• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

HavokFour said:
I wonder why he didn't want to disclose company financial records? ;)
Click to expand...
Especially in light of Trumps suit against JPMorgan where they also will demand discovery on his financials. That’s the case where the banks dumped him because of alleged money laundering. Ties in with Todd Blanche granting (in May) Trump family immunity from IRS prosecution.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Best Deal Ever! (For Iran that is) or until next week, when new Best Deal Ever is announced.
Click to expand...
The most effective (and only) military service Trump ever completed was to Iran. Somehow they went from being subject to full nuclear inspections, under extreme sanctions, with permanent drought and overall decline, to becoming a new regional power broke with a toll bridge over Hormuz and de facto leader of the Middle East.

He should resign.
 
FormerEnlisted said:
The most effective (and only) military service Trump ever completed was to Iran. Somehow they went from being subject to full nuclear inspections, under extreme sanctions, with permanent drought and overall decline, to becoming a new regional power broke with a toll bridge over Hormuz and de facto leader of the Middle East.

He should resign.
Click to expand...
He needs to have a health incident that removes him from office, however I don't see anyone on either side being able to fix this. Iran is defacto winning, because the Arab countries can't pull their own shit together to deal with it.

In reality, Iran is not winning, it's just not losing. The economy has been nuked and is not likely to come back anytime soon, the money from what oil gets out seems to disappear and not find it's way into the peoples pocket. The same people and groups responsible for the water disaster, are still in control of that resource.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
He needs to have a health incident that removes him from office, however I don't see anyone on either side being able to fix this. Iran is defacto winning, because the Arab countries can't pull their own shit together to deal with it.

In reality, Iran is not winning, it's just not losing. The economy has been nuked and is not likely to come back anytime soon, the money from what oil gets out seems to disappear and not find it's way into the peoples pocket. The same people and groups responsible for the water disaster, are still in control of that resource.
Click to expand...
USA goals.

Destroy nuclear program: partial success

Destroy Irans navy:success

Kept the Strait of Hormuz out of iranian hands:Failure

Deal with Irans drone and missile forces:Failure

Change Irans regime:Failure

Stop Irans nuclear program going forward:Failure

Irans goals

Keep the regime in place:Success

Control straight of hormuz: Partial success

Deny anyone else control of straight of hormuz: Success

Cause economic pain on America:Success

Keep missile and drone deterrent:Success

Keep population from revolting:Success

Keep proxy networks alive:Success

Include Lebanon in peace deals, giving it a card to play versus Israel:Success

Get the Americans to pay it billions upon billions to get a deal done: partial success

Let me know if I missed anything, but on a whole, Iran, despite the tactical battering its been receiving has achieved a lot of its goals already and the Americans far fewer. While achieving goals isn't winning, per say, it does help one progress towards winning.

So Iran, by not losing, and achieving its goals, is far closer to winning than the USA is unless Trump and the military can find a way to achieve some of their strategic objectives and fast. Mid terms are less than 90 days away, and if Trump is finding this war hard now, imagine what happens if the Democrats flip the house and senate.
 
Canada added 75k jobs.

America just lost 23k jobs.

Seems like those tariffs are not having the effect the Americans seem to think they are having.
 
Altair said:
USA goals.

Destroy nuclear program: partial success

Destroy Irans navy:success

Kept the Strait of Hormuz out of iranian hands:Failure

Deal with Irans drone and missile forces:Failure

Change Irans regime:Failure

Stop Irans nuclear program going forward:Failure

Irans goals

Keep the regime in place:Success

Control straight of hormuz: Partial success

Deny anyone else control of straight of hormuz: Success

Cause economic pain on America:Success

Keep missile and drone deterrent:Success

Keep population from revolting:Success

Keep proxy networks alive:Success

Include Lebanon in peace deals, giving it a card to play versus Israel:Success

Get the Americans to pay it billions upon billions to get a deal done: partial success

Let me know if I missed anything, but on a whole, Iran, despite the tactical battering its been receiving has achieved a lot of its goals already and the Americans far fewer. While achieving goals isn't winning, per say, it does help one progress towards winning.

So Iran, by not losing, and achieving its goals, is far closer to winning than the USA is unless Trump and the military can find a way to achieve some of their strategic objectives and fast. Mid terms are less than 90 days away, and if Trump is finding this war hard now, imagine what happens if the Democrats flip the house and senate.
Click to expand...
Democrats may still flip the House, but flipping the Senate is a long shot that just keeps getting longer. They have a Senate seat in Michigan with a retiring Senator that they should be holding but have put that all in play by choosing a hard left candidate in the primary who trails the Republican candidate in polling. The Dems should also have been able to finally knock out Susan Collins in Maine, who is forever in their sights, but picked a candidate with a very questionable past (Nazi tattoo, sexual misconduct allegations) who they then had to force to step down. There were a whole slew of polls released this week and not one shows the Ds winning the Senate. Very close but with lots of toss-ups, including Maine and Texas. But I've been hearing Ds say Texas is in play for at least the last two cycles and yet it remains solidly red.

Even in the House, there seems to be more focus on intra-party fights between the mainstream and DSA candidates than on actually winning.

I hope I'm wrong but I'm becoming less and less optimistic about their ability to close the deal, despite all the gifts they've been handed.
 
MacNav63 said:
Democrats may still flip the House, but flipping the Senate is a long shot that just keeps getting longer. They have a Senate seat in Michigan with a retiring Senator that they should be holding but have put that all in play by choosing a hard left candidate in the primary who trails the Republican candidate in polling. The Dems should also have been able to finally knock out Susan Collins in Maine, who is forever in their sights, but picked a candidate with a very questionable past (Nazi tattoo, sexual misconduct allegations) who they then had to force to step down. There were a whole slew of polls released this week and not one shows the Ds winning the Senate. Very close but with lots of toss-ups, including Maine and Texas. But I've been hearing Ds say Texas is in play for at least the last two cycles and yet it remains solidly red.

Even in the House, there seems to be more focus on intra-party fights between the mainstream and DSA candidates than on actually winning.

I hope I'm wrong but I'm becoming less and less optimistic about their ability to close the deal, despite all the gifts they've been handed.
Click to expand...

Generic Congressional Ballot_ Latest Polls _ Silver Bulletin.jpg

I don't know where you are getting your polling, but according to the aggregators the Dems are not struggling at all.

And Trump is historically unpopular, so I doubt republicans will even come out to vote. MAGA yes, but republicans on a whole? Independents? No.
 
"Generic congressional ballot" measure is relevant to House, not Senate (and not presidency either).

Due to some advantages favouring Republicans (mainly, more efficient voter distribution), customarily D+1 to as much as D+3 is reckoned a dead heat. RCP average has been running between D+6 and D+7 for some time now. Ordinarily this should indicate a comfortably high likelihood of Democrats winning the House. However, the DSA faction is really swinging for the fences this year and the resulting intra-party turmoil (basically, it's their turn to have the establishment vs insurgent fight now, and they're having it big time) and a few well-chosen (made for TV ad sound bite) fever swamp statements by DSA candidates are more likely to drag them down than push them up.

The DSA (like most insurgent factions) has figured out that the best place to get a toehold is in safe seats - swamp the primary and rely on the voters pulling the party lever without much regard for who the actual candidate is. Moderates are being squeezed out of safe seats, forcing the DNC centrists to expend more resources fighting tossups. (And they're relatively short of money, with potential donors not impressed by the DSA-backed candidates.)

Primary results suggest that the DSA candidates are substantially failing to attract working class and non-white voters, but pulling in more of the post-secondary educated vote. The Democratic voter defection problem is getting worse, not better. It is not a demographic pattern for success. If polls don't catch the pattern shift, the usual rules of thumb for judging how the election might land are out the window (ie. they could overperform more than usual in the very blue districts, and lose overall despite posting a higher total vote).
 
Altair said:
Destroy Irans navy:success
Click to expand...
I think that one goes to "failure" as well. In a maritime environment as constricted as that area is, knocking out a dozen or so mostly 40 to 50 year old ships does not equate to success when Iran remains capable of shutting down any and all maritime activity it chooses to. Iran never really had a significant blue water navy. It seems clear that Iran can still influence the key strategic littoral regions without those ships.

🍻
 
Who had avocado's on their bingo card? To be fair to the US, the Cartels have a tight hold on the avocado industry, so I can imagine being a "by the book" inspector might stir up trouble and get threatened.

 
Brad Sallows said:
"Generic congressional ballot" measure is relevant to House, not Senate (and not presidency either).

Due to some advantages favouring Republicans (mainly, more efficient voter distribution), customarily D+1 to as much as D+3 is reckoned a dead heat. RCP average has been running between D+6 and D+7 for some time now. Ordinarily this should indicate a comfortably high likelihood of Democrats winning the House. However, the DSA faction is really swinging for the fences this year and the resulting intra-party turmoil (basically, it's their turn to have the establishment vs insurgent fight now, and they're having it big time) and a few well-chosen (made for TV ad sound bite) fever swamp statements by DSA candidates are more likely to drag them down than push them up.

The DSA (like most insurgent factions) has figured out that the best place to get a toehold is in safe seats - swamp the primary and rely on the voters pulling the party lever without much regard for who the actual candidate is. Moderates are being squeezed out of safe seats, forcing the DNC centrists to expend more resources fighting tossups. (And they're relatively short of money, with potential donors not impressed by the DSA-backed candidates.)

Primary results suggest that the DSA candidates are substantially failing to attract working class and non-white voters, but pulling in more of the post-secondary educated vote. The Democratic voter defection problem is getting worse, not better. It is not a demographic pattern for success. If polls don't catch the pattern shift, the usual rules of thumb for judging how the election might land are out the window (ie. they could overperform more than usual in the very blue districts, and lose overall despite posting a higher total vote).
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I'm looking at the state by state polling for the actual senate races. Wikipedia has a dedicated page for the Senate elections where they bring together the most recent predictions from a wide range of polling companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elections. Only 1 of the 11 pollsters they show is confident enough to call an outcome at this point and that's calling for the Rs to keep control of the Senate. A couple of the others see the Ds pretty close but generally it's too close to call with too many toss ups.

Only a third of the Senate is up for election in any given cycle. This time round 22 of them are Republicans so in theory that should help the Ds since they're defending fewer seats and have more options to flip seats to give them the 4 they need to take the Senate. Unfortunately a couple of their seats are in states Trump won in 2024, like Michigan. Added to that is the fact that a lot of the R states are deep red ones like Alabama, South Dakota or Tennessee where despite Trump's historic disapproval level it's pretty hard to see the Ds flipping the state.

So yeah, by all that's holy it should be possible for the Ds to take the Senate, but less than 3 months out they still have their work cut out for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top