US Politics: Primary Schoolin'

[Kalbear]

Unfortunately women in general won't suffer enough under Trump for them to turn out in droves, though there's hope that with Dobbs they'll view that otherwise. 

[Durckad]

30 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Unfortunately women in general won't suffer enough under Trump for them to turn out in droves, though there's hope that with Dobbs they'll view that otherwise. 

Hopefully the Republican party doesn't take this as a "Hold my beer" challenge.

They probably will though.

[kissdbyfire]

48 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In 2016 people believed it was impossible for Trump to beat Clinton… we had 4 years of Trump.  Encouraging the other side to nominate the worst candidate works until it explodes in our face like 2016.

I hear you. I was one of those people... in fact, I was dead certain there was no way Trump would get elected and repeated as much loudly and often, while everyone else including my better half and the vast majority of my american friends kept telling me I was dead wrong. 

But don't you think it's different now? Back then people could cling to the false belief that he was a successful businessman, he wasn't a politician, etc. No one really knew what it was going to be like, and those more normal conservatives and independents who voted for him believed that he would become more presidential, that the Kellys and others around him would reign in his worst impulses, and so on. No one is under this misconception anymore. There's also his project 25 or whatever that's called...  I also think that despite his hardcore base becoming even more hardcore, his rejection has grown as well. 

I don't know, and I'm keenly aware of how wrong I was in 2016 so I may be under a wishful thinking cloud. 

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I hear you. I was one of those people... in fact, I was dead certain there was no way Trump would get elected and repeated as much loudly and often, while everyone else including my better half and the vast majority of my american friends kept telling me I was dead wrong. 

But don't you think it's different now? Back then people could cling to the false belief that he was a successful businessman, he wasn't a politician, etc. No one really knew what it was going to be like, and those more normal conservatives and independents who voted for him believed that he would become more presidential, that the Kellys and others around him would reign in his worst impulses, and so on. No one is under this misconception anymore. There's also his project 25 or whatever that's called...  I also think that despite his hardcore base becoming even more hardcore, his rejection has grown as well. 

I don't know, and I'm keenly aware of how wrong I was in 2016 so I may be under a wishful thinking cloud. 

Keep in mind that while everyone now knows what Trump is like as a president, there are a whole lot of people who saw that and think that that was way BETTER than what they were hoping for. Trump does something that most Republican presidential candidates (and honestly, most dems) don't do - he gets people to actually love him. Most of the time Republicans fall in line and vote, but there are a whole lot of people now who don't normally vote who now will vote for Trump. 

The rest of the Republicans may not like Trump, but what is their alternative - Biden? Please. They're not going to vote for him. The best you can hope is that they won't vote at all. That can matter quite a bit, mind you, but the idea that people are now just disgusted by Trump is almost certainly not accurate. The best we could have hoped for is that after Jan 6th people would have been disgusted but that does not at all appear to be the case. 

So no, I don't think Trump's value has changed all that much. That is incredibly disheartening, but the fact of the matter is that in US politics the overwhelming thing that matters is partisan allegiance and almost nothing else matters at all, especially to Republicans. The best you can hope for at that point is ensuring that groups that normally vote Dem turn out more, and groups that normally vote Republican vote less. But don't hope for a whole lot of people changing their mind. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Unfortunately women in general won't suffer enough under Trump

Please accept our apologies for women not suffering enough, in the past, the present and the future.

[kissdbyfire]

50 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Keep in mind that while everyone now knows what Trump is like as a president, there are a whole lot of people who saw that and think that that was way BETTER than what they were hoping for. Trump does something that most Republican presidential candidates (and honestly, most dems) don't do - he gets people to actually love him. Most of the time Republicans fall in line and vote, but there are a whole lot of people now who don't normally vote who now will vote for Trump. 

The rest of the Republicans may not like Trump, but what is their alternative - Biden? Please. They're not going to vote for him. The best you can hope is that they won't vote at all. That can matter quite a bit, mind you, but the idea that people are now just disgusted by Trump is almost certainly not accurate. The best we could have hoped for is that after Jan 6th people would have been disgusted but that does not at all appear to be the case. 

So no, I don't think Trump's value has changed all that much. That is incredibly disheartening, but the fact of the matter is that in US politics the overwhelming thing that matters is partisan allegiance and almost nothing else matters at all, especially to Republicans. The best you can hope for at that point is ensuring that groups that normally vote Dem turn out more, and groups that normally vote Republican vote less. But don't hope for a whole lot of people changing their mind. 

Well... yesterday you were dismissing what I said b/c I was generalising (and antagonising) when I said certain trump fans were idiots, but now you're generalising when you say republicans in general will act similarly despite there being a very broad spectrum of types that consider themselves republicans or conservatives. 

I just watched something where 2 normie conservatives were discussing the Iowa caucus and they brought up some interesting things. Like, a poll (by WaPo iirc) where 11% of republican caucus voters polled said they would indeed vote for Biden if Trump is the nominee, and some 25% said they'd vote for someone else or wouldn't vote at all. And that's in Iowa, so not even a swing state. 

So, yeah, I think this type of thing can and probably will make a difference.

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well... yesterday you were dismissing what I said b/c I was generalising (and antagonising) when I said certain trump fans were idiots, but now you're generalising when you say republicans in general will act similarly despite there being a very broad spectrum of types that consider themselves republicans or conservatives. 

And yet they vote largely as a bloc (as do Dems) and you can generalize. 

My point on calling them idiots was not about saying you shouldn't generalize - that'd be silly. My point is that if you want to win elections you need to cater to those idiots or make it so those idiots don't vote. Dismissing them as idiots just means they'll go to people who don't dismiss them. 

Anyway, on generalization - we have a whole lot of data showing how Republicans complain a bit about their candidate but end up going back to that candidate, and they do this in general a bit more than Democrats do. They've been remarkably consistent about this for 50 years now. And there is very little sign that this has changed because of Trump; it didn't in 2016, it didn't in 2020, and the polling indicates it hasn't now. 

24 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I just watched something where 2 normie conservatives were discussing the Iowa caucus and they brought up some interesting things. Like, a poll (by WaPo iirc) where 11% of republican caucus voters polled said they would indeed vote for Biden if Trump is the nominee, and some 25% said they'd vote for someone else or wouldn't vote at all. And that's in Iowa, so not even a swing state. 

First, 11% is roughly the defection rate for every election - about 10% of people identifying with the party will vote for the other person in most cases. That's a bit less true for Republicans than Dems but it stays about that value. 

Second, at this stage a whole lot of people say that they're undecided but when they vote in November they end up not being undecided. And that number is around 20-25%. 

It's very much wishful thinking to assume this means anything. 

 

[TrackerNeil]

40 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I just watched something where 2 normie conservatives were discussing the Iowa caucus and they brought up some interesting things. Like, a poll (by WaPo iirc) where 11% of republican caucus voters polled said they would indeed vote for Biden if Trump is the nominee, and some 25% said they'd vote for someone else or wouldn't vote at all. And that's in Iowa, so not even a swing state. 

So, yeah, I think this type of thing can and probably will make a difference.

I think so, too. It was fairly clear from 2020 that some cross-party voting was happening--Trump lost the White House but the GOP picked up some House seats. I suspect those people haven't changed their minds; they voted against their party once, and if Trump is the nominee, they'll likely do so again. There might be a very small cohort who voted Trump in 2016, then Biden in 2020, and then Trump again in 2024, but I'd want some evidence they'll have much effect on the election this year.

I'm a broken record on this, I know, but I implore folks to take heed of the down-ballot races in which Democrats are overperforming or outright winning, even in red states. If Americans were truly done with Biden, you'd think that would show up in those races, but the very opposite is happening. That suggests to me that Biden's approval ratings don't tell us all we need to know about how people will actually vote if it's Trump vs. Biden.

Edited January 17 by TrackerNeil

[kissdbyfire]

12 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I think so, too. It was fairly clear from 2020 that some cross-party voting was happening--Trump lost the White House but the GOP picked up some House seats. I suspect those people haven't changed their minds; they voted against their party once, and if Trump is the nominee, they'll likely do so again. There might be a very small cohort who voted Trump in 2016, then Biden in 2020, and then Trump again in 2024, but I'd want some evidence they'll have much effect on the election this year.

Yes! They talked about this in the podcast I mentioned above. The host said that Trump lost in Wisconsin in 2020, but the reps and senators either got elected or kept their seats, showing that indeed people had either crossed party lines or abstained from voting for president. 
The other interesting bit of data they shared from that same poll was that 32% (I think, but in the 30s for sure) of those polled said they wouldn’t vote for trump if he’s a convicted felon. 
I understand how diehard the MAGA base is, but I think Trump’s rejection is also very strong. And seriously, how could it not be? It’s not just that he’s an incompetent criminal, but he’s a truly disgusting individual as well, and I refuse to believe that Trump being who and what he is won’t have any negative influence on some conservative voters.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I hear you. I was one of those people... in fact, I was dead certain there was no way Trump would get elected and repeated as much loudly and often, while everyone else including my better half and the vast majority of my american friends kept telling me I was dead wrong. 

But don't you think it's different now? Back then people could cling to the false belief that he was a successful businessman, he wasn't a politician, etc. No one really knew what it was going to be like, and those more normal conservatives and independents who voted for him believed that he would become more presidential, that the Kellys and others around him would reign in his worst impulses, and so on. No one is under this misconception anymore. There's also his project 25 or whatever that's called...  I also think that despite his hardcore base becoming even more hardcore, his rejection has grown as well. 

I don't know, and I'm keenly aware of how wrong I was in 2016 so I may be under a wishful thinking cloud. 

I think it is a dangerous hope to cling to.  I hope Trump loses huge… so huge the Republican party collapses in shame and embarrassment… but I will not believe that… until it happens.

[ThinkerX]

Seems the Republican House Majority is going to get slim to the point of nonexistence within the next few weeks between the retirements and at least one member in critically ill health. 217 R votes. I am wondering more and more if the D's might not use that ridiculous challenge rule to depose Johnson and put Jefferies in charge. Or maybe Gaetz will pull that trigger a second time.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

I don't know if this has already been covered. Turnout for the Iowa caucuses was way down over previous years. Cold weather? I dunno.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iowa-caucus-republican-primary-2024/card/iowa-caucus-turnout-was-lowest-in-years-OHUue4uBysMwml4DuEmP

Quote

The Iowa Republican caucuses were a low-turnout affair, drawing just over 108,000 voters, or about 14.4% of the state’s approximately 752,000 registered Republicans, nearly complete vote tallies showed.

Blame the sub-zero temperatures, the lack of drama in a race that Donald Trump was widely expected to win, or any number of other possible factors. But by historical standards, Iowa’s much-watched caucuses didn't draw much participation. In the last contested GOP caucuses, in 2016, some 187,000 people cast ballots, a record high equating to 29% of registered Republicans. In 2012, almost 122,000 participated, and almost the same number turned out in 2008, the Associated Press reported.

 

Edited January 17 by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

[Larry of the Lawn]

I'm guessing the fact that we essentially had two incumbents as the assumed nominees before the primaries even started would keep turnout down a little lower than usual.

And even the Iowa GOP must have some quantifiable fear of going into a building and shuffling around in a giant crowd with COVID cases on the rise.  

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

I'm guessing the fact that we essentially had two incumbents as the assumed nominees before the primaries even started would keep turnout down a little lower than usual.

And even the Iowa GOP must have some quantifiable fear of going into a building and shuffling around in a giant crowd with COVID cases on the rise.  

Is that a fact though? I mean, Trump was always likely to win it but a result that lopsided? I think that took everyone by surprise.

It will be interesting to watch going forward. If other primaries have similarly depressed turnouts, that could be a signal of a lot of disaffected GOP voters.

Then again, there isn't exactly a lot of enthusiasm for Biden either. Maybe Trump takes it because turnout is depressed across the board.

In other news, Ted Cruz' senate seat is up for grabs this year. If the Texas Republican party had any brains, they'd be looking for a rockstar candidate to primary his ass out of that seat before the election. 

[Zorral]

38 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

a result that lopsided? I think that took everyone by surprise.

Not at all.  Why would anyone be surprised?  Sheesh.  Iowa and all those evangelicals was always his state in terms of the fascist party pretending not to be fascist.  Or at least always his state since covid at least.

Edited January 18 by Zorral

[Jaxom 1974]

But, hey! There this:

 

 

[fionwe1987]

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

But don't you think it's different now? Back then people could cling to the false belief that he was a successful businessman, he wasn't a politician, etc. No one really knew what it was going to be like, and those more normal conservatives and independents who voted for him believed that he would become more presidential, that the Kellys and others around him would reign in his worst impulses, and so on. No one is under this misconception anymore. There's also his project 25 or whatever that's called...  I also think that despite his hardcore base becoming even more hardcore, his rejection has grown as well. 

But its also true that his core base is actually glad the "Deep State" RINOs won't be in the cabinet anymore, and that Trump deserves a chance at revenge, and he's only kidding about being a dictator for a day, and probably means he's gonna use executive orders, and they all do it anyway....

So no, I don't think this has fundamentally changed. That a core of folks will go with Trump wherever he leaves gives him inordinate strength in the GOP, and that keeps opposition to him down, which makes it ok for the rest of the GOP, that may have misgivings about him, to vote for him, because of negative partisanship.

The thin string of hope this all hangs on is enough voters are tired of this, and have strong enough misgivings that they'll stay home. And that enough women and young folks are pissed about Roe and worried about what else Trump will do that they turn out and vote for boring old Biden.

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don't know, and I'm keenly aware of how wrong I was in 2016 so I may be under a wishful thinking cloud. 

I was in the same boat as you, in 2016. And I was in the States. The blow from realizing how disconnected I was from substantial portions of the electorate has taught me better than to give them the benefit of the doubt till they actually prove themselves in action.

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

My point on calling them idiots was not about saying you shouldn't generalize - that'd be silly. My point is that if you want to win elections you need to cater to those idiots or make it so those idiots don't vote. Dismissing them as idiots just means they'll go to people who don't dismiss them. 

Here's the thing, though. They assume you (as in liberal candidate/election campaigner) think they're idiots anyway, and respond as such. You being nice to them is read as duplicitousness. I've actually had far more success in some of these conversations with Trump nuts (just day to day conversations, and I doubt anyone has shifted their votes because of one) when I don't pretend to hold back my frustration and disbelief at their positions. 

But that won't translate into a good political strategy. Not unless a candidate has other things to offer, so yeah, best to bite your tongue and talk up the morons when you're on the campaign trail.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

But, hey! There this:

 

 

Now I have to ask, in KY is sex with your second cousin already not incest? @Rhom, speak about your people.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Is that a fact though? I mean, Trump was always likely to win it but a result that lopsided? I think that took everyone by surprise.

It was almost precisely what the polls predicted. If it took people by surprise they weren't reading the news, I guess.

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, fionwe1987 said:

Here's the thing, though. They assume you (as in liberal candidate/election campaigner) think they're idiots anyway, and respond as such. You being nice to them is read as duplicitousness. I've actually had far more success in some of these conversations with Trump nuts (just day to day conversations, and I doubt anyone has shifted their votes because of one) when I don't pretend to hold back my frustration and disbelief at their positions. 

But that won't translate into a good political strategy. Not unless a candidate has other things to offer, so yeah, best to bite your tongue and talk up the morons when you're on the campaign trail.

That wasn't my point. This isn't about you talking about them - though that doesn't help. This is about parties needing to cater to said idiots too. And honestly dems aren't doing that very well. Biden telling people that the economy is fine when it really doesn't feel that way to a lot of people or telling them that government works when we can't pass a budget - these are basic things that just don't work if you want them on your side.