|
Correct, I would say that polling is still pretty broken, although it did get Georgia almost exactly right again?
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Pick posted:Correct, I would say that polling is still pretty broken, although it did get Georgia almost exactly right again? I think what data we have points to the fact Trump himself being on the ballot is what breaks it because of a contingent of people who are typically non-voters who seem incredibly difficult to capture in polls. Though it's far from conclusive
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
That does seem to be the immediate take away, though I recall that Georgia had also been accurate in its 2020 polling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Let's say hypothetically that the Republican establishment sees the writing on the wall and wants to move away from Trumpism/Tea Party, and back towards good-old-fashioned 2000's neoconservatism. What is their best way to alter the primary system to disenfranchise the Trump wing and give establishment R's an advantage? I can think of a few options: 1. Change the order of the primary vote so that more moderate New England/West Coast states vote first 2. Use rank choice voting and winner-takes-all delegate apportionment 3. Cap debates at 3-5 people, and aggressively narrow down to 2-3 The impact of #1 is pretty obvious. I think #2 would be good because it would allow moderate conservatives to rank the Trumpist last. Then they would get no votes from the state due to its winner-take-all apportionment, despite having ~30% support from the extreme wing of the party. I think #3 would help in the same way as #2 in that the moderate vote was split too many ways and Trump was able to consistently win with ~30% support. If they quickly narrow the field, the more moderate votes can't be split as much. Those are the ones that came to mind straight away. I'm curious to see what this thread thinks might happen. Seph fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I think what data we have points to the fact Trump himself being on the ballot is what breaks it because of a contingent of people who are typically non-voters who seem incredibly difficult to capture in polls. It's because the ne'er do well/ Q anon loon vote only vote to hurt their enemies Trump is their avatar of aggrievement: it's why they won't vote for anyone else
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
Seph posted:Those are the ones that came to mind straight away. I'm curious to see what this thread thinks might happen. I feel like they'll try all that. Possibly even exactly that, and then the Parler guy starts a "Truth and Freedom Party" that eats 10% of their votes and they never legally get the presidency again in my lifetime
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
I think your first recommendation is the only one that's really viable. I'm not sure there are enough moderates left for the other two strategies to actually work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Seph posted:Let's say hypothetically that the Republican establishment sees the writing on the wall and wants to move away from Trumpism/Tea Party, and back towards good-old-fashioned 2000's neoconservatism. What is their best way to alter the primary system to disenfranchise the Trump wing and give establishment R's an advantage? You can't say #1 would have a big impact. Trump won New Hampshire, so saying New England gets a vote early would've meant he probably still would've won. Nevada, Vermont, and Massachusetts went from Trump too, and they were all fairly early on. I don't think you can say for sure that switching to the coasts would've squashed Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
Seph posted:Let's say hypothetically that the Republican establishment sees the writing on the wall and wants to move away from Trumpism/Tea Party, and back towards good-old-fashioned 2000's neoconservatism. What is their best way to alter the primary system to disenfranchise the Trump wing and give establishment R's an advantage? I don't think #1 would help at all, because it's based on a big assumption that the Republican primary electorate in New England or the West Coast is more moderate than the Republican primary electorate elsewhere, which is a really big assumption. The fact that Republicans don't win New York or California in a general election doesn't necessarily mean that New York and California Republicans are less extreme than elsewhere, what it means is that there are fewer of them proportionate to population. Like, this is the map of 2016 Republican primaries. Trump is in blue:  Now sure, that doesn't account for timing of one primary versus another, but in the final tally Trump won the primary because he swept the coasts and the south. #2 also assumes that Republican primary voters are rational and break down their voting preferences the way a rational-choice voter would based on a single-axis scale of radical to moderate candidates. It also assumes that in Republican primaries there are more "moderate conservatives" than there are members of "the extreme wing of the party." If you look at how the primaries played out over time, those assumptions look like less of a sure thing. As more moderate candidates dropped out over time, their backers didn't all flock to other moderates, a lot of them went to Trump. By the time the "moderates" coalesced around one or two candidates, they had already bled enough supporters to Trump that he was still winning primaries by comfortable margins. On Super Tuesday (March 1) Trump's margin of popular vote victory over Cruz was 5%, but by the late March/April primaries, when it was down to just Trump, Cruz, and Kasich, he'd widened his margin of popular vote victory over Cruz to 10%. #3 might help raise the profile of a more moderate consensus candidate, but it still relies on voters preferring that candidate to whoever the most extreme person on the stage is, and I wouldn't bet on that right now. It seems to me that the most fundamental problem for any moderate Republicans running right now is that a plurality of Republican primary voters want the most extreme candidate, and enough of the rest of them are okay with that level of extremism that they don't see it as a dealbreaker and so are just as likely to support an extremist candidate as a moderate one. The Republican base has become so radical that assuming a moderate can win a national primary at all, even under those kinds of circumstances, is a big assumption. And the more radical the party gets, the more moderates leave it or refuse to participate, which perpetuates the radicalization cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:You can't say #1 would have a big impact. Trump won New Hampshire, so saying New England gets a vote early would've meant he probably still would've won. Nevada, Vermont, and Massachusetts went from Trump too, and they were all fairly early on. I don't think you can say for sure that switching to the coasts would've squashed Trump. That's a fair point. Has there been any region where Republicans are more moderate on average, or is it pretty uniformly spread out? I think the general strategy could still work even if the specific areas I mentioned might not be a valid example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
My experience in (coastal) CA has been that the Republicans tend to be more extreme than they are nationally, because if you live in CA and are even vaguely moderate, then social pressures usually cause you to register as a Democrat. Republicans are unpopular enough in CA that it's mostly the truly dedicated who are Republicans. But I think the basic idea here makes sense: find the more moderate republican primary voters, and put those states first. I just don't think those voters live in CA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Trumpism isn't going away but I wonder if we'll see a situation in 2022 and beyond where you'll have to be a pro-Trump Republican to win a primary but being pro-Trump will cost you the election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:You can't say #1 would have a big impact. Trump won New Hampshire, so saying New England gets a vote early would've meant he probably still would've won. Nevada, Vermont, and Massachusetts went from Trump too, and they were all fairly early on. I don't think you can say for sure that switching to the coasts would've squashed Trump. I think rather than "New England" he meant more to say "Northeast Megalopolis", which New Hampshire barely counts as, and also disqualifies Maine as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
I mean, "how do we structure our primary system in a way that allows us to have a check on the more extreme elements of our party" is a problem the Democrats solved a long time ago: proportional delegate allotment to allow for easier coalition-building, and superdelegates as a backstop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
Grape posted:I think rather than "New England" he meant more to say "Northeast Megalopolis", which New Hampshire barely counts as, and also disqualifies Maine as well. Yeah, this is what I meant. In my experience urban Republicans tend to be more moderate and focused on fiscal conservatism rather than social conservatism. I could be biased because I work in finance in a city so that is my main exposure to conservatism, though. ShakeZula posted:I mean, "how do we structure our primary system in a way that allows us to have a check on the more extreme elements of our party" is a problem the Democrats solved a long time ago: proportional delegate allotment to allow for easier coalition-building, and superdelegates as a backstop. Proportional allotment tends to help outsider candidates since the establishment vote is more divided. If we're assuming that there are more establishment votes overall, then it's better to have those votes (and then delegates) concentrated into one or two candidates, not spread out. I guess it's possible this is reversed where there are multiple outsider candidates and only one or two establishment, but it's impossible to say for sure before we know the 2024 field. The superdelegate point is a good one though. That is definitely another way to keep power within the establishment. Seph fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Seph posted:Proportional allotment tends to help outsider candidates since the establishment vote is more divided. If we're assuming that there are more establishment votes overall, then it's better to have those votes (and then delegates) concentrated into one or two candidates, not spread out. I guess it's possible this is reversed where there are multiple outsider candidates and only one or two establishment, but it's impossible to say for sure before we know the 2024 field. Right, and we saw the same thing with Bernie this past election - when there were a bunch of moderates splitting that vote he was winning primaries with around 30%. But the proportional allotment meant he never built up a huge lead, and when the establishment saw that he was a legitimate threat to win the nomination they had a bunch of people with delegates in hand that they could consolidate. 2016 would've played out quite differently on the Republican side if, after a few Trump victories, Rubio and Cruz had been able to make a deal and pool actual delegates to edge him out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
I mean, the difference between winner take all and proportional allocation is that Bernie winning a primary with 30% only got him ~30% of the delegates, and Trump winning a primary with 30% (sometimes) got him 100% of the delegates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The Republican base has become so radical that assuming a moderate can win a national primary at all, even under those kinds of circumstances, is a big assumption. And the more radical the party gets, the more moderates leave it or refuse to participate, which perpetuates the radicalization cycle. Thanks, this was a good post. I agree that all of my ideas are assuming there is a sufficiently large base of moderate conservative voters, who would vote in a rational manner. But you're right that that is a big assumption. Without that assumption though, I don't see how the establishment Republicans survive this unless they blatantly disenfranchise the right wing of their party. I don't think 3 years is enough time to put the Trump genie back in the bottle, so they either need to boost the moderates within the party, or ratfuck the right wing. Which they very well may end up doing via superdelegates or some other mechanism. James Garfield posted:I mean, the difference between winner take all and proportional allocation is that Bernie winning a primary with 30% only got him ~30% of the delegates, and Trump winning a primary with 30% (sometimes) got him 100% of the delegates. Yeah, I was proposing winner-takes-all in conjunction with ranked choice. The big assumption there being that moderate voters would rank moderate candidates higher than someone like Trump, but who knows if that would actually play out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Grape posted:I think rather than "New England" he meant more to say "Northeast Megalopolis", which New Hampshire barely counts as, and also disqualifies Maine as well. The Republicans in New York are insane cop union/Giuliani type people. I don't think it would help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
We should also remember the polling in 2015/2016 that showed that a lot of people thought Trump was more moderate than most Republicans. They saw that he was way out in front on the "gently caress the libs" front, which they wanted, but he acted like he was against cutting the social safety net and perhaps wanted to expand it, and he said he would raise taxes on the rich. I think this faux-moderation was what allowed Trump to win the areas that Romney won in 2012 (like New England/the megalopolis). If we think about how he was perceived by Republicans in 2016, it might be more like how we look at Adam Schiff: ideologically opposed to the more extreme elements of his party, but fuckin' great at going after the opposing party. And a lot of people like that profile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Let's not forget that even ostensible left-wing people were falling for that. He was getting articles about how he would be the most pro LGBT president ever, which obviously didn't happen, and never would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Yeah, early on I definitely bought into the idea that Trump could be more moderate than he seemed, and that it was all just a performance to get the right wing chuds to vote for him. Some of my moderately conservative coworkers (who are now Lincoln Project Republicans) figured the same thing. In retrospect it was probably just a collective denial that someone this crazy could ever be President. It was a simpler time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Seph posted:Yeah, early on I definitely bought into the idea that Trump could be more moderate than he seemed, and that it was all just a performance to get the right wing chuds to vote for him. Some of my moderately conservative coworkers (who are now Lincoln Project Republicans) figured the same thing. In retrospect it was probably just a collective denial that someone this crazy could ever be President. It was a simpler time. The fact he used to be a Democrat likely threw a lot of people off, the fact he was on TV and they'd seen him edited to be a normal (if entertaining) human being, the fact that politics has become a performative three ring circus instead of statesman making a case for what they believe and could do for the country and the fact he literally told every single audience what they wanted to hear and let them decide that the things he said they didn't like was just him pulling the wool over the rubes' eyes to get elected and the things they liked was him speaking the truth about his stances/'telling it like it is' combined with twenty years' worth of lovingly curated anti-Clinton propaganda from rightwing media all combined to give a malignant narcissist the highest office in the land.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/laurabronner/status/1347281083314958337?s=20 Great thread. Shows that the GA win was far more than just repubs staying home. Dems did genuinely good work down there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:We should also remember the polling in 2015/2016 that showed that a lot of people thought Trump was more moderate than most Republicans. They saw that he was way out in front on the "gently caress the libs" front, which they wanted, but he acted like he was against cutting the social safety net and perhaps wanted to expand it, and he said he would raise taxes on the rich. I think this faux-moderation was what allowed Trump to win the areas that Romney won in 2012 (like New England/the megalopolis). If anything Trump's unexpected voter base expansion is because he turned out to be a fascist super Republican instead of just a New York Democrat who ran as a populist to own the establishment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
I felt in 2016 that a lot of people had a deep faith in the End of History and so believed people like Donald Trump wouldn’t get into power in the modern day, which existed in a different world to history, and so the many parallels between things that happened in history and things that were happening now could be safely ignored. I still think a lot of ineffectual moves against Trump amount to people explaining he can’t possibly exist in the hope that might make him disappear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
Republicans could also try instituting superdelegates and just say gently caress it and all but pick the winner in advance for a few cycles until the Trumpists burn themselves out or leave the party; cauterizing the wound and taking the national loses would be better long term for them than stomaching another clown car circus. They're risk immediate civil war/schism and probably lose elections and might not win that civil war but what alternative do they have?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
Seph posted:I don't see how the establishment Republicans survive this unless they blatantly disenfranchise the right wing of their party. I think that was obvious for GOP leadership all the way back in 2008 at a minimum. The R base keeps getting pushed farther and farther right by the right conspiracies and media and the party leadership has to either move farther right or get portrayed as RINO's and primaried and replaced by the True Believers. They've done nothing but double down since then and play into it further to establish their bona fides with their base and rile up more voters with hate and fear. Really since at least late 90's if you think about it. I can't prove it of course but I bet they really thought they could control it. They've been getting away with so much for so long after all right? Nearly all the moderates in the GOP are long gone and all that is left is either shameless liars with a death grip on their seats of power and True Believers who grew up on Fox news. Its possible this attempted coup will be enough to make enough of the party really change, McConnell looked legit scared at one point, even at the cost of losing power on a national level for a decade or so. I see no reason to be optimistic about that though. You had dipshits like Cruz texting for more donations almost the instant that control of the building was regained and Gaetz shamelessly lying in front of Congress that really it was all Antifa's fault too. Pence apparently isn't willing to use the 25th amendment, or apparently even pick up or answer a phone call from Pelosi, to remove Trump either and I think that signals pretty clearly how GOP leadership is going to go about things. What I wonder at this point is how Biden will handle things. I think he needs to really start cracking down on the seditionists but going after the RWM and conspiracy machine has to be a priority too. They function as a powerful propaganda pusher that keeps making these people go farther and farther right while engendering a sort of alt-reality that gets their viewership to believe and do all sorts of crazy bullshit. If something isn't done to put the brakes on that whole poo poo show than I think any action will ultimately be ineffective long-ish term because its just going to keep pushing R's farther right into facism and qanon craziness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Seph posted:Thanks, this was a good post. I agree that all of my ideas are assuming there is a sufficiently large base of moderate conservative voters, who would vote in a rational manner. But you're right that that is a big assumption. I'm not sure I believe the GOP is in all that much danger. They're significantly more insane now than they used to be and we're in the middle of a pandemic greatly exacerbated by their insanity. They still almost won and it's very close in both houses of Congress. All they have to do is turn down the insanity a tiny bit and/or run against an unpopular president and they can have another 2010 - unless suburban high propensity voters are fully committed to the Democratic Party, in which case they can still pull stuff off during presidential years. Our "democratic" institutions are significantly slanted towards them right now so they can keep winning with a minority of the votes. Why bother trying to get a majority?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
They're not in immediate danger, they can in fact still very much win big in 2024 if for no other reason than the electoral map is very much in their favor for Congressional control, but longer term they're in big trouble. And toning things down even a little bit gets you called a RINO and primaried.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Seph posted:Without that assumption though, I don't see how the establishment Republicans survive this unless they blatantly disenfranchise the right wing of their party. Agreed but I think it's unlikely we see the current crop of Republicans changing any time soon. Even in the Midterms or next election. Over the last four years we've seen the Old Guard moderate Republicans cut out of the Party. Who's left outside of Romney that's still in office? We are left with people like Matt Gaetz and Ted Cruz who are never going to change. Or Graham who's just being slick and now throwing Trump under the bus after supporting him for years. They're ideologues who will fight until the end and have no reason not to especially given they're from heavily gerrymandered States and Districts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
Wasserman noted this, which... uhm. https://twitter.com/amyewalter/status/1347205254778134529?s=20 If this is true, well. What the gently caress happens with the party, really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 04:05
|
|
|
Whatever Trump wants, I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
mutata posted:Whatever Trump wants, I imagine. Sorry accident.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
Trump is the embodiment of the party. He's not some aberration. Why do they want some milquetoast pretenders when they can get the uncut stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
Donald Trump is the party and until he dies its his to do with what he will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 05:01
|
|
|
It's going to be really amusing seeing all the infighting in the GOP from Trump trying to play kingmaker. I think most GOP lawmakers will be glad for him to be gone, but Trump will retain enough popularity with his base that it'll be a very awkward dance to avoid pissing them off too much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
After they lost the Georgia runoffs I thought the GOP would beg Trump to run again because they need him. But after yesterday I don't even know anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 07:16
|
|
|
Trump more-or-less conceding hurt him way more than the riot. And him actually leaving office will be a Great Disappointment moment for many of the hardcore. Whether that actually means he won't be the favorite in 2024 is hard to say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Barudak posted:Donald Trump is the party and until he dies its his to do with what he will. If he had gone peacefully then there would have been not many consequences. If he had STFU about the election and campaigned in Georgia to keep those two seats there would have still been not much conequences. The only way he keeps the party if there are little to zero consequences for him and his family That aint happening now. The party may very well decide to take the loss to be rid of him and there's GOP politicans who are going to fight back if he tries to run again. Legal consequences aren't known yet but do you really think Biden's going to let this slide? He'll talk about bringing the country together and poo poo like that but do you think he's going to lift a finger to stop investigations? State level prosecutors are there as well circling and his businesses are in deep red ink. Let alone he's in poo poo health and had Covid. There is likely to be a but but but to my comments however frankly I do not see any way that consequences arent coming for him and his family now. A lot less people are going to feel inclined to let this poo poo slide after this week. Edit : And there's also the fact that social media may well de-platform Trump permantly. Once he isnt the president, I feel it may well be game on. CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Jan 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 12:09
|
|
