2020 Presidential Election

[Jeffrey]

While I agree that most will not analyze the issue as much as those here at DBR, I think you underestimate the intelligence of the American electorate. Especially, given 3 1/2 years of evidence. They can simply contrast this action with his recent history. In other words, it isn't that complicated.

You may be overestimating the effort and attention span of the American electorate. Their effort and attention span, combined with their intelligence, will generate their interpretation.

I think Trump’s executive orders will help him in the polls a few weeks from now. Time will tell.

[Truth&Justise]

p.s. just saw an article in the WaPo which said money redirected from FEMA would fund enhanced unemployment benefits for about five weeks...

In hurricane season? I see no downside here...

And most of the states that tend to get hit by hurricanes are theoretically in play. Though as I understand it, there is typically a pretty long lag until FEMA money gets paid out, so he can always promise FEMA funds and then either figure out how to actually find the money after the election or make it the next guy's problem...

For Trump, I could see the play being: spend FEMA money now on augmented unemployment, then if a big hurricane strikes, ask Congress for more FEMA money. In that scenario, I doubt many in Congress would say "no, you spent the FEMA money already, we won't allocate any money to [whichever] devastated coastal area."

It might not be that simple--FEMA needs some money to be able to respond immediately to disasters while Congress gets its act together--and it's a terribly inefficient way to manage government spending, but politically there may not be much of a downside to this part since Congress will almost certainly authorize funding later if there's a disaster.

[OldPhiKap]

For Trump, I could see the play being: spend FEMA money now on augmented unemployment, then if a big hurricane strikes, ask Congress for more FEMA money. In that scenario, I doubt many in Congress would say "no, you spent the FEMA money already, we won't allocate any money to [whichever] devastated coastal area."

It might not be that simple--FEMA needs some money to be able to respond immediately to disasters while Congress gets its act together--and it's a terribly inefficient way to manage government spending, but politically there may not be much of a downside to this part since Congress will almost certainly authorize funding later if there's a disaster.

Yeah, I see this as a good move for Trump From the horse race perspective. He can credibly argue that he is the only one actually doing something since Congress is in gridlock. Force the opposition to go to court and argue that he can’t help in this manner. A FEMA shortage, or arguments about funding entitlements, is tomorrow’s problem. He needs to start movement now.

[budwom]

Yeah, I see this as a good move for Trump From the horse race perspective. He can credibly argue that he is the only one actually doing something since Congress is in gridlock. Force the opposition to go to court and argue that he can’t help in this manner. A FEMA shortage, or arguments about funding entitlements, is tomorrow’s problem. He needs to start movement now.

Yes, but the amount he can actually control is but a pittance, only five weeks worth of money for unemployment boosts, nothing for the $1200 checks both parties seemed to be in favor of. The other stuff helps him though, e.g. stopping evictions, helping with student loans...

[Skydog]

...stopping evictions,...

..delaying evictions is probably more accurate term. Eviction deferral without corresponding financial assistance creates its own set of problems for both renter and non-megacorporate landlords. But voters often think short term so if Trump can pull it off may help him in horserace.

[dudog84]

The devil's always in the details.

Are Americans smart enough? Do they care? I want to know if I'm being conned, many don't.

But cons haven't been a lucrative part of America since 1492 because they don't work.

[Furniture]

The devil's always in the details.

Are Americans smart enough? Do they care? I want to know if I'm being conned, many don't.

But cons haven't been a lucrative part of America since 1492 because they don't work.

So it looks like this could be a win for Trump here. The question is did the republicans set this up for him? Do nothing then let the president step in to make him look good...

[Jeffrey]

So it looks like this could be a win for Trump here. The question is did the republicans set this up for him?

Not at their own expense. IMO, both sides left the middle of the court wide open and Trump scored easy and critical points.

[sagegrouse]

So it looks like this could be a win for Trump here. The question is did the republicans set this up for him? Do nothing then let the president step in to make him look good...

There is comparatively little money in what he is proposing. This is a sugar high, if that.

Oh, and BTW, the strategy of cutting payments to the Social Security and Medicare funds (uh, guys and gals, that's what "payroll taxes" are) and then saying, "We can't afford to pay retirement and health benefits because the funds are running dry" is a ploy that is old as the hills.

[Jeffrey]

Not at their own expense. IMO, both sides left the middle of the court wide open and Trump scored easy and critical points.

... and, IMO, both sides look rather pathetic given Trump publicly stated the play long before he ran it.

[Jeffrey]

Oh, and BTW, the strategy of cutting payments to the Social Security and Medicare funds (uh, guys and gals, that's what "payroll taxes" are) and then saying, "We can't afford to pay retirement and health benefits because the funds are running dry" is a ploy that is old as the hills.

True, Obama ran a similar play. However, I do think it temporarily helped the economy then and probably would again now. In the end, I’m probably getting the bill again.

[Neals384]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/polit...tok/index.html

Honestly this baffles me. Can someone explain how Trump thinks this can be good for him?
I was listening to the radio station the other day and the host of the show said his daughter is 16 and wants to be able to vote now against Trump because of his threats against them. My own daughter who is 27 uses Tik Tok a lot. I don’t understand the strategy here...

“Microsoft said Sunday that it was pushing forward with talks to acquire the appfollowing a conversation between CEO Satya Nadella and the President. On Monday, Trump set September 15 as the deadline for TikTok to find a US buyer. Failing to do so, he said, would lead him to shut down the app in the country. In an unusual declaration, Trump also said any deal would have to include a "substantial amount of money" coming to the US Treasury”.

Perhaps we should consider the possibility that he honestly believes it’s important for our country to get TikTok in the US out of Chinese hands.

[PackMan97]

There is comparatively little money in what he is proposing. This is a sugar high, if that.

Oh, and BTW, the strategy of cutting payments to the Social Security and Medicare funds (uh, guys and gals, that's what "payroll taxes" are) and then saying, "We can't afford to pay retirement and health benefits because the funds are running dry" is a ploy that is old as the hills.

Money is fungible. It really doesn't matter.

[dudog84]

I don't know the answer to this, can somebody help me:

Is the sitting Attorney General allowed to campaign?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...em/ar-BB17LDNf

[Skydog]

...

Is the sitting Attorney General allowed to campaign?

...

I think everything is allowed in this administration.

[DukeHoo]

I don't know the answer to this, can somebody help me:

Is the sitting Attorney General allowed to campaign?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...em/ar-BB17LDNf

Per the Hatch Act, no. The Hatch Act explicitly applies to all executive branch employees, except for the President and Vice President, and prohibits such employees from engaging in various forms of partisan political activity (such as campaigning for a candidate while using their official titles or fundraising for a political campaign). The purpose is to prevent executive branch employees from misusing their positions to benefit candidates they like.

Whether that gets enforced at all is another matter, but the law is actually pretty clear here.

[Kdogg]

So it looks like this could be a win for Trump here. The question is did the republicans set this up for him? Do nothing then let the president step in to make him look good...

I won’t be so sure. This thing is cracking apart with only a little scrutiny over the weekend. Now that it’s a Monday, I expect a lot more push back and more flaws to be exposed.

1) For the $400:
A few governors have already said they don’t have the money. The Federal component has no plan for implantation as it side steps the UI system. Democratic won’t do it but they could sit by and let it collapse on its own. Anyone dealing with FEMA knows speed is not a strong point. Even if it passes legal hurdles it will take weeks and probably months before any money get sent out.

2) Payroll taxes:
It’s being suspended not revoked. The easiest attack would be that Trump is trying to kill Social Security and Medicare. That will play in FL and AZ. Also it will take weeks for payroll systems to update. They would wait for guidance from the IRS again another government agency not known for speed. And then there is the risk that it will come due in December. Sorry folks no Christmas money because we just delayed the bill. Now pay up. Also it doesn’t help people out of work.

3) The eviction and student loan parts might be able to get applied quicker but again no guidance.

Trump now risks people not getting anything he promises and blaming him.

[niveklaen]

I won’t be so sure. This thing is cracking apart with only a little scrutiny over the weekend. Now that it’s a Monday, I expect a lot more push back and more flaws to be exposed.

2) Payroll taxes:
It’s being suspended not revoked. The easiest attack would be that Trump is trying to kill Social Security and Medicare. That will play in FL and AZ. Also it will take weeks for payroll systems to update. They would wait for guidance from the IRS again another government agency not known for speed. And then there is the risk that it will come due in December. Sorry folks no Christmas money because we just delayed the bill. Now pay up. Also it doesn’t help people out of work.


Trump now risks people not getting anything he promises and blaming him.

The defund social security issue has real horse-race implications - my mother is part of several senior citizen heavy orgs in GA and they are all terrified that our president is promising to end social security and medicare coverage for them with his assertions that he will eliminate the funding for these programs if re-elected. I don't think that is what he is trying to do, but many senior citizens are reading his actions that way.

[budwom]

Already the notion that these moves will alter things appreciably is falling apart. There's just not enough money involved to put a dent in the problem, POTUS is already wavering on forcing states to pay 25% of increased unemployment benefits, and there's no provision for $1200 stimulus checks.

I think Meadows will be sidelined, and Mnuchin and Pelosi will work something out, just my opinion.

[dudog84]

Interesting article on Texas. Could be wishful thinking for Ds, or danger for Rs. Line that caught my eye:

Since 2016, more than 2 million Texans have registered to vote. A majority are minorities, and 1.6 million are under the age of 35, according to the state party.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...rVT?li=BBnb7Kz