• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TestOfTide

Banned
Grizzle_Dat said:
I still don't read anything into polls after what happened and after that march on the weekend I'd be surprised if any Trump supporters answered truthfully.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that some Trump voters are so demoralized that they don't even want to openly say they like Trump?

And that's a bad thing for Dems how?
 
A

avaya

Member
TestOfTide said:
So what you are saying is that some Trump voters are so demoralized that they don't even want to openly say they like Trump?

And that's a bad thing for Dems how?
Click to expand...

They'll still vote for him so the partisan non-response bias makes it harder to work out who to target and if you're still winning. It's a nightmare scenario.

The fact that new data coming out shows his dominance of the white vote is probably well in excess of what the exit polling indicated is sobering in that respect.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
Emerson said:
No, that's what happens when a politician has actual principles and they stand by them regardless of the situation.

Sanders has, and continues to, ardently opposed Trump on many issues. He has opposed the TPP and he continues to oppose it regardless of who it is that is voiding it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Sanders has always been anti-trade and protectionist. Now he has a president who agrees with him. I disagree with him because I support free trade like a logical person...but he's not violating any promises by doing what he has always said he'd do/stand for.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
I'm confused by the constant discussion of "X state is about to be blue in a few years". As if realignment doesn't happen. I understand that demographics changes are important but states are purple because their population is closer to the median of the overton window. If those states shift then the window will just correct itself along with the Republican party. And if that state isn't really close to the median anymore (think about how Texas has changed since Johnson) then when you gain one state you will probably just lose another. For all we know, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will never vote Democratic again.
 
Emerson

Emerson

May contain jokes =>
TestOfTide said:
So what you are saying is that some Trump voters are so demoralized that they don't even want to openly say they like Trump?

And that's a bad thing for Dems how?
Click to expand...

They aren't demoralized, they're ashamed, but they'll still vote for him again. That's the worry.

It's a reasonable one because the same people didn't want to admit they supported him before the election and they were what swung the vote.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
The polling error in the election was not actually all that large though. That is why FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a decent chance of winning. A normal polling error in his favor was enough to swing the election. One should have a healthy respect for the limitations of polling, but that does not make polling completely worthless.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
If we lose a senate seat in fucking Massachusetts during a Republican president's midterm then the Democratic party should probably just stop existing.
 
G

GregLombardi

Member
phisheep said:
I don't think that is true in general. Plenty of people are rich because they have equity, rather than having equity because they are rich (like Gates for example), because they built their own businesses.

If you want to get an equity position through being an employee you're on a hiding to nothing mostly. Start your own business instead.
Click to expand...

I think you are forgetting about large corporations.

Equity is handed to people that had nothing to do with starting the business, or it isn't handed out at all. When it is handed out, it is handed out to very high level employees whose only incentive is to increase the price of their shares, which generally is fundamentally at odds with the plight of workers, actual intrinsic value of the business, and society at large. The only people that benefit are shareholders, and even then, sometimes they lose grievously as internal employees benefit from their mass manipulations of the state of the business. Also, wealth is further and further concentrated toward the top and decisions aren't made that pertain to the business but instead to the wealth.

All employees lose incentive to pursue projects or actions that enhance the business, and instead they start to pursue everything that enhances themselves, with very little accountability.

I think you are speaking of small business, and I am speaking of large business.
 
K

kingkitty

Member
I'm sweating a little more over losing the New Jersey senate race in 2018. I hope there's someone willing to primary Bob Menedez (or that Bob states he's not running for another term). This dude has been indicted for corruption, with a trial set for September.

I think Warren will be fine.
 
Dominican Power

Dominican Power

Member
http://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/essays/america-america/



There is more going on here than resentment about tough economic times — especially because Trump's economic policies, to the extent that they are comprehensible, are almost certain to leave the working class even worse off. It took more than the long-term secular stagnation of median household income in a prosperous and secure nation to bring us to the age of Trump. It is simply not possible to shy away from the ugly fact that racism was an essential ingredient to his election. Not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist, but pretty much every racist did, and that mattered. Moreover, things are not that simple. Trump's unmediated racism warmed the hearts of once-shadowy white supremacists (one pines for the days when politicians felt the need to couch such appeals in coded language), but many people who would self-righteously disavow the David Dukes of the world nevertheless felt, and articulated, what can only be described as ”white resentment" — and this emotion informed their votes. Scratch at the arguments of a Trump voter, and too often you'll find white resentment close to the surface. This is disheartening, of course, but it also raises questions about the future of the Grand Old Party. The ability of Trump, against every expectation, to cruise to the Republican nomination, suggested that the party's traditional coalition: social conservatives, foreign policy hawks, and tax averse, welfare-state-opposing well-off individuals and business interests, is no longer viable. What then? Something has to hold the party together. Will the Republicans become a nativist, white-nationalist party, similar to those miscreants we see on the rise in Europe? Throw in some tax cuts and conservative appointments, and that coalition could hold — and rule. Now that Trump — George Wallace with less charm and experience — ran, and won, on a campaign imbued with naked racism, it would be naïve to think that Republican politicians would not reach for any effective lever that might keep them in power.

The rise of an Angry White Party would be more than disturbing, of course, but it is way too easy to shout racism and call it a day. Racism is nothing new in America, and decade-by-decade we have made real progress (which may have precipitated the current backlash). And it's not like the Presidency was there for the taking by any white nationalist who wandered by — indeed, most have been soundly rejected. Trump is different. He is a featherweight, famous for his fame. He is Zsa Zsa Gabor, he is Khloe Kardashian.

That Trump was ever even taken seriously as a candidate for President of the United States (he was understandably viewed as a carnival freak-show by his adversaries and the media, each of whom hoped to fleece the suckers that gathered while the circus was in town — this too abetted his improbable rise), suggests that we have exposed the limits of our ability to competently govern ourselves.

Have we really gotten that much stupider? Probably not. More likely, as with the economic changes wrought by globalization and automation, we are more or less the same, but the playing field has changed, empowering some actors at the expense of others. Or put another way: no internet, no Trump. Just as some people are much better at playing basketball than baseball, the nature of media environment primordially shapes the way in which information is disseminated, processed, and understood. As a technical economic issue, the collapse in the price of entry (manifested most dramatically in the staggering rise of social media) has undermined the practice of reasoned discourse. A now-quaint allegory for the pathologies of the internet culture can be seen in the emergence of cable television, as falling costs of production and a multiplicity of viewing options led to smaller audiences and an even more intense fight for ratings shares, an environment which encouraged attention-getting outrageousness. The internet is exponentially more pernicious: entry is free, accountability is absent, and — here we are more stupid — the ability of people to distinguish between fact and fiction has virtually vanished. We are living in a post-fact, post-rationalist, post-deliberative society, in which people believe what they want to believe, as if they were selecting items from different columns of a take-out menu. This is an environment that plays to the strengths of a media-savvy celebrity demagogue, who, even when not purposefully trafficking in Orwellian lies, has shown an utter disregard for the known truth regarding events large and small, from claims of witnessing non-existent crowds of Muslims cheering the collapse of the twin towers to planting golf-course plaques commemorating imaginary civil war battlefields.

There is no happy ending to this story. It is not ”just one election." Yes, in theory, most domestic policy blunders can be reversed at a future date. But best case scenario, brace yourself for a horrifying interregnum. The fantasy that the Republican Congress might serve as a check on Trump's power is just that — a fantasy. Congress does have considerable authority, but mostly regarding those things that they agree with Trump about: slashing taxes on the wealthy, gutting environmental regulations, pretending climate change doesn't exist, overturning Obamacare, appointing very conservative judges. Moreover, the internet culture is not going away, so don't imagine that there is a silver lining to be gleaned from the looming policy disasters that we will all suffer through. If enough people enjoy watching the reality TV of the Trump Presidency, they will renew it for another four years. Nor should it be assumed that the Democratic Party, flat on its back, is poised for a comeback. The American left has its own deep divisions to tend to — largely along generational lines, as the young and the old articulate very different interpretations of the core principles of liberalism — which will not be easily papered over.

Worse still, even if we manage to endure the next four years and then oust him in the next election, from this point forward we will always be the country that elected Donald Trump as President. And as Albert Finney knew all too well in Under the Volcano, ”some things, you just can't apologize for." This will be felt most acutely on the world stage. Keep in mind that in those areas where Trump departs from traditional Republican positions, such as those regarding trade and international security, Congressional power is much weaker. Trump can start a trade war or provoke an international crisis just by tweeting executive orders from the White House. And that damage will prove irreversible. Because from now on, and for a very long time, countries around the world will have to calculate their interests, expectations, and behavior with the understanding that this is America, or, at the very least, that this is what the American political system can plausibly produce. And so the election of Trump will come to mark the end of the international order that was built to avoid repeating the catastrophes of the first half the twentieth century, and which did so successfully — horrors that we like to imagine we have outgrown. It will not serve us well.

We have lost, we are lost. Not an election, but a civilization. Where does that leave us? I think the metaphor is one of (political) resistance. They resisted in occupied France, they resisted in Franco's Spain. Even in the twilight years of the 1930s, times considerably darker than today, regular men and women stood up against much graver dangers and longer odds than those we now face. They did not resist, necessarily, because they thought they would win, they resisted because they simply could not imagine collaborating, even passively. And for us, even now there are oases of hope in our sea of despair — Trump did indeed lose the popular vote by a wide margin, and there are powerful states and municipalities that might protect many of the most vulnerable from the coming federal onslaught. But we will face a great moment of crisis, after the next major terrorist attack in the U.S. (something no American President could prevent), which will present something like a perfect storm: a thin-skinned, impulsive leader with authoritarian instincts, a frightened public, an environment of permissive racism, and a post-fact information environment. In such a moment basic civil liberties will be at risk: due process will be assailed as ”protecting terrorists"; free speech will be challenged as ”giving aid and comfort to the enemy." And that will be the moment when each of us must stand up and be counted, and never forget Tolstoy's admonition: ”There are no conditions to which a man may not become accustomed, particularly if he sees that they are accepted by those about him." Our portion is to make sure that never comes to pass.
Click to expand...


so good
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
mo60 said:
But he won't.

Politco recently wrote an article about Warren's senate race in 2018.
http://www.politico.com/states/mass...-no-sure-bet-for-re-election-next-year-108924
Click to expand...

This is a pretty bad article tbh

It doesn't even show Warren losing head to head to anyone. Just that 46% of voters think it's time for someone else to have a shot. That's not even against-Warren voters - it could just be people who want new blood or something (like Kennedy)

Her approvals are above 50 and while Baker's are higher by a few points, MA likes their GOP governors

Actually, the article even calls this opening "narrow." That title is so disingenuous
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
OK, so she is sitting at 51-37 approvals and that is cause for people to think she is doomed in a 2018 election which is likely to be essentially a referendum on Trump? I mean, no, they are not overwhelming numbers but I sure do not see any cause for panic here.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
Gotta take a lot of stuff on Warren with a grain of salt. Beltway media hates her and enjoys equating her to Ted Cruz types. Any minor weakness will be magnified, they'll run with bullshit stories, etc. Hence that terrible Politico article.
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
And tbh tbh worrying about 2020 is more than a little premature when institutions are at risk of being dismembered right now.
 
Emerson

Emerson

May contain jokes =>
Sad to hear my state senator (Coons) legitimizing Tillerson in any way as a candidate but pleased to hear him vote no at least.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Baldwin's best hope is probably a midterm wave saving her. Not saying that there will be a midterm wave, just that it's the most likely scenario where she keeps her seat.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
You people actually need to take a fucking chill pill.

WBUR, a notoriously bad pollster, has a poll showing Warren above 50% and at +14 in the state and you're all freaking out? She is consistently one of the most popular politicians in Massachusetts.

Box of Kittens said:
Baldwin's best hope is probably a midterm wave saving her. Not saying that there will be a midterm wave, just that it's the most likely scenario where she keeps her seat.
Click to expand...

Baldwin might have been saved by Trump tbh.
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
avaya said:
They'll still vote for him so the partisan non-response bias makes it harder to work out who to target and if you're still winning. It's a nightmare scenario.
Click to expand...

Trump didn't simply win due to non-response bias. He won because turnout didn't happen as it was expected. Instead of the general trend of the voting population being more and more of the Obama Coalition, 2016 ended up being the red rural wave election.

The fact that new data coming out shows his dominance of the white vote is probably well in excess of what the exit polling indicated is sobering in that respect.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, the white uneducated vote swung heavily towards Trump. That makes sense considering that Trump maximized red rural turnout.

But unless you are gonna claim that Trump can repeat this kind of record rural turnout, those voters won't be enough for him. Especially when Trump is actively turning everyone not kissing his ass into enemies.

Emerson said:
They aren't demoralized, they're ashamed, but they'll still vote for him again. That's the worry.

It's a reasonable one because the same people didn't want to admit they supported him before the election and they were what swung the vote.
Click to expand...

Elections and campaigns are about which side can spread their ideas more. If that many Trump voters are ashamed to state their allegiance then that means those voters aren't going to be openly spreading Trump's ideas.

You guys have to stop thinking about Trump voters as one big monolith. MOST Trump voters Are unreachable, but enough ARE reachable that it's worth reaching out to those that just bought into too much of the antiHillary stuff.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
She'd be gone if Hillary had won for sure, I'd bet she hangs on now to be honest

Same with McCaskill, Brown, et al
Click to expand...

Assuming Trump's favorables get worse after his honeymoon is over, I would bet that McCaskill loses by a hair, Brown, Baldwin, and Tester win by a hair, Casey wins by a decent amount, and Heitkamp and Donnelly lose by a decent amount.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Politico has some value (not a lot still) if you understand never to take what it says at face value and apply some critical thinking. It's mostly useful for understanding the agendas of the people talking to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine
News NSFW 639 640 641 642 643
32K
2M
EviLore replied
Kanye West Planning Russia Trip to Meet Putin and Perform Sunday Service, Says Advisor
21
2K
It's all in the wrist replied
NYTIMES - Report Points to Microwave ‘Attack’ as Likely Source of Mystery Illnesses That Hit Diplomats and Spies
News
7
2K
DisguiseArrsick replied
Gowdy: Trump advisers should consider quitting over Russia
0
545
Arkage replied
  • Locked
Trump "Owned by Russia for 30 years" says his "Art of Deal" Ghostwriter
2 3
131
9K
FStubbs replied
Top Bottom