Politics... US election edition

[HoonDing]

Subtract 3 million votes from illegal immigrants and 2 million votes from the dead and Drump would've won the popular vote.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Food for thought:

Given the huge amounts of votes for Trump and all this talk of Trumpism, and him have taken over the Republican party, what on earth made many of those people (those old enough to have voted the last decades) vote for George W Bush earlier (more or less carrying the torch of his father and Reagan, simplistically speaking)? Were they harboring Trumpism "views" (mostly prejudice, ignorance and fear, with a deep-seated longing for a great leader), but felt that they had to settle for Bush's rather different direction (reasonably consensus, conservative-liberal, international alliances and warfare, not very protectionist, free trade, etc.)? And, so, has the Bush politics lost all traction, even its existential validity? How many would vote for a Mitt Romney package deal in the US nowadays, for instance? 5%? Not even that?

Edited November 11, 2020 by IndiraLightfoot

[Pidesco]

15 minutes ago, IndiraLightfoot said:

Food for thought:

Given the huge amounts of votes for Trump and all this talk of Trumpism, and him have taken over the Republican party, what on earth made many of those people (those old enough to have voted the last decades) vote for George W Bush earlier (more or less carrying the torch of his father and Reagan, simplistically speaking)? Were they harboring Trumpism "views" (mostly prejudice, ignorance and fear, with a deep-seated longing for a great leader), but felt that they had to settle for Bush's rather different direction (reasonably consensus, conservative-liberal, international alliances and warfare, not very protectionist, free trade, etc.)? And, so, has the Bush politics lost all traction, even its existential validity? How many would vote for a Mitt Romney package deal in the US nowadays, for instance? 5%? Even that?

 

Reagan, Bush, Romney, Trump all sit on a spectrum. Trump wasn't some sort of astounding break with past GOP. The GOP has been courting and cultivating the xenophobic and evangelical votes at least since Nixon resigned, and it is why the GOP was so easily co-opted by Trump in 2016 and why the GOP is now effectively the Trump party. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

25 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

 

Reagan, Bush, Romney, Trump all sit on a spectrum. Trump wasn't some sort of astounding break with past GOP. The GOP has been courting and cultivating the xenophobic and evangelical votes at least since Nixon resigned, and it is why the GOP was so easily co-opted by Trump in 2016 and why the GOP is now effectively the Trump party. 

I think it will be interesting in a decade or so to see if Trump gets rehabilitated in the same way Bush did in recent years. Imagine Democrats trotting out Donald as an example of when Republicans used to behave courteously in response to President Kevin Sorbo wanting to purge Anarchist Jurisdictions in Democrat run cities.

[Maedhros]

I see many are scared that Biden will allow too much "leftist" influence. I hope for America's sake that he will. This is a country that still doesn't have guaranteed paid holidays for workers, no paid sick leave (except in certain states), no protection against being unjustly fired from your job, the only OECD country that has no laws guaranteeing paid paternity/maternity leave...and where free (ish) healthcare isn't considered a human right. I'll add that 69% (!) of the population supports medicare for all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-far-behind-the-us-is-in-offering-worker-protections-2019-7?r=US&IR=T#the-us-does-not-guarantee-paid-time-off-for-vacation-or-holidays-1

I'd go as far as to say this isn't even a "leftist" agenda anymore. It's just common sense.

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, IndiraLightfoot said:

Food for thought:

Given the huge amounts of votes for Trump and all this talk of Trumpism, and him have taken over the Republican party, what on earth made many of those people (those old enough to have voted the last decades) vote for George W Bush earlier (more or less carrying the torch of his father and Reagan, simplistically speaking)? Were they harboring Trumpism "views" (mostly prejudice, ignorance and fear, with a deep-seated longing for a great leader), but felt that they had to settle for Bush's rather different direction (reasonably consensus, conservative-liberal, international alliances and warfare, not very protectionist, free trade, etc.)? And, so, has the Bush politics lost all traction, even its existential validity? How many would vote for a Mitt Romney package deal in the US nowadays, for instance? 5%? Even that?

I posted this a page or two ago but since you brought it up it’s right on point. I won’t pretend to know the mind of Trump voters but I would imagine a good percentage of them are not voting for anything so much as against the alternative. No matter how horrible Trump was it doesn’t make Biden good. In 2016 I can almost guarantee you the majority of trumps support was opposition to Hillary.

[Bartimaeus]

Average polling errors in swing states this past election as per 538 (whoever is named is the one gained because of the error):

Wisconsin - Trump +8 (2016: T+7)

Iowa - T+7 (2016: T+6)

Florida - T+6 (2016: T+1)

Michigan - T+5 (2016: T+5)

Texas - T+5 (2016: unknown)

Ohio - T+5 (2016: T+5)

New Hampshire - T+4 (2016: T+0)

Maine - T+3 (2016: T+2)

Pennsylvania - T+3 (2016: T+3)

North Carolina - T+2 (2016: T+3)

Nevada - T+2 (2016: C+3)

Minnesota - T+2 (2016: T+5)

Virginia - T+2 (2016: C+0)

Arizona - T+2 (2016: C+0)

New Mexico - T+1 (2016: C+3)

Georgia - T+1 (2016: T+0)

Colorado - Biden +1 (2016: C+2)

...In other words, don't trust Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and ESPECIALLY Wisconsin for the years to come, . Looks like a systematic underestimation of Trump to me, but mostly to mild/acceptable degrees outside of a particular handful.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[ComradeYellow]

Trump bad doesn't mean Biden good

If you don't understand that, you are not even remotely left wing, you are hard center at best.

[Guest]

Reasoning errors = hard center?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

10 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Average polling errors in swing states this past election as per 538 (whoever is named is the one gained because of the error):

Wisconsin - Trump +8 (2016: T+7)

Iowa - T+7 (2016: T+6)

Florida - T+6 (2016: T+1)

Michigan - T+5 (2016: T+5)

Texas - T+5 (2016: unknown)

Ohio - T+5 (2016: T+5)

New Hampshire - T+4 (2016: T+0)

Maine - T+3 (2016: T+2)

Pennsylvania - T+3 (2016: T+3)

North Carolina - T+2 (2016: T+3)

Nevada - T+2 (2016: C+3)

Minnesota - T+2 (2016: T+5)

Virginia - T+2 (2016: C+0)

Arizona - T+2 (2016: C+0)

New Mexico - T+1 (2016: C+3)

Georgia - T+1 (2016: T+0)

Colorado - Biden +1 (2016: C+2)

...In other words, don't trust Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and ESPECIALLY Wisconsin for the years to come, . Looks like a systematic underestimation of Trump to me, but mostly to mild/acceptable degrees outside of a particular handful.

What's interesting for this election is how almost all error was in Trump's favor. I've heard explanations that range from lack of analysis of Facebook engagement to Qanon supporters, whatever the case is something clearly caused an underestimation of Trump support. 

Tonight I had to go to a meeting for work, some of the folks there were heavy Trump supporters who thought masks were useless because covid was fake, the Democrats stole the election and "arms need to be taken up", that voting Republican was fighting against communism, and Kamala Harris would destroy the country by doing something they couldn't outright say but were very convinced of. This is just a bunch of drunk dipsticks who should probably learn to close their mouths, but given that I've been hearing similar propaganda since before I could vote it seems the well is really poisoned with large swathes of the conservatives who think Democrats are satantic islamic commies or some other dumb ****.

[Hurlshort]

Speaking of which, I do think it is comforting to remember that all these conservatives managed 8 years under a Muslim foreigner as President without getting too violent, so hopefully all this bluster will remain bark over bite.

[Chairchucker]

I haven't been following the thread enough to know which of the conservative talking points here are sarcasm, and which are earnestly held beliefs.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

22 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Speaking of which, I do think it is comforting to remember that all these conservatives managed 8 years under a Muslim foreigner as President without getting too violent, so hopefully all this bluster will remain bark over bite.

It most likely will, but it wouldn't take very many of them radicalized over this stuff to pile up a sizeable amount of bodies.

10 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

I haven't been following the thread enough to know which of the conservative talking points here are sarcasm, and which are earnestly held beliefs.

I'd lean closer to earnestly held belief, albeit they mostly buy into it because it sounds good to them and for the most part aren't likely to do anything but talk **** and vote Republican every few years. Still the tendency to embrace conspiracy theories and fantasize about vigilantism or the state dropping the boot on people they don't like is worrisome.

[Raithe]

5 hours ago, KaineParker said:

Still the tendency to embrace conspiracy theories and fantasize about vigilantism or the state dropping the boot on people they don't like is worrisome.

For the cheap shots from Johnny-Foreigner towards America...

To the world at large, it seems the mindset of most Americans (culturally speaking) is highly geared towards the fantasizing about vigilantism. America isn't about doing good on a day by day basis, it's about being Joe HERO in spectacular moments and be kind of blah the rest of the day.

[Raithe]

And for the supercut sniggers:

 

[Guard Dog]

8 hours ago, Achilles said:

Reasoning errors = hard center?

I would not say opposition to both candidates leads to a center position. But I also would not call opposition to either or both candidates faulty reasoning. Political affiliations are not a mathematical proof. There is no single correct answer. For someone who values limited and constitutional government and personal liberty there are ample reasons to oppose both candidates. Indeed the logical reasoning of such a voter can lead to little else that mutual opposition. To support one or the other such a voter must begin to make compromises on their beliefs. What will they trade in return for what. Speaking for myself alone I refused to betray my personal ethics to support a lesser evil. I do not consider that a vice and my reasoning was not faulty.  To suggest someone who came to a different conclusion did so by faulty reasoning is a tad arrogant. 

[Guard Dog]

Could Trump Stage a Coup

this is the kind of news reporting I would normally scoff at. But nothing is normal this year. But no, LOL, he’s not going to do that no one would ever support him even if he wanted to

[algroth]

11 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Could Trump Stage a Coup

this is the kind of news reporting I would normally scoff at. But nothing is normal this year. But no, LOL, he’s not going to do that no one would ever support him even if he wanted to

You say this, but all throughout the year we've been seeing how easy it is for his flock to "ease" on their belief of freedom so long as it aids their Trumpist views. Right now they seem very eager to veto the election altogether so long as they win and the libs are owned.

[Guard Dog]

3 minutes ago, algroth said:

You say this, but all throughout the year we've been seeing how easy it is for his flock to "ease" on their belief of freedom so long as it aids their Trumpist views. Right now they seem very eager to veto the election altogether so long as they win and the libs are owned.

Scary isn’t it? You know I always suspected this would happen in the US one day. But I always thought it would be the Democrats.

[Guard Dog]

Too funny!

[Raithe]

40 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Could Trump Stage a Coup

this is the kind of news reporting I would normally scoff at. But nothing is normal this year. But no, LOL, he’s not going to do that no one would ever support him even if he wanted to

Well, he has been switching some last minute appointments in the Pentagon hasn't he?

CNN - Trump Administration removes senior defence officials and appoints loyalists

Quote

The Trump administration has carried out sweeping changes atop the Defense Department's civilian leadership structure, removing several of its most senior officials and replacing them with perceived loyalists to the President.

The flurry of changes, announced by the Department of Defense in a statement roughly 24 hours after President Donald Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper, have put officials inside the Pentagon on edge and fueled a growing sense of alarm among military and civilian officials, who are concerned about what could come next.

Four senior civilian officials have been fired or have resigned since Monday, including Esper, his chief of staff and the top officials overseeing policy and intelligence. They were replaced by perceived Trump loyalists, including a controversial figure who promoted fringe conspiracy theories and called former President Barack Obama a terrorist.

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Raithe

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

32 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Scary isn’t it? You know I always suspected this would happen in the US one day. But I always thought it would be the Democrats.

Why? You can't look at Bush Jr or Trump and think this is a party who isn't throughly invested in growing state power and willing to lie, cheat, and steal.

2 hours ago, Raithe said:

To the world at large, it seems the mindset of most Americans (culturally speaking) is highly geared towards the fantasizing about vigilantism

To a large extent yes, however the targets have shifted from vague notions of bad guys to people with different political views.

[Guard Dog]

3 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

Why? You can't look at Bush Jr or Trump and think this is a party who isn't throughly invested in growing state power and willing to lie, cheat, and steal.

 

Sadly true. There is no party of limited government now.

[Pidesco]

1 minute ago, Guard Dog said:

Sadly true. There is no party of limited government now.

Was there ever?

[Gfted1]

Not as far as Obama was concerned.