Ordos Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Just a thought; If Clinton wins in November with a reduced electoral college margin, Drumpf can boast that he won more electoral college votes than McCain and Romney. All he has to do is win all the Romney states of 2012 (Romney picked up Indiana and North Carolina which is an improvement to 2008) and then win a couple more states. At this point it looks like Drumpf is set to win Iowa and Ohio. Not enough to pull him over the line, but he could spin the media narrative (which he is good at) to say that the Republican party needs more people like him to win bigger. The Republican party will be less likely to change course in policies and electoral strategy should what I just described happen. Remember; they took back the House in 2010, increased the electoral college vote in 2012 as well as reduced Obama's voter turnout by a whopping seven million votes and finally in 2014 took back the Senate. The lesson they will learn? Appeal to Hispanics and adjust party platform accordingly in response? Hell no! It's combine populism that appeals to the worst in people (what Drumpf is doing) while at the same time suppress voter turnout (which they did in 2012 but in all fairness Obama did as well by not convincing people to vote for him). It's also important to point out that the Republican party now control the majority of state legislatures and most governors are Republicans. To them, total victory is only one election away. It's just a matter of waiting and obstructionism of the Democratic President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Ahh. Mystery solved. Texas' current & expanded new Jim Crow laws on voter registration are why democrats are registering fewer voters in Texas than they did in 08 or even in 2014! Good ole Jim Crow, he's the gift that keeps on giving, how wonderful that Texas is keeping him alive and robust. https://www.thenation.com/article/texass-voter-registration-laws-are-straight-out-of-the-jim-crow-playbook/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 1 hour ago, Ordos said: Just a thought; If Clinton wins in November with a reduced electoral college margin, Drumpf can boast that he won more electoral college votes than McCain and Romney. All he has to do is win all the Romney states of 2012 (Romney picked up Indiana and North Carolina which is an improvement to 2008) and then win a couple more states. At this point it looks like Drumpf is set to win Iowa and Ohio. Not enough to pull him over the line, but he could spin the media narrative (which he is good at) to say that the Republican party needs more people like him to win bigger. That's probably the worst case scenario for Republicans. A narrow Trump loss means they can't simply repudiate him like they did with Goldwater (even if he wins Romney + Iowa + Ohio, he can boast a majority of states). It's then not inconceivable that he might actually try again in 2020 - at which point does the party try to head him off in advance by unifying around (god forbid) Ted Cruz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ordos Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 53 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: That's probably the worst case scenario for Republicans. A narrow Trump loss means they can't simply repudiate him like they did with Goldwater (even if he wins Romney + Iowa + Ohio, he can boast a majority of states). It's then not inconceivable that he might actually try again in 2020 - at which point does the party try to head him off in advance by unifying around (god forbid) Ted Cruz? With respect, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Bad for the country because next time round there will be an equally bad candidate or bad for the party as they will be more divided than ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 5 minutes ago, Ordos said: With respect, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Bad for the country because next time round there will be an equally bad candidate or bad for the party as they will be more divided than ever? Bad for the party hierarchy, who find themselves lumped with a candidate they loathe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 I actually think Trump's a lot more similar to Mussolini than Hitler. Hitler actually had a fully formed and expressed ideology and plan. It was nuts, but it was clear and he was very up front about expressing it. Mussolini didn't have a particularly clear ideology or agenda, he just knew what he opposed. The system was broken, the people were being betrayed by the powerful and the communists and he was going to stop it even if it took breaking everything down. Both were populists, both represented the cult of personality, both expressed anger and talked about conspiracies and foreigners, and communists, both were nativist/racist and aggressively militaristic, and both used the media and violence, but Hitler was far more deliberate and organized, whereas Il Duce was kind of making it up as he went along. Hitler projected (and may have lived) a very old-fashioned buttoned down personal/sexual life, whereas Mussolini was married multiple times and had countless mistresses and affairs, and was very public about it, projecting himself as a great Latin lover. Contrary to what we see on the films, Hitler's stage presence was not all yelling and frothing at the mouth...he was famous for starting off public speeches in a very low voice, drawing people in, seeming very controlled and earnest and thoughtful, and only towards the end building up noise and passion and climaxing in the kind of emphatic yelling we all know from the old films. Mussolini on the other hand was usually loud and brash, either angry or bragging or threatening, and would often strike very macho 'yeah, I said that!' deviant poses after saying controversial things. Hitler was famously very detail oriented and aware, could know minute details about junior officers in far flung companies he'd never even seen...often stunning his senior officers with his knowledge of minutiae, and wanted to personally control as much of everything he could as possible, not really trusting anyone else. Mussolini saw himself as the big picture guy, the communicator, the teller of truths, and he would conceive of/start many programs or projects, and then left the nuts and bolts to his people. In terms of foreign policy, both had similar objectives, the creation of buffer zones/subjected states as a means of regaining former glory, but where Hitler's ideological concerns often eventually directed his policy decisions, Mussolni saw foreign policy in a more pragmatic sense, often using business analogies to illustrate how he wanted things done, and the ideology was mostly reserved for dealing with hugs domestic concerns. There's more, but anyways, both in terms of personality, image and behaviour I think there's a lot more Duce in the Donald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Oh, no question that Trump is more akin to Mussolini (can you seriously imagine Hitler telling one of his underlings that they can be in charge of both foreign and domestic policy?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ordos Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 But Drumpf has one very important difference with the fascists of the old days. He's a democrat. He does not seek to take a country by force as Mussolini did or do away with it after getting elected as Hitler did. I prefer to think of him as promoting democracy for the few and not for the many. Think Geert Wilders of the Netherlands or Marine Le Pen of France. These people are not fascists and have no delusions of empire. They are merely authoritarians who wish to centralize power and wish to give power only to the people they relate to (in most cases white people). I prefer to think of Drumpf as George Wallace or Andrew Johnson or Apartheid South Africa. Some more extreme comparisons short of Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and Stalin would be: Chile's General Pinochet or Russia's Vladimir Putin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 We don't really know that, Ordos. And indeed, he doesn't seem to understand the roles of the Supreme Court and Congress, and his position on the freedom of the press is concerning, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Quote We don't really know that, Ordos. And indeed, he doesn't seem to understand the roles of the Supreme Court and Congress, and his position on the freedom of the press is concerning, too. Yeah I thought he was a democrat when this all begin, and indeed disagreed with posters comparing him to Hitler on this basis. I no longer believe that after all his words and actions. HIs threats not to accept the outcome of the election if he loses are in particular concerning. One of two things is happening. One, he's so ignorant that he doesn't understand what damage he is doing to our democracy. Or two, he does realize it, in which case he is knowingly taking a shit on our democracy. The Democratic Party Will Never Have a “Trumpism of the Left” What New York Times columnist Ross Douthat misunderstands about the differences between the parties. https://newrepublic.com/article/137515/democratic-party-will-never-trumpism-left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Well, the key difference between fascism and old-school right-wing authoritarianism is that the former sought the support of the masses, whereas the latter did not. I actually agree that Trump doesn't really belong to the fascist tradition as such (America tends to do this stuff differently in any case), but at some point it doesn't really matter if the people beating you up are wearing black uniforms or white hoods: Trump represents something very dark about the US political environment right now, regardless of what you call him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 5 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: The Democratic Party Will Never Have a “Trumpism of the Left” What New York Times columnist Ross Douthat misunderstands about the differences between the parties. https://newrepublic.com/article/137515/democratic-party-will-never-trumpism-left A left-wing Trump? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 25 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: A left-wing Trump? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long An excellent example that does show populism can come from either political direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 12 hours ago, Altherion said: That's a valuable philosophy... assuming that you are one of the people who paid her $200K per speech directly or contributed millions to her Super PACs. 12 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said: BENGHAZIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!! How does Pravda pronounce Benghazi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: That's probably the worst case scenario for Republicans. A narrow Trump loss means they can't simply repudiate him like they did with Goldwater (even if he wins Romney + Iowa + Ohio, he can boast a majority of states). It's then not inconceivable that he might actually try again in 2020 - at which point does the party try to head him off in advance by unifying around (god forbid) Ted Cruz? You know, I don't think that any Republican is going to get into trouble with the party for supporting Trump, no matter how badly he loses. (If he loses.) What I think is that the Republicans who will suffer are the ones Trump humiliated, like Jeb! and Marco Rubio. And I see no reason why the GOP will learn or change anything even after a Trump defeat. The party elites clearly can't direct the primary process any more, and I have yet to see how that's going to change in four years. The problem wasn't the rules; it was that Republican primary voters are primed to fall for just the kind of fraud Trump represents. Is it possible to retrain your base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Quote An excellent example that does show populism can come from either political direction. The voters have to be there to support the populism, however. The Republican base is heavily white and that just isn't the case with the Democrats. Also, the Democrats just refused to nominate Sanders. Sanders is no where near as radical as Trump and that was still too weird for Democrat voters in 2016. (although if my state of Washington controlled things, Sanders would have won) Many Democrats are tired of the inequality and black men being shot in the streets, but they still took the safer choice. Plus, you had all sorts of warning signs of Trump's coming. The angry Gingrich congress in the 90's, Palin, spikes in polling of various silly Repulican Presidential candidates. The various shutdowns. No clue if you can retrain them. They might have to take over a few wildlife refuges first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 14 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: The voters have to be there to support the populism, however. The Republican base is heavily white and that just isn't the case with the Democrats. Also, the Democrats just refused to nominate Sanders. Sanders is no where near as radical as Trump and that was still too weird for Democrat voters in 2016. (although if my state of Washington controlled things, Sanders would have won) Many Democrats are tired of the inequality and black men being shot in the streets, but they still took the safer choice. Plus, you had all sorts of warning signs of Trump's coming. The angry Gingrich congress in the 90's, Palin, spikes in polling of various silly Repulican Presidential candidates. The various shutdowns. No clue if you can retrain them. They might have to take over a few wildlife refuges first. I'll say what I said to a leftist Facebook who discounted the potential for "anti-Zionism" to morph into "anti-Semitism". Don't assume it's not possible or that it can't sneak up on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Libertarian VP Candidate Bill Weld Will Focus on Preventing Trump Presidency http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/libertarian-vp-candidate-just-wants-to-stop-trump-presidency.html?wpsrc=nymag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I'll say what I said to a leftist Facebook who discounted the potential for "anti-Zionism" to morph into "anti-Semitism". Don't assume it's not possible or that it can't sneak up on you. Oh certainly its possible that the left can go off the rails. And certainly, some on the left can do something really dumb, like that person that went on somebody else's property and destroyed a Trump sign. It's just this point at time, it's one side that has gone nuts. And claims of "well, well, both sides are just as bad" are nonsense. Douthat can sit there say, "but, but the left can go nuts too!", but that misses the fact, it's one side that has generally gone of its rocker while one side hasn't. Trumpenstein wasn't just something that came out of the blue in some kind of random fashion. Trumpenstein is the result of process that has been going on for a while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 According to 538, if the election were held today (very inconvenient for Florida/Georgia) Clinton would win every swing state, plus Arizona. The next most likely state to flip? Alaska (26%). I could see why Trump's schtick wouldn't go over terribly well in Alaska, not that Clinton's pitch would do any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.