US Politics : And the Finer Art of Grumbling

[DanteGabriel]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Sadly, that may be true.

Oh, don't pussyfoot it, Scot. The Southern Baptist Convention was founded over their attachment to slavery and white supremacy. They didn't acknowledge their racist past until 1995. This isn't some Civil Rights Era shit. This was while people had the Internet.

ETA: Actually I'll give them one -- racism isn't their only tenet. There's also the subjugation of women and persecution of LGBTQ+ people.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

Oh, don't pussyfoot it, Scot. The Southern Baptist Convention was founded over their attachment to slavery and white supremacy. They didn't acknowledge their racist past until 1995. This isn't some Civil Rights Era shit. This was while people had the Internet.

Yeah.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Being rational is not the same as being educated or intelligent. Even a genius can be susceptible to self-rationalization and outright delusion if they just keep hearing what they want to hear. You ever read those parts of Notes on Virginia where Thomas Jefferson starts going off on how slavery was really in the best interest of the African people.

Sure, that's fine. So again - what is the evidence that there exist any number of 'rational' Trump voters that would be swayed? Because again, 40% approval, 82% of Republicans approve.

For the low-information voters, who per @dmc515 are willing to ignore news that isn't horrifyingly loud, and apparently somehow missed entirely the Charlottesville stuff, well, they care about the economy, or jobs, or their wages. How, precisely, are you going to convince them to vote against Trump? These are the 'trains are running on time' group, right? They might be rational or not, but right now whatever values they use to determine whether or not Trump is good are going on his side - and chances are good that once someone's formed that opinion, they're going to stick with it, because that's what humans do.

That said, it is very, very difficult for me to think that people don't know some things about Trump. He has dominated the news like no other politician I've ever heard of, good and bad. He's dominated entertainment. He was what was talked about for weeks on the NFL. The idea that people might just idly think that he's 'that okay dude' seems a bit suspect. 

[Kalbear]

Another way to say it, @Let's Get Kraken, is that my hypothesis is that there exist no rational Trump voters which can be swayed by data and which are going to go to the other side, because they would have already done so. 

Now, if the economy tanks? Sure, they might go against him or not vote. If the US goes to war? Possibly, though there's an equally likely chance that they'll huddle around him even more. Some seriously big crime? Maybe; so far the Republican organization has done an excellent job ignoring all the corruption and graft going on while also attempting to obstruct any investigations that are going on; it'd have to be a pretty big one, as they ignored the pussy grabber earlier. But those are things that tend to sway anyone in general. There's nothing new that's going to happen that will make people leave.

Another bit of evidence - Trump's disapproval went to 60%, but then the taxes went up and he gave a couple speeches and he went back up by 5%. That means that there were people who are on the fence, which is cool, but what the fuck is there to be on the fence about with him?

[ants]

16 hours ago, mormont said:

The question surely is: why is a Nazi able to represent them? Is he a member of the Republican party? If so, why can they not expel him? Has the Republican party taken any steps to try to prevent his candidacy?

If they're not trying to stop him, they're tolerating him, and that is a legitimate criticism of the Illinois Republican party as a whole.  

Sorry to quote when others have responded, but I'm not sure how to get the above out of my multi-quote.   

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The house and senate have an aggregate approval rating of 18%.

And let me know how much Cruz and Ryan are popular with Republicans. (hint: they're not). 

Again, evidence would be awesome.

When you find some, please do let me know.

Another piece of evidence would be the opinion polls on the ACA.  Time and again polls found that Republican voters were in favour of the principles and ideas behind the ACA.  However, they were also against "Obamacare".  This indicates that there was a difference between what they wanted and what they understood was happening.  i.e. they were getting what they wanted, but because of the right-wing media they thought they were getting something terrible.  This quite clearly shows how there can be a very distinct split between what supporters of the Republican want/believe, and actual policy.  Because effectively they're being fed a distorted truth (or outright lies).  

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Honestly, I think Mitch McConnell knew what he was doing when he kept that SCOTUS seat open. 70% of evangelicals voted for Trump the week after Pussygate. It Would have been 80%, but Mitt Romney bailed on Trump early and he took the Mormons with him. And the only reason for that is that there was a Supreme Court nomination on the table, and a lot of these people care more about abortion than every other policy issue put together.

And to be fair, if you honestly believe abortion is mass-murder, voting for the party against it may be the morally correct decision.  Regardless of what other things that party will do.  As bad as election rigging, racism and sexism are, I can understand someone believing mass murder trumps them. 

 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

For the low-information voters, who per @dmc515 are willing to ignore news that isn't horrifyingly loud, and apparently somehow missed entirely the Charlottesville stuff, well, they care about the economy, or jobs, or their wages.

Never said anything of the sort.  I said they tend to prioritize the economy over immigration, or Charlottesville, or all the BS we've endured over the past year.  If you don't think low information voters tend to vote on the economy, there's literally dozens of studies that say otherwise.

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How, precisely, are you going to convince them to vote against Trump? These are the 'trains are running on time' group, right? They might be rational or not, but right now whatever values they use to determine whether or not Trump is good are going on his side - and chances are good that once someone's formed that opinion, they're going to stick with it, because that's what humans do.

You seem to be seriously misinterpreting what I'm saying at least (won't speak for others), so I'll clarify.  Look, I'm totally on board with the fact that 30 - or even 33% of the electorate, which means about 2/3s of GOP voters, are immovably Trump unless the economy tanks.  Moreover, that third of the electorate is on board with his racist invective and policies.  But the remaining 7 percent IS movable, because they change their minds all the time.  This is the basis of the conversation - that Trump's approval has risen to 40 when it was 33-35 in many polls and even in 538's aggregate has risen nearly four points since mid-December.  You don't need to be high information or highly educated to know that means some people changed their minds.

Combine that 7 percent with the 8 percent that only "somewhat disapprove" of Trump - many of which must have either voted for Trump or 3rd party based on basic math - and you have the 15 percent of the electorate that decides elections.  These are the outliers that clearly, consistently, do not form one opinion and stick with it.  And, generally, these people don't appreciate grouping all Trump supporters as supporting his most extreme policies and statements.  And they especially don't appreciate the polarized rhetoric such statements engender that I've seen on here, such as "all Trump voters are racist" or even "all Trump voters are complicit with Nazism."  That's a great way to not only turn them off from the Democrats, but polarize them as well.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

I’m really not sure.  All I can figure is that it a form of chosen delusion.  They see Trump as their guy and nothing is going to change their minds.  It is incredibly sad to see people abandoning the fundamental tenants of their faith to support a horrible human being like Trump.

It's not surprising at all. The religious right began as a movement attacking the desegregation of schools. They have always been about racism rather then religion.

It's mostly sad in that they've wrapped themselves in the raiments of religion and managed to somehow win that argument in the public consciousness.

[ants]

16 hours ago, Yukle said:

I disagree. The overwhelming majority of self-identified Republicans agree with Trump wholeheartedly, and happily voted for him. An overwhelming majority of them who could vote attempted to elect a child molester in Alabama.

What we see now is what the Republican party stands for. To disagree with them (which I hope that everyone does) is to not identify with them. There's a difference between idealising what they should stand for rather than what in reality they do stand for.

Republicans at the moment are chanting that non-whites suck, they are marching with swastikas and allowing it to happen. They are watching as the leader of their party says that those chanting are "good people, many of them, good people." That's utterly despicable.

If you're not compliant in this then you're not a Republican.

Absolutely, you should hope that the party returns to being something moral, humane and worthwhile. Alternatively, who gives a shit what name you give them? Make a new party, or don't identify with one, or join another that you prefer that's closer to what you stand for.

Edited to add: And this is a blunt message, from someone looking into the country, who doesn't live there. But the rest of the world is seriously scared for America and for ourselves. You should see and hear how people talk about America when you don't live there: we specifically bear a complete revulsion of the Republican party. We were already annoyed when one of them invented an excuse to invade Iraq and secure American oil interests. Looking at America now is like watching a beloved relative go senile and start chanting racism.

And when that happens we should give them hell for it.  There are absolutely heaps and heaps of things to give the Republican party and their supporters hell for.  However, that doesn't mean when tarring them that we should bring up ridiculous little things, that only represent the most fringe of elements.  When you do so, you're cheapening your main arguments, and making yourself look like a bad actor. 

15 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

There's actually a socialist party council member on the Seattle city council. Local right-wring talk show hosts love to play clips of some of her crazier statements and use that to demonstrate how awfully left-wing Seattle is and how crazily left the local Democrats have gone.

However, when you look at the entire country, there is a ton more crazy on the right in the U.S. right now. And of course it will be consolidated on state-level elected officials because those seats are easier to get. 

To see how crazy the ring-wing in America you need only look at some of the crazy monsters the right has put up for fucking U.S. Senator positions. Not to mention the current President, and of course Sarah Palin for VP.

There was the "legitimate rape" guy, Moore, among other extremists put up. I just think the Democratic voting base that votes in primaries is a ton more responsible than the Republican voting base at this moment in time.

Have the left put a lot of pedophiles up for federal-left office? 

Both sides have fringe crazies, moreso on the right.  A great example of one (partially) on the left is the anti-vaxxers.  We don't want them (or the example you give if her statements are truly crazy) being portrayed as what the Democrats stand for.  We shouldn't do the same for the Republican party either.

Especially when they present plenty of ammunition from the bulk of the party already. 

15 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I dissent. The entire Republican Party deserves to catch hell. The whole party and the conservative movement that backs it is rotten to the core. And one ought not to mince words in pointing out. In fact, at least a few self described conservatives seem to admit as much.

Sure maybe most Republicans are not Nazis. But, the fact that clowns like this guy and people like Moore are within the party, pretty much says it all about the Republican Party. They attract clowns like this precisely because for too long they have been willing to do the old wink wink nudge nudge with white resentment crowd. They attract clowns like this just like a pile of shit attracts flies. And the Republican Party is a pile of shit, and there is no good reason to beat around the bush about this matter.

This country will not get righted until the Republican Party get badly mauled, repeatedly. I don't know if it will or when. But, I do know the Republican Party will not change until its politicians fear the wrath of voters more than they do the Limbaughs and Hannities and the GOP donor class.

Getting wishy washy right about now, ain't the way to go.

Sure it does.  For the things that the Republican Party has done (or wants to do).  Which is a bloody long list.  But where even they don't want something (such as the Illinois Nazi) then they shouldn't be portrayed as such.  

[Shryke]

36 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, that's fine. So again - what is the evidence that there exist any number of 'rational' Trump voters that would be swayed? Because again, 40% approval, 82% of Republicans approve.

For the low-information voters, who per @dmc515 are willing to ignore news that isn't horrifyingly loud, and apparently somehow missed entirely the Charlottesville stuff, well, they care about the economy, or jobs, or their wages. How, precisely, are you going to convince them to vote against Trump? These are the 'trains are running on time' group, right? They might be rational or not, but right now whatever values they use to determine whether or not Trump is good are going on his side - and chances are good that once someone's formed that opinion, they're going to stick with it, because that's what humans do.

That said, it is very, very difficult for me to think that people don't know some things about Trump. He has dominated the news like no other politician I've ever heard of, good and bad. He's dominated entertainment. He was what was talked about for weeks on the NFL. The idea that people might just idly think that he's 'that okay dude' seems a bit suspect. 

Yeah, I was saying this after the election. Say what you want about the media's horrible coverage of everything during the election, they made sure you heard everything you needed  to about Trump. Every Trump voter looked at shit like Pussygate and Mexicans are Rapists and all that shit just shrugged and said "Whatever" and pulled the lever for him.

[Yukle]

51 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That said, it is very, very difficult for me to think that people don't know some things about Trump. He has dominated the news like no other politician I've ever heard of, good and bad. He's dominated entertainment. He was what was talked about for weeks on the NFL. The idea that people might just idly think that he's 'that okay dude' seems a bit suspect. 

It's probably because he is so unhinged that they like him. They want an unapologetic racist to say what they feel ashamed for thinking. And now that the veneer of shame is gone, they feel free to march in Charlottesville.  

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Never said anything of the sort.  I said they tend to prioritize the economy over immigration, or Charlottesville, or all the BS we've endured over the past year.  If you don't think low information voters tend to vote on the economy, there's literally dozens of studies that say otherwise.

I think they might. Or they vote on really big issues, like who is more attractive and more white and more male. They also tend to not change their mind after one term so long as things aren't REALLY bad.

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

You seem to be seriously misinterpreting what I'm saying at least (won't speak for others), so I'll clarify.  Look, I'm totally on board with the fact that 30 - or even 33% of the electorate, which means about 2/3s of GOP voters, are immovably Trump unless the economy tanks.  Moreover, that third of the electorate is on board with his racist invective and policies.  But the remaining 7 percent IS movable, because they change their minds all the time.  This is the basis of the conversation - that Trump's approval has risen to 40 when it was 33-35 in many polls and even in 538's aggregate has risen nearly four points since mid-December.  You don't need to be high information or highly educated to know that means some people changed their minds.

Alternately, Trump started at about 55% approval and dropped pretty quickly to the 40-35 range. Meaning that the people who have changed their minds already did so.

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Combine that 7 percent with the 8 percent that only "somewhat disapprove" of Trump - many of which must have either voted for Trump or 3rd party based on basic math - and you have the 15 percent of the electorate that decides elections.  These are the outliers that clearly, consistently, do not form one opinion and stick with it.  And, generally, these people don't appreciate grouping all Trump supporters as supporting his most extreme policies and statements.  And they especially don't appreciate the polarized rhetoric such statements engender that I've seen on here, such as "all Trump voters are racist" or even "all Trump voters are complicit with Nazism."  That's a great way to not only turn them off from the Democrats, but polarize them as well.

I don't think 15% decided the election this time, and every serious breakdown of voter turnout and the like indicates that this isn't the case either. I'm sure there were a whole lot of nice Germans who didn't really hate the jews, but they still voted for Hitler because they liked having lebensraum. 

Eventually one has to own up to what they voted for, even if they don't agree. You get Cinemax with the package. 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think they might. Or they vote on really big issues, like who is more attractive and more white and more male. They also tend to not change their mind after one term so long as things aren't REALLY bad.

Well that's nice, thanks for sharing baseless assertions - with confounding variables like "more white and more male" to boot.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Alternately, Trump started at about 55% approval and dropped pretty quickly to the 40-35 range. Meaning that the people who have changed their minds already did so.

Um, what?  Wow, that's terribly inaccurate.  Trump has never approached 55% approval.  In Gallup, as well as 538 and RCP's aggregates, he started around 45, which was historically low for an incoming president.  Literally the only firm that has ever had him at 50 or above in approval is Rasmussen, which...well, if you can't say anything nice...Maybe this is a typo and you meant 45?  If so, sure.  That was a soft number, always is in the honeymoon period.

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think 15% decided the election this time, and every serious breakdown of voter turnout and the like indicates that this isn't the case either.

I don't know how it's even possible to make this assertion.  You're saying that every "serious breakdown" didn't consider the percentage of voters that either flipped from Obama to Trump or from Obama to 3rd party?  Turnout is obviously important, and in such a close election you can chalk the difference up to just about any valid factor, but no credible "breakdown" would broadly say such voters weren't a factor.

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm sure there were a whole lot of nice Germans who didn't really hate the jews, but they still voted for Hitler because they liked having lebensraum. 

Yep, that's the type of rhetoric I'm talking bout.  Thanks!

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well that's nice, thanks for sharing baseless assertions - with confounding variables like "more white and more male" to boot.

You know as well as I that there's plenty of research indicating that sexism and racism were hugely indicative of how someone was going to vote.

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Um, what?  Wow, that's terribly inaccurate.  Trump has never approached 55% approval.  In Gallup, as well as 538 and RCP's aggregates, he started around 45, which was historically low for an incoming president.  Literally the only firm that has ever had him at 50 or above in approval is Rasmussen, which...well, if you can't say anything nice...Maybe this is a typo and you meant 45?  If so, sure.  That was a soft number, always is in the honeymoon period.

I was thinking  that, yeah. I was also thinking about his disapproval rate, which quickly dropped and dropped significantly lower than a few points.He was at 41% aggregate disapproval and managed to flip that to upper 50s within a month. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - that people hoped he'd be better and he turned out to do what it said on the tin. 

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I don't know how it's even possible to make this assertion.  You're saying that every "serious breakdown" didn't consider the percentage of voters that either flipped from Obama to Trump or from Obama to 3rd party?  Turnout is obviously important, and in such a close election you can chalk the difference up to just about any valid factor, but no credible "breakdown" would broadly say such voters weren't a factor.

There were plenty of voters who flipped, though why they flipped is not nearly as clear as being undecided and usually going one way. The research I've seen is that there were a whole lot of people who were lifetime dems who voted Republican this time. 

I'm saying that what appears to be the most indicative of voting patterns in the 2016 election is not people flipping; it's democratic voters staying home, and white men deciding to vote more than they usually do. 

Put it another way: if you believe that you can change these people's minds, you'll have the strategy that you're outlining - don't piss people off too much, give them a chance to come back to sanity, etc. If, on the other hand, you believe that most people stick with the horse that brought them and it is rare for people to change their vote in the second term, then doing this is hugely wasted effort that only alienates your base. 

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yep, that's the type of rhetoric I'm talking bout.  Thanks!

Again, if you voted for Trump you voted for institutionalized, systemic racism (and sexism, and homophobia). You, personally, might not be about that life and think it's horrible, but you either voted for it hoping it wouldn't be that way, or you voted for it because other things were more important to you. Both of those things make you complicit. Is that strong rhetoric? Yeah, it is. Maybe the Republican voters should put their big boy pants on and start accepting responsibility for what they voted for. 

But ultimately we both know that 'strong rhetoric' isn't going to change their minds one way or another. Nor is being soft and appeasing. At the end of the day they're not going to change, because people just don't do that once they've made up their mind. Now, in 7 years? Sure, they might give the Democrat a chance. But in 3? They've got that sunk cost fallacy. There's got to be a good reason they voted for Trump. They'll keep on keeping on. 

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, Let's Get Kraken said:

Unless they don't believe the data? Because, y'know, the President of the United States claims that there's a deep state conspiracy to malign him coopted by the "fake news" liberal media. Also there are literally Russian spies conducting cyber attacks targeted at people who do not have either the time, ability, or inclination to sift through all the bullshit and find the truth out for themselves.

I'm just gonna point out again that Robert Muller is a Republican and so is the majority of the FBI. Republicans are conducting the investigation you claim they are trying to obstruct.

And you're not entirely wrong btw. They are also obstructing it. That's the problem with painting a divided and internally quarreling group of competing interests in broad, black and white colors.

Yeah well when 82 percent of the party and every leader not resigning from office says they think Trump is a Divine Ruler, you'll excuse me for my 'broad' brush.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Unless they don't believe the data? Because, y'know, the President of the United States claims that there's a deep state conspiracy to malign him coopted by the "fake news" liberal media. Also there are literally Russian spies conducting cyber attacks targeted at people who do not have either the time, ability, or inclination to sift through all the bullshit and find the truth out for themselves.

And that serves who? I agree with you, but this is a classic authoritarian tactic, and it works well. When you can't trust any truth, you tend to go with the leader.

6 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I'm just gonna point out again that Robert Muller is a Republican and so is the majority of the FBI. Republicans are conducting the investigation you claim they are trying to obstruct.

I said the Republican organization. The same organization that spent the last 3 weeks shitting all over the FBI and the Justice department. The same organization that has gone on Fox over and over to slam the FBI. The same organization that voted to release Nunes' bullshit memo, and probably voted on releasing the Dem memo knowing Trump would squash it.

There are plenty of fine people who identify as Republicans and didn't vote for Trump and hate the party as it stands. This is a bullshit response, similar to #notallmen. We're talking about the 82% of Republicans who approve of Trump. If that's not you, awesome. 

6 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

And you're not entirely wrong btw. They are also obstructing it. That's the problem with painting a divided and internally quarreling group of competing interests in broad, black and white colors.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, because again - they're all complicit in the problems. They're enabling graft; are they for graft? Some of them, probably, others not, but it doesn't matter because they're willing to accept it if they get what they want. They're enabling racism and fascism. Are they for it? A whole lot say no, but what are they doing to fix it? Is Stephen Miller still in the White House? Is Kelly? Many say that there are problems with the Russia issue and believe that Trump is obstructing justice. Awesome - are they going to vote to impeach or convict? If not, their words are as valueless as McCain's when he said he wants to do things using 'regular order' and voted for the tax cuts anyway.

At some point it doesn't matter what you say; what matters is how you act. 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You know as well as I that there's plenty of research indicating that sexism and racism were hugely indicative of how someone was going to vote.

Sure.  But I don't know how this is particularly relevant to the 15 percent I'm referring to.  I suspect this may be another case of you misunderstanding then conflating the measurement of racial resentment/implicit racism with casting all of such respondents as coopting Trump's most racist policies and statements.

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I was thinking  that, yeah. I was also thinking about his disapproval rate, which quickly dropped and dropped significantly lower than a few points.He was at 41% aggregate disapproval and managed to flip that to upper 50s within a month. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - that people hoped he'd be better and he turned out to do what it said on the tin. 

Ok.  Frankly I don't see how this contradicts my point that 15% of the electorate is malleable.  In fact it supports the argument.

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm saying that what appears to be the most indicative of voting patterns in the 2016 election is not people flipping; it's democratic voters staying home, and white men deciding to vote more than they usually do. 

Put it another way: if you believe that you can change these people's minds, you'll have the strategy that you're outlining - don't piss people off too much, give them a chance to come back to sanity, etc. If, on the other hand, you believe that most people stick with the horse that brought them and it is rare for people to change their vote in the second term, then doing this is hugely wasted effort that only alienates your base. 

I'm saying that your top graph here is a perfectly valid argument, and is indeed one factor I agree with.  Hillary did not get out the voters she needed in urban areas, particularly urban areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and even Pennsylvania.  But, there's also plenty of voters that flipped, and after a year of Trump plenty of these guys are ripe for the picking - and these are the people that don't stick to their guns.  Except if you tell them that they were racist for voting for Trump in the first place.  How is refraining from saying that alienating the Dems' base?  Is there seriously anyone out there that won't vote Democrat if they don't say all Trump voters are racist or complicit in racism?  If there is, then yeah, I'm fine alienating them.

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But ultimately we both know that 'strong rhetoric' isn't going to change their minds one way or another. Nor is being soft and appeasing. At the end of the day they're not going to change, because people just don't do that once they've made up their mind.

No.  There is plenty of research that does demonstrate such swing voters will change their minds if you don't activate their racial resentment.  It's why the biggest campaign mistake Hillary will admit to is "basket of deplorables."

[Jace, Extat]

37 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

@Kalbear

"They, they, they."

You know man, this is the same thing Bush said after 9/11. Remember the speeches about how we'd make no distinction between countries that harbored terrorists, and terrorists? It was real hardass shit, made us all feel so righteous. People ate it right up, and he had historically record setting approval ratings.

The thing is, by classifying anyone with extremist sympathies as extremists, we essentially made more extremists.

I'm not saying compromise our values. Not for a second, and not by one fucking inch. But there is a difference between defending your own values, and dehumanizing your enemy for their opposition.

You're conflating partisan values with loyalty to the country. I disagree with the tax cuts and with the GOP pillaging so many of the gains that progressivism made under Obama. But let's not pretend that the tax cuts in the same league as defending neo-nazis, calling Kim Jong Un "Rocket Man," colluding with Russian spies, calling for political opponents to be jailed, etc.

I'm not a Republican.

What organization, Fox News or Congress? The Freedom Caucus guys or all the ones about to lose their seats? The GOP is a chaotic cluster fuck right now and you know it. There is no "organization."

You realize you're effectively arguing that since all the Generals and SS officers surrendering in April of 45 no longer had direct contact with Berlin then they must not be Nazis right?

[lokisnow]

Dmc keeps saying all the obama to trump voters switched because they’re voters who vote based on the economy. Well how come they didn’t vote for clinton then, after seven and a half years of stable and steady growth and the best performance of the stock market of all time?

they voted for trump anyway. Because your hypothesis is a lie, they don’t vote on the economy. They vote for trump because they like trump and they like everything he does and represents.

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Dmc keeps saying all the obama to trump voters switched because they’re voters who vote based on the economy. Well how come they didn’t vote for clinton then, after seven and a half years of stable and steady growth and the best performance of the stock market of all time?

they voted for trump anyway. Because your hypothesis is a lie, they don’t vote on the economy. They vote for trump because they like trump and they like everything he does and represents.

Because that's not how economic voting models work.  They're based first and foremost on the president's approval and the state of the economy - the simplest of which merely measures the GNP growth in the first two quarters of the election year - to predict the two-party vote share of the presidential election.  And they tend to be extraordinarily accurate.  I've posted this before, but such models performed incredibly well in 2016.  The most accurate, btw, was Lewis-Beck and Tien's, which only uses the above two variables then throws them into a basic OLS.  Here's one link to a rundown that's probably paywalled (maybe it's not so I'll try), and another to the beginning of the same article:

Quote

Table 1 presents the individual forecasts and errors from our ten statistically estimated historical-fundamentals models along with the PollyVote composite forecast that draws on alternative prediction methods. Of the forecasts produced by the fundamentals models, three missed Clinton’s national vote share by less than a half of one percentage point! These three forecasts were more accurate than either the median of the flurry of mid-campaign “Polls-Plus” forecasts churned out by Nate Silver’s 538 website or the mean of the 10 pre-election polls gathered by Real Clear Politics on the day before the election.5

Seven of the fundamentals forecasts missed the actual vote percentage by only one percentage point or less. The seven include the forecasts from the Jeromes, Lewis-Beck and Tien, Lockerbie as well as the two forecasts by Erikson and Wlezien and the forecasts from my two models. Just beyond these seven are both Holbrook’s forecast and PollyVote. They missed by just under one and a half percentage points.

 

[OldGimletEye]

On 2/7/2018 at 9:53 PM, ants said:

Sure it does.  For the things that the Republican Party has done (or wants to do).  Which is a bloody long list.  But where even they don't want something (such as the Illinois Nazi) then they shouldn't be portrayed as such.  

It don't think it's just mere coincidence that the Republican Party manages to attract so many kooks.