2016 US Election thread: the begininning

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Bonesy said:

If a Republican is elected...

Good heavens man, it's like you didn't notice that Donald fucking Trump is the front-runner.

As long as Trump and Sanders (and to a lesser extent Cruz) are doing well, my thesis is proved.

What's happening right now will have to dramatically change to DIS-prove it.

Donald Trump is proof of the opposite of Sanders belief. Donald Trump is leading his plurality of the GOP base based on foisting off blame for the current economic and social issues and powerlessness of many on those goddamn Mexicans/Muslims/whatever.

Donald Trump's ascension is proof that the GOP leadership can't sucker along it's base forever with empty promises and coded-language. They demand real pandering and they don't much give a shit about what the DC leadership cares about.

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

Donald Trump is proof of the opposite of Sanders belief. Donald Trump is leading his plurality of the GOP base based on foisting off blame for the current economic and social issues and powerlessness of many on those goddamn Mexicans/Muslims/whatever.

Donald Trump's ascension is proof that the GOP leadership can't sucker along it's base forever with empty promises and coded-language. They demand real pandering and they don't much give a shit about what the DC leadership cares about.

 

 

 

Yeah, they may be angry, but they likely can't bring themselves to vote for a liberal, even an outsider. The really interesting question is, is the anger an enduring phenomenon? Or will it all be forgotten and vanish next election cycle when a dashing mainstream conservative appears and makes a pitch?

[Bonesy]

Shryke,

Trump is part of the establishment or isn't he? Beliefs are not what was being discussed.

And the rest of your post is supporting the statement I made in this discussion.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

The circumstances of the middle class took a giant hit eight years ago when the economy crashed.  Obama's landslide 'hope and change' election was the result.  Last election, Obama won, but it was almost a 'lesser of two evils' thing, because Obama didn't deliver (even though he was sabotaged.)  At that point, serious disillusionment with conventional politics set in across the board - rich got richer, middle class got screwed. Trump, Sanders, and Cruz are the result.  Add their total support together as measured against the total US voting populace.  That is a majority that is really ticked off with business as usual, even though they vehemently disagree on a solution.  Or do you dispute this?

By failing to deliver, both parties contributed to this mess. 

The economy crashed 8 years ago, so why didn't anything manifest last election? It ain't like the recovery that didn't really improve prospects for many is a new thing. It's been on for ages now. And the idea that last election was a "lesser of two evils" thing does not seem to be supported at all. Democrats like Obama. Alot. Did then, do now.

The problem here I think is trying to lump Sanders and Trump into the same category. Trying to tie together two different things happening in two different political parties/voting blocks.

The GOP is seeing a continuation of what we saw happen in 2012 with the endless parade of not-Romneys. The party's big tent is beginning to get seriously stretched as differences between the groups the party has pandered to but not delivered for and the rest of the party become larger.

The Democratic Party is mostly just seeing the result of it's general movement leftward. And some anti-Clinton feeling.

The differences in demographics between the "anti-establishment" groups in the GOP vs the Dems is pretty telling on this account imo.

[Shryke]

Just now, Bonesy said:

Shryke,

Trump is part of the establishment or isn't he? Beliefs are not what was being discussed.

Beliefs are exactly what is being discussed. The idea that you can boil this down to a simplistic Establishment vs Anti-Establishment dichotomy is silly and reductionist.

This is kinda the whole point of what I'm saying. Class-based unity and racist scapegoating are kinda fundamentally incompatible. 

[Bonesy]

Silly and reductionist? The American electorate? *gasp*

Maybe if everyone here was just like you that would make sense.

Please explain why what is actually happening isn't really actually happening.

[IamMe90]

15 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

Silly and reductionist? The American electorate? *gasp*

Maybe if everyone here was just like you that would make sense.

Please explain why what is actually happening isn't really actually happening.

*Your expressed view* is what is being considered silly and reductionist. The fact that the American electorate is comprised of mostly stupid people has no bearing whatsoever upon the veracity of what you're saying. I'm not even sure what your "thesis" is since the content of your entire post basically melts down to "please explain to me why I'm not right about my vague opinion for which I haven't offered any argument, because I am right by default."

Saying "please explain why what is actually happening isn't really actually happening"  to argue that something is happening is begging the question and circular. 

[Shryke]

24 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

Silly and reductionist? The American electorate? *gasp*

Maybe if everyone here was just like you that would make sense.

Please explain why what is actually happening isn't really actually happening.

I already did. I went into some details right in my last two posts in this thread.

It's not the electorate that's silly and reductionist, it's your analysis of them. I'm saying what you think is happening isn't happening because you are trying to apply only an "establishment vs anti-establishment" lens to the phenomenon you are discussing and it's missing all the details.

 

[lokisnow]

He could be your President, in a few months.

As could Hillary. I'm not sure which is worse, frankly.

Still highly doubting that Trump actually wins any states that matter

Trump is leading in every state polled for a primary election, including California, Florida, and Ohio, iirc.

[lokisnow]

Sanders is Goldwater (if he's successful in earning the nomination) it will be fifty years or more before democrats have candidates advocating the left wing extreme equivalents of what trump is advocating.

I am rather irritated at sanders continued talk of revolution in politics, if he's brewing a populist revolution there should be footsoldiers of his running for every state legislative office possible in 2016, and running for every seat up for election in congress. If sanders can Marshall support of people supporting his agenda to be his base of support in federal and state governments, then he is leading a revolution, but if he's not leading inspiring or cajoling 2000+ candidates to be running for office on agendas akin to his own then all his talk of revolution is just empty worthless rhetoric. If he wants to get things done, he's going to need an army of support, and other than one challenger to dws, I've not seen any indication anyone is entering politics on bernies side.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, Shryke said:

It's not the electorate that's silly and reductionist, it's your analysis of them. 

9 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

 

Trump is leading in every state polled for a primary election, including California, Florida, and Ohio, iirc.

 

  

That's pretty fucking silly.

[Bonesy]

"I am right by default"

That isn't silly and reductionist at all.

The "thesis" was proposed by Neil, so I responded with appropriate language i.e. using that word.

My expressed view that anti-establishment candidates are hugely influential in this election has not been refuted and certainly isn't vague.

[Commodore]

Sanders/Cruz are truly anti-establishment (although Sanders isn't as despised by his party's leadership), while Trump is just a world class bullshitter who is skilled at exploiting those sentiments.

[Commodore]

On 1/29/2016 at 3:42 PM, Tywin et al. said:

To be fair, you, me and most men would have too if we were in that situation.

What situation would that be? Being deposed in a sexual harassment lawsuit?

[Ordos]

Might I inquire what the two ribbons on the Sanders campaign logo represent? I understand simplicity and minimalism is great in logo designing, but it should have a meaning. If it's just to represent a fluttering flag, that's unoriginal and it represents a tricolor more than it does the stars and stripes. 

In the Netherlands, on occasions related to the royal family, the Dutch tie an orange ribbon above the national flag. Just want to point that out because I'm talking about ribbons!

He should have used a red rose to show his social democratic values. If you are not afraid of being labeled a socialist, embrace the icons as well.

[Shryke]

58 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

"I am right by default"

That isn't silly and reductionist at all.

The "thesis" was proposed by Neil, so I responded with appropriate language i.e. using that word.

My expressed view that anti-establishment candidates are hugely influential in this election has not been refuted and certainly isn't vague.

TrackerNeil's point was about the way the electorate has not fundamentally changed enough for any sort of political revolution as Sanders suggests. Your statement about "anti-establishment" candidates being influential this election doesn't refute his point for the very reason I keep pointing out: that it's an overly reductionist reading of what's going on.

[Bonesy]

.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Ordos said:

should have used a red rose to show his social democratic values. If you are not afraid of being labeled a socialist, embrace the icons as well.

Eh, the red rose meaning socialism is a European thing. If Sanders went with it, many wouldn't understand it.

[mormont]

I think it's fair to say that Sanders and Trump are two sides of an anti-establishment coin - but that ignores the fact that they are on different sides of that coin.

As Shryke says, Trump embodies the parts of the establishment that Sanders is most strongly against. Trump is a member of the establishment who feels like the rest of it doesn't give him the respect he deserves, and who perceives himself (wrongly) as an 'outsider' as a result. But there is no sense in which his campaign is anti-capitalist (how could it be?), and his supporters are enthusiastically pro-business. In fact, the unique selling point of Trump's campaign is the idea that his success in the business establishment qualifies him to shake up the political establishment - all he talks about (when not saying racist or misogynist things) is how he'll run the White House as if it were a business.

Sanders, meanwhile, is very much in favour of using the political establishment to regulate and control the business establishment. That's his platform in a nutshell.

I'm sure there are voters who overlap and could transfer between the two. But I'm also sure that the two campaigns represent very different, substantially separate, threads of anti-establishment sentiment.

[TrackerNeil]

8 hours ago, Shryke said:

I generally agree with the critique you are bringing up in that I don't think his idea of a political revolution is at all possible because I think his assumptions about the nature of the electorate are wrong. I think he's completely mistaken in believing that he can reach past cultural differences with a message of class-based unity based on an economic platform. I think largely because the idea that alot of that cultural difference is just layered over a common class identity is wrong. There's sort of this idea that, say, racism exists to pit the lower classes against one another to keep them from allying against the people at the top exploiting them. And I think while there is a certain amount of truth to the idea of using racism to keep an underclass down, I think there's alot more to these cultural/racial/etc disagreements then that. Certainly at this point.

Yeah, I think so too. Economic inequality is at the root of a lot of problems, but not all of them.

Also, I don't believe (the way I used to) that poor people who vote for Republicans are necessarily voting against their own best interests. Maybe some people think it's more important to prevent abortions than for all Americans to have a good education or decent housing. I strongly disagree with that position (!!!), but it's a point of view. Given that, I'm not sure why anyone thinks that a political revolution like the kind Sanders envisions is likely. People have different concerns, and for some, economic equality isn't one of them.

EDITED TO ADD: Let me just point out that I am not saying that the revolution Sanders envisions is impossible; I'm saying I have no reason to think it's going to happen in 2016, or anytime soon.