Biden Leads Trump By 5% in AZ

A poll by OH Predictive Insights shows Joe Biden as the only Democrat who is currently leading Donald Trump in the state of Arizona.

Joe Biden (D) 49%
Donald Trump (R-inc) 44%

Donald Trump (R-inc) 47%
Elizabeth Warren (D) 42%

Donald Trump (R-inc) 46%
Beto O’Rourke (D) 40%

Donald Trump (R-inc) 48%
Kamala Harris (D) 39%

Donald Trump (R-inc) 46%
Pete Buttigieg (D) 37%

Donald Trump (R-inc) 46%
Bernie Sanders (D) 37%

This poll was done May 1-2 among 600 likely voters.

Posted by Dave at 4:05 pm
Filed under: General | Comments (113)

113 Responses to “Biden Leads Trump By 5% in AZ”

  1. mnw says:


  2. VictrC says:

    Like the Dem nominee in 2020 will finish in the election… Im number 2

  3. Chicon says:

    Chicon says:
    May 7, 2019 at 4:32 pm
    Wes, so far we’ve seen two examples where you misrepresented history to support your point in 379. You wanted to show a 2-3 year cause and effect lag between an event and a bad result. So far you’re wrong on two – once on correlation and twice on causation. Are you able make your point without making up the supporting facts?

  4. VictrC says:

    Avoiding the whole “are tariffs good or bad in this case argument” I found this nugget at the end of the politico article:

    “Change came in November, when the voters responded favorably to a Democratic pledge to cut the federal budget as they campaigned against not only the McKinley Tariff but also the spendthrift “billion-dollar Congress.””

    Wait….Dems wanted to cut the budget!?!?!?!?!….and the “billion dollar Congress” Heck, now a billion is a rounding error!!!

    How times change

  5. Chicon says:

    Still looking for cause and effect evidence that the horrid effects of the dot com bubble bursting weren’t rectified until fixed by the Bush tax cut of 2001. I’ll report back if I find it.

  6. Chicon says:

    Wes is on more solid ground regarding the effects of Smoot Hawley worsening the Depression, although there were many causes.

    The authors support Wes, but acknowledge that “While economic historians generally believe the tariff was misguided and may have aggravated the economic crisis, the consensus appears to relegate it to a minor status relative to other forces.”

  7. Tgca says:

    Siete Bebe! Siete!

  8. Chicon says:

    Wes, here’s what you wrote in 379 of the last thread…

    “With the exception of the GHWB tax increases in 1990, it took anywhere from 2 to 3 years for the salutory or negative effects of each of these economic endeavors to have a noticeable effect on the economy.”

    This was after a list of events which are alleged to have resulted in bad stuff a couple years later. The point seems to be that these examples prove that Trump’s tariffs will result in a bad economy in a couple years. We shall see.

  9. Tgca says:

    All you people be stoopid as we used to say growing up in da hood!

    Economic theory will not, and is not always constant when there are large behavioral changes in society. Free trade is not free trade when one side applies trade barriers. It’s a farce! Maybe that works when you’re trading llamas with toothless folks in da hills but it ain’t what’s going on today in westernized societies.

    The economy has been slowly shifting and will continue to do so over time as attitudes and technology force change. It may not be an abrupt change but it’s slowly evolving and you must adapt so stop you’re whining and complaining…and guess what? We will continue to have economic dips and surges over time regardless who is presidente.

    I may not be an informed and expert economist like AOC but I did take like 5 or so economic classes between grad and undergrad so therefore I must know what I’m tawkin about because otherwise they would not teach it in college.

  10. Tgca says:

    Ok. I gotsta go mow my yard. Grass is a foot high. Luckily, I have a high powered self-propelled manly transformer-like power mower that even has night lights for evening mows.

    Damn! I’m butch!

    SDC could never handle this manly machine.

  11. Chicon says:

    I feel for Mnw; his team is playing game seven tonight. It is at home and his team is better and should win. But none of that applies to a fan of the team – for the fan it is the worst, and the best. Stay safe, Mnw.

  12. mnw says:


    U r very kind. However…

    I DON’T think the Blues are better than the Stars, based on all their playoff games to date. The last game, Game 6, is the only really good game I’ve seen the Bs play so far–out of 12 games total.

    The Blues’ special teams are demonstrably the worst among the 8 finalists. Their neutral zone puck handling has been poor– resulting in way too many 2-on-1 breaks. They are winning 44% of the faceoffs, last I heard. The first line hasn’t been producing– leading to two line shakeups in the current series against the Stars.

    The best things about the playoff Blues have been their goalie; coach Berube & Jason Schwartz.

  13. Chicon says:

    Mnw, to me, the Blues have carried the play most of the time. Both goalies have had times of dominance. Should be a fun game for me to watch, but I remember those games when it was the Hawks – talk about stress….

  14. SanDiegoCitizen says:

    10. “SDC could never handle this manly machine.”

    Have to confess, I have not mowed a lawn in a long time. In the urban area I live, we have jasmine growing instead of grass in the medium and other areas facing the street. It discourages dogs and homeless people from utilizing the areas as their public toilet; and tech data harvesting scooter/dockless bike companies from littering the area with their junk products.

    I agree with everything that Tgca says about tariffs.

  15. mnw says:

    I have a really good idea about how to broadcast playoff hockey, but… it will never happen:

    Let the regular season, local TV team call every playoff home game. The fans would LOVE that. The local broadcasters would love it. NOBODY wants to listen to the network broadcast team, not unless there’s no other choice. I’d LOVE to check out the Stars’ regular season broadcast team. Fun. I bet they’d love to hear Darren Pang, too.

    Pang used to be a Hawks goalie, as you likely know. Back around the time when Grover Cleveland left office.

  16. mnw says:


    Game 5 was the first time I ever saw the Blues get booed at home.

  17. Chicon says:

    Mnw, cheers on the menu tonight, imo. Enjoy the game.

  18. jason says:

    ut it ain’t what’s going on today in westernized societies”


    Tgca thinks tariffs are modern and Western?


    Sorry, protectionism and isolationism are older than the hills.

    There is nothing “new” or “modern” about them.

    Tariffs are a true and tested form of increasing taxes, reducing wealth, and curtailing economic activity.

  19. Tina says:

    Wray never said no,spying….he refused to answer

    Shaheen: And do you believe, Director Wray, that the FBI and its agents spied into the 2016 presidential campaign operation?

    Wray: Well, again, I want to be careful about how I answer that question here because there is an ongoing inspector general investigation. I have my own thoughts based on the limited information I’ve seen so far but I don’t think it would be right or appropriate for me to share those at this stage, because I really do think it’s important for everybody to respect the independent inspector general’s investigation, which I think this line of questioning starts to implicate and I think it’s very important for everybody to be able to have full confidence in his review.

  20. Bitterlaw says:

    Today is my wife’s birthday.


  21. Tgca says:


    You do know that the US grew as a nation through the use of its tariff protection for over 100 years until it implemented a tax system in the early 1900s and started to become an economic powerhouse, right? Had it not been for those tariffs for a fledgling nation, then the US may not have survived economically. That goes to my point about change over time. The US has had 3 major economic booms in its history starting with the railroad industry followed by post WWII industrialization and then the tech revolution. I believe we are entering a new one which is a combination of tech and medicine, and I believe that will be followed by a new energy boom within 20 years from improved technologies. Tech, medicine, and energy will drive the future and that will change economies and global behaviors, as we are already seeing.

    Even Adam Smith believed in moderate tariffs. He did not believe in lop-sided tariffs like we have with China or complete non-restricted trade because he understood all economies were not on the same footing. Most agree, that isolationist policies and extreme protectionist taxes harm in the long run but no free market exists when there is lop-sided and restrictive trade where one side not only limits your product but steals it and capitalizes off it which reduces US exports to otherwise free trade those products in certain regions. So forcing China’s hand to moderate it’s tariffs I believe will not do lasting damage to the US economy, and may even benefit it as China opens its doors a little more just like Nixon helped China start to interact with the Western world. That will allow the US to more competitively export to regions it is closed out by tariffs and product theft.

  22. Tgca says:

    …and what did Bitter get his special lady on her big 60th? I’m sure it was very expensive and memorable.

  23. Bitterlaw says:

    16. Damn. St. Louis fans are soft.

  24. mnw says:

    These aren’t the warm, embracing fans Philly is famous for.

  25. Chicon says:

    If Philadelphia fans are the comparison, all fans are soft.

  26. Bitterlaw says:

    The carnage continues. Not even news anymore. Nothing will ever change it so there is no reason to discuss any solutions. There are no solutions.

  27. VictrC says:

    Bitter …. a very happy birthday to the Mrs. Bitter. Im sure you got her something wonderful, and made it a great night for her.

  28. Bitterlaw says:

    Philadelphia fans respect effort.

  29. Bitterlaw says:

    My wife is 51, not 60.

  30. Chicon says:

    Philly fans booed Mike Schmidt, ffs. Nuff said.

  31. Tgca says:

    I’m told Bitter got the wifey season passes to the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society so now he has an excuse to attend Flower Power shows on a regular basis. What a thoughtful birthday gift.

    I think it’s awesome that Bitter has grown into quite the cat-adoring, sweater-wearing, turtleneck-loving metrosexual over the years, as Philly is the perfect city for that kind of emasculated straight man.

  32. Bitterlaw says:

    Tell the rest of the story. Schmidt was interviewed by a Canadian.

  33. Bitterlaw says:

    Canadian journalist and trashed the fans. He must not have thought the story get back to Philadelphia.

  34. Chicon says:

    “Phillies fans were on Schmidt every day for almost 20 years, even after he won two National League MVP Awards, even after he won them a World Series and darned near won them a second one. It is impossible to think of any corollary, in any other city, of a player spending his whole career being the best player on his team and having the team’s city be so critical of him the entire time.”

  35. mnw says:

    Cards fans only ever booed ONE player: ss Gary Templeton.

    Ever hear of “the Gary Templeton Ladies’ Day Salute”?

  36. mnw says:

    I DO love those guys!

  37. lisab says:

    president trump had more than twice the number of female donors in q1 than the top dem candidate, who was kamala harris.

    (this is just the number of female donors, which is why kamala harris was the top dem)

  38. Sheeple, Jr. says:

    mnw and ChiCon:
    Congrats to your Blues in an amazingly exciting Game 7 double overtime win.
    I bet that you guys needed hours after the game to temper your adrenaline rushes!
    One of these years my NY Rangers will once again be competitive.

  39. jason says:

    Tgca’s post is a masterful combination of facts and false assumptions leading to a conclusion that has no basis on the preceding text.

    “I believe we are entering a new one which is a combination of tech and medicine, and I believe that will be followed by a new energy boom within 20 years from improved technologies. Tech, medicine, and energy will drive the future and that will change economies and global behaviors, as we are already seeing.”

    This is an excuse for tariffs and economic isolationism?

    The argument for free trade is actually much stronger in a globalized economy. In a globalized economy, you should compete on a world stage. That means you produce and export what you can be competitive in and import what others are more competitive in. In the case of the US, that might well be the improved technologies you mention, it is not trying to artificially protect US industries from trinkets made in China.

    “That goes to my point about change over time.”

    So your point is really that tariffs have become more effective over time, when all the evidence is exactly the opposite? Even if I accepted your argument (I don’t) that the US “grew because of tariffs” as we can see it certainly didn’t work in the 20th century.

    Actually free trade, free flow of goods and capitalism has been the greatest creator of wealth in the history of world, and the US has greatly benefited from it.

    “So forcing China’s hand to moderate it’s tariffs I believe will not do lasting damage to the US economy,”

    We are not “forcing China to moderate its tariffs”, we are imposing unilateral tariffs on the rest of world. We are imposing a huge tax on the population segment that can least afford it. The argument that this is not damaging to the economy is false, the data show it IS damaging to the economy. The fact the economy is growing anyway is not because of tariffs, it is in spite of them, and it is costing billions in subsidies to farmers to keep a lot of them from going under.

  40. jason says:

    “Global Meat-Eating Is On the Rise, Bringing Surprising Benefits (”

    AOC hardest hit.

  41. Chicon says:

    Sheeple, I am a Hawks fan. I’m sure Mnw is feeling good today!

  42. jason says:


    You can’t beat Tina for nicknames.

  43. Wes says:

    L. Ron Paul endorses Tulsi Gabbard for President. Honestly I’m n

  44. Wes says:

    L. Ron Paul endorses Tulsi Gabbard for President. Honestly I’m not sure if this helps or hurts her:

  45. Wes says:

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
    —Albert Einstein

    Reed Smoot and Fred Hawley want to say hello, Tgca.

  46. Chicon says:

    40 – free trade is a great idea. Let us know when the Chinese sign up for it. This just in, the trade war started years ago. Mnw is correct, the trade deadenders believe in unilateral disarmament.

  47. Wes says:

    I’m sorry. Willis Hawley.

  48. Tina says:

    Not new.

    Piers Morgan
    ‘In the early ’90s, I owed billions & billions of dollars, & nearly went under. Many of my friends went under. It was a very tough time.’
    – what @realDonaldTrump told me in 2008.
    Why is everyone now ‘shocked’ his leaked tax returns confirm this?

    1:40 AM – May 8, 2019

  49. Tina says:

    Art of the comeback tells that story.

  50. lisab says:

    i am probably the only person in minnesota who does not care at all about hockey

  51. lisab says:

    free trade is a great idea. Let us know when the Chinese sign up for it.

    if you are a ceo whose company makes steel or cars or computers etc.

    and you can build

    a.) one factory in the usa


    b.) one factory in china


    c.) one factory in china and one factory in the usa

    and china puts a tariff of 25% on goods imported from the usa

    and the usa has 0% tariffs,

    where will you build the factory?

  52. lisab says:

    one suspect in the colorado shooting is rumored to be transgendered …

  53. lisab says:

    “By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.” donald trump

  54. lisab says:

    “We did not obtain Donald Trump’s actual tax returns. But we obtained printouts from his official IRS tax transcripts, with the figures from his federal tax form, the 1040, from someone who had legal access to them.” ny times

  55. Tina says:

    Drats going full muh taxes…

    Muh taxes from the 1980s, when cccp sanders praised the Soviets.

  56. Tina says:

    Here are the 10 missteps from Benito
    Weissman s uh Fuhrer Muleheads report:

  57. Tina says:

    During the Judiciary Committee hearing, Barr added a third criticism of Mueller’s non-decision decision, testifying: “The other thing that was confusing to me was that the investigation carried out for a while as additional episodes were looked into, episodes involving the president. So my question is or was ‘Why were those investigated if at the end of the day you weren’t going to reach a decision on them?’”

  58. jason says:

    free trade is a great idea.”

    It is, but you don’t believe in it, neither does Trump and neither do any of the AFL-CIO conservatives here.

    The canard that the US cannot promote free trade as a principle because there are other countries that don’t practice it is like saying we can’t promote free enterprise because some countries are still communist.

    I don’t care if some of the AFL-CIO conservatives here think protectionism and economic isolationism is a great idea.

    What irks me is all the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the “oh we like free trade too, except…. BS, BS, and BS”.

    Go ahead and defend protectionism and isolationism as a principle. Trump has certainly done if for decades. But spare us the

    1) Negotiating tactic BS
    2) Tariffs are a vehicle to free trade BS
    3) Tariffs are temporary BS
    4) There can be no free trade unless every country in the world engages in free trade BS
    5) Tariffs are not damaging to the economy BS
    6) Tariffs have worked in the past BS
    7) Tariffs are only directed at China BS
    8) Tariffs are not a tax hike BS
    9) Tariffs are a modern tool in a “changing economy” BS

    Chuck Schumer is onboard for more tariffs. The AFL-CIO conservatives should ask why is that?

    The answer is the Dems and the fat cat union bosses have been begging for a way to keep obsolete, poorly managed, non-competitive industries from having to compete in a global economy for decades. Somehow they think consumers want to pay much higher prices to protect the power of big labor to keep electing Democrats.

    And now they have their champion, Donald Trump.

  59. Tina says:


    White household assets executive privilege over Muleheads report.

    Congress is now stuck.

    Barr is a savage wolverine.

  60. Tina says:

    White House *

  61. jason says:

    where will you build the factory?”

    Impossible to answer without knowing labor costs, raw material costs and availability, regulatory environment, route to market, tax regime, and dozens of other parameters besides tariffs.

  62. jason says:

    White household”


    What about the black household?

  63. jason says:

    Barr is a savage wolverine.”

    Is there any other kind? I hear they don’t make good house pets.

    But I like the description.

  64. Chicon says:

    “It is, but you don’t believe in it”

    Another of Jason’s lies. In the dichotomous mind, if you ever believe there is one instance in which you support a tariff you are an isolationist and protectionist through and through. Purity is required, which is why he’s a trade deadender.

    Lying about the positions of others is what Jason does (unfortunately Wes is picking up this habit, too). Why does Jason feel he needs to do this? People with strong positions don’t need to do that. Oh, well.

  65. Marco Rubio says:

    It’s thad that Arithona is in play. I would definitely win Arithona!

    Thank you for your thupport.

  66. Chicon says:

    62 – Cop out. Those Chinese are noted free traders. If the inefficient American company would simply overcome the Chinese tariff and hand over their intellectual property while the American government doesn’t invoke any tariffs on Chinese products, then we’d have Trade Deadender Nirvana. That’s free trade, baby…

  67. mnw says:

    Sheep & Chicom

    Mostly I just feel WRUNG OUT this morning. Im too old for that much tension.


    I think fair trade with China is the hill Trump will die on if necessary. He is actually trying to do what every POTUS since Carter has tried, & failed, to do: change China’s notorious, predatory trade policy. I admire him enormously for that.

    Greg Gutfeld said right after Trump was sworn in, “Trade is his toy box.”

  68. Chicon says:

    Mnw, congrats on last night. Ready for another month?

    Agree on the trade comment. The trade was has been underway for a long time. The Trade Deadenders – like the 70’s flower children – are in full ostrich mode.

  69. Chicon says:

    Trade war, not trade was.

  70. janz says:

    #57. Tina, great Federalist article outlining the mueller report mistakes.

  71. dblaikie says:

    I would like to offer my simplistic view on the Free Trade issue. First I agree with Jason that free trade is extremely important. Without free trade capitalism is crippled. But here is the problem — China doesn’t play by the rules. The tension this causes has gone on for years. As someone who believes in Free Trade I am very nervous with Trumps tariffs. I guess I am willing to see if these talks using tariffs as a big stick work. But I also believe that Trump is playing with fire and he might get.burned.

  72. mnw says:


    I guess so. It’s too bad the next round overlaps with my kids’ final exams week. It will be tricky to take them to a game.

  73. Chicon says:

    72 – I largely agree. My question for months has been how to change how China operates. What tools are available to the American government other than the tariff?

  74. mnw says:


    That would be “NONE.”

  75. jason says:

    if you ever believe there is one instance in which you support a tariff you are an isolationist and protectionist ”


    Talk about lies. One instance?

    I bet you haven’t ever seen a tariff you didn’t like.

    Yesterday you were attacking the article that stated tariffs have never worked in the past, you obviously disagreed.

    At least mnw is honest, he is on record here saying he believes in tariffs and trade wars. He doesn’t hide behind the “I don’t like like tariffs, but I love Trump’s tariffs” BS.

    Why don’t you just go ahead and admit you think economic isolationism and protectionism is a great idea instead of beating around the bush and advancing the “f–king for virginity” argument.

  76. Chicon says:

    76 – lol. Always fun to see Jason triggered.

    See 72 and 74 above.

  77. jason says:

    “As someone who believes in Free Trade I am very nervous with Trumps tariffs. I guess I am willing to see if these talks using tariffs as a big stick work. But I also believe that Trump is playing with fire and he might get burned.”

    There is no reason why he won’t get burned just like everyone else playing with fire.

    I am skeptical about the “negotiating tactic” for 2 reasons.

    1) The Chinese are not stupid, and if everyone thinks its a negotiating stance they will too. Plus, usually when you point a gun at someone who also has a gun you probably should not be firing blanks.

    2) Trump has a long history of advocating for protectionism and isolationism. I think those here that think this is all for show and that he really is a free trader at heart are seriously misguided.

  78. mnw says:


    They have no alternatives on China.

  79. jason says:

    What tools are available to the American government other than the tariff?”


    That is like saying let’s give aspirin to a cancer patient.

    Actually worse, since the result of tariffs is a massive tax hike on American consumers.

    More like let’s give poison to a cancer patient.

    I have discussed at length here on the many alternatives to tariffs and what I think the US should engage in as a long term trade policy in order to be competitive in world markets AND advance free trade.

    The problem is the tariff lovers don’t like any of them.

  80. mnw says:

    “managed decline” again. The Zero/Clinton policy.

    If only the U.S. could make competitive products! /s

  81. Chicon says:

    The stuff you advocated previously amounted to asking nicely. The 70’s Flower Child approach to the Soviets. Got any that haven’t failed?

  82. jason says:

    The stuff you advocated previously amounted to asking nicely.”



    You didn’t like it because it didn’t involve burying your head in the sand and pretending a globalized world didn’t exist.

  83. jason says:

    If only the U.S. could make competitive products! /s”

    This one is easy to translate.

    It means instead of investing in technology, efficiency, and innovation, and producing and selling goods and services that we can make better and cheaper and that others actually want to buy, let’s try to compete with the Chinese making trinkets for Wal Mart because we know the US consumers want to pay 3 times more for the trinkets.

  84. jason says:

    Instead of having a low tax, low regulation, pro business environment that stimulates companies to compete in world markets, lets try to avoid all that work and create a little walled island here in the US, where we can have obsolete business models, outdated technology and pay artificially high wages to protected union workers producing goods we think US consumers want to pay much more.

  85. Tgca says:


    Clearly we can agree on more than not but I disagree with you on some important finer points. Economic theory is not set in stone like the laws of physic in the known macro universe (they do differ significantly at the quantum level though but I digress), as you previously alluded to in posts. Economic theory involves not only behaviors but changes in economies as well.

    There are expected similarities in economic expectations over time but there are also differences. We are in a perfect example right now where the economy is booming even though federal spending appears to be out of control and inflation is lower than expected and we have significant poverty in certain areas. These are not having the economic impacts as previously expected. I believe that has to do with the changing economy and trends we are seeing where folks are acting in ways that differ than traditional economic theory expectations based on how they react to not only gubbermint policies but new technologies in their daily life impacting their personal economic needs, and changing their reactionary behaviors.

    It is not reasonable to say the economy of today will react the exact same way to influences that it did in the 1930s, 1950s, and 1980s. There are some differences we are seeing in this new technological world that were never tested before in economic theory.

    As I so wonderfully articulated previously so you could better comprehend as to why your indigenous education on Llama Economic Theory does not completely apply today, behaviors of individuals are changing in these new growth sectors involving amalgamation of high tech, medicine, and soon to be super growth in high tech energy. These are changing the world and how people use and react to them, and hence, economic patterns and results.

    It does not mean your overall theory is incorrect, it means some of the nuances you apply may not be as impactful as in the past.

    Again, we do NOT have free trade with China because it is grossly lopsided trade, and any moderate tariffs to help equalize that will be beneficial, as China is pushed to open its markets and stop their excessive tariffs and technology theft. Every US POTUS in the last 40 years have not addressed this elephant in the room and Trump is trying to do so.

    To say because our economy runs on and only prospers on free trade principles there should be no enforcement measures against that principle, is like saying because we are a society of law abiding citizens and if not for that, then society collapses when we know many of our laws are violated routinely and society has not collapsed, even in some very egregious law behaving situations.

    There is a balance needed, and if there are habitual violators of trade, then moderate tariffs can be a mechanism to help equalize free trade, otherwise, it is ignored and exacerbates into worsening economies. Just like we don’t let criminals take over the land, we should not let free trade violators run amok either otherwise, that could cripple economies as well. There will be some economic correction and economic impact from moderate tariffs but that is offset by the larger benefit when free trade is really free.

    …and for every article you post that faults Trump’s tariff position with China, you can find others that talk about the positive impact it has as well. China is in a very precarious situation and if the US does not help to correct it now, the US will find its free trade less available to a significant part of the world, as China tries to become the economic powerhouse of all Asia and eventually locking the US out of those markets, probably hurting the future US economy much more than any moderate tariffs.

    Comprende? Got it?

  86. Tgca says:


    Now that I have schooled you in economics, when are we going to get together in Amish country for a veggie burger and seaweed salad? We can discuss more economic basics then too.

  87. Chicon says:

    Jason’s translation skills are at rat level.

  88. Tgca says:

    Referring to Trump’s views of the past as a business man is not a solid argument here because he is operating on a much larger and global scale than his prior industry work. After all, Reagan was a Dem and active supporter of FDR policies so what does that say about the way he governed as POTUS.

    Many here believed Trump was a fraud or not fit to be a GOP president because of his past actions and have consistently stated he’s a Dem at heart, supported liberal policies…blah blah blah but he has governed more conservatively than any GOP POTUS in the last 30 years and IMHO would have governed more conservatively than a Jeb or Marco presidency so that suggests his governing views today are not always tied to his past views and actions.

  89. Chicon says:

    TG, great post in 86. Thanks for the info.

  90. jason says:

    Long post but fails spectacularly on two main points:

    The theory that because “economic theory” might be somewhat dynamic (although principles are not) that somehow justifies a trade policy based on tariffs and protectionism is absolutely false. You fail to make this connection because there isn’t one.

    Second, the “nuance” argument is also based on the false premise that these are “moderate” tariffs. There is of course nothing “moderate” about them, a 25% tariff is massive not moderate and the negative consequences far reaching. Not that I advocate “moderate” tariffs either.

    And finally, you confuse trade “violations” with trade policy. You can pursue free trade while at the same time enforcing the rules and regulations that govern it. The appropriate response to “violations” is not tariffs.

    “offset by the larger benefit when free trade is really free”

    I really actually thought you were smarter than to buy the AFL-CIO conservative fallacy that the way you get to free trade is by imposing massive tariffs.

  91. jason says:

    Ok, sorry, 3 main points.

  92. Tgca says:

    88 Agreed Chicon

    Often some missthe points folks are trying to make as they just repeats over and over about the virtues of free trade when that’s not what most here disagree upon. We’re trying to explain, there is little free trade with China and they are already hurting the US economies with their excessive tariffs and technology theft as they grow and expand into markets, locking the US out of at some point.

    The analogy on a gun does not apply either. I guess the US should not respond to terrorist attacks or acts of war either because that makes markets uneasy and can impact economies in the short run. Excessive tariffs and technology theft is an attack on the US economy that can have decades of negative impact if not addressed. One has to have a long view on things and not simply a short view because otherwise, the situation worsens much more significantly than a moderate short-term corrective action.

  93. jason says:

    Tgca, the “changing world” you mention does not justify isolationism and protectionism. Quite the opposite. Whether you like it or not, the world’s economy is more globalized than ever, and protectionism makes even less sense than before. The concept that we can close the borders economically and just ignore the world economy has long left the station so to speak. The US can either take a leadership role in the “changing world” or it can be relegated to the sidelines trying to “protect itself”.

  94. Tgca says:

    It fails in your mind but not many others. Trying to tie me to liberal policies is just your inability to convince others of the substance of your argument by name calling. I work in an industry where we spend billions annually on large construction projects and though rising costs are always a concern, more concern is about losing market share by not taking action at the moment because we look at the long view.

    I can easily turn this on you and equate you to a peacenik who believes in peace at any cost so things don’t spiral out of control. The risk is worth the reward because the US will lose significant market share in the world if it contnues to let China steal its technology and sell it cheaper elsewhere and hit us with excessive tariffs. It’s not sustainable and the free market with China you advocate is not actually free at all. It is at a significant cost for decades for US products, and had previous POTUS had the guts to take the long view instead of the short view, we would not have this problem today that has exacerbated and will continue to do so if not addressed.

  95. jason says:

    Referring to Trump’s views of the past as a business man is not a solid argument here because he is operating on a much larger and global scale than his prior industry work”

    More BS.

    This sounds like NYC’s “Trump gave money to Harry Reid because he wanted to build in Manhattan”.

    Trump has never deviated from his protectionist and isolationist rhetoric, again the idea that he doesn’t really believe what he says is completely without evidence.

    Your theory would make sense if he had changed his ways, but he hasn’t. So yes, it makes sense to believe those are his values.

  96. Tgca says:


    You won’t get an argument from me there regarding protectionism. My view is moderate tariffs to combat a single nation to stop excessively cheating and theft is fine even if causes some mild short-term pain, because otherwise the further damage done is greater than any short-term impact.

    I am also not an advocate of closing borders to solve trade disputes and so unless there’s a real threat to the nation, and yes, hundreds of thousands of illegals demanding access to the country annually is an invasion, and thus a significant threat to our economy and security and local communities. If we allow that, then I think within a decade, we will have millions coming annually that will cripple our economy.

  97. jason says:

    The risk is worth the reward because the US will lose significant market share in the world if it contnues to let China steal its technology”

    When you start moving the goalposts you are losing the argument, not that you have much of an argument.

    Stealing technology has nothing to do with tariffs, it’s a separate issue, and it should be dealt separately.

    There are legal remedies for stealing technology, there are sanctions (not tariffs) that can be imposed on specific violators, etc.

    I never denied that patent violations, stealing technology, etc was not a problem, I just said tariffs are a really stupid way to address it, because you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

  98. Tgca says:

    96 Jadon

    I believe Trump and his team are wise enough to know they need to craft a deal with the Chinese to make it more equitable to the US and what the Chinese can absorb and to not close our economic borders. I believe that is the intent regardless of all the typical Trump chest pounding in the media.

    If I really thought Trump intended to economically close the borders, than we would agree but here is where I disagree with you. I do not believe that is the intent. I believe his intent is to get a good enough deal that shows some progress instead of no progress at all so he is seeing how far he can push them because we know their economic situation is much more precarious than they let on.

  99. Tgca says:


  100. jason says:

    Also, equating Trump’s shortsighted economic protectionism and isolationism to the “long view” is patently ridiculous.

    Trump has no plan except tariffs. Where is the long view?

    “Tariffs are the greatest! Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs,” the president wrote on Twitter.”

    Tariffs are the greatest!

  101. jason says:

    Ok so it comes down to this:

    I have history, facts, statements, and results on my side.

    Tgca has the “belief” that Trump is not a protectionist, but a closet free trader.


  102. Tgca says:


    Again, disagree on the prescription. The Chinese are not going to respond to much unless it is economic pain. The theft is causing lost market share for the US and hurting suppliers. It’s all wrapped up together, theft and unfair trade.

    Working with China to open their markets is painful for them but necessary to avoid future conflict, perhaps even hostile contact. But you need a bargaining chip, and the US has had none for a few decades because the Chines know every US POTUS was worried about their legacy and did not want to take any short term impacts so the Chinese held out. Trump is a different unpredictable animal so perhaps he can get some reasonable concessions, as many think it will never be a better time for the US to negotiate then now. ..and perhaps China will also see how it may benefit their long-term position as well with freer trade but my gut feeling is they don’t want to take that risk and 1st step so if Trump and team can wedge the door open a bit, that’s great for the US in the long-term.

  103. Chicon says:

    99 – well said again. Jason will continue to misrepresent this position. It’s what he does.

  104. jason says:

    believe Trump and his team are wise enough to know they need to craft a deal with the Chinese to make it more equitable to the US and what the Chinese can absorb and to not close our economic borders. I believe that is the intent regardless of all the typical Trump chest pounding in the media.”

    I hope you are right but I see little evidence of that.

  105. jason says:

    “jason will continue to misrepresent this position. It’s what he does”


    If saying this position has no basis in fact is misrepresenting it, fine with me.

    I think the idea that Trump is not in fact a protectionist and isolationist when it comes to trade is absolutely ridiculous given his record over decades AND his policies and rhetoric since he became President.

    Those that are defending it are either in favor of protectionism or naive about Trump, or maybe just incapable of being critical of him.

    I think among the AFL-CIO conservatives here there is a some of all of that.

  106. jason says:

    But you need a bargaining chip,”

    So a huge tax on the American people is a bargaining chip against China?


    I have posted several links showing the costs of the tariffs are borne more by the US than by China.

    What a fantastic “bargaining chip”.

  107. Tgca says:


    In your mind I’m sure you believe that just as many millennials believe they can justify socialism is better for the future than capitalism no matter how much history, facts, statements, and results you provide them.

    You will not entertain any opinion other than your own because you so strongly believe in that theory that tariffs are always destructive. I don’t subscribe to such a harsh view.

    It reminds me how physicists for over 200 years would not consider their view on gravity was wrong or incomplete until Einstein came along and proved that Isaac Newton and all his supporters were wrong, and even then, it took another 20 years to accept the traditional view of gravity was incorrect. Sometimes stubborn persistence to an ideal turns out differently than expected.

    You have proved nothing other than your belief that you must be correct when it comes to discussing economic theory, and that you take the short-term view which is what got us here in the 1st place thanks to the inaction of every POTUS since the mid 1970s.

    I believe in micro changes over time occur innevononic theory and theory adjusts to those learned lessons.

    So believe as you wish, but that does not make other beliefs incorrect or less valid.

  108. Chicon says:

    “Translating” is misrepresentation. Many here have said they support the limited and temporary use of tariffs to try to counter decades of Chinese trade aggression. You (and Wes) say we really mean we want permanent high tariffs and economic isolationism. I know you can read, so these continual misrepresentations about my position (and that of others) are clearly intentional. Therefore, a lie.

  109. Tgca says:


    …and there are others that believe the decades loss of market share and theft by the Chinese more than significantly outweigh any temporary moderate tariff impact on China. If China was doing free trade with the US for decades, the US and it’s suppliers would be richer and have more market share.

  110. Tgca says:

    Anyways, we’re not going to change small minds here so on to the next topic.

    Who wants to discuss ABORTION?

  111. NYCmike says:


  112. Chicon says:

    Tgca, are you aware of any examples where limited, targeted tariffs have been used to advance a country’s trade position? The Trade Deadenders always use widespread and permanent tariffs as comparison, which may or may not be instructive to this case.