U.S. Politics 2016: The Mayans Were Only Off By 1418 Days

[Commodore]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

What if he actually decides to nominate his sister for the hell of it? She seems like she's reasonably qualified for it, but she's 79 and has been a mainstream liberal judge her entire career. That'd be an interesting wrinkle on it.

I don't think its particularly likely though. But what I do think is that Trump wants a nominee who is conservative in most things but also supports gay marriage; I'm not sure how many judges and lawyers out there fit that particular profile. Maybe Ted Olson?

Trump has a list he and Pence have repeatedly publicly committed to. To go back on that would be a huge risk for little gain, as many voters said they held their nose and voted for him because of SCOTUS. 

If not Pryor, my guess is it will be Dianne Sykes or Don Willett

[Fez]

10 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Trump has a list he and Pence have repeatedly publicly committed to. To go back on that would be a huge risk for little gain, as many voters said they held their nose and voted for him because of SCOTUS. 

If not Pryor, my guess is it will be Dianne Sykes or Don Willett

Could always chalk that up to the "serious, not literal" thing that he's done a few other times. I agree it'd be a risk to go off-list, but I think so long as he picks someone who is committed to overturning Roe v. Wade most of his supporters will be fine with whoever it is and whatever other stances they have.

[IheartIheartTesla]

57 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Other than SCOTUS, the most important domestic appointments Trump makes will be EPA/Interior/BLM. Those agencies have the power to wreak havoc on productivity, with little means for Congress to check them (I'm genuinely shocked the EPA/Obama never tried to impose a nationwide fracking ban). 

Why would he/they? It is one of the big reasons we hit our emissions targets early, and many Democrats recognize it as a temporary stop gap measure while we move to more renewable sources. Even Hillary, who is pretty aligned with Obama didnt want a nationwide fracking ban (Sanders did, probably one of the few issues I disagreed with him, along with GMO)

Now that OPEC has cut down production, and they (the Saudis) failed to bankrupt most of the North American companies that utilize fracking, I see it being there for a fairly long time, Democrat or Republican administration notwithstanding.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, Fez said:

Could always chalk that up to the "serious, not literal" thing that he's done a few other times. I agree it'd be a risk to go off-list, but I think so long as he picks someone who is committed to overturning Roe v. Wade most of his supporters will be fine with whoever it is and whatever other stances they have.

Do his core supporters even care about Roe v. Wade though? The Supreme Court appointments were his carrot for the people who were not supporters of him during the primary.

That said, Trump is already breaking campaign promises, so why should anyone be surprised if he breaks this one too? 

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do his core supporters even care about Roe v. Wade though? The Supreme Court appointments were his carrot for the people who were not supporters of him during the primary.

That said, Trump is already breaking campaign promises, so why should anyone be surprised if he breaks this one too? 

 

I don't think I'd call the Evangelicals his "core supporters" that was more an alliance of convenience and hating Clinton.

My anecdotal experience is that a lot of the White Working Class and alt-right isn't particularly religious. It's demographic that calls itself Christian but never goes to church. They many still oppose abortion out of cultural inertia or because they think pre-marital sex ought to have consequences or something.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I don't think I'd call the Evangelicals his "core supporters" that was more an alliance of convenience and hating Clinton.

My anecdotal experience is that a lot of the White Working Class and alt-right isn't particularly religious. It's demographic that calls itself Christian but never goes to church. They many still oppose abortion out of cultural inertia or because they think pre-marital sex ought to have consequences or something.

That's kind of my point though. He's core supporters aren't driven by religion and they probably don't care about overturning Roe v. Wade. I'd venture to guess that all they care about with regards to the Supreme Court is that liberals don't control it.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's kind of my point though. He's core supporters aren't driven by religion and they probably don't care about overturning Roe v. Wade. I'd venture to guess that all they care about with regards to the Supreme Court is that liberals don't control it.

Not his core supporters; at least not most of them. But his core supporters aren't enough to win re-election. He needs that 50%+ of Republicans who never voted for him in the primary to stay with him. If Trump nominated a pro-choice SCOTUS justice they would immediately revolt, as would most Republicans in Congress.

IIRC, next Congress there will be exactly 2 Republican senators and 3 Republican representatives on the record as being pro-choice. Its not a popular position in the party.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not his core supporters; at least not most of them. But his core supporters aren't enough to win re-election. He needs that 50%+ of Republicans who never voted for him in the primary to stay with him. If Trump nominated a pro-choice SCOTUS justice they would immediately revolt, as would most Republicans in Congress.

I'm not suggesting that he's going to nominate an openly pro-choice justice, just that he's not bound to anyone on that list. I'm also skeptical that he'd get primaried over a less than ideal Supreme Court nominee. 

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not suggesting that he's going to nominate an openly pro-choice justice, just that he's not bound to anyone on that list. I'm also skeptical that he'd get primaried over a less than ideal Supreme Court nominee. 

I agree that he's not bound by the list. But I think if he nominates someone the majority of Republicans find unacceptable, he'll need to have an otherwise extremely successful presidency in their eyes to avoid a primary or third party challenge that does split the vote.

Remember, to the pro-life crowd, abortion is one of the greatest genocides of the modern world and must be stopped at nearly any cost. If Trump gives them a SCOTUS justice that agrees, they'll keep supporting him almost no matter what else he does or what else that justice believes.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Mikael said:

Fair enough, sorry.

What I don't get though, is how appealing to working class is somehow adversarial to identity politics. Isn't the working class predominantly non-white and female? And if that's the case, shouldn't it have been possible to appeal to the entire working class without abandoning equality for all? 

Well, that's one of the wrinkles, in fact. If Trump won by appealing to the economic self-interest of the working class, why did it work less well for women and much less well for minorities? (I asked this above.) There are probably multiple possible answers to that, but the most credible on the face of it is that the male, white working class were less bothered by his racism and sexism. But if that's true, couldn't it also be that these things were in fact at least part of the appeal for those voters? That the economic argument was the cherry on the cake instead of the cake?

The economic argument is, for me, a tempting thing for educated middle-class folks like most of us here to believe, because if it's true then the white working-class can be won over easily when Trump inevitably fails to live up to his fanciful promises, and also because it means that the white working class really aren't unreasonable and don't support nasty opinions that we would find it uncomfortable to have to confront. But this is exactly why I think we should be careful about rushing to that judgment. We want to believe it's possible to appeal to the entire working class without abandoning equality for all. I hope that we can. But if we can't... that would be a real problem.

[Castel]

26 minutes ago, Fez said:

I agree that he's not bound by the list. But I think if he nominates someone the majority of Republicans find unacceptable, he'll need to have an otherwise extremely successful presidency in their eyes to avoid a primary or third party challenge that does split the vote.

Remember, to the pro-life crowd, abortion is one of the greatest genocides of the modern world and must be stopped at nearly any cost. If Trump gives them a SCOTUS justice that agrees, they'll keep supporting him almost no matter what else he does or what else that justice believes.

It's not just about a primary challenge, which I doubt. It's just...turnout. You don't want people staying at home.

[Ormond]

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

Well, that's one of the wrinkles, in fact. If Trump won by appealing to the economic self-interest of the working class, why did it work less well for women and much less well for minorities? (I asked this above.) There are probably multiple possible answers to that, but the most credible on the face of it is that the male, white working class were less bothered by his racism and sexism. But if that's true, couldn't it also be that these things were in fact at least part of the appeal for those voters? That the economic argument was the cherry on the cake instead of the cake?

The economic argument is, for me, a tempting thing for educated middle-class folks like most of us here to believe, because if it's true then the white working-class can be won over easily when Trump inevitably fails to live up to his fanciful promises, and also because it means that the white working class really aren't unreasonable and don't support nasty opinions that we would find it uncomfortable to have to confront. But this is exactly why I think we should be careful about rushing to that judgment. We want to believe it's possible to appeal to the entire working class without abandoning equality for all. I hope that we can. But if we can't... that would be a real problem.

Obviously there would be great differences between individuals in their precise motives in voting for Trump or anyone, regardless of class status.

But I think one of the reasons that it's hard to separate out these two issues is that in the minds of many less-educated voters they are actually intimately connected. They are frightened of the prospect of losing their jobs (or having their children or grandchildren lose theirs, since many of them are retired themselves) due to competition from immigrants or outsourcing, and that immediately leads them to blame the immigrants and other nonwhites, and so find the presence of immigrants and nonwhites in the country even more threatening than they otherwise would. For many of them, I think disentangling whether the economic anxiety or the rejection of immigrants is "more important" is a close to impossible, because in their own minds the two seem to be flip sides of the same coin. 

[Inigima]

Someone mentioned this earlier, but... I'm a Clinton voter. i also pay very close attention to politics, much closer than average. I'm comfortable saying Clinton's policies will be more to my liking than Trump's, to say nothing of the horrifyingly inappropriate things Trump has said and done. That said, if I'm honest, I couldn't tell you what most of her economic policies are. I know she's more pro-immigration than Trump, but I couldn't describe her specific plans. I'm 100% sure she has them -- she's famously detail-oriented. But I don't really know what they are.

In contrast, Trump's plans are insane (Build a wall! No Muslims in the country! Deport everyone!), but I know what they are.

I wonder if maybe people just didn't see specific plans to help them.

[Isalie]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

Well, that's one of the wrinkles, in fact. If Trump won by appealing to the economic self-interest of the working class, why did it work less well for women and much less well for minorities? (I asked this above.) There are probably multiple possible answers to that, but the most credible on the face of it is that the male, white working class were less bothered by his racism and sexism. But if that's true, couldn't it also be that these things were in fact at least part of the appeal for those voters? That the economic argument was the cherry on the cake instead of the cake?

The economic argument is, for me, a tempting thing for educated middle-class folks like most of us here to believe, because if it's true then the white working-class can be won over easily when Trump inevitably fails to live up to his fanciful promises, and also because it means that the white working class really aren't unreasonable and don't support nasty opinions that we would find it uncomfortable to have to confront. But this is exactly why I think we should be careful about rushing to that judgment. We want to believe it's possible to appeal to the entire working class without abandoning equality for all. I hope that we can. But if we can't... that would be a real problem.

Well, I probably haven't been as clear as I should've. My point wasn't that Trump won because he presented good strategies for the working class or w/e, though he certainly seems to have come across to a segment of the population as someone who would champion their causes (to me it seems like he's been a tabula rasa on which different groups project different traits). My point was that I don't understand how economic equality isn't very high up on the list of priorities for every minority that is also part of the working class.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, Fez said:

I agree that he's not bound by the list. But I think if he nominates someone the majority of Republicans find unacceptable, he'll need to have an otherwise extremely successful presidency in their eyes to avoid a primary or third party challenge that does split the vote.

I doubt he'll pick someone that Republicans find unacceptable. For all we know he might not even be the one who actually selects the nominee, but I suspect that if he is the person who does, the nominee will first and foremost serve his business interests, so all he has to do is find someone that will who is also in favor or rolling back Roe v. Wade. 

As far as being primaried goes, Trump would have to be a complete disaster to have that threat raised. A primary all but assures a loss in 2020.

48 minutes ago, Fez said:

Remember, to the pro-life crowd, abortion is one of the greatest genocides of the modern world and must be stopped at nearly any cost. If Trump gives them a SCOTUS justice that agrees, they'll keep supporting him almost no matter what else he does or what else that justice believes.

The first part is correct, but it remains to be seen if nominating an unabashed pro-life justice gives Trump a blank check with the pro-life movement. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Wouldn't it be amazing if he could convince the so-called pro-life movement to actually be, you know, pro-life instead of merely pro-fetus?

[Mladen]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/happens-vote-switching-elector-december-19-101805256.html?ref=gs

If this article is remotely true (it's still yahoo), I would die from laughing. Apparently Hillary's votes on the Electoral College are more pliable to be convinced not to vote for her.

[mormont]

31 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Obviously there would be great differences between individuals in their precise motives in voting for Trump or anyone, regardless of class status.

But I think one of the reasons that it's hard to separate out these two issues is that in the minds of many less-educated voters they are actually intimately connected. They are frightened of the prospect of losing their jobs (or having their children or grandchildren lose theirs, since many of them are retired themselves) due to competition from immigrants or outsourcing, and that immediately leads them to blame the immigrants and other nonwhites, and so find the presence of immigrants and nonwhites in the country even more threatening than they otherwise would. For many of them, I think disentangling whether the economic anxiety or the rejection of immigrants is "more important" is a close to impossible, because in their own minds the two seem to be flip sides of the same coin. 

I agree about the wide variation, and that to some of the voters in question, it's probably all related or feels so. But I think there's more to it even than that. It's not even about immigration as a rational economic threat. I feel like it's more of an emotional reaction, mixing together all sorts of negative feelings and giving them a target - kick the elites. There are ways to counter that, of course.

23 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Well, I probably haven't been as clear as I should've. My point wasn't that Trump won because he presented good strategies for the working class or w/e, though he certainly seems to have come across to a segment of the population as someone who would champion their causes (to me it seems like he's been a tabula rasa on which different groups project different traits). My point was that I don't understand how economic equality isn't very high up on the list of priorities for every minority that is also part of the working class.

Who says that it isn't?

[Isalie]

The long list of posters here that has gone bananas every time *working class* has been mentioned? Anyway, this will be my last post on the subject, feel free to tell me I'm wrong and that for instance Boris wouldn't have called me a bunch of names by now if he had been around. 

[TerraPrime]

The conservative voters I listen to don't link jobs to immigrants. They link security and safety to immigrants. Particularly on refugee issues.

 

Also, they are very in agreement with "take care of Americans first, before others," and then they roll every group they don't like into "others."