US Politics: Everyone's Manipulating Everyone

[A Horse Named Stranger]

There's still a gulf between Sanders, who has been active in politics for decades, and that Orange doofus. 

In other words, Sanders can engage in a meaningful political discussion in more than 140 characters. And he is not crazy.

[felice]

34 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This is another form of voter suppression that is done on purpose. ~850 polling places have been removed since the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. There were examples during this election where counties that have 900k population and predominantly vote Democrat had 1 polling station whereas counties around the corner that have 50k population and predominantly white republican had 9 polling stations.

So that's ~160 polling stations short of what there should be in just one county (assuming 9 stations per 50k is a reasonable number)? I think there was a massive problem even before 2013. Just 850 places across the entire country should have been an insignificant drop.

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, Notone said:

There's still a gulf between Sanders, who has been active in politics for decades, and that Orange doofus. 

In other words, Sanders can engage in a meaningful political discussion in more than 140 characters. And he is not crazy.

Which, in today's world, may prove to be a handicap.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

16 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Funnily enough it's conceivable that had Romney been elected, Trump would have run as a Democrat. The question then becomes whether he could have defeated Sanders and Clinton like he defeated Cruz, Rubio, Christie, R.Paul, J.Bush... etc.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not convinced that Trump-style populism necessarily had to be Republican...

Wow, that's an interesting question. I'd be tempted to guess no, but I didn't think he'd win the Republican nomination either.

[Mexal]

4 minutes ago, felice said:

So that's ~160 polling stations short of what there should be in just one county (assuming 9 stations per 50k is a reasonable number)? I think there was a massive problem even before 2013. Just 850 places across the entire country should have been an insignificant drop.

Depends where they're located. If I remember correctly, the 850 polling station number was concentrated in 7 states. In most cases, this isn't a big deal since a lot of them were in Texas (though if they were open, maybe it's even closer than we think?) but there were closures in Arizona and NC as well that had an impact. Either way, the point is these things are allowed now and they're not being done because people aren't using them.

[The Anti-Targ]

13 minutes ago, aceluby said:

It would have been a slower moving train, especially given that democrats at least had control of the Senate at the time; but the goals are not that different.  Less regulation, dismantling the EPA, dismantling public education, dismantling public healthcare, increase military spending, dismantle SS....  I mean these are typical GOP goals and have been for 30 years.  The only real difference is the weird Russia stuff and the overt racism; which is bad, don't get me wrong; but the vast majority of what is happening is pretty standard republican snake oil.  If Romney had full control of Govt I'd say about 90% of what is happening would happen under his rule as well.  

You are probably right. But it's the 10% that is uniquely Trump that is the actual problem.

@Rippounet I don't think Trump would or could have run as a Democrat. Not after becoming the chief birther in 2011, in the final year of Obama's hypothetical single term in office. He firmly and permanently nailed his colours to the Republican party that year. Probably realised that his only chance at sitting in the big chair was as a Republican. Probably figured that only Republicans would nominate a vacuous populist. Whereas Democrats would only be inclined to nominate a populist with a bit of substance.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They really weren't. The race was never particularly close. The idea that Sanders was just a hair away is this bizarre longstanding thought that ignores basically all of reality. 

Obama and Clinton was very close. Sanders and Clinton was decided after March and the South. 

It's amazing how quickly people forget this. Sanders was basically done after Super Tuesday because he ceded an entire region to Clinton. That was his big mistake. 

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

@Rippounet I don't think Trump would or could have run as a Democrat. Not after becoming the chief birther in 2011, in the final year of Obama's hypothetical single term in office. He firmly and permanently nailed his colours to the Republican party that year. Probably realised that his only chance at sitting in the big chair was as a Republican. Probably figured that only Republicans would nominate a vacuous populist. Whereas Democrats would only be inclined to nominate a populist with a bit of substance.

Yup. There was no chance he'd run as a Democrat after that.

Also, it's important to remember that Trump was able to win the primary in large part due to the number of candidates. He probably would not have been the nominee if it was just him, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich from the start. So even if he did somehow run as a Democrat he would not have gotten very far against just Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Also, for a bit a levity, look how quickly Trump can shift from praising people to throwing them under the bus:

Quote

"This was a mission that was started before I got here," Trump said. "This was something they wanted to do. They came to see me, they told me what they wanted to do, the generals, who are very respected — my generals are most respected we've had in many decades, I believe. And they lost Ryan."

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-blames-obama-yemen-raid-navy-seal-2017-2

The whole article serves as a reminder that this man cannot accept blame for anything....

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, for a bit a levity, look how quickly Trump can shift from praising people to throwing them under the bus:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-blames-obama-yemen-raid-navy-seal-2017-2

The whole article serves as a reminder that this man cannot accept blame for anything....

I also like his blaming it on the generals basically undermines himself.  He has no power to say no to the scary generals!

 

[Swordfish]

On 2/27/2017 at 1:18 PM, Mexal said:

At least 19 more JCC's with bomb threats today across 11 states. A Jewish cemetery in Philadelphia had 400+ headstones destroyed, the 2nd Jewish cemetery desecrated in the last week. Nope, no rising antisemitism happening. All normal. At least that's what Swordfish will tell me.

Huh?  Why would I tell you that?

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, for a bit a levity, look how quickly Trump can shift from praising people to throwing them under the bus:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-blames-obama-yemen-raid-navy-seal-2017-2

The whole article serves as a reminder that this man cannot accept blame for anything....

 

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I also like his blaming it on the generals basically undermines himself.  He has no power to say no to the scary generals!

 

Well he's a Republican don't ya know! They are good at this military stuff, unlike us dirty hippy liberals.

I mean I think we all remember the brilliant operational excellence of Dubya Manstein von Bush.

[Rippounet]

9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't think Trump would or could have run as a Democrat. Not after becoming the chief birther in 2011, in the final year of Obama's hypothetical single term in office. He firmly and permanently nailed his colours to the Republican party that year. Probably realised that his only chance at sitting in the big chair was as a Republican.

Fair enough. It's clear he'd made his choice when he attacked Obama. It's also clear to me that the Republicans offered a better chance for populism: the party has been divided for some time now, and there are already plenty of crazies on board.

[Swordfish]

13 hours ago, mormont said:

No offence, but this is a classic example of someone in a position of privilege that is invisible to them.

Drivers' licenses are expensive. To get one you need to pass a driving test, which involves a significant investment of time and money in lessons - which, unless you can afford to obtain and run a car, is a cost with no benefit. If you are poor, you are less likely to have a driver's licence. If you are young, the same is true.

Conveniently, you left out the other example.

 

Perhaps then we could expand the question to why a resident of texas would not have access to any of the following things:

 

Quote

• Valid voter registration certificate

• Certified birth certificate (must be an original)

• Copy of or original current utility bill

• Copy of or original bank statement

• Copy of or original government check

• Copy of or original paycheck

• Copy of or original government document with your name and an address (original required if it contains a photograph)

 

• Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)

• Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS

• Texas personal identification card issued by DPS

• Texas license to carry a handgun issued by DPS

• United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph

• United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph

• United States passport

 

[Dr. Pepper]

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Fair enough. It's clear he'd made his choice when he attacked Obama. It's also clear to me that the Republicans offered a better chance for populism: the party has been divided for some time now, and there are already plenty of crazies on board.

But I don't understand why you think he would have possibly chosen the Dem party even if he hadn't chosen the birtherism stance.  He has a history of being conservative and closely associated with Republicans.  

[Altherion]

44 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Funnily enough it's conceivable that had Romney been elected, Trump would have run as a Democrat.

The Trump of 2000 (with his fair trade and universal health care promises) might easily have run as a Democrat, but the Trump of 2016 could not. He bet on Obama winning two terms as early as 2009 and built his strategy accordingly. It would have been rather difficult for him to turn it around in 4 years.

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They really weren't. The race was never particularly close. The idea that Sanders was just a hair away is this bizarre longstanding thought that ignores basically all of reality. 

It was much closer than anyone expected based on the usual parameters. Clinton had the undivided support of the big donors, support from the DNC (not merely bordering, but actually crossing over into the rule-breaking kind) and the support of the overwhelming majority of the media and Democrat politicians. Based on previous elections, one would have expected a coronation with Sanders' fate effectively the same as that of O'Malley.

The best fantasy analogy I can think of is Fingolfin vs. Morgoth in The Silmarillion. Did anybody seriously think Fingolfin would win? Of course not -- but given what he was up against, one would have expected a much more lopsided battle.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It was much closer than anyone expected based on the usual parameters. Clinton had the undivided support of the big donors, support from the DNC (not merely bordering, but actually crossing over into the rule-breaking kind) and the support of the overwhelming majority of the media and Democrat politicians. Based on previous elections, one would have expected a coronation with Sanders' fate effectively the same as that of O'Malley.

And Sanders fate was basically the same as O'Malley; the only difference is that Sanders suckered a lot of people out of money and stayed in the race for a long, long time, long after it was remotely reasonable to do so. That was pretty unprecedented; usually the money runs out, and Sanders figured out a way to get a lot of money. That's pretty new. But he wasn't competitive past the first Super Tuesday.

Now, Sanders showed that there was enough progressive support that Clinton had to address and pivot to it. That's important. But he didn't take over the Democratic party and the party did a pretty good job resisting his advances. He certainly was surprising how well he did early on, but it wasn't particularly close.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

And Sanders fate was basically the same as O'Malley; the only difference is that Sanders suckered a lot of people out of money and stayed in the race for a long, long time, long after it was remotely reasonable to do so. That was pretty unprecedented; usually the money runs out, and Sanders figured out a way to get a lot of money. That's pretty new. But he wasn't competitive past the first Super Tuesday.

Now, Sanders showed that there was enough progressive support that Clinton had to address and pivot to it. That's important. But he didn't take over the Democratic party and the party did a pretty good job resisting his advances. He certainly was surprising how well he did early on, but it wasn't particularly close.

 

Seems to me that it was close enough that it may have cost Hillary the General though.

[The Anti-Targ]

18 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

But I don't understand why you think he would have possibly chosen the Dem party even if he hadn't chosen the birtherism stance.  He has a history of being conservative and closely associated with Republicans.  

Take it for what it's worth but in the distant past Trump has gone on record as saying he leans more Democrat. But in reality Trump merely leans Trump, so at whatever point he decided to run for political office his thinking would not have been what party do I most align with ideologically, but what party is most likely to get me elected? Bloomberg basically did the same thing to become mayor of NYC. A Democrat at his core, but the only way to actually get on the ballot was as a Republican. Fortunately for NYC I guess naked political ambition wasn't the only thing motivating Bloomberg to run for office. But I may be wrong about that.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Seems to me that it was close enough that it may have cost Hillary the General though.

Doubtful. If anything it allowed her to be more successful. If Sanders had bowed out she probably would have gone a bit more centrist, and as a result there would have been even more people who tuned her out and did protest votes. This allowed her to see a lot more information about the voters as well as have a lot more successful motivators for voting. 

I think that the DNC shenanigans caused problems, and some of that was because of the Clinton/Sanders rift, and I also think that Sanders calling the whole thing illegitimate was a major issue that continues to cost, but I don't think for a second that Sanders caused Clinton to lose in the general. So much happened between the primary and the general that I suspect it was largely ignored by the time November hit.

[Rippounet]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

But I don't understand why you think he would have possibly chosen the Dem party even if he hadn't chosen the birtherism stance.  He has a history of being conservative and closely associated with Republicans.  

Because I remember Trump himself saying that he could have run as a Democrat. Google didn't provide me with such a quote, so it's probably me misremembering, but I did find this one:

Quote

"In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat. It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats. ...But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans."
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-election-democrat/

Then there's the fact that contrary to what you say, it's not that clear Trump had a history of being conservative and closely associating with Republicans. At least not before 2012.

Quote

Trump gave over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and to its Democratic counterpart over in the House. All during this time, he gave to Republicans, too—just not as much. According to F.E.C. records, Trump donated $1.3 million between 1989 and 2011, 54 percent of it going to Democrats.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/21/why_donald_trump_didnt_run_as_a_democrat_127475.html

In fact, Trump was apparently a registered Democrat when W. Bush was president.

The idea of Trump running as a Democrat isn't something I'm pulling out of nowhere, I'd read about it before today:
http://prospect.org/article/what-if-trump-had-run-democrat
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/what-if-donald-trump-had-run-as-a-democrat

And Starr's arguments seem pretty good in my opinion:

Quote

Planning to run as a Democrat, Trump would have avoided backing the “birther” movement, but could have made other inflammatory charges (for example, against Hillary Clinton) to get media attention. To build Democratic support, he could have staked out positions in favor of single-payer health care, more progressive taxes, and a massive infrastructure program, while denouncing trade agreements, the war in Iraq, and illegal immigration. With only a slight shift from his current stances, he could have presented himself as an economic populist with business know-how who gets along famously with unions and working people, and is both a ferocious nationalist and a skeptic about foreign wars. In short, he could have wrapped his protectionism and nativism in a package more appealing to the left.

I'll add that imho, Trump's "political brand" is mostly based on "inflammatory charges," a disregard for truth or reality, an anti-establishment stance, and talking like a 6-year old. He's always been weak on substance. And while his positions on nativism and immigration are more in line with the Republicans, his attacks on Wall Street or "the Swamp," his isolationism and his anti-globalism could have worked with Democrats as well. Mabey not all Democrats, but possibly enough to be a good challenge for Clinton at least (Sanders would have been a terrible obstacle I guess, but we're talking alternative history here anyway, can we be certain Sanders would have run against Trump if they were both Democrats?).

Bottom line is, the main reason why he ran as a Republican may have been because it was easier for an outsider to win the party's nomination in the Republican party.