US Election 2016: the fall of the American republic

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Ah, but Trump's anti-intellectualism is the manifestation of a long term trend, born with Richard Nixon calling Adlai Stevenson an "egghead" in 1952. Trump is the unholy lovechild of Nixon and George Wallace, without the former's intelligence or the latter's genuine belief in the "little (white) guy".

Oh, I don't disagree with this. And quite frankly, Reagan sold a lot of nonsense too. It isn't something that just happened over night.

I just think it's interesting that somebody like Pethokoukis is horrified by what the Republican Party has become. He's not exactly a standard bearer for the Democratic Party.

[DMC]

On superdelegates:

Their existence has never had any impact on any contest.  During the primary I thought it was irresponsible of the media to be adding them to the overall delegate count.  They should be described as endorsements during most of the race.  The entire reason for their existence was a response to the McGovern candidacy, and they would only be able to make a difference in a very close election - this was one of Hillary's rationales for why she still had a chance in May of 2008.  The fact is as long as there is a presumptive nominee before the convention, virtually ALL superdelegates will switch to said candidate.  The only time they would exert any type of influence is during a brokered convention.  Should they be abolished?  Sure, why not.  But will they ever have an impact on the nomination process?  Very unlikely.  And have they?  No - except insofar as the media giving the public a misleading picture of the race by adding them to the pledged delegate count.

[Ariadne23]

I really think that if in some future election, it's, say, Elizabeth Warren running against Michael Moore, and Moore has 2100 pledged delegates and Warren has 1900, the superdelegates would still throw their votes to Warren and give her the nomination.

But if it's, like, Warren vs. Kaine, then I think they probably go with whoever has the most delegates.

Aside from all that, I'd agree that counting them up front before the convention is bullshit and suppresses votes.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

I really think that if in some future election, it's, say, Elizabeth Warren running against Michael Moore, and Moore has 2100 pledged delegates and Warren has 1900, the superdelegates would still throw their votes to Warren and give her the nomination.

Agreed.  And that would be precisely the type of situation envisioned by those that conceived them for when it is appropriate for the party leadership to step in.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Wow.

There's not enough information in that tweet for me to know why he thinks this is necessarily good. Are these increases all registered Democrats? If not, since Franklin County (Columbus and suburbs) would probably be a lot more Republican than Cuyahoga County (Cleveland and suburbs), that might not be good news for Clinton.

[Wrl6199]

6 minutes ago, Ormond said:

There's not enough information in that tweet for me to know why he thinks this is necessarily good. Are these increases all registered Democrats? If not, since Franklin County (Columbus and suburbs) would probably be a lot more Republican than Cuyahoga County (Cleveland and suburbs), that might not be good news for Clinton.

Its good if they were absentee ballots.

[Ariadne23]

30 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Agreed.  And that would be precisely the type of situation envisioned by those that conceived them for when it is appropriate for the party leadership to step in.

Indeed. And so while, as a Bernie supporter, I thought they were complete bullshit at the time (and still think it was bullshit to count them before the convention), I eventually found myself in the position of wishing the Republicans were less democratic and did the same thing.

ETA: Athough, Ted Cruz was the alternative and he's not really an adult either.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Thought this was pretty cool...

 

[all swedes are racist]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

 [...] but the man's a ridiculous know-nothing. I can't imagine the [Republicans] nominating him.

I imagine this went through many hundreds of thousands of minds some 16-18 months ago

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Indeed. And so while, as a Bernie supporter, I thought they were complete bullshit at the time (and still think it was bullshit to count them before the convention), I eventually found myself in the position of wishing the Republicans were less democratic and did the same thing.

ETA: Athough, Ted Cruz was the alternative and he's not really an adult either.  

Well, depending on your perspective, one way the Republicans are less democratic is by still having winner-take-all states.  To be fair, they have limited these in recent cycles - mandating any contest before March 14 this year had to be proportionally allocated.  But yeah considering Trump's margin of victory and closest challenger, the establishment GOP was fucked six ways to Sunday. 

[Castel]

22 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Indeed. And so while, as a Bernie supporter, I thought they were complete bullshit at the time (and still think it was bullshit to count them before the convention), I eventually found myself in the position of wishing the Republicans were less democratic and did the same thing.

ETA: Athough, Ted Cruz was the alternative and he's not really an adult either.  

Well,there was Rubio. 

But, even if it were just Cruz...Cruz is a bad candidate if you're a progressive, but I don't think he's a child like Trump. In a field supposedly filled with self-serving narcissists and sociopaths Trump is a particularly odious star.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Castel said:

But, even if it were just Cruz...Cruz is a bad candidate if you're a progressive, but I don't think he's a child like Trump. In a field supposedly filled with self-serving narcissists and sociopaths Trump is a particularly odious star.

I dunno, Cruz's spearheading of the 2013 government shutdown was particularly childish - and a harbinger of the type of destructive politics everyone fears with Trump.  Also, there's Lindsey Graham's awesome quote.

Anyway, as a political junkie I've always looked forward to the Senate races almost as much as the presidential race.  I'm disappointed it looks like Evan Bayh is gonna lose Indiana.  He's a classic red-state Democratic and that looked like, along with Wisconsin and Illinois, a clear pickup for the Dems.  Now, to re-take the Senate they have to look elsewhere.  Pennsylvania and New Hampshire look pretty solid, and if those early vote numbers aren't way off of the final vote they should hold Reid's seat in Nevada.  But my favorite potential pickup is Jason Kander beating former GOP Whip Roy Blunt in Missouri.  He's badass.  Probably won't win in this climate, but that's a guy to keep your eye on.

[Ariadne23]

33 minutes ago, Castel said:

Well,there was Rubio. 

But, even if it were just Cruz...Cruz is a bad candidate if you're a progressive, but I don't think he's a child like Trump. In a field supposedly filled with self-serving narcissists and sociopaths Trump is a particularly odious star.

Yeah. You're right. I read through his Wiki page. On the one hand, these three comments are not reassuring as to his character:

1) John McCain: "wacko bird" whose beliefs are not "reflective of the views of the majority of Republicans"

2) John Boehner: "Lucifer in the flesh"

3) Lindsay Graham: "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you."

On the other hand, evidently he is actually one of the best legal minds of his generation. I had no earthly idea. And he called Mitch McConnell a liar to his face on the Senate floor; truer words have likely never been spoken. So I think it's more that he's a sanctimonious prig who doesn't play well with others, and not any DSM category in particular. And you can't say he isn't qualified. So yeah, you're right.

But goddamn. What did Matt Taibi call him? Ah, here it is:

Quote

Cruz in person is almost physically repellent. Psychology Today even ran an article by a neurology professor named Dr. Richard Cytowic about the peculiarly off-putting qualities of Cruz's face.

He used a German term, backpfeifengesicht, literally "a face in need of a good punch," to describe Cruz. This may be overstating things a little. Cruz certainly has an odd face – it looks like someone sewed pieces of a waterlogged Reagan mask together at gunpoint

I guess that stuck with me. Still my favorite article of this whole stupid fucking election.

[all swedes are racist]

Still think you guys are all underestimating the Deez Nutz ground game. I've been getting calls and mailers three times a day for the past six weeks.

[Castel]

12 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Yeah. You're right. I read through his Wiki page. On the one hand, these three comments are not reassuring as to his character:

1) John McCain: "wacko bird" whose beliefs are not "reflective of the views of the majority of Republicans"

2) John Boehner: "Lucifer in the flesh"

3) Lindsay Graham: "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you."

On the other hand, evidently he is actually one of the best legal minds of his generation. I had no earthly idea. And he called Mitch McConnell a liar to his face on the Senate floor; truer words have likely never been spoken. So I think it's more that he's a sanctimonious prig who doesn't play well with others, and not any DSM category in particular. And you can't say he isn't qualified. So yeah, you're right.

But goddamn. What did Matt Taibi call him? Ah, here it is:

I guess that stuck with me. Still my favorite article of this whole stupid fucking election.

Yeah, from what I can tell the consensus is that Cruz is apparently a smart guy who is just fundamentally incapable of being likable or a "team player". We thought this would be used for good during the RNC but apparently even "Lucifer" gets cucked 

To me, while his social policies especially are distant from mine he's an actual candidate and adult. 

But all of this is moot given that I was reminded of his shutdown shenanigans

[ThinkerX]

To me, the 'information bubble' situation in the US has quasi parallels with the information situation in the USSR in the decades prior to its collapse.  The media in the USSR was fully under state control, and reported ONLY what the state wanted its subjects to know.  Quite a few people bought into this.  Others became increasingly disillusioned at the gap between what the state media claimed to be true and what they actually saw in their daily lives.  Eventually, despite its monopoly, the 'state information bubble' lost credibility among the majority of the populace.

There is also the 'social contract' aspect.  Towards the end, the USSR persisted because of a sort of bargain - the ordinary citizens agreed to state control - as long as the state made their situation quasi-comfortable.  Things like adequate food, medical attention, and whatnot.  Towards the end, though, the state became unable to keep up its end of the bargain.  (This is why I predicted in 1981 the USSR would collapse before 1990)

The US is entering into a similar situation - or at least the 'Conservative US' is.  Past couple of decades, we have seen the rise of one conservative demagogue after another, each promising to 'fix America.'  But when they attain power, they always ignore the base - failing to hold up their end of the contract that put them in power.  Trump is just the latest and most extreme of these pretenders.  But turmoil will remain until or unless the contract is honored - the conservative leadership gives the base the things they want.  That is unlikely to happen.

 

Likewise, the information bubbles around the various factions are going to have increasing issues dealing with the actual reality their audiences experience.  Eventually, much of what they proffer is going to be dismissed because of this.

 

 

 

[Boris the Blade]

35 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Yeah. You're right. I read through his Wiki page. On the one hand, these three comments are not reassuring as to his character:

1) John McCain: "wacko bird" whose beliefs are not "reflective of the views of the majority of Republicans"

2) John Boehner: "Lucifer in the flesh"

3) Lindsay Graham: "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you."

On the other hand, evidently he is actually one of the best legal minds of his generation. I had no earthly idea. And he called Mitch McConnell a liar to his face on the Senate floor; truer words have likely never been spoken. So I think it's more that he's a sanctimonious prig who doesn't play well with others, and not any DSM category in particular. And you can't say he isn't qualified. So yeah, you're right.

But goddamn. What did Matt Taibi call him? Ah, here it is:

I guess that stuck with me. Still my favorite article of this whole stupid fucking election.

LMAO Lindsay Graham's comment about Cruz is probably the funniest and my favorite. 

[Castel]

2 minutes ago, Boris the Blade said:

LMAO Lindsay Graham's comment about Cruz is probably the funniest and my favorite. 

Ted Cruz and DJT are so unlikable they made Lindsey Graham look like the coolest guy ever on The Daily Show. 

[Zorral]

Evidently you all don't know about  Cruz and his Christian Spiritual Warfare belt of satanism > Islam etc. These people have taken over Haiti and large parts of South America and Africa.

He's equally scary as the Orange Stalin from another angle.

[The Marquis de Leech]

11 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

To me, the 'information bubble' situation in the US has quasi parallels with the information situation in the USSR in the decades prior to its collapse.  The media in the USSR was fully under state control, and reported ONLY what the state wanted its subjects to know.  Quite a few people bought into this.  Others became increasingly disillusioned at the gap between what the state media claimed to be true and what they actually saw in their daily lives.  Eventually, despite its monopoly, the 'state information bubble' lost credibility among the majority of the populace.

There is also the 'social contract' aspect.  Towards the end, the USSR persisted because of a sort of bargain - the ordinary citizens agreed to state control - as long as the state made their situation quasi-comfortable.  Things like adequate food, medical attention, and whatnot.  Towards the end, though, the state became unable to keep up its end of the bargain.  (This is why I predicted in 1981 the USSR would collapse before 1990)

1. People in the USSR were inherently cynical about the media, and developed the art of reading between the lines.

2. The collapse of the USSR (as distinct from its Eastern European empire) was primarily a struggle of elites. Really, as late as August 1991, the regime could have survived, but the coup plotters were so incompetent you'd think the belonged to Britain's Parliamentary Labour Party.