U.S. Politics: Trump of the Will

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

I think a woman is the best to run against Trump.  And I'm not underestimating anything.

Why specifically? Is this because you think Harris is the best bet, or because you think generic woman is somehow better suited to winning in this environment?

Just now, DMC said:

Who the fuck is talking about margins in the hundreds?

I am. I'm not saying the "didnt vote because no one until now catered to the anti lizard people movement" is large, but I think it's a category error to think that Trump motivates the same kind of people to vote that are normal, and I think there is a good chance that a whole lot of people out there who normally dont vote and didnt for trump in 2016 are going to now because they are thrilled about how racist and bold he actually is. 

Is it a lot? I would have said no in 2016, but I also would have said that a politician who says that the nazis are not that bad would have a bad time. I'm incredibly pessimistic about US populations (at least in the states; puerto ricans are rocking it) and believing more and more that most US citizens want more systemic racism as part of their mix. 

But the fact is that multiple kids dying in cages has not moved the needle. 

[all swedes are racist]

rossello to resign 

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-07-24/puerto-rico-governor-ricardo-rossello

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

I may be misremembering, but was it not the case that Bart O's boy who wrote about Bart O was never compelled to testify?  The guy who was allegedly in the room?

As far as I can tell, he was never subpoenaed, but he consistently said that he has no memory of the incident.

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

News flash. Mob rule is back in a way that it never existed before. Social media has blown all those checks on mob rule out the water. The pitchforks might be figurative this time around, but they do a helluva lot more damage. It's irrelevant whether the mob's judgement is reliable. It's the effect that's consequential, and we're seeing the effect, and the effect is considerable and can't merely be dismissed because the mob is made up of ignorant plebs.

Yes and no. It's true that social media has made it easier for mobs to congregate and attack, the same lack of physical presence that makes this possible also makes it difficult to directly influence the physical world. In most cases, the online mobs have power only because some members of the elite use them as a pretext for some action. If this does not happen and there is no powerful entity constantly fanning the flames, the mob will eventually lose interest and move on to something else without accomplishing anything.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

rossello to resign 

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-07-24/puerto-rico-governor-ricardo-rossello

Hell to the yes. 

I'll try and find some of the articles about the protesting and uproar, but it is just incredible what they did. Something like 20% of the population of Puerto Rico protested for almost two weeks. They did it day and night. They had resistance slogans, songs. T shirts, celebrities, sit ins, swim ins...the creativity and energy was amazing. 

 

[DMC]

58 minutes ago, Triskele said:

This reminds me of another hypothetical I've been tempted to throw out, but I worry it's just too hypothetical, but it's this:

Would anyone calculate not just "which candidate can beat Trump" but "which candidate can beat Trump by the most?"  Those margins potentially really matter with the Senate.  

Alright, let's deal with this and the women thing, two birds and such.  We got four in the top tier, right?  Now, someone could come back up, who knows, but unlikely.  Out of those four, the two old white men are Biden and Sanders.  And fuck that shit.  Like, seriously, I don't want nor think Sanders will ever be near a nomination.  As for Biden, ugh.  What a boring ass choice.  So, yeah, I think it'll be a woman taking on Trump, and I'm going to everything I can to make sure she'll win.  What you wanna fight about it?

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Why specifically? Is this because you think Harris is the best bet, or because you think generic woman is somehow better suited to winning in this environment?

See above.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I am. I'm not saying the "didnt vote because no one until now catered to the anti lizard people movement" is large, but I think it's a category error to think that Trump motivates the same kind of people to vote that are normal, and I think there is a good chance that a whole lot of people out there who normally dont vote and didnt for trump in 2016 are going to now because they are thrilled about how racist and bold he actually is. 

Is it a lot? I would have said no in 2016, but I also would have said that a politician who says that the nazis are not that bad would have a bad time. I'm incredibly pessimistic about US populations (at least in the states; puerto ricans are rocking it) and believing more and more that most US citizens want more systemic racism as part of their mix. 

But the fact is that multiple kids dying in cages has not moved the needle. 

These are a lot of words that have nothing to do with someone winning in the margins of the hundreds, which is incredibly unlikely, and is not addressed in this post.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

These are a lot of words that have nothing to do with someone winning in the margins of the hundreds, which is incredibly unlikely, and is not addressed in this post.

Sorry, I went off on a tangent there. There were three states which the margin was incredibly small that ended up deciding the margin. The margins for victory or defeat are razor thin in this election. Demographically dems are growing in all the wrong places. And predicting voting based on prior patterns of voting is either a bad idea because trump throws a whole lot off in general, or a bad idea because it means in a good economy trump will win easily. 

In that situation weird cases like racists who didnt vote in 2015 and do now can make a difference, and it is as likely as not that those hideous examples.of what humanity can be that show up at trump rallies are ones who never considered voting before trump came around and are being signed up to vote at those rallies. 

[felice]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

But why do you think this?  It seems like you're assigning a value to a certain kind of doesn't vote person over another.  Is there any way to actually know this given their non-voting behavior?

I'm assuming the bulk of non-disenfranchised non-voters would fall broadly into the "no reason to care" basket. We all knew who Trump was before the election; I don't see what's new that would change voters from "don't care" to "in favour". Obstructing justice etc might not bother his existing fans, but it's not going to win over anybody new. While his actual crimes and declining mental state could plausibly motivate people who wouldn't normally bother. There are non-partisan reasons to oppose Trump, while his appeal is pure partisanship.

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

And what worries me here is that this is exactly why people won't come out of the woodworks on Trump because while we might feel that he's a disaster these low information non-voting types might easily be like "economy is strong" or something.

"The economy is strong" might be a factor with regular low-info swing voters, but it's not a game-changer that will bring in hordes of non-voters. But impeachment on a whole raft of different serious charges would be something out of the ordinary.

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

All of the sudden though I'm hopeful (from an electoral standpoint) that global warming has become so much more obvious with so many more warning signs flashing even for the low-information among us that it will get out some new folks to Trump's detriment.  

I think we're probably a decade away from low-info types actually taking climate change seriously enough to affect their behaviour

52 minutes ago, Triskele said:

But if some demon could tell me "Your favorite candidate will beat Trump by 1% and keep the House but narrowly lose the Senate, but your third favorite candidate will beat Trump by 5% and re-take the Senate by five seats" or something like that I would vote for third favorite candidate.  

Oh, certainly, in theory. But in practice, I'd have no reason to trust a demon should such a thing exist, and no other way to predict the outcomes with the required level of certainty. None of the candidates strike me as sufficiently far left that they couldn't win the electoral college. If there was a genuinely socialist candidate, it would be more of a dilemma, but given the current state of the American public, I probably couldn't endorse them when it would mean handing the election to the Republicans. You'd need a sane electoral system with preferential voting, or a major shift in public opinion first.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And predicting voting based on prior patterns of voting is either a bad idea because trump throws a whole lot off in general, or a bad idea because it means in a good economy trump will win easily. 

Agreed.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In that situation weird cases like racists who didnt vote in 2015 and do now can make a difference, and it is as likely as not that those hideous examples.of what humanity can be that show up at trump rallies are ones who never considered voting before trump came around and are being signed up to vote at those rallies. 

I mean, sure.  I'm not saying you're wrong about this.  I'm just saying you play your own game man.  What's the alternative, right?  So, you dance with the girl that brung ya.

[ThinkerX]

46 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sorry, I went off on a tangent there. There were three states which the margin was incredibly small that ended up deciding the margin. The margins for victory or defeat are razor thin in this election. Demographically dems are growing in all the wrong places. And predicting voting based on prior patterns of voting is either a bad idea because trump throws a whole lot off in general, or a bad idea because it means in a good economy trump will win easily. 

In that situation weird cases like racists who didnt vote in 2015 and do now can make a difference, and it is as likely as not that those hideous examples.of what humanity can be that show up at trump rallies are ones who never considered voting before trump came around and are being signed up to vote at those rallies. 

Yet, you are still thinking in terms of the electoral college.  An increasing number of states appear to be sidestepping that.

https://wlos.com/news/nation-world/new-mexico-is-14th-state-to-pledge-its-electoral-votes-to-winner-of-popular-vote

 

New Mexico is the 14th state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing it to 189 electoral votes. The states will not shift their vote allocations until their combined electoral votes equal 270, enough to decide a presidential election.

[ThinkerX]

somehow this got missed by the board - Trump coming completely unglued.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-lashes-out-at-nbc-reporter-who-asked-if-he-s-worried-he-could-be-indicted-after-leaving-office/ar-AAEOVPO?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR3Qk9xBmjQu_8JgG0B2fZmupGQQ0HXgiDJEqmwZULz28yU4Zsx6hWG_ZQY

[mormont]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Yet, you are still thinking in terms of the electoral college.  An increasing number of states appear to be sidestepping that.

https://wlos.com/news/nation-world/new-mexico-is-14th-state-to-pledge-its-electoral-votes-to-winner-of-popular-vote

 

Mostly Dem voting states, yes? 

[Inigima]

4 hours ago, Triskele said:

A major remaining question that I think gets discussed very little:

What chance do the Dems have of unearthing anything more if they go with Impeachment proceedings?  Is there, like, a Bayesian analysis on this?  And is someone like Pelosi considering this?  

If I was a leader I would want the Bayesian take on this, and then depending on the answer it could inform my decision. 

It's one thing to consider the immediate or direct impeachment ramifications.  It's tougher to consider the the extent to which these indirect factors would or would not impact the overall outcome.   

I think this may be the wrong question. Most of the public, including Trump supporters, doesn't read the news and takes in limited sound bites from TV if you're lucky. Remember that Trump supporter who was surprised to learn, months later, that the Mueller report said anything bad about Trump, because she had only heard that it "exonerated" him? That's a lot of people. Impeachment proceedings would put this stuff front and center, and keep it there.

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

I think this may be the wrong question. Most of the public, including Trump supporters, doesn't read the news and takes in limited sound bites from TV if you're lucky. Remember that Trump supporter who was surprised to learn, months later, that the Mueller report said anything bad about Trump, because she had only heard that it "exonerated" him? That's a lot of people. Impeachment proceedings would put this stuff front and center, and keep it there.

Most people get their news from articles/comments shared on facebook, factual or not. We live in a world with all encompassing bubbles.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 hours ago, Triskele said:

A major remaining question that I think gets discussed very little:

What chance do the Dems have of unearthing anything more if they go with Impeachment proceedings?  Is there, like, a Bayesian analysis on this?  And is someone like Pelosi considering this?   

If I was a leader I would want the Bayesian take on this, and then depending on the answer it could inform my decision. 

It's one thing to consider the immediate or direct impeachment ramifications.  It's tougher to consider the the extent to which these indirect factors would or would not impact the overall outcome.   

A bit besides the point I think. There's no way they get to unearth more/successfully influence the scale while the GOP is providing cover for Twitler. If House Republicans were to grow a coscience (haha!) and blew off the lid, he would be filing for political asylum in Moscow faster than you scream Benedict Arnold. Related to that.

9 hours ago, felice said:

I think pretty much everybody who'd ever be interested in Trump voted for him in 2016. Racists who feel strongly about supporting a racist agenda but don't regularly vote Republican strikes me as a pretty niche demographic. Sexists who weren't motivated in 2016 won't ever be motivated. And nobody who hadn't already drunk the Kool-Aid has been impressed by his performance in office. A lot more of the 42% are likely to recognise that he's proven uniquely unsuitable for the role of President and needs to go. 

Why would the 42% change their mind on the issue of suitability? He is the shitty/flawed product that was advertised during the last GE campaign. Nobody in their right state of mind believed for a second he was suited for that office. I mean he has the grown more presidential in the same way, that Send them back is an improvement over Lock her up. Like I said, it's the shitty product that was advertised. The unpolished Turd if you will. Again, the GOP growing a conscience and blowing off the lit might change that. But then again, that's like saying there will be a spaceship with benign aliens showing up next year to solve mankinds' problems with global warming. Possible, but I wouldn't bet on that event happening.

The two things that might (hopefully) be different this time around would be, the Democrats won't run somebody as polarizing as Clinton with her history again (by that I mean, nobody who has been made the devil incarnate by the right wing media for decades). And second, somehow related to it. A higher turnout again this time around. So preferably all the folks of colour that did not show up in 2016.

Who is the best suited to achieve both goals? I still like to think it's Harris at this point.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Triskele said:

Remember that there's always a person more woke than you to show you how inadequately woke you are.  It needs to be coined as like a new "law" like Godwin's Law.

Winkle's Law is invoked during message board and face to face discussions where performative wokeness is or becomes the raison d'etre of the conversation. 

The term is derived from Washington Irving's short story, "Rip Van Winkle", and was appropriated for this axiom as short-hand for the sentiment: "no one's more woke than the poor sap who slept for 20 years straight".

[Larry of the Lawn]

20 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Winkle's Law is invoked during message board and face to face discussions where performative wokeness is or becomes the raison d'etre of the conversation. 

The term is derived from Washington Irving's short story, "Rip Van Winkle", and was appropriated for this axiom as short-hand for the sentiment: "no one's more woke than the poor sap who slept for 20 years straight".

Eh, the whole "more woke" is also becoming the new SJW, a quick way to dismiss anything to the left of where you're comfortable.  I'll apply my own Winkle's law and respond to that with a yawn and a "zzzzzzzzzzzzzz".

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Eh, the whole "more woke" is also becoming the new SJW, a quick way to dismiss anything to the left of where you're comfortable.  I'll apply my own Winkle's law and respond to that with a yawn and a "zzzzzzzzzzzzzz".

Actually, I was only trying to fulfill @Triskele's demands before that funky monkey started taking potshots at me with that hand cannon of his.

While I personally believe that "woke culture" can be a little much at times, all I have to do is take a gander at what the closest thing to a conservative equivalent there is and what they're getting up to these days, and any mild qualms I might have had are immediately quashed.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Gertrude said:

That's part of it, but the people I know who liked Trump as a candidate kinda knew he was horrible, but liked the idea of him as a wrecking ball for DC. I know this is anecdotal, but I really don't think people give this aspect enough consideration.

There certainly are people who voted for Trump for those reasons. However, I think most of those people are also older and white, and that they’re experiencing racial resentment, but because they know they can’t say that publicly, they use the wrecking ball argument instead.

14 hours ago, felice said:

What would they be scared of? It could also motivate non-voters to show up, and discourage turnout by the semi-reasonable fringe of Republicans.

Oh IDK, maybe the……rioting…

[ummester]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There certainly are people who voted for Trump for those reasons. However, I think most of those people are also older and white, and that they’re experiencing racial resentment, but because they know they can’t say that publicly, they use the wrecking ball argument instead.

Or perhaps it;s just because the West, by and large, is over globalism and progressivism. There is no need to make it about color, or ethnicity - it is culture, pure and simple. Western culture is the greatest the world has ever known (in this Epoch) and destroying it because corporations require suppressed global wages is just not acceptable.

[Bonnot OG]