Politics: The Final Frontier

[Sarex]

So what are the odds for Trump getting reelected? I see that the loudest people are anti-Trump, but that doesn't really count for much and as far as I see the US economy didn't really suffer under Trump.

[Hurlshort]

36 minutes ago, Sarex said:

So what are the odds for Trump getting reelected? I see that the loudest people are anti-Trump, but that doesn't really count for much and as far as I see the US economy didn't really suffer under Trump.

I'd say 50/50. Of course, I didn't think there was any way in heck he would win after being caught on camera talking about grabbing women in the crotch, so what do I know?

[Malcador]

12 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I'd say 50/50. Of course, I didn't think there was any way in heck he would win after being caught on camera talking about grabbing women in the crotch, so what do I know?

You vastly overestimate Americans

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Sarex said:

So what are the odds for Trump getting reelected? I see that the loudest people are anti-Trump, but that doesn't really count for much and as far as I see the US economy didn't really suffer under Trump.

Depends on who the Dems nominate. Trump is in office today because he was matched up against someone even more repulsive than he was in 16. If the Dems nominate one of the angry lefties and Trump does not do anything worse than he already has AND the economy does not enter the long expected downturn then he has a good shot.  There are a handful of Democratic candidates, including a few that could be called progressive, that are sane and temperate enough to beat him. Gabbard absolutely could. Biden, Buti-something & Bullock could.  Any one of those four And he’s done. With any of the rest he has a better than average chance. 

[Gromnir]

19 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I see you want to check how many times one can miss the point

Watching Dems trying to pick a candidate in this tiptoeing around everything and victimhood olympics environment they created is so much fun. Maybe they will find actual candidate to go against Trump in 2036 or 2040.

you do realize your approval is akin to wod linking supporting articles from joshua goldberg, or sharp one linking alex jones stuff, yes? skarp blunt capacity to be wrong on any issue from law to bumblebee aerodynamics is gonna undercut gifted position, and he sure don't need that kinda help.

as to current issue o' trump chances o' winning, am admitted uncertain. while we don't necessarily agree with gd list o' candidates and their chances o' success 'gainst trump, am admitted concerned 'bout democrats, 'cause while democrats talk a good game, they so rare show up in november when it counts.

am knowing trump is as unpopular as ever, which has been a near constant since short after the election. am recognizing how poorly trump is polling 'gainst the field.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/457645-fox-news-poll-shows-trump-losing-to-biden-warren-sanders-and-harris

am admitted baffled by how trump is actual polling below his approval rate, which is kinda counter-intuitive for an incumbent President. 'course nothing much has made sense 'bout trump polling since he became nominee.

folks talk 'bout the economy as if is a positive for trump, but is core trump voters who has actual seen their situation become worse these last few years.

if democrats become enthusiastic 'bout a candidate, they win whether is moderate or far-left, but go ahead and try and predict such a thing today is gonna be mostly the result o' weak-arsed conjecture. have mentioned this before, but obama did not look like anything other than an also-ran until after iowa. is better for democrats if a candidate, moderate or far-left, energizes the historical torpid and indolent democrats. is tougher for a moderate to create groundswell support given the endemic disappointment many/most voters have with washington status quo. nevertheless, am not discounting the possibility o' a moderate finding an issue or signature proposal 'tween now and february 2020 iowa caucus to elevate their game, so-to-speak. 

is far too early to predict. yeah, only way trump gets reelected is gross incompetence by democrats, but such were the case in 2016. 

one thing democrats got going for 'em this time (other than trump incompetence in office, which should make the election moot but don't) is the fact clinton ain't the candidate. weren't simple fact clinton were so overwhelming unpopular 'mongst almost all non-democrats and even a few democrats which made her a bad candidate. the cronyism which marred the democrat candidacy is not an issue this time 'round. far too many demo bosses owed the clintons decades worth o' favors such that her candidacy in 2016 were foregone unless jesus christ returned to run... though am suspecting even jc would have a hard time with both party voters in the south and parts o' the heartland given fact he is not european white. last time around, many democrats justifiably believed clinton were forced onto them. made far too many fainéant democrats actual bitter rather than ordinary indifferent. ain't a candidate like that in the current field. 

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadySands]

Who knows. Conventional wisdom says to pick a middle of the road type to pander to the base and then pivot hard to the middle but that hasn't really been working out all that great for the Dem's since Slick Willy. They'll probably try to syphon off the Obama-Trump voters and hope that works but they might actually try to fire up their own voting base with something more than Trump bad, us less bad. 

It's a mystary.

That's my hot take anyway so feel free to discard.

Edited August 18, 2019 by ShadySands
Autocorrect on my phone changed Dem to Dim

[Guard Dog]

If you check off her position list I agree with her less than half the time on a good day. But that still puts here well above any other candidate currently in the race. It is a damn SHAME she is not doing better: https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/article/Tulsi-Gabbard-says-military-combat-service-shapes-14340612.php

[Guard Dog]

Left wing congresswoman pushes for boycott of left wing talk show host. Even minor dissenting opinions will NOT be TOLERATED! https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rashida-tlaib-suggests-boycott-of-bill-mahers-show-for-hosts-position-on-israel

[smjjames]

11 hours ago, ShadySands said:

Who knows. Conventional wisdom says to pick a middle of the road type to pander to the base and then pivot hard to the middle but that hasn't really been working out all that great for the Dem's since Slick Willy. They'll probably try to syphon off the Obama-Trump voters and hope that works but they might actually try to fire up their own voting base with something more than Trump bad, us less bad. 

It's a mystary.

That's my hot take anyway so feel free to discard.

How do you pivot hard to the center when you're already center? That metaphor is a bit funky because you're saying a centrist/moderate type who would become even more centrist/moderate.

Clearly though, moderates just aren't exciting to the base right now who want an equal and opposite reaction to Trump.

As gromnir says, it's pretty much going to come down to whether the Dems are incompetent or not, among other factors.

14 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Depends on who the Dems nominate. Trump is in office today because he was matched up against someone even more repulsive than he was in 16. If the Dems nominate one of the angry lefties and Trump does not do anything worse than he already has AND the economy does not enter the long expected downturn then he has a good shot.  There are a handful of Democratic candidates, including a few that could be called progressive, that are sane and temperate enough to beat him. Gabbard absolutely could. Biden, Buti-something & Bullock could.  Any one of those four And he’s done. With any of the rest he has a better than average chance. 

If the Trump admin handled the incoming recession well, then they might have a shot, however, I've heard that they are essentially putting their heads in the sand and not preparing for a recession because they don't want to cause undue panic or something. Not wanting to cause undue panic is understandable, but when a recession does come or it's staring them in the face, then they'll be rushing to slap together one and be wishing that they had at least a basic plan.

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

If you check off her position list I agree with her less than half the time on a good day. But that still puts here well above any other candidate currently in the race. It is a damn SHAME she is not doing better: https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/article/Tulsi-Gabbard-says-military-combat-service-shapes-14340612.php

What in particular is drawing you to her? This is better than the lukewarm at best support you usually give, so I guess we should be taking notice.

On a side-note, it's been noted by some analysts that Russian media, spambots, and astroturfers have been weirdly very supportive of her. That's not necessarily her fault or indicative of anything, but is an oddity nonetheless.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[smjjames]

2 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

What in particular is drawing you to her? This is better than the lukewarm at best support you usually give, so I guess we should be taking notice.

Other than the fact that she is one of the few candidates who are military veterans (Pete Buttigeig is one, as is Seth Moulton, but I don't get the sense that is his primary reason, though I can get how that'd be a strong connection for him), probably mostly the 'get us out of wars' and not get into unneccesary conflicts.

[smjjames]

52 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

 

On a side-note, it's been noted by some analysts that Russian media, spambots, and astroturfers have been weirdly very supportive of her. That's not necessarily her fault or indicative of anything, but is an oddity nonetheless.

Hadn't seen your edit. I've seen something about that with her apparently being targeted by Russians, though it's an odd target because she is polling very low atm, unlike Trump who was polling in top tier status pretty much the whole way. She hasn't even made the third debate yet I don't think, it's possible she might get into the fourth one due to the simple fact of having more time to meet the requirements. edit: She's met the donor requirements (as of 5 days ago on a 538 article) but not the polling requirements yet. So, she may get into the third one.

 

I think it might have something to do with her stance on Syria or something, I'm honestly not sure why they're targeting her as the only pro-Russian thing is the Syria stuff.

Edited August 18, 2019 by smjjames

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

17 hours ago, Sarex said:

So what are the odds for Trump getting reelected? I see that the loudest people are anti-Trump, but that doesn't really count for much and as far as I see the US economy didn't really suffer under Trump.

It depends on the candidate he runs against and if he manages to **** something up around the time of the election. And while the economy might not have gone nuclear it's in a precarious position with real wages being stagnant and rent prices becoming ridiculously high so that could blow up any moment.

[Guard Dog]

James hit the high note on the nose. The US has abandoned it's long held policy of non-intervention and IMO the world is worse off for it. There is no denying the US is worse off for it. As for the rest of of her positions she checks most of the boxes I like, isn't a gun control fanatic although does favor the solutions we are likely to get no matter what. I expect I will not like any Supreme Court Justices we're likely to get from her but that's true of all the candidates. Even Trump i'm only 50-50 on that count. I think it is very important that the President be a veteran and has seen the cost of military use first hand. In some of her remarks she reminds me quite a bit of Eisenhower. That isn't a bad thing.

As far as economic policy, she is a democrat. Spend, spend, spend, spend some more, tax the living s--t out of everything and everyone and keep spending. The consequences be damned. Once you accommodate yourself to the notion that no matter who wins the economiclypse is inevitable at least let us spend our remaining years in peace. 

[ShadySands]

18 minutes ago, smjjames said:

How do you pivot hard to the center when you're already center? That metaphor is a bit funky because you're saying a centrist/moderate type who would become even more centrist/moderate.

Clearly though, moderates just aren't exciting to the base right now who want an equal and opposite reaction to Trump.

No, it's more that they're just pandering during the primaries, selling themselves as more left/liberal/progressive than they actually are. Its not as if their hearts and minds actually change so pander to the base and then resume course after the nomination rather than become more moderate/centrist.

And as you said the current base wants their own Trumplike candidate that doesn't really even bother trying to appeal to the other side and keeps pushing for the same things in the general that they did in the primaries. They don't want to just mark time, they want to move forward for better or worse and a more fear based approach of "I have the best shot of beating Trump" doesn't reverberate as well for them, especially with the younger and more fickle voters who want to be inspired.

As to whether it would be succesful or not, who knows in the current bizarro world political landscape. But as Gromnir aready mentioned, if they can get their party to the polls they win no matter if they go far left or moderate.

 

[ktchong]

 

~*~ ThOuGhTs AnD pRaYeRs! ~*~

Edited August 18, 2019 by ktchong

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, smjjames said:

How do you pivot hard to the center when you're already center? That metaphor is a bit funky because you're saying a centrist/moderate type who would become even more centrist/moderate.

That is more or less what Hillary tried to do last time- when she was running for nomination she aimed for the centre of the Democrat party to get the nomination and was more left than many of her previously established political positions; when running as the nominee she aimed more for the centre of the electorate (and to the right end of the D party spectrum), or at least the part of the electorate that would at least consider voting for her. That is historically what most candidates do in Presidential races in the US or elsewhere, the main exceptions tend to be the 'inspirational' candidates- Reagan, Obama, Trump recently in the US.

4 hours ago, smjjames said:

I think it might have something to do with her stance on Syria or something, I'm honestly not sure why they're targeting her as the only pro-Russian thing is the Syria stuff.

It also has something to do with how the 'analysts' function, and how social media functions. It may be surprising given the weight their opinions are given but most analysts aren't experts, and their analysis tends to be extraordinarily simplistic. Someone who doesn't support western orthodoxy on Syria gets flagged as a 'Russian Bot', then if they support Gabbard because of her stance on Syria (and hence follow/ retweet/ like her on social media) it's support from bots, not support from actual people who agree with her stance on Syria. Because why would anyone disagree with with the highly successful western orthodoxy in the ME, except if they were being paid... And of course being social media you tend to get the web effect of people with similar views being exposed to her by other people with similar views; who then get flagged as 'russian bots' by 'analysts' for holding those views and having/ following 'bot' friends, and the number of Gabbard supporting 'bots' increases too. It's a circularised self supporting argument that collapses if you remove the one strut it rests on.

Since that 'analysis' suits the media and the D establishment and self proclaimed analysts can be used to say pretty much whatever is wanted in any given situation- and because few analysts will disclose their actual methods- no one looks deeper.

She certainly gets exposure from RT and the like because they like her stance on Syria, but the number of americans willing to be influenced by russian state media is unlikely to be high. And frankly, she does well in trends and the like after debates in part because she stands out, hasn't had the exposure and is pretty (the other thing that analysts say, though for obvious reasons they do so from behind their hands most of the time). Bernie would probably be the Russians actual choice from the D field since Gabbard is realistically a VP pick (not likely) or cabinet rather than nominee.

[smjjames]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, you'd think Russians would be leery of 'socialism', right?

Anyways, I really doubt that Gabbard would be a VP nominee as she doesn't fill a geographically strategic position and that's usually a consideration. Though it's likely less important than it used to be, it depends on the candidate doing the nomination and what they want or think they need. Pence was definetly picked with a strong geographically strategic consideration (on top of being such a religious fanatic that some of his views are borderline heretical), Kaine doesn't seem to have been picked with a strong consideration in that way.

Plus, the only recent VPs who were also-rans in recent times (by which I'm referring to the so called 'modern primary era' that started in the 1970s) are George HW Bush and Joe Biden. So, it's not real common (yes, I know there's a caveat for small sample size). Fakeedit: Going back slightly further (though still in the 1970s) and I find that Spiro Agnew was also an also-ran for Nixon.

Edited August 19, 2019 by smjjames

[Gfted1]

Speaking of which, what would my political affiliation be if I want strong social controls and all my life expenses to be paid for by "the rich"?

[smjjames]

20 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Speaking of which, what would my political affiliation be if I want strong social controls and all my life expenses to be paid for by "the rich"?

Socialist *RIMSHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1!!11*

edit: Isn't 'strong social controls' in the authoritarian direction though? Not sure what you mean specifically. Or rather, I may not be thinking the same thing you are when you say that.

Edited August 19, 2019 by smjjames

[Gfted1]

6 minutes ago, smjjames said:

edit: Isn't 'strong social controls' in the authoritarian direction though? Not sure what you mean specifically. Or rather, I may not be thinking the same thing you are when you say that.

Yes, it is in the authoritarian direction. But I don't mean total control, something like 75% more STFU from people, especially the "media".

[smjjames]

It'd still be socialism because conservatives call everything that these days.

[Gfted1]

Im very interested to see the development of the "social credit system" the Chinese have implemented.

[Amentep]

See New thread: