PDA

View Full Version : Do you think anything will dent Trump's base?



John Smith
06-01-2017, 09:14 AM
My view has been that there are people who voted for him and continue to support him who will not change their minds unless/until they actually do lose their health insurance.

The 37% or so that seems as if they will stick with him, IMO, are people who watch FOX, where they are being told the AHCA is a GOOD thing for them, and the tax plan will help them find jobs, and some of them simply don't pay any attention to what is going on.

If the AHCA passes into law, and these people start losing their health insurance, maybe they'll pay attention and/or find different news sources.

If none of this passes congress, and these people feel no pain, I don't thing voting patterns will change much.

Gerarddm
06-01-2017, 09:19 AM
My argument for some time now has been exactly that. Remember when he insulted supporters by his Fifth Avenue shooting statement, and they didn't perceive the contempt? Those people are impregnable to logic.

Softer supporters will start to peel away when their personal finances are adversely effected, but that is it.

S.V. Airlie
06-01-2017, 09:23 AM
Simple answer, NO!

Chris Coose
06-01-2017, 09:44 AM
Once they make a gain they stand hard. They'd rather be crucified that to retreat to anything that would appear to be snowflake liberalism.
We've seen it in Maine for 7 years now.

TomF
06-01-2017, 09:49 AM
Trump's superpower is "winning;" the base will desert him when they shift to somehow perceive him as "losing."

I don't yet have a clear idea what that looks like; martyrdom is a form of winning too, eh?

Dan McCosh
06-01-2017, 09:59 AM
Trump wil keep his support until there is a Democratic base that presents a reasonable program that addresses the problems he raises--health insurance, job losses, etc. Otherwise, the politics of alternate realities will continue.

Keith Wilson
06-01-2017, 10:05 AM
Ed Kilgore in Washington Monthly this morning. (source (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/in-the-trump-era-america-is-racing-toward-peak-polarization.html))


In the Trump Era, America Is Racing Toward Peak Polarization
By Ed Kilgore

There is a venerable centrist point of view that partisan polarization is a function of Washington’s warring politicians, who inflate artificial differences into causes for political war. Out there in the country, it is thought, Americans simply want politicians to come together and work out sensible, centrist policies. Whatever this gospel’s general applicability, it is increasingly clear that in the era of Donald Trump it’s The People who are even more polarized than their representatives in Washington.

A new poll from Morning Consult for Politico has this jarring news: After the president’s first overseas trip, his job-approval ratings rose. But so, too, did the percentage of Americans who want impeachment proceedings against him to begin posthaste. Indeed, we are rapidly approaching the point where Americans are basically divided between those who think the president’s doing a good job (45 percent at present), and those who think he should be removed from office before his first term ends (43 percent at present).

Unsurprisingly, these sentiments closely match partisan preferences. According to this same poll, 82 percent of self-identified Republicans approve of Trump’s job performance, 46 percent of them strongly. Seventy-nine percent of self-identified Democrats disapprove of Trump’s job performance, 65 percent of them strongly. These grassroots Americans are really, really at odds. That becomes even more obvious when the possibility of impeachment is introduced. Seventy-one percent of Democrats want Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. Over half of these impeachment supporters say Trump is unfit to serve, whether or not he has committed an impeachable offense. Seventy-six percent of Republicans oppose the idea.

For all the talk about anti-Trump Republicans and moderate Democrats, the truth is there is not a lot of support out there for anything other than the highly partisan approach Trump and the congressional GOP have taken this year, and for what some Democrats have called “the resistance.” When we get to the point where nobody is left between Trump supporters and impeachment supporters, maybe that will finally become obvious: There really isn’t any middle ground right now.

Norman Bernstein
06-01-2017, 10:08 AM
I suspect that his 'base' will slowly erode...maybe not by a great deal, but certainly enough for the possibility of a Democratic senate or even Congress... and certainly enough for a return to a Democratic president in 2020.

There will always be a small hard core constituency for Trump.... but if it's 37% now, then 30% or less would represent something substantial.

Sky Blue
06-01-2017, 10:12 AM
Statehouses, Governorships, The House, The Senate, The Presidency.

Removing Trump won't create a center where none now exists.

Paul Pless
06-01-2017, 10:16 AM
Statehouses, Governorships, The House, The Senate, The Presidency.

Removing Trump won't create a center where none now exists.are you still a trump supporter sky?

Sky Blue
06-01-2017, 10:21 AM
are you still a trump supporter sky?

Are you still a Hillary supporter?

S.V. Airlie
06-01-2017, 10:22 AM
Are you still a Hillary supporter?In other words, Sky IS!

Keith Wilson
06-01-2017, 10:23 AM
You didn't answer the question.

TomF
06-01-2017, 10:31 AM
You didn't answer the question.Note the lack of surprise in that observation.

Sky Blue
06-01-2017, 10:38 AM
If you're asking whether I would still vote for Trump if his opponent was Hillary Clinton and the election was held tomorrow, the answer is unreservedly "yes."

This shouldn't be a surprise (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-23/despite-historically-low-approval-ratings-only-2-trump-voters-regret-their-decision) to anyone.

Paul Pless
06-01-2017, 10:39 AM
Spin spin spin

That's not what I asked. Your evasion speaks volumes.

Sky Blue
06-01-2017, 10:40 AM
Spin spin spin

That's not what I asked. Your evasion speaks volumes.

Are you still a Hillary supporter?

S.V. Airlie
06-01-2017, 10:42 AM
What is Hillary running for Sky?

Paul Pless
06-01-2017, 10:44 AM
No, and I've posted as much.

TomF
06-01-2017, 10:49 AM
SB, did you notice that Paul didn't mention (or even implicitly refer to) Clinton when he asked if you still supported Trump? That actually, you've introduced Clinton as a way of deflecting discussion away from whether or not you continue to support Trump now, in his present actions and tweetings and etc. as President.

I'm not interested in who you'd vote for in an election which is over. I'm interested in whether you continue to strongly support Trump, in respect of how he's done his job to date creating an effective and trusted White House, sticking to and making genuine headway on the key themes of his stated agenda, strengthening American strategic interests in geopolitics, including positively affecting relations with Europe, containing the N Korean crisis, creating the context for the positive change he's anticipating in the Middle East through championing American values during his swing through the Middle East, etc..

On a scale of 1-5, what's your present level of personal support for Trump, in terms of being the effective President you'd hoped for.

Paul Pless
06-01-2017, 10:56 AM
Maybe SB didn't vote for Trump to be an effective president.

TomF
06-01-2017, 11:08 AM
Maybe SB didn't vote for Trump to be an effective president."Some guys just want to watch it burn."

mdh
06-01-2017, 11:44 AM
That becomes even more obvious when the possibility of impeachment is introduced. Seventy-one percent of Democrats want Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. Over half of these impeachment supporters say Trump is unfit to serve, whether or not he has committed an impeachable offense. Seventy-six percent of Republicans oppose the idea.

So, 71% of dem voters are having a conniption fit, and refuse to honor the results of the election. That's a position that was proclaimed loudly, so un-American, when it was hiliary accusing Donald Trump of it. My bet, is that the percentage of lamestream media is even higher.

Reynard38
06-01-2017, 12:02 PM
To paraphrase the great philosopher George Carlin, Trump could feed 10,000 orphans and widows to rats and his supporters would not abondon him.
Not until it costs them their $$ or thier children. One or both will occur.

TomF
06-01-2017, 12:02 PM
It is pure and simple BS to claim that 71% don't honour the result of the election. I know that is what Trump says over and over, but (this might surprise you, mdh) HE'S LYING.

People are riled about the Russia reports which all of the West's Intel agencies say have substance, and about the Trump team's fervent denials, till the denial is no longer tenable. Also about the habitual lying and "alternative facting" and "fake newsing" which is bringing American institutions into real disrepute, and the lack of any realization of why that is important.

Chip-skiff
06-01-2017, 12:11 PM
If none of this passes congress, and these people feel no pain, I don't think voting patterns will change much.

As far as feeling pain, quite a few Trump voters are insensible, whacked out on painkillers.

https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/images/data/vs-map-state-rx-rate-lg.jpg

birlinn
06-01-2017, 01:31 PM
Sitting on a porcupine should dent his base.

Sorry. But it's a tempting thought.

LeeG
06-01-2017, 02:44 PM
Maybe through the investigation of Trumps finances his associations with Russian oligarchs will bother some people but for the most part his base is happy he's screwing with the functioning of govt and bringing disrespect to the office and the country.

TomF
06-01-2017, 03:11 PM
Yeah. When you've been socialized to think that the US Government is the enemy, then any action which hurts the ability of the US government to be effective doing ... anything ... is a "win."

John Smith
06-01-2017, 03:14 PM
If you're asking whether I would still vote for Trump if his opponent was Hillary Clinton and the election was held tomorrow, the answer is unreservedly "yes."

This shouldn't be a surprise (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-23/despite-historically-low-approval-ratings-only-2-trump-voters-regret-their-decision) to anyone.

Hillary Clinton is probably the most qualified person ever to run for the office. The baggage she carries is pretty much undeserved. I suspect her cabinet appointees would all be qualified people. I guess, to some, none of that matters.

George Jung
06-01-2017, 03:30 PM
Fascinating - TomF has managed to emasculate, and muzzle, SB - and all in one sentence.

That is your super-power; use it early, and often!

skuthorp
06-01-2017, 03:37 PM
No I don't. Forget the 22% Trump/Rep supporters, it's that 44% no showers you need to convince.
Re references to Clinton, the Trump supporters still need the Clintons it seems if no one else does.

George Jung
06-01-2017, 03:41 PM
Trump has many methods to his madness - deflection, flights of fancy, and - the need for an ever-present, 'liberal' adversary. At present, they mostly have retired from battle, content to simply watch Trump et al self-immolate. But he's doing his darndest to resurrect one, for personal reasons.

skuthorp
06-01-2017, 03:45 PM
Our conservative government spends a great deal of its public presence invoking the opposition as well. It has been remarked upon.

Rum_Pirate
06-01-2017, 03:48 PM
On the grounds that despite all the sh!t being thrown at him and the sh!te he provides himself, nothing seems to stick, and thus Mr Trump appears to be acquiring a new nickname "The Teflon Don". :rolleyes:

S.V. Airlie
06-01-2017, 03:52 PM
On the grounds that despite all the sh!t being thrown at him and the sh!te he provides himself, nothing seems to stick, and thus Mr Trump appears to be acquiring a new nickname "The Teflon Don". :rolleyes:He's had that name for years, long before he tried over his ascension to the WH.

John of Phoenix
06-01-2017, 04:13 PM
The question should be, "Do you support what trump is doing?"

Concordia...41
06-01-2017, 06:23 PM
The guy could club baby seals on live TV :( I don't get it... :(

mdh
06-01-2017, 10:00 PM
It is pure and simple BS to claim that 71% don't honour the result of the election. I know that is what Trump says over and over, but (this might surprise you, mdh) HE'S LYING.

People are riled about the Russia reports which all of the West's Intel agencies say have substance, and about the Trump team's fervent denials, till the denial is no longer tenable. Also about the habitual lying and "alternative facting" and "fake newsing" which is bringing American institutions into real disrepute, and the lack of any realization of why that is important.

Quoted from post #7 71% of democrats want congress to initiate impeachment proceedings - for what crime? Not one crime has been alleged, so on what grounds do you initiate proceedings? They just don't like him? They are being prodded along by a media that is at war with Trump, and are attempting a coup. At some point, people are going to realize that the press has led the dems down this path of destruction, Republicans gain more control every election, and they will have finally destroyed themselves.

TomF
06-02-2017, 07:58 AM
Quoted from post #7 71% of democrats want congress to initiate impeachment proceedings - for what crime? Not one crime has been alleged, so on what grounds do you initiate proceedings? ...There's a logical fallacy in your thought, mdh. One can't wish to impeach someone who is not actually holding an office.

Dems who support impeachment think that the guy who won last November certainly won as a result of lying, and through the interventions of a foreign power's lies and manipulations of American public opinion. Many deeply suspect that this happened with the collaboration of the Trump team, and that the evidence of such illegality will come out if investigations are permitted to conclude in a thorough way.

But the impeachment talk isn't about an election do-over, and not accepting that Trump's win technically satisfied the Constitution's provisions; it did. The impeachment talk is about "high crimes and misdemeanors" which Trump may have committed while in office. Specifically related to obstruction into investigations into potential collaboration between the Russians and the Trump team. Obstruction was, you'll remember, the "high crime" which led to the only 2 impeachment proceedings of modern times.

Nixon actually won the election for his second term; his critics didn't deny it, and his impeachment wasn't about a "do-over" because they didn't "accept" the election result. What sunk him was criminality, and a Congress which eventually proved bipartisan and patriotic enough to punish it even in the President.

Norman Bernstein
06-02-2017, 08:10 AM
Quoted from post #7 71% of democrats want congress to initiate impeachment proceedings - for what crime? Not one crime has been alleged, so on what grounds do you initiate proceedings? They just don't like him?

Precisely.

Aside from treason or bribery (the ONLY two factors quoted by the Constitution), the definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is left to the judgment of Congress.

So, yeah, a President can be impeached if they 'just don't like him'.

Not that I'm advocating such a thing; personally, I don't support the notion of impeaching Trump... at least, not yet.

mdh
06-02-2017, 08:34 AM
There's no logical fallacy on my part, i don't suffer any socialist diseases. Comey testified before Congress that he wasn't obstructed, his deputy director also testified that he knew of no obstruction. In that session he also disposed of the claims that the FBI had requested additional funding just prior to Comey's firing. Why do 71% of dems think Trump did something illegal? Is it because a couple of newspapers an television stations have hammered them with lies, loaded with speculation and innuendo?

As even the nonexistent obstruction you mention leads back to the election, it is, indeed, failure to honor it.

S.V. Airlie
06-02-2017, 08:42 AM
There's no logical fallacy on my part, i don't suffer any socialist diseases. Comey testified before Congress that he wasn't obstructed, his deputy director also testified that he knew of no obstruction. In that session he also disposed of the claims that the FBI had requested additional funding just prior to Comey's firing. Why do 71% of dems think Trump did something illegal? Is it because a couple of newspapers an television stations have hammered them with lies, loaded with speculation and innuendo?

As even the nonexistent obstruction you mention leads back to the election, it is, indeed, failure to honor it.Because he has, if not outright illegal, amoral. Trump Uni is an example, he bought his way out of that and there are more examples during his rein as a supposed businessman. I'm just amazed that he's gone through six bankruptcies and people think he's a great businessman. STRANGE!

John Smith
06-02-2017, 08:45 AM
Quoted from post #7 71% of democrats want congress to initiate impeachment proceedings - for what crime? Not one crime has been alleged, so on what grounds do you initiate proceedings? They just don't like him? They are being prodded along by a media that is at war with Trump, and are attempting a coup. At some point, people are going to realize that the press has led the dems down this path of destruction, Republicans gain more control every election, and they will have finally destroyed themselves.

I disagree. There are crimes alleged. He gave Russians classified information and let them know who gave it to us. I'm not sure that is not a crime. If he and his colluded with Russia to interfere in our election, I suspect that would be a crime.

Stay tuned.

I'd also note that two nations that NEED the world to use more oil are Russia and Saudi. Think that has something to do with his pulling us out of the Paris Accord?

John Smith
06-02-2017, 08:47 AM
There's no logical fallacy on my part, i don't suffer any socialist diseases. Comey testified before Congress that he wasn't obstructed, his deputy director also testified that he knew of no obstruction. In that session he also disposed of the claims that the FBI had requested additional funding just prior to Comey's firing. Why do 71% of dems think Trump did something illegal? Is it because a couple of newspapers an television stations have hammered them with lies, loaded with speculation and innuendo?

As even the nonexistent obstruction you mention leads back to the election, it is, indeed, failure to honor it.

Comey's obstructions came after that testimony.

TomF
06-02-2017, 08:56 AM
Mdh, Clinton's "high crime" wasn't receiving consensual oral sex; blue dresses get stained every day in Washington. Clinton's "high crime," such as it was, was in "obstructing" Ken Starr's investigation by lying about whether he'd ever "had sex with that woman."

Nixon's "high crime" wasn't in actually burgling the Watergate hotel - he didn't do it. The opinion is still mixed on whether he, himself ordered it, or knew at the time of the break-in. Nixon's "high crime" was obstructing the investigation into the burgling of the Watergate hotel.

Trump's "high crime," if Congress finds that the evidence from investigations emerges, may very easily NOT be having phone calls himself with Russians, and may not even be directing his team to have them on his behalf. Trump's "high crime" looks like it may be obstruction of the investigation into allegations of his team's collusion.

And - pay attention here - and obstruction of an investigation is a crime whether or not the investigation itself ultimately discovers illegality about, whatever. Clinton found that while getting a blowjob is legal, obstructing an investigation about whether he got a blowjob was illegal. Remind me if Ken Starr discovered anything else which led to anyone's prosecution and conviction.

The Russia story is in fact a big deal; big enough that Putin is now hedging his comments. Floating the notion that patriotic Russians acting entirely on their own may have hacked the American election ... because he's anticipating that evidence of hacking will likely be introduced into the public realm through these various investigations which 'till now has remained classified.

It sounds rather like patriotic Russian nationals rising up all spontaneously in the Ukraine, eh? Using Russian military equipment and wearing Russian military uniforms with the sewn-on insignia hastily enough removed that one can still see the places on the cloth where it used to be.

But whether or not Putin can keep a straight face while claiming non-involvement and whether or not Trump's senior advisors each escape conviction is beside the point. The point - the impeachable offence - doesn't rest on whether that happened at all. It rests on whether Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation into it, and whether there's a sufficient evidentiary trail to prove the attempted obstruction. Like, for instance, Comey's series of memos.

S.V. Airlie
06-02-2017, 08:56 AM
Comey's obstructions came after that testimony.mdh would say that's just a minor detail!

mdh
06-02-2017, 09:12 AM
How do you reconcile the fact that Comey's memo(s) preceded his testimony? He is, by statute, obligated to make notice of any attempt to obstruct, not file a memo away for future reference. Likewise, when asked if he'd been obstructed by Congress, he was under oath. Where do you come up with these suspicions? The NYT, WAPO, CNN?

S.V. Airlie
06-02-2017, 09:17 AM
How do you reconcile the fact that Comey's memo(s) preceded his testimony? He is, by statute, obligated to make notice of any attempt to obstruct, not file a memo away for future reference. Likewise, when asked if he'd been obstructed by Congress, he was under oath. Where do you come up with these suspicions? The NYT, WAPO, CNN?Of course, you haven't taken into account who his boss is, Jeff Sessions, one of Trump's biggest puppets. Comey probably thought that giving him this information would have it swept under the rug or buried in some dark hole never to see the light of day.

TomF
06-02-2017, 09:27 AM
You're suggesting that the memos were written after the fact?

Comey's apparently been known throughout his career to have written memos to file to document specific problematic meetings, problematic statements, etc. A memo he'd written to document a sensitive situation is what brought him to prominence back in the GW Bush days, when the issue was the Constitutionality of torture, eh? Given that long-known history of his work practices, it is entirely credible to see Comey writing memos to file in this situation too. Particularly as it appears that he's shared copies of those memos, often at or close to the time they were written, with colleagues to ensure the continued existence of this audit trail.

If it turns out that Comey felt at the time that the President's interventions with him constituted obstruction, then yes, Comey should be subject to whatever punishment is due for that. He's already provided his reasons for why he did not feel at the time that it met the criteria, and the legal discussions since have described how American legal precedent about obstruction views individual instances of a behaviour differently when placed in a broader pattern of behaviour. Your courts have ruled that what isn't "obstruction" when a simple one-off is "obstruction" when understood as a contributing piece of a pattern of behaviour. Comey's explanation of his own choice to document rather than talk to Congress is consistent with that - as is his expected testimony that as his understanding of the context of the President's comments with him changed, his opinion of whether an individual instance was "obstruction" or not also changed.

This isn't rocket science.

mdh
06-02-2017, 09:51 AM
Oh. He changed his mind? That's his prerogative. Did this occur before or after he was fired? His competence is sure taking a hit here.

TomF
06-02-2017, 09:58 AM
No, his credibility isn't taking a hit, really. It is rather common that when a broader array of data is available, it tells the analyst a different story than when there's a single incident.

LeeG
06-02-2017, 10:16 AM
On the grounds that despite all the sh!t being thrown at him and the sh!te he provides himself, nothing seems to stick, and thus Mr Trump appears to be acquiring a new nickname "The Teflon Don". :rolleyes:

If you can't recognize he's spewing sh!t then you probably can't see he's covered in it.

mdh
06-02-2017, 10:40 AM
No, his credibility isn't taking a hit, really. It is rather common that when a broader array of data is available, it tells the analyst a different story than when there's a single incident.


I gues i haven't heard of this 'broader array', unless you are referring to the hyped speculation and innuendo from the sources i noted. So far, Comey's said nothing of obstruction, himself, so what charge do these 71% of democrats base their desired impeachment? Obstruction that's been dreamed up by media irritants?

S.V. Airlie
06-02-2017, 10:43 AM
I gues i haven't heard of this 'broader array', unless you are referring to the hyped speculation and innuendo from the sources i noted. So far, Comey's said nothing of obstruction, himself, so what charge do these 71% of democrats base their desired impeachment? Obstruction that's been dreamed up by media irritants?Let me guess, you only watch FOXNEWS and read Breithart and InFoWars for your information!

John Smith
06-02-2017, 11:51 AM
Mdh, Clinton's "high crime" wasn't receiving consensual oral sex; blue dresses get stained every day in Washington. Clinton's "high crime," such as it was, was in "obstructing" Ken Starr's investigation by lying about whether he'd ever "had sex with that woman."

Nixon's "high crime" wasn't in actually burgling the Watergate hotel - he didn't do it. The opinion is still mixed on whether he, himself ordered it, or knew at the time of the break-in. Nixon's "high crime" was obstructing the investigation into the burgling of the Watergate hotel.

Trump's "high crime," if Congress finds that the evidence from investigations emerges, may very easily NOT be having phone calls himself with Russians, and may not even be directing his team to have them on his behalf. Trump's "high crime" looks like it may be obstruction of the investigation into allegations of his team's collusion.

And - pay attention here - and obstruction of an investigation is a crime whether or not the investigation itself ultimately discovers illegality about, whatever. Clinton found that while getting a blowjob is legal, obstructing an investigation about whether he got a blowjob was illegal. Remind me if Ken Starr discovered anything else which led to anyone's prosecution and conviction.

The Russia story is in fact a big deal; big enough that Putin is now hedging his comments. Floating the notion that patriotic Russians acting entirely on their own may have hacked the American election ... because he's anticipating that evidence of hacking will likely be introduced into the public realm through these various investigations which 'till now has remained classified.

It sounds rather like patriotic Russian nationals rising up all spontaneously in the Ukraine, eh? Using Russian military equipment and wearing Russian military uniforms with the sewn-on insignia hastily enough removed that one can still see the places on the cloth where it used to be.

But whether or not Putin can keep a straight face while claiming non-involvement and whether or not Trump's senior advisors each escape conviction is beside the point. The point - the impeachable offence - doesn't rest on whether that happened at all. It rests on whether Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation into it, and whether there's a sufficient evidentiary trail to prove the attempted obstruction. Like, for instance, Comey's series of memos.

That's not entirely true. Clinton was given a definition of 'sexual relations' by Jones' attorneys that was approved by the judge. IT DID NOT INCLUDE RECEIVING ORAL SEX. By that definition, he did not have sexual relations with Monica. What made this interesting were a couple of things. First question; was there a legal means by which Jones' lawyers knew about the blue dress? Second thing to consider is if Jones' lawyers were only acting on her behalf, they would have simply asked Bill Clinton if he had received oral sex from Monica: a simple straightforward question. There is a reason the did not do that. If Clinton answered 'yes' to that question, their client would be home free, but Ken Starr would have been out of gas.

John Smith
06-02-2017, 11:56 AM
I gues i haven't heard of this 'broader array', unless you are referring to the hyped speculation and innuendo from the sources i noted. So far, Comey's said nothing of obstruction, himself, so what charge do these 71% of democrats base their desired impeachment? Obstruction that's been dreamed up by media irritants?

Comey most certainly has, and we'll see what he testifies to soon.

The chronology is important. This will be a single piece of a multi-piece puzzle. One day, not too far off, there will be enough pieces in place that no one can stand by Trump.

David G
06-02-2017, 12:39 PM
http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/4a0d7b2/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Ff8%2Fcc%2F 08d20aa44cb685f7e2e4a7cf7aef%2F3-matt-davies-newsday-and-andrews-mcmeel-syndicate.jpg

http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/fcfb29e/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fe1%2F31%2F 17f693c44af7996cc6a30998b98e%2F5-pat-bagley-salt-lake-tribune.jpg


http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/a505245/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fb8%2F70%2F ff29b2414dc6a04a66311f9c766e%2F6-matt-davies-newsday-and-andrews-mcmeel-syndicate.jpg