Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Stein grabbed the "Vaccines cause Autism" rail. She's toast this election cycle, and probably takes a number of Greens down with her.
Political Prediction Thread
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
Stein grabbed the "Vaccines cause Autism" rail. She's toast this election cycle, and probably takes a number of Greens down with her.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Trump has been much more openly antivax than Stein and he's doing surprisingly okay. It's a terrible position, but it's not one that really matters politically.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Trump could kill and eat a bald eagle on television and his cult followers wouldn't blink. He can get away with things nobody else can.
Trump voters just want to wreck the current system. They don't think they can be any worse off, so why not.
Predictions: North Carolina and Virginia will vote more democratic than Iowa this election. (The latter I'm more confident about than the former)
Current 538 predictions (Polls-only):
VA: 49.1
NC: 48.2
IA: 47.3
Looking good there
I'm sensing that the old Donald may not make it to the finish line.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,410
Steve Kornacki, sitting in for Rachel Maddow the other night, did a segment on this. Evidently Iowa ranks well behind the nation at large in people with college degrees and that's the core faultline in this election.
Iowa is also 96% white, which is an even bigger factor in this election than in the past. It actually had some of the most Democratic-leaning white people in the nation in 2012; if only white people could vote in 2012 (but Obama could still run), the Democrats would have won only the New England states, New York, Delaware, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii according to this article. They'd lose Maryland, Illinois, and California among other blue states. Throw that in with a middling college education rate and Iowa has one of the largest non-college-educated white proportions in the country: in fact it's third behind only WV and ID in the 538 demographic slider among all 50 states+DC. So it's by far the most likely of the states Obama won in 2012 to vote for Trump.
I'm going to discard my prediction of 303 EVs for Clinton and will make a new prediction: she will get 347 EVs, with a map that is identical to the 2012 map except that NC flips blue. Certainly AZ and GA are in play as well, but I suspect that there are enough shy Trump voters to cost her both states.
I'm going to discard my prediction of 303 EVs for Clinton and will make a new prediction: she will get 347 EVs, with a map that is identical to the 2012 map except that NC flips blue. Certainly AZ and GA are in play as well, but I suspect that there are enough shy Trump voters to cost her both states.
Well...
There's still time to "Make America Great Again"
I was watching a "man-on-the-street" type video on youtube where they were asking RNC attendees if they wanted to "Make America great again", to which they would respond "Yes" of course... Then they would ask them "So what year was America last 'Great' in your opinion?
Gothca
The responses ranged from "the Wilsonian 'New Freedom' era" 1912-1915, (to which the questioner would point out that women couldn't vote) to "the founding father era/days, presumably 1776-1808 (to which the questioner would remind them of slavery), to the "Golden Age" 1945-1965 (to which the questioner would remind them of Jim Crow Segregation)
It amazed me that none of the responders said "the Reagan years"... or maybe (more probably) the ones that did just didn't make the video... It was still a funny video.
Lexicus
Deity
Sommerswerd said:
My guess is that somewhere in their brainstem most of these people are dimly aware that Reagan's openly declared war on workers and neoliberal smashing-up of social protections is part of the problem they're railing against by voting for/supporting Trump.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,410
Well...
There's still time to "Make America Great Again"
I was watching a "man-on-the-street" type video on youtube where they were asking RNC attendees if they wanted to "Make America great again", to which they would respond "Yes" of course... Then they would ask them "So what year was America last 'Great' in your opinion?
Gothca
The responses ranged from "the Wilsonian 'New Freedom' era" 1912-1915, (to which the questioner would point out that women couldn't vote) to "the founding father era/days, presumably 1776-1808 (to which the questioner would remind them of slavery), to the "Golden Age" 1945-1965 (to which the questioner would remind them of Jim Crow Segregation)
It amazed me that none of the responders said "the Reagan years"... or maybe (more probably) the ones that did just didn't make the video... It was still a funny video.
Oddly enough, I think the era Trump himself has in mind is the Clinton era: after the fall of the Soviet Union made the US the world's "sole remaining superpower" and before 9/11 gave us a new major enemy, terror, and while the job losses under NAFTA were only just going into effect, and while the bubble was giving the impression of endless, fantastic levels of economic growth.
Prediction: Trump will sue the RNC over the funds raised during this campaign season and their dispersal. (Particularly, of course, if the RNC responds to the recent letter and starts shifting funds away from the presidential race and toward the down-ticket race). He will claim that it was his "movement" that was responsible for the funds, and he will sue form 120% of the actual value that the RNC ever raised.
Lexicus
Deity
Gori the Grey said:
Gori, you're my go-to guy for Trump's psyche. This has to be true. I mean, he was on Fresh Prince during that time and that had to pretty much be the peak of his life.
Yeah its an interesting dilemma, and you could see some of them trying to quickly work through the cognitive dissonance in real time before answering... They can't say "Obama years" because... duh... they can't say "Bush Years" cause 911, Iraq and the financial meltdown... they certainly can't say "Clinton years" cause a Clinton is running against Trump, so not only is that a Democrat, its their opponents husband for crissakes
... so then they've got Reagan, but as Lex pointed out, all that Union-busting, populism squishing, trickle down, establishment Republicanism is supposed to be exactly what they are against... so then its Nixon, which is an obvious no-go, followed by more Democrats, so that's out... and at this point they realize 1) they cant remember anyone else besides the guys on the money; or 2)they need to say something abstract, non-committal, and meaningless but seemingly conventional wisdom and thus immune to serious challenge... basically pull a Trump... That's why you get people invoking the founding fathers.
Was it this one? If so, it's from the Daily Show, so only the funny/shocking/ignorant/etc. ones made the cut. A more complete set of responses to this question can be found here. Most Republican readers voted for some year from 1980 to 2005, with a significant number of votes for years around 1946-65 as well. Also, here are some responses from GOP delegates at the convention.Well...
There's still time to "Make America Great Again"
I was watching a "man-on-the-street" type video on youtube where they were asking RNC attendees if they wanted to "Make America great again", to which they would respond "Yes" of course... Then they would ask them "So what year was America last 'Great' in your opinion?
Gothca
The responses ranged from "the Wilsonian 'New Freedom' era" 1912-1915, (to which the questioner would point out that women couldn't vote) to "the founding father era/days, presumably 1776-1808 (to which the questioner would remind them of slavery), to the "Golden Age" 1945-1965 (to which the questioner would remind them of Jim Crow Segregation)
It amazed me that none of the responders said "the Reagan years"... or maybe (more probably) the ones that did just didn't make the video... It was still a funny video.
The 1946-65 responses are quite reasonable, IMO. Just about everyone, including Republicans, do acknowledge that there were major civil rights problems then too. But the trend line was very positive, with rapid civil rights gains being made throughout those years. Families really were more cohesive, as measured by metrics including the out-of-wedlock birth rate. The economy grew faster than it has before or since, and inequality reached all-time lows.
Just because an era features something that is considered a major injustice today doesn't mean that people who are nostalgic for that era want to bring back the injustice. Some might want that, but in this case most don't.
That makes sense. I'm sure the alot of guys who look back on the 50's fondly do so, in part, because the 50s were indeed great... for them. And when an era is great for you its easy to overlook how it might not be so great for others, in some cases whole classes of people. So yeah, 1945-65 was great? Sure, I watch "Mad Men"... seems like Roger was really enjoying himself...
And that's really the point... highlighting that when people say "Make America Great"... For who? Like it was back when? At what cost? The cost that was being paid back then to produce those results? If not, then is it realistic to think you can get those results without paying those costs? No its not realistic... and that's the point. If you want the 50s back then you gotta send the women back to the kitchen get rid of birth control and abortion, send the blacks to the back of the bus and janitor jobs, send the Hispanics and Arabs and Asians back where they came from, put the gays back in the closet and send everyone to church, Christian church, preferably protestant-christian church, every Sunday... Then you'll have you "cohesive families" and get rid of all that pesky "out-of-wedlock" hedonism. And a certain class of people will be very content and happy... basically the people who aren't affected by any of that stuff I mentioned... yeah, those guys will be very satisfied, just like in the 50s.
Also, thanks for the clip, that was it, I'm pretty sure, and I forgot about the guy who did mention the 80s... probably because he said he liked the whole crack-cocaine part
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,410
Ha! Thanks. I think.
No, I’ll actually take that as a compliment. I’m making a study of the guy. The psychological analysis I’ve offered is really just the first of a two-part study. I’ll soon be taking off my armchair psychologist hat and regaling you all with my dime-store sociological analysis instead. Because what I’m really interested in is why this guy has had such an appeal. I’ve never in my life witnessed a full-on demagogue in action. Do you remember that moment pretty early in the primaries where he had followers at one of his rallies take a pledge that they would go out and vote, and it looked like the Nazi salute? I thought to myself, “could something that really happen in modern day America?” (A Hitler, not just the salute.) A Hitler starts somehow and part of it, I thought to myself, might be the chattering class underestimating the threat in the early stages. So I started taking this guy and his followers really seriously.
What I really, really want is to devise a rhetorical strategy for breaking the spell, for disrupting the circuit between the demagogue and his adherents. The “I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” comment troubled me because I sense that it was true! But if the appeal can be constructed through words (the rhetoritician in me wants to believe ), it can be disrupted with words, too.
Zkribbler
Deity
You're echoing Mario Cuomo's "Tale of Two Cities" keynote speech from the 1984 Democratic Convention http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mariocuomo1984dnc.htm , wherein Cuomo laid out the difference between Reagan's perception of America as a "Shining City on a Hill," and the reality of places in that city where the sun never shines.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,410
Some days back, the good minds on this site started speculating that, after a loss in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump might go on to form a new media empire. The fact that his recent staff shake-up involved bringing on the former director of Breitbart news as CEO of his campaign and former Fox executive Roger Ailes on as at least an informal advisior seems a strong indication that he may have some such intention.
The lamestream media has belatedly caught up with our astute prognostications. As an example, you might consider this Boston Herald article.
bostonherald.com/news/columnists/john_sapochetti/2016/08/sapochetti_donald_trump_s_plan_b_may_be_media_empire
Two days back, I saw someone on one of the cable news/analysis shows pushing this theory a little bit further by saying the endgame in bringing Bannon and Conway onto Trump’s campaign is to make sure that he doesn’t lose too badly. The aim is to lose, just not by too much. If he loses big, he’s a Loser, with a capital L—a choke artist. But if he loses by just a little bit, he’s the spokesperson for a disgruntled near-majority, and that could be the basis for a new news-empire-for-the-disgruntled, to overgo Fox in that regard.
As I have mulled this over, a much darker forecast has begun to occur to me, and I share it with you as a set of predictions but for after the election:
Trump will lose the election. He never wanted to be president, in any case, as that would involve boring work on behalf of people other than himself, which he has never in his life shown any inclination to do.*
Just as his recent expression of regret contained no actual apology, his concession speech will not actually contain a concession : Although it at this point appears that the electoral college will be awarding the victory to my rival, I have been proud to lead what many have called a movement, and I will continue to be your voice against the corrupt and rigged system.
After losing, regardless of the margin of victory, Trump will be at the center of a new media operation headed by Ailes and Bannon.
Trump will appear on TV, criticizing Clinton at every turn, saying how much more Great America would be if he were at the helm, challenging the legitimacy of her authority, Monday-morning-quarterbacking every negative development—saying that he’s said it was going to turn out that way--claiming that the entire system is corrupt.
But that’s not the half of it.
It will not only be a media empire; he will declare that it is an ongoing political “movement.”
He will, for example, continue to hold rallies.
He will declare his admiring fans “Trump Nation,” They will think of themselves and talk of themselves in that way. He will sometimes speak of his movements as a new “American Party,” and talk about founding a new political party to counteract the totally crooked, completely rigged political system. When the corrupt liberal media points out to him that that same word “Nation” was the root word for the word “Nazi,” he’ll say “No, no, I just mean, like ‘Raider Nation,’ a group of people who see things the same way.”
But he will call on this “Nation” to engage in political acts.
And since those who make up this Nation are “second amendment people,” many of them will involve open display of firearms. When Hillary appoints her first Supreme Court Justice, Trump will say that person intends to abolish the Second Amendment and will call on his followers hold protests.
The closest historical analog will be the client armies of late Republican Rome: a group of armed citizens who feel greater allegiance to an individual leader than to the nation itself.
*a premise borrowed from “Gori the Grey Tremendous Primer to All that is Trump”
The lamestream media has belatedly caught up with our astute prognostications. As an example, you might consider this Boston Herald article.
bostonherald.com/news/columnists/john_sapochetti/2016/08/sapochetti_donald_trump_s_plan_b_may_be_media_empire
Two days back, I saw someone on one of the cable news/analysis shows pushing this theory a little bit further by saying the endgame in bringing Bannon and Conway onto Trump’s campaign is to make sure that he doesn’t lose too badly. The aim is to lose, just not by too much. If he loses big, he’s a Loser, with a capital L—a choke artist. But if he loses by just a little bit, he’s the spokesperson for a disgruntled near-majority, and that could be the basis for a new news-empire-for-the-disgruntled, to overgo Fox in that regard.
As I have mulled this over, a much darker forecast has begun to occur to me, and I share it with you as a set of predictions but for after the election:
Trump will lose the election. He never wanted to be president, in any case, as that would involve boring work on behalf of people other than himself, which he has never in his life shown any inclination to do.*
Just as his recent expression of regret contained no actual apology, his concession speech will not actually contain a concession : Although it at this point appears that the electoral college will be awarding the victory to my rival, I have been proud to lead what many have called a movement, and I will continue to be your voice against the corrupt and rigged system.
After losing, regardless of the margin of victory, Trump will be at the center of a new media operation headed by Ailes and Bannon.
Trump will appear on TV, criticizing Clinton at every turn, saying how much more Great America would be if he were at the helm, challenging the legitimacy of her authority, Monday-morning-quarterbacking every negative development—saying that he’s said it was going to turn out that way--claiming that the entire system is corrupt.
But that’s not the half of it.
It will not only be a media empire; he will declare that it is an ongoing political “movement.”
He will, for example, continue to hold rallies.
He will declare his admiring fans “Trump Nation,” They will think of themselves and talk of themselves in that way. He will sometimes speak of his movements as a new “American Party,” and talk about founding a new political party to counteract the totally crooked, completely rigged political system. When the corrupt liberal media points out to him that that same word “Nation” was the root word for the word “Nazi,” he’ll say “No, no, I just mean, like ‘Raider Nation,’ a group of people who see things the same way.”
But he will call on this “Nation” to engage in political acts.
And since those who make up this Nation are “second amendment people,” many of them will involve open display of firearms. When Hillary appoints her first Supreme Court Justice, Trump will say that person intends to abolish the Second Amendment and will call on his followers hold protests.
The closest historical analog will be the client armies of late Republican Rome: a group of armed citizens who feel greater allegiance to an individual leader than to the nation itself.
*a premise borrowed from “Gori the Grey Tremendous Primer to All that is Trump”
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I'll make that bet along side you.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Not even that close.
I was really pulling for Sawyer, because I really like her policies and I respect her as an activist and I live in DeBerry's district and he's awful, but maybe next time. Voter turnout was super-low even by the standards of August primaries in Memphis, so there's plenty of room to grow.Similar threads
