Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Relic said:

What's worse is that you pretty much have to invest in firearms and training, because when the shit hits the fan you don't want to be stuck as the only person without a fucking weapon. Man...what a shit show. 

On the other hand, given the other hand, a great deal of Trump supporters are 50 and up, and a fair amount are over 65. Given the way Americans go about feeding themselves, we can probably expect to uhhh..lose some of those folks in the near future. :unsure:

I don't think there's any need to be that pessimistic yet. Trump winning in 2020, assuming Republicans retake the House as well*, probably moves into current Hungary territory. Which is a bad place to be, but isn't a dystopian wasteland. The big existential threat is catastrophic climate change, and that seems to be staying on pace regardless of who wins.

*And I would not be so sure of this. It's pretty easy to see a 2020 election where Trump eeks out a close EC win, but Democrats blow out the suburbs and keep most of their 2018 gains. Although, if Trump does win, I think it's almost certain Republicans keep the Senate, which means he probably gets 2 more Supreme Court picks (assuming no more in his first term) and gets to continue to reshape the judiciary. So things are still pretty terrible even if House Democrats can keep a check on some things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad truth is we’re probably still screwed to some extent even if Trump loses. If he’s not jailed and/or deeply discredited, he’ll be able to further divide the nation via Twitter from Trump Tower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fez said:

. The big existential threat is catastrophic climate change, and that seems to be staying on pace regardless of who wins.

 

Oh, I totally agree, but 6 more years of Trump means the USA won't be at all prepared for the ravages of climate change that we are almost guaranteed to see in the next decade. The only walls we need to be building are fucking sea walls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Okay, so I've already made my thoughts known on the whole Northam affair and those haven't changed in the interim. 

However, as I've learned a little more about how the story originally broke (initially published by a right-wing, Trump- backing website, picked up by the right-wing echo chamber until the mainstream press got wind of it), I started becoming very concerned about whether it will become a possibility that this kind of stuff becomes commonplace in the future, except where any such photos or video is actually fake. 

We already know the right doesn't give a shit about anything but winning. I mean hell, James O'Keefe is still considered a hero among most of the far-right crowd even though every "sting" he's perpetrated has been a hoax.

What happens when the technology of photoshopping and deep-fake videos becomes so advanced as to become almost indistinguishable from the real thing? We know the right will have no moral qualms when it comes to doctoring videos or pictures to manufacture a scandal (probably with the help of their new best buds, the Russians). And these kind of manufactured scandals won't even need to rise to the point of having the target actually resign; the right-wing will just keep hammering this inside their bubble, and force Democratic leaders to spend all their time and political capital answering baseless accusations instead of actually governing. 

Fighting fire with fire will only hasten the decline of any shred of bi-partisanship that may be left among the American populace, and will further degrade the already shaky epistemological foundation upon which the voting public relies to cast votes for candidates whom they believe to reflect their values. 

Right now, I believe that even if Northam wasn't one of the ones depicted in the yearbook, he probably has dressed up in blackface at some point in his life. But if something similar comes out in 10 years during the 2028 elections, how could we be certain?

I think it's a valid concern but they've been doing that already - like you said the right doesn't even need quality high tech forgeries to propagate this stuff.  I suppose a more realistic video or audio could be more powerful than "pizza shop pedophile kill kill destroy" just typed out in plain text, but after awhile there will be diminishing returns on this stuff.  It's a trick that way work once or twice, but it that's it.  

I'd also be a little concerned about whether or not we have to start labelling satire and farce if they decide to combat this stuff with some kj did anti-propaganda legislation.

 

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have 24 replies and there's no bloody way I can keep up. No offense if I didn't read someone's reply. Got real life stuff...

Regarding my point about a substantial number of moderates being ignored when both the Rs and Ds have moved the extremes and the Ds risking losing by taking on a message that's too far left. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-february-3-2019-n966336

Paragraph breaks and bolded are mine for readability. 

Quote

CHUCK TODD:

We are back. Data Download time. Two years into the Trump presidency, and Americans now agree that the two political parties represent two drastically different points of view. Maybe that doesn't shock you today, but it's shocking. According to new data from Pew, 54% of Americans say there's a great deal of difference between the two parties. This is actually the first time that a majority of the country has agreed on that issue. Consider that, in 1987, only 25% of respondents said the same thing. In fact, the exact same percentage of people said there was hardly any difference between Republicans and Democrats back in the late '80s.

 

Right now though, this divide seems just fine, particularly with Republicans. In fact, they want more separation from the Democrats.

57% of Republicans say they want the party to be more conservative than it is now. Only 39% think it should be more moderate.

Democrats, on the other hand, though, seem to be a bit more uneasy about the party's move to the left. Only 40% of Democrats, not a majority, think the party should be more liberal. That's not something you'd like to hear, if you're, say, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. 54% of Democrats think the party should take a more-moderate route.

So do any of these divides provide an opening for a viable third-party candidate? According to a Gallup poll from the fall, 57% of Americans still believe a third major political party is necessary. Sometimes, I've seen that number as high as about 65%. But in this poll, it includes 54% of Democrats, the same percent who want Democrats to be more moderate. Those could be the voters that someone like Howard Schultz is hoping to pick up, if he runs as an Independent. Look, looking at this data, we can expect more of the same from President Trump, heading into the 2020 election. He knows what his voters want. And it's not moderation. On the other side, though, we keep hearing how the Democrats are lurching to the left. That may be true of some Democratic candidates. But this suggests that party voters may want something a bit more moderate. They may be looking for someone that's a bit more electable. And when we come back, we'll look at the fight for the Democratic nomination and at the looming deadline for another government shutdown.

Republicans: 57% say they should be more conservative, 39% say they should go more moderate. 

Democrats: 40% say they should be more liberal, 54% say they should go more moderate

57% to 65% Americans believe a third party is necessary. 

Chuck Todd makes the connection between the percentage of Democrats who think the party should be more moderate to the number of Americans believing a third party is necessary. 

 

 

Bolded mine. 

Quote

CHUCK TODD:

All right, I want to interrupt the conversation. But let me just add one more little additive here. Howard Schultz's sort of budding campaign, it's not official, but they did some polling. They released some of it. They did polling following this week, where he got beaten the living daylights out of on the media. Here's one matchup. They sent us two matchups of Trump-Harris-Schultz and Trump-Warren-Schultz. As you can see here, this is a poll conducted after the rollout, so in the last two days of Thursday and Friday. Essentially, Trump and Harris tied, Schultz sitting at 17. The point they wanted to make here, Mark Leibovich, is that, hey, even after this horrible rollout, where he got battered, left and sometimes right, he's still sitting in the mid-teens, which, their argument is, shows you how much room there is for an independent.

More discussion on the full transcript linked above. 

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I started becoming very concerned about whether it will become a possibility that this kind of stuff becomes commonplace in the future, except where any such photos or video is actually fake. 

Where have you been?  Oppo digging, phony information and lies, have been in play since at least Reagan's day (actually  -- see Cadwallader, Adams and Hamilton and the Thomas Jefferson dirty campaigns).  It's gotten to be the public order of the day  targeting every voter, now, since the internet has made it possible to drown out responsible reporting.  It goes on all the time, with the orange nazi's trumpeting of fake news.

If you think the tech isn't there yet to alter, edit and create media to make it look 'real' -- I really don't have a clue as to where you have been living and what you've been doing for at least 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Chuck Todd makes the connection between the percentage of Democrats who think the party should be more moderate to the number of Americans believing a third party is necessary. 

Bolded mine. 

 More discussion on the full transcript linked above. 

Sure! That's a reasonable thing, and it's something we saw in the 2016 election when many Democrats were decrying that they had to vote for a moderate centrist Democrat like Clinton. The notion that Democrats are inherently fractious and want more choices is an obvious conclusion from them being an ideological and cultural heterogeneous party. There's a phrase that I use regularly - Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. This isn't surprising in the least.

Now, here's the heavy lift - take THOSE numbers, and turn them into the idea that those people are going to support someone who hates taxing the rich at all costs, doesn't want any kind of expanded health insurance, wants deficit reduction (not just debt reduction), and is not particularly socially liberal beyond supporting pro-choice (which itself is a moderate view). 

Add to that that of the people who know about who Schultz is, only 4% from ANY group like him (compared to about 40-50% who disapprove), and you really have a problem of proving that Schultz is going to do much for that group or that he has any kind of chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Have 24 replies and there's no bloody way I can keep up. No offense if I didn't read someone's reply. Got real life stuff...

Regarding my point about a substantial number of moderates being ignored when both the Rs and Ds have moved the extremes and the Ds risking losing by taking on a message that's too far left. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-february-3-2019-n966336

Paragraph breaks and bolded are mine for readability. 

Republicans: 57% say they should be more conservative, 39% say they should go more moderate. 

Democrats: 40% say they should be more liberal, 54% say they should go more moderate

57% to 65% Americans believe a third party is necessary. 

Chuck Todd makes the connection between the percentage of Democrats who think the party should be more moderate to the number of Americans believing a third party is necessary. 

 

 

Bolded mine. 

More discussion on the full transcript linked above. 

This is a giant nothing burger.  Third parties don't work with our electoral system.  No Democrat is going to vote for Schultz over whoever gets the D nomination.  Not in any way that matters - a moderate candidate would likely pull more Repubs over the Dems.  Do you live in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The sad truth is we’re probably still screwed to some extent even if Trump loses. If he’s not jailed and/or deeply discredited, he’ll be able to further divide the nation via Twitter from Trump Tower.

One of the most important first actions congress could take assuming trump loses and dems get a two house win is a “national security” presidential/congress/cabinet gag order law for five years after leaving office. Whether or not it holds up constitutionally, if nothing is done to muzzle trump they’ll be very very sorry.

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is a giant nothing burger.  Third parties don't work with our electoral system.  No Democrat is going to vote for Schultz over whoever gets the D nomination.  Not in any way that matters - a moderate candidate would likely pull more Repubs over the Dems.  Do you live in the US?

I'm reminded heavily of the awesome site Spurious Correlations.

That said, Schultz will pull from Dems, either stupid ones who voted Bernie-Trump, or ones that are discouraged by the constant negative ads Schultz will run and will simply not vote. 

Edited by Kalbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Okay, so I've already made my thoughts known on the whole Northam affair and those haven't changed in the interim. 

However, as I've learned a little more about how the story originally broke (initially published by a right-wing, Trump- backing website, picked up by the right-wing echo chamber until the mainstream press got wind of it), I started becoming very concerned about whether it will become a possibility that this kind of stuff becomes commonplace in the future, except where any such photos or video is actually fake. 

We already know the right doesn't give a shit about anything but winning. I mean hell, James O'Keefe is still considered a hero among most of the far-right crowd even though every "sting" he's perpetrated has been a hoax.

What happens when the technology of photoshopping and deep-fake videos becomes so advanced as to become almost indistinguishable from the real thing? We know the right will have no moral qualms when it comes to doctoring videos or pictures to manufacture a scandal (probably with the help of their new best buds, the Russians). And these kind of manufactured scandals won't even need to rise to the point of having the target actually resign; the right-wing will just keep hammering this inside their bubble, and force Democratic leaders to spend all their time and political capital answering baseless accusations instead of actually governing. 

Fighting fire with fire will only hasten the decline of any shred of bi-partisanship that may be left among the American populace, and will further degrade the already shaky epistemological foundation upon which the voting public relies to cast votes for candidates whom they believe to reflect their values. 

Right now, I believe that even if Northam wasn't one of the ones depicted in the yearbook, he probably has dressed up in blackface at some point in his life. But if something similar comes out in 10 years during the 2028 elections, how could we be certain?

I’m still astonished the yearbook is real! I took one look at it when the story broke and said, “well that’s an incredibly obvious fake” I’m like two rungs  above beginner on photoshop and I could do a better job on that fake (except maybe the font work). I even posted here that I expected the entire thing was a fake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump’s State of the Union Theme: Democrats, Please Don’t Hurt Me
The president plans to use his address to plead for bipartisanship in an era of deep division and bitterness largely engineered by Trump himself.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-state-of-the-union-theme-democrats-please-dont-hurt-me?ref=home

Quote

 

On Friday afternoon, a senior Trump administration official briefed reporters on some of the planned contents of the upcoming address, which is set to include themes of “American greatness,” Trump’s standard talk of immigration and violent crime, NAFTA and China-bashing, and “endless foreign wars.”

One element the senior official repeatedly touched on during the background briefing was Trump’s plans to emphasize the virtues of “cooperation and compromise,” and to try to rhetorically dissuade Democrats from giving themselves over to “resistance and retribution.”

The official also read excerpts from a draft of the State of the Union speech, which had Trump speaking against “political stalemate,” and imploring Democratic politicians to help “build new coalitions” and to find “new solutions” across the aisle on several policy fronts, such as prescription drug pricing and infrastructure spending.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

One of the most important first actions congress could take assuming trump loses and dems get a two house win is a “national security” presidential/congress/cabinet gag order law for five years after leaving office. Whether or not it holds up constitutionally, if nothing is done to muzzle trump they’ll be very very sorry.

There’s no way that will hold up in court considering it’s a direct violation of the First Amendment. The only way to shut him up is to get the social media giants to ban him, which is unlikely but not impossible, and to get the media to ignore him, which will never happen because he’s a boon for them.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There’s no way that will hold up in court considering it’s a direct violation of the First Amendment. The only way to shut him up is to get the social media giants to ban him, which is unlikely but not impossible, and to get the media to ignore him, which will never happen because he’s a boon for them.    

It would depend on the level of violence he caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There’s no way that will hold up in court considering it’s a direct violation of the First Amendment. The only way to shut him up is to get the social media giants to ban him, which is unlikely but not impossible, and to get the media to ignore him, which will never happen because he’s a boon for them.    

Yeah, but I'll bet they'd scrutinize his tweets for any possible breach of national security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, this seems relevant: POTUS  candidates are becoming more and more ideologically extreme - and don't get particularly punished for it. (it's the economy, stupid):

Quote

 

So are presidential candidates punished for extremism? The second study, by Martin Cohen and three other political scientists, finds that they aren’t. Candidates that are arguably more ideologically extreme — such as Barry Goldwater or George McGovern — do not lose much vote share compared with more centrist candidates, once other factors are accounted for. Those other factors are important: Goldwater and McGovern did lose in landslides, but this had as much if not more to do with the fundamental conditions in the country, not with their own ideological positions.

The graph below is a good summary of how much more economic fundamentals (here, the percent growth in real disposable income) affect vote share than does candidate extremism.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There’s no way that will hold up in court considering it’s a direct violation of the First Amendment. The only way to shut him up is to get the social media giants to ban him, which is unlikely but not impossible, and to get the media to ignore him, which will never happen because he’s a boon for them.    

The courts historically give almost unlimited latitude for national security “concerns”. If properly drafted it could really jam the gears of the court systems and would give the social media monopolies cover to temporarily suspend the affected accounts while it works it’s way through the system.

 

How do you prove in court that trump irresponsibly tweeting about Syria out of office is not a national security risk?

Or that trump going on his daily hourlong branded Fox News and talk radio show (simulcast broadcast!) to demand debt ceiling breaches from republican lawmakers or to publically attack democrat lawmakers (or his successors) on highly confidential things he (allegedly) learned in briefings is not a national security risk?

And on and on, you will be able to litigate an entire decade of cases out of the first week of “the trump show” which will air in prime time on Fox News (Donald’s contract would be not less than 100,000,000, per annum, with bonuses if he uses his platform to crack the whip on his republican peons to instigate government shutdowns and debt ceiling breaches etc to keep the ratings up).

trump is going to have, post presidency, the biggest media megaphone any one individual has ever had in the history of the world, unless congress does something to stop him.

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And in case you were wanting to think positively about things, well, the model that has correctly predicted everything - including Trump beating Clinton - sees the current economic forecast and says Trump wins.

https://twitter.com/pklinkne/status/1089905249714868227

His model in 2016 predicted Trump would win the popular vote, didnt say anything about the EC. In that sense it was wrong (but right in the sense that it predicted a Trump victory), just as it could be probably wrong about Trump's share of the vote this time around. It's very tough for him to get 51.2% of the vote as nearly half of voters are already opposed to him.

The question is how wrong, that is, can we use 2016 as a baseline to extrapolate if his model tells us how many votes Trump will have won or lost and what consequence that has for the EC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IheartIheartTesla said:

His model in 2016 predicted Trump would win the popular vote, didnt say anything about the EC. In that sense it was wrong (but right in the sense that it predicted a Trump victory), just as it could be probably wrong about Trump's share of the vote this time around. It's very tough for him to get 51.2% of the vote as nearly half of voters are already opposed to him.

Again, turnout matters too. 49% of all voters as assumed to come out by the polling agencies are against him. That's a lot! But it doesn't matter if AA turnout is down and white male HS only is up. 

Just now, IheartIheartTesla said:

The question is how wrong, that is, can we use 2016 as a baseline to extrapolate if his model tells us how many votes Trump will have won or lost and what consequence that has for the EC.

Right, and that's the real issue - in the key states, is he trending up or down? It's disheartening to me to see Ohio basically entirely Republican at this point. Florida is still open, I suppose. But realistically the Democrats went from having a whole lot of options to having basically two - Florida, and WI/MI/PA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×