Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
lil poopendorfer
Nov 13, 2014

by the sex ghost

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Legalization of weed, etc.

It's still illegal

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BiggerBoat
Sep 26, 2007

Don't you tell me my business again.
May have already been posted but The New Yorker did a great deep dive on Ron Desantis that's well worth a read

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/27/can-ron-desantis-displace-donald-trump-as-the-gops-combatant-in-chief

Of particular interest to me is how FOX News bascially pushed him and repeatedly had him on to cement his position as a rising star and give him tons of exposure.

-Blackadder-
Jan 2, 2007

Game....Blouses.

BiggerBoat posted:

May have already been posted but The New Yorker did a great deep dive on Ron Desantis that's well worth a read

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/27/can-ron-desantis-displace-donald-trump-as-the-gops-combatant-in-chief

Of particular interest to me is how FOX News bascially pushed him and repeatedly had him on to cement his position as a rising star and give him tons of exposure.
Yes it's an excellent article, with a great inside look at the GOP as well.

-Blackadder- posted:

The New Yorker recently did probably the most comprehensive deep dive on DeSantis. Some truly amazing stuff, including how he started out as relatively reasonable for a Republican with even some good policy but abandoned that when he realized that voters are basically the Colosseum crowd from Spartacus. Anyway one of the great highlights, completely unrelated to DeSantis, is how barefaced and calculating, and with no loyalty to their voters, the GOP is...

The New Yorker posted:

In office, DeSantis took steps that suggested he intended to govern closer to the center. He buoyed environmentalists by forcing out the nine-member board of the South Florida Water Management District, political appointees who were considered hostile to environmental interests. He named a commission to tackle algae blooms, which befouled rivers and lakes in the southern part of the state. And he appointed several Black jurists. At his inauguration, DeSantis asked the Reverend R. B. Holmes, the pastor of a predominantly Black church in Tallahassee, to lead the prayer. “I was encouraged,” Holmes told me.

For decades, the Democratic Party had commanded a majority of Florida’s registered voters. But the state was changing, as Trump’s election helped energize a shift in political affinities. The Republican Party’s rank and file became increasingly radical, and G.O.P. leaders appeared only too happy to follow them. “There was always an element of the Republican Party that was batshit crazy,” Mac Stipanovich, the chief of staff to Governor Bob Martinez, a moderate Republican, told me. “They had lots of different names—they were John Birchers, they were ‘movement conservatives,’ they were the religious right. And we did what every other Republican candidate did: we exploited them. We got them to the polls. We talked about abortion. We promised—and we did nothing. They could grumble, but their choices were limited.

“So what happened?” Stipanovich continued. “Trump opened Pandora’s box and let them out. And all the nasty stuff that was in the underbelly of American politics got a voice. What was thirty-five per cent of the Republican Party is now eighty-five per cent. And it’s too late to turn back.”

Absolutely fantastic read.

Moderate Republicans built a populist Frankenstein and it triggered the fascist death spiral the GOP is now in, and there's a fair chance they drag the country down with them.

In addition to the critical point you make about DeSantis being platformed by Fox News, BB, recently all of the GOP mega donors have been leaving Trump high and dry and are making a massive beeline for DeSantis. So now he has them in his camp now too.

DeSantis convenes top donors, fellow GOP govs as 2024 chatter builds

Donald Trump Fundraising Dips Below DeSantis As Strategist Blames 'Fatigue'

The GOP could be heading towards a problem. The establishment is undeniably all in on DeSantis for 2024. But the Frankenstein that effortlessly burned down their playhouse on live television during the 2016 Republican Primary debates seems to still be in play.

The funny thing is, people close to Trump have mentioned several times, that the thing he cares about most is MONEY so the GOP could probably literally pay him off to stay out of 2024, but they still don't understand him, so everyone; Fox News, GOP Mega Donors, and other R influencers are all just packing up shop and going to stand behind DeSantis like they normally would to indicate a shift in support. It's obviously best for the GOP if these two don't fight and if it were any other normal candidate in Trump's position I would expect Trump/DeSantis 2024 to be a locked in R ticket. But when has Trump ever given two shits about what's best for the GOP? It takes almost nothing to set him off. Look at what happened with Elon Musk. One tiny perceived insult could snowball into an all out war. As that big DeSantis article from the New Yorker points out, Trump already has his people doing oppo research on how to take DeSantis down. Nothing we've seen from Trump indicates that he will ever, ever back down. If the GOP try to do an end run around Trump without paying him fealty he'll run against DeSantis out of spite.

The GOP's best play is to get Trump and DeSantis on the same ticket. They definitely could if they play it right, and it seems like the most likely scenario. If Trump feels bodied enough by the Jan 6 hearings and the repositioning of the GOP donors he might be more willing to take DeSantis as a VP. Presidents and VP's traditionally don't spend a lot of time together in office. So it could work.

Either way I don''t see Trump just stepping aside for DeSantis, no matter how much support DeSantis gets, unless the GOP wises up and starts showering Trump with money.

-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Jul 16, 2022

cat botherer
Jan 6, 2022

I am interested in most phases of data processing.

-Blackadder- posted:

Yes it's an excellent article, with a great inside look at the GOP as well.

In addition to the critical point you make about DeSantis being platformed by Fox News, BB, recently all of the GOP mega donors have been making a massive beeline for DeSantis. So now he has them in his camp now too.

DeSantis convenes top donors, fellow GOP govs as 2024 chatter builds

Donald Trump Fundraising Dips Below DeSantis As Strategist Blames 'Fatigue'

The GOP could be heading towards a problem. The establishment is undeniably all in on DeSantis for 2024. But the Frankenstein that effortlessly burned down their playhouse on live television during the 2016 Republican Primary debates seems to still be in play.

The funny thing is, people close to Trump have mentioned several times, that the thing he cares about most is MONEY so the GOP could probably literally pay him off to stay out of 2024, but they still don't understand him, so everyone; Fox News, GOP Mega Donors, and other R influencers are all just packing up shop and going to stand behind DeSantis like they normally would to indicate a shift in support. It's obviously best for the GOP if these two don't fight and if it were any other normal candidate in Trump's position I would expect Trump/DeSantis 2024 to be a locked in R ticket. But when has Trump ever given two shits about what's best for the GOP? It takes almost nothing to set him off. Look at what happened with Elon Musk. One tiny perceived insult could snowball into an all out war. As that big DeSantis article from the New Yorker points out, Trump already has his people doing oppo research on how to take DeSantis down. Nothing we've seen from Trump indicates that he will ever, ever back down. If the GOP try to do an end run around Trump without paying him fealty he'll run against DeSantis out of spite.

The GOP's best play is to get Trump and DeSantis on the same ticket. They definitely could if they play it right. If Trump feels bodied enough by the Jan 6 hearings and the repositioning of the GOP donors he might be more willing to take DeSantis as a VP. Presidents and VP's traditionally don't spend a lot of time together in office. So it could work.

Either way I don''t see Trump just stepping aside for DeSantis, no matter how much support DeSantis gets, unless the GOP wises up and starts showering Trump with money.
I don't think there's really a conflict between the two, and I highly doubt DeSantis would challenge Trump. Our favorite big boy would absolutely steamroll DeSantis in the primaries due to the loyalty he commands. Keep in mind Trump has been less visible of late. Once he starts campaigning, he'll get that free media attention again because he is so good for ratings - just like 2016.

From DeSantis' point of view, there's a lot of risk to running. He's only 43, very young by late American empire-politician standards - he could have a very long career as a fascist ahead of hime. However, if he does run, and he loses against Trump, he's basically done forever. The alternative is to keep doing what he's doing, cementing his reputation and building loyalty, and he'd be a shoo-in to replace Trump in 2028.

-Blackadder-
Jan 2, 2007

Game....Blouses.

cat botherer posted:

I don't think there's really a conflict between the two, and I highly doubt DeSantis would challenge Trump. Our favorite big boy would absolutely steamroll DeSantis in the primaries due to the loyalty he commands. Keep in mind Trump has been less visible of late. Once he starts campaigning, he'll get that free media attention again because he is so good for ratings - just like 2016.

From DeSantis' point of view, there's a lot of risk to running. He's only 43, very young by late American empire-politician standards - he could have a very long career as a fascist ahead of hime. However, if he does run, and he loses against Trump, he's basically done forever. The alternative is to keep doing what he's doing, cementing his reputation and building loyalty, and he'd be a shoo-in to replace Trump in 2028.

This is what I was thinking too. He's got plenty of time. There's no reason for him to go against Trump now. But I keep reading people saying that he'll be out of office for a few years by 2028 and may miss his window, but I don't know if that really matters. Maybe it's different today, but Nixon was around in politics for a long time before he finally won POTUS so I don't see the big deal with DeSantis waiting until 2028, I feel like it's the smart play for him. But he's getting a big push from the GOP establishment who clearly fear a rehash of 2020 if Trump runs again.

-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jul 16, 2022

cat botherer
Jan 6, 2022

I am interested in most phases of data processing.

-Blackadder- posted:

This is what I was thinking too. He's got plenty of time. There's no reason for him to go against Trump now. But I keep reading people saying that he'll be out of office for a few years by 2028 and may miss his window, but I don't know if that really matters. Maybe it's different today, but Nixon was around in politics for a long time before he finally won POTUS so I don't see the big deal with DeSantis waiting until 2028, I feel like it's the smart play for him. But he's getting a lot of play from the GOP establishment who clearly fear a rehash of 2020 if Trump runs again.
Yeah, its possible he could get a cabinet appointment. I'm not sure if Trump would be comfortable with him as VP.

Being in the Trump admin always brings a big risk of getting on Trump's bad side and being denounced, so I'm sure that's something that will weight his decision as well.

-Blackadder-
Jan 2, 2007

Game....Blouses.

cat botherer posted:

Yeah, its possible he could get a cabinet appointment. I'm not sure if Trump would be comfortable with him as VP.

Being in the Trump admin always brings a big risk of getting on Trump's bad side and being denounced, so I'm sure that's something that will weight his decision as well.
Definitely, that and #ETTD. Another four years of Trump, especially after Jan 6, will be a complete shitshow. DeSantis would be wise to just steer clear of the radioactive fallout and just stay in Florida until 2028.

How do you see Trump 2024 playing out for the GOP though? Does the economy stay terrible enough for another 2 years to put Trump over the top? The same moderate R's that skipped his name in 2020 could be even more likely to do so, given he'll be facing the headwinds of Abortion-rage and Jan 6 hearing clips. The campaign commercials will write themselves, and the Dems won't lack the money to play them 24 hours a day.

Plus Abortion is looking like it's really going to energize Dem turnout.

Republicans have the tiger by the tail. It's only been 3 weeks, they've got another 2 whole years of stories like these coming at them...

Politico posted:

‘Oh, God, no’: Republicans fear voter backlash after Indiana child rape case

The case of a 10-year-old rape victim is highlighting the election downsides of the new wave of abortion bans.

INDIANAPOLIS—Republicans knew the minute Roe v. Wade was overturned that they had a political problem, particularly with moderates in the suburbs who they need to vote for GOP candidates in the midterms.

The unfolding story of a 10-year-old rape victim who crossed state lines from Ohio for an abortion in Indiana is confirming just how damaging the issue may be.

“Oh, God no,” one prominent Republican strategist said, after members of his party suggested the victim should have carried the pregnancy to term. “Very bad,” said another. Or as one anti-abortion rights Indiana Republican strategist put it, “I’m not touching this story with a 10-foot-pole wrapped in a blanket wrapped in a whatever.”

In the three weeks since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe, Republicans poised for a winning midterm election have strained to keep public attention squarely on President Joe Biden’s weak job approval ratings and on inflation, fearful that abortion — a deeply felt issue that polls poorly for conservatives — could lift Democratic turnout and push moderates away from the GOP.

The case has become an instant flashpoint in the nation’s abortion wars, alarming Republicans as they try to use abortion to rally base voters without alienating the majority of Americans who say abortion should remain legal in at least some circumstances.

But the case of the pregnant 10-year-old has laid bare how uncontrollable GOP messaging around abortion may be. Not only were right-wing media outlets and Republican politicians who cast doubt on the story forced to backtrack once the facts of the case were confirmed, but the hits to Republicans appear likely to keep coming.

On Thursday, Jim Bopp, the National Right to Life Committee’s general counsel, inflamed the issue when he told POLITICO that the 10-year-old girl should have carried her pregnancy to term – a statement he later said resulted in him receiving death threats.

....

-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jul 16, 2022

Rigel
Nov 11, 2016

I am firmly convinced that Trump is not going to win the nomination. He may be the only major candidate in the conceivable field who could lose to Biden (again), he will likely be fighting felony charges by then, and I do believe the GOP primary voters are going to want to win the election.

cat botherer
Jan 6, 2022

I am interested in most phases of data processing.

-Blackadder- posted:

Definitely, that and #ETTD. Another four years of Trump, especially after Jan 6, will be a complete shitshow. DeSantis would be wise to just steer clear of the radioactive fallout and just stay in Florida until 2028.

How do you see Trump 2024 playing out for the GOP though? Does the economy stay terrible enough for another 2 years to put Trump over the top? The same moderate R's that skipped his name in 2020 could be even more likely to do so, given he'll be facing the headwinds of Abortion-rage and Jan 6 hearing clips. The campaign commercials will write themselves, and the Dems won't lack the money to play them 24 hours a day.

Plus Abortion is looking like it's really going to energize Dem turnout.
I think he'd get a lot of those moderates back. The 2020 election couldn't have come at a worse time for Trump. This election, however, will be after 4 years of Biden. It hasn't been great so far, and he has approval ratings hovering around Trump's all-time low.

Now we're staring down stagflation which will probably wind up being worse that what Carter had going into 1980. There probably will be a big asset crash at some point too, so I think it will last a while. There's also the factor of the absolutely wild voter suppression which will be in play by then. Way too many stars have to align for Biden to win after that.

To make that worse, SCOTUS is taking a case next year testing the "independent state legislature theory", which used to be basically a crank legal theory. If it gets adopted, it would state legislatures total authority over federal elections.

e: Most people really don't care about the Jan 6 hearings, especially because undecided/swing voters tend to be low-information. Tangible material things and emotional appeal are way more important.

ee:

Rigel posted:

I am firmly convinced that Trump is not going to win the nomination. He may be the only major candidate in the conceivable field who could lose to Biden (again), he will likely be fighting felony charges by then, and I do believe the GOP primary voters are going to want to win the election.
I'd like to see Trump wiggle his way out of THIS jam!

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jul 16, 2022

Ghost Leviathan
Mar 2, 2017

Exploration is ill-advised.

cat botherer posted:

I'd like to see Trump wiggle his way out of THIS jam!

Yeah, this. Over and over, none of the poo poo Democrats for some reason think should hurt Trump actually does in the slightest. The 10 year old pregnancy case is an annoyance to them, I'd be surprised if it changed literally a single vote.

Rigel
Nov 11, 2016

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Yeah, this. Over and over, none of the poo poo Democrats for some reason think should hurt Trump actually does in the slightest. The 10 year old pregnancy case is an annoyance to them, I'd be surprised if it changed literally a single vote.

I don't want Trump to lose the primary. He lost to Joe Biden. That is never going to stop being pathetic. I just don't think we're lucky enough for him to win again.

TheIncredulousHulk
Sep 3, 2012

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

They do respect the results of their primaries. Bernie Sander lost Michigan.

If they've done so in the past, it was purely discretionary, given that they successfully argued in court that they are a private organization and have no legal obligation to actually do that. There's nothing actually compelling them to do so and if it's ever more beneficial to not do so, you can't actually force them to

Srice
Sep 11, 2011

While I think that Trump would be a better matchup for Biden in 2024 than DeSantis (assuming Biden even runs), it's definitely important to consider how dire Biden's approval ratings have been.

Obviously anything can happen in the next two years (and by then I feel like Biden's numbers will be better than they are now because the supply chain will be ina better spot) but it seems safe to assume that "I'm not Trump" wouldn't be a winning strategy the second time around.

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



Srice posted:

Obviously anything can happen in the next two years (and by then I feel like Biden's numbers will be better than they are now because the supply chain will be ina better spot) but it seems safe to assume that "I'm not Trump" wouldn't be a winning strategy the second time around.
It's 100% not going to stop them from running that same playbook for the 80th time

It does feel like Trump is losing influence in the party, and I agree with what was posted previously that it's probably fatigue. Voters don't care about all of his dumb petty complaints, they want to Own the Libs.

Crows Turn Off
Jan 7, 2008


The SCOTUS ruling on the North Carolina independent legislature case next term may make a possible future Democratic President null and void anyway.

Gatts
Jan 2, 2001

Goodnight Moon

Nap Ghost

Crows Turn Off posted:

The SCOTUS ruling on the North Carolina independent legislature case next term may make a possible future Democratic President null and void anyway.

And centrist and moderate Dems will be happier with that because it’ll continue to protect capital as well as being the same thing as republicans anyway

That way they don’t have to worry about the uppity left/progressive wing of their party. If they win big then people would expect them to actually do something

yronic heroism
Oct 31, 2008

Gatts posted:

And centrist and moderate Dems will be happier with that because it’ll continue to protect capital as well as being the same thing as republicans anyway

That way they don’t have to worry about the uppity left/progressive wing of their party. If they win big then people would expect them to actually do something

Doomposting aside there is no evidence “Centrist Dems” try to lose federal elections and a lot of evidence they focus too much effort that could go to state/local.

Gucci Loafers
May 20, 2006

Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?


Fritz the Horse posted:

this seems like we're heading toward relitigating 2016/2020 primaries. let's not do that for the umpteenth time

Noted.

lil poopendorfer posted:

It's still illegal

And the Federal Government isn't enforcing Federal Law which was started by Obama. It's only legal in states due to progressives, liberals, etc. petitioning their government and voting.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

If they've done so in the past, it was purely discretionary, given that they successfully argued in court that they are a private organization and have no legal obligation to actually do that. There's nothing actually compelling them to do so and if it's ever more beneficial to not do so, you can't actually force them to

Both parties have done so including Republicans in the 1990s with Pat Buchanan. No political party - a private organization - is ever going to have another organization decide or enforce their own rules. Voters are certainly compelling them to do so, can you imagine if Trump won the 2016 primary but the governing body of the GOP simply decided against his victory? It would be been a bloodbath.

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jul 16, 2022

Bellmaker
Oct 18, 2008

Chapter DOOF



FlamingLiberal posted:

It's 100% not going to stop them from running that same playbook for the 80th time

It does feel like Trump is losing influence in the party, and I agree with what was posted previously that it's probably fatigue. Voters don't care about all of his dumb petty complaints, they want to Own the Libs.

I was thinking about this the other day as well. I think it's a mirage, it appears he's losing influence because he's not getting the airtime he was getting before. A presidential run will change that as the 24/7 media cycle just can't quit him.

ryde
Sep 9, 2011

God I love young girls

yronic heroism posted:

Doomposting aside there is no evidence “Centrist Dems” try to lose federal elections and a lot of evidence they focus too much effort that could go to state/local.

Lack of effort on state and local plus unwillingness to allow their insiders to be primaried are big reasons were in this mess. And it’s not a problem that can be fixed in under a decade.

Sephyr
Aug 28, 2012

yronic heroism posted:

Doomposting aside there is no evidence “Centrist Dems” try to lose federal elections and a lot of evidence they focus too much effort that could go to state/local.

Are dems doing anything regarding voter rights, vote suppression, gerrymandering and such? I'm legitimately asking, because the topic seems to have mostly dropped off the media's radar. There was a blip when a distric change was reversed weeks back but it's back in te memory hole.

And if the answer is just "well you see they can't because they lack votes", then we arrived at a catch-22, haven't we? Gotta get more reps elected, but we can't elect them because the system has been rigged, and to unrig it we need more reps, that we can't elect because....

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003
SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Sephyr posted:

Are dems doing anything regarding voter rights, vote suppression, gerrymandering and such? I'm legitimately asking, because the topic seems to have mostly dropped off the media's radar. There was a blip when a distric change was reversed weeks back but it's back in te memory hole.

And if the answer is just "well you see they can't because they lack votes", then we arrived at a catch-22, haven't we? Gotta get more reps elected, but we can't elect them because the system has been rigged, and to unrig it we need more reps, that we can't elect because....

You know that the american electoral system has always been full of manipulation and suppression? The amount of physical threats and voter disenfranchisement 110 years ago puts completely to shame anything happening now. And still people managed to force progress.

I don't buy that the existence of efforts to suppress votes makes it impossible to have an election. Every election ever has had people going all out trying to subvert it.

TheIncredulousHulk
Sep 3, 2012

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Both parties have done so including Republicans in the 1990s with Pat Buchanan. No political party - a private organization - is ever going to have another organization decide or enforce their own rules. Voters are certainly compelling them to do so, can you imagine if Trump won the 2016 primary but the governing body of the GOP simply decided against his victory? It would be been a bloodbath.

Uh okay? Both-sidesing does nothing to argue against my post and make it look like you're just engaging in reflexive Democrat apologia. I didn't make any claim that they were unique, simply that you as a voter do not actually have a mechanism to force party leadership to obey you if they opt to put their collective foot down. You just don't, and DNC lawyers have said this in plain language. Honoring a primary result is not an indication that you have bent them to your will, it is that they have deemed the outcome of the primary acceptable on their terms. Should a scenario arise where the outcome of primaries is completely unacceptable as would likely be the case in the "progressive takeover" fantasy bandied about here, they can simply say "we're not doing that, sorry" and that's that. "Voters are compelling them" isn't true, and at best it is a single variable in a much more complex equation

Citing your imagination is not strong evidence, and bringing up Trump in the 2016 primary suggests that you don't really understand the dynamics being discussed here. Why would they have decided against honoring his primary victory? Trump may have buried a few of the GOP's special boys on the mic en route to his primary victory, and some may have found him personally distasteful, but he didn't threaten the GOP power structure in any meaningful way nor did he significantly conflict with them from the standpoint of broad policy. That was not a scenario in flexing their actual authority was necessary

The kind of sea change that left-libs fantasize about with the Democrats, however, would threaten the Democrat power structure, and it would conflict with Democrat policy. "Oh but it would be a bloodbath if they did that!!!!" or whatever but in that scenario, why would they give a poo poo? If they're trying to maintain their own power, they would be absolute fools to consent to a leftist insurgency permanently displacing them rather than, worst case, eating poo poo for a cycle while still maintaining control of the organization and recovering later

But since you want to imagine things, imagine this scenario, forums poster Crosby B. Alfred: what would you personally do in the hypothetical event that the Democrats responded to a decisive progressive primary surge by openly tossing the results and running their own backroom-selected candidates? Would you vote for the Republicans instead? Would you not vote and let the Republicans win? How would you navigate this situation as a voter?

Gucci Loafers
May 20, 2006

Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?


Herstory Begins Now posted:

You know that the american electoral system has always been full of manipulation and suppression? The amount of physical threats and voter disenfranchisement 110 years ago puts completely to shame anything happening now. And still people managed to force progress.

I don't buy that the existence of efforts to suppress votes makes it impossible to have an election. Every election ever has had people going all out trying to subvert it.

The difference now is that your vote is significantly diluted. A voter in Wyoming has 64x more power than a voter in California.

some plague rats
Jun 5, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

-Blackadder- posted:


Republicans have the tiger by the tail. It's only been 3 weeks, they've got another 2 whole years of stories like these coming at them...

Did the full article cite any polls or anything? Because if the basis for the article is "three nameless, not even a job cited, "republican strategists" whining then I'm not going to assume this will make a blind bit of difference. Has there been any indication of it having an impact with the people who actually decide things?

Gucci Loafers
May 20, 2006

Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?


TheIncredulousHulk posted:

Uh okay? Both-sidesing does nothing to argue against my post and make it look like you're just engaging in reflexive Democrat apologia. I didn't make any claim that they were unique, simply that you as a voter do not actually have a mechanism to force party leadership to obey you if they opt to put their collective foot down. You just don't, and DNC lawyers have said this in plain language. Honoring a primary result is not an indication that you have bent them to your will, it is that they have deemed the outcome of the primary acceptable on their terms. Should a scenario arise where the outcome of primaries is completely unacceptable as would likely be the case in the "progressive takeover" fantasy bandied about here, they can simply say "we're not doing that, sorry" and that's that. "Voters are compelling them" isn't true, and at best it is a single variable in a much more complex equation.

I'm not "both-siding" anything. It's how political parties or how any independent organization fundamentally function. The organizations runs itself and cannot be controlled by any other source. Leadership controls the organization and they're allowed to make even dumb decisions. Remember, this a primary not a general election.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

Citing your imagination is not strong evidence, and bringing up Trump in the 2016 primary suggests that you don't really understand the dynamics being discussed here. Why would they have decided against honoring his primary victory? Trump may have buried a few of the GOP's special boys on the mic en route to his primary victory, and some may have found him personally distasteful, but he didn't threaten the GOP power structure in any meaningful way nor did he significantly conflict with them from the standpoint of broad policy. That was not a scenario in flexing their actual authority was necessary

I'm not citing my imagination. Trump was an outlier. The Republican Old Guard was never, ever supported him by senior including Mitch McConnel, Kevin McCarthy, Lindsay Gram, Jeb Bush, Liz Cheney, etc. They didn't even want him to run in the first place, saw him as a joke of candidate but nevertheless he won. He absolutely has threatened the existing power structure of the GOP but they had go through it otherwise they're risking the entire collapse of the whole Republican Party.

The only reason he wasn't impeached because they know if they did go through with it GOP voters would stay home in 2022 during midterms and even longer.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

The kind of sea change that left-libs fantasize about with the Democrats, however, would threaten the Democrat power structure, and it would conflict with Democrat policy. "Oh but it would be a bloodbath if they did that!!!!" or whatever but in that scenario, why would they give a poo poo? If they're trying to maintain their own power, they would be absolute fools to consent to a leftist insurgency permanently displacing them rather than, worst case, eating poo poo for a cycle while still maintaining control of the organization and recovering later.

I guess? They let Bernie Sanders run along with other members of the Squad who absolutely threaten the existing power structure. And fund them to this day with DNC dollars.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

But since you want to imagine things, imagine this scenario, forums poster Crosby B. Alfred: what would you personally do in the hypothetical event that the Democrats responded to a decisive progressive primary surge by openly tossing the results and running their own backroom-selected candidates? Would you vote for the Republicans instead? Would you not vote and let the Republicans win? How would you navigate this situation as a voter?

I might stay home and not vote. It would depend on who's running on the opposition and my options for alternative candidates.

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jul 16, 2022

bird food bathtub
Aug 9, 2003

College Slice

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

The difference now is that your vote is significantly diluted. A voter in Wyoming has 64x more power than a voter in California.

And both votes are meaningless for legislation compared to donor dollars and lobbyist activities.

Gucci Loafers
May 20, 2006

Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?


bird food bathtub posted:

And both votes are meaningless for legislation compared to donor dollars and lobbyist activities.

Yes and no. Citizen United was a terrible, horrible decision, etc. but if companies want legislation passed at the end of the day they need candidates in office that support exactly that. And to get them in office they need votes.

-Blackadder-
Jan 2, 2007

Game....Blouses.

some plague rats posted:

Did the full article cite any polls or anything? Because if the basis for the article is "three nameless, not even a job cited, "republican strategists" whining then I'm not going to assume this will make a blind bit of difference. Has there been any indication of it having an impact with the people who actually decide things?

Here's the link. They reference a 538 article which is pretty interesting.

It's more along the midterm election lines but we're seeing some post-decision indication of movement in the polls in that thread too.

I'd say it's still early to be sure about exactly how much it will impact things, the midterms will be a helpful barometer so we'll have to see how those play out. It's certainly possible that the SC's Abortion decision just ends up being not as big of a deal as everyone assumed it would be (perhaps because it's not yet a national ban, which could change the dynamic significantly) but anecdotally from my experience, it seems to be have been a pretty major system shock to people, even to the point of being traumatizing for some.

I do think a national Abortion ban would set people off in a way that Republicans are not even remotely prepared for. But it's not necessarily a sure thing that they'd have the votes to pass one.

e: On the other hand if the Trumpist crazies keep buzzsawing their way through the establishment GOP like they recently did in the Nebraska, the nutters are going to have a lot more sway in the party than they did during Trump's first term and we could start seeing some truly crazy legislation that the Business Republicans would never have been insane enough to let pass.

-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jul 16, 2022

TheIncredulousHulk
Sep 3, 2012

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

I'm not "both-siding" anything. It's how political parties or how any independent organization fundamentally function. The organizations runs itself and cannot be controlled by any other source. Leadership controls the organization and they're allowed to make even dumb decisions. Remember, this a primary not a general election.

Responding to simple description with "The GOP does it too!!!!!" for the purpose of backhandedly discrediting the description is absolutely both-sidesing lol

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

I'm not citing my imagination. Trump was an outlier. The Republican Old Guard was never, ever supported him by senior including Mitch McConnel, Kevin McCarthy, Lindsay Gram, Jeb Bush, Liz Cheney, etc. They didn't even want him to run in the first place, saw him as a joke of candidate but nevertheless he won. He absolutely has threatened the existing power structure of the GOP but they had go through it otherwise they're risking the entire collapse of the whole Republican Party.

You're describing personal distaste, dude. He didn't displace any of those people you listed, nor even threaten to displace them. He certainly didn't disrupt the organizational structure as a whole. Trump was perfectly simpatico with the aims of the GOP and party leadership, they just thought he was a gross buffoon rather than an ideological enemy who threatened their grasp on power

Ironically the most threatening thing Trump actually did to the GOP was January 6th, since their long-term plan has been humming along uninterrupted in the background and in the event Trump had managed to overturn the apple cart it would have spoiled half a century of work

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

I guess? They let Bernie Sanders run along with other members of the Squad who absolutely threaten the existing power structure. And fund them to this day with DNC dollars.

They don't threaten the existing power structure in the slightest lol, they are part of it. That is an absurd claim. Whining on Instragram isn't threatening. If anything, someone like AOC has proven to be a lot more useful to the Democrats as an organization than a Joe Crowley because a Joe Crowley can't con left-libs into thinking entryism is achieving anything for them

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

I might stay home and not vote. It would depend on who's running on the opposition and my options for alternative candidates.

So you'd let the fascist death cult win?

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



Bellmaker posted:

I was thinking about this the other day as well. I think it's a mirage, it appears he's losing influence because he's not getting the airtime he was getting before. A presidential run will change that as the 24/7 media cycle just can't quit him.
We see this all the time though, which is that especially on the right, the window continually shifts to the right in what discourse is acceptable, and Trump is behind on things like the vaccines which the GOP is strongly 100% against. But Trump likes to tout his claims that he is the reason that they exist (which is bullshit but he does this all the time).

Gucci Loafers
May 20, 2006

Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?


TheIncredulousHulk posted:

Responding to simple description with "The GOP does it too!!!!!" for the purpose of backhandedly discrediting the description is absolutely both-sidesing lol

No. That wasn't my reply either. No private entity is going to let another control their own business. The Republican Party did it in the 1990s because they're private organization with their own rules responsible to no one expect themselves.

My argument isn't they did it it too. My argument is this is how these organization function on a fundamental level and here's an example Republican Party doing it as well in the 1990s.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

You're describing personal distaste, dude. He didn't displace any of those people you listed, nor even threaten to displace them. He certainly didn't disrupt the organizational structure as a whole. Trump was perfectly simpatico with the aims of the GOP and party leadership, they just thought he was a gross buffoon rather than an ideological enemy who threatened their grasp on power.

I'm not describing personal distaste. He absolutely flipped the GOP around and has successfully pushed out Old Guard GOP Republicans - see the amount of GOP retirees - with his preferred fiercely loyal MAGA candidates. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, etc. are likely going to lose their own primaries or simply not run again which is crazy of conservative leaning states.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

They don't threaten the existing power structure in the slightest lol, they are part of it. That is an absurd claim. Whining on Instragram isn't threatening. If anything, someone like AOC has proven to be a lot more useful to the Democrats as an organization than a Joe Crowley because a Joe Crowley can't con left-libs into thinking entryism is achieving anything for them

You're going to have to explain to me how Bernie, AOC or other members of the squad are a part of the existing power structure. I don't understand what any of this has to with whining on Instagram.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

So you'd let the fascist death cult win?

No, I said it depend on my options.

Koos Group
Mar 6, 2013

FlamingLiberal posted:

We see this all the time though, which is that especially on the right, the window continually shifts to the right in what discourse is acceptable, and Trump is behind on things like the vaccines which the GOP is strongly 100% against. But Trump likes to tout his claims that he is the reason that they exist (which is bullshit but he does this all the time).

A correction: the GOP is not strongly 100% against vaccines. A majority of Republican voters are vaccinated. However a majority of Republicans (though not 100%) do oppose vaccine mandates, according to the most recent polling I could find. The national GOP platform doesn't mention anything about vaccines or mandates.

TheIncredulousHulk
Sep 3, 2012

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

No. That wasn't my reply either. No private entity is going to let another control their own business. The Republican Party did it in the 1990s because they're private organization with their own rules responsible to no one expect themselves.

Why bring the Republicans up at all in response to a description of the Democrats unless you are attempting to deflect?

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

My argument isn't they did it it too. My argument is this is how these organization function on a fundamental level and here's an example Republican Party doing it as well in the 1990s.

That would be great if my post had been claiming the behavior was unique to the Democrats, or made claims that hinged on only Democrat primaries being nonbinding, but I didn't. I didn't even say it was abnormal or remarkable. It is just something of which some posters did not appear aware because their political theorycrafting hinged on the idea that with sufficient public persuasion, the party would have to give up the steering wheel, but they don't have to, and again their lawyers have acknowledged this in plain language in court. The GOP has absolutely zero to do with that in context

Bringing up the GOP in response to that is a complete non sequitur and I don't know why someone would do that other than to muddy the discussion. That we are now spending most of these back-and-forths arguing about the GOP when I was originally posting about the efficacy of Democrat entryism does make it look like you were successful though, so good job

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

I'm not describing personal distaste. He absolutely flipped the GOP around and has successfully pushed out Old Guard GOP Republicans - see the amount of GOP retirees - with his preferred fiercely loyal MAGA candidates. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, etc. are likely going to lose their own primaries or simply not run again which is crazy of conservative leaning states.

Individuals cashing in their chips to get their private sector payday isn't remotely the same thing as a hostile left takeover forcibly seizing the reigns and eliminating those paydays. But even supposing that it was--what have the replacements done that GOP leadership didn't want them to do? In what way has the GOP flipped besides demeanor? What policies have the GOP been forced to implement by Trump that they were opposed to implementing? I personally have not observed a meaningful difference

It is funny to me that posters ITT keep bringing up Liz Cheney as an example of someone falling on her sword and sacrificing everything when she had a lot more actual power as a blob queen in the Bush administration than she does as a rinkydink House rep from an uninhabited state. Even if she loses her primary she is absolutely not leaving the power structure lol

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

You're going to have to explain to me how Bernie, AOC or other members of the squad are a part of the existing power structure. I don't understand what any of this has to with whining on Instagram.

Because they vote for the bills party leadership tells them to and do all kinds of PR work for the party? We're barely two years removed from these same people (correctly) describing proposed Democrat policies as weak-rear end half-measures and those proposals they poo poo on before were all more ambitious than the stuff they tout now. The most hostile they ever get toward the party is some mild social media whining when the party does something really lovely but that's it. They still fall in line every time

So I'll throw it back to you: what have they materially done to subvert the existing power structure? What steps toward actually seizing control have they taken? What actions have they forced the party to take that the party did not want to take? Simply replacing the odd House rep with yourself is not inherently threatening, especially when all you actually do is cooperate

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

No, I said it depend on my options.

But in the scenarios where you didn't like your options, you would let the fascist death cult win

some plague rats
Jun 5, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

You're going to have to explain to me how Bernie, AOC or other members of the squad are a part of the existing power structure. I don't understand what any of this has to with whining on Instagram.

Because every single time push comes to shove they fall in line. Bernie dropped out to support and campaign for his "good friend" Joe Biden and handed over his email lists and donor details to the DNC, the squad fall in line and don't oppose money for the cops, weapons and funding for Israel, war in Ukraine, etc., in what sense are they not part of the existing power structure? In what meaningful ways have they ever opposed it?

Koos Group
Mar 6, 2013
It may be helpful to define exactly what the power structure of a party is, and what sort of changes would be brought about by someone who opposes or threatens it.

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003
SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

The difference now is that your vote is significantly diluted. A voter in Wyoming has 64x more power than a voter in California.

110 years ago women couldn't vote and the klan was at the height of its power

DeadlyMuffin
Jul 3, 2007

some plague rats posted:

Because every single time push comes to shove they fall in line. Bernie dropped out to support and campaign for his "good friend" Joe Biden and handed over his email lists and donor details to the DNC, the squad fall in line and don't oppose money for the cops, weapons and funding for Israel, war in Ukraine, etc., in what sense are they not part of the existing power structure? In what meaningful ways have they ever opposed it?

They are a small faction within the Democratic caucus. One of the best ways for them to be successful is to expand the size of that faction, so they have more votes. The more votes they have, the more ability they have to resist the rest of the party, and steer the agenda.

The line of attack you and Hulk are describing here seems counterproductive to your overall goal.

Koos Group
Mar 6, 2013

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

The difference now is that your vote is significantly diluted. A voter in Wyoming has 64x more power than a voter in California.

Do you have a source for this?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DeadlyMuffin
Jul 3, 2007

Koos Group posted:

Do you have a source for this?

Population of CA: 39.35 million
Population of WY: 0.581 million

Number of electors for CA: 55
Number of electors for WY: 3

3/55=0.054 electors/million
55/39.35=1.4 electors/million

1.4/0.054 is about 26X, so that'd be my back of the envelope estimate for the value of a WY vote vs a CA one in a presidential election.

I might be missing something though.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply