Skip to comments.Feehery: How Trump wins
Posted on 09/08/2020 6:56:47 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Feehery: How Trump wins
Most political analysts believe that Joe Biden will beat Donald Trump in the coming election. They are wrong. Here are five reasons why Trump wins reelection:
1) Beating an incumbent is hard: Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won their reelections not because they were great presidents but because they were incumbents. Reagan lost the Senate in 1982 and endured a crippling recession but still was able to bounce back to win a landslide in 1984. Clintons first two years were so bad that Democrats lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Bush blundered America into a very unpopular war in Iraq after the devastating attacks on 9/11, and yet was able to beat a hapless John Kerry in 2004. Obamas response to the fiscal crisis of 2008 was to pass an unpopular health care law while presiding over the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression and yet he was able to beat Trumps biggest critic, Mitt Romney. The power of incumbency is a huge advantage, which the current occupant of the White House is using very effectively, from handing out aid personally in places like Kenosha, to pardoning convicted prisoners who had turned their lives around, to using the bully pulpit to set the media narrative day after day.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
No one should be THAT pessimistic.
Go for a walk.
Meanwhile, Biden presided over a small wake for a dead lawn.
Sorry...but I live in Realville, not in MakeBelieveLand.
Which is exactly the same as 2016, except Obama doesn't control the federal government this time like they did in 2016. Plus Trump didn't have a clue they were spying on him in 2016, and this time he knows exactly what they plan to do and is ready to fight them tooth and nail come November.
The massive scale of mail ballot fraud being contemplated dwarfs all of those historical examples.
Reagan was not a great President? STOPPED READING RIGHT THERE.
But your point is still valid.
In some ways, it should actually be easier to challenge by mail voter fraud because of the paper trail it requires.
Actually he lost the Senate in '86.
“as a speechwriter to former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.)”
Whose works always included “I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Democratic majority.”
Homeland Security might be Trump’s best card here.
Issue a finding that foreign powers are planning to subvert the election with forged ballots and bar the practice of mail-in voting.
I presume that as CIC he would have extraordinary powers to do such a thing in the face of a clear threat.
American voters wise up. You are being screwed royally by Democrat Party leaders Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer. These low life, scum & vermin, bastards are holding you hostage from getting your Stimulus Checks from POTUS, Donald J. Trump simply for political reasons. Let these two “TRAITORS” know exactly how you feel of getting it in your rear, where the Sun don’t shine, without Vaseline!!! Do it now!!!
No you live in handwringing pointless panic land. Calm the hell down. If it’s as bad as you say, nothing can be done. Screaming at people just makes you hoarse. Of course it isn’t that bad. Really, stop being a douche.
Trump’s gonna win. Incumbent advantage alone pretty much guarantees that. The mushy middle love incumbents.
You should learn to read. He didn’t say Reagan wasn’t a great president. He said that’s not why he won re-election.
"Beating an incumbent is hard: Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won their reelections not because they were great presidents but because they were incumbents."
infers to me he feels Reagan and the others were not great Presidents in the opinion of the writer. Reagan was a great President, perhaps the greatest modern day President, and that is why he won re-election. The writer is too lazy to make the distinction and throws Reagan into the same group as the other mediocre at best list of Presidents then I am to lazy to keep reading.
No it doesn’t. That’s a very common sentence structure and it means... well it means exactly what it says. The thing in the back clause is not being questioned as existing, simply being pointed out as not the cause of the event. It’s like a team with a great QB dominating the run game “they did not win because they have a great QB”. Doesn’t say the QB isn’t great, simply not the cause.
As for his list they’re 3 incumbents that won in a row. And they all won NOT because of their quality as presidents, but because the mushy middle loves incumbents. These are facts.
This would be a much more comforting thought if I felt Trump's DOJ might actually do something to help him the next two months. Left with that, any possible warm fuzzy goes away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.