US Politics: I Say a Little Prayer for You!

[The Mother of The Others]

This discussion looks unhinged.     The only thing seeking a 3rd term is yur illegitimate belief that Trump is Godzilla.   He's a businessman.  Subtle difference.

[Zorral]

29 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Neither can I.  Yes, Trump has appointed a lot of Judges but that doesn't mean all the judges he appointed to life time terms are going to be his loyalists and willing to utterly set aside the rule of law.

That's just silly.  All the judges he appointed for life terms will go right along with him declaring for 3rd, 4th etc. terms, and then abolishing the Congress.

When only a single gop sen didn't cave into the pusillanimous bend-the-knee to him due to utter terror that he would Do Something to them -- and even their families -- how can you keep thinking either the judicial or legislative sectors will save us, or reverse anything at all?

 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't know.  He's got to know there is nothing that allows the President a third term in office.  To be clear, if he were to seek a third term without an amendment repealing the 22nd Amendment I believe it would be Civil War if he refused to leave office.

Why would it be civil war? Are people burning down their cities right now after Trump flouted his power? Are they protesting left and right? The notion that people would be actually up in arms instead of, ya know, 'deciding at the ballot box' like they already have stated is really not supported by the facts. 

[Zorral]

4 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

 He's a businessman.

He's a thug. a gangster.  No subtle difference there.

When only a single senator of calling itself a gop could stiffen his/her pusillanimous backbone to not the bend the knee to him because, as they themselves has said -- though off the record of course -- they're terrified of him and that he will Do Something to Them and / or Their families -- how in hell do you think either the judicial or legislative branch will say he can't amend the Constitution and then shred when he so feels so.

 

 

[sologdin]

Quote

This discussion looks unhinged.     The only thing seeking a 3rd term is yur illegitimate belief that Trump is Godzilla.   He's a businessman.  Subtle difference.

let's be direct, for all of the trump voters in the thread:

a) did or did not the president state an intention to run for a third term?

b) did or did not some of the president's supporters indicate that he should run for a third term?

c) is it or is it not unlawful for a person to be elected to a third term as president of the united states as the constitution is currently written?

d) whether the president may lawfully run for president for a third time or not, are you not troubled as a conservative by a person's intention to run for a third (or seventh) term as president of the united states?

e) you have no problem, therefore, with william jefferson clinton running for a third term?

f) or barack hussein obama?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 2/6/2020 at 3:41 PM, Kalbear said:

Why would it be civil war? Are people burning down their cities right now after Trump flouted his power? Are they protesting left and right? The notion that people would be actually up in arms instead of, ya know, 'deciding at the ballot box' like they already have stated is really not supported by the facts. 

Because he was acquitted by the Senate, which is within the Senate's perview no matter how much I disagree with that vote.  The Legislature is still in existence.  The Court's still function.  He still claims his power is derived from Art. II of the U.S. Constitution.  Until he claims that framework no longer binds him he is paying lip service to the existing structure.  When he stops, if he stops, then the shit hits the fan.  

[Ran]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because he was acquitted by the Senate, which is within the Senate's perview no matter how much I disagree with that vote.  The Legislature is still in existence.  The Court's still function.  He still claims his power is derived from Art. II of the U.S. Constitution.  Until he claims that framework no longer binds him he is play lip service to the existing structure.  When he stops, if he stops, then the shit hits the fan.  

He says Article II allows him to do anything, and the Senate acquitted him in part due to the defense's argument that whatever the President does is not impeachable if it is in the "national interest".

Like I said, chances are nil that Trump will run for a third term. He will do everything illegitimate that can be even thinly construed as in his power to make sure a hand-picked successor wins the nomination and gets elected.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

He says Article II allows him to do anything, and the Senate acquitted him in part due to the defense's argument that whatever the President does is not impeachable if it is in the "national interest".

Like I said, chances are nil that Trump will run for a third term. He will do everything illegitimate that can be even thinly construed as in his power to make sure a hand-picked successor wins the nomination and gets elected.

I know.  The "Dershowitz Doctrice" is assinine and allows any President a "get out of jail free card" for any action taken where they claim they were acting in the subjective "national interest".  The best thing we can do is defeat Trump in November, and barring that get a Democratic supermajority in the Senate and remove him from office.  

I believed impeachment was the right thing to do.  However, I was always skeptical that it would succeed in removing Trump from office.

[sologdin]

always skeptical that it would succeed

i wonder if anyone predicted a conviction? the president's supporters will have expected a rightful acquittal on these hoax charges brought by deep state liberal obama appointees.  and everyone else will have expected that the preisdent's supporters in the senate are all adorno's authoritarian personalities who just want orders to follow, no matter how manifestly unlawful.

[argonak]

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I know.  The "Dershowitz Doctrice" is assinine and allows any President a "get out of jail free card" for any action taken where they claim they were acting in the subjective "national interest".  The best thing we can do is defeat Trump in November, and barring that get a Democratic supermajority in the Senate and remove him from office.  

I believed impeachment was the right thing to do.  However, I was always skeptical that it would succeed in removing Trump from office.

The senate super majority is not going to happen.   Even beating trump in November is looking increasingly unlikely to me.  I'm willing to bet he loses by at least 5 million in the popular election, but still scrapes by in the electoral college, further cementing the GOP's minority domination over our country.  And then they'll use the bogus 2020 census results to strip blue states of congressional seats, which will give them easy control over the House in 2022.   

They'll claim previous census results were wrong because of all the illegal immigrants or something like that.

[Freshwater Spartan]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Ha!

@DMC  -- You are probably familiar with Rachel Bitecofer and her "Radical Political Theory"?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

 

I can't imagine her model would work long term but it might hold some validity for 2020. Interestingly she says that it doesn't matter who the democrats nominate since we are in a post- candidate, post-war swing voter and post-issue world. Her model believes that a democratic victory is all but inevitable. We've heard that one before.

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

I can't imagine her model would work long term but it might hold some validity for 2020. Interestingly she says that it doesn't matter who the democrats nominate since we are in a post- candidate, post-war swing voter and post-issue world. Her model believes that a democratic victory is all but inevitable. We've heard that one before.

I suspect that she is right but isn't following it through. If dems dont activate their base to turn out in 2020 - due to apathy, hatred or corruption - Trump can easily win. By her model probably the worst candidate is Biden, but the second worst might be Sanders. 

And to speak on the voter repression thing - that's reasonable too and speaks again to this being the right model. The vote isn't decided by centrism. The vote is decided by convincing or forcing the other voters to stay home and convincing your voters to turn out more. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

@DMC  -- You are probably familiar with Rachel Bitecofer and her "Radical Political Theory"?

I'm familiar with her, yes.  Her arguments are hardly new or "radical" in any way except her presentation of them - e.g. her quote from the politico article that she's "flipping giant paradigms of electoral theory upside down."  No, "minimal" campaign effects has been the dominant paradigm within the campaign & elections subfield of political behavior since, well, really it started to be established back in the 50s/60s.  It wasn't until the late 90s that there was significant pushback on this from influential scholars like Shanto Iyengar, Stephen Ansolabehere, Marc Hetherington.  Hell, her premise that elections and polarization are primarily driven from the composition of the electorate is derived from Mark Prior's work he's been doing for about 15 years now and I've cited on these threads probably a dozen times.  It's an important and nuanced debate, but the differences between these two schools of thought are not as nearly as stark as how she describes it.

She's focused on election forecasting, which naturally gets more attention among political media than it is does within political science circles.  As the article notes, her approach is informed by Abramowitz, who established a parsimonious forecasting model composed of environmental factors (i.e. just the damn economy) back in 1988.  This is not a particularly rich field among academics - forecasting models are never going to get you published in any of the top three poly sci journals mainly because the construction of them are pretty standard, simple, and obvious.  I honestly never checked exactly what her model entailed before reading your question, but looking at what I can quickly find, it appears her IVs are PVI and your standard demo variables (education and race).  Sure, sounds about right, nothing revelatory.

She's the "shiny new thing" among the political media because she's very good at self-promotion.  That does often tend to get eyerolls among academics, but I don't care - good for her!  But the quote sologdin provided upthread is deliciously ironic.  It's true that campaign effects are marginal at best and most punditry is pretty much the definition of "bullshit jobs" that is a rather vapid cottage industry.  But the same could be said for election forecasting.  You can make a career out of it like Larry Sabato, but while Abramowitz may be most famous for his forecasting model among the political media, I know for a fact it's not something he's particularly proud of in regards to his very prolific career.  To illustrate the point, just look up Bitecofer's google scholar page.  In terms of citations, that's not much more impressive than, like, my researchgate page that I haven't even looked at in over three years.

I'm sure this comes off as bitter, dismissive, and snobbery (basically what I'm sure many here think of me in general).  I think she makes a good point in that environmental factors should be emphasized more among the "data journalism" trend spearheaded by Silver and 538.  But her argument is essentially dealing with what we've been talking about on here since Trump was elected - that 2016 can be explained by 3 main factors:  Obama/Trump voters; the increase in 3rd party voters; and depressed minority turnout.  If there's a big divide between the the former and the latter two - persuasion vs. turnout - I do tend towards turnout models like hers, as most scholars do.  (Plus, she makes a good point in emphasizing the increasing educational divide.)  But that doesn't mean one is completely "right" and the other completely "wrong," or that because there obviously are less and less swing voters with ever-increasing and heightened polarization that means there are "no" swing voters anymore.  All three factors are important!

TL; DR - I agree with the more sober approach and quotes provided by Wasserman and Kondik, and only a sith deals in absolutes.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't know.  He's got to know there is nothing that allows the President a third term in office.  To be clear, if he were to seek a third term without an amendment repealing the 22nd Amendment I believe it would be Civil War if he refused to leave office.

Lol if there's a Civil War, the left is screwed. The other side has all the guns.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol if there's a Civil War, the left is screwed. The other side has all the guns.

That’s simply not true.  I know plenty of leftists who are quite well armed.

[Ice Queen]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol if there's a Civil War, the left is screwed. The other side has all the guns.

Those redneck cowards will piss their pants and run home to mama when (not if) the left starts shooting back. They're all talk.

[Ice Queen]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That’s simply not true.  I know plenty of leftist who are quite well armed.

Especially in this part of the world. My (Democrat) rep made sure one of his campaign ads showed him shooting a gun.

[DMC]

When thinking about the (rather ridiculous) hypothetical of Trump and a Civil War, one should think about the military.  And even those inclined to agree with him overall and in positions of power - like Mattis - would never go along with any attempt he made at 3rd term.  I agree that it's rather obvious Trump will never "go quietly" and try everything possible to stay in power even if he loses - both in November and (hopefully not) 2024.  That much was obvious even before he got elected when he started claiming the election was "rigged" because he (like everyone else) thought he was gonna lose.  But that doesn't mean there's really any identifiable reason to think he's going to succeed.  He's instituted a shitload of sympathetic members in the judiciary?  K, true, but they're never gonna be the ones that force him out in this hypothetical anyway.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

Those redneck cowards will piss their pants and run home to mama when (not if) the left starts shooting back. They're all talk.

True, a lot of them are cowards, but we only have five guns. The math is not on our side.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, sologdin said:

i.e., election commentary as a bullshit job?

Shirley you can't be serious!