|
Epic High Five posted:That's not all that's rising https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9AmQ1Ie7Bk (Hilary's new Campaign Theme)
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
So the Republican Party in its current state is essentially locked out of the presidency by how disconnected its base have become from the wider electorate. Assuming it doesn't make some sharp readjustments during the Thousand-Year Hillareich, when does this also start applying downticket? As in, how long until they start finding it structurally difficult/impossible to take the Senate? I imagine that the House can hold out for a while thanks to gerrymandering, but the Senate doesn't have that protection.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:So the Republican Party in its current state is essentially locked out of the presidency by how disconnected its base have become from the wider electorate. Assuming it doesn't make some sharp readjustments during the Thousand-Year Hillareich, when does this also start applying downticket? As in, how long until they start finding it structurally difficult/impossible to take the Senate? I imagine that the House can hold out for a while thanks to gerrymandering, but the Senate doesn't have that protection. Well Trump is about to go full Nazi and every single GOPer is going to be tied to it with chains. They will either get torn down by Trump for disowning him or by HRC for not. Will it work against all of them who are fighting for their seat? Doubtful, but lord I don't envy them. If last night's speech was any indication, Trump's about to go full Jim Crow except this time the police will be a protected class with tanks and machine guns and total immunity from prosecution or discipline in all endeavors
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Well Trump is about to go full Nazi and every single GOPer is going to be tied to it with chains. They will either get torn down by Trump for disowning him or by HRC for not. Oh, I can see how this election will go badly for them, but I'm talking long-term structural. Like, when do they start losing on demographics?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
FetusSlapper posted:Aren't you supposed to do this kind of stuff on Fridays so it gets lost over the weekend? The announcement canning Corey Lewendowski was also made on a Monday, of course it was a big story early in that week and of course the Trump people haven't learned from their mistake
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Oh, I can see how this election will go badly for them, but I'm talking long-term structural. Like, when do they start losing on demographics? 2008 They've been losing on demographics for two cycles now. If Trumpenproles splinter and the right becomes two warring factions representing "FYGM Libertarianism" and "Purge the Mud Races" then they're done as a party, even on the downticket. Trump taking 35% of the current too-small base is a party killer. Doing nothing would be the demographics killer because that's already baked in
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Oh, I can see how this election will go badly for them, but I'm talking long-term structural. Like, when do they start losing on demographics? I think it's been assumed that they were going to gin up voter suppression to make up for the decline in the white man population, but it seems their actual plan is to crash directly into a mountain
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:When Hillary turns up the chemtrails to start killing off people in their late 50s with poor habits and pill habits At this point it's likely we see enterprising interns and low level staffers driving boxes of Democratic ballots out into the desert to burn. There's simply no contingency beyond that for a meltdown like "Trump campaign lead by Breitbart" can become
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:At this point it's likely we see enterprising interns and low level staffers driving boxes of Democratic ballots out into the desert to burn. There's simply no contingency beyond that for a meltdown like "Trump campaign lead by Breitbart" can become
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Lprsti99 posted:My bet is it'll be slowish until the first debate, and then there'll be some variation of "Please proceed, Donald" and the thread will be 10,000 posts of
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Air is lava! posted:Okay. Honest question here. Has Trump made one good decision during the general election? As far as I see it, the "moderate" tones Manaford fed him were the only thing keeping him alive. The only way to run a worse campaign would be to formally endorse Hillary. And even then 35% would vote for him. Being anti-free trade/globalism would work wonders for him in rust belt swing states if he was a competent candidate and would make Hillary either hustle hard to keep them or lose. There are a lot of right leaning democrats that live in those states and seeing someone who is paying active attention to them is refreshing instead of two candidates flooding their states with ads instead of jobs. He's a celebrity. Granted he's a C or D list celebrity, but he has name recognition and he's been building an imagine of himself as a thoughtful, intelligent and successful businessman. He's not, but he crafted that image and it stuck. Also as a sort of outrageous reality TV star he'd primed people to accept stupid, crazy and racist stuff. The media early on did try to call him on what he said, but the problem is that voters didn't give a drat or at least republican voters didn't in enough numbers to eliminate him. Over and over pundits predicted his downfall and over and over they were wrong. It hurt the media's credibility by being so hilariously wrong so often. Then there was a sort of feeling that he could get away with stuff and the media let him because they couldn't call him on it without looking like idiots. If he were a more competent candidate outreach to black people wouldn't exactly have brought in a majority of their votes, but it would have depressed them for the dems and maybe snagged a few for the republicans. Back above the normal 10%. Talking about infrastructure spending is a big deal because it'll put people back to work and fix what is essentially in desperate need of repair. Both candidates are talking about it. Honestly though I only see Trump getting it through unless congress somehow flips democrat which unless something unforeseen and drastic happens it isn't going to happen. The only thing Hillary is really going to be able to accomplish with a hostile house is to get judges through and that's if she even gets that. It'll be 2010-2016 all over again. Working the media early on. Trump would do call ins while they talked about him and the media would eat it up even though journalists hate doing call-ins. It's harder to interrupt people, challenge them or clarify points as a journalist without coming off like a jerk. Plus he gains access to hundreds of thousands of people on a whim and he could just be watching the TV in his bunny slippers. It was free attention when the media liked doing it more. Now though they've turned against him and he has a much harder time doing this. Also just in general he's fairly media savvy. He knows how to build a brand. The only problem is that his message sucks. Trump would've had a serious shot if he were Christian, embraced border control and a sort of compassionate conservatism while railing against elites who have been dithering not only on the left but on the right. You can talk about border control without sounding like a pants on head crazy racist. And finally, only until recently had his lack of money raised was a serious problem for him because of the above point. It was often a problem, but if he spent more time campaigning in swing states instead of loving Maine and Connecticut he might have been able to make up for it in part. He's run the campaign on a shoestring budget and as long as the media bowed to him he was going to be able to compensate in part for a total lack of ground game. Also there wasn't a huge point in trying to run a ground game because no competent republican operative has really backed him. He'd have to spend a lot more money with D and F list talent in order to effectively target voters. I could go on for a bit if I thought about it more but it's late. He actually has stuff going for him, but his problem is that he's a raging, racist narcissist and totally unteachable. He doesn't learn from mistakes and doesn't seem to even attempt to learn from them. If I was back in my old political science classes and I asked freshman how you'd lose an election being openly racist, making fun of the military and kicking babies out of your rallies would be near the top of the list. What scares me is that a charismatic and likable populist could have destroyed Hillary. Just no holds barred absolutely wrecked her because trust in Hillary and her favorability in general are low. She's the weakest candidate that the dems have fielded in a long time. Strong ground game, a consummate politician, an effective administrator and has a love for details and policy, but holy poo poo is she just despised on a personal level. Both parties are amazingly weak to populism right now. People are angry and I think the only thing that will keep those populists out of the 2020 election will be changing the rules to exclude more outsider candidates from the party so you can't have people like Trump or Bernie usurp the presidency from the parties having registered with them that year. There's been a real thirst for populism since a bit before the 2008 election. Then it was happy. Now it's soured. Give a few years of nothing to quell those hurt feelings and you'll see it go beyond sour to nasty or even violent if it doesn't go that way in just the next few months. Epic High Five posted:2008 Yeah. 2008 perhaps wasn't a totally obvious wake-up call, but I read the 2012 autopsy. There were a lot of good ideas in there for strengthening the party. Actively recruit minorities (especially Hispanics), pass immigration reform, stop bashing gay people, get republicans to start talking to people they don't agree with instead of talking only to themselves and stop being the rich guys party. The problem is that anyone who wanted to take a new direction got RINO'd right the gently caress out of the party. The demographics are shrinking and the republicans are going to get to a point where they won't be able to win the presidency anymore. 2020 is coming up and if the dems can pass reforms on gerrymandering and voter suppression laws the republicans could lose the house as well. I've been reading quite a few republican scholars recently. Among a few that I've read is that the party just can't change. It's white and old and old people don't change. It'll shatter before it'll change. Only when it really shatters will there be a realignment on the right. Until it shatters reformers will get RINO'd. Also the lady that wrote the autopsy left the republican party. It's a sign of how bad its gotten. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/6-big-takeaways-from-the-rnc-s-incredible-2012-autopsy Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
I don't see why you'd expect Republicans to pass an infrastructure bill. Unless by infrastructure you mean "building the wall."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Is it possible to be a charismatic and likeable populist in a diverse nation? Populism isn't a philosophy that fools anybody but conservative whites, this election is doing a lot to prove that. There's no populism without massively increasing the power of the police and eliminating oversight, and right there you've lost non-whites I can't think of anybody who fits that bill, and even if they existed they'd never make it past the primary because authoritarians don't want someone who is likable
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Is it possible to be a charismatic and likeable populist in a diverse nation? Populism isn't a philosophy that fools anybody but conservative whites, this election is doing a lot to prove that. There's no populism without massively increasing the power of the police and eliminating oversight, and right there you've lost non-whites 2008 was Obama riding a wave of populism. Quite a few of those voters weren't white. Granted he wasn't a populist, but that didn't really matter much because people wanted him to be. "At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite. The word populism comes from the Latin word for "people," populus. Definitions of populism." You may be thinking of authoritarianism. Populism can be adopted by any race, creed or color. It's not limited to the left or right, this race or that one. Anyway you can be a likable and charismatic populist in a diverse nation. You don't have to win everyone over. You just need to win enough people over to win the election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Given the sheer power and majesty of the blood course that someone (probably Bill Clinton) has laid on the GOP, they'd probably burn Republican ballots on accident Clinton had to give up the flesh of animals to have his enemies tear themselves apart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Given the sheer power and majesty of the blood course that someone (probably Bill Clinton) has laid on the GOP, they'd probably burn Republican ballots on accident That would be Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson, who backed the Civil Rights movement in part because he knew the GOP would take the bait and use the southern strategy and in turn, this moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
And it shall be written that this day, August 17th 2016, heralded the demise of the Republican party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Dexo posted:https://twitter.com/costareports/status/765808339573932032 If Manafort is out and Bannon is in, then it means that Ivanka and Jared Kushner's attempts to professionalize Trump have failed. Donald Trump Jr. was the family member who wanted to quadruple-down on the populist rhetoric. Given that Ivanka, by all accounts, was Trump's last restraint, I will be interested in seeing how the campaign goes from here. It's hard to imagine Trump being any less unfiltered. I'm also curious if this decision was driven by the New York Times' recent investigation into Manafort. I suppose that this decision will help Trump push back on the accusations of Russian support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Given that Ivanka, by all accounts, was Trump's last restraint, I will be interested in seeing how the campaign goes from here. It's hard to imagine Trump being any less unfiltered. Originally Trump had these sort of reality TV show yes men courtiers and they were displaced by people who were more professional. Not all of them, but enough to matter if he wanted to run a professional campaign. Now I think he's returned to it. He wants to run a campaign that makes him feel good, but not one that'll enable a win. Maybe he wanted to win before, but he can't unfuck the situation. He can't pivot in any meaningful direction anymore. That ship sailed. All he can do is depress Hillary's numbers. If Trump's rhetoric is truly off the leash it's going to go terribly for the republican party. He'll ruin downticket elections and has two and a half months to do it. Possibly terrible for everyone depending on how much he gins up his followers. Honestly at this point I'm waiting on Prester Jane to end her cross country move, plop down in front of a computer and tell me where the narcissism leads from here. While she isn't always correct, she seems to be more correct than most professional pundits because I have legit stopped trying to predict this loving election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:If Manafort is out and Bannon is in, then it means that Ivanka and Jared Kushner's attempts to professionalize Trump have failed. Donald Trump Jr. was the family member who wanted to quadruple-down on the populist rhetoric. Given that Ivanka, by all accounts, was Trump's last restraint, I will be interested in seeing how the campaign goes from here. It's hard to imagine Trump being any less unfiltered. It's been obvious for a while now that when Trump is reading a prepared speech, he is a reasonably effective candidate, if even more terrifying ("I ALONE CAN FIX IT!"). Hell, he even turned in some borderline brilliant debate performances because he had an army of really lovely candidates to play off of. But Trump clearly dislikes the rigors of normal campaigning in all its forms and can't understand why doing non-stop stream of thought rallies isn't winning him the presidency. Literally all Trump would have had to do is lean on speechwriters to carry him through to the fall and he would have at least a 50/50 shot. As far as the 2012 campaign RNC post-mortem, we all laugh at how hard the GOP is not doing that stuff, but it's as if it were written in an isolated robot testing facility and not the real political environment. "Beep-boop, just become a Blue Dog Democrat but also never talk about social conservatism" is not really what many actual voters are looking for these days. Just ask Democrats. As discovered, there's no will in the GOP to do anything non-insane on immigration. I guess they could have done something on outreach, but the only real outreach has been carried out by Trump, who took a big poo poo on the Invasion of Iraq and played, however accidentally, on the economic woes of poor white voters who voted for conservatives over and over only to see none of the trends in the economy change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:As far as the 2012 campaign RNC post-mortem, we all laugh at how hard the GOP is not doing that stuff, but it's as if it were written in an isolated robot testing facility and not the real political environment. "Beep-boop, just become a Blue Dog Democrat but also never talk about social conservatism" is not really what many actual voters are looking for these days. Just ask Democrats. As discovered, there's no will in the GOP to do anything non-insane on immigration. That's the thing though. These aren't problems that'll get them in the long term. It's coming down the pipe as soon as the baby boomers start dying off in larger numbers which is happening now. I feel like the only way forward for the republicans is to cut bait with white supremacy and try to cobble together a multi-racial and multi-ethnic coalition while pivoting towards staying right on economics but turning left on social policies or perhaps vice versa depending on what voters want. The longer they stall the worse it's going to be as white supremacy continues to further poison the well with minorities with conservatism and the worse it's going to be when the party finally admits it doesn't have the votes to win anymore and a large number of people are simply no longer represented because they're too toxic. While they won't have the votes to win, they definitely will have enough to gently caress over the party that eventually has to spurn them or become completely irrelevant. The political reality is that they're pretty hosed. They need to transition and form entirely new coalitions with new voters who they've actively been loving over for years. It's not impossible, but every election that they fail to do it makes it that harder to eventually pivot when things finally fall apart. The bridge that needs to be built is too far and getting farther every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:2008 They've been losing demographics since 2004 when the GOP threw away the overwhelming Muslim vote share W had in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:Yup. Out of the multiple endpoints of the GOP's strategy of blind authoritarianism, wealth worship, and hatred of the Other, I suppose we were fortunate that the orange clown man is what we ended up with. The Republicans have played with fire for so long and created a base completely detached from reality that despises all government they don't fully control. Only just this year do they fully realize that this includes them as well as the beast turns on them. The idea of an even more unleashed Trump has me more than a little excited and terrified.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
SirFozzie posted:Manafort out, folks from Breitbart running Trump's campaign? https://twitter.com/AdamWeinstein/status/765563843644887040 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ap-trump-chair-routed-ukrainian-money-to-dc-lobbyists-227101 This may be the story everyone was waiting for, Manafort routed 2.4 million to DC Lobbyists from a pro-Russian Ukranian group in a way that would hide where it came from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
A bit more on Manafort: https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/765871967891259394 https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/765872258816569344 https://twitter.com/MaxRTucker/status/765873250454896640 (Sadly paywalled, but looks like the images has some of the ledge entries)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:A bit more on Manafort:  Yeah, those are images of ledger entries, the last one shows a 3+ million payment to "Paul Manafort - Contract."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
Sounds like you have access to the actual story (with images large enough to at least see the scribbles) --- anything else worth highlighting?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
I think it would be amusing if in a fit of whimsy Trump decides to 180 on the Russians and trash talk Putin now that Manafort is no longer whispering in his ear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Sounds like you have access to the actual story (with images large enough to at least see the scribbles) --- anything else worth highlighting? No that's just what's on the image in that tweet. There are 3 ledger entries, with descriptions to the left of the picture of Manafort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
That would be a normal trump move. He'd then say he had never praised Putin or suggested we abandon NATO. That crooked media quoted me in too much context!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:That would be a normal trump move. He'd then say he had never praised Putin or suggested we abandon NATO. That crooked media quoted me in too much context! Him praising the Russians for months was sarcasm. Don't you idiots understand sarcasm?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
To be clearer though, this is about Trump wanting to be Trump. He thinks that the problem isn't that he's a racist rear end in a top hat spewing hate and demifascism; but instead because he was being "boxed in," "managed," "not himself." His instincts are so incredibly bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
More double downs than a KFC in Mississippi, more scorched earth than Sherman in Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
More sarcasm than a thirteen year old who discovered it for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't see why you'd expect Republicans to pass an infrastructure bill. Unless by infrastructure you mean "building the wall." Until they decided anything a Democrat proposes is tantamount to Full Communism Now! and must be opposed at all costs, they regularly supported infrastructure spending -- least of which because it's a big payday for their friends in the government contracting business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:A bit more on Manafort: So, that's it right, game over for Manafort? The FBI is investigating now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
Comstar posted:So, that's it right, game over for Manafort? The FBI is investigating now? Manafort's position with the campaign wasn't compromised because of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:To be clearer though, this is about Trump wanting to be Trump. He thinks that the problem isn't that he's a racist rear end in a top hat spewing hate and demifascism; but instead because he was being "boxed in," "managed," "not himself." e: "fun" barring the inevitable mass shootings, obviously. meristem fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I'm not a climate scientist either, I'm a geoscientist, but we do some climate-related stuff, and the answer is that no matter what we do or try, all the world's coastlines will look different soon enough. Whether or not some place or another is worth trying to save isn't my thing; telling you that it's only delaying the inevitable is, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:22
|
|
