US Politics: March Madness

[Fragile Bird]

Honestly, what you are seeing today is just a reaction to the announcement of tariffs. Most have not been imposed yet. You'll see further turmoil then. A lot can happen in the days ahead.

I wanted to say I wish I could get into Trump's head to figure out what he actually thinks he's doing, but uuurrrggghh      no. If Trump wants to cut back Chinese imports by $50 B, he should just start picking on Walmart and demand they stop importing goods from China. That will leave store shelves empty, of course, but maybe it would send a powerful message to Americans?    

Something to watch for: Facebook going below $150, Google (Alphabet) going below $1,000, and Amazon going below $1,200 Those are psychological barriers that if breached, could indicate bigger drops. Facebook and Google are right there, and have bounced off those numbers a couple of times. Bargain hunting could be decent.

I wonder what is going through the minds of all those farmers who voted for him. Did they think Trump was going to keep all his promises except ones that hurt them?    

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, LongRider said:

Yaaaaay, we finally have the trade war Cadet Corporal* Bone Spurs has promised us!  So much winning! 

*Cadet Bone Spurs received a promotion, not a in-field promotion mind you, but a golf course promotion.  We're all so proud.

Well, this time he has at least picked up an opponent of similar strength, who can (and actually does) push back; instead of picking on Mexico.

Soy tariffs are gonna be interesting, as that hits close to home (affects Trump voters business). And as long as China does not use the nuclear option and toy with their one trillion in US obligations... But on the other hand, on the campaign trail your great leader was quite open to the idea of the US defaulting on their debts. So this has the potential to become interesting.

[mormont]

28 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm not sure why.

Then you didn't read my earlier post? Or pretty much any analysis of voting patterns at all?

I really don't know how to explain this again. White blue collar workers voted for Trump. Other blue collar workers did not vote for him. Whites of all classes voted for Trump. If you can read those three, completely accurate, statements and come away saying 'I don't get why the race of white blue collar workers is important' then I honestly don't know what to say to you. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

What a time to get into investing

We’re coming of age in such wonderful times, aren’t we….

35 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm not sure why. Anyway, OGE put it better than I could:

It's high time the Dems' fought on the macroeconomic front. That doesn't mean abandoning other issues ; on the contrary, a good platform would have policies that complement each other for the benefit of all.

To do that, I think one needs to recognize that some issues *are* about class, first and foremost.

They have been doing that. It’s not making a dent in the resentment though, and as a former campaign strategist, I have no idea how you balance not inflaming said resentment while also speaking honestly about social issues with regards to race and gender. Even if you try to focus on class and economic populism, race and gender dynamics will have to be addressed, and those issues don’t really play well with the white working class male, which have been fleeing Democrats.

 

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We’re coming of age in such wonderful times, aren’t we….

They have been doing that. It’s not making a dent in the resentment though, and as a former campaign strategist, I have no idea how you balance not inflaming said resentment while also speaking honestly about social issues with regards to race and gender. Even if you try to focus on class and economic populism, race and gender dynamics will have to be addressed, and those issues don’t really play well with the white working class male, which have been fleeing Democrats.

I've no idea how, but I think Democrats need to get better at dog-whistling to their supporters. Republicans used to be very good at it (until Trump came along and they're now just out-and-out monsters), basically only talking about taxes, guns, and abortion (and for a while there, "the gays" and later on Obamacare) in public, but making it very clear to their supporters and those who paid close attention that they had other plans as well. Republicans didn't run on destroying the environment, they just told companies on the side that they would, and then they rolled back regulations when in power.

I think doing the same would benefit Democrats.

[Shryke]

Trump's tweets on this trade war are terrifying and insane.

I mean, there's the classic from a month ago:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/969525362580484098

"trade wars are good, and easy to win" is perhaps the stupidest thing ever said about trade in the history of the human race.

 

Today's wonders are more about Trump's profound ignorance about what he is doing though:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/981492087328792577

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/981521901079146499

 

Hold on to your butts America, shits about to get FUUUUUUUUUUUCKED!

[Rippounet]

24 minutes ago, mormont said:

Then you didn't read my earlier post? Or pretty much any analysis of voting patterns at all?

I really don't know how to explain this again. White blue collar workers voted for Trump. Other blue collar workers did not vote for him. Whites of all classes voted for Trump. If you can read those three, completely accurate, statements and come away saying 'I don't get why the race of white blue collar workers is important' then I honestly don't know what to say to you. 

Aaah, I get it now. In your initial answer you were pointing out that the Dems have to court white blue collar workers, because others already tend to vote for them.
While I was simply trying to point out that macroeconomic policies matter to non-white blue collar workers too.
We were talking at cross-purposes here.

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They have been doing that. It’s not making a dent in the resentment though, and as a former campaign strategist, I have no idea how you balance not inflaming said resentment while also speaking honestly about social issues with regards to race and gender. Even if you try to focus on class and economic populism, race and gender dynamics will have to be addressed, and those issues don’t really play well with the white working class male, which have been fleeing Democrats.

I dunno.
A few months ago I wondered what Hillary had said about inequality, to see how she had addressed the issue. The first result I got was this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExXjQYugtQM
Was the answer good? Yes. And yet, with the benefit of hindisght I can see exactly how it could lose her votes.

[Which Tyler]

27 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Trump's tweets on this trade war are terrifying and insane.

I mean, there's the classic from a month ago:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/969525362580484098

"trade wars are good, and easy to win" is perhaps the stupidest thing ever said about trade in the history of the human race.

 

Today's wonders are more about Trump's profound ignorance about what he is doing though:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/981492087328792577

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/981521901079146499

 

Hold on to your butts America, shits about to get FUUUUUUUUUUUCKED!

But surely Trump has already won the trade war!

Everyone knows that bigger is better and biggest is bestest.

Trump has raised tarrifs on 1300 products, whilst China has only done so on 234. That's a 1166 product victory. Yeehaw!

[Zorral]

The always penetrating and incisive thinker, Chauncy DeVega, has intelligent analysis of many of the positions of the orangeade base.  He pulls together a lot of their stances such as gun fetishism, fear of death and / or replacement projected on both kids such as the Parkland students and Others of every kind, which leads to  their default to authoritarianism -- plus, of course, violence. 

Chauncey can be read in two places, an essay on today's salondotcom, and other essays on his own website:

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/04/the-rights-parkland-problem-a-symptom-of-authoritarian-parenting/

http://www.chaunceydevega.com/2018/04/a-conversation-with-elizabeth-mika.html

 

Having grown up among these sorts of people it's going to be very destablizing -- even more destablizing -- when / if they ever understand how this stupid trade war is the cause of the financial breakdown in the near future: 17% of the nation's pig production goes to China; how much of the soybean production?  And then the corn that feeds the pigs, etc.  This is going to be very bad for not only my own family members but all the members of their midwestern 'rural' communities.  But they'll blame their financial crisis on "NYC and intellectuals and all the others who think they're better than us" -- and pack one the calories watching Rosanne Barr, who echoes back to them what they think. Never ever will they blame orangeade.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I'm just not really sure why you think that the midterms will be so different from the special elections.  Trump did all he could to whip up support in Alabama and PA-18.  He went to each of those places and held a rally.  Republicans spent a ton of money on those races.  And in the end, Republican enthusiasm was still depressed, while Democratic enthusiasm was supercharged. 

In the midterms, Trump won't be able to go to every threatened House district, and Republicans won't have the resources to flood the airwaves like they did in PA-18.  Yes, I expect that turnout will be higher for midterms than for special elections, that's always the case.  But Trump's coalition in 2016 was based on two things:

1.  Drag the race down into the mud to depress turnout amongst Democrats.

2.  Use racial language to increase turnout amongst white voters with a high school or less education.  This group typically has terrible turnout, but showed up well in 2016.

Since 2016, #1 was been a complete failure, Democrats are scared and they are motivated.  #2 has also mostly been a failure, because as a group voters with less education usually don't show up for special elections or midterms.  Maybe he can turn it around between now and November, but it's not like he hasn't been trying already.  The midterms are always a higher educated portion of the population than the presidential races, and that is not playing to Trump's strengths. 

My guess is the midterms will be different because there will be less of a spotlight on individual races which will lead to lower enthusiasm. The two races you highlighted are unique. One featured the perfect candidate vs. a subpar one and the other featured a moderate vs., ya know, an accused pedophile. I am hesitant to read too much into either of them, and Republicans probably would have benefited if they had been able to hide those races in a sea of others.

You’re right to say that trump won’t be able to go to each race, but that doesn’t matter because I doubt Republican candidates would want him to make an appearance in the races it could negatively influence, which are the ones Democrats are targeting. However, those will be the races where the money goes. But like you said yesterday, if Democrats are winning in places like PA-18 come November, none of that will matter.

With regards to your two points, I agree with how they worked in 2016 and I agree that the first has been a total failure since then, but I’m not so sure about the second. I think Trump’s constant stoking of white racial resentment has been what’s keeping his base together, and thus the Republican party together. If the former bails on him the latter will dump him in a heartbeat, and I have no explanation for why the former has stuck around other than the overt racism.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Honestly, what you are seeing today is just a reaction to the announcement of tariffs. Most have not been imposed yet. You'll see further turmoil then. A lot can happen in the days ahead.

I wanted to say I wish I could get into Trump's head to figure out what he actually thinks he's doing, but uuurrrggghh      no. If Trump wants to cut back Chinese imports by $50 B, he should just start picking on Walmart and demand they stop importing goods from China. That will leave store shelves empty, of course, but maybe it would send a powerful message to Americans?    

Something to watch for: Facebook going below $150, Google (Alphabet) going below $1,000, and Amazon going below $1,200 Those are psychological barriers that if breached, could indicate bigger drops. Facebook and Google are right there, and have bounced off those numbers a couple of times. Bargain hunting could be decent.

I wonder what is going through the minds of all those farmers who voted for him. Did they think Trump was going to keep all his promises except ones that hurt them?    

I'm not sure how much more turmoil v. how much is being priced in now.  I actually expect most of the turmoil to stem from announcements and as long as the impositions are within the announced parameters that there wouldn't be too much additional volatility unless the market's pricing assume that they won't actually happen.  Over a longer term, however, I expect actual tariffs would affect underlying fundamentals in a way that may exceed the current pricing of the effect, but I think you'd have to wait for trailing information to come in on that.  

36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We’re coming of age in such wonderful times, aren’t we….

They have been doing that. It’s not making a dent in the resentment though, and as a former campaign strategist, I have no idea how you balance not inflaming said resentment while also speaking honestly about social issues with regards to race and gender. Even if you try to focus on class and economic populism, race and gender dynamics will have to be addressed, and those issues don’t really play well with the white working class male, which have been fleeing Democrats.

 

They have not been messaged correctly, nor until recently has the Democratic Party had a coherent local strategy.  That hurts.

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Why not? Surely any program aimed at courting blue collar workers will get their votes regardless of their skin color.
What's the point of introducing a divide when it's not necessary?

No. Because they care a lot about race.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I've no idea how, but I think Democrats need to get better at dog-whistling to their supporters. Republicans used to be very good at it (until Trump came along and they're now just out-and-out monsters), basically only talking about taxes, guns, and abortion (and for a while there, "the gays" and later on Obamacare) in public, but making it very clear to their supporters and those who paid close attention that they had other plans as well. Republicans didn't run on destroying the environment, they just told companies on the side that they would, and then they rolled back regulations when in power.

I think doing the same would benefit Democrats.

I don’t think you can do that with Democrats. First off, you use dog whistles to hide things you’re embarrassed about. It would send  a terrible message if you started doing that with issues like gender and race. You can try to be nuanced on the issues, but coding them will fail. Second, and to add to that, the liberal base doesn’t want these issues to be swept under the rug. Take DACA for example. Democrats are talking about it all the time, and still, there are Latino groups that are angry that Democrats aren’t doing enough. How do you think they’d react if Democrats started dog whistling about DACA. It make work in some rare circumstances *cough* Second Amendment *cough*, but generally speaking, I think it’s a bad strategy for Democrats to start using dog whistles to obscure their positions on social issues.  

[Zorral]

For so many reasons, getting hopes up high, for a blue wave in the 2018 elections, and the 2020 elections, seems setting up for disappointment, due to how the gerrymandering of 2011 works:

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/extreme gerrymandering_2.pdf

It's very difficult for me to read, because this isn't part of any of my frequently used vocabularies or part of my preferred areas of study and interest.  Still, it's essential reading for anyone attempting to predict or understand the coming elections.

 

 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

We’re coming of age in such wonderful times, aren’t we….

They have been doing that. It’s not making a dent in the resentment though, and as a former campaign strategist, I have no idea how you balance not inflaming said resentment while also speaking honestly about social issues with regards to race and gender. Even if you try to focus on class and economic populism, race and gender dynamics will have to be addressed, and those issues don’t really play well with the white working class male, which have been fleeing Democrats.

 

specifics will help democrat candidates.

specifics that have a personal impact to voters like promising to increase all social security payments by $200.

Specific jobs would be another good one, jobs that are done with actual labor, not computer typing. Jobs like, "we're going to get 10 million dollars to replace all the 90 year old sewer mains in our little town of 10,000 and we're only going to employ folks that live around here."  or like, "we're going to  get a billion dollars for our state and we're going to have thousands of jobs update all our 80 year old electrical infrastructure and we're going to connect to our neighboring states, so we can make your monthly electric bills smaller."

I mean there is a lot of unglamorous shit that is incredibly specific that democrats could be shilling for. pattering on with the typical acela buzzword nonsense about re-training and a "modern workforce" or "the gig economy" just makes the average voter hate the democrat politician who is saying they want to inflict those monstrosities and pain on people.

Another good one is to talk about respect and prestige for working class jobs in the future. "we're going to make sure every man and woman that has a job as a driver is respected like an airline pilot. We're going to pass laws that no company can have any self-driving vehicle on the road EVER without a trained, licensed and extremely well paid union pilot at the controls of that self-driving vehicle.  These truckers, and drivers are the cornerstone of our economy and we're going to make sure they get the respect they deserve and the pay their prestigious job demands. because driving is every bit as good and important a job as piloting an airplane is."

See thats the thing. Flying is mostly automated, but no one is talking about eliminating all pilots from all planes the way they are talking about eliminating all drivers from all vehicles. This is because pilots have respect and prestige and a whole lot of law and regulation backing them up.  Truckers are proud people, play into that pride, for example, flatter it, make use of it. Get specific. And remind them that republicans are representing just their bosses, and their bosses want to get rich firing them and eliminating their jobs for all time, and democrats can stop them from doing it.

That sort of thing. Specifically get on the side of the working class and champion the pride of working, find an angle for any job and push that. 

without protections of the state (made by democrats) the republicans are going to eliminate all the working class jobs and social and racial unrest are going to massively increase commensurate with the tech induced unemployment and the republicans are going to reap electoral rewards from that.

[Maithanet]

43 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My guess is the midterms will be different because there will be less of a spotlight on individual races which will lead to lower enthusiasm. The two races you highlighted are unique. One featured the perfect candidate vs. a subpar one and the other featured a moderate vs., ya know, an accused pedophile. I am hesitant to read too much into either of them, and Republicans probably would have benefited if they had been able to hide those races in a sea of others.

I can see dismissing Moore as an abberation.  I don't think that PA-18 is the outlier that you are indicating.  Yes, Lamb was a good candidate and Saccone was a mediocre one, but in that kind of race it shouldn't have made any difference.  Lamb isn't some unbeatable superman, and Saccone isn't Roy Moore.

Quote

With regards to your two points, I agree with how they worked in 2016 and I agree that the first has been a total failure since then, but I’m not so sure about the second. I think Trump’s constant stoking of white racial resentment has been what’s keeping his base together, and thus the Republican party together. If the former bails on him the latter will dump him in a heartbeat, and I have no explanation for why the former has stuck around other than the overt racism.

Trump stoking white grievances is a big part of what is holding his support up.  Trump's coalition is relying on low education white voters to support him.  Thus far, they are supporting him (hence his popularity at 40% instead of 25), but they aren't showing up to vote.  If they did, Saccone would have won by 8-10 points, no matter how good a candidate Lamb is. 

I'm hoping that continues in the midterms.  And given that midterm elections are typically more educated than presidential years, there's reason to think that Trump might be particularly vulnerable.