2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

1,001 to 1,050 of 7,079 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>

Rednal wrote:
@Orfamay: Of course there's no chance of it. Public opinion is effectively meaningless as far as legislation goes.

Granted. But this shows just how vacuous the "I can't support Hilary because she's not wasting her time chasing single PAAAAAAAYer" whine is.

If you're waiting for a candidate who is 100% in favor of all-and-only your causes, you need to run yourself. And if you are waiting for a candidate who can actually implement all-and-only your causes, even that won't work.

Or, more bluntly, if you want single payer, vote for Hilary, because she's more likely to shift the ACA that way than anyone else in the race is. Remember that health care has actually been one of her political causes since before most of you were born, I think.


See, this is why I don't vote. Beyond our vote not having any say in policy-making what-so-ever (a fact that's been obvious for years), the whole thing is ridiculous on a level I'm not even sure South Park could have imagined.

Edit: Got ninja'd for my first time being 1000th post anywhere. Sad panda.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Yeah, what thejeff said. I'm not a huge ACA fan, but I recognize that it's boatloads better than what we had ten years ago. And with a Republican-controlled House, there's no way anything "stronger and better" would get through. I'd like to remind all of the "but single PAAAAAAAyer" chorus that the reason the ACA such a mess comes not from Republican opposition, but from Democratic opposition (34 Democratic Congressman voted against the ACA, and the much of the current muddle came from amendments that were necessary to keep the Democratic coalition together).

The simple fact is that the "Blue Dog Democrat" coalition was about eighty strong. You can imagine the horse-trading that needed to happen to get fifty of them on board for the final tally.

And in the end the Blue Dog Coalition was mostly irrelevant because the Senate was even worse. They needed every single Democrat (and Independent) on board to overcome the filibuster and that required dragging Sen. Byrd in from his death bed. That meant that the most conservative Democratic Senators basically got to write the bill - or at least have all their demands met.

I put most of the blame on Joe Leiberman - Who campaigned for John McCain, lost the Democratic primary and won as an Independent. It's probably not entirely fair, but he was my Senator so I feel ok about it. :)
While you're correct that the changes were made to get enough Democratic support, that doesn't mean Republican opposition isn't a major reason it's such a mess. The unanimous Republican opposition meant they needed all those Democratic votes and thus had to give in if they wanted anything to pass. Even a handful of Republican defectors, especially in the Senate, and there would have been a lot more maneuvering room. Or a couple more Democratic Senators, of course.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

NPR has a bit more detailed background behind the situation that Trump just stepped in with the "vote monitors". Long Story short is he could be causing some major issues for the RNC on legal grounds, as legally this may violate a consent ruling in effect on the party from 1982 (when they tried something similar in New Jersey).

Trump calls to stake out polling places


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Trump may be the first presidential nominee to leave the country in a mess after the election, without actually being elected.

He's not making the mess, he's just pointing out how bad it's gotten. This is what republicans have had to resort to for decades to get people to go along with their economic policies that funnel money to the rich.


I don't know BNW. I agree that Trump is a symptom of political dysfunction rather than the one single cause, but I think his specific personality and rhetoric generate a feedback loop that drives the lunatic fringe further into lunacy, if you see what I mean.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Trump may be the first presidential nominee to leave the country in a mess after the election, without actually being elected.
He's not making the mess, he's just pointing out how bad it's gotten. This is what republicans have had to resort to for decades to get people to go along with their economic policies that funnel money to the rich.

Saying "he's just pointing out how bad it's gotten" makes it sound like he's doing that on purpose. I'd say "Serving as an example of how bad it's gotten".

Beyond that, I'd agree with Hitdice - he's a product of the vicious cycle the GOP is caught in, but he's also pushing it further.

I'd also differ from MMCJawa in that he's not the first. McCain and particularly his selection of Palin did a similar kind of damage, in many ways pointing the way to where we are now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's the inevitable end product of the Republican party's tactics for the past multiple decades, furthered along by the development of internet and a news channel that can enforce that skewed image of reality they have.

It is a "break" from anything that has come before however. Trump's rhetoric is far more inflammatory and problematic than any past nominee since I have been old enough to pay attention. The big question is whether this is an anomaly, a wake up call, or the new normal for the Republican Party.


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Trump may be the first presidential nominee to leave the country in a mess after the election, without actually being elected.
He's not making the mess, he's just pointing out how bad it's gotten. This is what republicans have had to resort to for decades to get people to go along with their economic policies that funnel money to the rich.

Saying "he's just pointing out how bad it's gotten" makes it sound like he's doing that on purpose. I'd say "Serving as an example of how bad it's gotten".

Beyond that, I'd agree with Hitdice - he's a product of the vicious cycle the GOP is caught in, but he's also pushing it further.

I'd also differ from MMCJawa in that he's not the first. McCain and particularly his selection of Palin did a similar kind of damage, in many ways pointing the way to where we are now.

Did McCain and Palin really result in a potential equivalent amount of damage? I think the fact that Obama was black with a "foreign" name and was interpreted as "far left" would have resulted in the radicalization no matter who the candidate was.


MMCJawa wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Trump may be the first presidential nominee to leave the country in a mess after the election, without actually being elected.
He's not making the mess, he's just pointing out how bad it's gotten. This is what republicans have had to resort to for decades to get people to go along with their economic policies that funnel money to the rich.

Saying "he's just pointing out how bad it's gotten" makes it sound like he's doing that on purpose. I'd say "Serving as an example of how bad it's gotten".

Beyond that, I'd agree with Hitdice - he's a product of the vicious cycle the GOP is caught in, but he's also pushing it further.

I'd also differ from MMCJawa in that he's not the first. McCain and particularly his selection of Palin did a similar kind of damage, in many ways pointing the way to where we are now.

Did McCain and Palin really result in a potential equivalent amount of damage? I think the fact that Obama was black with a "foreign" name and was interpreted as "far left" would have resulted in the radicalization no matter who the candidate was.

Not as much, but we were farther back on the spiral. Each step is worse than the last.

It's not an anomaly, but built on what came before.
It might be a wake-up call, but I doubt it. Most likely "He wasn't a real conservative. We just need to nominate a true conservative next time."
It's not the new normal. It's either going to get worse or better. I think we've got at least one more cycle of worse. Can't say whether the Republican Party will reform itself into something viable or shatter and be replaced.


I think the difference this time is it wasn't an incremental step, but had finally reached the point of leaping off the side of a really tall building.


If history is any guide, the Republican party's normal response to loss and failure is to step further to the right, nominating candidates who are more extreme and less willing to compromise with others. "Compromise" essentially means "failure".


My prediction (assuming Trump loses) is that we'll get Ted Cruz in 2020 (unless something even worse than full theocrat manages to rear its head).


I wouldn't underestimate Mike Pence. He's just as frightening as Cruz, if not more so. He's the Koch's puppet, and a major theocrat.

Trump would be GWB to Pence's Cheney, and that's a scary thought.


Zhangar wrote:
My prediction (assuming Trump loses) is that we'll get Ted Cruz in 2020 (unless something even worse than full theocrat manages to rear its head).

That was the point of his repudiation of Trump at the convention - I'm the one who tried to stop the last disaster. He'll likely be able to attack other candidates for supporting Trump. OTOH, he'll need to do all that without actually doing anything to offend the base, which is what screwed them during the primaries. Can't say anything against building the Wall or banning Muslims or even hinting that Clinton shouldn't be locked up, if not just shot.


thejeff wrote:


It's not an anomaly, but built on what came before.
It might be a wake-up call, but I doubt it. Most likely "He wasn't a real conservative. We just need to nominate a true conservative next time."
It's not the new normal. It's either going to get worse or better. I think we've got at least one more cycle of worse. Can't say whether the Republican Party will reform itself into something viable or shatter and be replaced.

The problem that the Republican Party has is that the politicians from the "core" red states are still successful at getting elected. They don't see any need to change rhetoric or direction in the party, since such a change probably wouldn't sit well with their base.

I mean the Republican strategists and consultants are not idiots. They know that if they want to be relevant they need to appeal to minorities. They know that our country is increasingly secular. That key policies of there party are no longer really catching the younger voters.

How do you change course on the above if a good chunk of your supporters don't care about the above concerns, and are actively engaged with the current agenda?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Invisible Kierkegaard wrote:

I wouldn't underestimate Mike Pence. He's just as frightening as Cruz, if not more so. He's the Koch's puppet, and a major theocrat.

Trump would be GWB to Pence's Cheney, and that's a scary thought.

Trump's basically said he'd leave the governing details to his VP. I suspect he thinks he could set overall policy where he cares to and let Pence implement it, while Trump sat back and didn't do any real work.

I also suspect he has absolutely no idea how government works.


MMCJawa wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's not an anomaly, but built on what came before.

It might be a wake-up call, but I doubt it. Most likely "He wasn't a real conservative. We just need to nominate a true conservative next time."
It's not the new normal. It's either going to get worse or better. I think we've got at least one more cycle of worse. Can't say whether the Republican Party will reform itself into something viable or shatter and be replaced.

The problem that the Republican Party has is that the politicians from the "core" red states are still successful at getting elected. They don't see any need to change rhetoric or direction in the party, since such a change probably wouldn't sit well with their base.

I mean the Republican strategists and consultants are not idiots. They know that if they want to be relevant they need to appeal to minorities. They know that our country is increasingly secular. That key policies of there party are no longer really catching the younger voters.

How do you change course on the above if a good chunk of your supporters don't care about the above concerns, and are actively engaged with the current agenda?

Exactly. Even worse because the threat the politician from the core red states face isn't losing to Democrats, but losing primaries to extremist Republicans.

They try. They talk about it. Then there's a primary challenge and they either spook and jump hard right or lose.

The other factor is that they do better in lower turnout, non-Presidential mid terms, so they win back some seats and that's an excuse to think "Now the country has repudiated the Democrats, we'll take the White House in two years."
I suspect when that doesn't happen, when they lose seats in a midterm is when the real crisis will happen for the Party. That's when the denial won't hold up any longer.


thejeff wrote:
Exactly. Even worse because the threat the politician from the core red states face isn't losing to Democrats, but losing primaries to extremist Republicans.

And, again, that's a problem of their own making over the past several decades. Redistrict to less heavily partisan/gerrymandered districts, and "experienced centrists" will be the ones that will be favored in the primaries.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Exactly. Even worse because the threat the politician from the core red states face isn't losing to Democrats, but losing primaries to extremist Republicans.
And, again, that's a problem of their own making over the past several decades. Redistrict to less heavily partisan/gerrymandered districts, and "experienced centrists" will be the ones that will be favored in the primaries.

Perhaps, but some of those "experienced centrists" will lose in the general.

It's not actually clear how true that is either. There's two things you can do with gerrymandering. You can give yourself a relatively few, very safe seats or you can give those to the opposition and give yourself a large number of seats with a fairly narrow advantage. The second is more common, because it gives the most advantage to the party over all. It's a little risky, because in a wave election that narrow advantage can shift and you can lose a lot of seats.

It's also not clear how much this matters for primaries. Primaries (especially non-Presidential) are always dominated by the most dedicated and extreme voters. Being in a harder district to win can make them more susceptible to the claim you have to be more moderate to win, but that hasn't been working too well with Conservative ideology.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's likely that people will blame Cruz for the inevitable defeat of Trump, claiming it was a lack of party unity that caused the xenophobic isolationist failed business man to lose the election. Certainly current donors have already said don't look to us for money in 2020, and it's possible that they'll keep their words, some of these big money guys have long memories, and sellout politicians are a dime a dozen. Cruz really doesn't bring anything that special to the table, I'm not sure he's that much of a draw to the Latin community and there's dozens of people that can pretend to religious, heck even Donald Trump is pretending (badly) and that seems to be good enough for the majority. Cruz may have thought that he was setting himself up for a 2020 run but I think he forgot to factor in that one crucial component that could be the monkey wrench in his plans: the fact that nobody likes him.


Cruz also doesn't get to say the he and he alone refused to back Trump. Kasich can lay claim to that as well, and while he isn't as high profile, that also means he isn't as hated.


Guy Humual wrote:
I think it's likely that people will blame Cruz for the inevitable defeat of Trump, claiming it was a lack of party unity that caused the xenophobic isolationist failed business man to lose the election. Certainly current donors have already said don't look to us for money in 2020, and it's possible that they'll keep their words, some of these big money guys have long memories, and sellout politicians are a dime a dozen. Cruz really doesn't bring anything that special to the table, I'm not sure he's that much of a draw to the Latin community and there's dozens of people that can pretend to religious, heck even Donald Trump is pretending (badly) and that seems to be good enough for the majority. Cruz may have thought that he was setting himself up for a 2020 run but I think he forgot to factor in that one crucial component that could be the monkey wrench in his plans: the fact that nobody likes him.

I think the Republican party will be quite happy to throw Trump under the bus if(when?) he looses the election. He doesn't actually have a lot of actual supporters among established politicians, and they will almost certainly want to distance themselves from his comments. Not sure if Cruz will recover from what he did or not: he is also an unpopular figure among the establishment. I would say Kasich would have the most to gain, if he did even remotely well in the Primary (which he kind of didn't).

I expect the RNC will probably look very closely at how they choose presidential nominees, and attempt to revise the system to make it difficult for outsiders like Trump to win.


Ted Cruz isn't coming back, he was never likeable in the first place.


captain yesterday wrote:
Ted Cruz isn't coming back, he was never likeable in the first place.

I think we've proven that the establishment doesn't have to like you for you to win the election.

Dark Archive

To put things into Pathfinder terms... this election is similar to voting for House Thrune, a rumpled pant-suit, and subjugation to Asmodeus and oh lets call it a Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral, Sczarni businessman with, apparently real, hair that looks like a toupee.

If only there were a viable third option!


MMCJawa wrote:
I think the Republican party will be quite happy to throw Trump under the bus if(when?) he looses the election.

Who is "the party"? The RNC would happily throw him under the bus right now, and would have done so in April if they could have done it without alienating the voting base.

I don't think the voting base will be as happy to return to business-as-usual in 2018 or 2020. The next candidate who campaigns on a platform of "eliminate the estate tax" and "more free trade pacts so that American companies can export more goods [and jobs]" is going to have a hard time getting out from under Trump's shadow.

Indeed, the RNC was happy to throw the Tea Party under the bus this time around, but couldn't manage it. One of the things that the post-2012 autopsy made clear is that Palin and her followers were actually a net hindrance, but that didn't translate into the votes they needed at the primary level.

Here are some recommendations taken directly from the coroner's report. Any of it sound familiar?

Quote:


* The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.

* If we believe our policies are the best ones to improve the lives of the American people, all the American people, our candidates and office holders need to do a better job talking in normal, people-oriented terms and we need to go to communities where Republicans do not normally go to listen and make our case. We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate that we care about them, too.

* If we want ethnic minority voters to support Republicans, we have to engage them, and show our sincerity.

* When it comes to social issues, the Party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming. If we are not, we will limit our ability to attract young people and others, including many women, who agree with us on some but not all issues.

* [We should] build a broad grassroots outreach effort to increase the Party base by promoting the inclusion in the Party of traditionally under-represented groups and affiliations.

* On issues like immigration, the RNC needs to carefully craft a tone that takes into consideration the unique perspective of the Hispanic community. Message development is critical to Hispanic voters.

* Promote forward-looking positive policy proposals to Hispanic communities that unite voters, such as the Republican Party’s support for school choice.

* The Republican Party is one of tolerance and respect, and we need to ensure that the tone of our message is always reflective of these core principles. In the modern media environment a poorly phrased argument or out-of-context statement can spiral out of control and reflect poorly on the Party as a whole. Thus we must emphasize during candidate trainings, retreats, etc., the importance of a welcoming, inclusive message in particular when discussing issues that relate directly to a minority group. This includes flexibility for allowing candidates to run as Republicans who may break with the Party on certain issues, whether economic or social.

* Republicans should develop a more aggressive response to Democrat rhetoric regarding a so-called “war on women.” In 2012, the Republican response to this attack was muddled, and too often the attack went undefended altogether.


It's actually kind of amazing how thoroughly opposite of their playbook they've managed to be this cycle...

Sovereign Court

Grey Lensman wrote:
Cruz also doesn't get to say the he and he alone refused to back Trump. Kasich can lay claim to that as well, and while he isn't as high profile, that also means he isn't as hated.

Kasich is far more viable then Cruz and he was the last man to fall to Trump.


Rednal wrote:
It's actually kind of amazing how thoroughly opposite of their playbook they've managed to be this cycle...

The RNC proposes, and the voters dispose.

I think the consultants underestimate how well they've trained their electorate to respond to dog whistles, and how badly individual politicians want to win (even if it means breaking the playbook's rules).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voadkha wrote:

To put things into Pathfinder terms... this election is similar to voting for House Thrune, a rumpled pant-suit, and subjugation to Asmodeus and oh lets call it a Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral, Sczarni businessman with, apparently real, hair that looks like a toupee.

If only there were a viable third option!

I'd compare Trump more to a rule 63 Queen Ileosa than anything else.


MMCJawa wrote:


I expect the RNC will probably look very closely at how they choose presidential nominees, and attempt to revise the system to make it difficult for outsiders like Trump to win.

"Fighting the last war".

After 2012, the RNC looked closely at how they chose presidential nominees and attempted to revise the system to avoid the protracted in fighting in that year's process. They limited how early primaries could start and moved the convention date up, as well as changing the rules on proportional vs winner take all primaries. All of which played into Trump's hands.
They thought they'd be helping the establishment candidate secure an unchallengeable lead, but they put Trump into an unstoppable position instead.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


I expect the RNC will probably look very closely at how they choose presidential nominees, and attempt to revise the system to make it difficult for outsiders like Trump to win.

"Fighting the last war".

After 2012, the RNC looked closely at how they chose presidential nominees and attempted to revise the system to avoid the protracted in fighting in that year's process. They limited how early primaries could start and moved the convention date up, as well as changing the rules on proportional vs winner take all primaries. All of which played into Trump's hands.
They thought they'd be helping the establishment candidate secure an unchallengeable lead, but they put Trump into an unstoppable position instead.

The fact that they had so many candidates splitting the vote I think was the real reason Trump was able gain such a monstrous lead early. When there's 17 candidates you only need a fringe faction of the party to take a lead, and when you've got a big lead people are happy to vote for a winner. Jeb was weak sauce vs Trump, but had there been only five candidates the plan might have worked and we might have had a Jeb Vs Hilary contest.


Guy Humual wrote:
When there's 17 candidates you only need a fringe faction of the party to take a lead,

Very true, but the RNC also didn't account for the fact that this "fringe faction" was, in fact, a much larger and less controllable bloc than they had bargained for. And that's something they should have known, given the fact that the Tea Party has been systematically destroying the Republican political apparatus since long before 2016. If you don't believe, me, drop by Eric Cantor's congressional office, or John Boehner's.


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


I expect the RNC will probably look very closely at how they choose presidential nominees, and attempt to revise the system to make it difficult for outsiders like Trump to win.

"Fighting the last war".

After 2012, the RNC looked closely at how they chose presidential nominees and attempted to revise the system to avoid the protracted in fighting in that year's process. They limited how early primaries could start and moved the convention date up, as well as changing the rules on proportional vs winner take all primaries. All of which played into Trump's hands.
They thought they'd be helping the establishment candidate secure an unchallengeable lead, but they put Trump into an unstoppable position instead.
The fact that they had so many candidates splitting the vote I think was the real reason Trump was able gain such a monstrous lead early. When there's 17 candidates you only need a fringe faction of the party to take a lead, and when you've got a big lead people are happy to vote for a winner. Jeb was weak sauce vs Trump, but had there been only five candidates the plan might have worked and we might have had a Jeb Vs Hilary contest.

That's conventional wisdom and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the thing they try to avoid in 2020.

I'm not sure how true it really is. Trump's willingness to appeal openly to the worst of the base and the inability of any of the other candidates seems the larger factor to me. Regardless, the changes I mentioned made it easier for Trump to dominate once he'd won those early contests where it was more split.


thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


I expect the RNC will probably look very closely at how they choose presidential nominees, and attempt to revise the system to make it difficult for outsiders like Trump to win.

"Fighting the last war".

After 2012, the RNC looked closely at how they chose presidential nominees and attempted to revise the system to avoid the protracted in fighting in that year's process.

Yeah, that's the part of their autopsy playbook they actually put into practice. Selective reading at its best....


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


I expect the RNC will probably look very closely at how they choose presidential nominees, and attempt to revise the system to make it difficult for outsiders like Trump to win.

"Fighting the last war".

After 2012, the RNC looked closely at how they chose presidential nominees and attempted to revise the system to avoid the protracted in fighting in that year's process. They limited how early primaries could start and moved the convention date up, as well as changing the rules on proportional vs winner take all primaries. All of which played into Trump's hands.
They thought they'd be helping the establishment candidate secure an unchallengeable lead, but they put Trump into an unstoppable position instead.
The fact that they had so many candidates splitting the vote I think was the real reason Trump was able gain such a monstrous lead early. When there's 17 candidates you only need a fringe faction of the party to take a lead, and when you've got a big lead people are happy to vote for a winner. Jeb was weak sauce vs Trump, but had there been only five candidates the plan might have worked and we might have had a Jeb Vs Hilary contest.

Don't forget that most of the non-Trump candidates were attacking each other and not Trump. Each one wanted to be sure that they, and no one else, was the person situated to benefit from Trump's fall. Except, of course, that by attacking each other and not Trump they helped ensure he didn't have a fall to take advantage of.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


I expect the RNC will probably look very closely at how they choose presidential nominees, and attempt to revise the system to make it difficult for outsiders like Trump to win.

"Fighting the last war".

After 2012, the RNC looked closely at how they chose presidential nominees and attempted to revise the system to avoid the protracted in fighting in that year's process.
Yeah, that's the part of their autopsy playbook they actually put into practice. Selective reading at its best....

It's the procedural part they actually had control over.

The RNC couldn't make Tea Party congresscritters not shoot off their mouths about Latinos. They couldn't make primary voters not vote for them when they did. They could control the schedule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voadkha wrote:

To put things into Pathfinder terms... this election is similar to voting for House Thrune, a rumpled pant-suit, and subjugation to Asmodeus and oh lets call it a Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral, Sczarni businessman with, apparently real, hair that looks like a toupee.

If only there were a viable third option!

Except none of that's true. Hillary isn't evil, she's lawful neutral at worst. She wants a big overarching community policy with her name on it.

The last thing that trump wants is galt or nirimathias: in both cases he'd be lynched for the amount of government and legal influence he tries to leverage against business rivals. His entire business model is predicated on a protectionist legal system to shield him from the consequences of his actions. The idea that the right is the party of small government and less government spending is a complete canard: they're for our giant military, less restrictions on police violating peoples civil rights, and using the legal system to stack the tax code and the force of law in favor of the rich.


thejeff wrote:


I'm not sure how true it really is. Trump's willingness to appeal openly to the worst of the base and the inability of any of the other candidates seems the larger factor to me.

I agree with this, especially with the highlighted section.

What, actually, is there to like about the Republican platform? I'm serious! In what way does it actually benefit a typical blue-collar Southern voter?

There's a lot of stuff in there that's explicitly harmful to "the wrong kind of people." For example, there's a lot of stuff in there that will make life harder for LGBT people, and there's quite a bit in there that will make life harder for non-Christian religions, and there's quite a bit in there about keeping women in their place.

On the other hand, the economic plan has been amply demonstrated to be harmful to the lower middle class. Tax cuts for the rich that don't actually trickle down. Deregulation to make corporate profits higher but workplaces less safe. Reduced protection for labor rights. Et cetera.

The Republican plan is basically an exercise in schadenfreude; it makes things worse for me, but it makes thing even worse for Them, so I guess I can feel superior. But when you're campaigning on the schadenfreude ticket, the winner will be the one who promises the worst possible outcome for Them, so in a sense, Trump is a logical consequence of the fact that Jeb didn't actually offer anything to make Joe Sixpack's life better, and Trump would make Joe's Mexican neighbor's life worse....


Orfamay Quest wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I think the Republican party will be quite happy to throw Trump under the bus if(when?) he looses the election.

Who is "the party"? The RNC would happily throw him under the bus right now, and would have done so in April if they could have done it without alienating the voting base.

I don't think the voting base will be as happy to return to business-as-usual in 2018 or 2020. The next candidate who campaigns on a platform of "eliminate the estate tax" and "more free trade pacts so that American companies can export more goods [and jobs]" is going to have a hard time getting out from under Trump's shadow.

Indeed, the RNC was happy to throw the Tea Party under the bus this time around, but couldn't manage it. One of the things that the post-2012 autopsy made clear is that Palin and her followers were actually a net hindrance, but that didn't translate into the votes they needed at the primary level.

Oh by Party I meant the establishment, and what you posted all goes back to what I posted earlier: RNC strategists know exactly why they are doing poorly right now, but any changes to address those issues are likely to result in alienating the same voters that keep existing Republicans in office in deep red states. Movements to implement those by politicians will almost certainly result in them losing primaries to tea party candidates.

They will go ahead and blame Trump for the losses. But Trump will blame...well everyone else (Media/RNC establishment/rigging of the election/etc). And I would bet that the core block that got Trump the nomination are going to believe Trump and not Paul Ryan and crew.


MMCJawa wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I think the Republican party will be quite happy to throw Trump under the bus if(when?) he looses the election.

Who is "the party"? The RNC would happily throw him under the bus right now, and would have done so in April if they could have done it without alienating the voting base.

I don't think the voting base will be as happy to return to business-as-usual in 2018 or 2020. The next candidate who campaigns on a platform of "eliminate the estate tax" and "more free trade pacts so that American companies can export more goods [and jobs]" is going to have a hard time getting out from under Trump's shadow.

Indeed, the RNC was happy to throw the Tea Party under the bus this time around, but couldn't manage it. One of the things that the post-2012 autopsy made clear is that Palin and her followers were actually a net hindrance, but that didn't translate into the votes they needed at the primary level.

Oh by Party I meant the establishment, and what you posted all goes back to what I posted earlier: RNC strategists know exactly why they are doing poorly right now, but any changes to address those issues are likely to result in alienating the same voters that keep existing Republicans in office in deep red states. Movements to implement those by politicians will almost certainly result in them losing primaries to tea party candidates.

They will go ahead and blame Trump for the losses. But Trump will blame...well everyone else (Media/RNC establishment/rigging of the election/etc). And I would bet that the core block that got Trump the nomination are going to believe Trump and not Paul Ryan and crew.

There is a story...something about riding a tiger. You can't keep it up forever but when you stop it's all over...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Don't forget that most of the non-Trump candidates were attacking each other and not Trump.

Well, structurally, attacking Trump would have been very difficult.

What's the message you're going to attack him on?

"No, Muslims aren't bad people; we need to focus our attentions on the actual terrorists!"

"No, immigration from Mexico is a good thing, because it helps keep labor costs down!"

"Trump's not a good leader; he's merely one of the most famous (and successful) businessmen in the United States, but he's a political outsider!"

Since Trump basically embodied all of the dog whistles that the Republicans have been using since the early 1970s, he was politically untouchable.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

What, actually, is there to like about the Republican platform? I'm serious! In what way does it actually benefit a typical blue-collar Southern voter?

There's a lot of stuff in there that's explicitly harmful to "the wrong kind of people." For example, there's a lot of stuff in there that will make life harder for LGBT people, and there's quite a bit in there that will make life harder for non-Christian religions, and there's quite a bit in there about keeping women in their place.

On the other hand, the economic plan has been amply demonstrated to be harmful to the lower middle class. Tax cuts for the rich that don't actually trickle down. Deregulation to make corporate profits higher but workplaces less safe. Reduced protection for labor rights. Et cetera.

The Republican plan is basically an exercise in schadenfreude; it makes things worse for me, but it makes thing even worse for Them, so I guess I can feel superior. But when you're campaigning on the schadenfreude ticket, the winner will be the one who promises the worst possible outcome for Them, so in a sense, Trump is a logical consequence of the fact that Jeb didn't actually offer anything to make Joe Sixpack's life better, and Trump would make Joe's Mexican neighbor's life worse....

Trumps entire campaign relies upon emotional appeals aimed at the fears of republicans voters, even if most of those fears are actually unfounded. People genuinely think Trump will bring back the imagined America of their youth or whatever, and are not going to rationally respond to arguments that suggest it never existed or that things are not apocalyptic right now

Sovereign Court

I'm not sure the racist faction is what won Trump the election necessarily, I mean I accept that it was a factor, but I think low education voters combined with Trump's celebrity is likely what was the larger impact. Early on, with 17 candidates, most people wouldn't know enough about everyone on that list to make an informed decision. People knew Trump's name and that's likely why he did so well.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I'm not sure how true it really is. Trump's willingness to appeal openly to the worst of the base and the inability of any of the other candidates seems the larger factor to me.

I agree with this, especially with the highlighted section.

What, actually, is there to like about the Republican platform? I'm serious! In what way does it actually benefit a typical blue-collar Southern voter?

There's a lot of stuff in there that's explicitly harmful to "the wrong kind of people." For example, there's a lot of stuff in there that will make life harder for LGBT people, and there's quite a bit in there that will make life harder for non-Christian religions, and there's quite a bit in there about keeping women in their place.

On the other hand, the economic plan has been amply demonstrated to be harmful to the lower middle class. Tax cuts for the rich that don't actually trickle down. Deregulation to make corporate profits higher but workplaces less safe. Reduced protection for labor rights. Et cetera.

The Republican plan is basically an exercise in schadenfreude; it makes things worse for me, but it makes thing even worse for Them, so I guess I can feel superior. But when you're campaigning on the schadenfreude ticket, the winner will be the one who promises the worst possible outcome for Them, so in a sense, Trump is a logical consequence of the fact that Jeb didn't actually offer anything to make Joe Sixpack's life better, and Trump would make Joe's Mexican neighbor's life worse....

Partly, but I dropped a phrase in there. I meant to say "the inability of any of the other candidates to counter that because they needed to appeal to the same voters".

You're right on the larger point. The non-prejudiced part of the Republican platform has essentially no appeal. The supposedly reasonable libertarian style Republicans are a small minority. Since the 60s the party has found success in pushing that harmful economic plan by tying it to prejudice against more and more different groups.


Guy Humual wrote:
I'm not sure the racist faction is what won Trump the election necessarily, I mean I accept that it was a factor, but I think low education voters combined with Trump's celebrity is likely what was the larger impact. Early on, with 17 candidates, most people wouldn't know enough about everyone on that list to make an informed decision. People knew Trump's name and that's likely why he did so well.

Forget an informed decision. If you'd heard anything about Trump's campaign - beyond knowing him from his celebrity status - you knew he was building a Wall to keep Mexicans out and you knew he wanted to ban Muslims. If you'd been paying attention a little longer you might have known he was one of the longest, loudest birthers.

Then remember we're talking primary voters. People not paying any attention largely don't vote in the primaries.


I think what Trump* is talking about is stuff like this.

LINK 1

LINK 2

Reading these and you can see why our grandparents' (or parents') generation did just fine with one-income households. Middle Class was achievable with a high school diploma and showing up to work at General Motors 40 hours a week.

*Trump is a total con and doesn't have a coherent thought in his head but I do think this type of thing is what he means when he says, "Make America great again".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Don't forget that most of the non-Trump candidates were attacking each other and not Trump.

Well, structurally, attacking Trump would have been very difficult.

What's the message you're going to attack him on?

"No, Muslims aren't bad people; we need to focus our attentions on the actual terrorists!"

"No, immigration from Mexico is a good thing, because it helps keep labor costs down!"

"Trump's not a good leader; he's merely one of the most famous (and successful) businessmen in the United States, but he's a political outsider!"

Since Trump basically embodied all of the dog whistles that the Republicans have been using since the early 1970s, he was politically untouchable.

Pretty much it. You can't attack someone for saying something openly and at the same time dog whistle your support for it. And people will always prefer the one openly saying it.

That's where the whole "He's just telling it like it is" thing comes from. People so used to the dog whistles they think everyone feels that way but is just too PC to say it openly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

I think what Trump* is talking about is stuff like this.

LINK 1

LINK 2

Reading these and you can see why our grandparents' (or parents') generation did just fine with one-income households. Middle Class was achievable with a high school diploma and showing up to work at General Motors 40 hours a week.

*Trump is a total con and doesn't have a coherent thought in his head but I do think this type of thing is what he means when he says, "Make America great again".

Except of course that Trump isn't for bringing back high marginal taxation and strong unions.

He may be referencing that, but he and his voter base would be horrified at what built that Middle Class.

And the rest of us are horrified at what we suspect too many of his base would like about those days.

Edit: As I think we discussed earlier in this thread, I'd like to ask Trump when he thinks America was great. What period would he like to go back to?

1,001 to 1,050 of 7,079 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards