US Politics: Paradise Lost

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Actually, if it comes to blows the facts you cite would make things much worse.  It wouldn’t be armies in the field maneuvering for position in pitched battle. It would be neighbor against neighbor as the majority in an area seeks to purge the area of the disfavored belief.  

Lord only knows what the US military would do.  I suspect it would be divided as well.  Hence my question about our Nukes.

How would any of this start?  My neighbors just attack my apartment?  We're not even close to that in any kind of organized way.  The closest thing you have right now is the Proud Boys type shit - at best that stuff leads to a bad riot.  

In the meantime I think that the idea of even a lunatic like Trump dropping a nuke domestically is beyond tinfoil hat crack pottery. 

As others have said, unless there is a massive drop off in quality of life for a massive chunk of the (white) population this is a ridiculous conclusion to the current political polarization.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Agreed.  Nor do they care about their blatent hypocrisy.  They care about their “team winning” by any means available.  They bitch and moan about “leftist” believing “the ends justify the means” while arguing “the ends justify the means”.

You’re missing one aspect. Yes they want to win by any means necessary, but they also what to humiliate liberals in the process. I’ve said this before, long before I caught wind of Steve Kornacki’s new book, but it’s Newt Gingrich who lit the match that’s burning this country down. Here’s a good summary of the book:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/books/review/steve-kornacki-the-red-and-the-blue.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You’re missing one aspect. Yes they want to win by any means necessary, but they also what to humiliate liberals in the process. I’ve said this before, long before I caught wind of Steve Kornacki’s new book, but it’s Newt Gingrich who lit the match that’s burning this country down. Here’s a good summary of the book:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/books/review/steve-kornacki-the-red-and-the-blue.html

Oh, Gingrich’s 1994 “Republican wave” was clearly a factor in the rise of the crazy Republicans.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

How would any of this start?  My neighbors just attack my apartment?  We're not even close to that in any kind of organized way.  The closest thing you have right now is the Proud Boys type shit - at best that stuff leads to a bad riot.  

In the meantime I think that the idea of even a lunatic like Trump dropping a nuke domestically is beyond tinfoil hat crack pottery. 

As others have said, unless there is a massive drop off in quality of life for a massive chunk of the (white) population this is a ridiculous conclusion to the current political polarization.

I cannot say. It would likely be localized and allow local authorities to bring it under control.  The scary thing would be several incidents happening rapid succession and not giving authorities time to get the violence under control or Trump trying something truely crazy like suspending Congress or cancelling elections.  Then his defenders would be left with a choice of country or Trump.  I fear they’d pick Trump.  

[S John]

Also, I know the polarization is real.  And that there are very serious problems in this country that need to be addressed.  But honestly, its kind of interesting how easy it is watching cable news, or visiting news websites, or reading political commentary on here and on other message boards for me to get swept up in a dire mood generated by political commentary... and then like, go to Target, go get Ramen, get a beer at my local spot, go home and watch Netflix - and not even have the slightest inkling that people are brooding about politics to an unhealthy level in the 'real' world.  It's so easy to get into a frenzy from taking in all this information, but then when you go out and about and do stuff, it's business as usual to the point where I'm not sure to what extent rhetoric and polarization are actually affecting the physical world.  Seems like about 99% of people leave it at the door when they step outside of their home. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, S John said:

I think the rhetoric is approaching unhealthy levels, but we can’t even get half the adults in this country to vote over politics let alone pick up a rifle and engage in actual politically motivated fighting.  

What happens when they cut the interwebs and T.V. signals?

Quote

I don’t think the situation is desperate enough.  We’d have to add 1930’s level (or worse) economic strife to the current toxic mixture before I’d really start to be concerned about Civil War part deux.  I think far too many Americans lead generally comfortable lives and therefore have too much to lose for it to get out of hand on a large scale.  It isn’t impossible, I just don’t think we are anywhere near that point just yet.  Might be getting started on the road, but there are still plenty of opportunities for course correction.

The Dow has been shaky as of late, and what little business news I watch sounds somewhat bleak. And I’ve been hearing for years now that a recession is inevitable. It’s only a matter of time, especially when we’ve got a certain avian who is lacking in durability trying to destroy the economy.  

[Maithanet]

I found this 538 article pretty heartening. 

Quote

Sometimes — as was the case in 2006, 1974 and 1930 — midterm waves are followed by turnover in the presidency two years later. But most presidents win re-election, including those who endured rough midterms (such as Obama in 2010, Bill Clinton in 1994 and Ronald Reagan in 1982). Nor is there any obvious relationship between how high turnout was at the midterm and how the incumbent president performed two years later. Democrats’ high turnout in 1970 presaged a landslide loss in 1972, when they nominated George McGovern.

This year’s results do serve as a warning to Trump in one important sense, however: His base alone will not be enough to win a second term. Throughout the stretch run of the 2018 midterm campaign, Trump and Republicans highlighted highly charged partisan issues, from the Central American migrant caravan to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. And Republican voters did indeed turn out in very high numbers: GOP candidates for the House received more than 50 million votes, more than the roughly 45 million they got in 2010.

But it wasn’t enough, or even close to enough. Problem No. 1 is that Republicans lost among swing voters: Independent voters went for Democrats by a 12-point margin, and voters who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 went to Democrats by 13 points.

Trump and Republicans also have Problem No. 2, however: Their base is smaller than the Democratic one.

 

 Trump has governed on the assumption that the Republican base elected him, and he needs to do everything he can to keep them motivated, regardless of opposition anger.  That strategy led directly to a very motivated GOP being completely overwhelmed by a backlash from very motivated Democratic/independent voters.  Presidents that successfully endured a big midterm loss and then won reelection two years later (Reagan, Clinton, Obama), all did so by changing strategies and learning from their midterm defeat.  But learning and change are anathema to Trump.  He will double down on his base, and rely on race-baiting and wedge issues to win the day in 2020. 

In addition, a lot of things went right for Trump in 2016 -

1.  Democrats chose a very unpopular candidate.  Regardless of who they pick in 2020, it will be someone more popular nationally than Hillary Clinton.  Republicans will no doubt wage war on his/her character, but they won't have the advantage of a 20 year PR campaign already in place. 

2.  The economy is likely to be worse in 2020 than it is in 2018.  No guarantees, but no economy grows forever.

3.  The electoral college may not help Republicans in 2020.  The EC undoubtedly makes the midwest and Florida incredibly important, but if Democrats pick someone who is relatively popular there (as Obama was), then Trump could lose the EC even if he won the popular vote. 

4.  Trump did not do particularly better than McCain or Romney.  It was much more that Clinton did worse (in the midwest particularly) than Obama.  Trump has limited potential to grow his voter pool unless he changes strategy (which he won't).  In contrast, the Democrats could do much better.  If a Democrat could just match Obama's 2008 vote total of 69.5 million votes (obviously achieveable given 12 years of population growth), the Democrats would be almost assured of victory, because it is hard to believe Trump can get above 65 million.  Let alone if Democrats pick someone charismatic who can match Obama's 2008 enthusiasm (then 75 million votes would be in play). 

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Ormond said:

How does the US "fall into civil war" when the political divide is not sectional like it was in 1860, but basically urban vs. rural? The big metro areas in Texas are all now Democratic. There were certainly a few pro-Union parts of the South back in the 1860s (mostly in Appalachia) and of course pro-Confederate areas of the border states like Missouri and Kentucky, but it still seems to me that the divide was way more geographical back then than it actually is now. How would a Civil War work even in South Carolina when Charleston now has a Democratic U.S. House representative?

Sorry, wrote that before I read the thread further but I agree with DMZ -- I don't think the kind of civil unrest that is possible would really rise to the definition of "war."

The region that became for a while the "Free State of Jones" in Mississippi, close to Alabama! let us not forget.  It's an incredible story (not the movie, which is entertaining, but not the real story and characters).

As far as the economy goes: well, see what's happening in the midwest and the financial markets right now due to the trade war with China.

Not to mention OPEC no longer effective against the Big Three that now control the BigOilBidness: the orange nazi; Putin and the Saudi prince.  And all of them intent on punishing Iran for selling oil to Syria.

[lokisnow]

Yes midterm turnout does not predict 2020 turnout, but if there is a spike in presidential turnout akin to the spike in 2018 midterm turnout, then +10 senate seats should be achievable for democrats. With high turnout, Democrats were competitive in 31 senate elections in a remarkably bad 2018 map for them, with good candidate recruitment they should be striving to be competitive in 30+ senate elections for 2020.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I found this 538 article pretty heartening. 

As the article warns, I have a really hard time projecting anything from a previous midterm result.  A lot can happen in two years, so I don't put much stock in it.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

As the article warns, I have a really hard time projecting anything from a previous midterm result.  A lot can happen in two years, so I don't put much stock in it.

But I don't feel like this is projecting based on the midterm result.  It's projecting based on what we know now about Trump and whether 2016 is likely to be repeatable.  With the obvious caveat that projecting from 2 years out is really hard, I think the signs are there that Trump faces some challenges in 2020 that he is going to have trouble overcoming.  Trump is very bad at expanding his base - he doesn't offer olive branches to new supporters.  And yet he must win new voters to win in 2020.  If he just repeats his 2016 performance, he's probably on track for a narrow loss (points 3 and 4).  And there's reason to think (points 1 and 2) that he might not even be able to match his 2016 showing, although I'm sure he'll get close, since the floor for Republican presidential candidates is very high. 

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It's projecting based on what we know now about Trump and whether 2016 is likely to be repeatable.  With the obvious caveat that projecting from 2 years out is really hard, I think the signs are there that Trump faces some challenges in 2020 that he is going to have trouble overcoming. 

Yeah, I agree with your points 1 and 4 from the previous post.  They make Trump likely to be a weak incumbent.  But 2 and 3 are unknown at this point.  I don't expect the opposition to Trump to dissipate in the next two years, that's a safe assumption I think.  But, I don't know how that will translate to turnout yet, it's way too early to judge.  Really the next solid indicator won't happen til the primaries.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, I agree with your points 1 and 4 from the previous post.  They make Trump likely to be a weak incumbent.  But 2 and 3 are unknown at this point.  I don't expect the opposition to Trump to dissipate in the next two years, that's a safe assumption I think.  But, I don't know how that will translate to turnout yet, it's way too early to judge.  Really the next solid indicator won't happen til the primaries.

The EC helped Trump immensely in 2016, and there's no guarantee it will do so in 2020.  It could, but just because it helped in 2016 doesn't mean it will again.  A lot depends a lot on whether Democrats pick a candidate who appeals to midwestern voters.  Modeling shows that the EC almost never goes to someone who isn't within 3 points of the plurality of the vote, and Trump lost the popular vote by 2.1%, so that was more or less as good as it gets. 

I'll admit that #2 is obviously something that nobody knows.  Long term economic forecasting is essentially impossible.  But it seems safe to say that the economy can't get much better than this, and based on historical patterns, we're due for an economic downturn.  So if there's three scenarios for the economy:

Economy is doing well, more or less like it is now - Trump will have the advantages of incumbency, which gives him a clear early edge, but Trump is still Trump, and his weaknesses won't go away.  The election will probably depend on whether Democrats pick a good, charismatic candidate.

Economy is shaky, showing signs of recession, or just anemic growth in 2020 - This would probably take a few points off Trump's support, and I think that's enough to sink Trump in virtually all scenarios.  Maybe I'm blinded by my Trump loathing, but given how low his approval ratings are in good times, I don't see how he could run an effective campaign on kitchen table economic issues, and I just don't see racial scapegoating getting him over the finish line (although it could still be very close and very messy). 

Economy is genuinely bad - Trump is finished, and the Democrats almost assuredly take the Senate too. 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

But I don't feel like this is projecting based on the midterm result.  It's projecting based on what we know now about Trump and whether 2016 is likely to be repeatable.  With the obvious caveat that projecting from 2 years out is really hard, I think the signs are there that Trump faces some challenges in 2020 that he is going to have trouble overcoming.  Trump is very bad at expanding his base - he doesn't offer olive branches to new supporters.  And yet he must win new voters to win in 2020.  If he just repeats his 2016 performance, he's probably on track for a narrow loss (points 3 and 4).  And there's reason to think (points 1 and 2) that he might not even be able to match his 2016 showing, although I'm sure he'll get close, since the floor for Republican presidential candidates is very high. 

One big thing to consider is that most people do NOT change their vote when an incumbent president is up for re-election. For example, Obama retained 97% of the people who voted for him in his reelection bid.  Trump is likely to retain 95% of his voters overall.

People commit to a team, and the Obama to trump voters that committed to team trump are going to En masse stick with trump, perhaps ten percent of that subgroup will defect as a best case scenario. And of course all the repulsive republicans who voted trump once will vote for him again.

but the 2008-2012 voters that stayed home are up for grabs, and the young voters that didn’t vote and the Latino voters that didn’t vote.

And two million baby boomers and older will have died by Election Day 2020.

so democrats have to turnout the 2016 non voters to win, not try to persuade people to Welch on their candidate. 

[Which Tyler]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

How dare you besmirch the princess!!!!

No cake for you!!!!!!

Overall, I might be in favour of the French solution to Princesses

[Ormond]

16 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

 

And two million baby boomers and older will have died by Election Day 2020.

 

And it's mostly the "and older" who will have died, as the oldest Boomers will be turning 74 in 2020. The average 72 year old male American has 14 more years of life expected, and the average 72 year old woman expects 16 more years of life. And remember, we are talking about just the oldest year of Boomers here -- the youngest Boomers will just be turning 56 in 2020.

But the demographics do work in the Democrats' favor because the Silent Generation (Pew uses birth years 1928 to 1945 for that group) will be between 73 and 92 then, and they skew much more Republican than the Boomers do.  It often seems to me that posters on this thread blame Boomers for the "Republicanness" of older voters when the Silents are more to blame for that. 

[Maithanet]

19 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

One big thing to consider is that most people do NOT change their vote when an incumbent president is up for re-election. For example, Obama retained 97% of the people who voted for him in his reelection bid.  Trump is likely to retain 95% of his voters overall.

I don't think that 97% could possibly be right, just given that some voters die, others enter the electorate, and many voters fail to show up both times.  If you mean that among people who voted in both elections, Obama won 97% of his 2008 voters in 2012, that sounds reasonable. 

Quote

People commit to a team, and the Obama to trump voters that committed to team trump are going to En masse stick with trump, perhaps ten percent of that subgroup will defect as a best case scenario. And of course all the repulsive republicans who voted trump once will vote for him again.

Typically this is true, although it is quite possible we're seeing a realignment where college educated suburbanites are fleeing the Republican party.  There are definitely a few districts in MI, WI and PA where that's a big problem. 

Quote

but the 2008-2012 voters that stayed home are up for grabs, and the young voters that didn’t vote and the Latino voters that didn’t vote.

so democrats have to turnout the 2016 non voters to win, not try to persuade people to Welch on their candidate. 

Democrats weren't even close to their ceiling in 2016.  Even matching Obama's 2008 performance would have been plenty to win in 2016, and a good candidate could easily exceed that mark.  In contrast, Trump has little potential to bring in new voters.  In 2016, he traded some suburban white voters for increasing the share of rural white voters in places like PA, FL and WI, and that worked (barely).  I expect that trend will continue. Republicans mostly attempted that in 2018 WI and FL governor's races, with mixed results.  But at some point, you can't really increase your share of white rural voters that much because there simply aren't that many white voters left, and those that remain are very politically unmotivated.

EDIT:  Clarity

[Larry of the Lawn]

25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I don't think that 97% could possibly be right, just given that some voters die, others enter the electorate, and many voters fail to show up both times.  If you mean that among people who voted in both elections, Obama won 97% of his 2008 voters in 2012, that sounds reasonable. 

Typically this is true, although it is quite possible we're seeing a realignment where college educated suburbanites are fleeing the Republican party.  There are definitely a few districts in MI, WI and PA where that's a big problem. 

Democrats weren't even close to their ceiling in 2016.  Even matching Obama's 2008 performance would have been plenty to win in 2016, and a good candidate could easily exceed that mark.  In contrast, Trump has little potential to bring in new voters.  In 2016, he traded some suburban white voters for increasing the share of rural white voters in places like PA, FL and WI, and that worked (barely).  I expect that trend will continue. Republicans mostly attempted that in 2018 WI and FL governor's races, with mixed results.  But at some point, you can't really increase your share of white rural voters that much because there simply aren't that many white voters left, and those that remain are very politically unmotivated.

EDIT:  Clarity

Anecdotal but my mom, my stepmom, my grandmother and my brother-in-law have all gone from registered reliable Republicans to Dems since 2015.

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Anecdotal but my mom, my stepmom, my grandmother and my brother-in-law have all gone from registered reliable Republicans to Dems since 2015.

So, are they all college-educated suburbanites?

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

So, are they all college-educated suburbanites?

 All college educated (mom and grandma have bachelor's degrees, stepmom and brother in law associates) all four suburbanites.  All live in CT although two of them are from MI.