|
The average person is upset because their government representatives don't work for them, they work for the special interests, or they don't work at all. Jeb, Clinton, Rubio, ect don't work for me. To find out who they work for look at their donor lists. Bernie works for people like me, and Trump claims to. Whether that claim is correct doesn't matter remains to be seen, but the fact that he can self finance lends it credence in peoples minds. I think that is a huge part of the current election cycle. The other fact is that the government refuses to govern, what with the gov shutdowns and the refusing to consider supreme court nominees and such. I'm a liberal who lives in a state with republican representation, and that's ok. I would expect my representatives to work with Obama on a compromise budget or a compromise supreme court nominee, but they won't do that. My problem with republicans is not that they govern badly, but that they aren't governing at all, and the dems are spineless as usual. Trump and Bernie have both tapped into that, and if God is real then the presidency will be a contest between those two. The establishment is horrified by this and keeps throwing around words like populism and communism as if those are supposed to be insults. Again, Trump or Bernie either one would probably be a poor president, but perhaps they could learn after the first 6 months or a year. The point is that someone doing a bad job of working for me is better than someone who is ignoring me altogether. WorldsStongestNerd fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Feb 27, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:This was capped off by the 2008 financial crisis and the election of Obama, which after the humiliation of the later Bush administration, was interpreted by the establishment as a sign to keep their heads down and shut up for a while. One of the things historians will probably look back at is Arlen Spectre's party switching in 2009. Spectre saw, accurately, that the Republican party was a lost part for professional and middle-class people. What he didn't foresee is that the Republican Party would become a populist party the next year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Two major factors ignored so far probably deserve a call-out: the sequester, and the 2010 congressional class. While most of the sequester has since been quietly rolled back, the pork budget with which the party in power bribes the party not in power to think "maybe bipartisanship is cool you guys" has gotten the poo poo slashed out of it. The financial incentive for basically anyone to try to come to the middle no longer exists. On top of which, the 2010 Republican wave was elected on a platform of "we promise we'll destroy Obama" and then discovered that wait, poo poo, governing is hard, and also they can't destroy Obama. Their power to take care of their districts back home is hamstrung by sequester-related pork cuts on the one hand and being accountable to their fellow Tea Partiers on the other. Congressional republicans can't even try to serve their constituencies for fear of getting Citizens Uniteded. The prefab right-wing "the party's elites have betrayed you" narrative that swept them into power in 2010 might as well have been tailor-made to destroy them in 2016. The money in politics is currently structured such that no individual representative of the Republican Party can be caught trying to take care of their constituents with anything more substantial than a promise to destroy their enemies. Turns out when you take the bread out of bread and circuses, you're in real trouble when a flashier showman shows up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:This is a stupid metric. It's more like: Ultimately, it has been brewing for a while and the divisions in the GOP were always there but the RNC and the more "establishment" figures were able to contain it through either patriotism/nationalism, (comparatively) restrained xenophobia and religiosity. The wheels have been coming off a while though and ultimately there has always been a split between the "big business" GOP which has a legacy going back into reconstruction period and poor whites, especially in the South, who jumped on board after the southern strategy. In general, they (those actually in charge of the party) could hold populism in check for a while simply because economic conditions for poor/lower middle class whites weren't great from the 1970s to 2008, though a combination of racial hatred and the aforementioned other strategies there was enough to establish buy them as a voting block. Then 2008 recession created a fissure that wouldn't heal, and in some ways Tea Party was only part of the reaction. While there is some overlap with Trump, I think Cruz if anything represents the Tea Party and its interests better than Trump, especially since the Tea Party was always more middle class and reflected those interesting Trump's bread and butter is working class/lower middle class and his economic policies (such as they are) are a reflection of this, especially since his tax rates on the low end are very favorable to his base (if completely unsustainable) although with his anti-immigration and anti-trade stances. He is giving his base what they generally actually want and that gives him his strength.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Quite a few of the explanations boil down to this:
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:While most of the sequester has since been quietly rolled back, the pork budget with which the party in power bribes the party not in power to think "maybe bipartisanship is cool you guys" has gotten the poo poo slashed out of it. The financial incentive for basically anyone to try to come to the middle no longer exists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
I often wonder if the majority of the people in the base of the GOP would actually agree that reform of things like education, healthcare, income inequality and our crumbling infastructure are needed? Granted we have the people within the RWM that prey upon people's ignorance/bigotry and then we're always going to have the idiots that post fwd:fwd:fwd. But part of me wonders if there are indeed a number of people who would rather compromise, find solutions than to stomp their feet and go "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY". Would we agree on what the solutions would be? No. But at the very least we could at least TALK about the problem and try to find various ways to solve it. I'd rather compromise or attack it with both barrels, than to just continue to ignore it. I can kind of see it in the Trump base when you remove the racist talking points that he sells to the base. The people within it are tired of seeing (much like the rest of us) jobs shipped overseas, and the various problems above. This isn't a new thing. I could kind of sense that there was a certain portion of the Tea Party (the part that was none-astro turfed to death) that were very tired of the relationship between big business, special interest groups and elected representatives not representing the people. Which is something that is actually shared with most liberals as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
meristem posted:Huh. That's interesting, and, unlike most other things mentioned, actually something that could be dealt with, isn't it? Could be. But guess what happens to any Republican in the House or Senate who proposes freeing up government money with which to let Democrats build stuff in their home districts. Reid and Pelosi got a lot of credit for running a tight ship, but it is amazing how much easier the Tea Party made their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Reid and Pelosi got a lot of credit for running a tight ship, but it is amazing how much easier the Tea Party made their jobs. Reid and Pelosi also managed to flip the Tea Party from being an anti-GWB, anti-Lott organization to being a Republican aligned organization. That said, you're probably right. Villains are useful in politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I often wonder if the majority of the people in the base of the GOP would actually agree that reform of things like education, healthcare, income inequality and our crumbling infastructure are needed? See, the problem is that you're approaching it from the prospective of a voter that knows every single issue, weighs them out, and selects a candidate that maximizes their wants and/or minimizes their dislikes. In reality (and I mean both parties, not just the GOP) you get people who hear a candidate say "I support/oppose [x]", say to themselves "Hey, I also support/oppose [x]", and then vote for that candidate. The actions the candidate does while in office doesn't really matter unless it comes up in the next campaign. Let's use a Democratic example - there are a lot of voters who might hear a candidate say "I support the environment and oppose nuclear power plants". They agree that nuclear power plants are bad for the environment and then vote for that candidate. It doesn't matter that once in office, that candidate votes to shut down nuclear plants and build coal plants to make up for the reduced supply if all they hear is "[Candidate] supports the environment by shutting down nuclear power plants". So to bring it back to right wing people, it doesn't really matter that a candidate voted to cut (eg) infrastructure repair budgets because that's not a topic that people campaign on. People campaign on taxes and spending, and voters expect results on taxes and spending. computer parts fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
There was an interesting moment in the Nevada debate where Cruz was going after Trump on healthcare and there was a moment where Cruz basically got Trump to admit he didn't agree with the republican "establishment" healthcare platform. Cruz: "So it's socialism?" Trump: "Call it what you want we're not going to let people die in the streets." That kind of exchange actually benefits Trump in the long term. He sets himself apart from what was once a wide range of candidates most of whom views differed only slightly on any given issue. Trump essentially takes both stances so everyone watching will come away with their own view of his beliefs. The congressional gridlock did not endear the establishment to the masses. Their do nothing policy basically paved the way for the first person to promise them everything. It's been eight years of nothing in the minds of republican voters, they'll happily vote for somebody who is willing to get things done. I don't know what a president Trump would do myself, but I do agree he would do things. That's why the Wall is such a big vote getter for him, it's a symbolic wall really, a show that things are getting done. Not just more bureaucracy and politically correct wording but a real tangible thing doing something. Honestly, I don't think he would be any worse than any other republican candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:There was an interesting moment in the Nevada debate where Cruz was going after Trump on healthcare and there was a moment where Cruz basically got Trump to admit he didn't agree with the republican "establishment" healthcare platform. Granted, I think most of his economic talking points will be abandoned if/when he is in office, but the fact they are obviously working is saying something. In addition, there is also his foreign policy which is for the most part isolationist which fits very much in with the general mood in the country (and has obvious parallels to the 1930s). In the end, the GOP establish and big businesses will back him because they know (or at least expect) he won't rock the boat much if at all economically. (That said, a lot of Russian oligarchs and power brokers back in 2000 thought they could keep Putin under control as well.) You can absolutely despise Trump but you can plainly see why he is doing so well and both why he has a good shot at the presidency and why Hillary is so poorly suited to opposing him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I often wonder if the majority of the people in the base of the GOP would actually agree that reform of things like education, healthcare, income inequality and our crumbling infastructure are needed? Conservatives are more susceptible to fear and so need the affirmation of what they consider to be the natural (authoritarian) order, see. And they love defining the in-/out-groups, too. So, you would both have to convince them that the rich are the outgroup (relatively easy) *and* that people they see as either beneath them or as complete outsiders are in their ingroup. The latter is... more difficult. This last part is where I think Bernie will fail and succumb to Trump. Bernie sincerely feels like the menshevik to Trump's bolshevik to me - not in the sense of political ideology, obviously, but in the degree of liberalism vs. authoritarianism and willingness to use violence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
I've noticed a change among some of the diehard conservative types I've talked to over the past few years, to where they now basically acknowledge the reality of the whole 1% vs. 99% economic divide. It used to be that they didn't think economic inequality was a problem or that they would deny that inequality really existed to the degree that it does. I think the fact that they've now internalized this idea is part of the reason that they'll listen to Trump even when he defies the standard conservative dogma. They finally understand, in some vague way, that they've been lied to and used for political gain by conservative elites in the establishment. In the end, I think the core message of Occupy Wall Street, after several years, has finally seeped all the way down into the minds of middle America. Unfortunately, this may give us President Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:I've noticed a change among some of the diehard conservative types I've talked to over the past few years, to where they now basically acknowledge the reality of the whole 1% vs. 99% economic divide. It used to be that they didn't think economic inequality was a problem or that they would deny that inequality really existed to the degree that it does. I think the fact that they've now internalized this idea is part of the reason that they'll listen to Trump even when he defies the standard conservative dogma. They finally understand, in some vague way, that they've been lied to and used for political gain by conservative elites in the establishment. One issue, though, is that they may not agree on "who" the problem is. That's why populism can be dangerous. If you rile people up with clumsy talk over how elites are holding them down, they may just coast along on their prejudices and double down on racism, while targeting the poor or religious minorities. One example of this is how many believe poor people on "welfare" are "sucking up their tax dollars". They may sense unfairness, but it's going to be much easier to walk over to the supermarket and shout at EBT users than fly to New York and protest in front of financial institutions. The core of this thought process is not necessarily a sense of "justice", but instead a sense of "deserving". Who deserves what in society? That being said, I think it is possible to craft a message about fairness and economic justice that avoids these pitfalls. But it is a challenge, and we should remain critical of these rhetorical strategies. EDIT: to answer the question posed by the thread title, I think it's accurate to view the rise of Trump and right-wing populism as part of a backlash to perceived liberal takeover of culture and politics. The legalization of gay marriage and greater tolerance for LGBT people, plus the growing acceptance of feminist ideas, PLUS a greater mainstream consciousness of racism and identity are all cemented now in ways that they simply weren't in 2012. The fact that young people are much more liberal than their parents is also an aggravating factor. You have a generational shift and demographic shift that scares the poo poo out of the right. Their kids don't agree with them, the neighbors don't look like them, and all they hear about on the news is protest and ISIS. Mad, scared, confused, and aggrieved. Bullfrog fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:I've noticed a change among some of the diehard conservative types I've talked to over the past few years, to where they now basically acknowledge the reality of the whole 1% vs. 99% economic divide. It used to be that they didn't think economic inequality was a problem or that they would deny that inequality really existed to the degree that it does. I think the fact that they've now internalized this idea is part of the reason that they'll listen to Trump even when he defies the standard conservative dogma. They finally understand, in some vague way, that they've been lied to and used for political gain by conservative elites in the establishment. Also, I think anyone that seriously understood OWS was that it was far more about changing the tone of conversation than anything else. It was a chaotic mess but at the same time hit a critical chord in much of the public that never went away (and in many ways was a factor in 2012 as well). Trump was cunning enough to see that opening and exploit that opportunity, while the rest of the GOP (lets be honest much of Democrats) couldn't or wouldn't. Bullfrog posted:One issue, though, is that they may not agree on "who" the problem is. That's why populism can be dangerous. If you rile people up with clumsy talk over how elites are holding them down, they may just coast along on their prejudices and double down on racism, while targeting the poor or religious minorities. One example of this is how many believe poor people on "welfare" are "sucking up their tax dollars". They may sense unfairness, but it's going to be much easier to walk over to the supermarket and shout at EBT users than fly to New York and protest in front of financial institutions. The core of this thought process is not necessarily a sense of "justice", but instead a sense of "deserving". Who deserves what in society? You can, and Sanders has generally already done this but ultimately if it boils down to an establishment Democrat and a populist Republican, there are going to be a lot of blurred lines especially on issues like trade and foreign policy. Hillary is pretty vulnerable in many ways because of this, especially if Sanders sits the rest of the race out. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I don't mean to be too elitist hipster here, but not watching a lot of broadcast TV, I wasn't aware that he was quite as much of a draw. He certainly isn't very handsome, and he doesn't seem that clever. Is this just something that I, as a goon who has been living with multi-tier irony for too long, just can't understand? Yes. If you don't understand the appeal of reality TV, then you don't understand Real America. I mean stuff like Jerry Springer, Maury, Judge Judy, Real Housewives, etc. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
As several other posters have mentioned, right-wing populist movements seem to have been growing quite a few countries, and for the better part of a decade (since the '07 recession?). Trump seems to by symptomatic of a broader issue and I don't think we'll make much headway in explaining it by just delving into the intricacies of current US politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:EDIT: to answer the question posed by the thread title, I think it's accurate to view the rise of Trump and right-wing populism as part of a backlash to perceived liberal takeover of culture and politics. The legalization of gay marriage and greater tolerance for LGBT people, plus the growing acceptance of feminist ideas, PLUS a greater mainstream consciousness of racism and identity are all cemented now in ways that they simply weren't in 2012. The fact that young people are much more liberal than their parents is also an aggravating factor. You have a generational shift and demographic shift that scares the poo poo out of the right. Their kids don't agree with them, the neighbors don't look like them, and all they hear about on the news is protest and ISIS. Mad, scared, confused, and aggrieved. Sounds like it's time for an All in the Family reboot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:As several other posters have mentioned, right-wing populist movements seem to have been growing quite a few countries, and for the better part of a decade (since the '07 recession?). Trump seems to by symptomatic of a broader issue and I don't think we'll make much headway in explaining it by just delving into the intricacies of current US politics. That said, I think it is going to take a while for people to follow politics in the US to grasp at what is going on since it is such a drastic shift in how our usually politics work. I think there are broad parallels between the US and Europe, but at the same time it is going to be a while before we get a clearer picture of what that means. On the other hand, I think traditional "red state/blue state" politics may radically changing since the traditional dominance of the center seems to be slipping. It is relative easy to dismiss the racism and xenophobia that surrounds Trump, it is much harder to pin him and his supporters down when you get to his populism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is relative easy to dismiss the racism and xenophobia that surrounds Trump, it is much harder to pin him and his supporters down when you get to his populism. Nope, because they're intertwined. Populism means for the support of the "common man". For the Trump supports, the common man is white. Sure if they say "we're just trying to help out regular people" that might be difficult, but instead they're saying "we want to help out regular people instead of those Jews and Blacks".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nope, because they're intertwined. Populism means for the support of the "common man". For the Trump supports, the common man is white. They may be intertwined practically but ultimately that populism is a new element compared to just dog-whistle racism and religiosity that was message previously. Racism doesn't full explain what is going on even if it is an obvious element. For poor whites, Trump is telling them everything they want to hear including an economic element that was previously absent, it is also why his followers are so loyal. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:They may be intertwined practically but ultimately that populism is a new element compared to just straight racism that was message previously. Racism doesn't full explain what is going on even if it is an obvious element. For poor whites, Trump is telling them everything they want to hear including an economic element that was previously absent. Nothing fully explains what is going on even if it is an obvious element.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nothing fully explains what is going on even if it is an obvious element. I think it is rather clear what is happening although everything is still in process at this point. Sure there are multiple elements here, but I don't see it as particularly mystifying especially since much of what is going on is also happening in Europe to varying degrees. It is happening in the US a bit differently but much of the same processes are there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
They're getting the 1%/99% thing but it's been co-opted into "you'd totally make more if your employers weren't under crushing corporate taxes and those worthless poors sucking it away"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
I don't think the republican response to obamacare from the likes of Rubio and Cruz have been satisfying for anyone save for big business owners. I mean the only response is to simply get rid of it because "JOB CREATOR" and then you know, gently caress over the guy dying of cancer. I can at least argue Trump has had some sort of response to that. His response about "letting people die in the streets" as mentioned before illustrates that. I'm really hoping that Trump turns out to be another Nixon in that regard. Sure he'll leave in disgrace, but he'll at least leave behind his equivalent of the "EPA", "OSHA" and "War on Cancer". Which I think are the type of programs this country desperately needs right now. It may just have to a republican to get it done because you know that the koch bros. backed "conservatives" are not going to do a single thing to benefit the 99%.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:There was an interesting moment in the Nevada debate where Cruz was going after Trump on healthcare and there was a moment where Cruz basically got Trump to admit he didn't agree with the republican "establishment" healthcare platform. it also makes cruz look like a dick and zelot. trump is willing to do whatever to keep people alive and health care. cruz wont do poo poo and would allow people to die in the streets because socialism/trumpism/whatever is against his believes. I am sure trump probaly full of poo poo but he comes off as more honest then cruz in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:They are calling themselves socialists now, but how many would have this time last year? I think a small percentage. Well yeah, Bernie hadn't revealed the secret name of their identity yet. Everybody in American politics wanted "socialism" to mean "evil" because if people actually found out what it was, they'd be like "yeah that's for me."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well yeah, Bernie hadn't revealed the secret name of their identity yet. Everybody in American politics wanted "socialism" to mean "evil" because if people actually found out what it was, they'd be like "yeah that's for me." I blame lingering Cold War paranoia for that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:it also makes cruz look like a dick and zelot. trump is willing to do whatever to keep people alive and health care. Wait, I thought the whole premise of this thread was that Trump was a dangerous demagogue, not s squishy moderate?? OP: "So what happened between 2012 and 2016 that the Republican Party has gone from Mitt Romney to Donald Trump?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
meristem posted:Of course. As long as the benefits went to the deserving. The real Americans. That is, white, Christian, and, in the case of women, those who know their place (= not the bossy bitches). Yes, Yes, of course, everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, sexist, Islamaphobe  meristem posted:And they love defining the in-/out-groups, too.... that people they see as either beneath them or as complete outsiders are in their ingroup. The latter is... more difficult. I'd argue that neither is common a Conservative (or at least Protestant) point of view. The typical starting premise is that we are all equally unworthy of God's grace. edit: I should say U.S. conservatism. European conservatism is a different beast. gaj70 fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Earlier someone mentioned rural voters as being one of the cornerstones of right-wing populism. At least stereotypically, the right-wing populist movement is centered around rural, Evangelical, dog-whistle racist voters. So their inevitable choice is...a billionaire playboy from New York City who parties with Russell Simmons and had a guest appearance on a Wu-Tang Clan album? Edit: and who is the first politician to endorse Trump? Its not a Tea Party extremist from Oklahoma, its the supposedly moderate governor of New Jersey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Earlier someone mentioned rural voters as being one of the cornerstones of right-wing populism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's almost like their entire political awareness is predicated on a failure of reason or something. Or the categories that people used to describe American demographics were overly broad. "Evangelical" voters aren't always evangelcial or even religious, in that they share a few cultural features with stereotypical Christianity (macho swagger, chauvinism, anti-intellectualism). And they aren't really "rural" since there are like ten US congressional districts that are truly rural. "Rural" is just a term for "suburban. not college educated" at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:Wait, I thought the whole premise of this thread was that Trump was a dangerous demagogue, not s squishy moderate?? The base is more moderate than the establishment at this point. The establishment appealed to the extremes on every issue, but most people are only extreme in one area. Gun nuts are tired of defending the religious pro-life stance, Libertarians are sick of the Neocons hard on for the military industrial complex, etc. Trump gives lip service to the extreme establishment lines and a nod to the alternative. (I love guns, but tough on crime! Women should know their place, but I'm still gonna fund PP! No more military adventurism, but we're still gonna have a badass military!) It's not being a moderate, its just always giving yes for an answer. Telling people what they want to hear. These stances actually appear to be favouring the long game, and attract centrists that usually lean democrat. Which would spell trouble for the democratic candidate. Trump also gives a fresh image for the conservative identity that previously was in a schizophrenic crisis after decades of the Reagan coalition. Almost every republican candidate since has been stale, half a dozen or so very to extremely religious small government business types every election cycle. Than Palin happened. Noted stale whitebread MCaine picks the sexy exciting small time Palin and it instantly energizes the base. Romney follows this up with similar pick Paul Ryan. Now the exciting, politically small time candidate is actually running in the primary and killing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Two worthwhile articles about Trump and the recent surge in right wing populism. One from the left and one from the right: Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224?page=13 Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected-1456448550 Like what has been said in this thread before? It seems that the right wing half of the country is starting to wake up to who's really to blame for the problems in this country. It seems that the left half of the country really began to see that around 2003 or so when the war in Iraq was being discussed. Now? Everyone saw what happened, who's been profiting and people in general are starting to wake up. Hell the anti-NAFTA talk even predates that. Only conservative ideologues and neo-liberals think that was a good idea. The rest of the country (ESPECIALLY THE RUST BELT) saw what it did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
A Trump-Clinton general election is going to see more aisle crossing on both sides than anyone thinks possible. It is not possible to understate the depth of animus that many, many otherwise left leaning people have towards Hillary personally and while they would hold their nose and vote D against a Cruz or a Bush, Trump is such a dice roll that a lot of them are going to take it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:A Trump-Clinton general election is going to see more aisle crossing on both sides than anyone thinks possible. It is not possible to understate the depth of animus that many, many otherwise left leaning people have towards Hillary personally and while they would hold their nose and vote D against a Cruz or a Bush, Trump is such a dice roll that a lot of them are going to take it. And there are even more people who would turn out just to vote against Trump. Also not even considering all the Republicans who will just stay home if Trump is he nom, like my dad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:A Trump-Clinton general election is going to see more aisle crossing on both sides than anyone thinks possible. It is not possible to understate the depth of animus that many, many otherwise left leaning people have towards Hillary personally and while they would hold their nose and vote D against a Cruz or a Bush, Trump is such a dice roll that a lot of them are going to take it. This is me. If Sanders isn't the candidate, I'm voting Trump. I'm in Ohio, I drive through areas that in my early childhood were thriving industrial plants with large, unionized, well paid workforces that are now herion dens where the only real jobs for most of these people involve a vest and cheering for Wal*Mart- a vile entity with a close relationship in the Clinton past. If I can't have my broad, democratic populism, I'll take the nativist kind solely to spite the free trader, globalizing types. Is it a roll of the dice? Oh yes. Chances are it backfires spectacularly. But you know what? I'm sick of the powerful ignoring the working class. If the Dems aren't going to offer anything worth mentioning to us rust belt types, gently caress em', we'll take our chances on a Caesar wannabe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
Trump has thrown back the curtain and shown that these tactics work and we're only going to see more in the future, if he loses someone even more extreme is going to take that playbook and keep going further and further until one of them wins. Better a Berlusconi now than a Putin later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:37
|
|