2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place

[Sinn Fein 33,971]

11 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

It's a huge hurdle for him and it probably stems at least partially from his record as a mayor in South Bend.  

It is a hurdle.  I very much doubt many people in South Carolina know anything about his tenure as mayor if South Bend.

Very few people anywhere know much about his tenure in South Bend...

 

I think its mostly a function of not having any track record.  Bernie had this same challenge 4 years ago - but now people know him more, and trust him more than they did in 2016.  Pete has to overcome the trust issue - and the only way to effectively do that is the same way he convinced Iowans to vote for him - get out amongst the people and just have that conversation.

[ren hoek 4,995]

Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders

We are the fastest campaign in history to reach 4 million donations.

We are the only campaign with more donations and donors than Trump.

Our campaign is historic because we have millions of people ready to take on the corporate elite and transform this country.

🤷‍♂️

[Leroy Hoard 13,362]

21 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders

We are the fastest campaign in history to reach 4 million donations.

We are the only campaign with more donations and donors than Trump.

Our campaign is historic because we have millions of people ready to take on the corporate elite and transform this country.

🤷‍♂️

It takes money to beat money.

[caustic 3,717]

It's early, but between a seemingly flawed frontrunner's unwavering support among Black voters and an ascendant white politician's inability to make inroads in more diverse states, I sure am getting 2016 vibes from this primary.

[quick-hands 363]

trump is gonna stomp  win pa, oh, mi wi, mn.

[sho nuff 16,560]

1 minute ago, quick-hands said:

trump is gonna stomp  win pa, oh, mi wi, mn.

What makes you think that?

[quick-hands 363]

its the trump wall

[quick-hands 363]

this is based on biden getting dumped

[Mystery Achiever 1,252]

 Wayne Messam suspended his campaign today. (Mayor of Miramar FL. for anyone who doesn't know who he is or that he was running. )

[Maurile Tremblay 22,241]

I've linked to studies concluding this a few times before: "Extremist candidates do worse, because, contrary to rhetoric, they fail to galvanize their own base and instead encourage the opposing party’s base to turn out more, on average." (The Danger of Elizabeth Warren.)

[IC FBGCav 5,658]

4 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I've linked to studies concluding this a few times before: "Extremist candidates do worse, because, contrary to rhetoric, they fail to galvanize their own base and instead encourage the opposing party’s base to turn out more, on average." (The Danger of Elizabeth Warren.)

Before I read are progressives on the left like Warren extreme?

[Sinn Fein 33,971]

oof:

 

Annie Grayer@AnnieGrayerCNN· 31m

 

Governor @DevalPatrick was supposed to have an event at Morehouse College tonight. An organizer with the college who planned the event told CNN that Patrick cancelled the event when he arrived and learned that he would not have an audience. (Note, two people came, not pictured)

[TripItUp 3,942]

On 11/19/2019 at 6:20 PM, caustic said:

It's early, but between a seemingly flawed frontrunner's unwavering support among Black voters and an ascendant white politician's inability to make inroads in more diverse states, I sure am getting 2016 vibes from this primary.

correct

[TripItUp 3,942]

8 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I've linked to studies concluding this a few times before: "Extremist candidates do worse, because, contrary to rhetoric, they fail to galvanize their own base and instead encourage the opposing party’s base to turn out more, on average." (The Danger of Elizabeth Warren.)

I've been saying this.  Dems better stay away from the progressives or they're going to see a record turnout for Republicans....they will come from corners of the country previously unrecognized.

Edited November 21, 2019 by TripItUp

[Mister CIA 8,176]

3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

oof:

 

Annie Grayer@AnnieGrayerCNN· 31m

 

Governor @DevalPatrick was supposed to have an event at Morehouse College tonight. An organizer with the college who planned the event told CNN that Patrick cancelled the event when he arrived and learned that he would not have an audience. (Note, two people came, not pictured)

Welcome to the Jazz Odyssey.

[timschochet 33,257]

A warning for Democrats, and news that is sure to cheer the Trump fans around here: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471335-poll-trump-leads-top-democratic-opponents-in-wisconsin%3famp

 Not good. We lose Wisconsin, we probably lose the election. The candidates have some work to do...

[TripItUp 3,942]

11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

A warning for Democrats, and news that is sure to cheer the Trump fans around here: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471335-poll-trump-leads-top-democratic-opponents-in-wisconsin%3famp

 Not good. We lose Wisconsin, we probably lose the election. The candidates have some work to do...

Feels like hyperbole...Wiscy is not a silver bullet, but certainly a battleground state.

[whoknew 8,716]

30 minutes ago, timschochet said:

A warning for Democrats, and news that is sure to cheer the Trump fans around here: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471335-poll-trump-leads-top-democratic-opponents-in-wisconsin%3famp

 Not good. We lose Wisconsin, we probably lose the election. The candidates have some work to do...

Huh? Biden, for example, will almost certainly win Pennsylvania. What makes you think WI is the decider state?

[caustic 3,717]

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

A warning for Democrats, and news that is sure to cheer the Trump fans around here: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471335-poll-trump-leads-top-democratic-opponents-in-wisconsin%3famp

 Not good. We lose Wisconsin, we probably lose the election. The candidates have some work to do...

That poll isn’t good for Dems, but it’s a bit of an outlier so far - it’s the only WI poll this cycle that shows Trump leading Biden at all. Joe still has a 3 point lead on average.

[caustic 3,717]

On a related note, here’s a fun little exercise:

Dems take MI, PA, and NE-02 (Might be swingy in this upcoming election)

Trump takes FL, WI, NC, AZ

That’s a 269-269 electoral college tie. Surprisingly plausible!

Edited November 21, 2019 by caustic

[ren hoek 4,995]

Bill Kristol @BillKristol

This is a first-tier quality answer, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a Klobuchar surge in the next two months up towards the first-tier. Ultimate Democratic ticket: Klobuchar-Buttigieg or Buttigieg-Klobuchar? Either's fine with me.

Mayor Pete and Klobuchar: neoconservative-approved

 

[MAC_32 12,038]

3 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Bill Kristol @BillKristol

This is a first-tier quality answer, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a Klobuchar surge in the next two months up towards the first-tier. Ultimate Democratic ticket: Klobuchar-Buttigieg or Buttigieg-Klobuchar? Either's fine with me.

Mayor Pete and Klobuchar: neoconservative-approved

I get the odds aren't great, but I like the idea of Klobuchar as senate majority leader more than I do as veep.

[Sinn Fein 33,971]

Emerson with a National Poll that should please Biden and Sanders people:

 

Biden  27%
Sanders 27%
Warren 20%

Buttigieg 7%
Yang 4%
Harris 3%
Gabbard 2%
Steyer 2%

 

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/november-national-poll-support-for-impeachment-declines-biden-and-sanders-lead-democratic-primary

[Sinn Fein 33,971]

And now its official:

Rob Pyers@rpyers

He's in.

@MikeBloomberg files his statement of candidacy with the FEC to run in the Democratic primary for President of the United States. (FEC link not yet live, as their website has been lagging the filings by around an hour all day).

[Leeroy Jenkins 2,748]

On 11/20/2019 at 8:51 PM, Sinn Fein said:

oof:

 

Annie Grayer@AnnieGrayerCNN· 31m

 

Governor @DevalPatrick was supposed to have an event at Morehouse College tonight. An organizer with the college who planned the event told CNN that Patrick cancelled the event when he arrived and learned that he would not have an audience. (Note, two people came, not pictured)

He should have entered a long time ago. Would probably be my pick. 

[ren hoek 4,995]

Why is he not being treated like the frontrunner?  More staying power than Biden, wider and more dedicated voting bloc than any other candidate, tons of support from Congressional reps like AOC, Shahid Buttar, Ilhan etc., huge groundgame and well of support.  

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471544-poll-trump-edges-biden-trails-sanders-in-neck-and-neck-matchups?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

President Trump has a narrow lead over former Vice President Joe Biden and barely trails Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in two neck and neck hypothetical match-ups for the 2020 presidential race, according to a new Emerson College poll released Thursday.

Trump edges out Biden 51-49 among registered voters in the poll while trailing Sanders 50-49, both margins that fall within the survey's margin of error. Trump and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are also deadlocked at 50-50.

The president has a 4-point lead over South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the final Democrat polled in a match-up with Trump.

Trump is buoyed by a rising approval rate; the latest Emerson poll shows him slightly above water, with 48 percent of registered voters approving of the job he’s doing and 47 percent disapproving. The president held a 43 percent approval rating in the same poll last month.

In another positive sign for the president, Biden, Sanders and Warren all held slim 2-point leads over Trump in October’s poll.

The poll comes as the White House is embroiled in the House’s impeachment investigation into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Voters are slightly opposed to impeaching Trump, with 45 percent in opposition and 43 percent in support.

The results, which mark a reversal from October, are largely driven by independents, who supported impeachment by a 48-39 margin last month and now oppose impeachment by a 49-34 margin. 

The Emerson College poll surveyed 1,092 registered voters from Nov. 17-20 and has a margin of error of 2.9 percent.

[roadkill1292 10,465]

For you map dorks.

Yes, Wisconsin remains a continuing problem. But it can be offset by Arizona where Dems are coming on pretty hard.

[krista4 23,694]

44 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

For you map dorks.

Yes, Wisconsin remains a continuing problem. But it can be offset by Arizona where Dems are coming on pretty hard.

Very interesting.

1.  GA and TX, while not in play for 2020, are often discussed as turning toward purple.  Doesn’t seem likely from this map.

2.  PA looks great.

3.  Wasn’t there someone in here claiming that MN was going to go red?   

4.  What’s with that weird swath of CA?

5.  Look at KS!  @Bruce Dickinson

[ren hoek 4,995]

David Shuster @DavidShuster

Latest proof the MSM's conventional wisdom is wrong. If the ability to beat Trump is paramount, as many democrats insist, democratic voters should make @BernieSanders the party's nominee. He has consistently polled better against Trump than the other democratic candidate.

[roadkill1292 10,465]

13 minutes ago, krista4 said:

Very interesting.

1.  GA and TX, while not in play for 2020, are often discussed as turning toward purple.  Doesn’t seem likely from this map.

2.  PA looks great.

3.  Wasn’t there someone in here claiming that MN was going to go red?   

4.  What’s with that weird swath of CA?

5.  Look at KS!  @Bruce Dickinson

Just quickly checking back on last year's elections for Congress, and this point may have been made back then, but Democrats posted greater totals statewide in: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Arizona (very narrowly). Now there are many cautions to be noted here, like Trump wasn't on the ballot. But there's no question that Dem turnout was motivated by anti-Republican and, by extension, anti-Donald Trump sentiment.

Re: Georgia. I think we're 4-8 years away from flipping it but I also believe that it is possible and maybe even likely because of the dynamics surrounding metro Atlanta.

Note to Trump guys: we're not talking about polls here so feel free to join in.

[roadkill1292 10,465]

Re: the map. It's also interesting to note how big parts of Louisiana got redder between '16 and '18 yet the state just elected a Democratic governor. I don't really know what to make of that but then I don't really know what to make of next year in general. I could see anything from Donald squeezing by again to a Dem blowout. If the smart guys are right about the pending turnout numbers, Trump is Toast.

[Bruce Dickinson 17,896]

1 hour ago, krista4 said:

Very interesting.

1.  GA and TX, while not in play for 2020, are often discussed as turning toward purple.  Doesn’t seem likely from this map.

2.  PA looks great.

3.  Wasn’t there someone in here claiming that MN was going to go red?   

4.  What’s with that weird swath of CA?

5.  Look at KS!  @Bruce Dickinson

The blue “stripe” down the eastern side is mostly KS-02, which came real close to flipping the Congressional seat and is the unsung hero of the Dem winning Governor.  The light blue patch on the east border is Johnson County (where I live) and Wyandotte County (also KC metro and KS-03, which flipped red to blue).  That part of the state didn’t really embrace Trump (Ted Cruz easily won the KS primary caucus; Trump didn’t carry Johnson County in 2016), so there isn’t the MAGA fervor you see in other red parts of the country.
That part of the map is why KS Dem Party will actually try to compete for the Senate seat opening up in 2020.  Ineffectual Incumbent R Pat Roberts is retiring, and right now the GOP primary is shaping up to be our guy Kris Kobach versus soon-to-be-former-Sec-Of-State Mike Pompeo.  Generic polling suggests a Republican should win easily, but Kobach just botched his run for Governor in 2018 and Pompeo has had a rough couple of weeks.

There isn’t an obvious choice for the Dem nominee for Senate yet.  I’m part of the recruitment drive for sociologist/author Sarah Smarsh, who I think could win a statewide election but hasn’t held office before and isn’t a declared candidate,  Right now, I’d guess the nominee will be Barbara Bollier, a state legislator from a wealthy KC suburb, first ran for office as a Republican but was part of a bloc of women in the state legislature who switched to Dem because of Trump.  
 

ETA: those dark blue patches in outstate Minnesota are Klobuchar coattails.  Her seat was up for re-election in 2018 and she knew she was going to win easily, so she spent the election season barnstorming the outstate counties campaigning for Dems challenging for state legislature seats.  It worked so well Klobuchar thought she could run for President.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Bruce Dickinson
We keep fighting with each other, none of the TVs get the NFL RedZone channel, my soulmate doesn't even know who Blake Bortles is. I know this sounds crazy, but I think we're in the bad place.

[timschochet 33,257]

1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

David Shuster @DavidShuster

Latest proof the MSM's conventional wisdom is wrong. If the ability to beat Trump is paramount, as many democrats insist, democratic voters should make @BernieSanders the party's nominee. He has consistently polled better against Trump than the other democratic candidate.

I simply don’t believe polls that claim that Bernie Sanders (or Liz Warren) will beat Donald Trump. I’m not saying they’d lose for sure (I would certainly vote for either one if that were the choice) but I just believe that every conservative or moderate in this country, especially in the Midwest battleground states, would rise up and vote against what they would perceive as a threat to our economic system. 

[Mister CIA 8,176]

2 hours ago, krista4 said:

 

4.  What’s with that weird swath of CA?

 

That's Three Dog Night country.

Well, I headed for Las Vegas
Only made it out to Needles

[krista4 23,694]

2 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

Re: the map. It's also interesting to note how big parts of Louisiana got redder between '16 and '18 yet the state just elected a Democratic governor. I don't really know what to make of that but then I don't really know what to make of next year in general. I could see anything from Donald squeezing by again to a Dem blowout. If the smart guys are right about the pending turnout numbers, Trump is Toast.

@Henry Ford, any thoughts on the LA phenomenon, since it neighbors your home state of MS?

[ren hoek 4,995]

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I simply don’t believe polls that claim that Bernie Sanders (or Liz Warren) will beat Donald Trump. I’m not saying they’d lose for sure (I would certainly vote for either one if that were the choice) but I just believe that every conservative or moderate in this country, especially in the Midwest battleground states, would rise up and vote against what they would perceive as a threat to our economic system. 

Sanders and Warren are distinctly different on foreign policy, in their advocacy against corporate power, and how adamant they are about M4A.  Warren wants the best of both worlds, to have her progressive credibility and not piss off the Democratic donor base; she's really not in the same tier that Sanders is.  

I think the 'hold the center' triangulating strategy is bogus.  It's just a narrative pushed by corporate media.  The fact is, ending the wars, legalizing mj and single payer healthcare are certifiably popular campaign platforms.  I think Sanders is the only person running that would actually beat Trump, and that everyone else would lose.  

[ren hoek 4,995]

I believe Sanders absolutely would have won in 2016.  But Trump is a different monster now, and he will have bigtime establishment $$$ backing him this time around.  Only way you beat that is with a genuinely populist campaign.  

[Henry Ford 60,520]

17 minutes ago, krista4 said:

@Henry Ford, any thoughts on the LA phenomenon, since it neighbors your home state of MS?

We elected a Democrat governor in 2015, too. Same guy.  Louisiana always bounces back and forth on that. 
 

National Democrats are not the same politically as Louisiana Democrats.  Bel Edwards refused to veto a complete ban on abortion that was passed by the legislature.  Totally different vote. 

[caustic 3,717]

3 hours ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

That part of the map is why KS Dem Party will actually try to compete for the Senate seat opening up in 2020.  Ineffectual Incumbent R Pat Roberts is retiring, and right now the GOP primary is shaping up to be our guy Kris Kobach versus soon-to-be-former-Sec-Of-State Mike Pompeo.  Generic polling suggests a Republican should win easily, but Kobach just botched his run for Governor in 2018 and Pompeo has had a rough couple of weeks.

I’ll be interested to see if Pompeo actually throws his hat in the ring. A little birdie told me that most of the Pompeo rumors have been from McConnell’s camp, because Kobach is a huge liability in the general but internal polling shows him dominating the primary right now. Apparently the loss in ‘18 hasn’t affected his favorability among Republicans at all. 

[Maurile Tremblay 22,241]

I’m not much of a Kamala Harris fan for a number of reasons, but this is especially troubling:

Quote

Harris, like Warren, tells her audience about using presidential powers to to make drugs cheaper. 

If they resist: “I will snatch their patent so we can take over.” 

Someone in the audience asks “can we do that?”

“Yes, we can do that! We just need the will to do that.”

Right now, in 2019, is not the time to argue for a major new expansion of presidential powers.

[wikkidpissah 18,086]

12 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Right now, in 2019, is not the time to argue for a major new expansion of presidential powers.

Agreed, but your comment is a little like blaming Obama for Afghanistan or deficit spending. Yes, he didn't reverse ill-advised-unto-evil policies, but he didn't make em neither. A ton of executive power expansion has been done in the name of oligarchy for every ounce done in the public interest.

ETA: Totally agree w you on Kamala, though

Edited November 23, 2019 by wikkidpissah

[Maurile Tremblay 22,241]

4 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I’m not much of a Kamala Harris fan for a number of reasons, but this is especially troubling:

Right now, in 2019, is not the time to argue for a major new expansion of presidential powers.

Good comment:

Nuking the entire pharma pipeline to lower short term drug prices is just such a perfect example of how politicians think I can barely handle it. Politics is politicians being caricatures of politicians recursively until my head explodes.

[Ghost Rider 6,188]

12 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I’m not much of a Kamala Harris fan for a number of reasons, but this is especially troubling:

Right now, in 2019, is not the time to argue for a major new expansion of presidential powers.

Agreed.  We can just add this to the list of reasons why Kamala Harris is a very poor candidate. 

[Bossman 1,766]

Let me preface this first by saying I'm very ignorant when it comes to politics. I almost never post in the political forum.

... but I've been wondering .... Seems voters like the idea of a "non-politician" as president. Trump still favored to win 2020 (if not impeached)?

Whether voters like the idea of a step back from politics as usual ... or just somebody they can relate to as a regular person and not a greasy car salesman - career politician.

Why doesn't a candidate come forward with the stance that they voted for Trump and believe in the "no more politics as usual"

.... and they want to continue to make america great again ... but without the dumb tweets, bigotry, and other shenanigans of Trump. 

Democrat or Republican, Wouldn't that stance win over most Trump supporters? ... and many non-Trump supporters?

or does this candidate already exist?

Edited November 24, 2019 by Bossman

[AAABatteries 24,341]

40 minutes ago, Bossman said:

Let me preface this first by saying I'm very ignorant when it comes to politics. I almost never post in the political forum.

... but I've been wondering .... Seems voters like the idea of a "non-politician" as president. Trump still favored to win 2020 (if not impeached)?

Whether voters like the idea of a step back from politics as usual ... or just somebody they can relate to as a regular person and not a greasy car salesman - career politician.

Why doesn't a candidate come forward with the stance that they voted for Trump and believe in the "no more politics as usual"

.... and they want to continue to make america great again ... but without the dumb tweets, bigotry, and other shenanigans of Trump. 

Democrat or Republican, Wouldn't that stance win over most Trump supporters? ... and many non-Trump supporters?

or does this candidate already exist?

So you want someone to say they voted for Trump, that they think he’s a bigot and has done dumb stuff and then ask that other people vote for them instead?  Seems like losing strategy to me.

Note - just to clarify, I’m not calling Trump a bigot or dumb.  I’m just using the parameters of Bossmans hypothetical.

[Bossman 1,766]

15 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

So you want someone to say they voted for Trump, that they think he’s a bigot and has done dumb stuff and then ask that other people vote for them instead?  Seems like losing strategy to me.

Note - just to clarify, I’m not calling Trump a bigot or dumb.  I’m just using the parameters of Bossmans hypothetical.

Enough people liked Trumps policies that he won 4 years ago ... and the favorite to win again (I think). 

... so, Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Everything people liked and like about Trump without the negatives. 

(I should have known this wouldn't have gone over well in the Trump haters forum ... lol)

[Maurile Tremblay 22,241]

28 minutes ago, Bossman said:

Enough people liked Trumps policies that he won 4 years ago ... and the favorite to win again (I think). 

... so, Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Everything people liked and like about Trump without the negatives. 

(I should have known this wouldn't have gone over well in the Trump haters forum ... lol)

Obviously a Democrat isn't going to run on a platform of approving Trump's policies.

Republican challengers could adopt some of Trump's policies, but I don't think the Republicans are going to have real primaries next year.

Maybe a third-party candidate could do what you're saying, but I don't think he'd come anywhere near 1% of the vote.

[IvanKaramazov 21,181]

22 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Right now, in 2019, is not the time to argue for a major new expansion of presidential powers.

You would think that the silver lining of the Trump years would be to remind us all of the virtue of limited government, and a limited executive in particular.  Instead, both sides are doubling down on who can be more authoritarian.  It's maddening.

[timschochet 33,257]

2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

You would think that the silver lining of the Trump years would be to remind us all of the virtue of limited government, and a limited executive in particular.  Instead, both sides are doubling down on who can be more authoritarian.  It's maddening.

Let’s not overstate this. 

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of modern Presidential primary campaigns is that both the candidates and the voters seem to assume that the President has full authoritarian powers already. Every candidate in either party offers tons of amazing promises and proposals and nobody ever asks “how are you going to do that?” 

For example, in last week’s debate, Bernie Sanders, trying to perhaps show a distinction between himself and Liz Warren, said “in the first week of my administration we are going to pass Medicare for All!” He makes this same promise at his rallies, to great applause. Gee Bernie, I guess the usual “first 100 days” was just too long. Meanwhile Donald Trump promised to build the wall in his first month, which Mexico was just waiting to cut the check for. 

Once they are in office, of course, these promises that would require the President as dictator are quickly forgotten. Also of course once in office each President works ceaselessly to increase their own power, but that’s to be expected. 

[IvanKaramazov 21,181]

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Let’s not overstate this. 

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of modern Presidential primary campaigns is that both the candidates and the voters seem to assume that the President has full authoritarian powers already. Every candidate in either party offers tons of amazing promises and proposals and nobody ever asks “how are you going to do that?” 

For example, in last week’s debate, Bernie Sanders, trying to perhaps show a distinction between himself and Liz Warren, said “in the first week of my administration we are going to pass Medicare for All!” He makes this same promise at his rallies, to great applause. Gee Bernie, I guess the usual “first 100 days” was just too long. Meanwhile Donald Trump promised to build the wall in his first month, which Mexico was just waiting to cut the check for. 

Once they are in office, of course, these promises that would require the President as dictator are quickly forgotten. Also of course once in office each President works ceaselessly to increase their own power, but that’s to be expected. 

"I'm going to pass a bunch of legislation in the first 100 days of my administration" is a lot different than "I'm going to unilaterally abrogate intellectual property protection."  That's a difference in kind, not degree.

I would also include in this discussion promises like "From now on, the executive branch will regulate the content of media companies like Facebook and Twitter."  That's not literally an unprecedented expansion of government power because we had things like the Sedition Act at one point, but it's not the kind of power that I would like to see handed to Trump.