PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crimson_Gold said:
He promised to punish Wall Street. That made people happy. Do they know what punishing Wall Street is? Do they have any idea what punishing Wall Street will do? I have no idea. But giving the people a villain, made him a hero
Click to expand...
Far-right parties always gain support after financial crises, report finds

The IFO study found that the after-effects of financial crises on right-wing politics typically lasts a decade. After this period of time has elapsed, voter behaviour returns to how it was before the crisis in question. "The good news: The political upheaval in the wake of financial crises is merely a temporary phenomenon," the study found.
Click to expand...
 
kirblar said:
Because people are generally awful.
Click to expand...

If they're generally awful, financial crises should have no effect on the support for far-right parties - after all, they're generally awful, rather than specifically awful in response to certain conditions.
 
chadskin said:
On his "Obama wiretapppppped me" tweet:

C-vhZz8XYAAibxM.jpg
Click to expand...

Haha fucking gold.
 
Crab said:
If they're generally awful, financial crises should have no effect on the support for far-right parties - after all, they're generally awful, rather than specifically awful in response to certain conditions.
Click to expand...
The whole "things go wrong? GOTTA SCAPEGOAT SOMEONE" thing is a pretty big flaw w/ humanity in general.
 
kirblar said:
The whole "things go wrong? GOTTA SCAPEGOAT SOMEONE" thing is a pretty big flaw w/ humanity in general.
Click to expand...

Okay, good. So, if we can reduce the amount of things that can go wrong for people, they're less likely to look for scapegoats - that follows pretty easily.

Why did the 2007 financial crisis happen?
 
Crimson_Gold said:
He promised to punish Wall Street. That made people happy. Do they know what punishing Wall Street is? Do they have any idea what punishing Wall Street will do? I have no idea. But giving the people a villain, made him a hero
Click to expand...

Interestingly Trump won using that same method.
 
neurosisxeno said:
I mean, prior to Sanders bitching about "establishment Democrats" while railing against the "wealthy elite" wasn't a common thing.
Click to expand...

Bitching about Hillary's wall street speeches was very much a huge thing before Bernie. Bernie got popular because he was the first to say what many people were thinking.

Crimson_Gold said:
He promised to punish Wall Street. That made people happy. Do they know what punishing Wall Street is? Do they have any idea what punishing Wall Street will do? I have no idea. But giving the people a villain, made him a hero
Click to expand...

Like with Trump, it's more about believing he'll make the best decision given his options at any given time than believing he'll accomplish some specific huge set of goals. Having a defined enemy seems to help with that. "I don't know what he's doing, but at least I know he's not giving into that group of people that are ruining america".
 
Crab said:
I'm not a nationalist. I prescribe advice freely to all, fellow countrymen or otherwise. If you want to drop by UKPoliGAF, I'm sure we can have a nice chat about the internal politics of the Labour Party and who the next Labour leader should be (Angela Rayner plx).
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if you're a nationalist or not. If you can drop Corbyn, you might as well drop Sanders. Because ironically Corbyn hasn't lost yet on the ballot, but Sanders has.

In retrospect, Sanders wasn't the clear choice. You have no solid evidence to offer as proof that he was.
 
Crab said:
Okay, good. So, if we can reduce the amount of things that can go wrong for people, they're less likely to look for scapegoats - that follows pretty easily.

Why did the 2007 financial crisis happen?
Click to expand...
Because people got lax and lazy on regulation because we literally hadn't had a financial crisis of that scale in generations.

These will inevitably occur because of the nature of humanity. But we shouldn't have one for a while. (A recession on the other hand...)
 
Plinko said:
I'm puzzled as to how these people would vote for a black man and then all of a sudden when a racist comes in they say, "I've been waiting for this the whole time!" It just doesn't make sense to me, I guess. I've lived in rural areas my entire life and the racists I've met hated Obama since the moment he hit the spotlight.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's puzzling at all. I don't know why voting from a black person gives anyone a get out of racism free card and find the entire concept insanely reductionist.

2008 was not 2012 was not 2016. 2008 was in the middle of a financial crisis and 2012 had a plutocrat on the ticket. Racism is a luxury good. Neither election (2008/2012) had a candidate who spoke to white fears about being left behind. Those fears grew in the years following those elections (in fact, as a direct result of 2012). 2012 gave people reason to worry about an ascendant multicultural coalition. 2014-2016 in particular saw a revitalized black rights movement

I'm not sure why anyone would take the stance that someone racially motivated would be unresponsive to these circumstances. It's possible to vote for the black guy and the the racist guy because the world and your priorities are different over time. And more importantly, someone's opinion on Obama is not the same thing as their opinion on "black people" or "Mexicans" or "Muslims" writ large.

Crab said:
I'm joking, you know. I agree with you that in retrospect, Sanders was the clear choice of those running.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth paying some attention to the downside here, which is that if he had won, Bernie Sanders would have been president.

Really makes you think.

JP_ said:
If you think Sanders made people think dems favor the wealthy more than republicans, you're lost.
Click to expand...

Similarly, if you think the months he spent running a dead-end effort to smear the party as out of touch elitists had no effect. But I agree with you that the seed had to be there in order for someone to water it so effectively.

kirblar said:
Ban people from running in multiple Dem primaries. There's step one.
Click to expand...

Eh, I dunno. Someone can be better after a second look.

That being said, I don't feel as though I have a good answer to this question. I know it's something that kos is obsessed with, though, and that he was frustrated it didn't get more attention in the DNC chair election.
 
Gruco said:
Eh, I dunno. Someone can be better after a second look.

That being said, I don't feel as though I have a good answer to this question. I know it's something that kos is obsessed with, though, and that he was frustrated it didn't get more attention in the DNC chair election.
Click to expand...
Did he write anything on this? It'd be nice to not be the only one w/ this opinion for once.
Gruco said:
I think it's worth paying some attention to the downside here, which is that if he had won, Bernie Sanders would have been president.

Really makes you think.
Click to expand...
Yup. You don't want to be holding the Jimmy Carter presidency when things implode.
 
kirblar said:
Search my thread start history and you'll find it.

Dems do not do well with people who have a long term national profile prior to running because it gives the GOP a target. The candidate needs to be new to voters.
Click to expand...

Thanks--I'll see if I can get some time later.

As for your last statement, I think that may be correlation but not necessarily causation.

Gore got beaten by a folksy, more likeable individual. Kerry wasn't really likeable at all. I think it has way more to do with likeability than national standing.

Gruco said:
I don't think it's puzzling at all. I don't know why voting from a black person gives anyone a get out of racism free card and find the entire concept insanely reductionist.

2008 was not 2012 was not 2016. 2008 was in the middle of a financial crisis and 2012 had a plutocrat on the ticket. Racism is a luxury good. Neither election (2008/2012) had a candidate who spoke to white fears about being left behind. Those fears grew in the years following those elections (in fact, as a direct result of 2012). 2012 gave people reason to worry about an ascendant multicultural coalition. 2014-2016 in particular saw a revitalized black rights movement

I'm not sure why anyone would take the stance that someone racially motivated would be unresponsive to these circumstances. It's possible to vote for the black guy and the the racist guy because the world and your priorities are different over time. And more importantly, someone's opinion on Obama is not the same thing as their opinion on "black people" or "Mexicans" or "Muslims" writ large.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm only basing it off of anecdotal experiences. In the rural areas I have lived in over the past decade, there's no variability in the racism. There is no real gray area--If they don't like a race, that's it--there's no way they'd vote for any person from that background. I'm sure there's more to it than that, like you detailed in your post.
 
Plinko said:
Thanks--I'll see if I can get some time later.

As for your last statement, I think that may be correlation but not necessarily causation.

Gore got beaten by a folksy, more likeable individual. Kerry wasn't really likeable at all. I think it has way more to do with likeability than national standing.
Click to expand...
I liked Kerry the best personally but was not happy w/ him winning the nomination in '04.
 
dramatis said:
Doesn't matter if you're a nationalist or not. If you can drop Corbyn, you might as well drop Sanders. Because ironically Corbyn hasn't lost yet on the ballot, but Sanders has.

In retrospect, Sanders wasn't the clear choice. You have no solid evidence to offer as proof that he was.
Click to expand...

dramatis, this is a mess of a post. An absolute mess. It doesn't make any sense, from start to finish. You just know you need disagree with me or you lose face or something, and so you have this itch to find some way to disagree with the post, such that you don't even think through what you post before you post it.

"In retrospect" means "If we got to do something again, knowing what happened the way we did it." I don't feel I should have to explain this to you, but there we go.

We know that the way we did it (selecting Clinton), the Democrats lost. We also know that that one of the biggest predictors of swapping from Obama to Trump was dislike of Clinton as a candidate, and that Sanders had far higher favourable ratings among Republicans and independents than Clinton did. So we can say: knowing what we do now, if we got to pick again (which, remember, is what "In retrospect" means) we'd be better off picking Sanders, because his strength was Clinton's critical losing weakness.

You've then tagged on something about Corbyn winning or something? I can't even work out what you're saying. It's a total mess. But okay. I'll be nice, I'll be charitable. You're saying something like: "Clinton won the real Democratic primary we held, so she must have been a better candidate!". This is low effort posting. It's pretty obvious that winning an internal party contest doesn't make you the best candidate to win a general election. Corbyn should be evidence enough of that!
 
balladofwindfishes said:
Minorities make for easy targets when stuff goes horribly wrong?
Click to expand...

See: insistence that the ONLY thing that caused the 08 crash was...giving loans to poor black people who couldn't afford them, a Jimmy Carter loan policy from the 70s, etc. As if white people haven't always been the main benefactor of outrageously generous/predatory loans.
 
kirblar said:
Because people got lax and lazy on regulation because we literally hadn't had a financial crisis of that scale in generations.
Click to expand...

Okay, and how can we inbuild a structural tendency in the Democratic party to be sufficiently stringent on banking regulation so that this doesn't happen again?
 
kirblar said:
Did he write anything on this? It'd be nice to not be the only one w/ this opinion for once.
Click to expand...
I don't think he has written about the "no double primary" concept, but dude has written a ton re: primary reforms over the years. Would take more digging through his post history than I am motivated to do at the moment though.
 
Crab said:
Okay, and how can we inbuild a structural tendency in the Democratic party to be sufficiently stringent on banking regulation so that this doesn't happen again?
Click to expand...
It already exists (see: Warren and the CPFB)

It doesn't matter when the GOP getting power is the primary destructive force behind not being able to implement them. The GOP is the entire reason Warren is a senator rather than a bureaucrat.

They went light on trials and such w/ fears of hurting the recovery. And truth be told, it probably wouldn't have mattered, since those angry populists popped up in other countries regardless of how they handled it.
 
Round and round we go.
Since we're on the merry-go-round again, note that respondents who say that Trump will "will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally)" compared to the Democrats... are really saying they won't "favor" those dirty, lazy blacks.

Basically, it's just another version of this:
2016-12-19-1482185503-3679361-trump_deserve-thumb.png


Wherein, white people basically consider "average Americans" to mean white people.
 
jmdajr said:
Hasan Minhaj was amazing.
Click to expand...
Yep. Next Colbert imo.

Absolutely skewered the Trump admin and more so than that, the stupid fucking media. He made it a point that its not Trumps fault the trust in media is all time low. Its media's own fault. MSNBC slowly going down into conspiracy holes for the past year, CNN basically doing daytime soap operas. No one is saying what the actual truth of the matter is anymore.
 
Plinko said:
And here's where the problem lies. They almost have to include him in leadership somewhere along the way to 2020 to prevent him from running again. If he runs and loses in the primary, they're done, because his cult-like followers won't turn out to vote.

Reading that article is interesting. Republicans have somehow been able to paint democrats as elites, and democrats haven't been able to counteract that even though their policies clearly portray a paradigm of equality. Perhaps they should be more outgoing in attacking the rich.
Click to expand...

The Technomancer said:
No-one is that bad at messaging. Or, more specifically, if that's the case why aren't Trump voters, including those flippers, now unhappy with all the rich people he's stuffed his cabinet with?

Like, if we're to credibly take the idea that some significant fraction of Trump voters thought he would be harder on the rich, shouldn't we now hear them being upset?
Click to expand...

kirblar said:
Because "elites" isn't about being an actual elite. It's about being a non rural person. Populism being the "common (white rural) man w common sense v the work has been a thing forever.
Click to expand...

^This. Democrats aren't financial elites, they are cultural elites (i.e. care about white people AND non-white people)

This article I posted yesterday goes into it:
Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy (How Trump/Right use Anti-PC to their advantage - most important read)
 
balladofwindfishes said:
Can you imagine if Trump throws a hissy fit over the wall funding and vetoes the budget...
Click to expand...
That presumes Trump has any sort of backbone or deep convictions about anything.

He wasn't willing to go to bat for healthcare and promised to get back to it "later". He gave up on his wall and promised to get back to it "later". So I'm certain he'll put his signature on any budget that lands on his desk because anything else would require effort.
 
Plinko said:
https://twitter.com/nickgourevitch/status/859041774844727302

Great thread from a democratic pollster about the democrats' 2016 post-mortem report. I have higher hopes for 2018 if the leadership steps up.
Click to expand...

The key data, of course, is here:

Those Obama-Trump voters, in fact, effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group’s analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton’s failure to reach Obama’s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters.
Click to expand...

which puts them in line with Nate Cohn's analysis.

Cohn points out Obama-level turnout doesn't actually win Florida or Pennsylvania given how many Obama voters Clinton lost to Trump.
 
Now Paris Dennard on CNN gets to agree with Trumps newest dumb thing. Yes, why don't people ask why we had a civil war.

Fake news.
 
So holy shit, Steve Bannon wrote a screenplay adaptation of Shakespeare's Coriolanus and set it during the 1992 L.A. riots and it's as racist as you could imagine it would be.

“The Thing I Am” presents Los Angeles during the riots as a war zone equivalent to the one created by the clash between the Romans and the Volscians. And Coriolanus’ rise and downfall in “The Thing I Am” present him as someone who could stop the violence in his own community but is temperamentally incapable of making the compromises and taking the strong stands necessary to do so. These ideas have a striking resonance with the ways President Trump now talks about American cities and African American communities.
Click to expand...

“I do think he was trying to understand race relations and take this overseer look of ‘Here’s what you’re not seeing.’ I think he thought he had a greater understanding than the people who were going through what they were going through,” Williams told me. “Now, whether he had the tools to do that or not is open to everyone’s interpretation. My answer would be no, spelled in pretty large letters, with a very curly font. … Again, I think Steve Bannon thought he had figured out black people, much in the way of Trump: ‘Carnage! Chicago is carnage! … American carnage! That I have the answer. That if you could listen to me, this can fix that.’ ”
Click to expand...

Washington Post article and video of a table read.
 
DontBeThatGuy said:
Probably quite a few of those actually.
Click to expand...

I think about a dozen states actually swung Democratic between the 2012 and 2016 elections. Now some of those shifts were quite small and the higher third party vote is a factor (in that the swings are typically measured as percentage of the two party vote), but a few of them are rather large. Texas, Arizona, and California all saw large enough swings that it would be hard to imagine there weren't a sizable number of Romney-Clinton voters. Texas was actually closer than Iowa.

This was definitely not an election that could be modeled well by assuming a uniform swing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT2| Fractured but Ox
166 167 168 169 170
8K
548K
Hideous Snake replied
Formula 1 2017 Season |OT2| A Dutch Horror Story - Sundays on Sky
54 55 56 57 58
3K
342K
Grieves replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom