US Politics: Felon-in-Chief

[Gaston de Foix]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

There is reason to think that Biden is a weaker candidate right now than he was in 2020.  Could he turn it around?  Absolutely, but at the moment he isn't polling all that well, his age is a bigger concern, and the economy is a mixed bag (unemployment is great, inflation not so much). 

There's every reason to think that 2024 will be a pretty similar election to 2020, and with polarization getting worse and worse, will probably be stomach lurchingly close.  But there are a few things that give me at least a little hope that 2024 will be a more difficult climb than 2020 for Trump. 

1. The federal indictments, combined with Jan 6, serves to make Trump a weaker candidate in 2024 than 2020. 

2. Trump is not president, and will not be able to abuse the power of incumbency to steal the presidency. 

3. The electoral college had the most bias in our nearly 250 year history in 2020.  The tipping point was Wisconsin, which was 3.9% to the right of the country.  Historically that has not shown any correlation election to election, and with AZ and GA moving left, it's unlikely it will be so bad for democrats again.  It will probably still be bad, but 1-2% is more likely than 4%. 

4.  People born after 1980 dislike Republicans by a historically large margin.  That group is making up a larger and larger portion of the electorate every year. 

This is a good list albeit it presupposes the (very probable) Biden v Trump re-election. 

If some other Republican wins the nomination, I think they have a more likely than not shot at winning Georgia (like Brian Kemp) or Arizona (which came so close to making *Kari Lake* governor) or both in 2024.  The election might come down to WI as the tipping point again.  

[Tywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I think that too.  But why did Trump do so well in 2020?  (yes, yes, I know he lost and depending how we parse it, it was or wasn't close).  I mean, why did he increase his national vote share?

Because for whatever reason the general public expects less of Republicans. If we're being completely honest, >75% of the country should be voting for Democrats, but a lot of people vote against their best interests or just don't vote. 

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

This is a good list albeit it presupposes the (very probable) Biden v Trump re-election. 

If some other Republican wins the nomination, I think they have a more likely than not shot at winning Georgia (like Brian Kemp) or Arizona (which came so close to making *Kari Lake* governor) or both in 2024.  The election might come down to WI as the tipping point again.  

Yes, if it is Biden vs anyone else, the situation changes significantly.  Biden's age becomes more of a factor if he isn't running against someone who is basically the same age (Trump is only 3 years younger and less healthy). 

I would be pretty surprised if the tipping point state wasn't one of WI, PA, GA, AZ and NV.  There are other states taht could flip (NC for dems, MI for Reps), but they still aren't likely to be the tipping point if they do. 

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because for whatever reason the general public expects less of Republicans. If we're being completely honest, >75% of the country should be voting for Democrats, but a lot of people vote against their best interests or just don't vote. 

This presupposes that their best interests are economic and not identity based. Over time this argument becomes less and less reasonable and blames the voters for their choices and their priorities. 

Sometimes, people's biggest interests are hate.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SCOTUS upholds 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act 7-2.  Alito and Thomas dissenting.  Barrett writing for the majority.  The ICWA was upheld in its entirety.  

Court watchers are pretty surprised.
 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65897827

Edited June 15, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Tywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

This presupposes that their best interests are economic and not identity based. Over time this argument becomes less and less reasonable and blames the voters for their choices and their priorities. 

Sometimes, people's biggest interests are hate.

Which is dumb, especially because these are largely the same people who worship Jesus. Sometimes you just have to call stupid out in the most naked way. 

[Durckad]

9 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

This presupposes that their best interests are economic and not identity based. Over time this argument becomes less and less reasonable and blames the voters for their choices and their priorities. 

Sometimes, people's biggest interests are hate.

Even when their economic interests are affected, they'll find a way to turn those into cultural or identity-based grievances.

Good paying jobs disappearing because of deregulation and neo-liberal economic policies? No it's because criminal, terrorist-aligned, drug-smuggling minorities are "stealing" them for the nefarious purpose of... trying to live.

Inflation is bad because of poorly-planned supply chain issues prioritizing short term profits over long-term solvency and stability and greed-flation? No, it's because the NWO is run by (((them))) and is causing prices to rise because (((they))) want white people erm sorry "Western people" to be poor. Also China bad.

Healthcare costs being high because private healthcare is fucking awful and prioritizes profit over the actual health of consumers? No, private healthcare = good because freedom and public healthcare = bad because communism. Also dirty poor people and minorities are stealing your healthcare and driving up costs by existing. Also Trans people are probably involved somehow. 

It's all cultural issues all the way down. Everything is cultural grievance now.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Which is dumb, especially because these are largely the same people who worship Jesus. Sometimes you just have to call stupid out in the most naked way. 

You can call it out, but you'll keep losing that way. Or at least losing them. Framing it as 'voting it against their interests' when their primary interests are around bigotry will constantly make you frustrated why they aren't voting for you despite you offering them things, when they are not remotely interested in the main things that you're offering. 

So call it out however you want, but understand that the argument hurts your strategy and planning. 

8 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Even when their economic interests are affected, they'll find a way to turn those into cultural or identity-based grievances.

Good paying jobs disappearing because of deregulation and neo-liberal economic policies? No it's because criminal, terrorist-aligned, drug-smuggling minorities are "stealing" them for the nefarious purpose of... trying to live.

Inflation is bad because of poorly-planned supply chain issues prioritizing short term profits over long-term solvency and stability and greed-flation? No, it's because the NWO is run by (((them))) and is causing prices to rise because (((they))) want white people erm sorry "Western people" to be poor. Also China bad.

Healthcare costs being high because private healthcare is fucking awful and prioritizes profit over the actual health of consumers? No, private healthcare = good because freedom and public healthcare = bad because communism. Also dirty poor people and minorities are stealing your healthcare and driving up costs by existing. Also Trans people are probably involved somehow. 

It's all cultural issues all the way down. Everything is cultural grievance now.

See, this is getting closer to a reasonable argument and offering. What you need to do is stop framing it as against their economic interests and start framing it in terms of eating the rich, which for the most part they're happy to do if given the opportunity. But you need to stop attacking them for wanting to hate.

[Tywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

You can call it out, but you'll keep losing that way. Or at least losing them. Framing it as 'voting it against their interests' when their primary interests are around bigotry will constantly make you frustrated why they aren't voting for you despite you offering them things, when they are not remotely interested in the main things that you're offering. 

So call it out however you want, but understand that the argument hurts your strategy and planning. 

You're not trying to persuade them, just the neutrals who haven't picked a side. Highlight how idiotic their behavior is and the damage it's doing to everyone. At this point you're not going to convert anyone who is on team MAGA. But you can show those who are the fence how dumb they are. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Durckad]

10 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

See, this is getting closer to a reasonable argument and offering. What you need to do is stop framing it as against their economic interests and start framing it in terms of eating the rich, which for the most part they're happy to do if given the opportunity. But you need to stop attacking them for wanting to hate.

Well, you can certainly try. The big problem is, they don't want to "eat the rich." Not all of them, just the "bad" ones.

Elon Musk and Donald Trump are two of the darlings of MAGA and both are insufferably rich fail-sons. And the MAGAts don't hold them as exceptions like "oh those two are good even though they're rich" they're more "oh those two are good BECAUSE they're rich." The Pro-Capitalism Lizard Brain is hard to overcome when it's buried so deep. The "bad" rich are bad because they've crossed their cultural streams: Bud Light is "bad" for getting political and acknowledging that Trans people exist and like beer while Elon is good for getting political and spreading hate and creating a safe space for right wing "free speech."

Even if you do manage to convert them, they're still mostly going to be driven primarily by cultural issues and there's no telling where that will drive them in the future. So, at some point, you need to convince them that the cultural part is utterly ridiculous and stupid.

Not sure exactly how to do that, but I certainly don't have the patience for it.

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're not trying to persuade them, just the neutrals who haven't picked a side. Highlight how idiotic their behavior is and the damage it's doing to everyone. At this point you're not going to convert anyone who is on team MAGA. But you can show those who are the fence how dumb they are. 

Ultimately you'd better be trying to persuade them - at the very least you should be trying to persuade them to not vote. 

But you're not gonna do a very good job convincing people on the fence that they should vote for you because you call their friends dumb. 

4 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Even if you do manage to convert them, they're still mostly going to be driven primarily by cultural issues and there's no telling where that will drive them in the future. So, at some point, you need to convince them that the cultural part is utterly ridiculous and stupid.

Not sure exactly how to do that, but I certainly don't have the patience for it.

Again, this isn't cultural things. This is identity. You can't convince someone that their actual persona is bad, at least not with messaging and political viewpoints. You need to convince them to change that by having deep connections with people close to them. 

And to be clear, everyone is driven primarily by identity issues. If you just view it as 'cultural' as if that is some meaningless value when it is part of who they believe themselves to be, you're never ever gonna get it. And maybe you don't want to, and that's fine! Feel free to hate them - that can be your identity too. But it ain't gonna be effective at getting things done, one way or another.

Note also that the notion that you are beyond the cultural part is a major blindspot for you. You aren't. You just are assuming that your cultural viewpoint is the default and that people that disagree with you are wrong. 

 

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

This presupposes that their best interests are economic and not identity based. Over time this argument becomes less and less reasonable and blames the voters for their choices and their priorities. 

Sometimes, people's biggest interests are hate.

Because, despite all the hand-wringing in the liberal media, they are not actually economically distressed (either by global standards or historical).  Trump is an affluenza affliction.  

[Durckad]

21 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Again, this isn't cultural things. This is identity. You can't convince someone that their actual persona is bad, at least not with messaging and political viewpoints. You need to convince them to change that by having deep connections with people close to them. 

Culture and identity can be intrinsically intertwined and, I would argue, their culture IS largely their identity or, at the very least, heavily influenced by it. How much of their identity do you think is tied up in "being American," or "being Christian,"  and all of the assorted cultural things those entail? How does Trans people existing and wanting rights affect their identity? It doesn't. Even in the most baby-brained, idiotic takes, it doesn't. It's all cultural and, to them, it's identity as well.

As for convincing them? Yeah I don't know. That's certainly beyond my capabilities.

23 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

And to be clear, everyone is driven primarily by identity issues. If you just view it as 'cultural' as if that is some meaningless value when it is part of who they believe themselves to be, you're never ever gonna get it. And maybe you don't want to, and that's fine! Feel free to hate them - that can be your identity too. But it ain't gonna be effective at getting things done, one way or another.

I definitely don't disagree.

I think our primary disagreement comes from culture and identity and where and how the two intersect or subsume the other. One is downstream of the other usually and I'm not sure they are as distinct from one another as you may think.

12 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Note also that the notion that you are beyond the cultural part is a major blindspot for you. You aren't. You just are assuming that your cultural viewpoint is the default and that people that disagree with you are wrong. 

Well, I certainly never said that. I am keenly aware that my "cultural viewpoint" is not the norm, especially where I live and who my family is, even when you go beyond the politics of culture. My culture is simply different and it has very much affected and changed my identity and how I view myself.

But just because my culture is not the norm, I can still tell when someone's reasoning for something is fucking stupid, even if it is primarily rooted in identity or cultural issues.

[Tywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Ultimately you'd better be trying to persuade them - at the very least you should be trying to persuade them to not vote. 

But you're not gonna do a very good job convincing people on the fence that they should vote for you because you call their friends dumb. 

No, dangerous, but pointing out the stupidity is a necessary part of the process.

[DMC]

5 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

What I'm trying to get at is economy = good implies Biden reelection, economy = 2007-like implies Biden loses; therefore there is an intermediate state of the economy which is a tipping point for Biden loss. Even a modest recession could make it exceedingly close, and I'm not sure where exactly this point is. I'm sure there are models out there that do this

Yes, there are plenty of economic voting models.  The most parsimonious of which (which also tend to perform the best predictively) employ macroeconomic indicators -- rather than public sentiment on the economy.  And in that respect, such models would almost certainly anticipate Biden would be reelected if the election was held today. 

As for the "intermediate state," I don't think that matters much.  If it's Biden v Trump 2, my strong prior is the electorate will look very similar to 2020.  Particularly because, as @Maithanet detailed, Trump is weaker than he was in 2020 due to a number of reasons.  In addition to the polarization and ingrained anti-Trump sentiment.  So, I think it'd take a significant - rather than modest - downturn/recession for this to be an environmental worry for Biden.

5 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

hold everything else constant you get the 2020 outcome.  

Yeah, I think unless the environment changes significantly, we can look to 2020.  In which case, I'd be highly confident in Biden retaining Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Which means the EC would ultimately boil down to Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin.

As mentioned, this calculus fundamentally changes if the GOP nominee is not Trump.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Again, this isn't cultural things. This is identity. You can't convince someone that their actual persona is bad, at least not with messaging and political viewpoints. You need to convince them to change that by having deep connections with people close to them. 

And to be clear, everyone is driven primarily by identity issues. If you just view it as 'cultural' as if that is some meaningless value when it is part of who they believe themselves to be, you're never ever gonna get it. And maybe you don't want to, and that's fine! Feel free to hate them - that can be your identity too. But it ain't gonna be effective at getting things done, one way or another.

I recall years ago having one of our infamous way-too-long arguments was essentially about this - how it's paramount not to call voters that demonstrate racial resentment racists.  And that doing so is counterproductive.  Honestly not trying to be condescending here, glad you've turned around on it.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're not trying to persuade them, just the neutrals who haven't picked a side.

The problem is many if not most of the "swing" voters in this country share racial resentment and/or feel affronted when you frame it in this enlightened vs. dumb paradigm.  You may be (are) correct, but being correct isn't going to get you their votes.  Most people don't like the smartest kid in school.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

The problem is many if not most of the "swing" voters in this country share racial resentment and/or feel affronted when you frame it in this enlightened vs. dumb paradigm.  You may be (are) correct, but being correct isn't going to get you their votes.  Most people don't like the smartest kid in school.

Or Hillary. (Basket of deplorables, anybody?)

I just assume this wasn't about you revisiting your highschool trauma.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I just assume this wasn't about you revisiting your highschool trauma.

This would assume I actually went to class in high school.

As for Hillary, no, there were plenty of other reasons certain "independents" weren't going to vote for her.

[Durckad]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

This would assume I actually went to class in high school.

As for Hillary, no, there were plenty of other reasons certain "independents" weren't going to vote for her.

Buttery males strikes again!

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Buttery males strikes again!

Sure, Comey's letter.  Also, though, what I was referring to was the antipathy she built up over the 25 years she was a major political figure.  That would've been hard for anyone to overcome.