US Politics: Free Trade, Freer Trade, and Nuclear War

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is it? My understanding is that negative messaging has been document to have a greater impact than positive messaging. This is borne out in the disparity of negative attack adds and general campaign rhetoric.

No, the reason negative ads predominate is because campaign operatives think they work better.  But, shockingly, they're wrong, and ignore the fact research hasn't borne this out in the slightest.  For a more detailed explanation, see this recent post.  Not incidentally, go to grad school!

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree with you that anger tends to hurt the incumbent, but fear works differently than anger. As for the slogans, yes they are similar and both are positive, but they typically don't play a huge role compared to the daily messaging, which tends to be incredibly negative.

The reason I made the Star Wars crack is because a notion like fear > hope, or vice versa, is something that sounds profound but is ultimately meaningless, like Yoda.  Examining fear vs. hope messages is not generalizable, and even if you tried, the two cannot be extricated from each other.  A large part of the Dems' message is demonizing the GOP and making minorities/women/the poor fearful of what how the will and do govern when in power.  You and I may (rightly) think that is totally true, and a normatively better way to appeal to voters than making whites fearful of immigration (and, in turn, hopeful "their America" can be restored), but from the standpoint of objective messaging, both sides activate fear and hope simultaneously.  /rant

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

With regards to comparing their floors, do you think Obama would have stayed above 35% if he did half the crap Trump has?

Well, it's hard to project what Trump's done onto a Democratic counterpart, but in general, yes.  I think you're underrating how tied voters were to Obama.  He was the first president to win reelection with >7.2% unemployment since FDR.  Would he be tarred and feathered on FNC and elsewhere for many of Trump's actions?  Of course, but that would likely only harden support among his 35% base, just as it has for Trump.

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It feels like the people who used to be inconsistent have become consistent for Trump and the ones who were regular voters are having a harder time holding their nose for him.

You're saying inconsistent voters have all of a sudden become consistent based on one election cycle.  That...hurts my head.  And, again, the elections since his inauguration strongly suggest otherwise.

[Ghjhero]

46 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

One thing to think about with the state GOP moving further right in Maine is it gives Collins more of a reason to flip parties, especially if she's gonna run again in 2020.

I don’t understand this. If Maine is going further to the right wouldn’t that be an incentive for her to remain a Republican if she wants to get re-elected? Wouldn’t going blue make it harder for her to get elected?

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

I don’t understand this. If Maine is going further to the right wouldn’t that be an incentive for her to remain a Republican if she wants to get re-elected? Wouldn’t going blue make it harder for her to get elected?

The thought process is Maine's Republican party is moving further to the right, which means she's very likely to receive a strong primary challenge in 2020 if she remains GOP.  If she flips to Dem, they'd likely clear the primary field for an incumbent such as her, and she can take on that far-right challenger among Maine's general electorate rather than the Republican party electorate.

[Zorral]

53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

As most people know, today is the 50th anniversary of MLK's death. I've been listening to some podcasts discussing his legacy, and it's so sad to hear how little progress has been made on many of the issues he fought for. Racism is still alive and real, the poor are still poor, the military is bloated and fighting senseless wars (he was really against the Military Industrial Complex), the judicial system is still unfair, etc. The list goes on and on.....

Many media venues are requesting people to contribute their memories of "where I was when MLK was killed." 

Still, much of the population at this point is  1) too young to have memories or weren't even yet born; 2) for many immigrants, who don't  know or understand why there was a war of the rebellion, much less why we still consider African American slavery as a matter of importance.  Which is why a national memorial day for his assassination really matters.  But a huge population doesn't know or care and surely pays no attention.

(And yes, for the Pony -- I was at yet another conference, and "African American" is still very much in play, particularly in these circles, particularly to distinguish African American participants from those of descent from other European 'new world' cultures -- and yes, even Afro is is still in play as saying "Afro-Cuban" -- they don't say African Cuban, but then, outside, of academia, in Cuba itself nobody makes those sorts of identity qualifications at all.) 

[Kalbear]

on the fear vs. hope thing - note that fear is one of humanities universal emotions, and conservatives in the US are more likely to give it more importance compared to liberals (along with you and disgust). another study showed you can make someone more liberal temporarily simply by making them less fearful. 

This is something of a problem as liberals don' respond well to fear mongering at all, but conservatives do - which means liberals simply don't have much to offer here. if you'e the kind of person motivated highly by fear, you really only have one choice. 

[Xray the Enforcer]

46 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

you really only have one choice. 

yeah. the sword.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

(along with you and disgust)

?

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

This is something of a problem as liberals don' respond well to fear mongering at all, but conservatives do - which means liberals simply don't have much to offer here. if you'e the kind of person motivated highly by fear, you really only have one choice. 

1.  Liberals respond to fear-mongering as well, although not to the extent of conservatives.  This has been demonstrated by research on the rally round the flag effect.  2.  Activating white racial resentment is crucially distinct from activating fear.  Take a look at the common symbolic racism items.  3.  Liberals have plenty to offer many voters that rank highly on the racial resentment scale.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Robert Mueller’s team is targeting Russian oligarchs in an effort to glean information about potentially illegal financial connections between Russian entities and the Trump campaign, CNN reported Wednesday. According to CNN, Mueller stopped at least two Russian oligarchs during their recent trips to the U.S., and in one of those instances searched the individual’s electronic devices upon arrival on a private jet in New York. A third wealthy Russian was also sent an informal request to volunteer documents and conduct an interview.

From CNN:

One area under scrutiny, sources say, is investments Russians made in companies or think tanks that have political action committees that donated to the campaign. Another theory Mueller’s office is pursuing, sources said, is whether wealthy Russians used straw donors – Americans with citizenship – as a vessel through which they could pump money into the campaign and inauguration fund.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/mueller-team-reportedly-questioned-russian-oligarchs-arriving-in-us-about-trump-financial-links.html

Mueller’s Team Reportedly Questioned Russian Oligarchs About Trump Financial Links Upon Arrival in U.S.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

3.  Liberals have plenty to offer many voters that rank highly on the racial resentment scale.

Such as?

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Such as?

Health care, education, a better tax policy, more sensible gun control, a fairer justice system, protection from polluters, trust in a more secure social safety net (e.g. social security, unemployment insurance, and welfare).  When do you want me to stop?

[Kalbear]

sorry, it was supposed to be joy. disgust, fear and joy are emotional values that are more important to conservatives. 

And yes, fear can motivate liberals in the US, but it isn't nearly as pronounced or important. same with disgust and joy. joy, in case you were wondering, manifests itself in ingroup belonging such as patriotism and identity pride. 

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And yes, fear can motivate liberals in the US, but it isn't nearly as pronounced or important. same with disgust and joy. joy, in case you were wondering, manifests itself in ingroup belonging such as patriotism and identity pride. 

Wasn't wondering, no (well, other than the "you" thing, thought maybe you were simply expressing that you were disgusted by me, which, yeah, would be understandable).  But I do enjoy how you consistently take this group of physiological studies that find tendencies with little to no external validity and present them as if they came down from the mountaintop.  "Liberals are...Conservatives do..."  It's quaint, and I can only hope one day someone will have such faith in my own research.

[DireWolfSpirit]

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

). another study showed you can make someone more liberal temporarily simply by making them less fearful. 

Fascinating, plus that gives affirmation to  what ive long suspected.

[OldGimletEye]

Trump says "Hey guys, I found this awesome new gadget to play music on. It’s called an eight track!”

Trumpism: Fighting the last war and being behind the power curve edition.
 

https://www.ft.com/content/b54cda40-3659-11e8-8b98-2f31af407cc8

Quote

Consumption is at last becoming the most important driver of demand in the Chinese economy. This is a long-awaited and desirable adjustment. It promises to shift China away from its excessive reliance on inefficient, debt-fuelled investment. But it still has a long way to go. As the shift is being completed, the country will need to manage an overhang of bad debt. But the adjustment has begun.

If China switches to more consumption, particularly through providing more safety nets, then it’s likely to start importing more and exporting less. And if your thing has been trade deficits with China, then the adjustment will likely cometh. Trump’s trade policy has been very backward looking and not very forward looking.
 

Interesting: China to concentrate on producing more generic drugs.

Losers: Big Pharma, Winners: Likely everyone else.

http://english.gov.cn/policies/latest_releases/2018/04/03/content_281476100376018.htm

Quote

China will promote the research and availability of generic drugs, and improve their quality and efficacy to lower healthcare costs and to better meet public demand, according to a document released by the State Council on April 3.
Drugs that are indispensable for clinical treatment and in short supply will be encouraged to be made generic, especially those for the treatment of major infectious diseases, rare diseases, pediatrics and public healthcare incidents.
The lists of encouraged generic drugs will be published regularly by the medical authority. Research projects on key drugs will be enrolled in national technology programs.

 

[Holy Sith!]

17 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Interesting day in the market, a 760 point move off the morning's bottom, the Dow up 230 points. As I said in the last thread, the drop was a reaction to news of the tariffs. The turn around happened after people in the White House said the announced tariffs were 'just a negotiating move'. Trump's stated negotiating tactic of 'hit them as hard as you can at the start, so that the end result doesn't seem so bad', as stated in The Art of the Deal.

Expect more rollercoasters, as every nation in the world that trades with the US is accused of being a cheater.

Donald appears to be playing the stock market like a fiddle.

Nobody is in a better position to send the market up or down, conceivably making an incredible amount of money in the process.

Donald's lifetime focus has been wealth accumulation. Perhaps his presidency is more motivated by money than power. It most certainly is not motivated by a desire for public service.

[Prince of the North]

15 minutes ago, Holy Sith! said:

Donald appears to be playing the stock market like a fiddle.

Nobody is in a better position to send the market up or down, conceivably making an incredible amount of money in the process.

Donald's lifetime focus has been wealth accumulation. Perhaps his presidency is more motivated by money than power. It most certainly is not motivated by a desire for public service.

Well, while I think this may be attributing far too much intelligence to this whole thing, Mueller'd best have a look at President William Howard Graft's (and his family's) recent stock transactions while he's at it

[The Mance]

37 minutes ago, Holy Sith! said:

Donald's lifetime focus has been wealth accumulation.

I think its more accurate to say that his focus has been self-aggrandizement, wherein wealth accumulation is just another means, rather than the end.  A subtle but important distinction.  But I think I would really rather he was just about getting rich instead of inflating his self-image.  At least then his monetary interests might be more in line with the overall interests of the rest of the US.  Instead we’ve got a narcissistic buffoon lighting cigars with $100mil bills on a global stage beacuse he thinks it will impress anyone.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

No, the reason negative ads predominate is because campaign operatives think they work better.  But, shockingly, they're wrong, and ignore the fact research hasn't borne this out in the slightest.  For a more detailed explanation, see this recent post.  

That’s interesting, because everything I learned in school said negative ads were more effective. I’ll have to go print that study out tonight.

That said, Trump certainly showed that going negative can work, and it would appear his 2020 strategy is going to be the same. Hold his 45% and then drag it into the mud.  

Quote

Not incidentally, go to grad school!

Don’t take this the wrong way, but is there any point in getting a graduate degree in political science if you aren’t interested in being a professor? I really don’t recall too many people having graduate degrees other than the people who got masters in political management. Everyone else either had law degrees or masters in public policy, and most just had undergraduate degrees. Personally I’d rather go to law school or get a masters in public policy or journalism, though I am still open to polis ci if there’s a purpose for it.

That said, when picking up some study materials for the LSAT the other week I did grab a prep book for the GRE on a lark.

Quote

Well, it's hard to project what Trump's done onto a Democratic counterpart, but in general, yes.  I think you're underrating how tied voters were to Obama.  He was the first president to win reelection with >7.2% unemployment since FDR.  Would he be tarred and feathered on FNC and elsewhere for many of Trump's actions?  Of course, but that would likely only harden support among his 35% base, just as it has for Trump.

But they were tied to Obama in part because they thought he was a genuinely good guy. I don’t think the same is true with Trump. If Obama turned out to be a phony, and was stealing government money and it broke that he was having multiple affairs on Michelle when she was home nursing their new born child, people would bail. Just look at recent scandals and compare how the parties reacted.  Spitzer got ran out of office while Vitter was not only able to stay in office, but almost won election for a higher office (I rank being governor above being a senator). The bases don’t behave the same, and Democrats are happy to eat their own. Republicans, OTOH, will excuse any bad behavior away because they care about power more than anything else. Their moral browbeating is all an act.

Quote

You're saying inconsistent voters have all of a sudden become consistent based on one election cycle.  That...hurts my head.  And, again, the elections since his inauguration strongly suggest otherwise.

I’m saying the old rules don’t apply to Trump supporters. Historically, these are voters who are highly inconsistent. But I believe they’ll ride or die for Trump, where as traditional Republicans will not. And I’m not sure the elections have. Hardcore Trump supporters are still turning out. It’s the other Republicans who have no illusions to what is going on that are likely staying home. At least that’s my theory.

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Posted Tuesday at 11:49 AM · Report post

Over/under 48 hours until Pruitt gets canned?

I’ll take the under.  

I've been told to always spike the football.  So here's my note that Pruitt is still in office. 

[Fez]

There's a poll outta Tennessee today showing Phil Bredesen with a 10-point lead on Marsha Blackburn for Bob Corker's open senate seat. I'm skeptical, especially since there were plenty of polls in 2016 showing Democratic re-treads like Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold with big senate leads that did not materialize on election day. (Though one big difference from those is that Blackburn is already well-known and unpopular in Tennessee, so her numbers may be a bit more baked in than Bayh or Feingold's opponents' were.)

But if Bredesen actually took this seat, it'd make the math for Democratic control of the senate so much easier. I'm skeptical, but I want to believe.