2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Timsup2nothin]

From a practical standpoint, Democrat candidates very seldom get the strength of in party support that Republican candidates do. The Democratic party is much more diversified so it's tougher to come up with a candidate that appeals wall to wall. The GOP is much more monolithic, so can be approached without causing internal conflicts.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Biden informed Sanders that he's going to begin the VP vetting process by the middle of this month.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/04/poli...anders-2020-vice-president-vetting/index.html

 

[Patine]

From a practical standpoint, Democrat candidates very seldom get the strength of in party support that Republican candidates do. The Democratic party is much more diversified so it's tougher to come up with a candidate that appeals wall to wall. The GOP is much more monolithic, so can be approached without causing internal conflicts.

Then are GOP Primary cycles traditionally more vicious and cutthroat than Democratic ones if such a "monolithic," status is actually present. And I don't just refer to 2016, but as a tendency of all contested GOP Primaries back to 1980, when George H.W. Bush was a sore loser about getting the consolation prize of VP he had his neighbour in Texas' boy take a shot at Reagan - err, the boy was only mentally ill and trying to impress Jodie Foster, and it had nothing to do Bush, right?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Then are GOP Primary cycles traditionally more vicious and cutthroat than Democratic ones if such a "monolithic," status is actually present.

They tend to be more about untraceable dirty tricks but have less open conflict. Since the rank and file are pretty consistent there's not much in the way of differences over issues, so it's more character and charisma and no one wants to be perceived as a bully (before Trump), but robocalls by an "unaffiliated" group spewing dirt about an opponent is pretty common. GWBush won the nomination in 2000 when a 'mysterious group that certainly wasn't his campaign' called tens of thousands of South Carolina the night before the primary 'just to let them know' that John McCain's adopted daughter was not only half black but was also his secret love child. It was forcefully debunked and GWBush played "appalled and dismayed" while stating without hesitation that he had known John McCain a long time and there was no way that this slanderous attack was even remotely true...the day after the primary. The McCain campaign never recovered.

 

[Tristan_C]

Then are GOP Primary cycles traditionally more vicious and cutthroat than Democratic ones if such a "monolithic," status is actually present. And I don't just refer to 2016, but as a tendency of all contested GOP Primaries back to 1980, when George H.W. Bush was a sore loser about getting the consolation prize of VP he had his neighbour in Texas' boy take a shot at Reagan - err, the boy was only mentally ill and trying to impress Jodie Foster, and it had nothing to do Bush, right?

It is not quite the same type of competition on the R side. Tim is right at least as far as this goes, that the two parties have fundamentally different constituencies. I think this has been the case for many years, but it is becoming more obvious.

The D party is a coalition of identity groups. The R party is monolithic at least by comparison. You could think of the primaries as a selection of what each party thinks the priorities should be, both in the person of the candidate and the overall policy goals. I think in the past several years the R have unified more on how they rank their priorities. The identity groups have definitely not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is not quite the same type of competition on the R side. Tim is right at least as far as this goes, that the two parties have fundamentally different constituencies. I think this has been the case for many years, but it is becoming more obvious.

The D party is a coalition of identity groups. The R party is monolithic at least by comparison. You could think of the primaries as a selection of what each party thinks the priorities should be, both in the person of the candidate and the overall policy goals. I think in the past several years the R have unified more on how they rank their priorities. The identity groups have definitely not.

LOL...the GOP is just as deep in 'identity group,' it's just that they only have one and are really open about their intention to keep it that way.

 

[Patine]

They tend to be more about untraceable dirty tricks but have less open conflict. Since the rank and file are pretty consistent there's not much in the way of differences over issues, so it's more character and charisma and no one wants to be perceived as a bully (before Trump), but robocalls by an "unaffiliated" group spewing dirt about an opponent is pretty common. GWBush won the nomination in 2000 when a 'mysterious group that certainly wasn't his campaign' called tens of thousands of South Carolina the night before the primary 'just to let them know' that John McCain's adopted daughter was not only half black but was also his secret love child. It was forcefully debunked and GWBush played "appalled and dismayed" while stating without hesitation that he had known John McCain a long time and there was no way that this slanderous attack was even remotely true...the day after the primary. The McCain campaign never recovered.

We had a robocall scandal here in Canada in one either 2006, 2008, or 2011 (one of the three that elected Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper) telling voters in Liberal Party-heavy neighbourhoods in several 'swing" constituencies" (mostly in urban/suburban/rural hybrid demographic ones in Ontario) that their polling stations had been changed at the last minute, causing confusion, and leading to a significant number (though maybe not as great as intended) of Liberal Party voters not to vote.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We had a robocall scandal here in Canada in one either 2006, 2008, or 2011 (one of the three that elected Conservative Party Stephen Harper) telling voters in Liberal Party-heavy neighbourhoods in several 'swing" constituencies" (mostly in urban/suburban/rural hybrid demographic ones in Ontario) that their polling stations had been changed at the last minute, causing confusion, and leading to a significant number (though maybe not as great as intended) of Liberal Party voters not to vote.

This is a regular occurrance in some states here, unfortunately. And now the GOP are allowed to bring intimidators poll watchers to the polls that they previously couldn't thanks to the Supreme Court.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Not sure how anyone can look at the GOP and think they aren't involved in identity politics.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not sure how anyone can look at the GOP and think they aren't involved in identity politics.

Because they don't see "white christian male straight" as an identity, just as the standard from which "identity groups" vary.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

They see anyone who deviates from even one of those to be inherently lesser;

Female? Disgusting creatures which should submit to male authority and who can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies without the input of men, baby making factories that have gotten too uppitym

Gay/Bi/Queer? Perverted, disordered and immoral.

Trans? Perverted, mentally ill and immoral.

Atheist? Immoral and deserving of some form of punishment.

Muslim? Terrorist Sympathizer and anti American.

Black? Either a thug, on welfare or just a straight up lesser human being.

Latino? Non-American thugs, on either welfare or stealing jobs, often simultaneously both.

Not even getting into class and wealth.

Just a genuinely evil party, their supporters aren't much better because even if they go acknowledge the above they still can't bring themselves to either leave it or challenge the rot that has taken hold.

 

[Zardnaar]

LOL...the GOP is just as deep in 'identity group,' it's just that they only have one and are really open about their intention to keep it that way.

The rights United around one thing. Tax cuts.

Our right is socially liberal but still buy into the tax cuts mantra. Hell they passed gay marriage doesn't really cost money.

Left doesn't have that single issue focus although healthcare might pull it off.

 

[Takhisis]

Not sure how anyone can look at the GOP and think they aren't involved in identity politics.

Because identity politics is only for minorities.

 

[Patine]

They see anyone who deviates from even one of those to be inherently lesser;

Female? Disgusting creatures which should submit to male authority and who can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies without the input of men, baby making factories that have gotten too uppitym

Gay/Bi/Queer? Perverted, disordered and immoral.

Trans? Perverted, mentally ill and immoral.

Atheist? Immoral and deserving of some form of punishment.

Muslim? Terrorist Sympathizer and anti American.

Black? Either a thug, on welfare or just a straight up lesser human being.

Latino? Non-American thugs, on either welfare or stealing jobs, often simultaneously both.

Not even getting into class and wealth.

Just a genuinely evil party, their supporters aren't much better because even if they go acknowledge the above they still can't bring themselves to either leave it or challenge the rot that has taken hold.

I'm not sure the entirety of the party voters (and those who may end up voting for them) hold those extreme of beliefs, given that members of all of those demographics are represented in the Republican membership and voter base in various numbers (for reasons they become convinced of - usually economics or pushing of certain specific Constitutional rights over others, or lower taxes, or what have you - not all, or even necessarily most, people who vote for the GOP vote for demographic issues at all. The problem with only having two viable candidates by the General Election because the election system is corrupt and rigged, and has the Constitutional relic and dinosaur of the EC, and thus the lack of true choice in leadership is a VERY big part of the problem). Plus, I honestly believe politicians in First World Nations at least who truly hold the above-stated beliefs you listed to the extremes you listed, and would actually outright LEGISLATE accordingly, are a TINY minority since the end of the '50's, frankly.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

The D’ump is the worst US president in American history and his popularity stemmed from the residual economic success from Obama, with some further inflationary pumping. Herbert Hoover lost reelection with similar economic policy but Bernie Sanders is our FDR while Biden sure is not.

 

[Patine]

The D’ump is the worst US president in American history and his popularity stemmed from the residual economic success from Obama, with some further inflationary pumping. Herbert Hoover lost reelection with similar economic policy but Bernie Sanders is our FDR while Biden sure is not.

He is truly awful, absolutely incompetent, and a disaster and train, but don't think he's the worst in U.S. history (although, in modern days, it's very common to declare a sitting or recent holder of a position the mantle of "worst," or "greatest," in that postion's history, often without much thought or real research, but mostly based on semantics). I'd personally say Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush would rank worse, in my more scholarly rather than semantic and polemic point-of-view. But, Trump is, as I said, nonetheless a wretched U.S. President himself.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would place Trump at around 40/45.

There's around 4-5 worse ones Patines list isn't a bad one.

That was pre Covid, Trump might go up a few notches probably worse than Hoover.

So maybe 1-2 presidents from before Lincoln.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Taking Covid19 into account, Trump is worse than Hoover. Bush Jr was mediocre, not that bad. Trump is worse than Nixon, especially because Republicans did NOT turn on Trump. Woodrow Wilson isn’t in my top 10 worst.

 

[Patine]

Taking Covid19 into account, Trump is worse than Hoover. Bush Jr was mediocre, not that bad. Trump is worse than Nixon, especially because Republicans did NOT turn on Trump. Woodrow Wilson isn’t in my top 10 worst.

Well, I'm sure the Great Depression would be a cake walk for you then, because there was no Covid-19 to worry about, eh? UNTIL you died of a COMMON cold or flu because you couldn't afford medical coverage or medicianls, and all the clinics and hospitals in your area had shut down because they couldn't pay the overhead to keep running...

Party loyalty in backing a horrid President is not part of the rating of how horrid the President themselves are - that's a different, but tangentially-related issue.

Wilson, despite his vaunted post-WW1 ideals, has a horrible and loathsome bigot in numerous ways, only out done on my list by Jackson, Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan - and all five make Trump look downright progressive, tolerant, and forward-thinking by comparison.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, I'm sure the Great Depression would be a cake walk for you then, because there was no Covid-19 to worry about, eh? UNTIL you died of a COMMON cold or flu because you couldn't afford medical coverage or medicianls, and all the clinics and hospitals in your area had shut down because they couldn't pay the overhead to keep running...

Party loyalty in backing a horrid President is not part of the rating of how horrid the President themselves are - that's a different, but tangentially-related issue.

Wilson, despite his vaunted post-WW1 ideals, has a horrible and loathsome bigot in numerous ways, only out done on my list by Jackson, Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan - and all five make Trump look downright progressive, tolerant, and forward-thinking by comparison.

I wouldn't judge presidents by the social norms of today, more were they good at their job by the standards of the time.

So the slave owning founding fathers get a pass to some extent. Slavery was legal in most parts of the world in 1776. In parts it was legal well into the 20th century.

Did the president leave the country in a better or worse place when they left office?