U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

A bit of Googling leads to a Rasmussen tweet which points out that an Emerson poll found the same 34% African-American voter approval for Trump as Rasmussen itself.

LOL at one Rasmussen tracking result.  As for the Emerson poll, that's based on 153 voters - the 17 to 35 percent change can be largely due to random error with such a small sub-sample.  And yeah, approval doesn't mean they'll vote for him.

[mcbigski]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, I'm not sure using widespread nationalist sentiment as a cudgel should be accurately described as the Iraq War "being subject" to the electoral process, but sure it definitely scared the shit out of Dems in 2002 (and still didn't help them) and contributed to the 2004 reelection (along with the fact the economic atmosphere suggested reelection and the SSM wedge).  For an early version of "patriotic" war sentiment guiding electoral politics, see the Spanish-American War.

Please cite.

One Rasmussen, one not (Ras probably a leading indicator, but look at the Rep from Detroit (in a +25 dem district!) who suggested stopping at censure until getting reeducated today).

As for 2002 midterms, I guess we have different recollections.  Pointless aside I see SSM and other than So Spake Martin can't parse it.

Spanish American War was one of the potential exceptions, but I didn't bother to look up whether "Remember the Maine" was a slogan during an election or not. 

Looking over my recollection of US history since the revolution:

1. 1812 was mostly the Brits looking for a rematch
2. various Indian conflicts but that weren't electoral issues
3. Mexican American war - the other one that maybe got voted on.
4. Civil War - I don't think I'm facing the argument that electing a President with abolitionist inclinations was a vote for war but change my mind.
5.  Spanish American war - 20% monroe doctrine and 80% colonialist land grab but my impression is that the Maine blowing up, rather than any sort of electoral encouraging of war was the trigger.
6. <or maybe 7, but I think 6>  war against Fillipino separatists (is that the right term?)  Pretty sure Pershing led that so putting that before WWI.  Again not sure how the whole paternalistic US policy played electorally, but I don't think Phillipines policy was the deciding factor.
7. WWI - Wilson got elected twice running against getting involved in a war in Europe.
8. WWII - Roosevelt might have been willing to fight but he didn't run on that platform prior to 1941
9. Korea - never a declared war, so who ran on it.  Sadly an important precedent, except for Iraq war and elimination of Hussien and sons
10. Vietnam - If you believe Oliver Stone then successor Democrat admin escalated the war.  Politically, this might have played in Eisenhower admin as a limited conflict but I don't see JFKs election as a mandate to escalate.
11. Kuwait - didnt become an issue before Bush 41 was elected and resolved before the next election
12. Iraq - like I said, POTUS said lets take them out, opposition said let's vote on it.  They lost. 

I'm sure a lot of the previous conflicts werent quite so cut and dried but which one(s) of them were put to an election?  Granted some of it is based on the history I was taught, but where in the above was a US war started on a pre-emptive having gone to the polls basis besides Iraq?  (I'm sure whichever the more ruthless of Uday or Qusay would have turned out to be would be a delightfully enlightened monarch.)

[DMC]

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Pointless aside I see SSM and other than So Spake Martin can't parse it.

Same sex marriage.

Also, 1812 destroyed one of the two main political parties, the only time that's ever really happened, at least that quickly.  I don't think it's a good comparison to Iraq for a number of reasons - especially in terms of how you were mentioning it - but that had quite the effect electorally.

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

where in the above was a US war started on a pre-emptive having gone to the polls basis besides Iraq?

Well, if we're counting this as "a pre-emptive" election, then that means 2002.  Considering there are congressional elections every two years, I don't think that's particularly special in terms of major US wars throughout history.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Is it a demonstrable difference between the policy platform of the two?  Is it brainwashing by party insiders that we've failed to see? 

For me it's because I've disliked Bernie for my entire adult life.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Triskele said:

That answer isn't going to cut it for me one this question, dude, because even though I believe you I'd have thought that you have thoughts on the question writ large.  Will you not give me anything on that front?

Well, generally speaking I'm not entirely sure I agree with your premise.  In that Quinnipiac poll mentioned earlier, Warren still does by far the best as a second choice, and a large part of that is because she's the second choice of 35% of Bernie supporters - Biden's in second at 17.  There may be a small group like me that just doesn't like Bernie personally - in part because he's been around for so long and kind of started off as a joke.  But I don't think that's generally the case.  Leftist Warren supporters will probably go to Bernie and vice-versa.  But Warren is also pulling from other groups ideologically, and significant portions of Bernie supporters will go to Biden first just out of familiarity, or just N/A because those are the malcontents.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

"Warren supporters should move to Sanders more easily"

Yeah, or more specifically "if you're a Warren supporter, what's the aversion to Sanders?"  That seemed to be what you were asking, or least what I thought.  I'm saying generally, I don't think there is too much aversion to Sanders.  And personally, it's just cuz I don't like him.

[DireWolfSpirit]

11 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm surprised you're going with the Forbes and other billionaire plan. This would put most of the tax burden on the poor and middle class and reduce the tax even further on the rich, who do not get a large amount of income. 

But Steve Forbes LOVES it, so you're well aligned with the billionaires. Good work! That'll serve you well in the oncoming revolution.

Nope I associate the flat tax with Jerry Brown who ran on it well before Steve Forbes came along.

Brown was proposing a 13% tax, it wasn't very popular so I wouldn't be too concerned over it. Nevertheless I still like the concept of everyone paying about 15% but it will never happen so I'm not losing sleep over it.

[Ran]

6 hours ago, mcbigski said:

  Saw that in two different polls, Trump was over 30% with African Americans. 

See Gallup for a much more solid poll.

And see here to see why you should distrust Rasmussen, in any case. The Emerson poll (which is generally well-regarded) has a greater degree of uncertainty, they note, on their favorability by ethnicity breakdown, and also it's a wildly anomalous result (their poll for the last month had his support at 17%) so that one needs more data, and more polls backing it up, before the champagne starts pouring.

As to support, right now I admit I'm rethinking my support for Warren over the wealth tax and M4A debacle. It wasn't a policy she should have backed, and because I place a deal of belief that what she proposed is what she believes, well, that when combined with some of her trade agenda (see Dan Drezner's article to explain what I mean there) just makes me think she's simply too far to the left for me (M4A, not so much, that's pragmatism; but the trade agenda is way to the left of every other country in the world and I don't see how that's workable).

People need to get it through their heads that the U.S. is a more conservative country than Canada, it's a more conservative country than nearly all of Europe. You can't just wish away this fact.

 

[sologdin]

most people in the US were riled up extraordinarily in 2002 by abjectly uncritical war on terror jingoism; it is accordingly an aberrant electoral result without precedential value.

 

ran--

i've long wondered if a leftwing US regime could reverse the race to the bottom in international trade through existing agreements.  maybe it'd have to be based on ratification of ICCPR and ICESCR, and then interpreting the GATT and progeny in pari materia therewith.

[Rorshach]

9 hours ago, mcbigski said:

My avatar pic is 7 or 8 years old.  Holding the line, but a bit more salt.  Dentist tells me to floss more so you got me there.  Sick burn.f  In truth, I'm a fairly witty, casually handsome but still approachable guy who is able to also laugh at himself.  I can admit despite the rumors, I'm only proportional there.

What you think is trolling is really just my attempt to puncture the bubble.  Saw that in two different polls, Trump was over 30% with African Americans.  If true, you might as well nominate Mondale.  This expectation adjustment has been a public service by McBigski Inc.  I say, welcome back to the Republican party.  Uncle Abe was right, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Your attempt to puncture the bubble is to advance the notion that Trump was after corruption in his call...

Okay.

In unrelated matter, I have tyhis island outside New York I'm selling. Smallish statue there, may function as a lawn ornament, but otherwise good. Just give me your money and it's yours!

[sologdin]

yeah, the president violated applicable statutes by soliciting foreign interference in the election, irrespective of the withholding of aid--itself a fortiori violative of additional peremptory norms. not sure what the 'bubble' is there, considering the uncontested factual allegations in the cold record. 

the bubble would appear to exist around those within the ambit of the president's paranoid charisma, an ideological veil impenetrable by ordinary argument, reliant instead upon mere insults of opponents and aporetic pronouncements.  one wonders how adherents keep up with the oscillating mendacity and what mental flexibility is required to believe all of the competing falsities.

[argonak]

10 hours ago, Triskele said:

This is sort of out of nowhere but a question crossed my mind that feels worth exploring if anyone would indulge me, and it's this:

If you like Warren, what's your aversion to Sanders (assuming have any aversion and don't just prefer Warren by a slim margin)?

I like Warren.  I also like Sanders.  Hell I'm even ok with Joe.  At this point?  I'd vote for Romney.  Thats how desperate I am for a return to the norms of only ten years ago.

The USA desperately needs someone in office who respects the rule of law.  We're watching it degrade in real time and when that goes, society will be walking a line between tyranny and anarchy.  Its happening all around the rest of the world, and I don't want it to happen here.

Once Rule of Law starts breaking down, everything is going to accelerate.  If the President can ignore laws, then thats going to filter down to the military, the bureaucracy, and into the private world.  If people start seeing that there's not even the sham of justice, we'll have mass protests and riots like we haven't seen before.  And in a country with the largest number of privately owned guns per capita in the world, that's not going to end well. 

I really feel like we're riding in a bus on a bumpy road, and we keep passing signs that say "Bridge is out!"

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Your attempt to puncture the bubble is to advance the notion that Trump was after corruption in his call...

What he calls puncturing the bubble is that lemming action considered so hip among the venture capitalist crowd, 'narrative violation.'  

http://www.bedrockcap.com/letter

 

[sologdin]

gotta love marketing campaigns that use metaphors of independence to promote dependency and a rhetoric of revolution to endorse compliance. standard blinkered bourgeois ideology wherein slavery is freedom.

[Which Tyler]

Happy Thanksgiving y'all

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

13 hours ago, Triskele said:

Meant it as more of a broad question so not 100% on what the premise is.

Is it this?

"Warren supporters should move to Sanders more easily" ETA: meant to be a paraphrasing of my earlier post

 

 

 

I'll be honest, I'm not sure why voters are so distinctly divided about Sanders and Warren. I think from Sanders side, there is something about how Warren is too capitalist, and from Warren's side, Bernie is un-electable. My view of the two goes back and forth, but I don't see huge differences in them, so I'm not sure why so many people create this dividing line. I see it more with Sanders though. A lot of us think that the U.S. is fucked without radical reform that puts significant regulation on businesses and billionaires, and perhaps that's where Warren stops short? She's always struck me as someone who wants significant changes.

So I'm not sure where the divide lies. (And I know you're coming at this from the reverse of me--you lean Warren, but never Sanders, whereas I'm okay with both). I think Warren would mark a significant victory against the hegemony of the elite, and I don't see Sanders having an even more significant victory. They very much are the same to me.  

[sologdin]

someone photoshop this one then?

[Zorral]

18 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Happy Thanksgiving y'all

 

Why is there a photo of Putin up here?

[Prince of the North]

42 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Happy Thanksgiving y'all

 

GAH!  My eyes!  My eyes!

34 minutes ago, sologdin said:

someone photoshop this one then?

Yes, only with actual contact being made! 

And, as @Which Tyler said, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!  May your upcoming holiday conversations never turn to politics 

[Which Tyler]

3 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

GAH!  My eyes!  My eye

 

Consider it my contribution to the obesity epidemic - by putting everyone off their dinner!