US elections: The Trumpening

[IheartIheartTesla]

I think Sanders has a good shot at Colorado and Minnesota, because they are caucuses. I think he'll also run it close in Mass, and might pick up Oklahoma.

Co and Mn have really sparse polling so who knows what the actual state of the race is there. But the demographics favor Sanders - at the very least he'll get close there.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Sorry if this has been posted before but I feel like it's a very important read: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

Basically, at least two studies have found that authoritarianism is the single best indicator of whether or not someone supports Trump. The article cites political scientists who argue that American authoritarianism used to be bipartisan, but that they've been coalescing in the GOP since realignment in the 60s. They also argue that people with authoritarianism tendencies are generally triggered when they perceive outside threats and see growing numbers of people who aren't like them. They argue that this trend obviously won't go away after the election, so there'll be several more Trumps to come (and in the process it'll basically create a three-party system in the US -- Dems, Repubs and authoritarian Repubs).

He polled a large sample of likely voters, looking for correlations between support for Trump and views that align with authoritarianism.

What he found

was astonishing: Not only did authoritarianism correlate, but it seemed to predict support for Trump more reliably than virtually any other indicator. He later repeated the same poll in South Carolina, shortly before the primary there, and found the same results, which he 

published in Vox

:

As it turns out, MacWilliams wasn't the only one to have this realization. Miles away, in an office at Vanderbilt University, a professor named Marc Hetherington was having his own aha moment. He realized that he and a fellow political scientist, the University of North Carolina's Jonathan Weiler, had essentially predicted Trump's rise back in 2009, when they discovered something that would turn out to be far more significant than they then realized.

That year, Hetherington and Weiler published a book about the effects of authoritarianism on American politics. Through a series of experiments and careful data analysis, they had come to a surprising conclusion: Much of the polarization dividing American politics was fueled not just by gerrymandering or money in politics or the other oft-cited variables, but by an unnoticed but surprisingly large electoral group — authoritarians.

Their book concluded that the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted what would turn out to be a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies.

This trend had been accelerated in recent years by demographic and economic changes such as immigration, which "activated" authoritarian tendencies, leading many Americans to seek out a strongman leader who would preserve a status quo they feel is under threat and impose order on a world they perceive as increasingly alien.

These Americans with authoritarian views, they found, were sorting into the GOP, driving polarization. But they were also creating a divide within the party, at first latent, between traditional Republican voters and this group whose views were simultaneously less orthodox and, often, more extreme.

Over time, Hetherington and Weiler had predicted, that sorting would become more and more pronounced. And so it was all but inevitable that, eventually, authoritarians would gain enough power within the GOP to make themselves heard.

At the time, even Hetherington and Weiler did not realize the explosive implications: that their theory, when followed to its natural conclusion, predicted a looming and dramatic transformation of American politics. But looking back now, the ramifications of their research seem disturbingly clear.

Authoritarians are thought to express much deeper fears than the rest of the electorate, to seek the imposition of order where they perceive dangerous change, and to desire a strong leader who will defeat those fears with force. They would thus seek a candidate who promised these things. And the extreme nature of authoritarians' fears, and of their desire to challenge threats with force, would lead them toward a candidate whose temperament was totally unlike anything we usually see in American politics — and whose policies went far beyond the acceptable norms.

Shortly after the Iowa Republican caucus, in which Trump came in a close second, Vox partnered with the Washington-based media and polling company 

Morning Consult

to test American authoritarians along a range of political and social views — and to test some hypotheses we had developed after speaking with the leading political scientists of the field.

What we found is a phenomenon that explains, with remarkable clarity, the rise of Donald Trump — but that is also much larger than him, shedding new light on some of the biggest political stories of the past decade. Trump, it turns out, is just the symptom. The rise of American authoritarianism is transforming the Republican Party and the dynamics of national politics, with profound consequences likely to extend well beyond this election.

 

[alguien]

Said it earlier, but predict that Clinton cleans up in the South, loses in Vermont, and loses one in either Massachusetts or Oklahoma, but probably not both. IheartheartTesla is right, there's been almost very little recent polling in CO and MN, so I have no idea what will happen there. 

ETA: though Al Franken did give a very public endorsement for Hillary, so maybe I'll give MN to Hillary. 

[TrackerNeil]

44 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It is funny that I think the media would spin Rubio winning a single state as a big upset and possibly as sign of waning enthusiasm for Trump.  But I don't think it will happen either.  I expect Cruz wins Texas, Trump takes the rest. 

I feel as though Rubio's entire campaign has been built on second-and-third-place showings that (his aides insist) indicate the party is ready to unite behind him. And maybe he is right. Maybe Cruz drops after tonight and the lion's share of his support goes to the Marcobot. Maybe Rubio does better than expected today and that sets up a positive feedback look. Any of these things could happen, but for now, I'll believe it when I see it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Sanders will win Vermont by a large margin and Minnesota by a narrow one. Colorado will be a virtual tie with Clinton getting more delegates. Clinton holds on and wins in Oklahoma and Massachusetts by <5 point margins, and totally blows out Sanders in the remaining states.

Trump wins everything but Texas, which is won by Cruz. The only way Trump doesn't win a few random states is because he lacks the proper infostructure, but so far, that hasn't hurt him. I think Carson is the only candidate that might drop out.

 

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, alguien said:

Said it earlier, but predict that Clinton cleans up in the South, loses in Vermont, and loses one in either Massachusetts or Oklahoma, but probably not both. IheartheartTesla is right, there's been almost very little recent polling in CO and MN, so I have no idea what will happen there. 

ETA: though Al Franken did give a very public endorsement for Hillary, so maybe I'll give MN to Hillary. 

There hasn't been much polling of CO or MN, but based on the recent swings in national polls back towards Clinton, I'm assuming that means her support has increased just about everywhere. And while its just one state, Clinton apparently won the white vote in South Carolina; if she's doing that, then coupled with her huge support among minorities, that means blowouts everywhere that doesn't have extremely mitigating circumstances (like Vermont being Sanders' home state).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, alguien said:

ETA: though Al Franken did give a very public endorsement for Hillary, so maybe I'll give MN to Hillary.

All I can say for MN is that the Sanders campaign feels like they have a much larger presence. I haven't spoken to anyone who has a lawn sign for Clinton or has received a call from her campaign. There are lots of Sanders signs up and his campaign has been phone banking a lot. I think Clinton has just been running ads on T.V.

I guess we'll find out tonight.

7 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I feel as though Rubio's entire campaign has been built on second-and-third-place showings that (his aides insist) indicate the party is ready to unite behind him. And maybe he is right. Maybe Cruz drops after tonight and the lion's share of his support goes to the Marcobot. Maybe Rubio does better than expected today and that sets up a positive feedback look. Any of these things could happen, but for now, I'll believe it when I see it.

Why would Cruz drop out? And why would his voters go for Rubio over Trump?

[alguien]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

All I can say for MN is that the Sanders campaign feels like they have a much larger presence. I haven't spoken to anyone who has a lawn sign for Clinton or has received a call from her campaign. There are lots of Sanders signs up and his campaign has been phone banking a lot. I think Clinton has just been running ads on T.V.

I guess we'll find out tonight.

Interesting. Do you know why there hasn't been more polling in MN? Is it a difficult place to poll for some reason? 

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why would Cruz drop out? And why would his voters go for Rubio over Trump?

If Cruz doesn't win Texas, than he has basically no chance of ending up with more delegates than Rubio. And if he doesn't have more delegates than Rubio, he has no chance of becoming the nominee in the event that the party steals the nomination from Trump at the convention. And if he can't be the nominee this year, he will run again in 2020; even if Trump wins the general election this year. And if he's going to run again in 2020, its not a good look if the last thing voters remember him as is an also-ran joke who got crushed by Trump in every state after Iowa. 

As for his supporters, I suspect they'd scatter roughly equally among the other four candidates; since so many are evangelical Carson may even get the largest share.

[All-for-Joffrey]

6 minutes ago, alguien said:

Interesting. Do you know why there hasn't been more polling in MN? Is it a difficult place to poll for some reason? 

It's a caucus state. I've noticed that other than Iowa, polls in caucus states are few and far between for whatever reason (Nevada, Colorado, etc).

[Kalbear]

Polling in caucus states also tends to be far less predictive due to the usually small turnout at caucuses. Iowa is the standard bearer of this. 

[Lykos]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Not exactly. 

Bavaria was already under a state of dictatorship; s.o.e. had been declared and Von Kahr's triumvirate had already been given pretty absolute powers, and were using them to, among other things, ban Hitler's political meetings wherein he'd rail against (among other things) their abuse of power.. So, rising against dictatorial powers is...dictatorial, or anti-dictatorial? As I said, it was an evolving philosophy, and too complex to define with slogansm. But certainly I'd object to the idea that he was openly espousing dictatorship as evidenced by the putsch, wherein he opposed dictatorship.

edit: to expand on the complexities, you might argue that he'd not have opposed their dictatorial powers if he'd been included or agreed with how they used them. Hard to say...he was often all over the place, or 'evolving'. I think the only things he was clear about were bigger picture ideas of the neo-Sparta he wanted Germany to be, the betrayal of Versailles and the resistance to immigrants/foreigners. 

The nuts and bolts of getting there changed through experience.

Sorry to bring this up again, but I have a huge poblem with this view (even the edit).

Hitler was included in this rightwing uprise against the Weimar Republic's government. Hitler's opposition against Von Kahr was motivated by the determination to continue the nationalist movement, while Von Kahr seemed to buckle under the threat of the use of military force by the Weimar Republic's government. Source (the german wiki entrance is even more emphatic, though less detailed)

On the question wether Trump is a fascist, I think it interesting to take a look at Umberto Eco's definition of fascism (Ur-fascism).

You will see that Trump's rhetorik fullfills at least half of the properties of fascist ideology Eco lists and He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it".

 

 

[Bonesy]

For what it's worth, Sanders has emphatically stated that he will not drop out until all 50 States have voted.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

For what it's worth, Sanders has emphatically stated that he will not drop out until all 50 States have voted.

He has to say that, anything else would be admitting the possibility of failure. And its probably true. But if something very unexpected and very embarrassing happened tonight, like him losing every state including Vermont, I think that changes the situation.

[Ormond]

Kalbear's article on how to "beat" authoritarians is interesting but not easy to apply to the Trump situation. One of the main reasons is because the belief of the authoritarians who support Trump is that those who run the two main political parties in the USA are the ones who are corrupt. To get them to stop supporting Trump you would have to convince them that Trump is as or more "corrupt" than they believe other politicians are. And this can't be done simply with just a couple of examples -- because part of the authoritarian personality is an even greater tendency to "compartmentalize" and believe contradictory things without seeing one's own contradictions, they will explain away all the examples of Trump's corruption as long as they can. It will take a constant drumbeat about several instances of Trump's corruption to make much of a dent in his support.

Now of course authoritarianism is, like a personality characteristics, a matter of degree, and so it will be easier to sway milder authoritarians to change their minds that more intense ones. 

I really appreciate All-for-Joffrey's post. I recognize Hetherington as a "big name" in social psychology. I would assume Hetherington and Weiler's research has used a stronger measure of authoritarianism than just the child-rearing questions the researcher I have quoted earlier used, so this is really an excellent if somewhat scary confirmation of the connection between authoritarianism and Trump support. 

[Kalbear]

Yeah, Ormond. It's a way to fight, but it might not be the best. Thinking on examples, the two ways that I've seen that work are to indicate that the authoritarian in question's ideas and views won't go far enough, and the ideas and views don't end up actually working out or have adverse consequences. The latter is basically a nonstarter though it might be able to go to selling Trump as something of a failure. "Ever bought a Trump steak? Ever bought a Trump mortgage? How about a Trump magazine?" - that might convince some that while their views aren't horrible, their candidate isn't going to work because he's a failure and a huckster. 

The other one might work better for Clinton. Telling people that she has shown, time and again, a willingness to go after terrorists, to go after those who would hurt the US, to be a hardline fighter against Syria and ISIS - that might actually work a bit. The problem there is that it works against her base otherwise. 

[Balefont]

I had a conversation about Trump with a friend of mine and she didn't even realize he inherited his fortune.  So there are people out there that think he's a successful, self-made billionaire. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Quote

Yeah, Ormond. It's a way to fight, but it might not be the best. Thinking on examples, the two ways that I've seen that work are to indicate that the authoritarian in question's ideas and views won't go far enough, and the ideas and views don't end up actually working out or have adverse consequences. The latter is basically a nonstarter though it might be able to go to selling Trump as something of a failure. "Ever bought a Trump steak? Ever bought a Trump mortgage? How about a Trump magazine?" - that might convince some that while their views aren't horrible, their candidate isn't going to work because he's a failure and a huckster. 

I think you also have to factor in what people think of facts and the media.  Trump supporters have already been shown that their candidate is corrupt, lies, and is not who they think he is.  They think these are false facts and/or shrug it off with comments about biased media or whatever.  

[aceluby]

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Polling in caucus states also tends to be far less predictive due to the usually small turnout at caucuses. Iowa is the standard bearer of this. 

That's because caucusing is utter shit.  I have to be some place between 6:30 and 7 to sign up, then spend an hour caucusing.  It's incredibly inconvenient and forces people to structure their schedule around this tiny window to actually have your voice heard.  And even when you go through with this terrible system, there is no guarantee your vote will actually do anything.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 hour ago, Lykos said:

Sorry to bring this up again, but I have a huge poblem with this view (even the edit).

Hitler was included in this rightwing uprise against the Weimar Republic's government. Hitler's opposition against Von Kahr was motivated by the determination to continue the nationalist movement, while Von Kahr seemed to buckle under the threat of the use of military force by the Weimar Republic's government. Source (the german wiki entrance is even more emphatic, though less detailed)

On the question wether Trump is a fascist, I think it interesting to take a look at Umberto Eco's definition of fascism (Ur-fascism).

You will see that Trump's rhetorik fullfills at least half of the properties of fascist ideology Eco lists and He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it".

 

 

That's an interesting list.

Someone, I think it was Dan Carlin, mentioned that if Fascism ever came to the US, it would have a more rugged individualist flavor, evoking John Wayne and Davey Crockett and Old West and pioneer iconography.