The New American Politics thread

[peter12]

Trump, on the other hand, is such a disaster that the best case scenario for the GOP is that he loses. They already have big problems, but if he loses the intellectual right has a chance to wrest back control of their party and remain the party of business-minded small-government conservatives. If he wins, they are that will be an extinction-level event for that movement in the US.

That, and not some elevation of Hillary, is why I think the choice in this election is so clear. And I'm not even sure you and I disagree on this.

Personally, speaking as a Canadian, I am glad that I don't have to make that choice, but honestly, I wouldn't vote either way.

Trump is end-game for the GOP, but it has been encouraging to see some new voices on the right come about with new solutions for a new vibrant party. I am thinking of Yuval Levin, and heck, even Rod Dreher. Lots of intellectual diversity left in American conservatism - although American conservatism is still a weird thing in my book given that the country was formed on such un-conservative philosophical grounds.

Clinton is really just an avatar for the long-term deterioration of American cultural life, while Trump is an avatar of its polarization.

You have two tribes down there now who vigorously hate each other. Clinton is clearly of one tribe, and will make things worse in the long run.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

How on earth can you argue the alt right is a fringe group that we should just ignore?

If you think they're important, don't ignore them. Point out why they're wrong. If they're "gaining popularity", if they're becoming mainstream, then you're not doing a good enough job of making your own point. Figure out what the heck appeal they have and acknowledge it, and hopefully learn from it and adapt.

Personally though I think you're overestimating the impact of Breitbart. That's a group that never really has any hope of gaining mainstream appeal, in my view. Just far too out there. Hell, they're deliberately out there. All the horrible stuff they say is almost entirely to piss people off. They're trolls. That does appeal to some people, especially on the internet which is why 4chan was a thing but it doesn't appeal to the broader public.

What are you talking about? Have you forgotten the veiled (and not so veiled) threats leveled at Clinton leading up to and even at the Republican convention?

Yes? Which threats are you referring to? There was the "second amendment solution" thing. That was pretty terrible. But I don't know of any stories being published on Breitbart about how Black Lives Matter activists or feminists should be killed... granted, I haven't looked. I'd suspect that if such stories do exist they're deliberately worded to get a rise out of people. That seems to be about 75% of what the alt right is aimed at, honestly, which is itself a pretty good reason to ignore them. They're basically bratty children.

You and Peter12 seem to believe you are the moral authorities here, and the rest of us are either foolish or uninformed. You rarely miss an opportunity to make that position clear to the other posters in this thread which is why you rub so many posters the wrong way.

I'm not sure how you get to this conclusion, unless you're taking the view that me saying "don't be moralistic and self-righteous" is itself moralistic and self-righteous, which... I don't know what to tell you.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Even so, I just don't see how it gets worse for Clinton than the below outcome:

Spoiler!

It's possible she tanks completely I guess. But that map is being very generous to Trump's chances by giving him all of NV, IA, NH, FLA, OH, NC and the Maine 3rd. Maybe he flips Colorado, or he's counting on winning PA, but both are pretty long odds it seems to me.

Re-run your hypo map with Johnson winning New Mexico. Or Colorado. Or Oregon. Or Vermont.

Then what happens?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^Johnson wasn't going to win anything even before his Aleppo gaffe. If he was, it'd be Utah, I would think, which is coming out of Trump's pocket. His impact is in popular vote, not the electoral college.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So why is it the media's fault this is true? It is true, we all know it. Trump supporters are historically in the tank for him, right at the Koresh levels of cult following. Most of them should have bailed or developed serious doubts with the immigration mess he made, yet almost all of them went along with it and thought it was a great political move. The media didn't normalize that, they were deep into cult mode long ago.

Basically they gave him exactly the coverage he wanted, which was all of it, all the time. It was good for their ratings, and bad for the process, and we know which of those was more important to them. It's not their fault, per se, I don't want to oversell things, but they did play a pretty significant role in normalizing his behaviour.

That said, I think you misunderstand what the Trump cultists like about Trump. His policies are barely relevant. It's more of the sense of cultural outrageousness that attracts the die-hards to him, which is why his "I could shoot a guy" statement was not only absolutely insane but probably true.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by peter12

Personally, speaking as a Canadian, I am glad that I don't have to make that choice, but honestly, I wouldn't vote either way.

Trump is end-game for the GOP, but it has been encouraging to see some new voices on the right come about with new solutions for a new vibrant party. I am thinking of Yuval Levin, and heck, even Rod Dreher. Lots of intellectual diversity left in American conservatism - although American conservatism is still a weird thing in my book given that the country was formed on such un-conservative philosophical grounds.

Clinton is really just an avatar for the long-term deterioration of American cultural life, while Trump is an avatar of its polarization.

You have two tribes down there now who vigorously hate each other. Clinton is clearly of one tribe, and will make things worse in the long run.

I suppose, I kind of finally see your point.

Clinton getting the presidency will make things worse in the long run and a little part of me believes that. But at least, there will be a long run.

But Trump getting the presidency will imply there won't even be a 'long run'. It spells the end of the GOP in America. And thats really the point no? Voting Trump is so disastrous, there might not even be an "America" of what we normally recognize?

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If you think they're important, don't ignore them. Point out why they're wrong. If they're "gaining popularity", if they're becoming mainstream, then you're not doing a good enough job of making your own point. Figure out what the heck appeal they have and acknowledge it, and hopefully learn from it and adapt.

Personally though I think you're overestimating the impact of Breitbart. That's a group that never really has any hope of gaining mainstream appeal, in my view. Just far too out there. Hell, they're deliberately out there. All the horrible stuff they say is almost entirely to piss people off. They're trolls. That does appeal to some people, especially on the internet which is why 4chan was a thing but it doesn't appeal to the broader public.


Yes? Which threats are you referring to? There was the "second amendment solution" thing. That was pretty terrible. But I don't know of any stories being published on Breitbart about how Black Lives Matter activists or feminists should be killed... granted, I haven't looked. I'd suspect that if such stories do exist they're deliberately worded to get a rise out of people. That seems to be about 75% of what the alt right is aimed at, honestly, which is itself a pretty good reason to ignore them. They're basically bratty children.

I'm not sure how you get to this conclusion, unless you're taking the view that me saying "don't be moralistic and self-righteous" is itself moralistic and self-righteous, which... I don't know what to tell you.

Quick point about bolded: Didn't Hillary identify their "appeal" and basically "acknowledged" it with her deplorables comment? It was an opening salvo, the type that identifies this issue and hopefully carry a discussion. Also, that these people exist, what can the Dems do to "appeal" to them? Become more racist, homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted? I.. my mind.. just... whaT?

[peter12]

She didn't mistakenly say that. It was calculated, obviously. This election will only be won by extreme polarization. Both candidates are sorting their tribes out as efficiently as possible.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Izzle

I suppose, I kind of finally see your point.

Clinton getting the presidency will make things worse in the long run and a little part of me believes that. But at least, there will be a long run.

But Trump getting the presidency will imply there won't even be a 'long run'. It spells the end of the GOP in America. And thats really the point no? Voting Trump is so disastrous, there might not even be an "America" of what we normally recognize?

A Trump presidency would be disastrous. No question.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

They wouldn't say anything because they hoped she wouldn't slump over on her feet and have to be picked up off the ground and tossed into a van. Why announce she has pneumonia if no one can externally see that to be the case? Just pray she can keep her head up and hope the the "Ill-ary" story disappears.

The last week was probably the worst one to date for Hillarys campaign. Her poll numbers should be taking a dive this week, which they can hardly afford.

It's a classic double-bind manufactured by Trump. In this case, Hillary took the catastrophic path. If indeed she has pneumonia (and found out some time ago), she would have been better off admitting it. But that would have confirmed Trump's comments about her health, and increased the pressure to release records. Instead, she took an ataxic gait right to disaster.

Trump has laid these traps all over the place. He destroyed the GOP race with these traps. Yet, people refuse to admit that he is very smart, perhaps brilliant, at playing certain games. But admitting that Trump is not just an idiot is anathema to the Trump-phobe. It doesn't fit their model. How can can someone who is so evidently an idiot be in the game, at such a late stage?

So the only explanation for them is that the racist underbelly - that their tender progressive sensibilities always knew existed- has risen up, like a zombie army. It's the only possible explanation, right?

Or maybe you're wrong. Maybe some credit should be given, where it's due.

It's what I tell Trump-ophobes when I talk to them. It's what is obvious about the Trump-ophobes here: he is manipulating you, just as surely as he is manipulating those who would vote for him.

Like any manipulation, it's easy to spot from the outside.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Quick point about bolded: Didn't Hillary identify their "appeal" and basically "acknowledged" it with her deplorables comment?

No, she just called them a bunch of racists. That isn't "appeal". Can we please assume that most people don't think of themselves as #######s? Saying "these people are basically evil, so they appeal to evil people" has absolutely no useful content as an analysis of a political movement.

The appeal is more of a mischievous counterculture sort of thing, it seems to me. In other words, they line up exactly with the emotional motivations of people who like being trolls on the internet. I think the best response is probably not to fall for the bait, not become outraged by things that are designed to outrage, but laugh at them and mock them right back. That's just my intuitive reaction though.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Quick point about bolded: Didn't Hillary identify their "appeal" and basically "acknowledged" it with her deplorables comment? It was an opening salvo, the type that identifies this issue and hopefully carry a discussion. Also, that these people exist, what can the Dems do to "appeal" to them? Become more racist, homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted? I.. my mind.. just... whaT?

It might help if the Democrats toned down some of the identity politics rhetoric of their own supporters, and maybe recognised that poor, uneducated Americans living in communities with devastated economies, rampant drug abuse, and little prospects aren't privileged just because they're white. Maybe recognise that identity politics is a credo that thrives on separation and conflict, and we shouldn't be surprised that it fosters more separation and conflict.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It might help if the Democrats toned down some of the identity politics rhetoric of their own supporters, and maybe recognised that poor, uneducated Americans living in communities with devastated economies, rampant drug abuse, and little prospects aren't privileged just because they're white. Maybe recognise that identity politics is a credo that thrives on separation and conflict, and we shouldn't be surprised that it fosters more separation and conflict.

The American Right could credibly be accused of xenophobia, but the American Left could conversely be accused of oikophobia (fear and hatred of your own).

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Re-run your hypo map with Johnson winning New Mexico. Or Colorado. Or Oregon. Or Vermont.

Then what happens?

Given that he's never polled higher than 16% in any of these states, those are just absurdly long odds, especially since if the race stays tight between Clinton and Trump, Johnson's support will decrease as the race goes on.

[FlamesAddiction]

The Tribalism in this election campaign is off the charts crazy though. The Democrats (IMO) actually went with the lesser by choosing Clinton over Sanders. Not that I don't like Sanders personally (I would have voted for him), but I think he would have been more polarizing.

Then guys like Sloan (Dem) and Kasich (Rep) who have some middle ground on important issues, were just primary filler with no real hope. Why? Because they are boring! It's all about keeping the trolls fed these days.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Buster

It's a classic double-bind manufactured by Trump.

Unless Trump has inside information about Clinton's health, I kinda doubt he expected this.

I think this is self inflicted and it does not help her trustworthiness issues with the electorate.

[peter12]

Trump is actually playing this well - express sympathy, hope she gets back in the race. Meanwhile, the narrative is already playing out in the heads of the undecided (and certainly not deplorable) that she will do anything to win, has trouble telling the truth, etc... etc...

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

Trump is actually playing this well - express sympathy, hope she gets back in the race. Meanwhile, the narrative is already playing out in the heads of the undecided (and certainly not deplorable) that she will do anything to win, has trouble telling the truth, etc... etc...

Her opponent is a guy who has had, I think, 13 different immigration positions in the last 3 weeks. Undecides are mostly aware these are two people who will say and do anything to win. It's why they're both so disliked, nobody trusts either of them to do anything other than whats best for themselves.

[Senator Clay Davis]

More records coming.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will release additional medical records this week, a spokesman said Monday, after a health-related stumble exiting a 9/11 ceremony put her well-being into the spotlight and reanimated critics’ complaints about secretiveness.

Press secretary Brian Fallon also said the campaign made mistakes handling the situation on Sunday, specifically by not responding to questions for 90 minutes about Mrs. Clinton’s exit from the memorial event in Manhattan.

Even then, a spokesman attributed her departure to feeling overheated, when she also had pneumonia—a fact the campaign didn’t disclose until late in the afternoon. Mr. Fallon said the campaign wanted the information about Mrs. Clinton’s diagnosis to come from her doctor, which he said wasn’t possible until she examined the candidate again later in the day.

Last year, Mrs. Clinton released a summary of her health, including the results of some medical testing. Until now, her campaign said that was sufficient, and pointed out her release was more detailed that opponent Donald Trump’s. But after Sunday’s events, she decided to release more information, Mr. Fallon said.

On Monday, Mr. Trump also said he would put out more medical information, though his timetable wasn’t clear.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-...rns-1473694474

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It might help if the Democrats toned down some of the identity politics rhetoric of their own supporters, and maybe recognised that poor, uneducated Americans living in communities with devastated economies, rampant drug abuse, and little prospects aren't privileged just because they're white. Maybe recognise that identity politics is a credo that thrives on separation and conflict, and we shouldn't be surprised that it fosters more separation and conflict.

Here's the transcript of Hillary's speech:
http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clin...es-transcript/

To your bolded, the relevant passage:

Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

She recognizes that there are problems. Despite the lack of proposed solutions to this problem, this is MUCH MORE substantive than any speech Trump has given. Given Hillary's track record as a First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, she'll work to come up with solutions and implement them.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Re-run your hypo map with Johnson winning New Mexico. Or Colorado. Or Oregon. Or Vermont.

Then what happens?

Why would anyone waste their time coming up with hypotheticals that give electoral votes to a guy who is polling 25, 33, 41, and 45 points behind the leader in those 4 states respectively?