2020 US Election (Part 3)

[Gori the Grey]

I think the social forces that drove support for Trump will remain in effect at least until 2045, and perhaps for a while after that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

With such support he can win enough of the individual staggered primaries to build such a lead that most other candidates will drop out because the donors will focus on him and thus secure the nomination.

Trump is running in 2024. The amount of money he is able to grift off of his supporters is too great to resist. I expect him to announce his candidacy for 2024 within the next few months.

Yes, he won through most of the 2016 primaries with just 20-ish% of the vote, because the rest was split among so many other contenders.

And the Republican primary field will be similarly split in 2024. Just look at how many candidates the Republicans had in 2016 and how many the Democrats had in 2020. Its escalating.

I think the social forces that drove support for Trump will remain in effect at least until 2045, and perhaps for a while after that.

Trump got the most votes of any Republican in history. There is no way he doesn't run in 2024. Its just impossible that he stays out. If he is alive he is running 100%. Where is the predictions thread so I can ink this one now?

 

[IglooDame]

I think Trump just made a speech to the media. It lasted for one minute, in which he went on about how the stockmarket passed 30.000 points and the vaccines were amazing.

The book. It's a cook-book!

How awesome for him to tout it like credit should go to him, given:
- This is a reaction to the GSA initiating transition support to Biden
- Biden nominating Yellen for Secretary of the Treasury
- Trump claiming previously that the stock market would crater if Biden won the election

 

[Patine]

I think the social forces that drove support for Trump will remain in effect at least until 2045, and perhaps for a while after that.

Again, you show a lack of understanding of the phenomenon of populism. Even if the social forces are there (although I personally believe they will morph and change drastically by then), Trump's specific brand of advocating a take on them and on expounding them will quickly become stale - especially with no political office or direct power for four years. As well, given it's past tendencies, the GOP will almost certainly throw Trump under the bus, like they did with Nixon and Bush - not keep a candle lit for him. It's time for to brush up on your sociology and political science and history, again.

 

[Cutlass]

Again, you show a lack of understanding of the phenomenon of populism. Even if the social forces are there (although I personally believe they will morph and change drastically by then), Trump's specific brand of advocating a take on them and on expounding them will quickly become stale - especially with no political office or direct power for four years. As well, given it's past tendencies, the GOP will almost certainly throw Trump under the bus, like they did with Nixon and Bush - not keep a candle lit for him. It's time for to brush up on your sociology and political science and history, again.

Trump won the nomination for presidential candidate in 2016 despite the fact that the whole Republican establishment threw him under the bus. And then once he won, the whole party became his toadies.

 

[Patine]

Trump won the nomination for presidential candidate in 2016 despite the fact that the whole Republican establishment threw him under the bus. And then once he won, the whole party became his toadies.

2024 will be a different year than 2016. And in 2016, they couldn't throw him under the bus - because he wasn't an incumbent, or even a well-established party member (he'd only switched party registration from Ross Perot's Reform Party in 2013, two years before the Primaries began). Saying, or expecting, that 2024 WILL be a repeat of 2016 is very wonky non-logic.

Trump is running in 2024. The amount of money he is able to grift off of his supporters is too great to resist. I expect him to announce his candidacy for 2024 within the next few months.And the Republican primary field will be similarly split in 2024. Just look at how many candidates the Republicans had in 2016 and how many the Democrats had in 2020.

See my response to @Cutlass, above, to retort these two points.

Its escalating.Trump got the most votes of any Republican in history. There is no way he doesn't run in 2024. Its just impossible that he stays out. If he is alive he is running 100%. Where is the predictions thread so I can ink this one now?

The U.S. also had the most eligible voters in it's history to date in 2016 and 2020. THAT is the REAL reason for this point - nothing else, really...

 

[Cutlass]

2024 will be a different year than 2016. And in 2016, they couldn't throw him under the bus - because he wasn't an incumbent, or even a well-established party member (he'd only switched party registration from Ross Perot's Reform Party in 2013, two years before the Primaries began). Saying, or expecting, that 2024 WILL be a repeat of 2016 is very wonky non-logic.

I actually expect him to be dead of old age by then. But assuming he's healthy enough, and not in prison, to run, he'll win the nomination. .

This is who and what the Republicans are.

 

[Lexicus]

Trump got the most votes of any Republican in history. There is no way he doesn't run in 2024. Its just impossible that he stays out. If he is alive he is running 100%. Where is the predictions thread so I can ink this one now?

This, with the caveat that he won't run if he's dead, a vegetable, or in jail. Somehow I don't think God will see fit to be so kind to us though. We're a sinful lot, and we need to be punished. Clearly.

 

[Patine]

I actually expect him to be dead of old age by then. But assuming he's healthy enough, and not in prison, to run, he'll win the nomination. .

This is who and what the Republicans are.

No, the Republicans are heartless, vulture-like opportunists, driven mostly by greed, and fully willing and able to throw potential liabilities under the bus, mercilessly and with impunity, and only laud and "canonize," Presidents (like Reagan) in safe retrospect. That's who and what the Republicans are, and have been for my entire lifetime. I don't see any likely sentimentality, soft spots, or unconditional loyalty, just because, for Trump. The party is pitiless and backbiting, and cannibalizes their own without a second thought. Were you thinking of ANOTHER PARTY there?

 

[Patine]

This, with the caveat that he won't run if he's dead, a vegetable, or in jail. Somehow I don't think God will see fit to be so kind to us though. We're a sinful lot, and we need to be punished. Clearly.

I don't really think Trump's a Chaldean Neo-Babylonian King figure, there, to be honest. Divine providence is almost certainly not at play, here.

 

[Cutlass]

No, the Republicans are heartless, vulture-like opportunists, driven mostly by greed, and fully willing and able to throw potential liabilities under the bus, mercilessly and with impunity, and only laud and "canonize," Presidents (like Reagan) in safe retrospect. That's who and what the Republicans are, and have been for my entire lifetime. I don't see any likely sentimentality, soft spots, or unconditional loyalty, just because, for Trump. The party is pitiless and backbiting, and cannibalizes their own without a second thought. Were you thinking of ANOTHER PARTY there?

Clearly you are not paying attention. The Party Leadership might throw Trump under the bus. But he would win the nomination with no challenge whatsoever. Because while many of the leaders recognize him as a liability to The Cause, in thee end Trump is what the Republican voters want. And the reality of the situation is that Trump is what the The Party Leadership wants as well. They just aren't willing to say so openly. What The Party Leadership wants is the Trump agenda without the Trump baggage. But whether they like it or not, the one comes with the other.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah like the DNC and RNC don't really have much power over candidate selection - some senior figures can try to put their thumbs on the scale but it's an incredibly open and easily infiltrated process compared to essentially any other party preselection system in the world that I'm aware of.

 

[Patine]

Clearly you are not paying attention. The Party Leadership might throw Trump under the bus. But he would win the nomination with no challenge whatsoever. Because while many of the leaders recognize him as a liability to The Cause, in thee end Trump is what the Republican voters want. And the reality of the situation is that Trump is what the The Party Leadership wants as well. They just aren't willing to say so openly. What The Party Leadership wants is the Trump agenda without the Trump baggage. But whether they like it or not, the one comes with the other.

Red block letters aside, do you understand the socio-political phenomenon of populism and how it works? Have you studied or researched other historical examples of it? It is characterized as "burning hot and bright, but sputtering and dying quickly," in a somewhat poetic analogy, compared to most other political movements. Do you understand this? And do you understand that it is very likely that Trump's particular, specific message and approach will quickly get stale with his target base, especially after losing and sitting out four years, and someone else will come up with a fresh new approach and attitude (even if it treads a lot of the same ground), and will probably be younger and more "in touch," and will quite likely easily snatch the nomination? Do you know how populist dynamics tend to play out, I ask? Again, red block letters aside.

 

[Cutlass]

Red block letters aside, do you understand the socio-political phenomenon of populism and how it works? Have you studied or researched other historical examples of it? It is characterized as "burning hot and bright, but sputtering and dying quickly," in a somewhat poetic analogy, compared to most other political movements. Do you understand this? And do you understand that it is very likely that Trump's particular, specific message and approach will quickly get stale with his target base, especially after losing and sitting out four years, and someone else will come up with a fresh new approach and attitude (even if it treads a lot of the same ground), and will probably be younger and more "in touch," and will quite likely easily snatch the nomination? Do you know how populist dynamics tend to play out, I ask? Again, red block letters aside.

Do you? You've demonstrated no understanding at all.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, quick, name five populist movements that died shortly after one of their leaders was defeated and then name a couple where the movement continued and then re-welcomed an old leader.

 

[Patine]

Do you? You've demonstrated no understanding at all.

It's obvious no progress can be made here, so I am ending this discussion with you, as I see no value in it's continuance.

<Self-Edit>

 

[Patine]

So, quick, name five populist movements that died shortly after one of their leaders was defeated and then name a couple where the movement continued and then re-welcomed an old leader.

Many populist movements have a significant difference in that they win, and their leader then makes electoral defeat de facto impossible, but the torch of populistic fervor still quickly dies, and police tactics and forced rallies under fear are needed to keep up the illusion of populist support, but such has, indeed, dried up. But, as an example, I highly doubt Jair Bolsonaro will be re-elected if he chooses to run again - he's clearly burnt out his populist torch. Rodrigo Duterte, hard to say what his future holds, but he'll probably have quite the re-election fight if he chooses to run again, too, the way things are looking, and the Philippines tends to have a higher turnover rate of political leadership within all it's parties. There are, of course, populists who never win government, but make good electoral showings, and run multiple times, like Ian Paisley, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Marine Le Pen, Julius Melena, and even Preston Manning, in Canada, and William Jennings Bryan in the United States. So, to answer your question is not quite so simple...

 

[Kyriakos]

 

[Imaus]

So, quick, name five populist movements that died shortly after one of their leaders was defeated and then name a couple where the movement continued and then re-welcomed an old leader.

Peronism seems to never go away?

 

[Patine]

Peronism seems to never go away?

But it no longer remotely has the "bright and hot," aspect of populism I described. It long ago became a mainstream and banal aspect of Argentinian politics, with only a glimmer of it's energy from Juan's lifetime.