff causes throat cancer. Ask Michael Douglas about it.

Big Mike said...

@MichaelK, I meant my comment to be funny, but after I posted it I decided it was a step way over the line in the era of “That’s Not Funny,” so I deleted it. I mean why should Lysistrata be the only one with leverage.

MadisonMan said...

Carter's biggest problem was that he was an engineer and about as charismatic as a ham sandwich.

The cardigan sweaters did him no favors, that's for sure.

robother said...

The post-1897 Presidential pattern John is noticing is mostly a function of breaking the 19th Century pattern that unelected Presidents (i..e., VPs assuming office after a death of the elected President) couldn't get elected on their own. Teddy Roosevelt broke that pattern in 1904 and everyone after did too, interestingly with Gerald Ford (who lost to Jimmy Carter) the lone exception. As the power of the Federal government expanded in the 20th Century, the advantages of incumbency have too. (FDR was President for life, after all.)

Fabi said...

2016 was an economic nadir and the point at which this cycle begins. The New York Times has recently admitted the "soft recession" that took place that year. A recession after the 2022 midterms may hand the presidency to the democrats in 2024 but not 2020.

Michael K said...

<

I'm listening to Karl Rove's biography of McKinley in the car. He was a really great man and his story is lost as the president who was assassinated to make Teddy Roosevelt president.

McKinley could have been nominated in 1892 when Harrison lost to Arthur.

He chose not to try as he was an honorable man.

How rare tat is today,

Michael K said...



You have to remember that Peggy Goldwater was the real conservative,

After she died, Barry moved quite a bit left with his second wife,

JAORE said...

Carter's biggest problem was that he was an engineer..

Nope,he was not... but it's one of the myths that is accepted.

Big Mike said...

@JAORE, according to what I have read, Carter graduated from Annapolis with a BS in nuclear physics.

Big Mike said...

And, FWIW, as a midshipman during wartime (he graduated in 1946) his curriculum would have been heavy in engineering subjects.

Big Mike said...

Carter’s problem wasn’t his training in science and engineering. It’s that he had no true leadership skills at all.

Bruce Hayden said...

"I think that we are good, but not sure. The problem is that we are most of a decade from the last recession trough, and that is a bit long"

Interestingly, a bit after I said that today, I read something that indicated that we had a mini recession in 2016, with a big drop in plant and equipment sales and manufacturing, caused by a number of somewhat interrelated problems, including the Fed tightening the money supply, the EU not following, and the Chinese essentially moving their recession here. Plus oil prices crashed, resulting in a great reduction in spending in that sector.

My name goes here. said...

"So Trump’s marrow 2016 election was part of a trend, and a pendulum movement of U.S Presidential politics back to the, consistent with a broad center-right consensus in the national mood (among many divisions to be sure)...

...as opposed to some rare, magical power of masterpersuasion...

I think I might agree with that."

That would imply that you (Chuck) think that Trump represents broad center-right issues.

Big Mike said...

Barack Obama had a bunch of great economic ideas vetted by the academic community. None of them worked. Trump’s approach to economics are different in two ways: the scaddmic community hates them, and they work.