US Politics: Four Days and Counting

[Fragile Bird]

Tuesday is voting day for Democrats.

Wednesday, says Orange Jr., is voting day for Republican Patriots.

 

[Mexal]

 

[Fragile Bird]

Cohen told Trump a rally looked vanilla on television. He says Trump then said that was because black people were too stupid to vote for him.

Looks to me like the white people who voted for him were the stupid ones.

[Fragile Bird]

Trump is now trying to say he never suggested that the US army shoot rock throwers. It’s the media that creates violence.

His actual words were that the army should treat rocks as rifles. ‘Oh no, I meant arrest and prosecute them.’ Right. That’s what he meant.

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

True, but the change was in the direction the base has been heading. How many cycles have we heard establishment Republicans say they need to do a better job of reaching out to minorities, particularly Latinos? Trump doused that in gasoline and burned it to the ground because that’s where the base is at. They are driven by the fear that America will soon be a minority-majority nation. And I don’t see what’s going to change that fear. It will be the driver in Republican politics for the foreseeable future.

I guess it really comes down to this: do you view Trump as a blip or a realignment? I think it’s clear that you view him as the former. I’m troubled that he may be the latter.

I generally agree with you on this discussion, but I think it's myopic to cast it in a binary "blip or realignment" dichotomy.  Rather, it's a clear continuation of the trend of becoming more and more "conservative," or really just extreme and extremely partisan, since Reagan.  Dubya was a significantly more conservative president than Reagan.  Part of that had to do with enjoying unified government for most of his first six years, yes, but the administration still has much to answer for in wedging the religious right via bigoted social policy, arousing the rank nationalist sentiment in the guise of patriotism, and propagating a much more dangerous and confrontational foreign policy.  Moreover, much of the radicalizing is exacerbated when there's a Democratic president - from Gingrich to impeachment to the Tea Party to the rise of Trump.

@Fez and @Maithanet may be right that GOP voters tend to fall in line due to their proclivity towards authoritarianism, but that's no reason to suspect the next standard bearer will swing back to the more country club elites of the party.  The GOP has a clear tendency of nominating the guy that came in second the last time (e.g. Romney to McCain, McCain to Dubya, Bush I to Reagan, Reagan to Ford).  But who came in second last time?  Ted Cruz.  That's not encouraging. 

The only way to stop the trend towards radicalism is for those country club Republicans to stop actively supporting the continued descent (which Romney still plainly is doing and the Bush's are as well, just more quietly) and substantively work against the Trumpistas rather than just denouncing them in private and ignoring them in public.  That prospect, too, is not encouraging, as it is far more likely they'll act as Vichy Republicans ignoring their better angels for their greater demons as long as the party can still compete nationally and furthering their descent into hell.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

@Fez and @Maithanet may be right that GOP voters tend to fall in line due to their proclivity towards authoritarianism, but that's no reason to suspect the next standard bearer will swing back to the more country club elites of the party.  The GOP has a clear tendency of nominating the guy that came in second the last time (e.g. Romney to McCain, McCain to Dubya, Bush I to Reagan, Reagan to Ford).  But who came in second last time?  Ted Cruz.  That's not encouraging.

I agree there's no reason to assume that the next standard bearer will be back to the old country club republicans, although I do think it's possible.  I expect the next Republican standard bearer will be strongly evangelical, since I expect evangelicals will blame Trump's failing policies on insufficient religion in America.  Hopefully it will be someone who is also competent and has some respect for American values, but I can't say I think it's likely.  I personally doubt it'll be Ted Cruz or Mike Pence, it'll probably be a guy with a relatively low profile at the moment (and it will of course be a man). 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I personally doubt it'll be Ted Cruz or Mike Pence, it'll probably be a guy with a relatively low profile at the moment (and it will of course be a man).

Me too.

[ThinkerX]

Probably about as close to a fair and impartial summary as we are going to get of 'election issues' at this point.  Anybody have significant disagreements?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/early-voting-ahead-of-midterms-reveals-vote-related-problems/ar-BBPgr4d?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=msnclassic

 

Briefly hits everything from flawed voting machines to voter registration issues.

 

[ThinkerX]

almost decided this was to trivial to mention,  Still, it does appear to be a legitimate case of voter fraud (election fraud) in my frozen state (Alaska)...

http://mustreadalaska.com/still-no-answers-on-district-15-voter-fraud/

 

With just six days left before the Nov. 6 general election, there are myriad questions unanswered about the flawed District 15 GOP primary contest where at least seven dead people – that’s right, seven – asked for ballots. Those questions should be answered before Alaskans go to the polls.

The race pitted Republican-in-name-only Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux against political newcomer Aaron Weaver. Along with the seven dead prospective voters, 26 ballots were yanked because of residency or legitimacy questions. All of them were for LeDoux.

 

 

[Guest]

@SweetPea

No, he doesn't.

But the people he's trying to run a scam on sometimes do.

Quote

An analyst at the Decision Desk HQ and friend of RedState Jeff Blehar posted both the Post’s video and O’Keefe’s.

Blehar’s critique of O’Keefe mirrors similar critiques that were amplified yesterday and this morning after the Post revealed that one of O’Keefe’s people tried to trick them into running a fake story about Roy Moore.

And just note, that's an article from RedState.com, a right-wing publication.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Tuesday is voting day for Democrats.

Wednesday, says Orange Jr., is voting day for Republican Patriots.

 

This patriot voted already voted.

[SweetPea]

10 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

@SweetPea

No, he doesn't.

Too bad.  His reports would carry more weight if he did. Especially after he's been caught scamming several times before.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Too bad.  His reports would carry more weight if he did. Especially after he's been caught scamming several times before.

That's the whole point. If he released unedited video they wouldn't carry any weight because there's nothing there. He has to selectively edit them to get the attention.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I agree there's no reason to assume that the next standard bearer will be back to the old country club republicans, although I do think it's possible.  I expect the next Republican standard bearer will be strongly evangelical, since I expect evangelicals will blame Trump's failing policies on insufficient religion in America.  Hopefully it will be someone who is also competent and has some respect for American values, but I can't say I think it's likely.  I personally doubt it'll be Ted Cruz or Mike Pence, it'll probably be a guy with a relatively low profile at the moment (and it will of course be a man). 

Agreed. I personally think the odds are towards a country clubber simply because of how much money they'll likely to have behind them and how divided the field is likely to be. But it certainly doesn't need to me; I brought up this conversation just because I don't think its a foregone conclusion that it'll be anyone like Trump winning the next open nomination.

And I agree it'll be someone low profile right now.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I generally agree with you on this discussion, but I think it's myopic to cast it in a binary "blip or realignment" dichotomy.  Rather, it's a clear continuation of the trend of becoming more and more "conservative," or really just extreme and extremely partisan, since Reagan.  Dubya was a significantly more conservative president than Reagan.  Part of that had to do with enjoying unified government for most of his first six years, yes, but the administration still has much to answer for in wedging the religious right via bigoted social policy, arousing the rank nationalist sentiment in the guise of patriotism, and propagating a much more dangerous and confrontational foreign policy.  Moreover, much of the radicalizing is exacerbated when there's a Democratic president - from Gingrich to impeachment to the Tea Party to the rise of Trump.

@Fez and @Maithanet may be right that GOP voters tend to fall in line due to their proclivity towards authoritarianism, but that's no reason to suspect the next standard bearer will swing back to the more country club elites of the party.  The GOP has a clear tendency of nominating the guy that came in second the last time (e.g. Romney to McCain, McCain to Dubya, Bush I to Reagan, Reagan to Ford).  But who came in second last time?  Ted Cruz.  That's not encouraging. 

The only way to stop the trend towards radicalism is for those country club Republicans to stop actively supporting the continued descent (which Romney still plainly is doing and the Bush's are as well, just more quietly) and substantively work against the Trumpistas rather than just denouncing them in private and ignoring them in public.  That prospect, too, is not encouraging, as it is far more likely they'll act as Vichy Republicans ignoring their better angels for their greater demons as long as the party can still compete nationally and furthering their descent into hell.

You're right, that is a better way to phrase it. I was just trying to separate the idea that it's either a trend or a one off. And one thing that could bolster Fez and Maith's argument is that trying to imitate Trump has failed for a lot of candidates. Another thing to factor in is the next presidential term. If Trump loses, it's quite possible that Republicans go a different direction in 2024. However, I have a hard time seeing that happening if Trump wins a second term. All that said, I stand by my original comment. I have a hard time seeing the Republican party course correcting absent some kind of eye opening calamity. You're right to say this has been a trend. Trump just poured gasoline on it and threw the dog whistle in the garbage. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Another thing to factor in is the next presidential term. If Trump loses, it's quite possible that Republicans go a different direction in 2024. However, I have a hard time seeing that happening if Trump wins a second term. All that said, I stand by my original comment. I have a hard time seeing the Republican party course correcting absent some kind of eye opening calamity.

Yeah, I think we're all in agreement that the GOP could go any way when it comes to their next nominee (and that since that won't be for another five years or so we probably have no idea who that is).  And I agree it's very difficult to see the GOP course correcting regardless.  I'd add that that goes even if Trump loses reelection - there's no reason to expect that will make, for example, the blue line here to start trending down (or even stop trending up).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Fez said:

Agreed. I personally think the odds are towards a country clubber simply because of how much money they'll likely to have behind them and how divided the field is likely to be. But it certainly doesn't need to me; I brought up this conversation just because I don't think its a foregone conclusion that it'll be anyone like Trump winning the next open nomination.

And I agree it'll be someone low profile right now.

All that money really helped JEB!, didn't it?

It's quite possible that the future nominee will be more tolerable to country clubbers, but I would bet on him/her being one of them in the truest sense. As I said before, the country clubbers thought they ran the party and that the religious right and hard right wingers needed them. In 2016 the religious right and the hard right wingers woke up and realized they run the party now much to the dismay of the country clubbers. And as said above, they now have a choice, hold their noses and stay or leave the party. Some did leave, but most stayed because #taxcutsforthewealthy. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, I think we're all in agreement that the GOP could go any way when it comes to their next nominee (and that since that won't be for another five years or so we probably have no idea who that is).  And I agree it's very difficult to see the GOP course correcting regardless.  I'd add that that goes even if Trump loses reelection - there's no reason to expect that will make, for example, the blue line here to start trending down (or even stop trending up).

True, and God only knows how Trump would behave while out of office (assuming he loses in 2020). Absent the prospects of facing jail time, I can't see him leaving the public scene nor can I see the media giving up on covering him all the time.

And that graph is interesting. Seems like everything on the right started going off the rails in the late 70's. I guess disco was just too much for them. 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I guess disco was just too much for them. 

It activated great white shame and an inferiority complex.

[Gertrude]

In looking at some other story, I saw a report about the Beto O'Rourke tape from Veritas. Ooo-la-la, such a scandal. For anyone wanting to read about it without the right wing spin (or left, to be fair), it's here - from the Texas Tribune, ranked 'least biased' from my bias checker.

TL, DR - no laws were broken, the donations were from a local office for a local situation - not the caravan, donations to charities are permitted and not unusual.