What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Duque de Bragança]

I have no idea what symbols, if any, are Vichy-related.

A weird ax thingie which was Petain's symbol.



There's also this, according to wiki:

I am not sure they are banned, Swastikas and SS are, for sure.
Funny thing, a former socialist president, François Mitterrand, was given the Francisque Axe, the Legion of Honour Vichy-style, reserved to "Aryans". 

Second symbol is mostly unknown, nowadays.

[derspiess]

Stick your head in the sand all you like. You know nothing about the area that I live in and what Ossoff's percentage of the vote actually means.

Fine.  But all I'm saying is that in a special election like this that sees an unprecedented level of spending (on both sides), ad buys, campaign mailers, national attention, etc. I wouldn't regard it as a bellwether for 2018 either way.

Yes, lots of people hate Trump.  And I'm sure the GOP will lose seats in 2018, as per the historical pattern.  But if I were a Democrat (or left-leaning libertarian or whatever), I wouldn't draw too much hope from a close loss under these circumstances.

[Valmy]

Funny thing, a former socialist president, François Mitterrand, was given the Francisque Axe, the Legion of Honour Vichy-style, reserved to "Aryans". 

He was a Vichy guy though right? I remember he would do random things like put flowers on Petain's grave.

[crazy canuck]

Stick your head in the sand all you like. You know nothing about the area that I live in and what Ossoff's percentage of the vote actually means.

Fine.  But all I'm saying is that in a special election like this that sees an unprecedented level of spending (on both sides), ad buys, campaign mailers, national attention, etc. I wouldn't regard it as a bellwether for 2018 either way.

Yes, lots of people hate Trump.  And I'm sure the GOP will lose seats in 2018, as per the historical pattern.  But if I were a Democrat (or left-leaning libertarian or whatever), I wouldn't draw too much hope from a close loss under these circumstances.

Your point would be stronger if the Dems spent an unprecedented amount and the Republicans spent as per usual, but since both sides devoted a lot of resources why isnt it significant that the Dem candidate came so close in a contest where the Dems historically do very poorly?

[Valmy]

Yes, lots of people hate Trump.  And I'm sure the GOP will lose seats in 2018, as per the historical pattern.  But if I were a Democrat (or left-leaning libertarian or whatever), I wouldn't draw too much hope from a close loss under these circumstances.

That seems to be a contradictory statement to me

But hey lots can go wrong between now and then. No reason to get all hopeful or anything.

[derspiess]

Your point would be stronger if the Dems spent an unprecedented amount and the Republicans spent as per usual, but since both sides devoted a lot of resources why isnt it significant that the Dem candidate came so close in a contest where the Dems historically do very poorly?

My point is that when there is so much attention and money involved (and FWIW the Dems spent more), it skews things.  You're not going to get "normal" election results.  But if the Democrat candidate in that district wins next year (or gets 48% of the vote), you guys can all laugh at me and tell me you told me so.

[Duque de Bragança]

Funny thing, a former socialist president, François Mitterrand, was given the Francisque Axe, the Legion of Honour Vichy-style, reserved to "Aryans". 

He was a Vichy guy though right? I remember he would do random things like put flowers on Petain's grave.

Yep, he changed sides though during the winter '43-'44.
In his youth, he demonstrated against "l'invasion des métèques". Not even Jean-Marie could or can do that. 

[crazy canuck]

Your point would be stronger if the Dems spent an unprecedented amount and the Republicans spent as per usual, but since both sides devoted a lot of resources why isnt it significant that the Dem candidate came so close in a contest where the Dems historically do very poorly?

My point is that when there is so much attention and money involved (and FWIW the Dems spent more), it skews things.  You're not going to get "normal" election results.  But if the Democrat candidate in that district wins next year (or gets 48% of the vote), you guys can all laugh at me and tell me you told me so.

But why do you think "attention" skews the result?  Do you think Democratic voters in that area are less likely to vote normally?

[Valmy]

In the unlikely event the Democrats win a victory next year I will be very gracious.

[derspiess]

Your point would be stronger if the Dems spent an unprecedented amount and the Republicans spent as per usual, but since both sides devoted a lot of resources why isnt it significant that the Dem candidate came so close in a contest where the Dems historically do very poorly?

My point is that when there is so much attention and money involved (and FWIW the Dems spent more), it skews things.  You're not going to get "normal" election results.  But if the Democrat candidate in that district wins next year (or gets 48% of the vote), you guys can all laugh at me and tell me you told me so.

But why do you think "attention" skews the result?  Do you think Democratic voters in that area are less likely to vote normally?

Seems like it always happens in these special elections.  Polls hint at an upset win, tons of money and media attention flow in, upstart candidate narrowly loses, then next election things are back to normal.

But I could be wrong.  Maybe next year the Dems will get supermajorities in both houses, Trump and Pence will both be impeached and removed from office, and Nancy Pelosi will then become our next president.

[Valmy]

Maybe next year the Dems will get supermajorities in both houses

And maybe next year I quantum teleport to Venus. Getting a majority of any sort in either chamber will be a miracle.

[The Brain]

Maybe next year the Dems will get supermajorities in both houses

And maybe next year I quantum teleport to Venus.

OK Tim.

[The Minsky Moment]

Correct. Originally this was a huge referendum on Trump. But now that it went the wrong way, it's meaningless.

It's not meaningless.  The GOP averted what would have been a political disaster and in that sense it is definitely a victory for them.  But is the GOP congress looking at this result and taking great comfort?  I think not.

[alfred russel]

It highlights what a disaster Trump is in educated suburban areas. Romney and the incumbent Republican won the district by 23 points. Trump won it by a couple. Handle, running against a 30 year old that doesn't seem to have much in terms of work history, won by 4.

[Barrister]

Correct. Originally this was a huge referendum on Trump. But now that it went the wrong way, it's meaningless.

It's not meaningless.  The GOP averted what would have been a political disaster and in that sense it is definitely a victory for them.  But is the GOP congress looking at this result and taking great comfort?  I think not.

Taking great comfort?  Clearly not.

But neither are they of the opinion that Trump is an anchor pulling them all to their doom.  Ossof won the same % of the vote as Clinton did a few months ago.  If this was a referendum on Trump it means that opinions haven't changed that much since election day.  Which in some ways makes sense - if you were paying attention President Trump has acted just like Candidate Trump was.  And if you weren't paying attention, well you still aren't.