US Election 2016: the fall of the American republic

[all swedes are racist]

Well, Curt Schilling will be busy trying to unseat Warren... here's hoping for Shkreli/Tyson 2020?

[Boris the Blade]

2 minutes ago, R'hllor's nasty lobster said:

Well, Curt Schilling will be busy trying to unseat Warren... here's hoping for Shkreli/Tyson 2020?

Curt Schilling has no chance haha. He is very much like Donald Trump. Loud mouthed bigot and a failed businessman.

[Mexal]

Wow.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Eh. That's your confirmation bias, I suspect. While it's true that most Americans think that the country is on the wrong track, they are also fairly positive about their party and about their party's candidate. Where they universally hate things is congress. 

As to the trustworthy thing, I think you're mistaking cause for correlation. The Republicans have been spending a very large amount of time ensuring that their base believes that media is untrustworthy and bizarre fringe elements - who as @Ormond point out use anger as a primary system - take over. Democrats largely trust the media. Democrats largely trust government. This isn't (yet) a whole country which thinks that things universally suck; it's very much partisan in suckage. 

I don't think it is confirmation bias. The fact that people are positive about their party and their candidate is one form of tribalism at work; it would be a lot more helpful if, despite definitely preferring one over the other, people were positive about both candidates.

It is true that Democrats trust the media more than Republicans and have done so consistently over the past two decades. However, even for them, the most recent number is 51% so you are only correct by a whisker. Since the numbers Republicans and independents are far lower than that so the overall average is 32%. You are not correct about Democrats trusting the government: there is a tendency of the party that holds the Presidency to trust the government more and the Democrats benefit from that, but even with this assistance, most of them don't trust the government. That link is through November 2015 and there might be a bump this year because faced with the prospect of Clinton vs. Trump, a lot of people suddenly decided that Obama wasn't so bad after all, but note that it covers nearly half a century so the long-term trend is clear: we've gone from the 60-80% range in the 50s and 60s to 19% in 2015.

38 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

There is no way to have the rate of social, cultural, and technological change that we've had without having a regressive element that feels this way, and that's only one reason among many that people might exhibit that kind of exploitable group anxiety. 

I don't think there is a "real" problem. I think this is the way democracy is, and the safeguards we had in place to minimize the risk and fallout of demagoguery are not what they once were - or we've just been lucky so far.

There has always been a regressive element, but they are far from the only ones angry today. It's partly a matter of luck (there's no reason the more competent demagogue couldn't have come along this year) -- but not entirely. For example, we used to have a relatively large war every once in a while and this helped a great deal with trust in government and the like. This is no longer possible because a war that is large relative to our current size would destroy the world (including the US) and smaller wars don't serve the same purpose. There's a bunch of other ways in which the world has changed that make life easier for demagogues.

[The Marquis de Leech]

With the exception of Nevada, I'm taking the early voting stats with a grain of salt. Banking early votes is certainly a good thing, but it won't help if all the Republicans are simply waiting for Election Day itself.

[The Anti-Targ]

50 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

If they are that bad, I swear to god I will attempt to organize an alternative democratic candidacy like whatshisfuck in Utah.

 

If Kanye gets the Democrat nomination in 202 it means only 1 thing, Trump wins tomorrow and he'll be running for a second term without doubt. So, will you vote Trump over Kanye? It's possible that after 4 years of Trump you will decide he's not actually as bad as what you think he would be today, but do you think that is probable?

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

With the exception of Nevada, I'm taking the early voting stats with a grain of salt. Banking early votes is certainly a good thing, but it won't help if all the Republicans are simply waiting for Election Day itself.

That's the correct tack to take.  Nate Silver and his minions are correct to be cautious about early voting numbers in most states - too many unknowns.  Except in Nevada -  in 2012, early voting accounted for 69% of the vote.  That's a pretty damn solid sample.  The registration numbers this year track incredibly well to 2012 (42/36 compared to 44/37), and the number of votes increased from around 620,000 to 770,000.  Considering Obama won by nearly 7 points in 2012, that's an incredibly tall mountain for Trump to climb tomorrow.

[The Anti-Targ]

6 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

With the exception of Nevada, I'm taking the early voting stats with a grain of salt. Banking early votes is certainly a good thing, but it won't help if all the Republicans are simply waiting for Election Day itself.

It's gotta be based on % of eligible voters that have voted early, and perhaps % of historic turn outs for the state. If it's a high enough % then it could be an indicator of the result. But if it's only 10-20% of voters there could be a considerable skew towards one party that is not reflective of the overall electorate.

I wonder how many states the news channels will call almost immediately based on early voting data. I suspect none, but it would be interesting to see if any do call some states on the off.

[Castel]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If Kanye gets the Democrat nomination in 202 it means only 1 thing, Trump wins tomorrow and he'll be running for a second term without doubt. So, will you vote Trump over Kanye? It's possible that after 4 years of Trump you will decide he's not actually as bad as what you think he would be today, but do you think that is probable?

Absolutely. Both Kanye and Trump are thin-skinned narcissists, but my general impression is that Kanye is less malevolent and has screwed over fewer people (certainly groped less) and doesn't have the "I'm a vindictive asshole counter-puncher" mentality.

Also: he makes dope music. Ultralight Beam...damn.

 

Also also: Utah is the Resistance this political election. Lol. 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

That's the correct tack to take.  Nate Silver and his minions are correct to be cautious about early voting numbers in most states - too many unknowns.  Except in Nevada -  in 2012, early voting accounted for 69% of the vote.  That's a pretty damn solid sample.  The registration numbers this year track incredibly well to 2012 (42/36 compared to 44/37), and the number of votes increased from around 620,000 to 770,000.  Considering Obama won by nearly 7 points in 2012, that's an incredibly tall mountain for Trump to climb tomorrow.

So Nevada is in the bag for Clinton?

[The Anti-Targ]

1 minute ago, Castel said:

Absolutely. Both Kanye and Trump are thin-skinned narcissists, but my general impression is that Kanye is less malevolent and has screwed over fewer people and doesn't have the "I'm a vindictive asshole counter-puncher" mentality.

Also: he makes dope music. Ultralight Beam...damn.

 

Also: Utah is the Resistance this political election. Lol. 

To what are you saying "Absolutely"?

[DMC]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

So Nevada is in the bag for Clinton?

Unless he gets his casino friends to shut down Vegas tomorrow!

[Castel]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

To what are you saying "Absolutely"?

Kanye>>>>Trump. 

 

[OldGimletEye]

Interesting article.

Something like this could happen to the Democratic Party. It’s definitely something to look out for I think.

Long term, I’m not sure what the structural fix is to prevent a party’s base from going insane and nominating an utter fool.

Short term, I do know the problem is the Republican Party. And it’s going to continue until we get over this white grievance thing that is going on. I hope younger voters help to kill it off.

On the Republican Party going insane, here is an article from a guy that’s not exactly a lefty or who loves the Democratic Party.

http://theweek.com/articles/659097/republicans-still-think-theyre-party-ideas-thats-laughable-age-trump

Quote

The letter is unlikely to sway many Trump voters, or nudge any swing states toward Hillary Clinton. Nor would it change the minds of Trump's most ardent fans to learn that a Wall Street Journal survey was unable to find a single Trump backer among the former top economic advisers to Republican presidents. After all, in the age of Trump, the Republican Party has embraced a sort of visceral, nativist populism. Rank-and-file GOP voters have no use for what "pointy headed" intellectuals — on the left or right — have to say. Experts and elites be damned!

 

Quote

But the problem isn't just Trump. Even before his presidential run, the GOP had become been susceptible to sketchy, fringe economic theories that led politicians to declare that deep tax cuts pay for themselves, U.S. debt default would be no big deal, in a deep recession you should "cut to grow" the economy, and that it's time to take another look at linking the dollar to the gold standard.

 

Quote

So even if Trump loses next week and his white nationalist populism is exorcized from the party, the GOP will remain in a precarious position, at least as a vehicle able to engage in serious policy debate and push forward a fact-based policy agenda.

 

[Inigima]

I'd probably prefer President Kanye to President Trump, but the man's a ridiculous know-nothing. I can't imagine the Democrats nominating him.

[Castel]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Well, kinda. Obama won the DNC party over in 2008, notably with Ted Kennedy endorsing him. That started something of a flood of people and superdelegates (which is another way that the Democrats have baked in the idea of the party endorsing matters). Clinton had an overwhelming systemic lead because of superdelegates as well has having just a ton of supports across the entire Democratic coalition. Both of those things were way too hard for Sanders to beat, even after being able to fund things.

But my suspicion is that a lot of that is going away or is wanting to go away. The amount of shit the superdelegates got, for instance, is a good example - despite them being super important for minorities, there's a lot of pressure to kill them or make them weaker. The DNC was stated as 'rigging' the election for Clinton, which isn't remotely true - but it means their power is likely to be diminished in the future. I don't know what kind of gatekeeping the Democrats are going to have in the future with those things going away. Big donors might be part of it, but my suspicion is that it's going to be just muted, period. 

The thing with this is that "rigging" has been conflated between a variety of different things, between the superdelegates to the Wikileaks emails so it's unclear what form reform will take. 

Maybe they do just leave it at appearing to clean house and don't touch the superdelegates and stuff. The media certainly seemed unconcerned about keeping them in their reports despite the complaints.

[Jace, Extat]

9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If Kanye gets the Democrat nomination in 202 it means only 1 thing, Trump wins tomorrow and he'll be running for a second term without doubt. So, will you vote Trump over Kanye? It's possible that after 4 years of Trump you will decide he's not actually as bad as what you think he would be today, but do you think that is probable?

I projected to 2024 or Clinton wasn't running again or didn't win the primary. 

If Trump wins tomorrow... I might vote against him for Kanye, I'd have to assess the situation. If there's a vote at that point I have to assume the world still exists and the Republic is still functioning on some level. So I might indeed vote for Trump at that point if his actions haven't lead to the destruction of either of the previous. I could very well choose four more years of a known commodity rather than endorse the fall of mine own party.

[Inigima]

Speaking of elites, we saw near the end of the last thread that Trump's shortlist for the WH and Cabinet comprised Gingrich, Flynn, Giuliani, and Priebus. This numbnuts is supposed to be the anti-establishment candidate?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Inigima said:

Speaking of elites, we saw near the end of the last thread that Trump's shortlist for the WH and Cabinet comprised Gingrich, Flynn, Giuliani, and Prue bus. This numbnuts is supposed to be the anti-establishment candidate?

Conservatives have always been a bit mealy mouthed with the term "elite". It basically means,"disagreed with Rush Limbaugh".

Now me personally, I don't mind "elites". It really all depends whether I think the elite in question is trying to blow smoke up people's asses.

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

http://theweek.com/articles/659097/republicans-still-think-theyre-party-ideas-thats-laughable-age-trump

Ah, but Trump's anti-intellectualism is the manifestation of a long term trend, born with Richard Nixon calling Adlai Stevenson an "egghead" in 1952. Trump is the unholy lovechild of Nixon and George Wallace, without the former's intelligence or the latter's genuine belief in the "little (white) guy".