https://www.yahoo.com/now/trump-rural-edge-shrinks-enthusiasm-100000391.html

Not good when his most important constituency is fading.

And Trump has mostly himself to blame. His trade war with China screwed many farmers.

Trump’s visit to Gastonia and Lumberton, North Carolina and other rural areas indicates that his campaign has realized it needs to jump start his campaign in rural areas.

Not a good sign for Trump that he has to gas up areas that should already be solidly in his corner.

8 Likes

This is certainly not helping him either in rural areas.

They were convinced that COVID would only be a problem for commie libz in bloo states.

Meanwhile, the death-panels may finally be coming after all:

7 Likes

Michigan got there in April. It’s not fun times.

1 Like

Yeah, not good. I guess that silver lining is that if Biden wins, and takes office, then it’s relatively certain that Republicans will suddenly discover that this pandemic is a real, horrifying national- and world-historical event that can be blamed on Democrats (even more than they’re already doing that).

8 Likes

Everything Trump supporters have given Trump a pass on will become frontline indicators of a failed Biden administration.

They still won’t wear masks if they think it hurts Biden.

I’m surprised any Trump supporter still has a nose having cut them off so often to defend Trump. Must be the Pinocchio gene they’ve tapped into.

6 Likes

:joy: Trump is playing them movies of Biden using his words.

And by gosh look at the size of those deficits!

5 Likes

Twice this weekend at his rally’s I heard Trump once again say that the Democrats will stop talking about the virus on November 4th. Oh, and we have rounded the corner.

1 Like

The crowds attending Trump rallies are getting larger now, especially in States where there are Dem governor’s like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Would Dems deficits be lower? If not it’s kind of a dumb point to try and make.

History says yes. Tax and spend versus don’t tax and spend .

2 Likes

Without falling back on 1998, which was not Clinton’s doing, when has this ever been true.

I’m not asking for when deficits were lower than current ones, I’m asking for when Dems wanted lower deficits than the Reps plan.

That’s kind of a confusing way to frame that since the Executive has a hand in spending as well, and we don’t do budgets any longer.

We can look at Obama who inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and it was less than half that when it was over. And they’re now back up to trillion dollars plus pre Covid and that was all GOP and their tax cuts that blew that up.

Don’t worry only Democrat deficits matter.

2 Likes

And did Obama want to spend more or less than the reps in Congress were letting him?

The correct and only answer to my question is: never. The left has never wanted to spend less than the Republicans. Which makes your jab about the deficits rather dumb.

1 Like

Is that what you’re going with? They really wanted to spend less but they just couldn’t? Lol

And it’s not actually not true, the Dem controlled Congress’s budgets were smaller than what Reagan ultimately spent. That’s when budgets got completely sideways, under that dangerous radical Ronald Reagan who completely hijacked the GOP.

Umm. No. That wasn’t my claim.

My claim was that the left has never desired to spend less than the right.

In the Obama era, did Obama ever want smaller budgets than the republican? Nope.

In the current Government, did Nancy ever want to spend less than the senate? Nope.

I’ll have to look up the Regan era you reference. Any specific years I should look up?

Give this man a gold star.

I’d have to refer to a book I’ve read on Reagan’s spending but the majority of them should suffice.

So you’re hiking with intent versus actual results?

Deficits will matter starting around Jan 21st, 2021.

2 Likes

Doesn’t matter. The left may tax and spend, but the right borrows to spend. Which is more expensive than just taxing in the first place.