Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu May 18, 2017 3:25 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Leaving that completely separate topic for now, consider if someone like Trump came up on the Democrats side. Would you be willing to vote for anti-abortion, anti-LGBT etc republicans because you didn't believe in the President? Even if you did vote against the President, would you also vote against your house members and/or Senators? Because that is the situation you had now on the Republican side. The parties are so diametrically opposed on some issues that it's not choosing party over country but rather choosing against your own values for the more nebulous "country".


Luckily, exactly zero congresspeople have to make that choice. They don't vote for the president's decisions, they vote for laws. And republicans can (and do) vote against laws raised in their own party, including those backed by the republican president.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu May 18, 2017 3:32 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Chen wrote:Leaving that completely separate topic for now, consider if someone like Trump came up on the Democrats side. Would you be willing to vote for anti-abortion, anti-LGBT etc republicans because you didn't believe in the President? Even if you did vote against the President, would you also vote against your house members and/or Senators? Because that is the situation you had now on the Republican side. The parties are so diametrically opposed on some issues that it's not choosing party over country but rather choosing against your own values for the more nebulous "country".


Luckily, exactly zero congresspeople have to make that choice. They don't vote for the president's decisions, they vote for laws. And republicans can (and do) vote against laws raised in their own party, including those backed by the republican president.

That's being generous to the Republicans. For example, they also vote on confirmations, and investigations (or lack thereof). The GOP ,save for a few, support Trump bigly. They have stymied, slow pedaled or sided against anything bad for Trump. Let's be clear, it is in their short term interest to do so, but don't give that bullshit about how the Republicans can't control/influence/rebuke Trump.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu May 18, 2017 3:36 pm UTC

Oh yeah, almost all of them are spineless assholes willing to sacrifice everything for their short-term benefit. But they don't have to, they have the power to keep behaving as conservative, small-government ideologists while not supporting Trump.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Chen
Posts: 5069
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu May 18, 2017 4:59 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:If that's your choice, then don't vote. Or vote for a third party candidate. Or, hell, go try to run for office yourself. There is no excuse for supporting Trump.

I'm sorry, but this is actually pretty fucking easy. Nobody was stuck between two hard choices. They supported the ex-reality TV star who's very likely committed a series of sexual assaults and who talked about executing the families of suspected terrorists. Why? Because they thought he might advance their political agenda.


I'm saying there are people taking a big picture look at things here. Can you not fathom the people who supported Trump because they wanted Republican policy to be implemented in spit of being appalled by him? Like filling the courts with young conservatives who will be there for decades? Even if Trump crashes and burns early, he will still have put a new conservative justice on the Supreme Court that will last decades. That alone is a huge win if you want to see conservative values pushed through law.

No, I wouldn't vote for this turdwaffle *even if* he was a Democrat -- and doing otherwise meant giving the next Michael Pence a better shot at the candidacy. I wouldn't vote for Pence, either -- but as horrible as Pence would be, at least he *probably* wouldn't light the country on fire to try and collect the insurance money.


I mean that's fair. Personally I would have a much harder time of it, if the Trump figure was on the liberal side of things. If the President continually did things to enrich himself, colluded with foreign governments and generally said distasteful and despicable things, but in the end abortion remained safe in the law, real work was done towards climate change, LGBT rights remained recognized and were further strengthened and taxation became more progressive, I really would have a hard time saying no to it. Not to mention swinging the Supreme court back liberal for the next long while.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu May 18, 2017 5:15 pm UTC

Trump would have been terrible for Democrats, probably worse considering how much better the conservative media is at hyping up their base. The only weird thing would be Trump beating Hillary and Bernie. Like why would voters pick Trump over Bernie if they want populist,? And why would they want Trump over Hillary of they want establishment.

Chen
Posts: 5069
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu May 18, 2017 5:35 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Trump would have been terrible for Democrats, probably worse considering how much better the conservative media is at hyping up their base. The only weird thing would be Trump beating Hillary and Bernie. Like why would voters pick Trump over Bernie if they want populist,? And why would they want Trump over Hillary of they want establishment.


The point wasn't precisely Trump but someone else who held detestable views but who's party was doing things you supported.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3652
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dark567 » Thu May 18, 2017 5:45 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Trump would have been terrible for Democrats, probably worse considering how much better the conservative media is at hyping up their base. The only weird thing would be Trump beating Hillary and Bernie. Like why would voters pick Trump over Bernie if they want populist,? And why would they want Trump over Hillary of they want establishment.
Bernie is only kinda a populist... he still appeals very much to the college educated elites etc. Part of populism is talking and acting like the working class, which Trump somehow even though he is rich does very well. Part of populism often involves scapegoating, Trump scapegoats general 'elites'(Media, Politicians, the educated) and foreigners, Bernie is specifically scapegoating the rich. In America, it does not surprise me the former comes across as more populist than the latter.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4299
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Thu May 18, 2017 5:57 pm UTC

Nobody interested in this?

House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump

KIEV, Ukraine — A month before Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination, one of his closest allies in Congress — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy — made a politically explosive assertion in a private conversation on Capitol Hill with his fellow GOP leaders: that Trump could be the beneficiary of payments from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately interjected, stopping the conversation from further exploring McCarthy’s assertion, and swore the Republicans present to secrecy.

[...]

News had just broken the day before in The Washington Post that Russian government hackers had penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee, prompting McCarthy to shift the conversation from Russian meddling in Europe to events closer to home.

Some of the lawmakers laughed at McCarthy’s comment. Then McCarthy quickly added: “Swear to God.”

Ryan instructed his Republican lieutenants to keep the conversation private, saying: “No leaks. . . . This is how we know we’re a real family here.”

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Thu May 18, 2017 6:04 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Nobody interested in this?

Their defense seems pretty reasonable: it was a joke. Some of the language used surrounding that, and the whole secrecy thing coming from Ryan, means you can question that defense, but it's not obvious that is the case. Kevin McCarthy clearly didn't actually know Putin was paying them, meaning this is not real evidence.

Among all the many other things surrounding Trump, this is not a big deal. If there actually was evidence that he was being paid by Putin, yeah, that would be a big deal.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5199
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu May 18, 2017 6:14 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Nobody interested in this?


Consider the alternative story: "Two (former) FBI Directors are currently making serious cases against Trump... one with Special Prosecutor status"... I think your story (while it would be important under normal circumstances) is kinda ignorable.

A lot of shit has gone down in just one week.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri May 19, 2017 3:12 am UTC

In lighter news, Jason Chaffetz will resign to spend more time with his family. He would not rule out a future run for higher office.
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/18/528989433 ... nd-of-june
The most important consequence of this is that statisticians will get another datapoint to measure the height of the midterm reversal (currently +8 against 2016 average GOP margin). And Democrats will have yet another chance to win the lottery against a heavily red district.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Puppyclaws » Fri May 19, 2017 5:49 pm UTC

I doubt any Democratic candidate could win in Chaffetz's district (which includes Provo). The best that Democrats can hope for would be something like Evan McMullin running for and winning the seat.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri May 19, 2017 7:38 pm UTC

You don't run only for sure things. You run to test the waters and Calculate the height of the Democratic wave. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it's shaping up to a very typical midterm reversion.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5609
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Diadem » Fri May 19, 2017 8:31 pm UTC

So apparently that meeting where Trump leaked classified information to the Russians was a busy one.

The NYT is now reporting that during this meeting Trump also called Comey a nutjob, and told the Russians he was facing great pressure from Comey, and that his firing had relieved this pressure.
NYT wrote:WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”


I have to say, the 242nd season of The United States is definitely the best so far. I hope they'll renew the show for another season, though it's hard to see where they can go from here, plot wise.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5246
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri May 19, 2017 9:07 pm UTC

I'm beginning to think Trump might be a moron.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Chen
Posts: 5069
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Fri May 19, 2017 9:10 pm UTC

I mean does he not know that these things were being written down? The stenographer had to be in the room right?

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby DaBigCheez » Fri May 19, 2017 9:29 pm UTC

Had to double-check the link to make sure it wasn't the Onion.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Fri May 19, 2017 9:55 pm UTC

I really wonder what Obama is thinking right now. A large part of him is surely taking it pretty seriously, but I hope he's yucking it up a bit.
kalira wrote:But your own butt is always in the past, because it's behind you.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5246
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri May 19, 2017 10:06 pm UTC

Last I heard, Obama was hang gliding. That sounds like exactly what he should be doing.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri May 19, 2017 10:47 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Last I heard, Obama was hang gliding. That sounds like exactly what he should be doing.

He's prepping the next generation of Democrats to run for future office. That and making boatloads of money. The former is what Hillary and Biden should be doing instead of trying to get their old asses into the presidency.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Fri May 19, 2017 10:49 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:I hope they'll renew the show for another season, though it's hard to see where they can go from here, plot wise.
It'll probably depend on how the currently planned story arc ends up resolving...

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Magnanimous » Fri May 19, 2017 11:48 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:It'll probably depend on how the currently planned story arc ends up resolving...

In season 4, episode 6 of The Apprentice, Donald Trump invokes this on all of Team Excel for suffering the biggest defeat in the show.

Trump: In this boardroom, we've never had a team lose so badly. You're all fired. All four are fired.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Grop » Mon May 22, 2017 8:46 am UTC

Diadem wrote:I have to say, the 242nd season of The United States is definitely the best so far. I hope they'll renew the show for another season, though it's hard to see where they can go from here, plot wise.


Let's hope it doesn't end in a big cliffhanger.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5090
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon May 22, 2017 1:05 pm UTC

Grop wrote:Let's hope it doesn't end in a big cliffhanger.
...or that it bombs.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7210
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Mon May 22, 2017 1:16 pm UTC

Grop wrote:
Diadem wrote:I have to say, the 242nd season of The United States is definitely the best so far. I hope they'll renew the show for another season, though it's hard to see where they can go from here, plot wise.


Let's hope it doesn't end in a big cliffhanger.

What's not to like? Donald Trump is hanging from a cliff, with only his tie preventing a fall into the deep unknown. Can he pull himself up? Does anyone know he's there? Does anyone who knows, care to rescue him? Mike Penxe, Paul Ryan, any of his children? Ambassador Kislyak? Find out after summer!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon May 22, 2017 1:24 pm UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... h-parties/
Democrats are looking forward to the house election but are going to be sad in the Senate. There are a bunch of red state Democrats up for office and Senate seats follow presidential margins. That means Democrats will have to wait until 2020 to stop the GOP agenda.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Mon May 22, 2017 2:02 pm UTC

It's unfortunate that the Republican senators most likely to get kicked out are the ones most opposed to Trump and willing to compromise.

oh well
kalira wrote:But your own butt is always in the past, because it's behind you.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Mon May 22, 2017 3:55 pm UTC

How has no one posted anything about The Ominously Glowing Orb yet?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5609
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Diadem » Mon May 22, 2017 3:58 pm UTC

sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-2018-senate-elections-are-looking-bad-for-both-parties/
Democrats are looking forward to the house election but are going to be sad in the Senate. There are a bunch of red state Democrats up for office and Senate seats follow presidential margins. That means Democrats will have to wait until 2020 to stop the GOP agenda.

Are Americans really that unmovable in their voting?

There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, and having achieved absolutely nothing. In such a scenario, is there any reason why the Democrats wouldn't take a clean sweep of the senate seats that are up for election?

Of course if Trump recovers that won't happen. But a situation where Trump gets successfully impeached, or very close to it, and the Republican Party doesn't pay a huge electoral price for it seems utterly absurd to me. Like, Americans are humans right? Surely their voting can't be that different than the rest of the world.

Even in the reddest of red states it's like 80-20 right? So even in such a state a 30 point loss by Republicans - not even half their voters - would do the trick. Over here in Europe such swings happen all the time.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5246
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Mon May 22, 2017 4:07 pm UTC

Also, consider how the electoral map has changed over the years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... s_by_state

Trump has abandoned much of his base already, and Republicans are alienating anyone with sense. All of their policy so far is looking to be harmful to the economy, so we won't see the spectacular growth Republicans promised. I think it would not be unsurprising to see another strong turn to Democrats in much of the country. The Senate elections with Dem incumbents are heavily in the northeast, who are not as strong of Republican supporters to begin with, and the ones most likely to feel like their concerns were ignored.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon May 22, 2017 4:20 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, […]
I probably should coin some new terms. Post GOP-split, Red States become either Orange States (pro-Trump) or Maroon(ed), maybe?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5199
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon May 22, 2017 4:21 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-2018-senate-elections-are-looking-bad-for-both-parties/
Democrats are looking forward to the house election but are going to be sad in the Senate. There are a bunch of red state Democrats up for office and Senate seats follow presidential margins. That means Democrats will have to wait until 2020 to stop the GOP agenda.

Are Americans really that unmovable in their voting?

There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, and having achieved absolutely nothing. In such a scenario, is there any reason why the Democrats wouldn't take a clean sweep of the senate seats that are up for election?


That's not the issue. The issue is that of the ~33 Senate seats that are up for re-election, 23 of them are currently held by Democrats.

Basically: Democrats have to clean sweep to maintain the status quo. Literally 70% of Senate seats need to go back to the Democrats to just keep things the way they are. We're under circumstances such that we can expect Democrats to actually "clean sweep" in 2018, but lets not get ahead of ourselves here. The path forward is still very tough for Democrats... in the Senate at least.

2020 is a far more realistic time for Democrats to make progress: with 11 Democrats up for reelection and 22 Republicans, the 2020-election will be the best chance for Democrats to actually make progress.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3652
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dark567 » Mon May 22, 2017 4:23 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Are Americans really that unmovable in their voting?
In short, yes.


Diadem wrote:There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, and having achieved absolutely nothing. In such a scenario, is there any reason why the Democrats wouldn't take a clean sweep of the senate seats that are up for election?
There is no chance of a clean sweep. Absolutely none.

Diadem wrote:Even in the reddest of red states it's like 80-20 right? So even in such a state a 30 point loss by Republicans - not even half their voters - would do the trick. Over here in Europe such swings happen all the time.
Do they really? What I see in Europe is a lot more swings between more than 2 parties, often times between more ideological allies(i.e. moving from center right to right or center etc.) to allow for those swings. A swing from 80-20 to 50-50 is pretty unfathomable in the US. Heck, even in Texas which was 50-40 in favor of the GOP seems like it would be very long shot to get to a Democratic senator.

The graphs below kinda explain why it's so sticky in the US:
Spoiler:
US:
PD-Duverger-1.jpg

UK:
PD-Duverger-2.jpg

India:
PD-Duverger-3.jpg
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Prefanity
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Prefanity » Mon May 22, 2017 4:30 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-2018-senate-elections-are-looking-bad-for-both-parties/
Democrats are looking forward to the house election but are going to be sad in the Senate. There are a bunch of red state Democrats up for office and Senate seats follow presidential margins. That means Democrats will have to wait until 2020 to stop the GOP agenda.

Are Americans really that unmovable in their voting?

There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, and having achieved absolutely nothing. In such a scenario, is there any reason why the Democrats wouldn't take a clean sweep of the senate seats that are up for election?

Of course if Trump recovers that won't happen. But a situation where Trump gets successfully impeached, or very close to it, and the Republican Party doesn't pay a huge electoral price for it seems utterly absurd to me. Like, Americans are humans right? Surely their voting can't be that different than the rest of the world.

Even in the reddest of red states it's like 80-20 right? So even in such a state a 30 point loss by Republicans - not even half their voters - would do the trick. Over here in Europe such swings happen all the time.


The people who voted for Trump watch Fox and InfoWars, so they're not viewing the scandals the same way we are, which means a large portion of voting Republicans are probably completely unmovable in their voting. However, I'm not certain Democrats are as unmovable, so a move to the right could be possible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5246
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Mon May 22, 2017 4:46 pm UTC

There are three main groups: trumpkins, true believer conservatives, and people that identify as Republicans but don't really follow politics. The former two make up the primary voters, the latter vote in the general elections and make up a sizable chunk of the voters and are at risk of being alienated and either switching sides or sitting it out. We'll know more closer to the end of the year, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems kept most or all of their seats plus flipped Nevada.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon May 22, 2017 5:52 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-2018-senate-elections-are-looking-bad-for-both-parties/

Are Americans really that unmovable in their voting?

There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, and having achieved absolutely nothing. In such a scenario, is there any reason why the Democrats wouldn't take a clean sweep of the senate seats that are up for election?

Of course if Trump recovers that won't happen. But a situation where Trump gets successfully impeached, or very close to it, and the Republican Party doesn't pay a huge electoral price for it seems utterly absurd to me. Like, Americans are humans right? Surely their voting can't be that different than the rest of the world.

Even in the reddest of red states it's like 80-20 right? So even in such a state a 30 point loss by Republicans - not even half their voters - would do the trick. Over here in Europe such swings happen all the time.

The short answer is yes, Americans are increasingly hardened in their positions. The long answer is maybe. Mid terms elections are currently projecting as good (2016 results + 8 points towards the Democrats). This is based on average special elections data taken after Trump's travel ban but before his obstruction of Justice. The next special elections is May 25. If you keep watching the average, you'll have a heads up on how much the average voter has moved.
For example, Cruz is in a GOP leaning state that is at least 20 points red. Subtract the +8 midterm reversion, and Cruz wins with +12. Now if the midterm reversion goes up to +20 Democrats, then Cruz is thrown out, 50/50 odds. (+-0 Lean)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5199
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon May 22, 2017 6:12 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
cphite wrote:No. Their silence is simply evidence that they are following proper protocol in regards to an alleged intelligence leak; they aren't speaking publicly about the issue. You are the one who implied that we should expect some kind of public statement from them, and that the lack of said statement, in and of itself, carried some sort of meaning.
We've had plenty of public statements from veteran members of the intelligence community (most of them retired, but still with active contacts) within the past few days regarding this. I've yet to hear a single one talk about the leak that led to us becoming aware of this story. All of them have been talking about the leak itself (Trump).

You, Alex Jones, and Fox News are apparently the only people who care that someone decided to leak this story. People with 20+ years experience in counter-intelligence don't care about this leak -- they care about Trump's leak. Precisely what special knowledge do you possess which makes your opinion more valuable than theirs?

Why should I trust you over the experts? How are you not just another crackpot with a theory?


Your quote is from last week, but I'm responding to it (again) because it seems like a recent news story directly contradicts your assessment from last week.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-c ... 13960.html

Brennan said the press coverage of Trump’s impromptu intelligence reveal was “hyperbolic” and possibly more damaging than anything Trump revealed. “The damage that was done is what was leaked in the aftermath, what was put in the media. The real damage to national security is the leaks.” He suggested, without saying so explicitly, that news accounts revealed more sensitive information than Trump did.


Former CIA Director Brennan, who led the CIA during Obama's tenure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

---------

Now to be fair, I believe you (Hippo) were talking about the Washington Post article, while the New York Times article is what John Brennan (probably) was talking about. The New York Times article had more information than Washington Post. Its hard to say exactly, because these intelligence guys are all vague about things.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 742
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby MartianInvader » Mon May 22, 2017 6:24 pm UTC

In looking at 2018, we should probably also keep in mind that Democrats had a very low voter turnout compared to Republicans - if I'm remembering right, Clinton would have won if Democratic turnout for her had matched Obama's. In essence, Republicans were far more energized and excited than Democrats in 2016. It seems pretty likely the situation will be swapped in 2018.

Democrats don't need to change people's minds politically to win big in the midterms - they just need more Democratic voters to show up, and more Republican voters to stay home.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3652
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dark567 » Mon May 22, 2017 6:30 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:In looking at 2018, we should probably also keep in mind that Democrats had a very low voter turnout compared to Republicans - if I'm remembering right, Clinton would have won if Democratic turnout for her had matched Obama's. In essence, Republicans were far more energized and excited than Democrats in 2016. It seems pretty likely the situation will be swapped in 2018.

Democrats don't need to change people's minds politically to win big in the midterms - they just need more Democratic voters to show up, and more Republican voters to stay home.
For better or worse in national elections it does seem to be more about turnout than flipping voters(very few US voters flip sides often). Unfortunately, this has been adding(and created by) our extreme partisanship. If winning is just about getting turnout there isn't as much reason to compromise on positions with the other side, instead, you just need to drum up the base for every election.

The Dems should do good in the house due to the turnout, but a lot of the senate seats are just too deep of red.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Mon May 22, 2017 7:23 pm UTC

Um, don't overlook the fact that many people are rejecting political parties altogether. Registered voters in California as of February 10, 2017, by political party (bolding mine):

Democratic: 8,700,440 (44.8%)
Republican: 5,027,714 (25.9%)
No Party Preference: 4,762,212 (24.5%)
Other: 942,243 (4.9%)


Source: California Secretary of State's Odd-Year Report of Voter Registration
(The quoted data is found on the first page of this section, where you can see how that breakdown has changed over the past ten years; the full table of contents for the report is here.)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CelticNot, Dauric, Mallich, Puppyclaws and 12 guests