2020 US Election (Part One)

[Kyriakos]

Hm, come on, 10% is a pretty significant percentage, and a critical one in a two party system. Not sure who the 'et al' are supposed to be, but i am not even in the usa so you are rather prone to imagine nonexistent connections.
Like most europeans, i see the usa as having two right-wing parties. Yet Bern showed you can turn one to be leftist.

 

[onejayhawk]

Hey! Those who call out racists are the real racists!

Unfortunately, that's quite common.

J

 

[Bootstoots]

I kinda love the terms the coast slaps on economic interests. They speak volumes.

Yeah. I mean, I don't know to what extent economic interests are what drive Obama-Trump voters to, say, oppose affirmative action or illegal/high levels of legal immigration, or to vote for Trump. I tend to think "not much" - Trump is clearly not acting in the economic interests of most Obama-Trump voters.

But the whole "racial resentment" thesis focuses mostly on the denial that minorities have barriers to success caused by being minorities. Basically, someone who believes that everyone is treated more or less equally wrt race, and that worse outcomes for blacks and Latinos are mostly caused by dysfunctional cultural attitudes and the like, is labeled as having high "racial resentment" by political scientists. I think that's kind of a mislabeling - although I think it's factually incorrect, this attitude doesn't directly point to any real "resentment". It probably correlates with it pretty well, though.

Also, 538 had an interesting article a month or two ago where it was claimed that the majority of the large difference between Obama-Trump voters and Clinton voters on this matter actually came from the Democratic Party moving well to the left on racial issues in the time since 2012. That does match what I have perceived - that liberals got a lot more interested in race and gender identity issues in the past few years, and in a way that seemed to only partly be about trying to make the system fairer for minorities. A not-insignificant chunk of the motivation seems to be about ingroup-outgroup dynamics and virtue signaling: "woke" white liberals plus minorities versus deplorables. It's hard to say exactly how much though.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't really think so. I'm not committed to the perpetuating and denying part, but I'm pretty much the land owning rich white dude part, and someone like Pence or a Bush, a Reagan or Romney, all those typical GOP types; they would be examples of "working as designed." Trump has generated nothing but chaos, and those of us on top of the existing system are not benefited by chaos. So even from that standpoint D'ump is not working out.

There's founders intent, J's desired results and the results we're currently getting. There's some overlap but they're not exactly the same. I was focusing on how they were similar rather than how they are different.

In any case, I'd vote for you any day of the week over Trump

 

[onejayhawk]

You're mixing up the founders intent with the results we're currently getting. I'd vote for you any day of the week over Trump

Would you vote for Ted Cruz over Trump?

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Would you vote for Ted Cruz over Trump?

I said I'd vote for Tim over Trump. Ted Cruz wouldn't be a candidate in the Democratic primary, and he wouldn't be the Democratic nominee in the general, so that isn't a relevant issue.

Do you expect Cruz to be contesting Trump in the primary? That would be interesting. Would you vote for Cruz in that primary? That seems to be a much more relevant question.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wouldnt want to choose between two terribly bad candidates? No wonder many bernie voters didnt either.

 

[onejayhawk]

I said I'd vote for Tim over Trump. Ted Cruz wouldn't be a candidate in the Democratic primary, and he wouldn't be the Democratic nominee in the general, so that isn't a relevant issue.

Do you expect Cruz to be contesting Trump in the primary? That would be interesting. Would you vote for Cruz in that primary? That seems to be a much more relevant question.

I have said many times that I expect Trump to be a one-term President.

I have no problem voting for Cruz, or against him. To say I expect him to be the next President is not an endorsement. Rather it is recognition of a combination of ambition and ability.

Wouldnt want to choose between two terribly bad candidates? No wonder many bernie voters didnt either.

Trump vs Cruz is an improvement on Trump vs Clinton. I would have voted for Bernie, given the choice.

J

 

[metalhead]

But the whole "racial resentment" thesis focuses mostly on the denial that minorities have barriers to success caused by being minorities. Basically, someone who believes that everyone is treated more or less equally wrt race, and that worse outcomes for blacks and Latinos are mostly caused by dysfunctional cultural attitudes and the like, is labeled as having high "racial resentment" by political scientists.

I think you've understated what "racial resentment" means. I think the beliefs it correlates with are actual white victimhood - that Black people and Latino/a/x people are advantaged in society, and that white people - or at least, white people similarly situated to them - are the disadvantaged class in America.

There are probably religious elements to this too, i.e. how Christian's love to pretend they're persecuted. But no, this is not a repackaging of economic concerns. It's blatantly racist denial of white privilege.

 

[onejayhawk]

I had to pass this one along. It compares the 2020 Democratic primaries to March Madness.

How Democrats’ 2020 Battle Resembles a Basketball Tournament
It’s way too soon to anoint a presidential front-runner. But not to draw brackets in a race to a Final Four.

The Insider Bracket
The Liberal Bracket
The Diversity Bracket
The Outsider Bracket

In a final four of bracket winners, almost anything could happen. Party power brokers will have less say than ever before after Democrats foolishly downgraded the nominating role of elected officials. So it’s hard to predict any outcome, but here’s one possible new wrinkle. Electability rarely has been a voting issue for Democrats, but this time – more than ideology, age or geography – an edge may go to the candidate seen as best able to end the Trump nightmare.​

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...20-how-presidential-race-resembles-basketball

Won't it be a downer if trump declines to run again?

J

 

[Gori the Grey]

Electability rarely has been a voting issue for Democrats, but this time – more than ideology, age or geography – an edge may go to the candidate seen as best able to end the Trump nightmare.

Yes, that is my primary voting consideration.

Won't it be a downer if trump declines to run again?

No, that is my most earnest hope. But he will run again (assuming he hasn't been impeached and removed from office).

 

[onejayhawk]

Yes, that is my primary voting consideration. No, that is my most earnest hope. But he will run again (assuming he hasn't been impeached and removed from office).

Other than the fact he said so, why do you think that?

J

 

[Gori the Grey]

Oh, I don't put stock in anything he says.

Whole presidency has effectively been a ****-waving contest with Obama. He can't be a one-term president when Obama was a two-term president.

As a more general principle, he can't be rejected by voters once they've seen what he actually is, and regard/peddle himself as a winner. A one-term presidency would be worse for his brand than not having won in 2016.

Add to that he becomes indictable as soon as his presidency ends.

Then add to that that nothing gives him as much satisfaction as the adulation he gets at rallies. He'll run just for the running.

 

[Colonel]

I'm putting money on General Mattis running for the presidency in 2020. If he ran as a democrat he would have broad ranging support from a huge chunk of the Republican party and the democratic party would go with almost anyone at this point to get the current president removed from office, be it through impeachment or the next election.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No one associated with the Trump presidency will be able to run in 2020, if ever again, for high office. They are radioactive.

 

[rah]

But they'll all be able to retire to the speaking circuit charging big bucks for tell all speeches.

 

[Broken_Erika]

But they'll all be able to retire to the speaking circuit charging big bucks for tell all speeches.

Or the comedy club circuit........

 

[metalhead]

Add to that he becomes indictable as soon as his presidency ends.

Ding ding ding! We have a winnah!

He can wait out the statutes on most (all?) of his crimes if he gets re-elected and they decide they have to wait until he's no longer president to indict him. Or at the least he gets 4 more years of freedom.

I don't think he needs another 4 years to convince himself he was the best president ever and take that to his grave. And monetize the crap out of it by marketing himself to MAGA chuds and hitting the huckster speaking circuit (which he has been on before) and probably doing campaign-style rallies for fun.

But he doesn't want to go to prison with the rest of them.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Oh, I don't put stock in anything he says.

Whole presidency has effectively been a ****-waving contest with Obama. He can't be a one-term president when Obama was a two-term president.

As a more general principle, he can't be rejected by voters once they've seen what he actually is, and regard/peddle himself as a winner. A one-term presidency would be worse for his brand than not having won in 2016.

Add to that he becomes indictable as soon as his presidency ends.

Then add to that that nothing gives him as much satisfaction as the adulation he gets at rallies. He'll run just for the running.

I don't think losing in 2020 hurts his folk-hero-like status among his ardent supporters one bit. In fact I think losing in 2020 is just one more way he becomes a martyr to their cause (with impeachment/removal being another). Losing the election will just cause his supporters to say that the election was rigged by China, Russia, "the media", etc., and cause them to bemoan the deep state conspiracy against their guy. The only difference... which is actually quite meaningful I'd think... is that they won't be able to characterise an election (as opposed to impeachment/removal) as a coup-d'etat. I think that is critical to give us the maximum chance of a peaceful transition of power.

My concern is that impeachment/removal just carries a higher risk of violence, shootings and worse... with people feeling like the Presidency was stolen from them. Trump has already done the thing he does where he quite transparently calls for something to happen by coyly "predicting" that it will happen... whereby he "predicted" that there would be violent reprisals if he were impeached.

 

[Hygro]

I don't think losing in 2020 hurts his folk-hero-like status among his ardent supporters one bit. In fact I think losing in 2020 is just one more way he becomes a martyr to their cause (with impeachment/removal being another). Losing the election will just cause his supporters to say that the election was rigged by China, Russia, "the media", etc., and cause them to bemoan the deep state conspiracy against their guy. The only difference... which is actually quite meaningful I'd think... is that they won't be able to characterise an election (as opposed to impeachment/removal) as a coup-d'etat. I think that is critical to give us the maximum chance of a peaceful transition of power. My concern is that impeachment/removal just carries a higher risk of violence, shootings and worse... with people feeling like the Presidency was stolen from them.

No negotiating with terrorists.