Donald Trump, AntiSemite, Shows Through Statement About Disloyalty Of Jews Who Vote Democratic, As They Always Have

Donald Trump revealed his antiSemitic views yesterday, exasperated that 75 to 80 percent of American Jews consistently vote Democratic, accusing them of disloyalty to the nation, a typical antiSemitic trope long used against Jews throughout history.

This man, who said there were “good people on both sides” in Charlottesville, where white supremacist young men chanted that “The Jews will not replace us”, and who David Duke and Richard Spencer rave about, since his white supremacist views have continued to evolve, even after the El Paso and Dayton Massacres, cannot understand why Jews are Democrats.

American Jews are Democrats because they are promoters of Social Justice and progressive causes, and many of them are troubled by Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s policies toward Palestinians, as Israel pursues a policy of denying basic human rights to them, undermining good will internationally towards Israel,

The fact that Netanyahu has not denounced Trump over this antiSemitic trope is troubling, and causes a chasm between American Jews and many Israelis.

American Jews voted 79 percent for Democrats in Congress in 2018, and American Jews have always voted in vast majorities of at least 60 percent since the early 20th century, with the exception of 1920. The lowest otherwise was Woodrow Wilson in 1916, John W. Davis in 1924, Jimmy Carter in 1980,and Walter Mondale in 1984, but with Davis and Carter having a progressive challenger on the left who took substantial percentages of the vote.

Here are the stats:

1916–Woodrow Wilson 55 percent

1920–Eugene Debs (Socialist) 38 percent behind Warren G. Harding (R) 43 percent and James Cox (D) 19 percent

1924–John W. Davis 51 percent with Robert La Follette Sr (Progressive) 22 percent and Calvin Coolidge (R) 27 percent.

1928–Alfred E. Smith 72 percent

1932–Franklin D. Roosevelt 82 percent

1936 FDR 85 percent

1940 FDR 90 percent

1944 FDR 90 percent

1948 Harry Truman 75 percent and Henry A. Wallace (Progressive) 15 percent and Thomas E. Dewey (R) 10 percent

1952 Adlai Stevenson 64 percent

1956 Stevenson 60 percent

1960 John F. Kennedy 82 percent

1964 Lyndon B Johnson 90 percent

1968 Hubert Humphrey 81 percent

1972 George McGovern 65 percent

1976 Jimmy Carter 71 percent

1980 Carter 45 percent, Ronald Reagan (R) 39 percent John Anderson (Independent) 15 percent

1984 Walter Mondale 57 percent

1988 Michael Dukakis 64 percent

1992 Bill Clinton 80 percent

1996 Clinton 78 percent

2000 Al Gore 79 percent

2004 John Kerry 76 percent

2008 Barack Obama 78 percent

2012 Obama 69 percent

2016 Hillary Clinton 71 percent

Notice that progressives who were not Democrats—Eugene Debs in 1920, Robert La Follette Sr in 1924, Henry A. Wallace in 1948, and John Anderson in 1980—took substantial number of votes away from the Democratic Presidential nominee.

So with those exceptions, Democrats have won 60 percent or more of the Jewish vote since FDR onward, except for Jimmy Carter in a three way race in 1980 and Walter Mondale and 57 percent against the landslide of Ronald Reagan in 1984.

The Facts: Net Job Creation From George H. W. Bush To Donald Trump, Democrats Dominating!

If one looks at net job creation in America since 1989, the facts are as follows:

George H. W. Bush—2.64 million (1989-1993)

Bill Clinton—22.91 million (1993-2001)

George W. Bush–1.36 million (2001-2009)

Barack Obama–11.62 million (2009-2017)

Donald Trump—5.74 million (2017-2019)

This is a total of 34.5 million net jobs created over thirty years.

The Republican Presidents controlled the government for 14.5 years, while the Democrats controlled for 16 years.

The two Democratic Presidents presided over net gain of 34.5 million, to the three Republican Presidents presiding over net gain of 9.7 million.

So Democratic Presidents were responsible for nearly three and a half times net job creation as Republicans were, a massive lead

Barack Obama has greater job creation in his last 30 months, more than Donald Trump in his first 30 months.

And now, a recession is coming, after more than ten years, an all time record for economic expansion, and therefore, the Trump total will probably, by the end of his term, be much smaller, maybe less than George W. Bush, who brought us the worst economic times since Herbert Hoover!

Age Distribution Of America’s Presidents

At a time when we have a more massive difference in ages of Presidential contenders than we have ever had in American history, this would be a good time to look at the history of the age distribution of America’s Presidents.

At this time, Democratic Presidential contenders range from age 37 to 77, with Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders at opposite ends, and with them being 39 years and one day old and 79 years and four months old, respectively, on Inauguration Day in 2021.

Of America’s 44 Presidents, nine ranged from age 42 (Theodore Roosevelt) to age 49 (James K. Polk). Now, we could have a President who would be younger than TR or the youngest elected President, John F. Kennedy, in Pete Buttigieg or Tulsi Gabbard, who would be both 39 when taking the oath, making them the youngest President in American history.

Twenty four Presidents have been in their 50s, ranging from Millard Fillmore at age 50 to James Monroe at age 58, and with other Founding Father Presidents James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington all 57, along with John Quincy Adams, all coming close to the average age of 55 historically. Five Presidents have been age 54; four have been 55; and 3 have been 56. while five were 51 years of age.

Eleven Presidents were 60 up to 70 and a half years of age, ranging from Harry Truman at age 60 to Ronald Reagan age 69 (just 19 days short of 70) and Donald Trump, at 70 years and about seven months. This list, however, includes Truman and Gerald Ford, who succeeded to the Presidency, and were not elected at the age they came in, about a month and a half apart in age at ages 60 and 61 respectively.

And five of these eleven were 60-62 years of age, leaving only six being age 64 and higher at inauguration, with Zachary Taylor and William Henry Harrison dying in office; Ronald Reagan believed to have developed Alzheimers in his second term; George H. W. Bush having major health issues in office, although he lived to be 94; and Donald Trump, believed by many to have mental health issues. Only James Buchanan, rated by most historians as the worst President, at least until Donald Trump, seems to have had no major issues other than his general incompetence at age 65 to 69 in office.

Now the likelihood of an older President in his or her 70s comes to the forefront, at the same time that we could have one of the youngest Presidents ever, if not the youngest, with Julian Castro and Beto O’Rourke among those who are in their 40s.

This is food for thought, as to what is the best direction for America in 2020!

Need For A Challenger To Donald Trump In Republican Party–But Jon Huntsman Or John Kasich, NOT Mark Sanford!

It is past time for some legitimate Republican to challenge Donald Trump, and attempt to save the Republican party brand.

As much as former Governor William Weld of Massachusetts is attempting such a challenge, he is not strong enough, or well known enough, to have any real chance.

The only legitimate challengers would be the two best in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential sweepstakes—Jon Huntsman, former Utah Governor, Ambassador to China under Barack Obama, and now resigning as Ambassador to Russia under Donald Trump; and former Ohio Governor and long term Congressman John Kasich.

The idea that former South Carolina Governor and former Congressman Mark Sanford might run is not a realistic or worthwhile endeavor, as Sanford had a sex scandal a decade ago that forced him out of the Governorship, and he is no model for Presidential leadership skills and ability, which at least William Weld does have.

Huntsman or Kasich would be a realistic alternative for conservatives who are appalled by Donald Trump in every way possible!

Kentucky, The State With The Two Worst Senators, But Appealing To Racism Of White Working Class And Poor, And Remaining In Office

Kentucky is one of the bottom ten states in economic statistics, and its two United States Senators are probably the worst combination of Senators of any state.

Kentucky is a state of many poor whites in Appalachia, with very meager education, if any beyond high school, and resentful of minorities advancing, although they are a smaller percentage than most states. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul have exploited the fears of their ignorant, poorly educated white population to stay in power, and do absolutely nothing for their citizenry.

Only Louisville, the home of the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, and Lexington, with the University of Kentucky, have any signs of interest in progress beyond the exploitation of fear of the federal government. And yet, if left up to them, McConnell and Paul would cut and destroy Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as well as mining laws that protect workers.

And Matt Bevin, an extreme right wing conservative, and wealthy businessman in the tradition of Donald Trump, managed to be elected in 2015, and faces reelection this November. Kentucky has only had three Republican governors since World War II, but one can be sure Trump will campaign among gullible poor whites, and stoke fear of minorities and of “socialism”, the programs of the New Deal and Great Society that keep these people above water, although barely.

Kentucky will have its gubernatorial election in November, with Andy Beshear, the son of the previous Governor, Steve Beshear, and presently Attorney General of the state, trying to defeat a governor considered close to the worst in the nation. Let us hope that he succeeds, as his father was considered an outstanding governor.

A Massive Economic Recession, Possibly Depression, Is On The Horizon, And Timing Is Crucial

America has had its longest economic expansion in its history, more than 10 years, brought about under Barack Obama, and continuing under Donald Trump, but would have continued if Hillary Clinton had been inaugurated.

But what goes up must come down, the “gravity rule”, and Donald Trump has insured a future massive recession, maybe even a depression, by his insane policy on tariffs.

China is punishing us in the tariff wars, and Trump has lied to the American people about who suffers when such wars occur. It is NOT China, but American consumers, and American farmers, and this will lead to a massive revolt against Donald Trump 15 months from now.

If Trump studied history, he would know that two past Republican Presidents, Benjamin Harrison in 1892, and Herbert Hoover in 1932, suffered massive defeat as a result of the McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. It led to the Panic of 1893 and the Great Depression of 1929.

But Trump has no knowledge of history, or economics, or of any topic imaginable, as he is easily the most ignorant, clueless, and purely stupid President we have had, and makes Warren G. Harding and George W. Bush look like scholars by comparison.

The issue is WHEN the economic collapse will come, and hopefully, before the election, as if it happens after, and Donald Trump is reelected, he will do nothing to alleviate the worst aspects of the coming recession or depression, and will have four years to impoverish America further, and incite white working class people against women and minorities, who he will blame for his own shortcomings.

Open Civil War could come as a result, and lead to the total destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the great American image as the beacon of freedom and democracy could be permanently destroyed.

So we must hope that the collapse, as painful as it is, will occur in time to lead to a massive defeat of Donald Trump, with a Democratic President coming in to save us, as with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 and Barack Obama in 2009.

Time For John Hickenlooper, Steve Bullock, And Beto O’Rourke To Give Up Presidential Candidacies, And Run To Help Create Democratic Senate Majority In 117th Congress!

It is time for three Presidential contenders to give up their candidacies and run instead for the US Senate in their states, and help create a Democratic Senate majority for the 117th Congress of 2021-2022.

Former Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado; Montana Governor Steve Bullock; and former Texas Congressman from El Paso, Beto O’Rourke, have no real opportunity to continue further, although O’Rourke has qualified for the third Democratic debate in Houston in September. Despite that, and his courageous and outstanding reaction to the El Paso Massacre, it is clear that he is NOT going to progress any further to the top tier of candidates.

Bullock is fascinating, and did well in the second Presidential debate, but he came in too late, and has no traction, despite his being quite impressive.

And Hickenlooper, well, he is a massive dud, and apparently is leaving the race later today.

All three would be wonderful Senators, and the Democrats need a minimum gain of four seats, or three, if the Vice President in the next term is a Democrat, and can organize the Senate majority.

If the Democrats win the Presidency, but fail to win the Senate majority, then nothing will be accomplished, as Mitch McConnell or his successor as Senate Majority Leader, will bottleneck any agenda of any Democrat, whether it be Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, or Pete Buttigieg, the most likely choices at this point to be serious contenders for the Democratic nomination for President.

Billionaires Howard Schultz And Tom Steyer Represent Threat To Democratic Victory In 2020

The last thing the country needs is another multi billionaire who has no government experience as a Senator, a Congressman, a Governor, a Mayor, a Cabinet Officer, or a military career.

We have gone that route with Donald Trump, and while multi billionaires Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer might be considered vastly different than Trump for sure, still the reality is that they are simply running, because they have the financial means to run, and do not need to ask for public support and funding.

That in itself is an outrage, and we should not consider anyone who has not faced Americans in a voting situation in his or her past, and a proven record of accomplishment, to be our President.

The fear is that either Howard Schultz, who has said he will run as an Independent, and Steyer, who is saying he is a candidate for the Democrats but could decide to run an Independent race, could be on the ballot in all or most states, and take away votes that would favor the Democratic nominee, and throw away the hard efforts of the Democrats, and reelect Donald Trump.

Either or both could become the spoiler, as was the case with Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader being on the ballot in Florida, and taking away the election from Al Gore, in favor of George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential election.

Democrats Need Only About 40 Percent Of White Vote To Win Presidency If Minority and Women Voting Percentage Is High And Committed To Cause

In the midst of the turmoil of the Presidential campaign of 2020, the reality is that Democrats have lost the White vote in every election for the past 40 years, except Bill Clinton in 1996.

IF Democrats gain about 40 percent of the total white vote, mostly from suburban women, college educated men and women, and socially aware whites of both genders, they can win this next election, if the following caveats occur:

Voter Suppression, Gerrymandering, and Russian collusion is able to be controlled, where it does not undermine the will of voters.

African Americans, Latino and Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and younger voters of both genders turn out to vote in larger numbers than they did in 2016, as compared to 2008 and 2012.

If disappointed far left Progressives of the Bernie Sanders variety agree to overcome their resentment, and come out and vote for a likely moderate progressive candidacy, then victory over Donald Trump is insured.

Of course, having a woman, a minority person, or a gay candidate on the ticket for Vice President would help, meaning Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, or Pete Buttigieg as the running mate, if not the nominee in any of these cases.

A Sense That Two”Old White Men” (Biden, Sanders) Are Declining, And Two Women (Warren, Harris)Are Rising In The Democratic Presidential Sweepstakes

As the summer wears on toward Labor Day, a growing feeling among many political observers is that the two “old white men”—Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders—are declining in support, and that two women—Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris— are rising in the Democratic Presidential sweepstakes.

One can see that Sanders is clearly slipping in support, while Warren, in particular, and Harris lesser so, are clearly rising, but what about Joe Biden, who remains as the front runner?

Well, Biden has been making a lot of gaffes recently, blunders that are embarrassing, and making one wonder if he is in mental decline, a sad thought, but not uncommon in the late 70s. Joe is loved by millions, and certainly is far less harmful and dangerous than Donald Trump, but the fear is that he will not be able to perform well in debates with Trump. When he debated Republican Vice Presidential candidates Sarah Palin in 2008 and Paul Ryan in 2012, he was outstanding, as he was in the Presidential debates in 2008 although he could not get voting support once the caucuses and primaries began in that year.

This is 11 and 7 years later, and it is worrisome that Joe Biden may not be up to the grueling demands of a campaign and to serve as President from age 78 to age 82 or 86. And although Bernie Sanders may seem in better shape by comparison at the moment, he would be 79-87, 14 months older than Biden in a one term or two term Presidency.

After the experience of Ronald Reagan’s decline in office, notable in his second term, and Donald Trump’s every day signs of dangerous decline, the question is whether electing either Biden or Sanders, or even Elizabeth Warren, who would be 71-79 in two terms of office, older at inauguration than Donald Trump was, is a wise idea.

So even with Warren surging, it could be that Kamala Harris, who would be 56-64 in two terms of office, might have the edge as voters look to the Democratic caucuses and primaries, and the election itself in less than 15 months.