U.S. Politics: Houston Avoids Second Disaster

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

After all of that how on earth do you sustain your faith that electoral norms are miraculously going to reassert themselves? You're being slapped over the face repeatedly with evidence that although Trump is deeply unpopular with Republicans, that although he doesn't actually stand up for the values they claim to stand for, they fall into line and pull the level for their guy. They do not regret their vote, they will show up again in 2020 because that is what they do and they will vote for their guy again, because that is what they fucking do.

To answer the question - perspective.  First, Trump is not deeply unpopular with Republicans.  Second, GOP MCs are going to hold the line because they want their damn tax cuts.  The Dems' focus should be on making sure they don't.  Intraparty abandonment of a president at this juncture would be what is unprecedented and defying political norms.  Third, the point I was just discussing is approval is correlated to ultimate vote share.  Can Trump overcome this if he gets back in the 40s - even at 40?  Yes, I think that's possible.  But 35 percent is a bridge too far.  Obviously, the tonnage of bullshit we'll have to endure between now and when Trump potentially (but godwilling doesn't) stands for reelection is beyond measure, but this was the discussion.

12 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Why keep resorting to this blind optimism? That baseline of voters is what needs to be beaten. If the Dem nominee can turn out more voters than that, fantastic! If the other shit doesn't happen, you can turf him out of office. But you cannot count on Republican turnout being depressed.

I reject the implication that examining past election results is equivalent to blind optimism - and of course I have a vested interest in beating that baseline of voters.  I think there are ways in which we can exploit political circumstances in order to depress GOP turnout in the midterms, or at least mitigate the GOP's traditional advantage in the electorate.  In terms of a Trump reelection?  No, you're right, his base will be out in full force.

[karaddin]

Ok - you sounded an awful lot like you were on board with complacent assumptions of being able to coast to victory. And after the last 2 years that had me seeing red.

I don't think you have to dismiss all prior evidence and start from an utterly blank slate, but I do think there needs to be certain things that are not taken for granted - for example just because low popularity polling has meant poor turnout for a sitting president in the past, I don't think you can assume that will mean the same thing now. You still need to focus on winning by convincing people to turn out and vote for you.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

25 minutes ago, karaddin said:

After 2 years of political norm after political norm getting tossed out the window, of prediction after prediction of how this time will be the time that Trump withers and fails, he can't possibly prevail in the General Election, he can't possibly continue to govern like he ran for election...After all of that how on earth do you sustain your faith that electoral norms are miraculously going to reassert themselves? You're being slapped over the face repeatedly with evidence that although Trump is deeply unpopular with Republicans, that although he doesn't actually stand up for the values they claim to stand for, they fall into line and pull the level for their guy. They do not regret their vote, they will show up again in 2020 because that is what they do and they will vote for their guy again, because that is what they fucking do.

This is entirely aside from any more dire predictions of electoral interference, or any of that - which I think are reasonable, but irrelevant to this point. Why keep resorting to this blind optimism? That baseline of voters is what needs to be beaten. If the Dem nominee can turn out more voters than that, fantastic! If the other shit doesn't happen, you can turf him out of office. But you cannot count on Republican turnout being depressed.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VB_LVr3DeBk/U44s-OxC1GI/AAAAAAAAM_c/t7XgVk0Ttio/s1600/Sandman5.jpg

[James Arryn]

About Bush/Kerry, I have a very strong opinion as to how/why that went down, in part based on fairly extensive reading on the period, Woodward's inward looks, Rove's (rare but existing) thoughts, etc. and also in conjunction with my own view on how America tanks/works.

So, quick summary, America is the ______est ______ on earth! Fill in w/e blanks, and it's probably been said by many Americans. America is the only country I know of who consistently frames things in this way. It's almost reminiscent of Ancient Chins and T'ian or w/e. But Americans think that most things can be reduced to some kind of metric and w/e it is, America is the mostest. That immigrant applicants literally have to talk about why/how America is the greatest nation on earth, and/or how every politician on the stump has to have a ready answer to that question is pretty illustrative.

There was this scene in the show Newsroom where the lead is asked that question during a debate and, after vascilating, says America isn't the greatest...and that in and of itself is supposed to be the dramatic moment. Audible gasps and shocked faces fill the room. And then Bridges goes on to explain how America clearly was the greatest country in the world but is voluntarily relinquishing that title for reasons. Again, I don't think many Americans get how odd the whole conversation even is, let alone why a tv character giving the non-standard response is a big-time YouTube moment.

So, Americans think in competitive-agonsistic at best ways about their country, and up until Nam one of the most common reasons you'll read for Americans self-identifying as greatest was their undefeated war record.1812 aside, let's go with that. It used to be a very important part of the American psyche, and losing in Vietnam was an incredibly huge blow to that whole concept, and you get the whole spiral of depression and Watergate and the rest and you have a country going through a genuine identity crisis and dealing with self-doubt for really the first time since it began to see itself as The Greatest. There's a huge movement of finger pointing and many versions of a war that America won on points but lost because of the Russian judge/media/hippies/etc.

Then Reagan came along and openly started Affirmation Therapy for the nation. Get out the flags and the rankings, Nancy, we're Number One with a bullet...or several bullets. The most bullets! The best bullets! And being American was back in style, baby! And really it's pretty much stayed this way since, often not as overtly...Clinton was much more subtle about it, but still had the standard catch in his throat and glistening eye when telling some Only in America allegory. Enjoy the ride, folks.

Then...9-11. Afghanistan and particularly Iraq, where literally the world called bullshit on the invasion argument, the US/Micronesia said fuck you world, we're America/Micronesia and we know better, invaded and...gulp. Oh, and torture camps. Sadist games with prisoners. Off the books political prisons. Mercenaries galore. Yikes. The Shadow of Doubt.

And this is where I'm going with Bush/Kerry. Because Rove made a really interesting decision going into that election, and it ties in with what he calls 'the culture of victory vs. the culture of defeat'. And the choice was; Vietnam.

Kerry was a decorated war hero. Bush was a gold-foot-in-mouth AWOL alchoholic who never saw a shot in anger in his life, excepting Cheney hunting trips. Normally this would be the subject Dubya's team runs from screaming. Anything but Nam. But Rove didn't just fail to avoid it, he put it center stage. Riverboat Rallies! Lead talking points. GOP sponsored 'documentaries'. Campaign ads. The dodger wanted to talk war with the hero. What the fuck is going on?

As mentioned, Rove thinks of 2 kinds of culture, that of victory and that of defeat. And his entire premise is that America both is and needs to be representative of the first. First, mind. That being 'the best' is the heart of the beast, and winning or losing is made most evident in wars. And that the one* time America lost a war, the country lost it's identity and it took decades and Ronnie to get it back. And that America would very very very much like to never go there again. So, this war the losers say we're losing? Remember how we were winning Nam until we lost our faith and dropped the ball? Do we want to go back there? Look at that Kerry guy. Sure medals...but then he protested! Can you imagine? He and people like him are why we lost, why that shadow of doubt passed over God's Country and you want to elect him? Him winning means America loses! He'll pull us out if Iraq! There will probably be a Last Helicopter moment! Bush knows we are winnng and he won't throw in the towel! Gettysburg/the Delaware/D-Day/Inchon...ie, America's Fourth Quarter Comeback...that's on it's way! That's what we do! We don't lose wars, we just lose our confidence, mostly because of the vaguely soviet media. 

So, simple choice. Vote Kerry, he Nams out in Iraq and we're back in the 70's. Vote Bush and we can still pull this one out, like we do. Do you want the 70's or the Everyothery's? I put it to you, Joe Sixpack, do you want the world we told to fuck off proven right, or do you want to show them how 'Merica rolls? Vote Bush.

Rove may be a reductionist, but imo his view on this aspect at that time was pretty bang on. Obviously no election comes down to just one thing, but the fact that Rove et al chose to repeatedly put Nam back into the spotlight is a glaring tell, and the fact that it worked probably reconciles more with our current Trumpdump than less flattering analysis might suggest. Anyways, that's my theory.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I don't think you have to dismiss all prior evidence and start from an utterly blank slate, but I do think there needs to be certain things that are not taken for granted - for example just because low popularity polling has meant poor turnout for a sitting president in the past, I don't think you can assume that will mean the same thing now. You still need to focus on winning by convincing people to turn out and vote for you.

Well, I think low popularity indicates low support for a sitting president, not sure what turnout has to do with it.  For instance, let's say Trump keeps on playing to that 1/3 of the country that cheers him on when he pardons Sheriff Joe, bans transgenders, etc.  Will that make that 1/3 turnout?  You bet.  But it also serves to alienate the 33-50 percent on the ideological scale that he also needs in order to win.  

Anyway, the point is I think you're reacting to my discussion with Kal that ultimately resulted in me saying a president with 35 percent approval on the eve of reelection cannot win reelection.  I stand by that statement, and will continue to.  I don't think that's complacency.  Conceptually, the only way someone with 35 percent approval can win is if a third party candidate(s) gets at least around 15-20 percent of the vote.  This isn't optimism, it's studying elections.

I want to do whatever I can to make sure he doesn't crawl out of his depths again, but I do expect him to return to the 40s in approval at some point - based on the ebbs and flows of presidential approval it'd be silly not to.  That's why I agree that we need the strongest possible nominee that inspires the most amount of people with a positive message.  In that regard, I don't think I'm underestimating Trump.  

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

.

Of course there are very few sure things in politics.  But if Trump is at 35 percent on the eve of reelection in November 2020, he will lose.  Unequivocally - you can write that down, bookmark it, lock it in a safe and throw away the key.

Trump won't be at 35 percent in November, he might be in September 2020, but during the period from September to Election Day his approval rating will rise at least ten points as 85% of the people who voted for him in 2016 will start paying attention to politics for he first time in four years and will decide they still love him.

and 35% will probably be plenty for someone to win if their electoral college coalition is optimally distributed to win with low overall numbers, as trumps coalition is.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So, Americans think in competitive-agonsistic at best ways about their country, and up until Nam one of the most common reasons you'll read for Americans self-identifying as greatest was their undefeated war record.1812 aside, let's go with that. It used to be a very important part of the American psyche, and losing in Vietnam was an incredibly huge blow to that whole concept, and you get the whole spiral of depression and Watergate and the rest and you have a country going through a genuine identity crisis and dealing with self-doubt for really the first time since it began to see itself as The Greatest. There's a huge movement of finger pointing and many versions of a war that America won on points but lost because of the Russian judge/media/hippies/etc.

/Obligatory

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Woodward's inward looks

Didn't read your whole post but just wanted to ask - did you read his trilogy on Iraq?  He's such a boring writer.

[James Arryn]

11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

/Obligatory

You're a fucking genius. Seriously, a memeius.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, lokisnow said:

Trump won't be at 35 percent in November, he might be in September 2020, but during the period from September to Election Day his approval rating will rise at least ten points as 85% of the people who voted for him in 2016 will start paying attention to politics for he first time in four years and will decide they still love him.

I could see a 5 percent shift from September to November.  10 percent?  That's pushing it.  The other thing that should be considered is the surge in approval and return to partisanship during the later stage of elections is more forcefully seen among the challenger, not incumbents (or the incumbent party).

4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

and 35% will probably be plenty for someone to win if their electoral college coalition is optimally distributed to win with low overall numbers, as trumps coalition is.

I'm confused.  Do you mean 35% approval at election time?  35% vote share?  Because those are both rather ridiculous.  If you're saying what you mentioned above - 35 percent at September and he surges into the 40s by the election, sure, I could see that happening.

[James Arryn]

19 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Didn't read your whole post but just wanted to ask - did you read his trilogy on Iraq?  He's such a boring writer.

Yeah, I agree he's dry, but his access is pretty incredible.

Edit: to be fair, I think he kinda knows it. Describes himself as a 'plodder'. But the shit he gets, like on-record, no denials...is unreal. The first book literally has him in the OO (right after 9-11) listening to Dubya directing the Intel people folks to find a connection with Iraq. And not only didn't they deny it, that book was on the White House Recommended Reading list. It's like he's invulnerable to the normal rules, and I sometimes wonder if/how much his 'plodding policeman' routine makes that work. Like he's the guy OJ would casually tell how he felt during the murder, on tape, and retweet the link.

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

Thanks for taking the time to type this up! 

Like you said, the sample is too small to be significant, but it's hard not to read some trends from those numbers. It seems to suggest to me that high approval doesn't necessarily indicate an incumbent victory, but very low approval seems to very strongly suggest an incumbent lost. Interesting. Wish we had more data to work with and someone could do a rigorous analysis of this. 

Indeed and our brains are hard wired to find patterns and hard wired to ignore uncertainty, so give a small data set we go "whee! I spy with my little eye a pattern, I win, give me a cookie!" 

So your skepticism is appreciated, the data is suggestive because it triggers pattern recognition receptors but there just is no there there. It is data, and it is noise.  and we cannot tell the difference reliably, we are all just as deluded as Nostradamus trying to discern the difference and thinking we have it all figured out .

the fact that we see a pattern is what makes me skeptical of the pattern.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

his access is pretty incredible.

Indeed.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

Thanks for taking the time to type this up! 

Like you said, the sample is too small to be significant, but it's hard not to read some trends from those numbers. It seems to suggest to me that high approval doesn't necessarily indicate an incumbent victory, but very low approval seems to very strongly suggest an incumbent lost. Interesting. Wish we had more data to work with and someone could do a rigorous analysis of this. 

I think high approval does mean incumbent president victory (for a second term), but not incumbent party victory (a second president from the same party after a 2-term president). As you say, not enough data to make a statistically valid prediction, but I think it is not unreasonable to say that if Trump's approval rating is between 30% and 40% he's likely to lose, if the election is free and fair.

 

[DMC]

32 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

As mentioned, Rove thinks of 2 kinds of culture, that of victory and that of defeat. And his entire premise is that America both is and needs to be representative of the first. First, mind. That being 'the best' is the heart of the beast, and winning or losing is made most evident in wars. And that the one* time America lost a war, the country lost it's identity and it took decades and Ronnie to get it back. And that America would very very very much like to never go there again. So, this war the losers say we're losing? Remember how we were winning Nam until we lost our faith and dropped the ball? Do we want to go back there? Look at that Kerry guy. Sure medals...but then he protested! Can you imagine? He and people like him are why we lost, why that shadow of doubt passed over God's Country and you want to elect him? Him winning means America loses! He'll pull us out if Iraq! There will probably be a Last Helicopter moment! Bush knows we are winnng and he won't throw in the towel! Gettysburg/the Delaware/D-Day/Inchon...ie, America's Fourth Quarter Comeback...that's on it's way! That's what we do! We don't lose wars, we just lose our confidence, mostly because of the vaguely soviet media. 

So, simple choice. Vote Kerry, he Nams out in Iraq and we're back in the 70's. Vote Bush and we can still pull this one out, like we do. Do you want the 70's or the Everyothery's? I put it to you, Joe Sixpack, do you want the world we told to fuck off proven right, or do you want to show them how 'Merica rolls? Vote Bush.

This is certainly the undercurrent of Rove's strategy in discrediting Kerry on Nam - which also obviously included explicitly discrediting Kerry on Nam with the Swiftboating.  However, tactically this was clearly supplemented by SSM bans as ballot initiatives throughout key swing states to ensure evangelical turnout.

[James Arryn]

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

This is certainly the undercurrent of Rove's strategy in discrediting Kerry on Nam - which also obviously included explicitly discrediting Kerry on Nam with the Swiftboating.  However, tactically this was clearly supplemented by SSM bans as ballot initiatives throughout key swing states to ensure evangelical turnout.

Agreed. He's an odd guy. On paper he's a strategic genius, but in the flesh, in his own words, he's remarkably unimpressive. Basic pot-boiler cynic shot-caller, but with hand on heart. It would be so much better if he looked like a sinister nemesis rather than an appliance salesman. Like Gorka? He's straight out of central casting for villains. Actually all of Trump's people look their parts, I'll say that for them. Well, wait, Bannon's just plain odd. 

[lokisnow]

39 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well, I think low popularity indicates low support for a sitting president, not sure what turnout has to do with it.  For instance, let's say Trump keeps on playing to that 1/3 of the country that cheers him on when he pardons Sheriff Joe, bans transgenders, etc.  Will that make that 1/3 turnout?  You bet.  But it also serves to alienate the 33-50 percent on the ideological scale that he also needs in order to win.  

Anyway, the point is I think you're reacting to my discussion with Kal that ultimately resulted in me saying a president with 35 percent approval on the eve of reelection cannot win reelection.  I stand by that statement, and will continue to.  I don't think that's complacency.  Conceptually, the only way someone with 35 percent approval can win is if a third party candidate(s) gets at least around 15-20 percent of the vote.  This isn't optimism, it's studying elections.

I want to do whatever I can to make sure he doesn't crawl out of his depths again, but I do expect him to return to the 40s in approval at some point - based on the ebbs and flows of presidential approval it'd be silly not to.  That's why I agree that we need the strongest possible nominee that inspires the most amount of people with a positive message.  In that regard, I don't think I'm underestimating Trump.  

Almost every marginal wavering voter who broke for trump will choose to reelect him. The percentage of people who voted for him who will vote for him again is the same as the percentage of parriots fans who now won't support the patriots because of Tom Brady.

The decision to choose a team has already been made for 2020, the voters will not change teams. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Agreed. He's an odd guy. On paper he's a strategic genius, but in the flesh, in his own words, he's remarkably unimpressive. Basic pot-boiler cynic shot-caller, but with hand on heart. It would be so much better if he looked like a sinister nemesis rather than an appliance salesman. 

Certainly, he does not live up to the hype.  Brilliant political strategists never do - Axelrod isn't as unimpressive, but definitely not what I anticipated.  In the end, Rove "in the flesh" is very vulnerable indeed...

 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Almost every marginal wavering voter who broke for trump will choose to reelect him. The percentage of people who voted for him who will vote for him again is the same as the percentage of parriots fans who now won't support the patriots because of Tom Brady.

The decision to choose a team has already been made for 2020, the voters will not change teams. 

And Kal and others were getting on me about certainty...

[IamMe90]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

And Kal and others were getting on me about certainty...

I hope you're not including me. I'm advocating for a cautious acceptance of uncertainty on both sides of this argument; or, to be more precise, in general.