US Politics: Everyone's Manipulating Everyone

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

So, at the time Nixon resigned, didn't about 25% of the population still support him? The fact that very little would make "hardcore supporters" turn against someone is not unique to Trump. That's what being "hardcore" means, isn't it? 

It is - but who is 'hardcore' is significantly greater on both sides, now. Right now, despite the relatively incredible disaster the admin has been, about 86% of Republicans still support Trump and 79% support him heavily. Even with Bush's numbers sucking so bad in 2008 he was still largely supported by Republicans. 

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/28/14761124/devos-hbcu-school-choice

Betsy Devos tries to make a point and doesn't think very hard about the point she is trying to make, screwing up in the process.

Quote

After a presidential meeting with the leaders of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, DeVos decided to issue a statement hailing them as an example of her pet issue, school choice:

 

[Ormond]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It is - but who is 'hardcore' is significantly greater on both sides, now. Right now, despite the relatively incredible disaster the admin has been, about 86% of Republicans still support Trump and 79% support him heavily. Even with Bush's numbers sucking so bad in 2008 he was still largely supported by Republicans. 

I haven't been able to find much breaking down Nixon's polls by party except for one reference to his approval ratings the week before he resigned: 

 

Quote

In the last Gallup poll before the resignation, disapproval of the President ran highest among Democrats (78%), but Independents were nearly as negative at 69%, and even among Republicans, nearly four in ten (38%) disapproved.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/the-american-publics-attitudes-about-nixon-post-watergate/

Those figures, of course, are from the very end of Nixon's Presidency so one would assume his disapproval among Republicans was a lot less than 38% a year or so before then. And remember that Trump has only been in office about 39 days. Many of the things he has done that have seemed "disastrous" to you and me are things many everyday Americans don't pay much attention to or don't care about very much, and a lot of the comments I have seen from everyday Trump voters so far are definitely along the lines of "it's still too early, give him a chance." If six months from now his support is still 86% among Republicans, that will be start to be really amazing -- actually, I think the fact that Trump's disapproval among Democrats and Independents is already so high after such a short time in office is a lot more unusual than his degree of support among Republicans after 39 days is. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I haven't been able to find much breaking down Nixon's polls by party except for one reference to his approval ratings the week before he resigned: 

 

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/the-american-publics-attitudes-about-nixon-post-watergate/

It's remarkable to me at that point that the Democrat approval rating of Nixon is actually higher than it is currently of Trump. 

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Those figures, of course, are from the very end of Nixon's Presidency so one would assume his disapproval among Republicans was a lot less than 38% a year or so before then. And remember that Trump has only been in office about 39 days. Many of the things he has done that have seemed "disastrous" to you and me are things many everyday Americans don't pay much attention to or don't care about very much, and a lot of the comments I have seen from everyday Trump voters so far are definitely along the lines of "it's still too early, give him a chance." If six months from now his support is still 86% among Republicans, that will be start to be really amazing -- actually, I think the fact that Trump's disapproval among Democrats and Independents is already so high after such a short time in office is a lot more unusual than his degree of support among Republicans after 39 days is. 

I absolutely agree. That said, there's little sign that the Republican approval rate will drop all that much barring something absolutely disastrous. And yes

[felice]

I suspect inadequate polling facilities are a bigger problem than voter ID requirements. I haven't been able to find good data on polling places per capita or anything like that, but the reports of people having to queue for hours are quite horrific. It shouldn't be necessary to queue for more than a few minutes if you're unlucky enough to turn up at a busy time.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, felice said:

I suspect inadequate polling facilities are a bigger problem than voter ID requirements. I haven't been able to find good data on polling places per capita or anything like that, but the reports of people having to queue for hours are quite horrific. It shouldn't be necessary to queue for more than a few minutes if you're unlucky enough to turn up at a busy time.

MAIL IN BALLOTING SOLVES IT ALL

IT SOLLLLLVES IITTTTT

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's remarkable to me at that point that the Democrat approval rating of Nixon is actually higher than it is currently of Trump. 

 I've heard theories floated recently that this had a lot to do with Nixon rescinding the draft, and prior to that cancelling various draft calls. Been hearing various comparisons made between Nixon and Trump on many podcasts of late, most notably on Dan Carlin's Common Sense and Sam Harris's Waking Up, and they seem to both agree that much of the disapproval that Nixon faced was negated by these acts. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I've heard theories floated recently that this had a lot to do with Nixon rescinding the draft, and prior to that cancelling various draft calls. Been hearing various comparisons made between Nixon and Trump on many podcasts of late, most notably on Dan Carlin's Common Sense and Sam Harris's Waking Up, and they seem to both agree that much of the disapproval that Nixon faced was negated by these acts. 

He also did some genuinely good things. Nixon going to China and opening that up set up policy for 40 years in a way that no one had been able to do before that, as an example. He created OSHA and the EPA!

[Dr. Pepper]

Sometimes it's the reverse?

Quote

President Donald Trump reportedly issued a bizarre statement Tuesday in response to the recent wave of anti-Semitic attacks around the country, in which dozens of Jewish community centers and cemeteries have been targeted by bomb threats and vandalism.

According to Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D), the president said, "Sometimes it's the reverse, to make people—or to make others—look bad."

"I really don't know what that means, or why he said that," Shapiro said, according to Buzzfeed.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones.

The alleged remarks are the latest in a series of strange statements that Trump has made in response to questions about an apparent wave of anti-Semitic and racist incidents.

Trump angrily dismissed a Jewish reporter's questions on the issue during a chaotic press conference two weeks ago and claimed he was the "least racist person" ever. Under pressure to finally respond after vandalism at a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis, Trump eventually condemned such incidents as "horrible." Jewish groups, including the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, slammed the president for his delayed response and described it as insufficient.

dafuq?

[Jo498]

47 minutes ago, felice said:

I suspect inadequate polling facilities are a bigger problem than voter ID requirements. I haven't been able to find good data on polling places per capita or anything like that, but the reports of people having to queue for hours are quite horrific. It shouldn't be necessary to queue for more than a few minutes if you're unlucky enough to turn up at a busy time.

Yes, it is another one of the features that is mindboggling to most inhabitants of civilized countries. And as other things (mail, transportation, commerce, commute) seem to work quite well in the US despite the huge scale, this can hardly be the main reason. After all, most of the population of the US is urban, not scattered like in Alaska.

[The Wedge]

5 hours ago, Week said:

How many names, addresses, and signatures of deceased relatives, friends, and Soros-backed fake voter rolls have you memorized? Everybody knows that people vote up to a dozen times without ID. /sarcasm 

I am desperately trying to get in on that sweet sweet pay-to-protest cash.  Please let them know I am vocal, can create witty signs, and I am a local constituent.

[Week]

3 minutes ago, The Wedge said:

I am desperately trying to get in on that sweet sweet pay-to-protest cash.  Please let them know I am vocal, can create witty signs, and I am a local constituent.

We ask that your witty signs be pornographic as well - will that be a problem for you? (I think not and hope not)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/24/1636639/-Congresswoman-claims-Women-s-March-participants-were-radical-fringe-signs-were-pornographic

[Martell Spy]

Holder: Obama is 'ready to roll'

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/eric-holder-obama-ready-public-235508

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, felice said:

I suspect inadequate polling facilities are a bigger problem than voter ID requirements. I haven't been able to find good data on polling places per capita or anything like that, but the reports of people having to queue for hours are quite horrific. It shouldn't be necessary to queue for more than a few minutes if you're unlucky enough to turn up at a busy time.

This is another form of voter suppression that is done on purpose. ~850 polling places have been removed since the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. There were examples during this election where counties that have 900k population and predominantly vote Democrat had 1 polling station whereas counties around the corner that have 50k population and predominantly white republican had 9 polling stations. State governments have complete control over this and when the Republicans own State governments, they can do as they wish, especially as they don't have to run it by the DOJ anymore. This is under-reported, especially when discussing the impact on voter suppression on turnout.

We spend so much time talking about how bad the Democrats are at campaigning (they made mistakes) but very little on how much voter suppression has increased since 2012 when there was a functioning Voting Rights Act in place. It's why I really appreciate Jason Kander's Let America Vote initiative and hope that when Obama comes back into the public spotlight, he spends it on fighting voter suppression and not "masterminding mass protests of Trump."

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, S John said:

The most disheartening thing is that in any scandal Trump will deny and shift blame, and his supporters will believe him 100% even in the face of irrefutable evidence.  I really don't know if there is anything he could do to cause some of his more hardcore supporters to turn against him.   

I wonder if such a thing exists any more in the political sphere. If you have irrefutable evidence of someone's innocence (Obama's birth certificate) and yet large numbers of people still have doubts, or worse still believe he's a dirty foreigner. Then the same will be the case when there is irrefutable evidence of someone's guilt. Large numbers will doubt their guilt or totally believe in their innocence.

Here's a thought. If Romney was elected president in 2012 would the probability of Trump ever being elected president be negligible? I think so. In hindsight, is a second term of Obama worth the cost of Trump being POTUS? Surely, two terms of Romney is better than one term of Trump.

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Here's a thought. If Romney was elected president in 2012 would the probability of Trump ever being elected president be negligible? I think so. In hindsight, is a second term of Obama worth the cost of Trump being POTUS? Surely, two terms of Romney is better than one term of Trump.

Funnily enough it's conceivable that had Romney been elected, Trump would have run as a Democrat. The question then becomes whether he could have defeated Sanders and Clinton like he defeated Cruz, Rubio, Christie, R.Paul, J.Bush... etc.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not convinced that Trump-style populism necessarily had to be Republican...

[aceluby]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I wonder if such a thing exists any more in the political sphere. If you have irrefutable evidence of someone's innocence (Obama's birth certificate) and yet large numbers of people still have doubts, or worse still believe he's a dirty foreigner. Then the same will be the case when there is irrefutable evidence of someone's guilt. Large numbers will doubt their guilt or totally believe in their innocence.

Here's a thought. If Romney was elected president in 2012 would the probability of Trump ever being elected president be negligible? I think so. In hindsight, is a second term of Obama worth the cost of Trump being POTUS? Surely, two terms of Romney is better than one term of Trump.

It would have been a slower moving train, especially given that democrats at least had control of the Senate at the time; but the goals are not that different.  Less regulation, dismantling the EPA, dismantling public education, dismantling public healthcare, increase military spending, dismantle SS....  I mean these are typical GOP goals and have been for 30 years.  The only real difference is the weird Russia stuff and the overt racism; which is bad, don't get me wrong; but the vast majority of what is happening is pretty standard republican snake oil.  If Romney had full control of Govt I'd say about 90% of what is happening would happen under his rule as well.  

 

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Funnily enough it's conceivable that had Romney been elected, Trump would have run as a Democrat. The question then becomes whether he could have defeated Sanders and Clinton like he defeated Cruz, Rubio, Christie, R.Paul, J.Bush... etc.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not convinced that Trump-style populism necessarily had to be Republican...

Overt racism and name calling never would have gone anywhere in the Democratic party.  That's how he won the nomination.

[Tempra]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Funnily enough it's conceivable that had Romney been elected, Trump would have run as a Democrat. The question then becomes whether he could have defeated Sanders and Clinton like he defeated Cruz, Rubio, Christie, R.Paul, J.Bush... etc.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not convinced that Trump-style populism necessarily had to be Republican...

Look how well Bernie Sanders did on the Democrats' side.  Despite media collusion and near unanimous establishment support for Hillary,  the Democrats were almost swept away by a populist movement, too. 

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Look how well Bernie Sanders did on the Democrats' side.  Despite media collusion and near unanimous establishment support for Hillary,  the Democrats were almost swept away by a populist movement, too. 

Yea but it's the wrong populist movement. I don't think what Trump is selling would have worked on the left. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Look how well Bernie Sanders did on the Democrats' side.  Despite media collusion and near unanimous establishment support for Hillary,  the Democrats were almost swept away by a populist movement, too. 

They really weren't. The race was never particularly close. The idea that Sanders was just a hair away is this bizarre longstanding thought that ignores basically all of reality. 

Obama and Clinton was very close. Sanders and Clinton was decided after March and the South.