US Politics: Butter Not Guns

[Castellan]

Let's say "appeal" not charisma. He has the same appeal as right wing talk back radio hosts who goad people who think otherwise to ring up then abuse them in an egomaniacal way for the satisfaction of their listeners. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Like I said, charisma is subjective. There are lots of politicians I've found to be not charismatic but other people have found to be very charismatic. And as we know from DnD charisma can be used to get people to like you or scare the bejeesus out of them. I think saying Trump doesn't have a sufficiently broad charismatic appeal to help get the necessary votes to be returned to office is a false sense of hope. He lost the popular vote and won in 2016, so the breadth of his appeal doesn't even need to get him a plurality of votes.

The professor explains that the tick for charisma is based on broad charismatic appeal, which is why Trump didn't get the mark. Obama, Reagan, and Kennedy are examples he gives for charisma. People with broad cross-party charismatic appeal.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I saw a piece on Alan Lichtman's prediction with his 13 keys for the White House.

I've been familiar with Lichman's typology since 2003.  The only three Trump's really got going for him are there was no primary challenge and no major third party challenge.  Both can be chalked up to polarization.  Then third, that he's the incumbent, but that's really not a plus when you're at about 43/55 on job approval.  The other three in his favor - major policy change, foreign/military failure, and incumbent charisma are entirely subjective and should not be reduced to dummy variables.  I'll give him foreign policy - he's rather miraculously been able to avoid a disaster there. 

But other than that, Trump doesn't have much to go off of when it comes to such "metrics."  Lichtman's metrics were developed by a historian at a time when most social scientists were still learning basic regression.  His typology is useful to teach undergrads the basics, but not something to actually take seriously.

[The Anti-Targ]

I remain unconvinced that Trump's charisma / appeal should be discounted. I don't want to accuse anyone here of misunderstanding, but I think some people confuse charisma with likability. I don't think the Prof suffers from such confusion, but I think he might be mis-reading Trump. I haven't tracked down his 2016 assessment of Trump's charisma, but I guess as charisma is subjective it is possible for an assessment of charisma to change over time. If the perception of someone moves from used car salesman to snake oil salesmen then that's a loss of charisma points, I suppose.

I am also waiting for the prediction of the prominent lefty who called it for Trump in 2016, because he took the pulse of the working people, and knew it was not good. So does anyone know what Michael Moore has been saying recently? I know that a few weeks back he got almost cancelled (probably was cancelled in some quarters) by the left for saying Trump could still win. I wonder if he's firmed up his opinion since then?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, Castellan said:

Let's say "appeal" not charisma. He has the same appeal as right wing talk back radio hosts who goad people who think otherwise to ring up then abuse them in an egomaniacal way for the satisfaction of their listeners. 

That's a better clarification, and more than charisma, his appeal is to those that want to "own the libs," and in that sense he has no shame so they eat him up.

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'll give him foreign policy - he's rather miraculously been able to avoid a disaster there. 

That's debatable. The only clear plus you can give him there is that he hasn't started a major war, which was a significant fear after he won the election.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's debatable. The only clear plus you can give him there is that he hasn't started a major war, which was a significant fear after he won the election.

Yeah.  That's pretty much what I said.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah.  That's pretty much what I said.

Such a low bar. 

[S John]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's debatable. The only clear plus you can give him there is that he hasn't started a major war, which was a significant fear after he won the election.

I am pleasantly surprised that he hasn’t started a war.  For whatever reason, thankfully, I don’t think that interests him. My biggest foreign policy criticism of Trump is probably the manner in which we’ve contracted our footprint abroad.  I don’t actually disagree with him on every point but I almost universally disagree with how he does it.

And also I think we have had a bit of a lesson, not just from Trump but to some extent Obama also, on what the world looks like when’s the US vacates the stage. I’m maybe showing my colors a little bit here, but I have come to the conclusion that despite several really grave mistakes, the world is generally better on balance for US participation in it. The key is to harness that and channel it in positive ways. A world without the US is a world where a lot of nastier elements will be happy to pick up the slack - and are more prepared to do so than benevolent forces, IMO.  We aren’t perfect, but we are far from the worst the world could do and we have the strength to back it up. 

 

Re: the appeal of a wealthy New York Yankee with a largely rural and Southern base - I don’t fully understand it. The most important thing, I think, is that he’s a giant middle finger to your standard careerist politician. I lived in DC for a couple of years of my life. Other than that, everywhere I’ve lived in America: West Virginia, Arkansas, semi-rural parts of regular Virginia, and Texas. When I lived in Texas I travelled all over, mainly in rural parts of the state because I was out doing Geology shit.

The summer before the 2016 election, myself and a colleague were doing some field work at the Devil’s River, near Del Rio. We were in the middle of fucking nowhere on this dirt track on top of a mesa looking for a well that was supposed to be up there so that we could drop a cable in and measure the depth of the water table.  The other guy was driving and driving kinda recklessly if I may say so, and we plunged into a muddy spot with a rock buried under it going too fast and it just completely destroyed our tire.  It was like 110 degrees outside, we barely had enough water, there was no cell reception, there are probably about 500 rattlesnakes in the area, and we would have had to walk several hours to get back to anything resembling civilization. I am not some kind of survivalist badass by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know how to change a tire.

I distinctly remember taking in the situation and thinking - what if instead of me and my geologist friend over here, it was Trump and Don Jr. or Trump and Eric or something? I really think they would be kinda fucked. I don’t understand why Trump enjoys the mystique that he does among his rugged individualist, rural fan base. I don’t think he would hold up well in the Chihuahuan Desert, or in the West Virginia coal fields if you drive him out a ways with no cell service and slashed a tire. He would wilt and there is zero evidence to suggest otherwise. He’s out of shape, he has never had to really do anything for himself in his entire life, and he has never been in ANY situation he couldn’t just buy his way out of.

I get the ‘he pisses off people I don’t like’ aspect, but I don’t see any substance there that should make him deserving of the almost folk-hero status he has in so many swathes of rural America where, in reality, I doubt he could hack it a single day. That’s the disconnect that I have the most trouble resolving.

 

[JGP]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

I'll give him foreign policy - he's rather miraculously been able to avoid a disaster there. 

I'd quibble with that. I mean, if you only count not starting an outright war as avoiding disaster, sure. I guess.

Zooming out a bit, Trump's foreign policy has set the US on it's heels. Iran, China largely unchecked, Russia definitely so; the latitude given to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, the debacle in Syria, the betrayal of the Kurds; Afghanistan. Pulling out of Iran Nuclear Agreement, the Paris Agreement. undermining the UN [yes, I know] the WHO, NATO [ffs] the G7, and despite all that still managing to alienate allies around the world with all manner of petty bullshit... 

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure I missed a bunch. 

If one could say the US has had a coherent foreign policy over the last couple decades, they could surely go on to conclude that Trump has been an absolute anathema to it. 

     

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Iran, China largely unchecked, Russia definitely so; the latitude given to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, the debacle in Syria, the betrayal of the Kurds; Afghanistan.

Granted, he didn't help on a lot of these.  And made many considerably worse.  But it's not like he started the problems with literally any of them.  Undermining the UN is what GOP presidents do.  Same thing could be said for whatever Republican was elected when it comes to NATO, the G7, and the Iran Agreement.  I have to say - if you distinguish trade from military policy when it comes to foreign relations, I'm hard-pressed to say Trump has been much worse than your average Republican on the latter.  Certainly not as bad as Dubya.

[Altherion]

35 minutes ago, S John said:

I’m maybe showing my colors a little bit here, but I have come to the conclusion that despite several really grave mistakes, the world is generally better on balance for US participation in it.

This is debatable. US actions have far reaching consequences which the US media generally starts ignoring after a time. For example, consider the Libyan Civil War (here's a Time article on the same theme if you want to read a more coherent story). The US intervened in Libya almost a decade ago (during the first Obama term) to topple Gadaffi, but the country fell apart shortly after that and has been a warzone ever since. The American response has been... practically nothing. Most people don't know about it at all and for the ones who do it's not a high priority.

6 minutes ago, S John said:

I get the ‘he pisses off people I don’t like’ aspect, but I don’t see any substance there that should make him deserving of the almost folk-hero status he has in so many swathes of rural America where, in reality, I doubt he could hack it a single day. That’s the disconnect that I have the most trouble resolving.

I don't think there's a large number of people who think that he would be a good fit for actually living in rural America -- he's a New York City billionaire and very proud of being one. He wound up with the status that he has because it's been decades since anyone appealed in any meaningful way to the people that he appealed to. I don't just mean politicians, but also nearly all of the media, academia, Hollywood, etc. etc. either despise these people or simply do not care about them at all and have had this attitude for decades. It's not that these people don't know that Trump would consider any situation he couldn't buy his way out of beneath him or, for example, that he has been married three times and has cheated on all of his wives -- they just don't care.

All of that said, I don't see this strategy working twice. His chances wouldn't have been nearly as good as those of a typical incumbent even without the virus, but as it stands, he needs a minor miracle.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Let me guess. A Trump quote?

Bingo. From his press conference.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Granted, he didn't help on a lot of these.  And made many considerably worse.  But it's not like he started the problems with literally any of them.  Undermining the UN is what GOP presidents do.  Same thing could be said for whatever Republican was elected when it comes to NATO, the G7, and the Iran Agreement.  I have to say - if you distinguish trade from military policy when it comes to foreign relations, I'm hard-pressed to say Trump has been much worse than your average Republican on the latter.  Certainly not as bad as Dubya.

If you measure in lives, sure. Iraq alone was what, a million+ innocents? Dubya [and Cheney, and Rummy] are horrid. Hopefully history will judge them since so many have forgotten to. Did it harm the US' ability to project its vision to far away places? Ostensibly yes to that too, though not so much as Trump has to my estimation.

But I'm just me.      

I'm curious, why would you distinguish trade as separable, re: FP?  

[DMC]

Just now, JEORDHl said:

Did it harm the US' ability to project its vision to far away places? Ostensibly yes to that too, though not so much as Trump has to my estimation.

But I'm just me.      

I'm curious, why would you distinguish trade as separable, re: FP?  

Dubya's damage to the US' reputation worldwide motivated the Nordics to give the Noble Peace Prize to Obama simply for being elected after him.  So, yeah, it was pretty damn damaging too.

As for separating trade from military policy?  I think that's self explanatory.  I will say diplomatic policy has also been one of Trump's greatest foreign relations failures - and in that I'll agree it's been worse than Dubya's.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

As for separating trade from military policy?  I think that's self explanatory.  I will say diplomatic policy has also been one of Trump's greatest foreign relations failures - and in that I'll agree it's been worse than Dubya's.

Oh, my bad. I thought the subject was foreign policy, as in-- over arching. You're breaking it up into subsets and rudely exposing my lack of depth. :p    

[Rorshach]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Dubya's damage to the US' reputation worldwide motivated the Nordics to give the Noble Peace Prize to Obama simply for being elected after him.  So, yeah, it was pretty damn damaging too.

As for separating trade from military policy?  I think that's self explanatory.  I will say diplomatic policy has also been one of Trump's greatest foreign relations failures - and in that I'll agree it's been worse than Dubya's.

I would very much like you to blame that on the appropriate person, thank you very much.

[DireWolfSpirit]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

-- he's a New York City billionaire

He's so rich he can't afford to publicly release his tax returns. 

He probably only narrowly avoided another bankruptcy by getting elected in the first place. We're supposed to believe him at his word on what his financials are? The track record begs to differ, most Billionaires pay their bills. Trump has a long history as a deadbeat in his dealings, there's no way I'd believe he's a billionaire unless he disclosed his tax returns.

He may be a billion debter, as in one who owes a billion.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Rorshach said:

I would very much like you to blame that on the appropriate person, thank you very much.

Uh, yeah, he's not solely to "blame."  In fact I'm not blaming it on anybody.

[Rorshach]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, yeah, he's not solely to "blame."  In fact I'm not blaming it on anybody.

Well, good thing you don't blame him. I do, because it's very much in his spirit (saying this as a person who has seen his political career throughout my life), and he was the leader of the Nobel Comittee at that point. 

But we can share the blame or responsibility with the other four members at the time, no problem

Comittee at that point being this lot, btw

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

He's so rich he can't afford to publicly release his tax returns. 

He probably only narrowly avoided another bankruptcy by getting elected in the first place. We're supposed to believe him at his word on what his financials are? The track record begs to differ, most Billionaires pay their bills. Trump has a long history as a deadbeat in his dealings, there's no way I'd believe he's a billionaire unless he disclosed his tax returns.

He may be a billion debter, as in one who owes a billion.

I recall, either when he was first running or after his election, him saying that $4b of his $10b net wealth is based on his name alone. 

Yeah, I'll trust that...