US Politics: Does the fat man singing count?

[Martell Spy]

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Trump could have managed a less-incompetent response than he did.  He wanted to get reelected, and he is quite capable of pandering to win votes.  If the WH had understood that COVID is going to be a huge deal and that COVID, not the economy, would define the 2020 election, then I definitely think that Trump would have done better.  It's not even that hard for Trump to get big PR wins as a result of COVID, it's actually a great fit for a populist president. 

 - Blame China from the start, rather than the weird subservience to them in Feb/March. 

 - Mock people who don't wear masks as insecure and unamerican. 

- Use the resources of the federal govt to purchase PPE and use the war powers act to ramp up domestic production.

- Hold press briefings and read from the teleprompter about how many lives your PPE has saved, and have that number constantly increasing (to combat the death toll headlines). 

 

None of those things require any particular competence from the Trump WH.  But they couldn't even take the easy wins. 

It is very strange the choices he made, especially when you factor in how bad he wanted to win. (To an unhealthy degree) He could not take some easy political wins that would in no way hinder his/Republican policy goals. It would be like him not taking credit for a booming economy, which he actually did do to a maximum amount. Self-destructive I guess, that is what you call it when seems to purposely do massive self-harm.

[mormont]

29 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Trump could have managed a less-incompetent response than he did.  He wanted to get reelected, and he is quite capable of pandering to win votes.

Yes. But that's exactly where his coronavirus response went wrong. He did pander, to his base. He told them what they (and he) wanted to hear: that the pandemic was overblown, just hyperventilating by the libs, that it could be dealt with by machismo and scorn.

Everything that Trump did wrong, was him trying to do what had kept him afloat since he began his political career - play to his base. Echo and amplify their feelings. Play the tough guy. He didn't have the imagination to do anything else.

 

[DMC]

Gotta hand it to John Harris.  The provocative headlines for his op-eds lately make me wonder if he's actually trolling these threads.  Today's:  The Left’s Stupid Second-Guessing Of Biden - It’s possible many people making the arguments against potential Biden appointees don’t know what they are arguing.

Quote

As a journalist, count me in for a good old-fashioned ideological bloodletting. Intraparty conflict on matters of genuine principle is an important story; in the fashion of a forest fire, it can sometimes be an agent of party renewal.

In the case of the scowling warnings about who does and does not have the left’s seal of approval for duty in the incoming Biden administration, however, the conflict rests heavily on optical illusion.

These are matters of personal preference—and, in some cases, genuine differences over political strategy—masquerading as vital ideological questions. It’s possible many people making the arguments for and against potential Biden appointees don’t know how flimsy the factual predicates for their strong opinions really are.

Another thing I read this morning I thought worth sharing came from this 538 article:  There Wasn’t That Much Split-Ticket Voting In 2020.  The piece itself is almost entirely unsurprising bookkeeping, but one figure stood out that as a reminder - as of right now, the Dems won 50.7% of the House vote. 

The reason I think that's interesting is because 50.7% translates to 220 and a half House seats.  So in that regard, the Dems' losses shouldn't be surprising at all.  Now, this would basically be assuming the entire 3rd party vote (1.5%) goes to the GOP - their 47.8% of the vote only translates to 208 seats instead of the 212-213 they're gonna get.  Plus, the Dems' margin should still inch up a bit due to dumbass New York.  But still, I think it's useful (and fun!) to emphasize how much basic math can often put things in perspective.

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

Yes. But that's exactly where his coronavirus response went wrong. He did pander, to his base. He told them what they (and he) wanted to hear: that the pandemic was overblown, just hyperventilating by the libs, that it could be dealt with by machismo and scorn.

Agreed entirely.  The reasons for Trump's incompetence and political mistakes are fundamental flaws embedded in his basic personality - and thus it's decidedly pointless to explore hypotheticals that assume that could change.

[Fragile Bird]

48 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

 - Blame China from the start, rather than the weird subservience to them in Feb/March. 

 - Mock people who don't wear masks as insecure and unamerican. 

- Use the resources of the federal govt to purchase PPE and use the war powers act to ramp up domestic production.

- Hold press briefings and read from the teleprompter about how many lives your PPE has saved, and have that number constantly increasing (to combat the death toll headlines). 

 

None of those things require any particular competence from the Trump WH.  But they couldn't even take the easy wins. 

I think the same reply I made to Ty applies here! Trump admires dictators with power, he sucked up to China the way he sucked up to NK, and then like a kicked dog bit back. Besides, he had a trade agreement he was trying to negotiate, but said it was because he didn't want to scare Americans.

He wouldn't wear a mask, mocking people would mean mocking himself.

His spokespeople kept saying they had invoked the Defense Production Act hundreds of times, to great effect!

I watched almost every press conference, and they became scenes of Trump reading off lists of numbers with no element of humanity in them, just bragging sessions (so many ventilators! No one could make so many ventilators except me!) And he could never resist making off-the-cuff attacks on people, like Gov. Cuomo and Whitmore, in the middle of reading off a teleprompter.

I'm sure people behind the scenes were just banging their heads against walls and desks, until they got pushed out or silenced.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, they were targets for him quite often.  But anyway, I wasn't disagreeing or arguing with any of your substantive points.  Dunno why you think I was.  The only thing I took issue with was you saying "Trumptrums" were only "now and then."

Which was more of rhetoric device to point out, how irrelevant/inconsequential it was/is, and that it was really a very small price to pay for all the stuff McConnell and the Republicans got in return. The Art of the Deal if you allow me that quip.

So that narative, of the Republicans living four years in terror of that personality cult. Must not be allowed to prevail. That's not what happened. They saw right through him, and played him like a fiddle. Anything else was just political kabuki. As you probably learnt as first semester in a political science class, the one question in politics is cui bono.

And it's pretty obvious who were the beneficiaries of the past four years, and who will (hopefully) have indictments coming their way.

[Kalbear]

25 minutes ago, mormont said:

Yes. But that's exactly where his coronavirus response went wrong. He did pander, to his base. He told them what they (and he) wanted to hear: that the pandemic was overblown, just hyperventilating by the libs, that it could be dealt with by machismo and scorn.

Everything that Trump did wrong, was him trying to do what had kept him afloat since he began his political career - play to his base. Echo and amplify their feelings. Play the tough guy. He didn't have the imagination to do anything else.

 

And to be really really clear this almost worked. 

[Maithanet]

26 minutes ago, mormont said:

Everything that Trump did wrong, was him trying to do what had kept him afloat since he began his political career - play to his base. Echo and amplify their feelings. Play the tough guy. He didn't have the imagination to do anything else.

It's just every single one of the elements I listed allows Trump to play the tough guy bully, just in a slightly different way.  But Trump was incapable of even that much change. 

[argonak]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

And to be really really clear this almost worked. 

I guess, politically speaking, since dead people can't vote, it didn't matter that they died.

[Kalbear]

His goal from the start was to run on the economy and make sure it was doing well. He bet first on coronavirus not being a big deal, and then bet on keeping the economy going no matter what. And it mostly worked! The question is whether or not after 4 years there was anything he could have done to win those swing votes or get dems to his side. And I think that would be a real issue for him no matter what. 

[DMC]

One aspect from Axios' piece on Trump announcing a 2024 run stood out to me:

Quote

The plan: Trump has made plain he'll fight to keep his ally Ronna McDaniel as head of the RNC, giving him tight control over party HQ.

This will be the best, and perhaps only, real indicator of if the run is being treated seriously/legitimately.  It's very rare for RNC chairs to serve more than four years, and even more rare for that to happen after a change in presidents.  Priebus did serve for six years right before her, largely due to the party's shift essentially rendering Michael Steele no longer a Republican.  But before that the last RNC chair to serve more than four years was literally in 1904.  If Trump's able to keep her on, that would be a strong indication that his run should be feared by potential primary challengers. 

OTOH, there's still plenty of skepticism in terms of taking any announcement seriously:

Quote

Reality check: Several allies who talk regularly to Trump told Axios they believe he'll announce for 2024, but ultimately not make the run because of what one Republican close to Trump called "hurdles he has never before experienced."

"I think he will have more trouble than he can begin to imagine," the Republican said. "No one is going to let him have a free pass in the primary."

"The only question left open is whether the media will give up their addiction to him or not — that will determine a great deal."

 

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Another thing I read this morning I thought worth sharing came from this 538 article:  There Wasn’t That Much Split-Ticket Voting In 2020.  The piece itself is almost entirely unsurprising bookkeeping, but one figure stood out that as a reminder - as of right now, the Dems won 50.7% of the House vote. 

The reason I think that's interesting is because 50.7% translates to 220 and a half House seats.  So in that regard, the Dems' losses shouldn't be surprising at all.  Now, this would basically be assuming the entire 3rd party vote (1.5%) goes to the GOP - their 47.8% of the vote only translates to 208 seats instead of the 212-213 they're gonna get.  Plus, the Dems' margin should still inch up a bit due to dumbass New York.  But still, I think it's useful (and fun!) to emphasize how much basic math can often put things in perspective.

Is your point that the numbers reflect the results such that complaints about gerrymandering are overblown? I tend to agree with you, but it's not entirely clear if that's your point. 

[Maithanet]

For Trump it's all about keeping the money tap going.  There's no question Trump will declare he's running in 2024, quite possibly on Biden's inauguration day.  He'll definitely stay involved in Republican politics because that is how he continues to raise money.  He'll urge donations under multiple large Super PACs under the guise of both supporting the "right kind" of republican and to fund his 2024 run.  Republican voters will definitely oblige, and if Trump is the middleman between hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars and Republican officeseekers, it will give him an IMMENSE amount of power over Republican officeholders over the next four years.  Not only can Trump invite a primary challenge for politicians who cross him like Kemp and Raffensburger, but he can also cut off their money supply and fund the opposition. 

And of course, he'll keep a little for himself, because that's what the grift is really about.  What's a few hundred million here or there? 

It remains to be seen whether Trump actually wants to run again.  After all, he hates losing, and he would be putting himself out there again to potentially get shot down.  Being Republican kingmaker for the next 4 years and then having a President who doesn't dare cross him is a pretty cushy spot to be in.  That's the safe route.  Plus, Trump isn't a healthy man, and he might not even be physically up for the demands of campaigning in 2024. 

In addition, there's also the possibility that he's in real trouble with the state of New York, but my suspicion is that there's no way he'll be more the inconvenienced by all that. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Is your point that the numbers reflect the results such that complaints about gerrymandering are overblown? I tend to agree with you, but it's not entirely clear if that's your point. 

Well, it wasn't explicitly my point, but yes, those numbers make clear that gerrymandering's effect - as of right now (obviously it will change) - is almost entirely negligible in the aggregate.

[Fez]

Mark Kelly was officially sworn in to office this afternoon, so the GOP's Senate majority is now 52-48. Meaning Judy Shelton almost certainly is not going to get confirmed to the Fed; though no guarantees. So that's one good thing at least.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Personally I think, his twitter account has become sorta white noise after four years. And he has mainly been raging about the Mueller probe, and fake news media.

Do you think a senile mutant senate turtle (wanker in a half-shell) gives a shit?

That's not appropriate language in a US politics thread, most people probably don't know what it means.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

 And of course, he'll keep a little for himself, because that's what the grift is really about.  What's a few hundred million here or there? 

It's insane how much they are raising right now, and I see no reason for it to stop anytime soon. 

11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's not appropriate language in a US politics thread, most people probably don't know what it means.

Bullocks! 

[DMC]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's insane how much they are raising right now, and I see no reason for it to stop anytime soon. 

Well, no, he's not gonna continue to raise $170 million a month like he's done since the election.  But yes, Trumpists seem determined to prove Heath Ledger's Joker is financially prudent in comparison.

[Zorral]

https://gothamist.com/news/official-results-map-see-how-your-nyc-neighbors-voted-2020-election

NYC, with some exceptions almost entirely blue votes.  No surprise there, still ... the burning red of Staten Island, much of Long Island, "those boroughs" in Brooklyn, really stand out. These are the same areas that adamantly refuse to follow Covid-19 protocols -- and also have the greatest rate of infection.
 

I've read several stories that debunked any relationship between covid-19 rates of infection, hospitalization, deaths and positive testing and red/blue votes in this past election.  But here we see real corollary.

 

[Maithanet]

18 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I've read several stories that debunked any relationship between covid-19 rates of infection, hospitalization, deaths and positive testing and red/blue votes in this past election.  But here we see real corollary.

I was under the impression that it really depends on the timeframe you choose.  The first COVID wave was primarily in very blue cities like NYC and Detroit.  The second (summer) wave was nationwide, and didn't have much political correlation to it.  The current wave is (on a per capita basis) hitting red areas harder than blue areas.  If you're looking at COVID over the entire year there isn't going to be a correlation. 

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I was under the impression that it really depends on the timeframe you choose.  The first COVID wave was primarily in very blue cities like NYC and Detroit.  The second (summer) wave was nationwide, and didn't have much political correlation to it.  The current wave is (on a per capita basis) hitting red areas harder than blue areas.  If you're looking at COVID over the entire year there isn't going to be a correlation. 

Ah!  None of the stories I saw, including in the Atlantic Monthly, ever explained it this way. That one ran while the endless count of NY ballots continued, on, and on and on and on probably until the next election . . . .