So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[talltexan]

Seriously, though, if Roe v. Wade gets overturned as a result of these GA and AL laws, many, many people will think Trump was all worth it. It will be the bright light that makes all of the petty corruption and self-dealing and leaking intelligence to foreign adversaries very difficult to even see for Evangelical Christians.

[Kris]

Seriously, though, if Roe v. Wade gets overturned as a result of these GA and AL laws, many, many people will think Trump was all worth it. It will be the bright light that makes all of the petty corruption and self-dealing and leaking intelligence to foreign adversaries very difficult to even see for Evangelical Christians.

Yeah. Even though abortion rates actually go down in places where it's safe, legal, and accessible.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476?fbclid=IwAR3OA1L_CI--nk1oB2KCyikoUVnQWu_Lwvo_g-hzC2BOEaWKPkwKc5FBXck

If they actually cared about making abortions more rare, their actions and activism would go toward things that actually made it so: providing accurate information about pregnancy, how to better prevent unwanted pregnancy, and easy, safe and inexpensive ways to prevent it, and aassistance for moms to get on their feet.

But of course, they don't really care about that.

"Bright light," indeed.

[talltexan]

Indeed, to me it seems as though--if one accepts that an abortion is a bad thing--supporting policies and mechanisms to reduce the number of abortions makes sense. If only there weren't that pesky bible telling us all these other things that we ought to believe.

[nereo]

Seriously, though, if Roe v. Wade gets overturned as a result of these GA and AL laws, many, many people will think Trump was all worth it. It will be the bright light that makes all of the petty corruption and self-dealing and leaking intelligence to foreign adversaries very difficult to even see for Evangelical Christians.

I think what it would accomplish is push the matter of abortion to the forefront of the next election. Evangelical Christians and abortion opponents will - as you said - think Trump was worth it. OTOH a majority of Americans believe that abortion should remain an option during the first trimester (60%) and in the case of rape, incest (77%)  and when the health of the mother is deemed to be at risk (83%). These opinions are much more strongly supported by women and by those of child-rearing age (56% of voters 19-29 self-identify as "pro-choice", vs only 44% of those 65 and older).  Only 20% of voters believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.

So an overturning of Roe v Wade could made Trump's staunchest supporters feel vindicated, but upset a much greater proportion of the electorate, most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women. Even a majority of republican votrers believe abortion should be legal under certain limited circumstances (61%).
(source)

[sol]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

[Kris]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Especially when you keep putting in place voter suppression techniques and passing legislation that would limit voting rights to everyone but white males.

Abortion is now a felony! Oh, by the way, felons can't vote in our state! Totally unrelated, though!

[nereo]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

No - Trump proved that you could win the electoral college with older white males *if* you simultaneously kept turnout for minorities and 18-39 year olds below recent averages.  As you yourself have pointed out - Trump got roughly the same percentage of support as Romney and McCain, both in terms of total votes cast and as percentage of the available electorate. What changed is that HRC fell short of Obama's numbers, even with a larger total electorate.

Problem Trump has is that the 2020 electorate will be less white (by almost 2%) than in 2016. The number of Boomers will roughly equal Millennials.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Especially when you keep putting in place voter suppression techniques and passing legislation that would limit voting rights to everyone but white males.

Abortion is now a felony! Oh, by the way, felons can't vote in our state! Totally unrelated, though!

There is no doubt that Trump (and the GOP) will be playing dirty in 2020.  There have already been multiple 'questionable' attempts to meet with foreign powers to dig up dirt and put a finger on the scale.  Apparently anything is on the table, as long as it is not TOO transparent so as to piss off the base.  And even then, they are so easy to dupe...

[sequoia]

After spending the last couple days with a raft of Trumpers, they just don't care about facts.  It's a lot easier to just believe what they want than to spend a little effort to learn the truth.  "I don't want to debate it" was also used.  They don't believe in climate change, they don't care about the environment, they don't think Trump lies, and the deficit?  "Well, it doubled under Obama".  So that's that.

I needed a shower and a long nap when I finally got home.

The only thing that they may care is if they lost their job. Sadly at that point it is too late... If this crazy mess keep going on it will impact the economy broadly, and everyone is going to pay for it. Some more than others, but everyone will pay for it.

[Laserjet3051]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

No - Trump proved that you could win the electoral college with older white males *if* you simultaneously kept turnout for minorities and 18-39 year olds below recent averages.  As you yourself have pointed out - Trump got roughly the same percentage of support as Romney and McCain, both in terms of total votes cast and as percentage of the available electorate. What changed is that HRC fell short of Obama's numbers, even with a larger total electorate.

Problem Trump has is that the 2020 electorate will be less white (by almost 2%) than in 2016. The number of Boomers will roughly equal Millennials.

I would not discount the contribution of young black females going to Trump in 2020. 2020 will be my daughters first election ever (opportunity to vote), and at least at the moment, is supporting him as her lead choice. And yes, she is part of the demographic stated in the first sentence of my comment. There really is a growing awakening going on in the black (american ) community with regards to traditional identity politics.

[Lews Therin]

Can you give her reasons Laserjet? What part of trump does she like and want to continue?

[FIPurpose]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

No - Trump proved that you could win the electoral college with older white males *if* you simultaneously kept turnout for minorities and 18-39 year olds below recent averages.  As you yourself have pointed out - Trump got roughly the same percentage of support as Romney and McCain, both in terms of total votes cast and as percentage of the available electorate. What changed is that HRC fell short of Obama's numbers, even with a larger total electorate.

Problem Trump has is that the 2020 electorate will be less white (by almost 2%) than in 2016. The number of Boomers will roughly equal Millennials.

I would not discount the contribution of young black females going to Trump in 2020. 2020 will be my daughters first election ever (opportunity to vote), and at least at the moment, is supporting him as her lead choice. And yes, she is part of the demographic stated in the first sentence of my comment. There really is a growing awakening going on in the black (american ) community with regards to traditional identity politics.

I would completely discount it. You haven't shown any data. Show data that shows any significant change in thought or trend in that community. There have always been Black republicans, even if only 5% of blacks vote republican, that's still a significant amount of people. You're going to meet them and see them continue to be around. All the data I've read (and previously posted) shows that there has not been any significant change.

[Psychstache]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Don't forget white women, who also broke for Trump (53%)

[partgypsy]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Don't forget white women, who also broke for Trump (53%)

Not that no white women will vote for Trump again, but but I don't think that will be repeated this go round. Think Roy Moore, Kavanaugh.

[GuitarStv]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Don't forget white women, who also broke for Trump (53%)

Not that no white women will vote for Trump again, but but I don't think that will be repeated this go round. Think Roy Moore, Kavanaugh.

If they voted for him as a pussy grabber and known serial cheater on his wives, why would Moore and Kavanaugh would put them off?

[partgypsy]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Don't forget white women, who also broke for Trump (53%)

Not that no white women will vote for Trump again, but but I don't think that will be repeated this go round. Think Roy Moore, Kavanaugh.

If they voted for him as a pussy grabber and known serial cheater on his wives, why would Moore and Kavanaugh would put them off?

. Well for one, he has now gone on record saying he will help overturn Roe vs. Wade. That is why there is a huge wave of legislation, everything from making perfoming an abortion a felony with a 99 year sentence, to outlawing abortion even those caused by rape and incest, and even trying to ban major forms of contraception like the pill. Believe it or not the majority of the US is pro choice. Even if a woman is past child bearing age, she remembers what it was like before Roe vs. Wade. She has daughters and granddaughters whom she doesn't want growing up, in a society that is more OK with her dying or having a serious infection and permanent side effects from an illegal abortion, than her having a safe and legal abortion.  I know, I know, these laws if they are enacted will only affect the poor, young and disenfranchised, and rich people will still get whatever services they need. But I would think in this case, women (and men) will vote with their conscience.

It's not the only openly hostile stance against women he has taken. His white house has also weakened rules and regulations for colleges about the reporting and prosecution for rape, making it easier for the reports not to be officially counted, as well as make the preponderance of evidence lie with the accuser, so that she said he said cases, nothing happens.  There's other stuff as well, but the plausible deniability that a lot of soccer and suburban moms had about him is no longer there. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/16/18096736/betsy-devos-sexual-assault-harassment-title-ix

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/war-rape-trump-us-un-resolution-reproductive-health-amal-clooney-germany-a8883436.html

[Psychstache]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Don't forget white women, who also broke for Trump (53%)

Not that no white women will vote for Trump again, but but I don't think that will be repeated this go round. Think Roy Moore, Kavanaugh.

Eh, 63% of white women voted for Moore. I wish I had your optimism.

[partgypsy]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Don't forget white women, who also broke for Trump (53%)

Not that no white women will vote for Trump again, but but I don't think that will be repeated this go round. Think Roy Moore, Kavanaugh.

Eh, 63% of white women voted for Moore. I wish I had your optimism.

Alabama is not representative of the United States.

[ysette9]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Don't forget white women, who also broke for Trump (53%)

Not that no white women will vote for Trump again, but but I don't think that will be repeated this go round. Think Roy Moore, Kavanaugh.

Eh, 63% of white women voted for Moore. I wish I had your optimism.

Alabama is not representative of the United States.

Thank gods

[nereo]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Don't forget white women, who also broke for Trump (53%)

Not that no white women will vote for Trump again, but but I don't think that will be repeated this go round. Think Roy Moore, Kavanaugh.

Eh, 63% of white women voted for Moore. I wish I had your optimism.

Roy Moore lost, despite getting an overwhelming majority of the older white vote in one of the most republican states in the union.  I wouldn't extrapolate too far from that one special election, but if anything it supports the premise that locking down the older white voters are insufficient to win a large election.

[talltexan]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Don't forget white women, who also broke for Trump (53%)

Not that no white women will vote for Trump again, but but I don't think that will be repeated this go round. Think Roy Moore, Kavanaugh.

If you're someone who thinks the Kavanaugh/Ford thing will make white women into Liberals, please read this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/kavanaugh-fight-left-america-divided/572554/

Mr. French's piece accurately describes conservative women's reactions to the Kavanaugh fight. I saw this play out on social media as many white women--acknowledging that they themselves were victims of sexual violence--felt that something about the Kavanaugh fight had tipped things too far. When people go into a situation believing that there's a liberal conspiracy to tar their husbands (or sons) as predators or as bigots (a la the Covington Catholic students), they dig in.

[Psychstache]

most notably moderates, independents, and younger college-educated women.

Trump proved that you don't need any of those groups to win the electoral college.  White males are still a sufficiently large voting block to choose a US president all by themselves, without anyone else's input.

Don't forget white women, who also broke for Trump (53%)

Not that no white women will vote for Trump again, but but I don't think that will be repeated this go round. Think Roy Moore, Kavanaugh.

If you're someone who thinks the Kavanaugh/Ford thing will make white women into Liberals, please read this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/kavanaugh-fight-left-america-divided/572554/

Mr. French's piece accurately describes conservative women's reactions to the Kavanaugh fight. I saw this play out on social media as many white women--acknowledging that they themselves were victims of sexual violence--felt that something about the Kavanaugh fight had tipped things too far. When people go into a situation believing that there's a liberal conspiracy to tar their husbands (or sons) as predators or as bigots (a la the Covington Catholic students), they dig in.

Yeah, this was my bigger point on pointing out the 63% for Moore stats. I don't see any reason to suspect any seismic shift away from Trump in 2020 by White Women.

That said, I do agree with @nereo that it is probably a beatable coalition if you can overcome voter suppression efforts and generate enough enthusiasm to turn out your supportive demos. I just think that a massive reversal from white women away from the Republican party is unlikely.

[nereo]

That said, I do agree with @nereo that it is probably a beatable coalition if you can overcome voter suppression efforts and generate enough enthusiasm to turn out your supportive demos. I just think that a massive reversal from white women away from the Republican party is unlikely.

To be clear, white women as a group are not heavily affiliated with the GOP; currently that demographic is basically an even split, and has remained largely consistent over the last quarter-century . 
I don't see much evidence of  republican white women leaving the GOP, but there is a strong trend of white millennial (aka "young voter") women not joining the GOP in the first place.

[Psychstache]

That said, I do agree with @nereo that it is probably a beatable coalition if you can overcome voter suppression efforts and generate enough enthusiasm to turn out your supportive demos. I just think that a massive reversal from white women away from the Republican party is unlikely.

To be clear, white women as a group are not heavily affiliated with the GOP; currently that demographic is basically an even split, and has remained largely consistent over the last quarter-century . 
I don't see much evidence of  republican white women leaving the GOP, but there is a strong trend of white millennial (aka "young voter") women not joining the GOP in the first place.

I would agree with all of that.

In my experience, I have some conversations with people that make it sound like Trump is gong to get 15% of the WW vote, and I just find that ridiculous. I assume it will be the same as 2016 +/- the margin of error on exiting polling (which would be about the 50% you cite).

[partgypsy]

That said, I do agree with @nereo that it is probably a beatable coalition if you can overcome voter suppression efforts and generate enough enthusiasm to turn out your supportive demos. I just think that a massive reversal from white women away from the Republican party is unlikely.

To be clear, white women as a group are not heavily affiliated with the GOP; currently that demographic is basically an even split, and has remained largely consistent over the last quarter-century . 
I don't see much evidence of  republican white women leaving the GOP, but there is a strong trend of white millennial (aka "young voter") women not joining the GOP in the first place.

I would agree with all of that.

In my experience, I have some conversations with people that make it sound like Trump is gong to get 15% of the WW vote, and I just find that ridiculous. I assume it will be the same as 2016 +/- the margin of error on exiting polling (which would be about the 50% you cite).

I agree, that's not going to happen. But I think there will be a shift away from Trump. How much, I can't say.

BTW the 52% figure is probably not accurate. Best estimate is that Trump got 47% of white women and Clinton got 45%. Still not great, but more of a 50/50 split.

http://time.com/5422644/trump-white-women-2016/

[bacchi]

Republicans lost some white, suburban, women votes in the 2018 mid-terms. That was obviously a rebuke of Trump and there's no reason to think that Trump will regain that support.

[Psychstache]

Republicans lost some white, suburban, women votes in the 2018 mid-terms. That was obviously a rebuke of Trump and there's no reason to think that Trump will regain that support.

Trump has a cult of personality that similarly flawed Republican party candidates don't. I think there can be a case made that he will get back some of that voting share.

@partgypsy excellent article. Thank you for the link.

[Glenstache]

It would appear, based on today's infrastructure meeting and subsequent Rose Garden tirade, that  Trump is the one who is incapable of working on two things at once.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/us/politics/donald-trump-speech-pelosi-schumer.html

[talltexan]

A reporter I follow (named Gregory Korte, he truly is excellent) is pointing out in a twitter thread all of the things passed by the 93rd Congress (and signed by President Richard Nixon, whom they were investigating):

• Federal-Aid Highway Act
• Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• Endangered Species Act
• Budget Act of 1974
• War Powers Resolution (Nixon vetoed this; I suppose Trump could always start vetoing things if he's up for it)
• Federal Educational Right to Privacy Act (drafted before Aug. 1974; Signed by Ford)
• Trade Act of 1974 (Ford)
• Safe Drinking Water Act (Ford)
• Privacy Act of 1974 (Ford)
• Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (Ford)

Note: Democrats controlled both chambers during this period, having GOP control the Senate basically opens up the door for all of McConnell's judges since he isn't spending floor time on whatever the House passes.

[nereo]

A reporter I follow (named Gregory Korte, he truly is excellent) is pointing out in a twitter thread all of the things passed by the 93rd Congress (and signed by President Richard Nixon, whom they were investigating):
[snip]

An interesting and under-appreciated quirk of our government is that often more legislation gets passed under divided government than when one party controls all branches of government.

[sol]

A reporter I follow (named Gregory Korte, he truly is excellent) is pointing out in a twitter thread all of the things passed by the 93rd Congress (and signed by President Richard Nixon, whom they were investigating):
[snip]

An interesting and under-appreciated quirk of our government is that often more legislation gets passed under divided government than when one party controls all branches of government.

Except for right now, when Trump is refusing to do anything until after Democrats give him a get out of jail free card.

[former player]

A reporter I follow (named Gregory Korte, he truly is excellent) is pointing out in a twitter thread all of the things passed by the 93rd Congress (and signed by President Richard Nixon, whom they were investigating):
[snip]

An interesting and under-appreciated quirk of our government is that often more legislation gets passed under divided government than when one party controls all branches of government.

Except for right now, when Trump is refusing to do anything until after Democrats give him a get out of jail free card.

As tantrums go, "I'm not going to play with my toys until you stop playing with yours" is not exactly persuasive.

[marty998]

A reporter I follow (named Gregory Korte, he truly is excellent) is pointing out in a twitter thread all of the things passed by the 93rd Congress (and signed by President Richard Nixon, whom they were investigating):
[snip]

An interesting and under-appreciated quirk of our government is that often more legislation gets passed under divided government than when one party controls all branches of government.

Except for right now, when Trump is refusing to do anything until after Democrats give him a get out of jail free card.

As tantrums go, "I'm not going to play with my toys until you stop playing with yours" is not exactly persuasive.

Have they come up with a Healthcare policy yet? It's been over a decade since the beginnings of Obamacare....

[GuitarStv]

A reporter I follow (named Gregory Korte, he truly is excellent) is pointing out in a twitter thread all of the things passed by the 93rd Congress (and signed by President Richard Nixon, whom they were investigating):
[snip]

An interesting and under-appreciated quirk of our government is that often more legislation gets passed under divided government than when one party controls all branches of government.

Except for right now, when Trump is refusing to do anything until after Democrats give him a get out of jail free card.

As tantrums go, "I'm not going to play with my toys until you stop playing with yours" is not exactly persuasive.

Have they come up with a Healthcare policy yet? It's been over a decade since the beginnings of Obamacare....

Does 'no Obamacare' count as a policy?

[talltexan]

A reporter I follow (named Gregory Korte, he truly is excellent) is pointing out in a twitter thread all of the things passed by the 93rd Congress (and signed by President Richard Nixon, whom they were investigating):
[snip]

An interesting and under-appreciated quirk of our government is that often more legislation gets passed under divided government than when one party controls all branches of government.

I'd be curious to know how you came to this conclusion. For forty years--1955 to 1995--the Democrats controlled the House of representatives (and only lost the Senate for 2 of those). Yet we only had a democratic president for 14 of those 40. Are you suggesting that what was accomplished in the other 26 years was far more significant?

Indeed it includes what I listed above. But LBJ radically remade government before the Nixon years, and it was having Democratic majorities that allowed him to do this.

[PathtoFIRE]

Is China trolling Trump?

China says trade talks can’t continue unless US addresses its ‘wrong actions’

[GuitarStv]

Trump said that he would intervene in the case against Meng Wanzhou to close a trade deal with China.  Which told everyone that there must not be any real substance to the criminal charges, and that they are simply a negotiating tactic.

[Lews Therin]

Or that trump cares more about ''good deals'' than legality.

I wonder that has ever come up before.

[Roadrunner53]

This is perfect!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-yorker-trump-mcconnell-graham_n_5ce76a55e4b05c15dea9cf3b

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Ah, relaxing a bit watching game one of the NBA finals, licking my wounds from the falling market but looking forward to a bit of a rebound on Friday and ....  the Trump headline pops up - new escalating tariffs on Mexico unless immigration stops!  Good stuff

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/politics/trump-mexico-tariffs-immigration/index.html

[FIPurpose]

This thread was quiet for like a whole week. I figured it had just been locked off. lol

[cloudsail]

Ah, relaxing a bit watching game one of the NBA finals, licking my wounds from the falling market but looking forward to a bit of a rebound on Friday and ....  the Trump headline pops up - new escalating tariffs on Mexico unless immigration stops!  Good stuff

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/politics/trump-mexico-tariffs-immigration/index.html

I figure at some point he has to think about getting reelected so at most this will last until the end of this year.

[bacchi]

Ah, relaxing a bit watching game one of the NBA finals, licking my wounds from the falling market but looking forward to a bit of a rebound on Friday and ....  the Trump headline pops up - new escalating tariffs on Mexico unless immigration stops!  Good stuff

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/politics/trump-mexico-tariffs-immigration/index.html

I figure at some point he has to think about getting reelected so at most this will last until the end of this year.

It's a direct appeal to his base. He plans to increase the tariffs to 25% by October if Mexico doesn't stop immigrants. Meanwhile, Rome is smoldering.

Mexico tariffs. Lol.

[LennStar]

This is not directly about the future presidency, but it is something that is rediculous even for Trump's standards, maybe he is getting very nervous now?

https://boingboing.net/2019/05/30/in-japan-trump-orders-uss-joh.html

President Trump ordered the locally-anchored USS John McCain to cover its name in tarp and stay hidden while he was visiting Japan. Sailors, who wear badges with the ship's name, were given the day off or told to stay away from official events where Trump would be present.

[NorthernBlitz]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/04/alzheimers-disease-rates-rising-baby-boomers/1106292001/

About 5.8 million Americans now have the disease, according to the Alzheimer's Association. That number will climb to at least 13.8 million by 2050, a 138% rise, and as many as 1 in 3 people who live to be 85 in the United States will die with Alzheimer's disease.
- snip-
The average person with Alzheimer's disease will live four to eight years after diagnosis, said Lepard, and about 40% of that time, the person will be in the most severe form of the disease, which requires around-the-clock care.

"So, if you take a person who lives eight years after diagnosis, for three of those years, that person will be in the most severe aspects of the disease and will need 24-hour care and have lost most of their ability to keep up with the activities required in daily living," Lepard said.

The intensity of care that people need when the disease has progressed that far is often beyond what their loved ones can handle, she said. Plus, families quickly see how expensive long-term care can be. The average cost to Medicare for a single person with dementia in 2018 was $27,244, according to the Alzheimer's Association.

Caring for people with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia will cost $290 billion this year alone. But by 2050, that cost is expected to rise to $1.1 trillion annually. It's the most expensive disease in America – with care costing more than cancer and heart disease, the Alzheimer's Association reports.

"We really see this bankrupting Medicare at some point," Lepard said. "When we talk to members of Congress about the situation and why we need to invest in more research, it's because people cannot afford long-term care.

Maybe not the right place for this. But, I recently listened to Peter Attia's podcast interview with Matthew Walker on sleep.

I think in North America we have a hero culture re: lack of sleep. Saying that they don't sleep (presumably because they aren't weak and need to work hard) is something that links both Trump and B.Clinton. But not sleeping isn't a badge of honor. It leads to bad decisions (a poor trait in the POTUS) and lots of bad health outcomes...particularly Alzheimer's.

I've linked the first episode which talks about some of this. I thought all three episodes were really good.

https://peterattiamd.com/matthewwalker1/

[GuitarStv]

Ah, relaxing a bit watching game one of the NBA finals, licking my wounds from the falling market but looking forward to a bit of a rebound on Friday and ....  the Trump headline pops up - new escalating tariffs on Mexico unless immigration stops!  Good stuff

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/politics/trump-mexico-tariffs-immigration/index.html

I figure at some point he has to think about getting reelected so at most this will last until the end of this year.

It's a direct appeal to his base. He plans to increase the tariffs to 25% by October if Mexico doesn't stop immigrants. Meanwhile, Rome is smoldering.

Mexico tariffs. Lol.

It's so weird that taxing Americans who buy Mexican stuff is popular with his base.  I'm so old that I remember when conservatives were against taxes.  :P

[talltexan]

I remember when conservatives were in favor of Free Trade^TM.

[RetiredAt63]

I remember when conservatives were in favor of Free Trade^TM.

Oh, memories.  Reagan and Mulroney singing When Irish Eyes are smiling.  NAFTA.  Conservatives both.

[DavidAnnArbor]

The tariffs on Mexican products will only increase Mexico's use of tariffs against US farmers of corn. It should hurt the farmers that voted for Trump.
A deal to provide $16 Billion of farm aid for those affected by tariffs may not be effective or timely.

[talltexan]

But--in truth--the backlash unleashed by NAFTA is the force that brought us Trump (via Pat Buchanan).