The New American Politics thread

[troutman]

What I can find:

Paul Ryan Verified account ‏@SpeakerRyan Jul 31 A religious test for entering our country is not reflective of America's fundamental values. I reject it.


Trump praises Ryan's primary challenger
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politi...016/index.html

Paul Ryan Gets Standing Ovation at Koch Donors Retreat After Repudiating Trump’s Trade Policies
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...onors-retreat/

Paul Ryan: We're in fight to 'retake the soul' of the Republican Party
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...publican-party

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

I would be shocked if he even bothers to prepare or deliver a concession speech for a loss.

I still think there's a really good chance he just straight up quits the race if he's far behind in September or October. Doesn't mean #### to him to torch the GOP or his "political career", and he can come up with some excuse that his followers will eat.

And Paul Ryan will probably not endorse Hillary ever for the obvious reason ResAlien points out, but I can see him retracting his endorsement of Trump and going with the Ted Cruz "vote with your conscience" line.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

Trump praises Ryan's primary challenger
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politi...016/index.html

That's not really praise. It's a political faux pas, but this is Trump. He doesn't know any better and wouldn't care if he did.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And Paul Ryan will probably not endorse Hillary ever for the obvious reason ResAlien points out, but I can see him retracting his endorsement of Trump and going with the Ted Cruz "vote with your conscience" line.

I don't think he can do this either, because it's a tacit endorsement of the Johnson ticket. If the Libertarians were to be legitimized as a real third party option (say, by getting 15% of the national vote), it would represent an existential threat to the GOP, without a fourth party on the left to balance things out.

[Drak]

Ok my bad. I misread the heading. There was a question mark after Paul Ryan. In my defense I've just been diagnosed with retinal detachment in one eye and can't seem to function very well over the last few days.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Do you have a citation for that?

I recall this article which showed that Trump's support largely comes from whites who did not attend post secondary education. Since education is positively correlated with income in the US, I would be surprised to see Trump supporters on the richer end of the spectrum.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...class-support/

https://morningconsult.com/2016/07/1...ng-less-money/

More to my point, that Trump supporters aren't economic losers, they're white nationalists. They're unsupportive of immigration, fearful of others, view racial minorities in much worse light than supporters of other candidates. There is not much of a thread on these people being disproportionately hurt by economic developments. They certainly want to see the US economy grow and strengthen but that's the nationalist view. It's not necessarily because they're being left behind.

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/pu...l-his-policies

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's not really praise. It's a political faux pas, but this is Trump. He doesn't know any better and wouldn't care if he did.


I don't think he can do this either, because it's a tacit endorsement of the Johnson ticket. If the Libertarians were to be legitimized as a real third party option (say, by getting 15% of the national vote), it would represent an existential threat to the GOP, without a fourth party on the left to balance things out.

Eh, Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 92 and the GOP survived just fine. Beyond that even with two extremely unpopular candidates, Johnson still hasn't come particularly close to 15%, often topping out at 10%. I don't see him as much of a factor, it's hard for him to find ways to attract more attention which he badly needs. The "vote with your conscience" line is more about protecting down ballot though, so vote GOP ticket but don't vote for Trump is essentially the message from Cruz, and what Ryan would be saying as well. Trump is actively rooting for Ryan's GOP rival for House Majority, so a retraction I think will be in play, especially if Trump continues melting down.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's not really praise. It's a political faux pas, but this is Trump. He doesn't know any better and wouldn't care if he did.


I don't think he can do this either, because it's a tacit endorsement of the Johnson ticket. If the Libertarians were to be legitimized as a real third party option (say, by getting 15% of the national vote), it would represent an existential threat to the GOP, without a fourth party on the left to balance things out.

I'm not sure it would represent a threat to the GOP. It still seems unclear if Gary and Co are pulling support from the Dems or the GOP. Although I assume the conventional wisdom that it is from trditional GOP voters is likely correct

However, both parties have a history of re-absorbing splinter groups by adopting some of the policies that interest the public, and abandoning the more fringy aspects. Abolitionists might be a good example of that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Buster

I'm not sure it would represent a threat to the GOP. It still seems unclear if Gary and Co are pulling support from the Dems or the GOP. Although I assume the conventional wisdom that it is from trditional GOP voters is likely correct

I think the word "Libertarian" has a fair bit of brand baggage associated with it that makes it impossible to appeal to Democratic voters broadly. This is exacerbated by their generally anti-gun-regulation, lower taxes policy planks. That could change if they got some mainstream exposure, but I don't think it would move the needle all that much.

I actually think this is the same reason that the Libertarians can't fill the role that's most likely to need filling - if the two major parties continue to migrate toward their own fringes on the right and left respectively, there's going to be room for a "straight up the middle" party. But because of that same baggage, it can't be the Libertarian party, in my view.

However, both parties have a history of re-absorbing splinter groups by adopting some of the policies that interest the public, and abandoning the more fringy aspects. Abolitionists might be a good example of that.

I was going to say that the Bernie corps is the perfect example of that. The Dems are doing their absolute damnedest to re-absorb that group by introducing some of Bernie's talking points and policy positions into the platform at the convention.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Buster

I'm not sure it would represent a threat to the GOP. It still seems unclear if Gary and Co are pulling support from the Dems or the GOP. Although I assume the conventional wisdom that it is from trditional GOP voters is likely correct

However, both parties have a history of re-absorbing splinter groups by adopting some of the policies that interest the public, and abandoning the more fringy aspects. Abolitionists might be a good example of that.

Hillary polls better in the head to head vs the 4 party or even the 3 party tests. So this means that Hillary bleeds more support to both Johnson and Johnson and Stein then Trump does.

[CliffFletcher]

Trump supporters see the political establishment and the liberal cultural elite as a fancy dinner that they're not invited to. A dinner full of elitist snobs. Now they have a chance to secure an invitation for someone to sit at the head table of that dinner, and they're going to make sure it's the most obnoxiuous and belligerent person they can find. That's why these gaffes don't hurt Trump - his supporters are looking for someone who will ruin a dinner party, not build something positive.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by GGG

Hillary polls better in the head to head vs the 4 party or even the 3 party tests. So this means that Hillary bleeds more support to both Johnson and Johnson and Stein then Trump does.

I find your posts really useful thanks. I'm surprised by that outcome.

[Buster]

Interesting fact-check summary by the Washington post recently.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...were-truthful/

As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.

And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GGG

Hillary polls better in the head to head vs the 4 party or even the 3 party tests. So this means that Hillary bleeds more support to both Johnson and Johnson and Stein then Trump does.

Which is good news for Hillary really. If the prospect of Trump winning is even a remote possibility, her numbers can still go up by having third party supporters come back to her. Trump appears to be pretty much locked into his support level with little chance of third party supporters coming to him. This is why he's trying so hard to push Bernie voters to go third party, or to stay home. If they do either of those things he might have a chance.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Buster

I find your posts really useful thanks. I'm surprised by that outcome.

Half of what I post is just regurgitated 538 stuff. If you want slightly left leaning but well founded data driven reporting its the site to read.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Oh man you think it can't get any more hilarious and then...

[troutman]

Don't worry baby
Don't worry baby
Everything will turn out alright

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I actually laughed out loud when I got to "Actually I was only kidding, get the baby out of here."

[Senator Clay Davis]

Best Tweets about it

"We need to have a temporary ban on babies until we can figure out what's going on"
"The crib just got 10 feet taller."

[photon]

Trump (who's been on the cover of Playboy) signed an anti-porn pledge to enforce anti-obscenity laws, and then nude pictures of Melania were printed on the cover of the New York Post on the weekend (not that one contradicts the other, just the timing).

And the Post has endorsed Trump, so unless the Post is trying to help by distracting from the Khan thing not sure what they think they're doing.

This election is so weird.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I seriously question how the alt-right, which is heavily invested in free speech with no limits whatsoever, can support this guy. The mental gymnastics necessary to somehow come to terms with his comments about strengthening libel laws so he can sue detractors are one thing, but anti-obscenity legislation? How on Earth can you square that with your most important value?