Jump to content

U.S. Politics-Getting a Handel On Why the DNC Is Pissing Ossof


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Stego said:

Another video was just released. Van Jones. Ouch.

Perhaps a bit of critical thinking is needed?

"The Russia thing" is such a multi-headed beast right now that who knows what is actually being talked about when he says "It's a nothing burger". The fact that the intelligence agencies are still looking into it and there is a very firm conclusion that Russia did meddle, and that Trump has now pivoted to castigating Obama about knowing about he Russia hacks and did nothing, and that Van Jones surely knows all this, clearly means there is a lot about the Russia thing that isn't a nothing burger. Hell, he could be talking about the shit that's been stirred up over the pulling of the CNN Scaramucci articles and the resignations of those involved. In which case, arguably he's being overly dismissive of something that some people are calling a big deal, including you.

Fact is we have no idea of the full context of the "nothing burger" comment and so it's not possible to draw substantive conclusions about it. But that's not going to stop people from deciding that everyone at CNN is a corrupt PoS.

Hidden camera gotchas, with creative editing, isn't new and it isn't unique to the alt media. There have been victims of this technique perpetrated by the MSM. But if people are saying they are a higher standard of information dissemination than the MSM, then resorting to these sensationalist techniques puts the lie to that claim, and sows they are in the gutter as much as their ideological opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Polls show GOP health bill bleeding out
A new round of surveys shows support is under 20 percent.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/28/health-care-polls-republicans-240062

Well, I guess we'll see if the Republicans are willing to do what's right (according to their philosophy) or what's expedient. Odds are probably on expedient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I think the most encouraging thing about the administration thus far is by almost anybody's definition of the term we should still be in the honeymoon period, yet the approval and generic congressional vote numbers are already where they're at.  Plus, other than the travel ban and Gorsuch, this is without Trump actually doing anything that the vast majority of voters pay attention to.

I'm honestly not sure what voters pay attention to, but between Gorsuch, the travel ban 'win', the EPA stuff, the healthcare bill passing in the House and the Syrian strike I think there's largely been a fair amount of positive bits along with extremely negative but partisan stuff that hasn't yet translated into bipartisan disapproval.

And until it does, I'm not convinced it matters much.

Also, I'm not sure that there exists a honeymoon period any more except in dire circumstances. I suspect partisanship and social media have reduced that from a few months to maybe a week or two.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm honestly not sure what voters pay attention to, but between Gorsuch, the travel ban 'win', the EPA stuff, the healthcare bill passing in the House and the Syrian strike I think there's largely been a fair amount of positive bits along with extremely negative but partisan stuff that hasn't yet translated into bipartisan disapproval.

And until it does, I'm not convinced it matters much.

Right that was kind of my point - he hasn't done much that is going to move the needle one or another (and no, healthcare doesn't count until it becomes law) yet he's still got shitty numbers.  

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, I'm not sure that there exists a honeymoon period any more except in dire circumstances. I suspect partisanship and social media have reduced that from a few months to maybe a week or two.

That's bollocks.  Obama's approval didn't go below 50% until mid-November and Dubya's didn't until, well, 2004 because of 9/11 and Iraq (although it was at 51% the week before 9/11).  Clinton's did by mid-May but (1) it's important to keep in mind he won with 43% of the vote and (2) his fumbling out of the gate is the most recent president that resembles Trump's own first six months.  

The fact is the honeymoon "period," which is usually operationalized as the president's entire first year, has been durably shown to have a significantly positive relationship with presidents' most popular and legislatively productive periods.  Partisanship - which in terms of polarization has been on the rise for all three of the presidents mentioned - certainly lowers the ceiling on approval but it's not going reduce it to a few months, let alone a week or two.  And neither is social media, except inasmuch as Trump's tweeting has gotten him into trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm honestly not sure what voters pay attention to, but between Gorsuch, the travel ban 'win', the EPA stuff, the healthcare bill passing in the House and the Syrian strike I think there's largely been a fair amount of positive bits along with extremely negative but partisan stuff that hasn't yet translated into bipartisan disapproval.

And until it does, I'm not convinced it matters much.

Yeah, if I was a Trump supporter I'd be looking at the above, plus the Cuba wind-back and the anti-Iranian posturing, and probably feeling quite satisfied that the President is destroying the Obama legacy and advancing some of the conservative or isolationist policies that I voted for. I'd probably be a bit annoyed that there isn't a wall yet, but hey, it's only six months into a four-year term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Right that was kind of my point - he hasn't done much that is going to move the needle one or another (and no, healthcare doesn't count until it becomes law) yet he's still got shitty numbers.

I don't think Trump was ever going to have good numbers. I'm not convinced that any POTUS of any sort is going to have anything beyond 55% at best, and likely it'll be 40-45% for the most part. The only thing that has caused any POTUS to dip below base partisan levels in the last, what, 20 years? was the Great Recession. 

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That's bollocks.  Obama's approval didn't go below 50% until mid-November and Dubya's didn't until, well, 2004 because of 9/11 and Iraq (although it was at 51% the week before 9/11).  Clinton's did by mid-May but (1) it's important to keep in mind he won with 43% of the vote and (2) his fumbling out of the gate is the most recent president that resembles Trump's own first six months.  

Social media wasn't particularly high in 2009 or 2004, was it? Twitter had barely started, and facebook wasn't being used for sharing information like it is now. That was sort of my point. Social media has the effect of speeding up everything. Scandals that would take weeks to report get reported and forgotten in a week or less. Successes get buried (anyone remember Trump's great moving speech when 'he became president'?) just as fast. 

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The fact is the honeymoon "period," which is usually operationalized as the president's entire first year, has been durably shown to have a significantly positive relationship with presidents' most popular and legislatively productive periods.  Partisanship - which in terms of polarization has been on the rise for all three of the presidents mentioned - certainly lowers the ceiling on approval but it's not going reduce it to a few months, let alone a week or two.  And neither is social media, except inasmuch as Trump's tweeting has gotten him into trouble.

It had been, but I'm not sure that it is any more. Remember that Clinton was going to have the same kind of thing - Republicans swore that they'd never nominate a SCOTUS for Clinton, as an example. Now, it's fair to say that because both Clinton and Trump were hugely public beforehand and both heavily unpopular that is the reason that they'd have no honeymoon - but I think it's also a reasonable hypothesis that social media has shortened that period heavily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think Trump was ever going to have good numbers. I'm not convinced that any POTUS of any sort is going to have anything beyond 55% at best, and likely it'll be 40-45% for the most part. The only thing that has caused any POTUS to dip below base partisan levels in the last, what, 20 years? was the Great Recession.

What's base partisan levels?  40 percent?  Because presidents in general don't usually drop below that since Gallup started polling and when they do for any sustained period of time that almost always means they're about to lose or leave office.  What's unique is Trump is basically hovering around these levels from the get-go.

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Social media wasn't particularly high in 2009 or 2004, was it? Twitter had barely started, and facebook wasn't being used for sharing information like it is now. That was sort of my point. Social media has the effect of speeding up everything. Scandals that would take weeks to report get reported and forgotten in a week or less. Successes get buried (anyone remember Trump's great moving speech when 'he became president'?) just as fast. 

It had been, but I'm not sure that it is any more. Remember that Clinton was going to have the same kind of thing - Republicans swore that they'd never nominate a SCOTUS for Clinton, as an example. Now, it's fair to say that because both Clinton and Trump were hugely public beforehand and both heavily unpopular that is the reason that they'd have no honeymoon - but I think it's also a reasonable hypothesis that social media has shortened that period heavily. 

This is a reasonable premise that you could maybe develop into a hypothesis.  And one that's going to need far more data than solely Trump.  Forgive me, but I or any other long term observer is going to have a hard time accepting that social media, independently, would have such a drastic effect as you're suggesting.

What you could say is that (1) Trump was rather unique because he was coming into the presidency with substantially lower approval numbers than most (or pretty much every other) incoming presidents (as Clinton would be as well), (2) his unprecedentedly confrontational relationship with political media has attenuated any honeymoon and has kept approval grounded to his base, and (3) any successes (or failures) that would previously move numbers is now limited by the rapidity of social media.

That's the beginnings of a theory - but the first two are why Trump specifically has such poor numbers, which is precisely why I'm encouraged.  Particularly considering he came in with unified government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dmc515 said:

What's base partisan levels?  40 percent?  Because presidents in general don't usually drop below that since Gallup started polling and when they do for any sustained period of time that almost always means they're about to lose or leave office.  What's unique is Trump is basically hovering around these levels from the get-go.

Yeah, 40% appears to be base partisan levels, and short of major issues no one drops below those things for very long. 

Trump starting there after a brief bit upwards is unique; what is also unique is that his disapproval rating is so high. I suspect his approval rating will not drop below 40% unless there is something truly bipartisan that hits him such as a scandal that cannot be explained away or the economy tanking. 

Just now, dmc515 said:

This is a reasonable premise that you could maybe develop into a hypothesis.  And one that's going to need far more data than solely Trump.  Forgive me, but I or any other long term observer is going to have a hard time accepting that social media, independently, would have such a drastic effect as you're suggesting.

That's fair. That said, we already have a lot of good evidence and data and even experiments that social media is massively altering how people ingest, experience and interact with politics. 

Just now, dmc515 said:

What you could say is that (1) Trump was rather unique because he was coming into the presidency with substantially lower approval numbers than most (or pretty much every other) incoming presidents (as Clinton would be as well), (2) his unprecedentedly confrontational relationship with political media has attenuated any honeymoon and has kept approval grounded to his base, and (3) any successes (or failures) that would previously move numbers is now limited by the rapidity of social media.

That's the beginnings of a theory - but the first two are why Trump specifically has such poor numbers, which is precisely why I'm encouraged.  Particularly considering he came in with unified government.

Trump coming in with unified government has more to do with gerrymandering and population structures than anything else, IMO. 

As to the #2, I'm not sure that that is relevant any more either. When roughly half of the population gets their news directly or indirectly from fully-partisan systems which will not only jump around bad news, they'll simply not even report it, I'm skeptical that an antagonistic relationship with media that has already been painted in a partisan corner matters much. It certainly didn't during the election cycle. 

My other suspicion is that short of some kind of unifying success or issue (such as major war or economic crisis) presidents will naturally go to their partisan base, and social media will speed this up. Everyone expects the new POTUS to be able to fix things like that, and everyone is disappointed and goes back to their partisan background. The newness effect is one commonly experienced in A/B testing, and I suspect it applies to POTUS as well - and it's amplified in dropout rate with faster cycles. Now, you're right in that there's no real way to test it any time soon; Trump has a lot of other factors that make him unique. My suspicion is that if we ever actually get a real election again, we'll see almost precisely the same kinds of numbers about POTUS unless there's a war or recession. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I suspect his approval rating will not drop below 40% unless there is something truly bipartisan that hits him such as a scandal that cannot be explained away or the economy tanking. 

Even if this is the case (and my own suspicion is his "basement" is closer to 35 than 40) presidents with 40 percent approval do not get reelected and their parties get hit hard in midterms.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's fair. That said, we already have a lot of good evidence and data and even experiments that social media is massively altering how people ingest, experience and interact with politics. 

"Massively" isn't a term I'd use, but sure.  However, why social media would have the impact you're suggesting needs much more than hunches, and I haven't seen any research on it.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Trump coming in with unified government has more to do with gerrymandering and population structures than anything else, IMO. 

Whatever the reason is, it's important because moving one's legislative agenda is traditionally much more easier during the honeymoon under unified government, and that has not been the case thus far.

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As to the #2, I'm not sure that that is relevant any more either.

It's relevant because his non-base does not get their news from such partisan sources, thus it follows when the rest of political media has such an antagonistic relationship with Trump his approval will be limited to his base.

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My suspicion is that if we ever actually get a real election again, we'll see almost precisely the same kinds of numbers about POTUS unless there's a war or recession.

I disagree with this strongly.  Simple arithmetic states that not every president's ceiling of approval should be limited to 45 percent.  Now, I totally agree that we're at the point it's at 55, and could very well be 50 in the future, but even that's still a very important difference from Trump who hasn't been above 43% since his first week in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth pointing out, and thus far overlooked in the AHCA thing:

 

The few republican congress-people who held town halls in wake of the Houses passage of this bill got absolutely hammered.  Even when they tried to vet the gatherings, they still got yelled at, shouted down, and had to deal with hostile audiences - republican audiences, for the most part.  Once or twice - prior to the baseball mess - there was even attempted violence. 

So, what happens to the congress-people this time who vote for the AHCA, and then go forth to hold town halls?  We could be looking at multiple violent incidents.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Worth pointing out, and thus far overlooked in the AHCA thing:

 

The few republican congress-people who held town halls in wake of the Houses passage of this bill got absolutely hammered.  Even when they tried to vet the gatherings, they still got yelled at, shouted down, and had to deal with hostile audiences - republican audiences, for the most part.  Once or twice - prior to the baseball mess - there was even attempted violence. 

So, what happens to the congress-people this time who vote for the AHCA, and then go forth to hold town halls?  We could be looking at multiple violent incidents.   

It's simple. They won't be holding town halls. They already are dodging them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's simple. They won't be holding town halls. They already are dodging them. 

And WHEN they are not allowed to dodge Town Halls?  The Town Halls come to them? The articles I was looking at mentioned groups turning up outside their offices, and even their homes on occasion.  It happened here, in Alaska, with Murkowski.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

What can the democrats actually do about gerrymandering? What can they do to fix the part at the state-level?

Win state-level elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...