Is there a politics thread? Guess I'm making one

[Grefter]

Again, outsider so I might be totally wrong on this, but I disagree completely on your breakdown of the Republican reps.

Even without Trump on the cards you opened up with territory as broad as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio up against Ted Cruz and even had Rand Paul in there.  There is an awful lot of diverse platforms that threw their hats in the ring there. 

Sure I think like... all of them are pretty gross, but Ted Cruz is honestly still more terrifying to me than Trump.  Rand Paul is the sleeper Libertarian Conservative candidate that the internet reactionaries that backed his dad when internet reactionaries were still pretending to be Brogressives.

Even in the split between Rubio and JBush for horrifying corporate puppets is at least a a slightly different coats of paint over the all consuming maw of crony capitalism.

[Cmdr_King]

The thing to remember is that your Trumps and Cruzes are so far right that they don't actually HAVE counterparts in US politics on the left.  I mean, there surely must be some sort of far-left reactionaries that legitimately advocate proletariat revolutions in the US, but they don't to my knowledge run for office.  Hell, there was a video from Cracked last week making fun of people for saying "if Trump wins I'll just move to Canada" that included a comment along the lines of "Canada already had a Donald Trump, called Stephen Harper" and... noooooo, no.  Harper was like... Canada's Bush.  Harper may have wanted to strip-mine the entire arctic circle and nuke whales to turn their blubber into precious crude oil, but that's still not Trump-tier awful.

Unless Harper tried to convince his supporters to beat on his political opponents.  I feel like that would have come up more if happened though.

Cruz is probably scarier than Trump on a pure policy level, but a) he still hasn't encouraged a crowd to beat up protesters  and b) Ted Cruz is that asshole nobody likes in the Senate.  And again, we're talking about the United States Senate.  And they all fucking HATE Ted Cruz.  The only reason he could actually win his party's nomination is because people realize Donald Trump is Literally a Fascist and will take ANYONE ELSE to try and salvage the party for future elections.  And the only way he could win the national election after that is basically because Hillary Clinton was thrown in prison a week before the election and even then I have my doubts.  But if he passes those two hurdles, he still has to deal with the fact that all of congress hates his guts and will laugh off any legislation he tries to spearhead.  He probably gets some super gross anti-trans legislation through or something, but his efforts to recall the constitution and institute religious law are going to fall short.

Jeb Bush is a lot more conservative than he seemed.  And Rubio was considerably more conservative than that.  They're just not Texas Brand Religious Nutjobs like Ted Cruz (or at least that's how the man runs) and are capable of actually couching their arguments in socially acceptable language.

[Grefter]

Yeah that was mostly the point, not that there is equivalents in the Dems, but that even though all the Republican candidates are hyper conservative in one form or another, there was a lot of brands of conservatism there.



Aaaaaand to keep up the chain, I disagree on your parsing of the Cracked video.  Harper wasn't close to Trump, but no matter what happens in the US, Canada is not some magical center left Socialist Democratic wonderland that you can move to and fix all your problems.  It's a real place with real people and real politics.  If moving there just because you want to was that easy I would just not have got on a flight home one year.

[Pyro]

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11505126/poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/22/11472026/2016-democratic-primary-party-unity

Basically all the 'ugh Hillary is not pure' crap will disappear when it is her against the Republican party.

[NotMiki]

I've honestly yet to meet a Hillary voter who actually found her more agreeable ideologically.

I find her more agreeable ideologically.  I've said I'm to the left of her and to the right of Sanders, and I've chosen Clinton.  That's not a decision based on tactical considerations, but rather based on my decision that the country will be better off with her as president.  Happy?

[Pyro]

There are also some liberals/lefties who have are concerned about Sanders' tendency to overstate his policy promises. Case in point promising that single payer would deliver all or most cost savings via reduced overhead and such when there would have to be cuts to providers and some degree of rationing (We already have that in the US it is just by access to insurance and money).

Also the lack of nuance on climate change policy and the focus on the size of the big banks rather than the portfolio/shadow aspect of it. There was also that little spat with prominent liberal economists over the Sanders campaign defending an outside economist analysis who promised a whopping 5% growth over a prolonged time via Sanders' economic policy. Really kind of reminds me conservative claims of YUGE growth if you cut taxes. Not that it's bad policy actually (single payer is good!) but it isn't good to view your policies as silver bullets to everything (it slices, it dices, it solves economic stagnation!).

[SnowFire]

Hillary is actually quite close to me ideologically, just I don't entirely trust her judgment on a number of issues, and she's a pragmatist which is in some ways a good thing and in some ways means you can't really tell what she'd be like in office.  (TO BE CLEAR presidents who barge forward according to what their ideology says to do regardless of circumstances...  well, we remember Mr. Bush, right?).  That said, I'm still to the right of Bernie, so.  The biggest worry is, weirdly enough for a Secretary of State, foreign policy; I think that "doveish POTUS, hawkish Sec State" is the right balance to strike.  "Hawkish POTUS, hawkish Sec State" risks groupthink, so I'd definitely hope that Hilary doesn't screw up there and get the advice she wants to hear, not the advice she needs to hear.

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11505126/poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/22/11472026/2016-democratic-primary-party-unity

Basically all the 'ugh Hillary is not pure' crap will disappear when it is her against the Republican party.

This is a bit risky, though, because in first-past-the-post, even losing 2% of your voters to a splinter candidate is dangerous, as is another 2% of your voters being disaffected and staying home.  It's oftentimes very hard to poll such people, especially the disaffected ones - polling any small subset accurately is tough.

I think 2000 both taught some of the far left a lesson, and also provided something for all leftists to rally around: hating on Bush.  So there was a large degree of unity on the left for 2004 - 2008, and by and large, the left was pretty happy with Obama in 2012 - some of the left was disappointed, perhaps, but not in revolt.  2016 is uncharted territory.  The good news for the Dems is that Trump or Cruz would both represent unusually soft competition where the difference between a 10-point rout and an 8-point rout is not decisive.  But if something weird happens to make the race tighter, or we're talking 2020 when memories of Nader 2000 have faded further...  who knows.

[The Duck]

So... NeverTrump sure worked.

[SnowFire]

I get what you mean, but let's not be too morose: NeverTrump almost surely WILL work in the general, if not the primary.  The Republicans losing even 5% of their votes from NeverTrump'ers staying home or voting Hill/Libertarian/Constitution is basically gg, and I wouldn't be shocked if the drop was more like 10%.

[The Duck]

I am specifically talking about the conservative movement that repudiated him in the primary that is now starting to reluctantly coalesce around him (and it's fascinating/pathetic to see who is going back to support him, even reluctantly). He will surely lose in the general, you cannot be as odious and unappealing to basically all women and minorities and win. For all the strategic wrangling, NeverTrump had no effect in the primaries and never made any real concerted effort to attack Trump, possibly due to the fear that he would run third party. The Dems have no compunctions and it is going to be hard for him to win the demographics that are set against him (and he's basically going to pivot towards sexism in the general).

I don't have any inclination to feel happy or smug about his chances. He's dangerous by his very presence and by his normalization of bigotry.

[Fenrir]

Everybody is saying that Hillary had already won, but I wouldn't underestimate Trump's ability to do a 180 on subjects like women and latinos now that he's won the primary + just how short term the average voter's memory is. And he's anti establishment against establishment.

[Laggy]

What Fenrir said.

It makes all of the "oh MAN, he's so AUTHENTIC and SAYS IT LIKE IT IS" (you know says it like being a racist asshole bigot, which I guess is saying it like it is if you are one too) all the more headdesk inducing. But it will probably happen.

[SnowFire]

Fenrir: Even if he does a 180 on some issues and pivots hard toward respectability...  while simultaneously not losing any of his hardcore supporters...  it's STILL an uphill climb for Trump.  Put things another way, what's the fair bet on President Trump?  33% chance is still way too high IMHO.  It's more like 2%.  (Which, as a citizen, is still WAY TOO HIGH, I dun wanna be gambling on a 2% chance of the end of America.)

I don't have any inclination to feel happy or smug about his chances. He's dangerous by his very presence and by his normalization of bigotry.

This is the real problem, yes, and I'm certainly not pleased - I'd rather have had Cruz (BLECH) as far as respectable opposition that wouldn't ENTIRELY make the US and thereby liberal democracy look weak & discredited for a year or so.

[superaielman]

Speaking as someone who is definitely part of the Never Trump crew: The core of that group is not going to support Trump come hell or high water. The big money donators in the party are not going to back Trump either. That combined with the large majority of the intellectual conservative publications being against Trump... you have a recipe for a total goddamn revolt/beatdown in the general election.

[Fenrir]

Some of the right will not vote for Trump but some of the left will vote for him, because he's anti establishment and the political spectrum is not a line that goes from far left to far right but a circle

Just saying that he probably shouldn't be underestimated. (Also people like underdog stories)

[Excal]

Just going to point out, looking back at the odds betting sites gave on Trump winning the primary back when it started last year, he was sitting at 5%.  He's already beat one set of long odds, which makes stating he's facing long odds again not especially comforting.

[SnowFire]

Fenrir: Trump doesn't exactly line up with the vanilla political science textbook definition of US Right vs. Left.  Which happens, it could be the sign of a realignment, but it's not like Trump is a moderate and only hardcore far-right Cruz supporters will sit on their hands.

Excal: Let's say I decide to crank up the bass of the stereo to 11, paint "LEGALIZE WEED" on my car in big green letters, then start cruising down the streets at 85 mph (140 kph?).  I'm probably gonna get arrested, no?  But fine, I somehow didn't get arrested.  Winning the general is gonna be like going back out, except this time with an ambulance siren to go with the music and wearing a turban and going at 100 mph and having my biker gang follow me.  The fact I got away with the above does make it more likely I'm gonna get away with this the second time (perhaps the police are on strike right now?), but it's still gonna be tough.

[Grefter]

Someone that votes for Trump (i.e. Old money crony capitalist) under the banner of Anti-Establishment is fucking terrible at what they are trying to do and isn't even really "left". 

Even a vote for Libertarian is more in line with those values than Trump.

[superaielman]

Fenrir: Trump doesn't exactly line up with the vanilla political science textbook definition of US Right vs. Left.  Which happens, it could be the sign of a realignment, but it's not like Trump is a moderate and only hardcore far-right Cruz supporters will sit on their hands.

Trump is actually pretty comparable to Marine Le Pen, so Fenrir's seen this shitshow in his own country. I'm just really hoping that Trump won't have the success Le Pen and the national front have had.

[Fenrir]

Yeah in France we've seen a lot of far left voters switch to the far right. And Trump is definitely far right.

Honestly Super you're already worse off, Trump would probably be less of a disaster for his country than Le Pen (lol) but his speeches are more racist and he has more voting intention.

Someone that votes for Trump [...] is fucking terrible

[Pyro]

Trump pulled support from a minority of a minority (nationalist know-nothing republicans). He is hated by the party elite and Democrats despise him. He has no 'moderate' appeal for all that this is a small column that is more likely to heavily lean one party than a huge contigent of middle of the road folks.

If Trump had cross appeal it ended when he espoused conservative dogma on too many things. I don't think he can just lie his way out of various positions but who knows. US media.

Tldr check out Trump's nonwhiye and female support. That may not matter as much in a republican primary but it sure as hell matters in the general.

And Cruz is as bad as Trump. Wanted to raise taxes on the poor and cut them on thw rich. Cut taxes on the rich by like 8 to 10 TRILLION dollars over the course often years and raise military spending and somehow balance the budget. Wanted to do away entirely with Energy, labor, financial oversight, EPA... And that would not come CLOSE to paying for his tax cuts. Says climate change is not happening (or maybe he moved on to the next defense in depth strategy). Talks about machine guns like they were toys. Talked about carpet bombing cities. And is probably an honest to god monster going by the folks who have known and worked with him.

But seriously all the Republican proposals were insane. Donald Trump being uniquely headline grabbing does not change the fact that every Republican had devolved into chest beating cave men screaming "Government bad! Tax cut good!". Albeit they had nice suits. It is frustrating that the shear insanity of their collective policy proposals is lost in some personality war where everyone but Trump is 'acceptable'.

[The Duck]

I actually don't think he can walk that shit back (the build a wall narrative is pretty central to his core and a big talking point from his supporters... how do you take it back or talk around it?) and he simply cannot help himself from being insulting to women, even more recently when he is acting more "presidential." Regardless, he cannot be treated lightly.

And I'm afraid his support is going to have far reaching consequences beyond the election year. There's a significant segment of the population that is incredibly angry that has a xenophobic, nationalistic streak that he is giving voice to. It's possible that some future candidate will be able to harness this and have Trump-like views but in a more palatable package. I don't think that's going away. I recognize that it is not a large proportion of people but already it has been influential.

I think a fascinating hypothetical would be what would have happened if the GOP had decided to address the issues outlined by the autopsy after the 2012 loss (essentially rebrand as something other than rich, racist assholes, appeal to minorities, stop pushing anti gay marriage, etc). They might have been able to push someone like Rubio and been competitive. Instead they've really doubled down and this is sort of the natural end point of that. It'll be interesting to see what they do from here. I think maybe a lot of effort will go into attempts not to get their clock cleaned on down ballot elections but there are serious party brand ramifications here, especially as younger people associate the party with Trump.

I think the influence of conservative intellectuals has also waned and many seem to be without a party. The party is splintered and I'm unsure how they create a competitive coalition or if the well is just poisoned.

[Cmdr_King]

Someone that votes for Trump (i.e. Old money crony capitalist) under the banner of Anti-Establishment is fucking terrible at what they are trying to do and isn't even really "left". 

Even a vote for Libertarian is more in line with those values than Trump.

I think this is what you're trying to get at.



Obviously not a perfect scientific tool or anything, but useful just as a visual guide.
As long as I'm breaking out the charts, though?

Here's the 2008 primary season


Here's the 2012 primary (plus Obama after one term)


For some reason the Democratic machine has decided that you're either sexist or racist if you're didn't get in line behind Clinton before.  But it's some small comfort that I'm not the only one that's thought about it this way: the office of President of the United States invariably pushes someone rightward.  If you're starting off as conservative as Clinton is this year, that could end up very far right indeed.

It's been said; Clinton is very, very lucky that Donald Trump is the republican nominee.  It's likely that he's the only one (except maybe Ted Cruz) the increasingly-left Democratic base would actually unite behind her to deny.

[Hunter Sopko]

What was your source for those? I'm curious on the methodology they used.

[Grefter]

I am going to do it again.

For some reason the Democratic machine has decided that you're either sexist or racist if you're didn't get in line behind Clinton before.

Is this like for real or is this rhetoric just one more of the tools that Clinton and her backers used to push and leverage her way into this position that she has been very clearly driving towards for over a decade now?  I have 0 expectation that someone as driven and pragmatic as Clinton is based on her policies and approach to politics won't have it as just one more weapon in the arsenal.

Also consistent scale?  Or we really do represent that Clinton got twice as authoritarian and nearly twice as far Right leaning in the last 8 years?  Because even if we are using a comparative scale based on the competition if Hilary Clinton hasn't changed massively we are showing that like the 2016 ballot is LESS extreme than the 2008 ballot in general to which I say "fucking noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooope".